Unstoppable Juggernauts (OT but Historical)

[Croda]

Hiram, Jeff's argument is that you wouldn't be trading 5 Shermans for 1 Pershing, it would be more like a 5 for 4 swap. Assuming that's true, the U.S. would still have had a sweeping numerical advantage, yet each tank could stand on it's own if needed.

Imagine a Panther having to actually worry about the tank (or two) in front of it, and then having 1 or two more flanking it. Scary.

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

WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! -

THIS SIG FILE BELONGS TO A COMPLETE FOO.

MR T WOULDN'T BE SO KIND AS TO WRINKLE AN EYEBROW AT THIS UNFORTUNATE BEING. PLEASE OFFER HIS PARENTS AND COHABITANTS ALL SYMPATHY POSSIBLE. MAY BE CONTAGIOUS. CONTAINS ARTIFICIAL SWEETNER, INTELLIGENCE AND WIT. STAND WELL CLEAR AND LIGHT WICK. BY ORDER PETERNZ

Damn Croda. That is one funny sig!!!

must suck to be you - Hiram Sedai

[Hiram Sedai]

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

M26 developed into M46, M47, M48, and ultimatly the M60. Consider yourself beaten.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, the M26 wasn't in the Korean war? I don't know what the other designations stand for.

Do you mean like the Matilda developed into the Cromwell? Let's pretend for a moment that I'm dense.

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

Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. - Blaise Pascal

[Chupacabra]

Ah well, guess I was wrong about the Abrams (worst thing about this board, it's relentless in pointing out the gaps in your knowledge ). But in any case, another question for those in the know - how well would the Abrams stand up to the logistical nightmare in which German tankers were laboring in 1944-45?

I'm basically taking issue with the idea that German tanks were failures because of their design, regardless of those logistical concerns.

Considering that, by June '44, the 8th Air Force was busily turning the German fuel industry into the German smoking hole industry and making mush out of the rail and road networks, and that there were very few people left who could maintain the tanks even if you could get parts to do so, I'd say it's quite amazing that the damn things fought at all.

Pound for pound, Tigers and Panthers were more than a match for anything the Allies could field until quite near the end of the war. But no matter how good a design is, if you can't fuel it or maintain it, it's not going to hold up too well under strain.

And like Jeff, I'm a bit skeptical of the idea that it was in the Allies best interest to crank out tons of mediocre tanks when a superior option was available.

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

Grand Poobah of the fresh fire of Heh.

[Marlow]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hiram Sedai:

So, the M26 wasn't in the Korean war? I don't know what the other designations stand for.

Do you mean like the Matilda developed into the Cromwell? Let's pretend for a moment that I'm dense.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sort of. What follows is an oversimplification, but you get the idea.

M46 = M26 with a better engine.

M47 = M46 with a bigger/improved turret.

M48 = M47 with improved armor and modified chassis. Later up-gunned to 105mm.

M60 is a further evolution of the M48.

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

We are fierce historical inaccuracers

- PawBroon

[Guest Germanboy]

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

Sure, I can see that as being very demoralizing. You lost most of your tanks wiping out twice as many enemy tanks, but in two weeks you see all those brand new replacements for the "bad" guys, and all you get is an old French Char-1bis with a German gun mounted on it.

Even more demoralizing would be to lose all of your tanks, but your enemy lost less than you did! Not only is that more demoralizing, you get to be depressed about it in a POW camp because your forward CP got overrun because the "bad" guys didn't have to wait for replacement tanks and crews to continue their offensive!

Jeff Heidman

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jeff - I totally agree. I just wanted to comment that there was in fact a demoralising effect on the Germans simply because the Allies had seemingly endless supplies to throw at 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 12-13-2000).]

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hiram Sedai:

...I would gladly have 5 Shermans following me than 1 American Ubertank (if you will) simply because you have more stuff. The having more stuff increases morale greatly when you are out there.

I'm a simple man but I know this: You can't effectively flank with just one tank.

You may verbally castigate me now. hehe

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sigh. Sometimes I think I am speaking in a vacuum.

Yes, if the choice was 1 M26 or 5 M4s, take the M4s.

That was not the choice. The choice is 3-4 M26s or 5 M4s. That is a no-brainer.

Jeff Heidman

[This message has been edited by Jeff Heidman (edited 12-13-2000).]

[Hiram Sedai]

I won't presume to understand what effect this had on the Germans back then. Playing CM does not give me an inkling of the emotions they went through when surrounded by Americans. My view is skewed because I live in the U.S. in this time period.

My personal choice would still be the Stuart. Instead of 5 Shermans or 3 Pershings, give me 20 Stuarts. So there.

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

Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. - Blaise Pascal

[Croda]

Here's a question on the M26s. How do they size up dimensionally compared to the M4? What I'm wondering is, say you have a boat that holds 20 M4s (I am making this up so no need to flame my knowledge of transport ships). Can that boat hold 20 M26s, 15? 10?

The point here being that maybe the U.S. could produce the M26 at a 5:3 or 4 ratio compared to the M4, but could transport them at the same ratio? The obvious hole being that if you can only transport 2 M26 to 5 M4 (for some reason) then perhaps the M4 is a better tank to field at that point.

Like I said, I don't know the answer to this, just curious if there was a logistical issue with getting the M26 across the Ocean that would have lead to the delay.

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

WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! -

THIS SIG FILE BELONGS TO A COMPLETE FOO.

MR T WOULDN'T BE SO KIND AS TO WRINKLE AN EYEBROW AT THIS UNFORTUNATE BEING. PLEASE OFFER HIS PARENTS AND COHABITANTS ALL SYMPATHY POSSIBLE. MAY BE CONTAGIOUS. CONTAINS ARTIFICIAL SWEETNER, INTELLIGENCE AND WIT. STAND WELL CLEAR AND LIGHT WICK. BY ORDER PETERNZ

Damn Croda. That is one funny sig!!!

must suck to be you - Hiram Sedai

[Jeff Heidman]

When it comes to an object as dense as a big giant metal thingy, volume is not the issue, mass.

The "vanilla" Sherman weighed in at ~31 tons. The later models with more armor and the 76mm gun came in at about 35 tons.

The Pershing weighed in at 42 tons. So, ten Shermans (~320-350 tons) would take up the space of 8 Pershings (~335 tons).

Jeff

[Croda]

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

When it comes to an object as dense as a big giant metal thingy, volume is not the issue, mass.

The "vanilla" Sherman weighed in at ~31 tons. The later models with more armor and the 76mm gun came in at about 35 tons.

The Pershing weighed in at 42 tons. So, ten Shermans (~320-350 tons) would take up the space of 8 Pershings (~335 tons).

Jeff<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And if said Pershing (hypothetically of course) was as high, but twice as wide as the M4, wouldn't voume matter then? It seems to me that you'd only be able to fit half as many in my hypothetical boat.

Mass does matter, in that there would be a maximum the boat can handle, but considering that the masses were not that far off, volume is the next limiting factor.

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

WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! -

THIS SIG FILE BELONGS TO A COMPLETE FOO.

MR T WOULDN'T BE SO KIND AS TO WRINKLE AN EYEBROW AT THIS UNFORTUNATE BEING. PLEASE OFFER HIS PARENTS AND COHABITANTS ALL SYMPATHY POSSIBLE. MAY BE CONTAGIOUS. CONTAINS ARTIFICIAL SWEETNER, INTELLIGENCE AND WIT. STAND WELL CLEAR AND LIGHT WICK. BY ORDER PETERNZ

Damn Croda. That is one funny sig!!!

must suck to be you - Hiram Sedai

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hiram Sedai:

What I'm understanding thus far with this thread seems to be this: We had more when we should have had better. Shermans and Pershings are the keywords. Somebody beat me down if I'm wrong but...didn't the Pershing mostly see service in the Korean War and then it was a disapointment after all the long waiting? Wasn't the Sherman constantly upgunned and modified for whatever theater it was currently in? It seems that as a serviceman, I would gladly have 5 Shermans following me than 1 American Ubertank (if you will) simply because you have more stuff. The having more stuff increases morale greatly when you are out there.

I'm a simple man but I know this: You can't effectively flank with just one tank.

You may verbally castigate me now. hehe

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Pershing and it descendents were great tanks. Their is always a US inferiority complex about our tanks. The M26 and its follow ons did very well in Korea. For that matter the M4A3E8 did a great job -- in 1950 it went toe to toe against the T34/85 driven by experienced Korean troops (who had gotten that experience fighting Chiang Kai Cek) and ended the Korean's desire to field tanks any time soon again. The M26 was that much better -- and US tanks have always been the most reliable and the cheapest to run in the world.

The M26 in 1943 argument is specious because that would assume that:

1) You could throw men at the M26 program to hurry it up. Anyone who followed the T-6 - M6 - TOGII - follow on heavy - T26 development phase knows that US heavy tank development had lost of problems to overcome, and in the long run the heavy tank was dropped for the M26 in the form of a medium. The US produced production prototypes of a 90mm armed heavy, a 105mm armed heavy, and a 105mm armed superheavy and declined to produce them because they were not reliable, were hard to cast (only two plants could have been set up to make them) and quantities of them would have only reached the front by middle 1944 possibly setting back D-Day. So -- it was go with the medium we had (M4) and invade in 1944 or wait for the super heavies and invade in 1945 (when the crews were trained and when we had 1500 of them.)

2. The heavies had another problem - would not fit on the current transports. Part of the T26 development was to reduce weight, width, and length until it fit on a rail car, on a standard ship, was able to be handled by a regular winch, and until most LCTs could handle them. The other super heavies never were close.

3. The 76mm problem was a fiasco. The TD command was part of the problem. It did not want 76mm armed tanks competing with their glory. That is, until they landed and were handed their ass.

4. Sherman development continued during the war, and the last Shermans (Firefly and E8) kept the good points of the original M4 but had a good gun (great with tungsten ammo), and armor that made it a good shooting partner against the 88L or 76LL (to borrow ASL terms) while being more reliable to boot.

[Hiram Sedai]

Thank you, Slapdragon. That was very informative.

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

Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. - Blaise Pascal

[Guest wwb_99]

One word of advice: Try playing the Germans in an operational wargame in a late war scenario. Then their problems are redily apparent. Most of the time a company or so of poorly supplied, green infantry attempts to face off against a battalion or more of Allied well supplied combined arms and gets slaughtered.

Most CM battles cover the very sharp end of the stick, the rare situations when the Germans could field equal forces. There are very few 'average' scenarios showing what happened when a full strength US armored task force annihilated a couple hundred old men and pre-teens fighting for a lost cause. It would not be pretty (well, maybe in CM) nor fun (at least for two players).

And you should not forget that the Sherman is an excellent anti-infantry tank, thanks to its plethora of HMGs. And it spent most of the war shooting at unsupported infantry, and did do quite well in this role.

Note also that allied tank designers did take some hints from their German counterparts. The best thing about the Mark IV series was its upgradeability. It was a great tank in 1940, and was still effective in 1945. Likewise, the end of the war MBTs (T26, Centurion) were vastly upgradeable. M-60 ATTS ERAs (M-60s upgraded with modern fire control & Explosive Reactive Armor) did quite well in the Gulf. Imporved Centurions formed the backbone of the Isreali armored force until recently, and are still in use to this day.

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

Before battle, my digital soldiers turn to me and say,

Ave, Caesar! Morituri te salutamus.

[tss]

Snake Eyes wrote:

Thanks for the info, I stand corrected. Do you have a reference? I would like to look into this more.

The problem is that I can't remember what the references were in particular since it has been some time since I read the details. The just about only reference about air war in my bookshelf is Mike Spick's "Luftwaffe Fighter Aces", and it has only two sentences about the matter (re-translated from Finnish translation):

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

One of the legends that have grown on Me 262 is that unless Hitler had decided to use it as a bomber, it would have seen use as a fighter much earlier. In fact, Führer's interference costed only three weeks.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

- Tommi

[Polar]

I would assert that the Tigers (and King Tiger even more so) were failures due to failed logistics. Actually, failed logistics are a huge reason the German war effort was a failure. But I'll handle the Tiger first, and German doctrine second.

First, as has been said add nausium, the design of the Tiger made it a hugely inpractical MBT. It simply could not be fielded (see second point) in great enough numbers to turn the tide of the war in general, or maintain an advantage in any particular campaign. It is all fine and good when you say that a US Tank Commander would tell you otherwise when faced with a Tiger... but you can ask the Germans as well. A German Tiger commander was once asked whether the Sherman or the Tiger was a better design... and he said quite quickly that the Sherman was superior. His reason? He said "Well, we could knock out 5 Shermans to every Tiger we lost... but the Shermans outnumbered us 20 to 1"

Given the failed post WW I doctrine of isolation and disarmament, the US came into the fight war rather late. But you'd have to blame the doctrine that dated back to 1920 and not the 1941 choice of Shermans over Pershings or anything else. You can apply hindsight to almost any descision made concerning the early MBTs, but they WERE effective... if not exactly a dream for the opperators.

You'd could take a choice essentially... you could be the Sherman with a 5% chance that the Tiger will pick you out, or you could be the Tiger with 20 Sherman taking a bead on you.

It really hasn't been proven to my satisfaction that the Pershing could have been produced in numbers coming anywhere close to the Sherman before D-Day.

Now, point 2... German war doctrine. As everyone know, Germany predicated every victory on speed... any time they had to fight a war of attrition they lost horribly. This is because Germany always relied on clockwork prescision in it's transport of troops, armor, and supplies as well and timing of offenses between Air and Land forces. The problem with this Doctrine is that it requires near perfection to execute... and nothing short of a supprise offense allows for perfect execution of a pre-concieved plan... grab what you can before the enemy can disrupt supply routes etc. and hit them hard enough that they sue for peace.

And indeed anything short of that scenario found the Germans failing miserably.

Add to this the Germans other downfall of trying to write some sort of Guiness Book of War Records... biggest, fastest, most fire power... and it spells doom for them.

A good example of the Guiness principle was the Gustav Gun. For those few who don't know what the Gustav Gun was, it was the single largest artillery piece ever built. It fired shells 16 feet in length and weighing over seven tons a distance of almost 30 miles. The Gun weighed a massive 400 tons! The shell was capable of leveling a city block or penetrating 80 feet of earth... but why? The materials and men needed for just one Gustav would have produced several hundred 88s. Add to that the need to lay two paralell sets of train tracks just to transport it, and it was a huge drain on the wartime resources.

The Tiger was a smaller demonstration of the same principle as it had a larger negative effect on German war production than it had benefit of the field. Again, it needed Railway transport because it didn't have cross country endurance... railways need to be guarded MUCH more closely than say.. an country road... and trains need to have heavy air protection as there is no hiding a trains movements... it can only go two directions! :^)

When it was deployed it was a monster. But it couldn't possibly be deployed in enough number where it made a differance. You can't look at the Tiger on a one to one basis with the Sherman and really do the comparison justice, as one is a servicable workhorse while the other was a ill advised drain on resources.

Russia, on the other hand, had US level resources, US production capacity, and the "benefit" of a backyard battlefield... but I've gone on too long to really have the energy to discuss Russia -vs- Germany -vs- United States. :^)

Joe

[This message has been edited by Polar (edited 12-13-2000).]

[Guest wwb_99]

One point: For strategic movement all armor requires some form of transport. The majority of US tanks damaged in Iraq were due to mishandling by undertrained transport personell, who literally dropped them off the trucks. One great risk the Israelis took in 1973 was to move Ugdah Sharon all the way across the Sinai on treads (with a fair number of breakdowns) on the second night of the War.

Also, in Russia during the 1940s, very few paved highways existed. IIRC there were fewer only three east-west (Warsaw->Leningrad; Warsaw-> Moscow; Lvov-Kiev). Add to this the shortage of fuel and trucks and Rail transport is the only option in Russia. Nevermind Tigers, you needed it for basic stuff like food and clothing.

The above points are correct in their direction, if missing in specifics.

WWB

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

Before battle, my digital soldiers turn to me and say,

Ave, Caesar! Morituri te salutamus.

[RMC]

Hmm. Nice thread. Shoulda looked at it earlier. Didn't have time to read the whole thing, but I wanted to chime in with my two turkish Lire real quick....

M1 Abrams series tanks cost about 20 times as much to maintain as M60 series tanks. This data comes from OSMIS (Operating and Support Management Information System) which tracks the fuel and parts costs for these vehicles by mile. The last data i saw was from 94, though it wouldn't seem to change much. That turbine engine has some great advantages but cheap it ain't.

Re: reliability of the panzers. Here's a little table from Jentz' book on the Tiger in combat:

Caveat: I have no idea how the Germans measured readiness. These figures could represent daily figures or monthly rates. If they are daily figures then they don't show much since it can fluctuate widely from day to day. And it looks like I goofed on the last row. Should be Mar 45.

[This message has been edited by RMC (edited 12-13-2000).]

[Iron Duke]

Chupacabra wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But in any case, another question for those in the know - how well would the Abrams stand up to the logistical nightmare in which German tankers were laboring in 1944-45?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To begin with let me be the first to admit that tanks need fuel. (Period) Furthermore, if your support elements are being destroyed before they can reach you, you are in a world of hurt. OTOH, I do not know the fuel consumption rate of a Tiger or King Tiger but, I can almost guarantee that given the same terrain, fighting style (offence or defense), the M1A1 will run longer and use less overall fuel than the King Tiger, and maybe even the Tiger. How you ask? Even though the M1 uses a turbine, which typically consumes fuel at a high rate, the metering system is completely computer controlled. As you know, a mechanical carburetor cannot hope to compete with a computer controlled electronic fuel delivery system. Since the Germans, at this time in the war, where mostly on the defensive, their tanks did not have to travel near as much as Allied tanks did. So neither would our hypothetical M1. Also, the M1's turbine will burn any type of fuel you care to feed it, whether it be gas, diesel, kerosine, aviation fuel, methane, human piss...well maybe not human piss, but you get the drift. So overall, with the resourcefulness that units show when put in such situations, I think our M1 would have done quite well.

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

One shot...One Kill

[Marlow]

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

M1 Abrams series tanks cost about 20 times as much to maintain as M60 series tanks. This data comes from OSMIS (Operating and Support Management Information System) which tracks the fuel and parts costs for these vehicles by mile. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This seems a little out of line. What is the basis for this? Does it compare the cost of new parts for the M1 with depot refurbished parts for the M60? Are there other variables that show an artificially high cost for a more recently fielded system?

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

We are fierce historical inaccuracers

- PawBroon

[Iron Duke]

RMC wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>M1 Abrams series tanks cost about 20 times as much to maintain as M60 series tanks. This data comes from OSMIS (Operating and Support Management Information System) which tracks the fuel and parts costs for these vehicles by mile. The last data i saw was from 94, though it wouldn't seem to change much. That turbine engine has some great advantages but cheap it ain't.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

...and this proves what?

If you are trying to compare a 60's/70's era tank with the M1, ok.

OTOH, a 30's/40's era tank is a whole different animal. The diesel engine out of an M60 was literally light years ahead of ANY 40's engine in terms of power/cubic inch, fuel consumption, and reliability. So I am not sure what your comparison has to do with what Chupacabra is saying? Could you please explain further?

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

One shot...One Kill

[This message has been edited by Iron Duke (edited 12-13-2000).]

[russellmz]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Iron Duke:

Also, the M1's turbine will burn any type of fuel you care to feed it, whether it be gas, diesel, kerosine, aviation fuel, methane, human piss...well maybe not human piss, but you get the drift. So overall, with the resourcefulness that units show when put in such situations, I think our M1 would have done quite well.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

really!? that's freaking awesome! everything about the m1 makes me more and more ompressed with it. the abrahms is by far the coolest tank...ever

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

russellmz,

Self-Proclaimed Keeper for Life of the Sacred Unofficial FAQ.

"They had their chance- they have not lead!" - GW Bush

"They had mechanical pencils- they have not...lead?" - Jon Stewart on The Daily Show

[RMC]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This seems a little out of line. What is the basis for this? Does it compare the cost of new parts for the M1 with depot refurbished parts for the M60? Are there other variables that show an artificially high cost for a more recently fielded system?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The basis is the cost tracking for parts purchased to maintain the vehicles. As I said the data was from Fiscal Year 94. I will post the exact figures later. I was suprised to see this as well when I first saw it. The M1's don't get new parts anymore (except maybe the new M1A2s for some of the electronics like the CITV) everything is rebuilt. The biggest cost factor is the power pack (FUPP cost $800,000). We've been recycling the same AGT1500 turbine engines forever. They constantly burn themselves up or are succumbing to Foreign Object Damage. Other high cost items are the Gunner's Primary Sight and the Thermal Receiver Unit. Both of these get rebuilt by DS maintenance units in the field. Tankers tell me that the TRU is both less reliable and has poorer image quality than the TTS system in the M60 and the system that the LEO 2 has.

OSMIS link: http://www.asafm.army.mil/pubs/cdfs/overview.htm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>and this proves what?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not a lot really. I just posted it because of some speculation about the reliability of the M1 vis a vis the M60. I did not intend for it to have any bearing on the M4/M26 debate.

But it does offer an interesting point of discussion. If there were no other limitations would you prefer to field 20 M60s or one M1?

[Iron Duke]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If there were no other limitations would you prefer to field 20 M60s or one M1?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

1 M1

I seriously doubt that 1 M1 costs the same to maintain as 20 M60's. The thing that jumps right out is: 20 Crews vs 1 Crew, Pay, training, housing, feeding, equipment, etc...the list goes on and on. The next thing, are the same number of mechanics to work on 20 M60's opposed to 1 M1? LoL, listen, your "20 times" analogy is way out of context. Really, you can pull figures and make anything you want out of them. For instance I could say, "Well, 20 M60's need to change track...it costs 20 times as much to change track on these M60's as it does 1 M1! LoL. It just doesn't hold water.

Anyway,

I am not arguing the fact that M1's cost more to maintain than M60's, I just find it funny how one can pull figures out of God knows where, and attempt to prove that we should be building "cheap" M60's over M1's based soley on skewed data.

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

One shot...One Kill

[Triumvir]

You're not answering his question, you know.

Let's make it a bit more realistic. 1 M-1 vs 5 M-60s.

Which would you pick?

[Iron Duke]

Triumvir,

if you are talking to me, I would take 1 M1 over 5 M60's any day of the week.

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

One shot...One Kill