Unstoppable Juggernauts (OT but Historical)

[JoePrivate]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The LAV-III has armor sufficient to protect the passengers and crew from 14.5mm cannon shells, fragments from 155mm artillery shells, and land mines.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How much armour does it have? I'm curious to get some sort of perspective to CM when the quote says the LAV-III can withstand fragments from 155mm artillery shells.

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hans:

Bad news for Jeff Heidman

in regards to your comments about present US designs to "fit on a ship"

US Army Selects New LAV

<snip>

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not really the same thing. This thing is NOT supposed to fill the role of a MBT, it is meant to provide a mid-ranged combat support vehicle. Sadly, the Sherman was often forced to fill that role, simply because there was nothing else. There is little doubt that the Sherman was an adequate (not great, it needed more frontal armor) design for the role of infantry support.

Whether or not the LAV is a good idea is a debate I am not qualified to involve myself in, even at the amateur level, since I do not follow (much) current military theory.

Jeff Heidman

[Marlow]

Should be interesting to see if the medium brigade concept and the LAV-III survive should Bush win the election. He has stated that his administration would place less emphasis on military operations other than war (i.e. the type of low intensity operations for which the LAV-III is best suited).

[Snake Eyes]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

They were not done because someone decided that it just wasn't important when the data made it abundantly clear that it was. That is the sad part of the story of the US Army Armored forces in WW2.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You'll get no argument from me concerning this fact. McNair was the big ego and the biggest obstacle. I guess it was poetic justice that he was taken out by 'friendly fire'. Unfortunately, by D-Day the damage was done and the US was stuck with the M4.

However, even Patton preferred quantity to quality. I think it depends on your viewpoint. If you're a TC you want one M26! If you're a theatre commander you want thousands of M4's.

------------------

It is easy to be brave from a safe distance. -Aesop

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snake Eyes:

You'll get no argument from me concerning this fact. McNair was the big ego and the biggest obstacle. I guess it was poetic justice that he was taken out by 'friendly fire'. Unfortunately, by D-Day the damage was done and the US was stuck with the M4.

However, even Patton preferred quantity to quality. I think it depends on your viewpoint. If you're a TC you want one M26! If you're a theatre commander you want thousands of M4's.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed. The way I see it, you need the follwing things to deliver a tank to the front (gross over-simplification to follow):

1. Raw materials to build it.

2. Production capacity to build it.

3. Logistical capacity to get it to the place where you are fighting.

4. Logistical capacity to support it once it gets to wear the fighting is, AND

5. A trained crew to man it.

The M26 weighed about 42 tons. A 75mm armed Sherman weighed about 32 tons, an M4A3E8(76) Sherman around 35 tons. I would contend that items 1-4 above would be roughly linearly dependent on the weight of the vehicle, i.e a M26 would be about 30% more expensive to produce, ship, and support than a vanilla M4 Sherman. Actually I would bet it's less, but lets assume 30%.

However, it has been seen that in many cases, #5 was the true limiting factor for the US when it came to the number of Shermans actually in the front lines. And a 42 ton Pershing takes the same crew as a 32 ton Sherman, and more importantly, that crew will live longer and become more experienced than the 1.2 Shermans it is replacing.

I doubt even Patton would trade his eight Pershings in for 10 Shermans, and the crew situation may have made it impossible anyway.

The thing it, it is even more than just replacing 10 Shermans with 7-8 Pershings. Those 7-8 Pershings are going to live MUCH longer than those Shermans, and hence need to be replaced less often (this includes the crew).

The canonical example is that in order to guarantee a victory, you need 5 Shermans to kill one Panther, and you will lose at least one or two, and maybe as many as three. How much better to be able to send 2 Pershings, and you *might* lose one of them, since the Pershing can go toe-to-toe with the Panther?

I understand the numbers argument, but when it comes down to actual numbers, the argument for Sherman quantity over Panther/Pershing quality just does not add up.

Jeff Heidman

[This message has been edited by Jeff Heidman (edited 12-12-2000).]

[Maj. Bosco]

It has always boggled my mind to know that we could've gone into Europe with Pershings and instead went with Shermans. I know that Patton said he prefered the Sherman but I suspect that had something to do with either loyalty to the tank or to bolster morale. Besides that, Patton had some funny ideas in general.

[Snake Eyes]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

I understand the numbers argument, but when it comes down to actual numbers, the argument for Sherman quantity over Panther/Pershing quality just does not add up.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think the real hang-up was in retooling production. As D-Day approached and thereafter, no one wanted to slow down production in order to start producing Pershings. Also, the need for the more powerful tank wasn't as clear before D-Day as it became after the invasion, when the Allies were engaged more often by the heavy German tanks.

When it became clear that the M4 was completely overmatched, the cry went out loud and clear for relief.

------------------

It is easy to be brave from a safe distance. -Aesop

[CATguy]

My estimation of American armor is that it is good and reliable as any german tank there is. I think it realy boils down to crew quality. When I am playing the germans and I see veteran shermans out there, I shudder at the thought of taking them on since they almost always have an advantage in speed, numbers, and accuracy. Also as a side note the tiger was a failure of a tank along with its cousin the king tiger. It used too much fuel. Could not travel long distances on its tracks, i.e. transports. and mechanical issues such as powertrain failures and mechanical maintenance issues.

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CATguy:

Also as a side note the tiger was a failure of a tank along with its cousin the king tiger.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is easy to say now - try saying that in the face of one of the tankers who had to face them.

------------------

Andreas

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a >

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 12-12-2000).]

[Chupacabra]

CATGuy -

I kinda doubt that Sherman crews would be as cavalier in dismissing Tigers and Kingtigers as "failures."

As Jeff pointed out, the oft-quoted "5 Shermans to 1 Panther" rule isn't always the gospel truth, but as a rule of thumb, it does show what odds Allied tankers gave themselves when facing the more advanced German tanks.

Allied tanks did have their good points, but generally speaking, until the introduction of the Pershing, Allied tanks were overmatched by their German counterparts.

------------------

Grand Poobah of the fresh fire of Heh.

[CATguy]

In reply the sherman crews of the era surely would have not have thought of the Tiger as a failure while encountering it, but historians in general would agree it was a failure as a tank.

[Tiger]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Also as a side note the tiger was a failure of a tank <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>....

I disagree with this statement. The Tiger I was built in response to the German's encounter with the Soviet T-34 in 1941:

"The thousand-odd Tigers used on the Eastern front destroyed more than 8,000 enemy armour. These figures are sufficient proof of the tank's worth and no other tank can be compared to it. And even if the construction design was already out of date from 1944 onwards, the results obtained proved that theories were wrong."

From Jean Restayn's "Tiger I On the Eastern front"

-john

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CATguy:

In reply the sherman crews of the era surely would have not have thought of the Tiger as a failure while encountering it, but historians in general would agree it was a failure as a tank. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really? I do not think that is the case at all.

It had its shortcomings, which you mentioned, but it was hardly a "failure". The King Tiger, maybe. It was just to damn slow and too big, but the Tiger served throughout the bulk of the war and accomplished the mission it was tasked to.

The opinions vary. but there is definitely not a historical consensus that the Tiger was a failure.

Jeff Heidman

[Bastables]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CATguy:

In reply the sherman crews of the era surely would have not have thought of the Tiger as a failure while encountering it, but historians in general would agree it was a failure as a tank. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Failure as a tank? The mere existence of the ‘Tiger Terror’ which made it self felt even at the divisional level tends to point otherwise, a inverted replay of the KV and Matilda terrors which so paralysed German armoured Divisions in specific instances during 1941. And one seem to be in danger of judging tanks by another’s design criterion; a Sherman (Jumbo exempted) is a pretty piss poor breakthrough tank and a Churchill/Tiger/Jumbo is a very poor exploitation veh. Perhaps you should qualify your statement to read the Tiger series made for very poor Sherman’s.

[This message has been edited by Bastables (edited 12-12-2000).]

[Smeltz]

I understand the concerns and fight over tank superiority but I found that the Shermans did suck. I thought myself when I first started playing that the Sherman was way under simulated or that the Panthers and Tigers were overly tough (a bit gamey?) However after looking into it I found that we as the American force were quite lucky that the Germans ran out of gas. Thats right if they could have kept the petrol flowing they would have rolled over us. Thank God for the men who flew the B-17.

------------------

"Free your mind!"

[CATguy]

Ok for quantifying my argument the tiger series was a strategic failure and at the least a minor tactical gain. The tigers first appearance in Russia gave the Soviets several free early versions up near Leningrad to point out its introduction. Pity the poor tanker who faced a tiger but only several miles on down the front lines the other tanker could enjoy relative equality on the battlefield, there numbers were far too few and claims of tanks killed may be high but look at how many tanks were killed by shermans, stuarts, Lee/grants, and T-34's....Being in the Gulf War we were concerned with the Republican Guard and their use of T-72's. This tank on a duel for duel basis was a great tank but in a combined arms effort it failed same as the Tiger did in WWII... just my two cents worth and we can all agree to disagree and I do enjoy the diverse comments... ( enough said from my viewpoint)

[CRSutton]

Don't start singing the praise of Geman tanks over American tanks so fast. German tank production was bogged down in a mess of production problems. There were too many design and development teams vying for the attention of the govement and many over complicated tanks were produced as a result. On the whole German armor was well armed and had good armor protection. This combined with an excellent gun sight and good armor tactics gave them some advantages, However, German designs tended to be overly complex and prone to breakdowns. All of the heavy tanks were slow and proned to bogging on any thing but paved roads. The vaunted king tiger was a failure as an offensive weapon and just got in the way during the battle of the bulge.

American tanks on the other hand were underarmed and tank doctrine was not up to par with the Germans. Shermans, however had many design pluses that do not show themselves in a game like CM. Sherman engines has the longest field life of any contemporary engine. The partial rubber tracks would last for 4-500 miles compared to the all steel tracks on German tanks which might be good for 100 miles. Shermans had faster turrets, quicker rate of fire and some had gyros, which when finally understood by their crews, gave American tanks mobile superiortiy.

American tank losses were high but that is the sort of territority that goes with the burden of attack. American fighter and bombers losses over the Reich were terribly high too. That does not mean the Germans had better airplanes.

[CATguy]

CR, yes it was purely a defensive weapon and thus a failure...

[Guest machineman]

As far as Desert Storm goes I think it would be fair to say the US was driving the Kingtiger (Abrams) this time, with the Iraqis trying to make do with the Sherman (T-72).

If the US had tried to go head to head with the Germans under similar conditions (open desert, complete air superiority for the opposition (imagine if Rudel had been able to bag 500+ Shermans instead of T-34's), the Sherman would have been as big as success as the Iraqui T-72 was.

Complete air superiority and the short engagement distances in northern Europe saved the Shermans ass.

[Guest grunto]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maj. Bosco:

Incidentally, the Christie suspension that helped to make the T-34 such a deadly tank was actually of American design! The army rejected it for some idiotic reason. I saw some footage of the original Christie tank on the History Channel the other day. The armor on that thing was sloped like 70+ degrees! No turret, actually kinda looked like an open topped hetzer. The real kicker was the speed. Christie said his tank could go up to 100 mph. The army only tested it up to 70 mph but apparently it could go faster.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Weren't the BT series based upon the Christie suspension as well? Those were fast tanks. If memory serves there was a BT-5 (45mm AT gun) and a BT-7 (76mm infantry gun). Those are both good guns for the summer of 1941.

The problem is, that even with their speed and firepower relative to their time (1941), the BT tanks were very thinly armored. I'll bet they had 10-15mm of frontal armor.

Those are still my favorite tanks in 1941.

Battling BTs against 35t and 38t will be a blast.

Andy

[Snake Eyes]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by machineman:

As far as Desert Storm goes I think it would be fair to say the US was driving the Kingtiger (Abrams) this time, with the Iraqis trying to make do with the Sherman (T-72).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Had the US been using King Tigers in Desert Storm the 'Hail Mary' play would have turned into a broken play as they ran out of fuel and broke down after 100 miles of use.

------------------

It is easy to be brave from a safe distance. -Aesop

[Vergeltungswaffe]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by machineman:

As far as Desert Storm goes I think it would be fair to say the US was driving the Kingtiger (Abrams) this time, with the Iraqis trying to make do with the Sherman (T-72).

If the US had tried to go head to head with the Germans under similar conditions (open desert, complete air superiority for the opposition (imagine if Rudel had been able to bag 500+ Shermans instead of T-34's), the Sherman would have been as big as success as the Iraqui T-72 was.

Complete air superiority and the short engagement distances in northern Europe saved the Shermans ass. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It happened, without airpower playing a role. At the battle of Kasserine Pass, US tankers in Shermans got their asses handed to them by Germans in Mk III's and IV's.

The Sherman had truly wonderful tread life, its greatest advantage.

And to Snake Eyes, how far do you think an Abrams goes on a tank of gas. When your gasoline plants and supply vehicles aren't being bombed and interdicted back to the stone age, mileage isn't a huge concern. And when your advancing, vehicles that break down get repaired instead of abandoned.

Smeltz hit the nail on the head. It took them way too long to figure it out, but the USAAF finally realized that petrol was the highest priority target. I won't make the argument that airpower can win the war by itself, but airpower made the western front in WWII a cakewalk compared to what it could have been.

And finally, the T-72 is a piece of crap, built to use the smallest amount of resources and unable to be crewed by people of even average height.

Ok, through ranting now.

[CATguy]

The BT series of Tanks were great the only problem was the crews lack of training and understanding of modern mechanized warfare. If you read accounts of early soviet tank battles there were some exceptions were a handfull of crews would roast pzII's and III's with these BT's

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snake Eyes:

Had the US been using King Tigers in Desert Storm the 'Hail Mary' play would have turned into a broken play as they ran out of fuel and broke down after 100 miles of use.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, the M1 is certainly not a KingTiger in the area of mobility, it si actually extremely fast, but when it comes to fuel, it makes the KT seem down right lady like in her appetite.

The M1 uses vast quantities of fuel. That's what happens when you have a tank of that weight tooling long at 50 MPH.

Jeff Heidman

[Bastables]

The Germans carried out lightning and deep penetrations during the early war year with tanks that were equally ‘unreliable’ as the Post overlord Panthers and PIV’s. The T34/PIV and StuG posses the same weakness in the final drive, which unless handled by veteran crews tended to breakdown at around 200-150km unless a light touch was at the steering levers (Gear shifts). The track and running gear had an average life of 2000 to 3000 km out of the designed 5000 km, this is considerably more than the earlier stated 100miles. Faster turrets? The Panther could manage full 360 deg transverse at full revs (2500) in 18 sec whereas the Sherman managed 15 sec (the much lambasted King Tiger managed 19 sec at 2500). In CM the Panther and the KT is regulated to the same turret speed as the hand cranked PIVJ.

Tiger a defensive weapon and therefore a failure? The Allies had the same advantages that the German’s had during the early war and still took twice as long in liberating the same ground. That’s a bit like saying the T34 and the KV were failures because they were unable to halt the catastrophic losses to Germany in the opening phases of Babarossa, it’s pure specious reasoning.

[This message has been edited by Bastables (edited 12-12-2000).]