We haven't had a WWII discussion in a while so I figured I start one up. Were the heavy tanks tanks built and fielded during the second world war worth the cost?
Also should British infantry tanks be considered heavy tanks?
EDIT: I am such a dumb fuck.
Probably not in most cases, but hindsight is 20/20. I don't fault any side for clinging to the idea, though the German plans for incrementally larger tanks (Maus, etc.) were flat-out stupid.
And there was psychological value to be found in having at least some heavy tanks-- I've read several accounts where inexperienced Allied troops panicked when they misidentified a Panzer IV as a Tiger.
Quote from: derspiess on March 24, 2014, 11:48:16 AM
And there was psychological value to be found in having at least some heavy tanks-- I've read several accounts where inexperienced Allied troops panicked when they misidentified a Panzer IV as a Tiger.
I can see that happen with a Pz-IV-G in sub-par visibility when they come straight at you:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fb%2Fb0%2FPz-IVG-latrun-1.jpg&hash=f9740fb682061c806d699793b9b7fcf2c9d3d895)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ohwow.de%2Fwp-content%2Fmyfotos%2F20121221_tigerpanzer%2Fetiparest_1.jpg&hash=da5656b202bc9cad7ce48c7d5ed6bb17238ec6e3)
I think some heavy tanks were needed, I don't think that MBT concept would've worked in WW2. I don't think it's good for the morale of the tankers to know that there are tanks out there on the other side that they can't do anything about, short of a costly flanking maneuver. That said, I think that Germans at some point forgot that tanks don't exist just to fight other tanks, and that was a costly mistake.
My impression is yes. Doesn't necessarily mean that every heavy tank was worth the cost though.
Quote from: DGuller on March 24, 2014, 11:58:11 AM
I think some heavy tanks were needed, I don't think that MBT concept would've worked in WW2. I don't think it's good for the morale of the tankers to know that there are tanks out there on the other side that they can't do anything about, short of a costly flanking maneuver. That said, I think that Germans at some point forgot that tanks don't exist just to fight other tanks, and that was a costly mistake.
I imagine that from around 1943 onwards, their tankers did have their hands full fighting off hordes of Soviet tanks, so there is that.
Assuming by heavy tanks we mean tanks with 100mm armor and weighing 45 plus tons, basically bigger than the panther. So we're talking about Centurions, Tigers, Pershings and Iosef Stalins. The Tiger and the Tanks designed to survive against it.
Hell Yes. Give a tiger decent logistics, air cover and fire support and it it becomes a killing machine. Germany didn't have the logistics to field their heavy tanks properly so they were probably a bad idea resource wise for the germans. But, for the Brits, the Americans and Russians their heavy tanks were not really ready, but had they been they would have been worth while. They did get rused into the final months of the war. The IS's were the basis of the T-54 and T-55 tanks and served into the 1960s, the Centurions still serve in the israeli army and the Pershings were the basis for the M-48 Patton tank.
Soviet MBTs descended from T-34, not IS. The IS line eventually died out, along with heavy tanks in general.
Hitler would have won if he'd made these!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landkreuzer_P._1000_Ratte
Well, maybe not. :D
I don't accept Viking's criteria for heavy tanks, which seems to be only applicable to late 44-spring45.
In part it's a relative term, so Matilda Mk2 tanks were heavy compared to what they were going up against. And if you believe some reports, despite their small numbers, 30 odd in France May40, they did give some Germans a moment of panic.
On a tactical level, I'd think plenty of Germans worried when they came up against a Char1B, but training and the targets inherent weaknesses help overcome that. And meant they didn't add a whole lot more to the battlefield vs the resources invested in them. With hindsight better to have built more S35s or taken more seriously the prototype tank destroyers/other projects.
I do not think they were worth it. The US didn't use any heavy tanks (though it temporarily classified the Pershing as a heavy tank for morale reasons), and did just fine.
Heavy tanks cost a lot more then then smaller medium or cruiser tanks and often had the disadvantage of not actually working. Soviet KV tanks were so poorly made that they just didn't function a lot of time. Tigers breakdown rates were also embarrassing.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 24, 2014, 02:33:04 PM
I do not think they were worth it. The US didn't use any heavy tanks (though it temporarily classified the Pershing as a heavy tank for morale reasons), and did just fine.
Heavy tanks cost a lot more then then smaller medium or cruiser tanks and often had the disadvantage of not actually working. Soviet KV tanks were so poorly made that they just didn't function a lot of time. Tigers breakdown rates were also embarrassing.
The US didn't fight on the Eastern front. As for KVs, they were indeed unreliable, but at the time they were used, so were T-34s. IS-2s were used to great effect by the Soviets.
Not worthwhile, and I suspect the MBTs to come later were also not worthwhile. How many real tank vs. tank engagements have we fought with MBTs? Only one comes to mind. How quickly did AT weapons render them of dubious value on even the prospective battlefield of West Germany? Did we win the Cold War by building tanks?
I suppose there's the Arab-Israeli Wars where they did stuff, but that's someone else's conflict.
The US did fight on the Eastern Front. Just against Japan though :P
Quote from: Ideologue on March 24, 2014, 02:37:55 PM
Soviet MBTs descended from T-34, not IS. The IS line eventually died out, along with heavy tanks in general.
Not sure I'd totally agree with that. The IS series had a lot of influence-- lower silhouette, turret design to name a couple things. And the Soviets kept heavy tanks in service for most of the Cold War.
Quote from: derspiess on March 24, 2014, 03:58:24 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on March 24, 2014, 02:37:55 PM
Soviet MBTs descended from T-34, not IS. The IS line eventually died out, along with heavy tanks in general.
Not sure I'd totally agree with that. The IS series had a lot of influence-- lower silhouette, turret design to name a couple things. And the Soviets kept heavy tanks in service for most of the Cold War.
:pinch:
:mad:
I concede.
I think arguing that the MBT came from the medium tank or the heavy tank is pretty much completely misunderstanding the very concept of what a MBT was...
Heavy tanks were not "worth it" or not worth it - some were effective at what they were intended to do, and others were not.
The basic WW2 idea though that tanks in general were kind of like ships, and you wanted to have all these "roles" for which various classes would fit was pretty much an error, I think. Generalization was the better way to go, but the post-war evolution of tanks showed that the generalization tended towards larger, heavier tanks, rather than more mid-sized ones. It wasn't just the "heavy" tank that went away as a concept, so did the light tank, tank destroyer, scout tank, and even the medium tank.
Light tanks are still manufactured, and are still maintained in armies that no longer produce them. The role of a light tank is still needed, and the MBT has not filled it. In many armies the role has been filled by IFVs, like the Bradley.
Quote from: Berkut on March 24, 2014, 05:18:08 PM
I think arguing that the MBT came from the medium tank or the heavy tank is pretty much completely misunderstanding the very concept of what a MBT was...
Heavy tanks were not "worth it" or not worth it - some were effective at what they were intended to do, and others were not.
The basic WW2 idea though that tanks in general were kind of like ships, and you wanted to have all these "roles" for which various classes would fit was pretty much an error, I think. Generalization was the better way to go, but the post-war evolution of tanks showed that the generalization tended towards larger, heavier tanks, rather than more mid-sized ones. It wasn't just the "heavy" tank that went away as a concept, so did the light tank, tank destroyer, scout tank, and even the medium tank.
I'm not sure it was an error at the time. I think there were a lot more compromises to be made in tank design back then, which promoted more specialization. I think what removed that need was the widespread adoption of HEAT ammunition, which removed the need to compromise around the size of the gun if you wanted to have firepower.
Quote from: DGuller on March 24, 2014, 05:42:10 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 24, 2014, 05:18:08 PM
I think arguing that the MBT came from the medium tank or the heavy tank is pretty much completely misunderstanding the very concept of what a MBT was...
Heavy tanks were not "worth it" or not worth it - some were effective at what they were intended to do, and others were not.
The basic WW2 idea though that tanks in general were kind of like ships, and you wanted to have all these "roles" for which various classes would fit was pretty much an error, I think. Generalization was the better way to go, but the post-war evolution of tanks showed that the generalization tended towards larger, heavier tanks, rather than more mid-sized ones. It wasn't just the "heavy" tank that went away as a concept, so did the light tank, tank destroyer, scout tank, and even the medium tank.
I'm not sure it was an error at the time. I think there were a lot more compromises to be made in tank design back then, which promoted more specialization. I think what removed that need was the widespread adoption of HEAT ammunition, which removed the need to compromise around the size of the gun if you wanted to have firepower.
There is some debate here, certainly, but I much more come down on the side of the fundamental change in tank design was more one of operational understanding of what actually worked, rather than technology.
In other words, I think the US (for example) would have been better off to simply decide to build the best MBT possible in 1942, whatever the technology allowed at that time, and then simply upgraded/replaced that design over time, and never once built a single TD. Germany would have been better off to just build as many Panthers as possible, and forget the Tigers and TDs and SPGs. Or a Panther with a 88, if that is what they decided the MBT ought to be. Or a PzIV for that matter.
But the key to what a MBT must be capable of doing is pretty simple:
1. It must be mobile enough to actually succeed in the shock role that the tank was designed for - this excludes the traditional "heavy" tanks with poor mobility, like the Tiger.
2. It should have a gun capable of engaging the primary targets it is going to see from the other sides "MBT". This excludes poorly armed tanks like the Sherman in '44.
3. It needs enough armor to be able to reliably attack enemy non-armored assets without excessive fear of being destroyed.
The key to the MBY concept, IMO, was the realization that the practical realities of the battlefield simply do not consistently allow for specialization in armored roles. The reality is that in most cases, you have to fight the enemy with what is at hand, and rarely have the luxury of the opponent giving you the opportunity to be able to bring your paper when he shows up with his rock. More often than not, you have to fight them with whatever armor is available. If the enemy counter-attacks with their armor, it is your armor that is going to have to fight them, and demands that only dedicated AT assets should fight enemy armor leaving your armor free to fight an exploitation battle are simply not realistic. Therefore, even in 1942, everyone would be better off with a well crafted mix "jack of all trades" tank rather than a hodge podge of special purpose tanks that almost never get the luxury of only being used for their designed purpose.
Technology certainly did change, but fundamentally, the role of the tank never really changed. Is what a tank is supposed to do somehow different from 1943 to 1963, such that in 1963 you no longer needed these incredible numbers of roles you thought you needed in 1943? I don't think so.
I think the Germans actually started to understand this - the Panther is, IMO, the first true attempt to create a MBT, with a weapon system that combined mobility, firepower, and a reasonable amount of protection with the intent of being a general purpose vehicle. But their procurement chain was such a mess they were never really able to put it into real practice. Plus Hitler loved his toys, of course.
The Soviets almost hit on it pretty much by accident in the T-34 line, but they were also rather reactionary in their designs in WW2, and kept building bigger and heavier tanks to counter the monster German tanks, almost completely unsuccessfully.
The Brits...they were a mess. They never had a rational (in hindsight) idea of what their tanks should do - or rather, some of them did, but it was pretty much just a mess overall.
The Americans had plenty of people who understood it, I think, but none of them were people making the decisions. So they kept building failures like the M-10/18/36 despite the fact that they clearly didn't work.
But all of them could be forgiven - trying to forge a coherent procurement strategy in the middle of a world war is probably pretty much impossible.
Quote from: BerkutThe reality is that in most cases, you have to fight the enemy with what is at hand, and rarely have the luxury of the opponent giving you the opportunity to be able to bring your paper when he shows up with his rock.
This is a really, really nice turn of phrase, Berk. :)
I like Michael Wittman. Lolz Villers-Bocage.
Quote from: Berkut on March 24, 2014, 09:05:50 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 24, 2014, 05:42:10 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 24, 2014, 05:18:08 PM
I think arguing that the MBT came from the medium tank or the heavy tank is pretty much completely misunderstanding the very concept of what a MBT was...
Heavy tanks were not "worth it" or not worth it - some were effective at what they were intended to do, and others were not.
The basic WW2 idea though that tanks in general were kind of like ships, and you wanted to have all these "roles" for which various classes would fit was pretty much an error, I think. Generalization was the better way to go, but the post-war evolution of tanks showed that the generalization tended towards larger, heavier tanks, rather than more mid-sized ones. It wasn't just the "heavy" tank that went away as a concept, so did the light tank, tank destroyer, scout tank, and even the medium tank.
I'm not sure it was an error at the time. I think there were a lot more compromises to be made in tank design back then, which promoted more specialization. I think what removed that need was the widespread adoption of HEAT ammunition, which removed the need to compromise around the size of the gun if you wanted to have firepower.
There is some debate here, certainly, but I much more come down on the side of the fundamental change in tank design was more one of operational understanding of what actually worked, rather than technology.
In other words, I think the US (for example) would have been better off to simply decide to build the best MBT possible in 1942, whatever the technology allowed at that time, and then simply upgraded/replaced that design over time, and never once built a single TD. Germany would have been better off to just build as many Panthers as possible, and forget the Tigers and TDs and SPGs. Or a Panther with a 88, if that is what they decided the MBT ought to be. Or a PzIV for that matter.
But the key to what a MBT must be capable of doing is pretty simple:
1. It must be mobile enough to actually succeed in the shock role that the tank was designed for - this excludes the traditional "heavy" tanks with poor mobility, like the Tiger.
2. It should have a gun capable of engaging the primary targets it is going to see from the other sides "MBT". This excludes poorly armed tanks like the Sherman in '44.
3. It needs enough armor to be able to reliably attack enemy non-armored assets without excessive fear of being destroyed.
The key to the MBY concept, IMO, was the realization that the practical realities of the battlefield simply do not consistently allow for specialization in armored roles. The reality is that in most cases, you have to fight the enemy with what is at hand, and rarely have the luxury of the opponent giving you the opportunity to be able to bring your paper when he shows up with his rock. More often than not, you have to fight them with whatever armor is available. If the enemy counter-attacks with their armor, it is your armor that is going to have to fight them, and demands that only dedicated AT assets should fight enemy armor leaving your armor free to fight an exploitation battle are simply not realistic. Therefore, even in 1942, everyone would be better off with a well crafted mix "jack of all trades" tank rather than a hodge podge of special purpose tanks that almost never get the luxury of only being used for their designed purpose.
Technology certainly did change, but fundamentally, the role of the tank never really changed. Is what a tank is supposed to do somehow different from 1943 to 1963, such that in 1963 you no longer needed these incredible numbers of roles you thought you needed in 1943? I don't think so.
I think the Germans actually started to understand this - the Panther is, IMO, the first true attempt to create a MBT, with a weapon system that combined mobility, firepower, and a reasonable amount of protection with the intent of being a general purpose vehicle. But their procurement chain was such a mess they were never really able to put it into real practice. Plus Hitler loved his toys, of course.
The Soviets almost hit on it pretty much by accident in the T-34 line, but they were also rather reactionary in their designs in WW2, and kept building bigger and heavier tanks to counter the monster German tanks, almost completely unsuccessfully.
The Brits...they were a mess. They never had a rational (in hindsight) idea of what their tanks should do - or rather, some of them did, but it was pretty much just a mess overall.
The Americans had plenty of people who understood it, I think, but none of them were people making the decisions. So they kept building failures like the M-10/18/36 despite the fact that they clearly didn't work.
But all of them could be forgiven - trying to forge a coherent procurement strategy in the middle of a world war is probably pretty much impossible.
Just wanted to say - very informative post. :)
IMO, the British should have deployed more of these:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F0%2F01%2FSimms_Motor_Scout_1899.jpg%2F640px-Simms_Motor_Scout_1899.jpg&hash=01488a4940fc56be1a6bd394d5dc7dbaaee242b3)
:bowler:
That thing has crappy side armor.
A lot of the heavy tanks were not really worth the investment, but were produced for reasons other than they were the best out there. The KV-1, with a gun the same size as the T34 was heavily armored, but it was a mechanical nightmare. Read about the shifting problems for one thing. It was produced because stopping the production in 1941 would have meant too many delays, but in 1943 the attempts to make it faster only lightened the armor (though this did get rid of the weird rear facing machine gun in the turret), and still resulted in a tank functionally no better than the T34.
The IS tanks were upgrades, but also compromises. The 122mm gun was a space-waster, with separate projectile and propellant (read about the ammo limitations on the IS2, for instance), and the more maneuverable T34/85 still fitted the roles that Berkut talks about better and more often.
The story of the over-designed, too expensive, and at times problematic Tiger is well known. The expense did not justify the resources taken from other tanks. Even the Panther, the prototype of the MBT was over designed with a bad engine choice and too expensive. The Germans liked bigger, but the tanks were not ready in enough numbers (and couldn't fight off the hordes of "lesser" tanks that were cheaper). A redesigned Pz IV, or the copy of the T34 would have been cheaper and likely easier to mass produce.
The Western Allies never made many heavy tanks - there were early show pieces, the British Infantry Tanks sort of qualified in 1939-41, and more often than not the real designs called heavy tanks were MBT prototypes as well.
Eventually the upgraded T34 would become the T44, then the T54 tank. The M26 Pershing (called a heavy tank, though really not) would be the basis for the M48 line. The Centurion would end up being the first really well thought out British tank, but arrive too late for the war, but still the first MBT of Great Britain.
To what extent did the MBT concept also need associated technical advances before it could mature?
The Centurion, for example, really comes into its own post-war with the Royal Ordnance L7 gun.
But for the right blend of mobility and protection, you also need powerful engines of some degree of efficiency.
I don't know the answer or if this is even a pertinent question, so would be very interested to hear thoughts.
I think the US could have fielded a far better tank than the M4 earlier in the war, but both the decision to have the Tank + Tank Destroyer forces as well as the "all out" on the Sherman production meant that was impeded. The engines (look at all the experimentation on the M4 powerplants), better tracks, understanding (if not implementation) of better armor schemes were all there by 1942.
Still, the MBT appears at the very end of the war for a good reason, it took hard earned lessons to realize what was wrong and what was right.
Quote from: Warspite on March 25, 2014, 09:10:01 AM
To what extent did the MBT concept also need associated technical advances before it could mature?
The Centurion, for example, really comes into its own post-war with the Royal Ordnance L7 gun.
But for the right blend of mobility and protection, you also need powerful engines of some degree of efficiency.
I don't know the answer or if this is even a pertinent question, so would be very interested to hear thoughts.
That's what I had in mind when I said that MBT concept wasn't ready during the war. I can't imagine the Allies being able to design a tank that satisfied all three criteria that Berkut mentioned. At best you could satisfy two of them, which is why you had different classes of tanks based on which two out of three qualities they emphasized.
It probably bears remembering that between the Tiger and the heaviest IS tanks at the end of WWII and the Challengers, Abrams and Leopard 2s of the 1980s (this applies to russian tanks til this day) the only operational tank to be significantly heavier than 40 tons was the british chieftain at 62 tons with it's 120mm rifled gun that didn't fire HEAT rounds. Basically the germans went up to 60 tons in 1944 and thought better of it, the brits went up to 60 tons in 1965, the rest of NATO did the same in 1980. The IS tanks are still (afaik) the heaviest tanks the russians ever built.
The NATO troika in the 80s (Abrams, Leopard and Challenger) all got their huge 120mm guns, layered chobham armour and their monster 1500 hp engines. Mobility, firepower and protection. My impression was always that they were built as part of a design and strategy decision back in the 1950s. That there was no real point in spending money on new tanks unless they were sufficiently better than the soviets to win the ground war. So they kept the post WWII tanks and upgraded them slightly.
And I agree with Malthus, this has been informative. :)
Great post, Berkut, but I think you may not fully comprehend the bureaucratic side of design and production decisions. In the case of the US, for instance, there were two agencies building AFVs: the armor branch, and anti-tank branch. The armor branch grew out of the cavalry trunk, and the anti-tank branch from the artillery trunk. That they happened to converge on nominally similar designs: the M2/M3/M4 series for armor, and the M10/M18 series for tank destroyers, was a case of form following function, rather than any decision to produce similar vehicles with different strengths and weaknesses. Neither the armor nor the anti-tank branches ever considered giving way to the other, despite the results from the battlefield, because that would have wrecked the careers of the giving-way decision-makers themselves (abandoning the TD concept would have been a disaster for the TD guys brought into the armor branch; no way they could have competed for promotions and citations against guys on the "inside track") . It kinda reminds me of Japanese Army versus Navy aircraft design and production during WW2, or the whole German issue of the Luftwaffe Land Forces versus Das Heer; you have adversarial bureaucracies locked into their own battles against each other, which are immediate and personally significant. Battles against external national enemies are more remote and so less pressing and less personally significant. God help the grunt!
Quote from: Viking on March 25, 2014, 09:51:54 AM
It probably bears remembering that between the Tiger and the heaviest IS tanks at the end of WWII and the Challengers, Abrams and Leopard 2s of the 1980s (this applies to russian tanks til this day) the only operational tank to be significantly heavier than 40 tons was the british chieftain at 62 tons with it's 120mm rifled gun that didn't fire HEAT rounds. Basically the germans went up to 60 tons in 1944 and thought better of it, the brits went up to 60 tons in 1965, the rest of NATO did the same in 1980. The IS tanks are still (afaik) the heaviest tanks the russians ever built.
The NATO troika in the 80s (Abrams, Leopard and Challenger) all got their huge 120mm guns, layered chobham armour and their monster 1500 hp engines. Mobility, firepower and protection. My impression was always that they were built as part of a design and strategy decision back in the 1950s. That there was no real point in spending money on new tanks unless they were sufficiently better than the soviets to win the ground war. So they kept the post WWII tanks and upgraded them slightly.
There was an even heavier british tank, the Conqueror and that was already deployed by the mid-late 50s.
Quote from: mongers on March 25, 2014, 06:38:25 PM
There was an even heavier british tank, the Conqueror and that was already deployed by the mid-late 50s.
The US also had it's IS-3 busting tank, the M103/T43 tank. Both had 120mm guns, both were slow and less useful than the MBTs of the time.
Quote from: PDH on March 25, 2014, 06:47:28 PM
Quote from: mongers on March 25, 2014, 06:38:25 PM
There was an even heavier british tank, the Conqueror and that was already deployed by the mid-late 50s.
The US also had it's IS-3 busting tank, the M103/T43 tank. Both had 120mm guns, both were slow and less useful than the MBTs of the time.
Indeed, I was just point out to Viking that the british got to the position of super heavy tank earlier than he thought and after having designed the fledging mbt centurion.
edit:Now that I've looked up the US tank, it's like their blood brothers, very similar.
Quote from: DGuller on March 25, 2014, 09:19:20 AM
Quote from: Warspite on March 25, 2014, 09:10:01 AM
To what extent did the MBT concept also need associated technical advances before it could mature?
The Centurion, for example, really comes into its own post-war with the Royal Ordnance L7 gun.
But for the right blend of mobility and protection, you also need powerful engines of some degree of efficiency.
I don't know the answer or if this is even a pertinent question, so would be very interested to hear thoughts.
That's what I had in mind when I said that MBT concept wasn't ready during the war. I can't imagine the Allies being able to design a tank that satisfied all three criteria that Berkut mentioned. At best you could satisfy two of them, which is why you had different classes of tanks based on which two out of three qualities they emphasized.
I also largely agree with Berkut, but I think it's important to keep in mind that the design impediments weren't primarily technological.
What was that embarrassing little tank the Brits unveiled at the Berlin victory parade? Comet, something like that?
Quote from: mongers on March 25, 2014, 06:38:25 PM
There was an even heavier british tank, the Conqueror and that was already deployed by the mid-late 50s.
And the US M103 (almost the same tank, with the exact same gun and very similar weight and armor) that served in larger numbers and even longer in time.
But, we are quibbling; "Viking facts" are never based in actual facts.
Edit: PDH beat me to the mention of the M103.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 25, 2014, 07:00:51 PM
What was that embarrassing little tank the Brits unveiled at the Berlin victory parade? Comet, something like that?
The Comet was a fine pre-MBT tank. Good gun, good armor for its time and role, reliable, and fast. It was just too late to see much service.
Quote from: grumbler on March 25, 2014, 07:04:01 PM
But, we are quibbling; "Viking facts" are never based in actual facts.
Yes, I was completely wrong because I didn't know about two novelty tanks who seem to have never had more than one full tank battalion deployed (in addition to small groups spread out among regular tank battalions).
Was I wrong in the argument I was making that regular tanks did not exceed 40 tons in general until the 1980s with the exception of the Chieftain? Was I wrong when I observed that those who had deployed heavy tanks for the most part stopped doing so?
The resources the British used on large tanks would have been better spent on completing the Lion-class battleships.
You know, it's funny how the Washington Treaty destroyed the British naval shipbuilding industry. Still, I suppose it probably worked out better than having to build a fortune's worth of new battleships in the mid 1920s to defeat Japan and the US.
Quote from: Neil on March 25, 2014, 11:07:01 PM
The resources the British used on large tanks would have been better spent on completing the Lion-class battleships.
You know, it's funny how the Washington Treaty destroyed the British naval shipbuilding industry. Still, I suppose it probably worked out better than having to build a fortune's worth of new battleships in the mid 1920s to defeat Japan and the US.
The Great Depression did more damage to the naval shipyards when it killed the "keep the capability" subsidies.
Quote from: Viking on March 25, 2014, 07:24:21 PM
Yes, I was completely wrong because I didn't know about two novelty tanks who seem to have never had more than one full tank battalion deployed (in addition to small groups spread out among regular tank battalions).
Yes, you were completely wrong when you said that "the only operational tank to be significantly heavier than 40 tons was the british chieftain" given that there were tanks that did, in fact, weigh significantly more than 40 tons. Weaselling won't get you around being wrong.
QuoteWas I wrong in the argument I was making that regular tanks did not exceed 40 tons in general until the 1980s with the exception of the Chieftain? Was I wrong when I observed that those who had deployed heavy tanks for the most part stopped doing so?
Those who deployed heavy tanks did so until 1974. And, yes, you were wrong when you said that "regular tanks did not exceed 40 tons in general until the 1980s," given that the M48, M60, and Centurion all exceeded that weight. I'm not even sure why you are making this stuff up. What point are you trying to make?
You know what tank kicked ass? The M551 Sheridan. Okay, not really, but I always thought the gun was cool. Except for maybe that night at Ft. Bragg in 1995 when they were doing gunnery just a few yards from my tent.
The Swedish S-tank was best.
Swedish stank? :hmm:
Quote from: Syt on March 26, 2014, 11:10:04 AM
Swedish stank? :hmm:
Present tense is more appropriate.
No doubt that TDs were ultimately a mistake, but didn't the US TDs have a pretty good record (i.e. positive kill-ratio) in Europe?
Quote from: grumbler on March 26, 2014, 05:19:12 PM
Quote from: Syt on March 26, 2014, 11:10:04 AM
Swedish stank? :hmm:
Present tense is more appropriate.
I was thinking more along the lines of: http://de.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=stank
Quote3.
Stank
The smell that is present when you are having sex.
Quote from: Kleves on March 26, 2014, 11:16:15 PM
No doubt that TDs were ultimately a mistake, but didn't the US TDs have a pretty good record (i.e. positive kill-ratio) in Europe?
Not if you look at all TD kills divided by all TD losses. In the cases where they were used as proper tank destroyers (i.e. defensively), they would certainly have a positive kill ratio, but the opportunities for such use were few, and when one considers both that the production of an M10 cost the production of a Sherman with the 76mm gun, and that TD were most often used as tanks anyway, the concept can't help but be seen as a failure.
Quote from: Syt on March 26, 2014, 11:17:25 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 26, 2014, 05:19:12 PM
Quote from: Syt on March 26, 2014, 11:10:04 AM
Swedish stank? :hmm:
Present tense is more appropriate.
I was thinking more along the lines of: http://de.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=stank
Quote3.
Stank
The smell that is present when you are having sex.
Okay. Germans are weird, but I knew that already.
Quote from: Kleves on March 26, 2014, 11:16:15 PM
No doubt that TDs were ultimately a mistake, but didn't the US TDs have a pretty good record (i.e. positive kill-ratio) in Europe?
For that matter, for all the hate heaped on Shermans, didn't they still have a pretty good kill ratio against what they faced (especially if you consider German tanks lost to breakdowns, which you arguably should, since reliability is part of the design compromise).
Why should you assign a German breakdown kill to Shermans, instead of, say, some guy in a jeep?
The Sherman gets a lot of scorn heaped on it, but had the TD nonsense been not there than the Sherman could have been upgunned to 76mm a year earlier, and quite possibly up armored (as was done in shops anyway) without too much loss of mobility. While it would still "ronson" when hit with an 88, it would have been a far better option for quickly having a far better tank force.
It still wouldn't have looked cool.
What does ronson mean? Brew up?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 27, 2014, 10:29:10 AM
It still wouldn't have looked cool.
What does ronson mean? Brew up?
Yup - "Ronson" was a popular brand of cigarette lighter at the time.
"Lights up the first time, every time!"
I actually think the Shermans were some of the best tanks of the war. Of course I happen to believe that an adequate tank on the battlefield is worth much more then a great tank that is not.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 27, 2014, 10:10:10 AM
Why should you assign a German breakdown kill to Shermans, instead of, say, some guy in a jeep?
Because the Sherman advance is what would cause that broken down tank to be left behind and/or destroyed by the crew.
Quote from: DGuller on March 27, 2014, 11:04:12 AM
Because the Sherman advance is what would cause that broken down tank to be left behind and/or destroyed by the crew.
The Sherman presumably didn't advance alone, or only in the company of other Shermans.
Quote from: PDH on March 27, 2014, 10:37:39 AM
"Lights up the first time, every time!"
Which, ironically, was the slogan that Ronson itself didn't use until after the war.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 27, 2014, 11:06:23 AM
Quote from: DGuller on March 27, 2014, 11:04:12 AM
Because the Sherman advance is what would cause that broken down tank to be left behind and/or destroyed by the crew.
The Sherman presumably didn't advance alone, or only in the company of other Shermans.
Maybe not, but there would be no advancing without working tanks.
The Germans did praise the Sherman for its reliability. A tank that keeps on running will at least be in the field to get blown up and not in the shop.
The Sherman's bad rep for brewing up is actually just a reflection of the tendency of any petrol-power tanks to brew up. The petrol-engine-powered Panthers and PZ IVs were as bad.
I agree with PDH that the TD branch crippled the development of the Sherman. First, it monopolized 76/52 gun production, and then it delayed introduction of the HE round for the 76mm (for fear that commanders would use the M10 as a tank if it had a decent HE round). In essence, the TD branch deliberately created the factors that allowed it to successfully argue for quite some time that the Shermans should not be upgraded to 76mm guns.
The real questions is: Were heavy cruisers worth the cost in WWII?
Quote from: Neil on March 27, 2014, 01:00:14 PM
The real questions is: Were heavy cruisers worth the cost in WWII?
depends on what you mean by "heavy cruiser." If you mean any ship with 8" guns, probably not. If you mean a cruiser of 10,000 tons or more, then probably yes. I'd argue that
St Louis was a better bargain than her 8-inch-gunned contemporary,
Wichita, but that
Baltimore was a better bargain than the hastily-designed
Cleveland because it had so much more growth potential.
Quote from: grumbler on March 27, 2014, 11:33:42 AM
The Sherman's bad rep for brewing up is actually just a reflection of the tendency of any petrol-power tanks to brew up. The petrol-engine-powered Panthers and PZ IVs were as bad.
I agree with PDH that the TD branch crippled the development of the Sherman. First, it monopolized 76/52 gun production, and then it delayed introduction of the HE round for the 76mm (for fear that commanders would use the M10 as a tank if it had a decent HE round). In essence, the TD branch deliberately created the factors that allowed it to successfully argue for quite some time that the Shermans should not be upgraded to 76mm guns.
I loved lobbing mortar shells at M10s in Close Combat IV. Hard to get a hit with the limited ammo they gave you, but when you did it was glorious.
Quote from: grumbler on March 27, 2014, 02:11:52 PM
Quote from: Neil on March 27, 2014, 01:00:14 PM
The real questions is: Were heavy cruisers worth the cost in WWII?
depends on what you mean by "heavy cruiser." If you mean any ship with 8" guns, probably not. If you mean a cruiser of 10,000 tons or more, then probably yes. I'd argue that St Louis was a better bargain than her 8-inch-gunned contemporary, Wichita, but that Baltimore was a better bargain than the hastily-designed Cleveland because it had so much more growth potential.
How does a cruiser or a battleship have growth potential? Honest question.
Quote from: grumbler on March 27, 2014, 02:11:52 PM
Quote from: Neil on March 27, 2014, 01:00:14 PM
The real questions is: Were heavy cruisers worth the cost in WWII?
depends on what you mean by "heavy cruiser." If you mean any ship with 8" guns, probably not. If you mean a cruiser of 10,000 tons or more, then probably yes. I'd argue that St Louis was a better bargain than her 8-inch-gunned contemporary, Wichita, but that Baltimore was a better bargain than the hastily-designed Cleveland because it had so much more growth potential.
I was using the treaty definition. And I think it's a bit more nuanced than that. After all, the Japanese got some good service out of their heavy cruisers. Not only were they of use in the early phase of the war for mopping up the various Allied navies in SE Asia, and then their large hulls allowed them to mount large numbers of semi-effective AA guns and floatplanes. And the Italians got better service out of the heavy cruisers they built than they did out of contemporary light cruisers, whose fragility was proverbial. Overall though, I tend to agree that on an equally-sized hull, you're better off going with with 6-inch guns rather than 8-inch guns. Sure, the 8-inch gun is far more powerful than the 6-inch, but I'm not sure that armour-piercing qualities are all that valuable in cruiser warfare anyways.
Quote from: Queequeg on March 27, 2014, 03:01:33 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 27, 2014, 02:11:52 PM
Quote from: Neil on March 27, 2014, 01:00:14 PM
The real questions is: Were heavy cruisers worth the cost in WWII?
depends on what you mean by "heavy cruiser." If you mean any ship with 8" guns, probably not. If you mean a cruiser of 10,000 tons or more, then probably yes. I'd argue that St Louis was a better bargain than her 8-inch-gunned contemporary, Wichita, but that Baltimore was a better bargain than the hastily-designed Cleveland because it had so much more growth potential.
How does a cruiser or a battleship have growth potential? Honest question.
Warship design is a tricky business. There's a lot of pressure to turn something out at the minimum possible displacement. But as technology advances, you're going to want to add things to the warship. Radar, AAA and the personnel to man them all add to the weight of the ship, and weapons and equipment are often placed high up on the hull. Adding more weight high up on the ship reduces the ship's stability, which means that the ship will be harder to handle and more dangerous in any kind of weather. Ships are designed with a certain amount of roll in mind, and adding weight up top is like adding weight to the pendulum. A good example of this is the British R-class battleships. They were designed and built back in 1914, and by the time 1943 rolled around, they were covered in AA guns and radar sets that changed the way the ship rolled in the water to the point that they were bobbing around like corks in any kind of seaway. The Clevelands weren't quite that bad, but the additional AA guns they added to the design once the war broke out did make them problematic. The Japanese were famous for turning out their smaller ships overweight due to the Admiralty adding things to them late in the design process, to the point that they actually had a number of their ships capsize in a typhoon in the 30s.
None of the current MBTs can compare to.Katmai in weight.
I'm trying to bake a cake in the shape of a Tiger.
It's definitely not worth the hassle.
Quote from: Neil on March 27, 2014, 03:59:58 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on March 27, 2014, 03:01:33 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 27, 2014, 02:11:52 PM
Quote from: Neil on March 27, 2014, 01:00:14 PM
The real questions is: Were heavy cruisers worth the cost in WWII?
depends on what you mean by "heavy cruiser." If you mean any ship with 8" guns, probably not. If you mean a cruiser of 10,000 tons or more, then probably yes. I'd argue that St Louis was a better bargain than her 8-inch-gunned contemporary, Wichita, but that Baltimore was a better bargain than the hastily-designed Cleveland because it had so much more growth potential.
How does a cruiser or a battleship have growth potential? Honest question.
Warship design is a tricky business. There's a lot of pressure to turn something out at the minimum possible displacement. But as technology advances, you're going to want to add things to the warship. Radar, AAA and the personnel to man them all add to the weight of the ship, and weapons and equipment are often placed high up on the hull. Adding more weight high up on the ship reduces the ship's stability, which means that the ship will be harder to handle and more dangerous in any kind of weather. Ships are designed with a certain amount of roll in mind, and adding weight up top is like adding weight to the pendulum. A good example of this is the British R-class battleships. They were designed and built back in 1914, and by the time 1943 rolled around, they were covered in AA guns and radar sets that changed the way the ship rolled in the water to the point that they were bobbing around like corks in any kind of seaway. The Clevelands weren't quite that bad, but the additional AA guns they added to the design once the war broke out did make them problematic. The Japanese were famous for turning out their smaller ships overweight due to the Admiralty adding things to them late in the design process, to the point that they actually had a number of their ships capsize in a typhoon in the 30s.
I realized almost immediately after posting that it was probably in reference to advances (in WW2 things like RADAR, sonar, whatnot). It still seems like a unique and interesting challenge, though.
Quote from: Warspite on March 27, 2014, 04:05:41 PM
I'm trying to bake a cake in the shape of a Tiger.
It's definitely not worth the hassle.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi62.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fh101%2FMonoriu%2Fkimg1317_thumb_zps5116ed84.jpg&hash=1ede82f71a3b0e83341ad3697811ccda43682142) (http://s62.photobucket.com/user/Monoriu/media/kimg1317_thumb_zps5116ed84.jpg.html)
Quote from: Neil on March 27, 2014, 03:59:58 PM
The Japanese were famous for turning out their smaller ships overweight due to the Admiralty adding things to them late in the design process, to the point that they actually had a number of their ships capsize in a typhoon in the 30s.
Was it because of stuff like the pagoda masts? I always loved how mean Japanese ships looked because of them, but they must have made their ships incredibly top-heavy.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 27, 2014, 10:51:56 AM
I actually think the Shermans were some of the best tanks of the war.
bah, T-34
Quote from: Warspite on March 27, 2014, 04:05:41 PM
I'm trying to bake a cake in the shape of a Tiger.
It's definitely not worth the hassle.
So tanks in WW2 should have been circular? :hmm:
Quote from: 11B4V on March 27, 2014, 06:33:12 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 27, 2014, 10:51:56 AM
I actually think the Shermans were some of the best tanks of the war.
bah, T-34
A good tank shouldn't have such a high loss rate. Also a radio.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 27, 2014, 06:41:23 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on March 27, 2014, 06:33:12 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 27, 2014, 10:51:56 AM
I actually think the Shermans were some of the best tanks of the war.
bah, T-34
A good tank shouldn't have such a high loss rate. Also a radio.
Still better than the Sherman.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 27, 2014, 06:41:23 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on March 27, 2014, 06:33:12 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 27, 2014, 10:51:56 AM
I actually think the Shermans were some of the best tanks of the war.
bah, T-34
A good tank shouldn't have such a high loss rate. Also a radio.
I don't think boredom was the main problem.
Quote from: The Brain on March 27, 2014, 06:46:25 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 27, 2014, 06:41:23 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on March 27, 2014, 06:33:12 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 27, 2014, 10:51:56 AM
I actually think the Shermans were some of the best tanks of the war.
bah, T-34
A good tank shouldn't have such a high loss rate. Also a radio.
I don't think boredom was the main problem.
Fucking American's and their Rock and Roll music.
Quote from: Queequeg on March 27, 2014, 04:13:22 PM
I realized almost immediately after posting that it was probably in reference to advances (in WW2 things like RADAR, sonar, whatnot). It still seems like a unique and interesting challenge, though.
Yeah, you want to have reserve buoyancy and a good righting arm when the ship is built, because experience is going to teach you that the ship will need new equipment, and particularly equipment that is high in the superstructure (radars, radio antennas, fire control directors, AA guns, and the like). Ships that are designed to within an inch of their life from the start (like the
Clevelands) have real problems in that area. For instance, the
Cleveland class 20mm and 40mm guns didn't have splinter shields, because they couldn't afford that much weight. They lost their boat cranes and cruising turbines (cutting into endurance quite a bit) to provide weight for the addition of more 40mm guns. They had to lose their armored pilot house to add radars to the AA directors. All the time, they were having to lose something useful to gain something essential. Most were decommissioned after only five or six years' worth of service. The
Baltimores had enough reserve to accommodate growth without having to compromise other highly desirable qualities. Most of them saw 20 or more years of service.
I think a Baltimore class with 12 6-inch guns would have been the ideal cruiser for WW2. The 8" gun was longer-ranged but slower-firing. In the types of actions cruisers found themselves in (barring a few like Java Sea and the Komandorskis) long-range gunnery wasn't particularly useful, and rapid gunnery was.
What the hell was the porche Tiger 2?
It doesn't look like the real tiger 2 at all.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.panzerfux.de%2Fpanzerfux_e%2Fprodpic%2FVK-4502-P-Porsches-Prototype-for-the-Tiger-II-with-rear-Turret-1-72-5MH-72011_b_0.JPG&hash=4b0887cf5ba33d3f2899419bc3424b35daf0bcbd)
Quote from: Siege on March 27, 2014, 06:58:30 PM
What the hell was the porche Tiger 2?
It doesn't look like the real tiger 2 at all.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.panzerfux.de%2Fpanzerfux_e%2Fprodpic%2FVK-4502-P-Porsches-Prototype-for-the-Tiger-II-with-rear-Turret-1-72-5MH-72011_b_0.JPG&hash=4b0887cf5ba33d3f2899419bc3424b35daf0bcbd)
looks more like a prototype for this
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.army-technology.com%2Fprojects%2Fmerkava%2Fimages%2Fmerkava5.jpg&hash=08c8007d73e8f156583e205063599e00cd730713)
turret at back behind the engine, sloped armor etc.
Quote from: celedhring on March 27, 2014, 05:40:20 PM
Quote from: Neil on March 27, 2014, 03:59:58 PM
The Japanese were famous for turning out their smaller ships overweight due to the Admiralty adding things to them late in the design process, to the point that they actually had a number of their ships capsize in a typhoon in the 30s.
Was it because of stuff like the pagoda masts? I always loved how mean Japanese ships looked because of them, but they must have made their ships incredibly top-heavy.
Overbuilt superstructures were part of the problem, but the IJN battleships were generally better off than the smaller ships. The overbuilt superstructures on some of the smaller ships, when coupled with the IJN tendency to cram as many torpedoes as possible onto a hull, resulted in more serious issues.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmailer.fsu.edu%2F%7Eakirk%2Ftanks%2Ffrance%2FFra-Char2C-Drawing.gif&hash=af4d52c088ff7dc37f21e24b7af5cc01faab8d4f)
I liked that Nip light cruiser with a quadrillion Long Lance tubes. Made playing SSI's Warship a fun and rewarding experience.
Good try, Viking.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 27, 2014, 07:17:08 PM
I liked that Nip light cruiser with a quadrillion Long Lance tubes. Made playing SSI's Warship a fun and rewarding experience.
Those two ships were eggs armed with a sledgehammer. If anything hit it first, the torpedoes aboard would blow it to bits. That's why it was only in that configuration for a few months, and was never committed to battle.
There's also some evidence that the torpedo tubes were the 21-inch torpedo tubes taken off the older cruisers when they were upgraded to 24-inch tubes, and not Long Lance launchers at all.
Quote from: grumbler on March 27, 2014, 07:47:56 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 27, 2014, 07:17:08 PM
I liked that Nip light cruiser with a quadrillion Long Lance tubes. Made playing SSI's Warship a fun and rewarding experience.
Those two ships were eggs armed with a sledgehammer. If anything hit it first, the torpedoes aboard would blow it to bits. That's why it was only in that configuration for a few months, and was never committed to battle.
There's also some evidence that the torpedo tubes were the 21-inch torpedo tubes taken off the older cruisers when they were upgraded to 24-inch tubes, and not Long Lance launchers at all.
Yeah, the torpedo cruisers wouldn't really serve much of a purpose after technology ran out on their concept of ambushing the USN trundling across the Pacific. Still, they were meant to be used in night actions, where the odds of them being blown up were less. They were specialists, sort of like your tank destroyers.
Quote from: Neil on March 27, 2014, 08:22:02 PM
Yeah, the torpedo cruisers wouldn't really serve much of a purpose after technology ran out on their concept of ambushing the USN trundling across the Pacific. Still, they were meant to be used in night actions, where the odds of them being blown up were less. They were specialists, sort of like your tank destroyers.
I think that that is exactly correct. They were converted to play a specialized role in a very scripted Japanese war plan which never was relevant to the war as it actually happened. That's always a danger when a country fools itself into believing that it can dictate the terms of a war; see Germany, 1914-1945.
Quote from: grumbler on March 27, 2014, 07:47:56 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 27, 2014, 07:17:08 PM
I liked that Nip light cruiser with a quadrillion Long Lance tubes. Made playing SSI's Warship a fun and rewarding experience.
Those two ships were eggs armed with a sledgehammer. If anything hit it first, the torpedoes aboard would blow it to bits. That's why it was only in that configuration for a few months, and was never committed to battle.
There's also some evidence that the torpedo tubes were the 21-inch torpedo tubes taken off the older cruisers when they were upgraded to 24-inch tubes, and not Long Lance launchers at all.
What a buzzkill. Grumbles ruins my game memories. :cry:
Quote from: grumbler on March 27, 2014, 08:35:19 PM
Quote from: Neil on March 27, 2014, 08:22:02 PM
Yeah, the torpedo cruisers wouldn't really serve much of a purpose after technology ran out on their concept of ambushing the USN trundling across the Pacific. Still, they were meant to be used in night actions, where the odds of them being blown up were less. They were specialists, sort of like your tank destroyers.
I think that that is exactly correct. They were converted to play a specialized role in a very scripted Japanese war plan which never was relevant to the war as it actually happened. That's always a danger when a country fools itself into believing that it can dictate the terms of a war; see Germany, 1914-1945.
Yeah, the Japanese had a way of trying to plan the war based on the way they wanted things to be, rather than the way they were. See: Battle of Midway.
Quote from: 11B4V on March 27, 2014, 06:43:26 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 27, 2014, 06:41:23 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on March 27, 2014, 06:33:12 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 27, 2014, 10:51:56 AM
I actually think the Shermans were some of the best tanks of the war.
bah, T-34
A good tank shouldn't have such a high loss rate. Also a radio.
Still better than the Sherman.
I really, really doubt that Shermans had a worse loss rate than T-34s. Even if you exclude T-34-76s, which were THE T-34s for most of the war. Apart from that, there was a book written by a Soviet tank commander who fought in Lend Lease M4A2s. He was very complimentary of the Shermans, and thought them to be superior to T-34s.
I'm not sure which tank was the best in the war, but I think the Sherman has a pretty good chance at it. Despite the doctrine flaws that made it under armored and inadequate in a tank vs tank fight against late German tanks, it was extremely reliable and produced in vast numbers. Against the Panzer IIIs and IVs it was an equal of the Germans and more then adequate against anything the Japanese could throw at it. It was well liked by it's crews for being easy to drive and fairly comfortable and it excelled at its designed task of exploiting breakthroughs. The ability to land the tanks on the beaches often proved extremely useful and may not have been possible with a heavier tank.
Quote from: Siege on March 27, 2014, 07:17:49 PM
Good try, Viking.
Not really, you just make it so easy.
The most important thing about the Japanese torpedo cruisers is how would they look as scantily clad teenage girls.
Going back to the tank issue, though. I think people have to take into account that by the time the Sherman and the Tigers came face to face, the Germans were fighting a defensive war and the Allies an offensive one. The Sherman befitted the need for a dependable, easy to supply and mantain tank that could exploit breakthroughs and stretch its own supply lines, while the Tigers weren't such a bad idea when the German army was no longer waging a war of mobility and essentially needed super-hard static defense. Quite probably the Tigers ended up being too unreliable even for that role, but I don't think that it was such a foolish endeavor from an operational pov.
Quote from: celedhring on March 28, 2014, 06:03:56 AM
The most important thing about the Japanese torpedo cruisers is how would they look as scantily clad teenage girls.
She might be packing something long in the crotch area. :yuk:
Based on some things I've read about using Shermans, the lesser weight was a big factor, as many tanks could be transported across the ocean from the US. But it was a cruel shock at first to American tank crews to realize they were so badly out gunned and out armored when going against German heavy tanks and anti-tank 88s. The UK upgraded Shermans to a Firefly named variant, with the 76mm gun and armor plates welded on. At least then the tank was equal to MK IV tanks, and more able to deal damage to the stronger German tanks and TDs. The US upgraded some Shermans also. The upgunned and uparmored Shermans were a lot better off, still not a match for the Tigers and Panthers, but a lot more useful and survivable. The 76mm high velocity gun gave them a much better chance than the lower velocity 75mm. I'm surprised that the upgrades weren't done en masse on the entire fleet of Shermans before going into D-Day, as there had already been experience in N. Africa, Sicily and Italy.
Quote from: KRonn on March 28, 2014, 07:28:02 AM
I'm surprised that the upgrades weren't done en masse on the entire fleet of Shermans before going into D-Day, as there had already been experience in N. Africa, Sicily and Italy.
because the Sherman was an infantry support tank, and was supposed to leave destroying enemy tanks to the 76mm-equipped tank destroyers. If Shermans were allowed to willy-nilly destroy enemy tanks, then what would be the purpose of the TDs, and what would be the promotion prospects of their designers, administrators, and commanders?
I think people should also realize that coming out of Africa, the Sherman looked pretty good.
It handled most of what was thrown at it in Africa just fine, thank you very much.
The real problem with the Sherman, even the later models, was not that they could not go 1 on 1 with a Tiger or Panther. There weren't enough Tigers or Panthers for that to be the major issue.
The real problem was that their armor was not even adequate to handle relatively small German AT weapons, and the Germans had lots and lots and LOTS of those. The Sherman most tankers took into D-Day was vulnerable to the 50mm German AT gun from the side, and with specialized ammo (which the Germans did not have a lot of) from the front. The standard German AT gun (75mm) could reliably penetrate from any side at nearly any range, to say nothing of the 88.
The vast, VAST majority of German armor that a Sherman was going to run into would be some variant of a PzIII or PzIV, or a StuG. The 75 could handle those tanks from the flank, or from the front for the lighter ones. The 76 could handle them from any reasonable angle.
You assholes are going to get me started playing Combat Mission again. I don't need another 3 year addiction. :mad:
Quote from: grumbler on March 28, 2014, 08:05:33 AM
Quote from: KRonn on March 28, 2014, 07:28:02 AM
I'm surprised that the upgrades weren't done en masse on the entire fleet of Shermans before going into D-Day, as there had already been experience in N. Africa, Sicily and Italy.
because the Sherman was an infantry support tank, and was supposed to leave destroying enemy tanks to the 76mm-equipped tank destroyers. If Shermans were allowed to willy-nilly destroy enemy tanks, then what would be the purpose of the TDs, and what would be the promotion prospects of their designers, administrators, and commanders?
Silly me, you're right. Of course those concerns had to be considered, no matter the battlefield results or consequences! What was I thinking! But then, a bit in their defense, I think most nations were of the separate TD and tank idea, as so much of armored warfare was still new, though the Germans and Russians had stronger tanks that were more survivable/useable. Too bad the US leadership didn't recognize that need sooner and find a way to override the other more political stuff.
Some of the field modifications of the Sherman, including some welded armor, helped the tank quite a bit. The real problem was that the 76mm wasn't made available (it fit into the Sherman better than the 17lbr) until well after the landings. One of the problems was the ammo storage, but overall the Sherman gets ragged on more than it should in my belief.
The fact that some Soviet tankers liked it better than the T34 is telling. Tanks aren't just in combat, they have to get to combat, be reliable, not overly fatigue the crew, etc.
Yeah, I've also read some very positive views from Russian tankers regarding the Sherman. The US had huge numbers of them and could produce them quickly, so in a sense "quantity had a quality of its own". The upgraded versions were much better too.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 28, 2014, 08:42:31 AM
You assholes are going to get me started playing Combat Mission again. I don't need another 3 year addiction. :mad:
Here's an AAR for the upcoming CM: Red Thunder for you: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/03/28/the-flare-path-a-rumble-of-thunder/
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rockpapershotgun.com%2Fimages%2F14%2Fmar%2FCMRT13.png&hash=9c7bc86f5f0645fa0d6c0f98f47b53b616efa405)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rockpapershotgun.com%2Fimages%2F14%2Fmar%2FCMRT17.png&hash=d3fae4c44668814686dc8090c3406d49f40d186b)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rockpapershotgun.com%2Fimages%2F14%2Fmar%2FCMRT26.png&hash=98380fe7701cf9a29f566ab67c4e53f18735a701)
Quote from: PDH on March 28, 2014, 08:48:35 AM
The fact that some Soviet tankers liked it better than the T34 is telling. Tanks aren't just in combat, they have to get to combat, be reliable, not overly fatigue the crew, etc.
I get the impression that Soviet tankers liked just about any foreign tanks over their own. May have something to do with the fact that Soviet tank designs almost seem to have been made to make the crew as uncomfortable as possible.
The Reds famously hated the Grant. "A coffin for eight brothers."
I also find it hard to believe they sprouted wood over any crap the Brits sent.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 28, 2014, 10:52:19 AM
The Reds famously hated the Grant. "A coffin for eight brothers."
And they should; they made that thing as tall as a skyscraper, and then they go and mount the main armament in the hull...
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 28, 2014, 08:42:31 AM
You assholes are going to get me started playing Combat Mission again. I don't need another 3 year addiction. :mad:
I shall taught you unmercifully.
My first car was a Soviet car; a Lada 2105 from 1982. It weighed one point two tons, had 43 HP and a four cylinder engine and used one point two litres of petrol per ten kilometers. It spent more time not working than working. The toolbox included was consisting of tools that looked like they were brittle enough to break if you tried using them. It was built for neither speed nor comfort. The steering wheel was the size of a ship's rudder. During winter, it got stuck in uphill terrain because of its backwheel drive.
I think the Russkies would've even preferred a British Leyland from the Midlands built by workers mostly on strike during the 70s to that car.
The Russians appreciated any care they could get.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 28, 2014, 10:52:19 AM
The Reds famously hated the Grant. "A coffin for eight brothers."
Well, yeah. That was a stop-gap tank before we could get the Sherman going. I don't think anyone liked it much.
I think the Brits did. Off course considering what the British had to work with, their standards were pretty low. I was curious so I looked on Wiki, there were more M3s produced then Panzer IIIs. That's impressive considering that that M3s only served front line duty for a short time.
I'm very surprised by that.
The 8th Army did use a lot of M3s after Lend-Lease, if I recall correctly. I seem to recall they also called them the Lee, not Grant.
Quote from: Norgy on March 28, 2014, 11:45:08 AM
The 8th Army did use a lot of M3s after Lend-Lease, if I recall correctly. I seem to recall they also called them the Lee, not Grant.
The Lees and the Grants were different varieties of M3s I believe. I remember I had different counters for them in ASL :nerd:
'Course you did. :hug:
I believe the Grant had a cast turret and the Lee a welded turret.
Cheap-ass Brits.
But with mint sauce and spotted dick, most likely.
The Lee was the US version, the Grant was the British. The turrets were different (British was cast), the Grant also did not have the commanders MG turret.
:hmm:
Quote from: PDH on March 28, 2014, 12:01:15 PM
The Lee was the US version, the Grant was the British. The turrets were different (British was cast), the Grant also did not have the commanders MG turret.
OMG BRITISH PC POLICE GONE INSANE 1942STYLE!!!111
Quote from: derspiess on March 28, 2014, 10:06:04 AM
Quote from: PDH on March 28, 2014, 08:48:35 AM
The fact that some Soviet tankers liked it better than the T34 is telling. Tanks aren't just in combat, they have to get to combat, be reliable, not overly fatigue the crew, etc.
I get the impression that Soviet tankers liked just about any foreign tanks over their own. May have something to do with the fact that Soviet tank designs almost seem to have been made to make the crew as uncomfortable as possible.
Actually it was the opposite. They pretty much hated every tank except the Sherman (Lee, Stuarts, and all the British tanks).
Quote from: DGuller on March 28, 2014, 12:21:26 PM
Actually it was the opposite. They pretty much hated every tank except the Sherman (Lee, Stuarts, and all the British tanks).
I recall them liking one of the Brit tanks, and they absolutely loved just about any captured German tank.
Quote from: 11B4V on March 28, 2014, 11:14:58 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 28, 2014, 08:42:31 AM
You assholes are going to get me started playing Combat Mission again. I don't need another 3 year addiction. :mad:
I shall taught you unmercifully.
Taught? Jesus Christ.
HEY EVERYBODY! 11Tim is gonna "taught'' me.
I'm glad we're no longer the geeks we once were.
Quote from: DGuller on March 28, 2014, 12:21:26 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 28, 2014, 10:06:04 AM
Quote from: PDH on March 28, 2014, 08:48:35 AM
The fact that some Soviet tankers liked it better than the T34 is telling. Tanks aren't just in combat, they have to get to combat, be reliable, not overly fatigue the crew, etc.
I get the impression that Soviet tankers liked just about any foreign tanks over their own. May have something to do with the fact that Soviet tank designs almost seem to have been made to make the crew as uncomfortable as possible.
Actually it was the opposite. They pretty much hated every tank except the Sherman (Lee, Stuarts, and all the British tanks).
I've read this as well, but all things about the Soviet Union must have the caveat that the people couldn't always speak what they believed. I do remember reading they were unimpressed with the Panthers.
Quote from: derspiess on March 28, 2014, 12:24:07 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 28, 2014, 12:21:26 PM
Actually it was the opposite. They pretty much hated every tank except the Sherman (Lee, Stuarts, and all the British tanks).
I recall them liking one of the Brit tanks, and they absolutely loved just about any captured German tank.
The Churchill?
Quote from: Razgovory on March 28, 2014, 11:38:07 AM
That's impressive considering that that M3s only served front line duty for a short time.
The M3 was a key component of the British 14th Army's armored units in the CBI theater for virtually the entire war. It was also used heavily by the Soviets from the start of Lend-Lease through mid-43.
I couldn't believe Raz' claim so I checked up. Sure enough, wiki says 6k & change M3s vs. 5K and change Pz IIIs. And that includes Stug variants!!!! oneoneone
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 28, 2014, 01:30:43 PM
I couldn't believe Raz' claim so I checked up. Sure enough, wiki says 6k & change M3s vs. 5K and change Pz IIIs. And that includes Stug variants!!!! oneoneone
No, that
excludes StuG variants.
Either what I said, or the opposite!!!
Can I be: Ottoman Empire?
Quote from: Norgy on March 28, 2014, 01:44:01 PM
Can I be: Ottoman Empire?
It is too bad they never built any heavy tanks.
Quote from: Valmy on March 28, 2014, 01:49:35 PM
Quote from: Norgy on March 28, 2014, 01:44:01 PM
Can I be: Ottoman Empire?
It is too bad they never built any heavy tanks.
Turkey does though! A pretty big one, even.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altay_(tank) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altay_(tank))
Quote from: Valmy on March 28, 2014, 01:49:35 PM
Quote from: Norgy on March 28, 2014, 01:44:01 PM
Can I be: Ottoman Empire?
It is too bad they never built any heavy tanks.
You forget the alt-history ones they manufactured from olives and wheat in Anatolia. They were armoured by faith and shredded wheat and had a 600 mm cannon.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on March 28, 2014, 01:24:48 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 28, 2014, 11:38:07 AM
That's impressive considering that that M3s only served front line duty for a short time.
The M3 was a key component of the British 14th Army's armored units in the CBI theater for virtually the entire war. It was also used heavily by the Soviets from the start of Lend-Lease through mid-43.
Interesting. I didn't realize the M3 was so heavily used. I figured it was a pre-war obsolete design. But I guess it would still have a place vs Japan which didn't have strong armored vehicles, or with the Soviets who could use it to replace early war losses, or in limited roles where it wasn't expected to go against other armor.
Quote from: Valmy on March 28, 2014, 01:49:35 PM
Quote from: Norgy on March 28, 2014, 01:44:01 PM
Can I be: Ottoman Empire?
It is too bad they never built any heavy tanks.
I always thought it was pretty cool that the Ottomans had subs, though.
Quote from: Caliga on March 28, 2014, 02:26:35 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 28, 2014, 01:49:35 PM
Quote from: Norgy on March 28, 2014, 01:44:01 PM
Can I be: Ottoman Empire?
It is too bad they never built any heavy tanks.
I always thought it was pretty cool that the Ottomans had subs, though.
Yes, the first known sub was The Emperor, sold in stands in Constantinople.
I bet it cost two extra solidi and they forced you to have it toasted. :mad:
Quote from: celedhring on March 28, 2014, 01:58:37 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 28, 2014, 01:49:35 PM
Quote from: Norgy on March 28, 2014, 01:44:01 PM
Can I be: Ottoman Empire?
It is too bad they never built any heavy tanks.
Turkey does though! A pretty big one, even.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altay_(tank)
Isn't that an MBT?
Quote from: Queequeg on March 28, 2014, 03:38:28 PM
Isn't that an MBT?
It's a heavy tank, but not a heavy tank.
I got to see the lone surviving T28 monstrosity at Ft. Knox 20 (!) years ago. Big and ugly-- reminded me of some Soviet vehicle.
Quote from: derspiess on March 28, 2014, 03:45:48 PM
I got to see the lone surviving T28 monstrosity at Ft. Knox 20 (!) years ago. Big and ugly-- reminded me of some Soviet vehicle.
They took it from us and sent it down to Georgia. :mad:
With the devil? Along with Johnny Cash?
Quote from: Caliga on March 28, 2014, 03:59:08 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 28, 2014, 03:45:48 PM
I got to see the lone surviving T28 monstrosity at Ft. Knox 20 (!) years ago. Big and ugly-- reminded me of some Soviet vehicle.
They took it from us and sent it down to Georgia. :mad:
Is that the one at Benning?
Quote from: Caliga on March 28, 2014, 03:59:08 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 28, 2014, 03:45:48 PM
I got to see the lone surviving T28 monstrosity at Ft. Knox 20 (!) years ago. Big and ugly-- reminded me of some Soviet vehicle.
They took it from us and sent it down to Georgia. :mad:
Yeah, I know. That was a pretty cool museum.
When did Johnny Cash go to Georgia? :hmm:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 28, 2014, 04:19:40 PM
When did Johnny Cash go to Georgia? :hmm:
When he was counting Pz IIIs
Charlie Daniels, Norg :)
Quote from: PDH on March 28, 2014, 04:26:16 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 28, 2014, 04:19:40 PM
When did Johnny Cash go to Georgia? :hmm:
When he was counting Pz IIIs
He shot a Pz III Ausf G in Tblisi, just to watch it burn.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on March 28, 2014, 01:24:48 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 28, 2014, 11:38:07 AM
That's impressive considering that that M3s only served front line duty for a short time.
The M3 was a key component of the British 14th Army's armored units in the CBI theater for virtually the entire war. It was also used heavily by the Soviets from the start of Lend-Lease through mid-43.
Mid 1943 was pretty much when the US phased it out as well. I suppose it shouldn't be surprising that that the British used them in Burma. That theater was equipped with hand-me-downs. Even a poor tank is better then nothing.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 28, 2014, 05:18:40 PM
Mid 1943 was pretty much when the US phased it out as well. I suppose it shouldn't be surprising that that the British used them in Burma. That theater was equipped with hand-me-downs. Even a poor tank is better then nothing.
December '41 through mid-43 is not what I would classify as "a short time".
Quote from: Razgovory on March 28, 2014, 05:18:40 PM
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on March 28, 2014, 01:24:48 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 28, 2014, 11:38:07 AM
That's impressive considering that that M3s only served front line duty for a short time.
The M3 was a key component of the British 14th Army's armored units in the CBI theater for virtually the entire war. It was also used heavily by the Soviets from the start of Lend-Lease through mid-43.
Mid 1943 was pretty much when the US phased it out as well. I suppose it shouldn't be surprising that that the British used them in Burma. That theater was equipped with hand-me-downs. Even a poor tank is better then nothing.
You didn't need anything fancy against the nips. Their tanks were made from sardine cans.
Order up a #46 with Ode Wingate and extra Chindit, and you'd have a nice Nip-stuffing combo.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on March 28, 2014, 05:40:03 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 28, 2014, 05:18:40 PM
Mid 1943 was pretty much when the US phased it out as well. I suppose it shouldn't be surprising that that the British used them in Burma. That theater was equipped with hand-me-downs. Even a poor tank is better then nothing.
December '41 through mid-43 is not what I would classify as "a short time".
I don't think they were being used in December of '41. Looking around they first saw action saw action in late spring of 1942. So they saw front line use for little over a year. Compare this to the Panzer III which was used from 1939-1943, being phased out for the most part at the same time as the M3s or the Sherman being used from fall of 1942 till the end of the war and saw a lot of use in Korea as well.