jhtrickey

Here we differ. I think that the Germans from a planning point were following their own doctrine. If the plans laid out for the operations in the Kursk area had been executed under the orginal guidelines and timetables instead of the long delays and compromises, it would have played out differently. However, the delays gave the Russians in the Front area, time to plan, and prepare and tie in a massive summer offensive into their counterattack plans. Clearly, knowning where and when your enemy is going to attack gives you the advantage of moving men, materials, and supply production to a given sector to exploit and advantage in intelligence gathering. Germans lost operational security and the delays sealed their fate.

Just so I follow you on this one point. The manufacturing complexity of making a T-34 was no greater than that of Panther? Given that they are equal in complexity of manufacter, than they could be turned out in roughly equal numbers? I do agree with many of the points you make and most are "givens" for those of us who follow and study the military histories. And yes, facts are facts and how one uses those does make their arguement and opinion. I think all of us can do that and come up with varying opinions that still get us to the same final result. Given the scope of the entire conflict (IMHO), there are hundreds, if not thousands of factors that led to German being beaten on the Russian front. Many interlinked, some independant. And like you said, one man's opinion. ------------------

I do agree with some of your points, but Germany was facing a two front war and the Russians were massing armor. The Germans on the eastern front were working with extended supply lines, a large front, and few and few of experienced tankers. From the war journels I have read from German units, most were facing incredible odds in tank to tank fighting. So of the production of tanks being manufactured in Germany, most were slated for the eastern front, but some units were being reformed and sent elsewhere. The Russians, only having to face the Germans, focused all their production at the Germans. The Russian tank design was based on ease of mass production. Their labor force could turn out more tanks than in a faster period of time and get those to the critical places on the battlefield faster than the Germans could. ------------------

I missed out on being part of the test team when they demo the AGS system. They already had enough lowly captains at the time and didn't need another one. Got to see some briefs on it. Also missed out on the IPAT ammo test.

I truly think some weight has to be given to the fact of overwhelming numbers. Just how many fast moving targets can one engage with a tank before lossing the numbers game. The mass production capability of both the US & Russia in fielding tanks and getting them to the front quickly led a long way to their victory in tank battles. When you have 5 or 6 tanks that you are willing to sacifice to take out just one panther or tiger, shows that the numbers are on your side.

I only was pointing out that the M60A1?A3 series used the 105 while the later M1A1 used the 120. I remember when the army was looking for a light gunplatform for the 105, that could be quickly transportable. I believe what I heard from the community at the time was that you had to use a different type of barrel and ammunition so that that the gun could fire in all aspects without disrupting the vehicle. So, they were considering the size/weight of the gun/gun tube/mechanism/turret. And using not a standard ammo type but a hyper-velocity type similar to some French efforts on light tank/armored car design. I am not sure that the LAV could support and effectly fire the current 105mm L48 gun tube. I will admit that I was Army and not Marines, so I am not 100% sure of the LAV capabilities. It does make sense to use those gun tubes that are in the inventory, but I think you will find that the army will use those to refurbish and sell those older tanks to our strategic allies, or simply scrap them. ------------------

M60A1/A3 had rifled 105's, while the M1A1 had the 120's. The original M1 had 105's, when it went to the A series, you moved to the upped gun. ------------------

The Panther design was in response for the German armies need to have a tank versus tank weapon system. In its design, the Pather was to have a 75mm long barreled gun. The armor was designed to that a similar 75mm gun could not defeat its frontal or side armor at a specific range (I'm at work, so I can not look these up but 800 or 500 meters come to mind). So it was designed to be fast, mount a tank defeating armament, and survive a like armament at a given range. At the time, the German army was still in an offensive minded trend, so I would not say that it was a "defensive" tank. ------------------

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ntg84: Now my question, why can't the superior American tank mechanics change out a gun barrel for a 75mm? How long does it take to swap them out? But I'm assuming just the barrel got mangled, but if its the breech how come they cant change a breech out? Maybe not the next battle, but the one after it?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It usually takes quite a long period of time to change out a gun tube from a tank. A team in the field would need a hoist to insert and remove the tube. You need to disassemble the breech, unbolt the tube from the mantle. Once that is done, you still have to align and resight the gunsights to the new gun tube. Not quite an overnight operation. I am sure that a tank maintainance unit at least at higher levels would carry some extra gun tubes in stock. ------------------

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Madmatt: One thing that always gets under my skin to some extent is the "Why can't I repeat what Wittman did, the Ai must be broke" style of argument. Okay, here are some thoughts on that case study. What Wittman did was bold, arrogant and STUPID AS HELL! He placed his Tiger tank, which is not in any way designed for close-in fighting and took it down a road choked with men and machines that could kill him at close range and went hog wild. Nobody, ever repeated his exploits and his tactics that day went against just about every tank use doctrine I can think of. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Being a tanker, I guess Wittman is one of the people I studied most and he had a strong following at the Armor Center when I went through. That said, I would argue that what he did was amazing, but that he did use some sound combat principles and used the his tank to the best advantage it had. If I recall correctly, Wittman engaged that column before he ever got on the road. Taking out the front and back of the column, on a road on which they could really not manuever. He used surprise, shock, and aggession to sow confusion among the enemy. The smoke from the burning vehicles blocked LOS and gave him some cover as he moved in to clean up. The first move on the town (I beleive there were two, but I could be wrong) was using his inititive and the disarray to break the back the the allied thrust. Also, this all occurred over several hours. Although Wittman was finally pushed out of the town, he held it long enough for stronger reinforcements to be brought up. When his commander asked Wittman what he wanted after the battle, he replied that he wanted his tank back! ------------------

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Urban Shocker: (1) Does anybody have data on crew hesitation or decisiveness? Has anbody ever talked to tankers to find out how much time it took them to select between two somewhat equal targets? Is there any data on the subject?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well from modern experience, I can say that multiple engagments are difficult and definitely require that the entire crew work together as a team. In tank combat, hesitation or indecisiveness can end your career in an instant. When I had multiply target engagements, I would have my gunner lay the gun on the targets closest to where the gun tube was. I would keep track of the other target, check his final lay and as soon as the gun went off, get him lined up on the next target. I am simplifing some things here like how each target is threatening me (i.e. facing/seeing me), but the idea is the same, shoot quick, move on, shoot again, check your work and be ready for any follow up shots. Another thing I might add, it is surprising how long it seems to take for the round to go down range to the target, but even through the sound, the smoke, the muzzle flash, you have a fairly good idea if your round it going to hit home or not. ------------------