Questions about Russian MGs.

[PJungnitsch]

Interesting post Jason, as always. The one thing that comes to my mind though is that drops in operational readiness do not necessarily translate into poorer automotive characteristics, or more time required for maintenance. It may, of course, but the Tigers were also put into the heaviest fighting normally. For example the amount of Soviet tanks knocked out per Tiger at Kursk was something phenomenal, but in return they all took terrific non-fatal poundings, all of which take time to repair.

This famous quote from Guderian illustrates the point:

a Tiger was hit 227 times by anti-tank rifle shots, besides receiving 14 hits by 52mm shells and 11 by 76.2mm shells, none of which penetrated the armour. The roadwheels were shot to pieces, two torsion bars were knocked out, several anti tank missles were jammed in the transmission and the tank had driven over three mines. Yet it managed to run another 60km across country...

This tank would take a long time to repair, certainly, but it would have nothing to do with unreliable components.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai:

You completly left out the T-34's superior suspension and wide tracks (...)

another thing to keep in mind is OPTICS... Ok, so this plays no role in CM , but in reality, what good is a 76mm gun when you can't hit anything with it?

I was under the impression that the russian optics were not the best in WW2?</font>

[Marlow]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Marlow will be surprised, then. The maximum thickness of armor on the Brad is 40mm, front only. The sides are only about 20mm thick, that is less than 1" rather than 2". The rear is still thinner.

Interesting. For weight and armor composition I was using published data, but I couldn’t find anything on armor thickness, so I went by memory from an Army equipment demonstration from years ago. I remember the presenter discussing the armor and saying it was a spaced armor with two quarter-inch steel plates around a two-inch aluminum core. He could have very easily been wrong.

BTW, what is your source, and what is the composition of the armor (how many plates, what thickness, what material and what type of spacing)?

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by dalem:

I wouldn't have brought up BTRs and BMPs without knowing that they fill much the same niche as a Puma would.

-dale

nitpick: The BTR and BMP are IFVs (though the BTR is probably more the classical APC (armored transport) than the ideal IFV (substantially supporting the infantry during active combat)), while the Puma was an armored recon car. Russian equivalent would be the BRDM series, an even closer modern day equivalent would be the german Luchs.

JasonC,

interesting info on the Bradley. Are you sure you are referring to the current Bradley versions, and not the original ones? I remember the Bradley when the first vehicles were fielded in Schweinfurt in the eighties (still with amphibious capability even), and the later versions they are using today look a lot different, a lot bulkier and more substantial.

It's just that I am wondering why a vehicle in the size of the Bradley, armored only between 40 and 20mm, would weigh in at 30 tons ?

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai:

I think we need a crow bar to pry this guys head out of Dalem's butt.

wow. I remember a time when even posters who actually contributed to the board or to the game in no small way would be reprimanded and banned for such insults.

[Slapdragon]

Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai:

The only thing i've learned so far on here is that most of the big bad war buffs on here behave worse then your steryotypical annoying spoiled brat.

And that is the latest from the planet porno. Stay tuned next week while Emperor Wang in the form of Iron Sackhead spread another 27 posts of drivel on how the Japanese lost WW1 at the battle of Kursk.

Originally posted by Bastables:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai:

Ya the Germans would say....."the T-34 does not have the best optics in the world, this piece of junk tank is no match for us, if only we had some Shermans to fight them with." Pick any book you want, whether you realy like the Sherman or not, it is FACT that in World War 2 the T-34 was better then the Sherman.

You should look to Korea where HVSS Shermans tangled with T34-85 and won. You should talk to slapdragon about it, He'd love to get his hand on a researcher of your..... well yes.[/QB]</font>

[Michael Dorosh]

Again, how common were tank-to-tank duels in Korea? Canadian armour was used primarily as mobile bunkers and to augment indirect artillery fires. Admittedly I haven't done much research, but I have never heard of a Canadian tank even seeing a NKPA or Chinese armoured vehicle. (We had only one Brigade group, which included a single squadron of Easy 8 Shermans of Lord Strathcona's Horse (Royal Canadians)).

How often did the British or Americans find themselves in tank duels?

I take it the largest advantage Soviet armour in WW II enjoyed - numerical superiority (coupled with decent terrain to deploy in?) - was not an issue in Korea?

[Battlefront.com]

Hofbauer,

wow. I remember a time when even posters who actually contributed to the board or to the game in no small way would be reprimanded and banned for such insults.

Actually, I am tired of reprimanding Iron Chef for childish behavior, the inability to show respect towards others (especially those who know what they are talking about), and generally posting a lot about absolutely nothing.

Iron Chef, your level of understanding about WWII in general is not horrible, but when it comes to specifics and drawing conclusions... well... you should probably just not post so much. I'm giving you another chance to do this voluntarily, but I am prepared to impose this upon you. Your posts tend to "detract" from the discussions you engage in, and while not a big deal every once and a while ... constant and consistant behavior like this is against the Forum rules.

Steve

[ February 14, 2002, 01:16 AM: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]

[Slapdragon]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Again, how common were tank-to-tank duels in Korea? Canadian armour was used primarily as mobile bunkers and to augment indirect artillery fires. Admittedly I haven't done much research, but I have never heard of a Canadian tank even seeing a NKPA or Chinese armoured vehicle. (We had only one Brigade group, which included a single squadron of Easy 8 Shermans of Lord Strathcona's Horse (Royal Canadians)).

How often did the British or Americans find themselves in tank duels?

I take it the largest advantage Soviet armour in WW II enjoyed - numerical superiority (coupled with decent terrain to deploy in?) - was not an issue in Korea?

The North Koreans had several brigade groups of armor that fought in 1950, which fought a series of very successful actions down country, wiping out several provisional armored units equipped with M24 tanks, and then getting wiped out in several armored battles during the Pusan breakout. Afterwards both the Chinese and the North Koreans tried to get armored units into the country and into action, but were defeated by air power.

There are lots of strange fights on record. An M19 40mm AA weapon destroyed a T34. A set of M24s where buried up to their turrets and used to man road blocks. All where blown to bits.

[Iron Chef Sakai]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Hofbauer,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />wow. I remember a time when even posters who actually contributed to the board or to the game in no small way would be reprimanded and banned for such insults.

Actually, I am tired of reprimanding Iron Chef for childish behavior, the inability to show respect towards others (especially those who know what they are talking about), and generally posting a lot about absolutely nothing.

Iron Chef, your level of understanding about WWII in general is not horrible, but when it comes to specifics and drawing conclusions... well... you should probably just not post so much. I'm giving you another chance to do this voluntarily, but I am prepared to impose this upon you. Your posts tend to "detract" from the discussions you engage in, and while not a big deal every once and a while ... constant and consistant behavior like this is against the Forum rules.

Steve</font>

[Iron Chef Sakai]

As far as the Shermans successs on the T-34/85 in Korea, alot of things come into play in that war.

Were the North Koreans as proficient as the Russians in tank tactics and warfare?

What kind of battles did the Shermans have the most success in? Were they outnumbered, or were the T-34's out numbered? The Shermans surley could not have domintated in every meeting.

Did American air support play a large role in battles that had T-34's in them?

What were the objectives of these battles? Were they set up to see wich tank was better one on one?, or were these tanks simply part of a bigger plan and accompanied by other vehicles and soldiers?

I don't know very much about Korea but i feel the answers to these questions may shed some light on the subject of wich tank was better, or if they both had thier own respective advantages and disadvantages in combat against once another, like the Mig-15 and the F-86 Sabre.

[CMplayer]

Originally posted by dalem:

C'mon, Thelev! I can't believe no one.....

Yeah, now that you describe it I think I remember him. He was a really awful little man, iirc. That episode also showed how much Spock wasn't a typical Vulcan. He was a Vulcan with major issues, stemming from his weak sense of identity. Spock's dad expressing affection for his mom was quite touching, esp since PappaSpock could do it without being drugged by spores which was what it took to get Spock to loosen up. So PappaSpock could show kindness to his wife and still retain his Vulcan dignity, whereas Spock was either blasted out of his mind or totally stiff and...oh my god....Spock was a SWEDE!

Tuvok is even worse that way.

[dalem]

Originally posted by CMplayer:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by dalem:

C'mon, Thelev! I can't believe no one.....

Yeah, now that you describe it I think I remember him. He was a really awful little man, iirc. That episode also showed how much Spock wasn't a typical Vulcan. He was a Vulcan with major issues, stemming from his weak sense of identity. Spock's dad expressing affection for his mom was quite touching, esp since PappaSpock could do it without being drugged by spores which was what it took to get Spock to loosen up. So PappaSpock could show kindness to his wife and still retain his Vulcan dignity, whereas Spock was either blasted out of his mind or totally stiff and...oh my god....Spock was a SWEDE!

Tuvok is even worse that way.</font>

[Slapdragon]

Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai:

As far as the Shermans successs on the T-34/85 in Korea, alot of things come into play in that war.

Were the North Koreans as proficient as the Russians in tank tactics and warfare?

Iron Chef, I assume from the above post that you wont be here for long, but let me answer some questions. Yes, the Korean Brigades were combat veterans of the Chinese revolution and had defeated armored units of the nationalist forces before being released by the Chinese to return to Korea. The initial US forces were conscripts from Korea, later they fought National Guard units and more experienced state side units, so it would have to be a sliding scale, with the initial actions seeing experienced Koreans versus green Americans, and as the Koreans were wiped out and replaced by new caught tanker, they gradually faced better states side units.

Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai:

What kind of battles did the Shermans have the most success in? Were they outnumbered, or were the T-34's out numbered? The Shermans surley could not have domintated in every meeting.

In fact, in nearly every meeting the Sherman came out on top. Battles where mostly combined arms fights along the lines of Fighting in Europe. No meeting engagements to my knowledge. Most of the battles in which the Koreans cleaned up were against the M24 in the opening weeks of the war. The M24 just could not hold its own against the T34.

In the first part of the battle the M4s of the initial provisional companies usually fought on the defensive and extremely outnumbered. By the end of the Pusan breakout and Inchon, Allied tanks greatly outnumbered Koreans.

Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai:

Did American air support play a large role in battles that had T-34's in them?

No, US CAS was nearly nonexistant during the initial phases of the war. US airpower mostly was trying to stem the flow of Korean rienforcements instead of flying antiarmor. CAS would become hugely effective, but by then deep raids were taking out Korean armor before it could come to the front, so CAS against tanks was not really an issue, especially compared to its successes against the Chinese in 52.

Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai:

What were the objectives of these battles? Were they set up to see wich tank was better one on one?, or were these tanks simply part of a bigger plan and accompanied by other vehicles and soldiers?

To my knowledge Korean war battles where not set up to test one force type against another, but as part of a bigger plan. This of course is the same as WW2. Tanks never fought alone to my knowledge on any side, although I could be wrong about this.

Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai:

[QBI don't know very much about Korea but i feel the answers to these questions may shed some light on the subject of wich tank was better, or if they both had thier own respective advantages and disadvantages in combat against once another, like the Mig-15 and the F-86 Sabre.[/QB]

Well, the T-34 was the tank to have against the M24, it performed excellent. The M4 was considered a stop gap tank until the M46 could enter combat, a superior vehicle to the M26. But when the tank battles were happening, it was the M4 and the M26 that fought. The M26 for many reason did not show itself well. Not because of combat but because the old and abused M26 that first came ashore were not good machines. The M4 proved much more able to handle primitive conditions and extreme weather in Korea.

[Conscript Bagger]

Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai:

I did'nt come on to this thread and start slinging insults

That's funny, neither did I. I don't recall even addressing, let alone insulting you - and yet you somehow felt the need to include me in your childish comments.

If you expect me to listen to crap like that and not comeback with something then do yourself a favor and ban me right now.

I assure you, if you do get banned, it won't be a favor to the moderators alone.

[Iron Chef Sakai]

Originally posted by Offwhite:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai:

I did'nt come on to this thread and start slinging insults

That's funny, neither did I. I don't recall even addressing, let alone insulting you - and yet you somehow felt the need to include me in your childish comments.

If you expect me to listen to crap like that and not comeback with something then do yourself a favor and ban me right now.

I assure you, if you do get banned, it won't be a favor to the moderators alone.</font>

[Slapdragon]

Iron Chef, why don't you just say sorry BTS, I wont post silly things. No one is worried when you post something that is not the clearest or well documented thing, only when you jump on the person who points out were you are wrong. I do not think anyone wants you banned, they just expect you to be banned because of your posting style.

Believe me, there are worse and less sincere people on this board who survive merely by keeping on the far side of the line. Lewis lasted quite some time.

Your last post to me was an example of an excellent posting style. Just write BTS and say sorry, and then adopt the figure of a young scholar.

[Iron Chef Sakai]

Thanks for the advise Slappy but i can't do that.

I do not expect anyone to apologize to me and i will not apologize for being misunderstood and later defending myself in this instance.

I only apologize when there is a need and when i am sincere about it. Sure i know i could take the easy way out and apologize and all would probably be fine, but i'm not like that.

I would not have made a fuss about something not worth making a fuss about to begin with. No point in standing up if your just going to sit back down when the wind starts blowing.

So if BTS is going to ban me.......so be it.

It's been real guys.

[Fairbairn-Sykes]

Sakai is the new religion!

Iron Chef Messiah!

[CMplayer]

Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai:

My posts are called broad and inconclusive, but i start them out broad just to make conversation, instead of getting conversation, i get insults,

Makes sense. What I think happens is that, even if you just mean to be a bit provocative to make conversation, there have already been so many cases of people getting seriously fanatical about their views that light hearted jibing gets interpreted as more of the same from the get go.

[Michael Dorosh]

So Slapdragon, I get the impression that most of the real armoured slugfests took place in the mobile phases of the war in 1950, yes? Makes sense - by the time the Canadians got into action in earnest - mid 1951 - the line had pretty much sorted itself out, accounting for their lack of action armour-wise.

I presume it was the same for the other UN troops in the country - that after mid 1951, armour was a rarity?

[Slapdragon]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

So Slapdragon, I get the impression that most of the real armoured slugfests took place in the mobile phases of the war in 1950, yes? Makes sense - by the time the Canadians got into action in earnest - mid 1951 - the line had pretty much sorted itself out, accounting for their lack of action armour-wise.

I presume it was the same for the other UN troops in the country - that after mid 1951, armour was a rarity?

The UK and other nations had tanks, and the US had a lot of them, but by 1951 tank versus tank was mostly done. You can divide tank warfare in Korea into several phases. In the initial involvement before the UN was putting troops on the ground, the US forces retreating to Pusan and the Koreans had M24s and M19 AA only from a set of provisional companies. Near the end of the retreat M4A3 "Easy Eights" and M26 landed as part of several armored training units. The tanks of these units where mostly salvaged from the Pacific campaign, refurbished in Japan, and never shipped home to USA. This was the beginning of the end of the Korean tanks units since their T34s proved to be inferior to the M4 and M26, even though the smart money was on the T34, and this tank gained a fearsome reputation against the M24.

The veteran tank units of the Korean army were quickly used up, and although more tanks went south, they slowly began to face the M46 and better tank units fielding M4 and M26 from stateside. During the march up country the NKPA lost its shirt. By the time of the Chinese intervention, Allied airpower was making it impossible for tanks to get in country. By the time the bulk of the UN showed up, the tanks battles were over (for the most part).

[MajorBooBoo]

Originally posted by Slapdragon:

Iron Chef, why don't you just say sorry BTS, I wont post silly things.

Its too late. He felt the need and pumped his load into the nebelwerfer thread. He did manage to temper his inane post there with a little *smooch* on the butt for BTS.

Very clever little silly man this Chef is.

[Berlichtingen]

Slappy, a couple of questions and comments.

US quality in the initial phases... The US Army in the initial stages were actually worse than 'green'. The post war army was horribly reduced and almost no training was taking place. The US Marine Corps was also greatly reduced (1st Marine Division had to scavenge units from 2nd Marine Division to get up to strength.), but managed to maintain a high percentage of War2 vets and maintained a training regime. The 1st marine Provisional Brigade was sent to Korea as quickly as possible and became the fire brigade of the Pusan perimeter. As far as I can tell, it was the only unit that was really trusted to stand up to the North Koreans at that time. Iron Chef, this should give you an idea of the quality differences in the initial phases.

Ground/Air support... As far as I know, the Marines were the only US forces that had a doctrine of close air support at the beginning of the war. It is a doctrine that had existed since the 1930s and had been refined during War2. 1st Marine Provisional Brigade had its own air assetts and did use them for close air support.

Question #1... How many of the initial 'tank battles' involved the armor of the 1st Marine Provision Brigade (I believe they were equiped with M26s)?

Question #2... Related to question #1, what effect Marine Coursairs have had on those battles?

[dalem]

Originally posted by Slapdragon:

The UK and other nations had tanks, and the US had a lot of them, but by 1951 tank versus tank was mostly done. You can divide tank warfare in Korea into several phases. In the initial involvement before the UN was putting troops on the ground, the US forces retreating to Pusan and the Koreans had M24s and M19 AA only from a set of provisional companies. Near the end of the retreat M4A3 "Easy Eights" and M26 landed as part of several armored training units. The tanks of these units where mostly salvaged from the Pacific campaign, refurbished in Japan, and never shipped home to USA.

-snip-

I didn't know that any Pershings were shipped to Japan as part of the Pacific camapign, nor a significant number of E8s. Were they already en route when hostilities ended or were they part of the post-war occupation? Or did they indeed see combat in the later stages?

-dale