Design Issues for Russian IS Tanks

[Brian]

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

Well Brian, if you read "The Patton Papers" you might change your mind there too. Of course, our own opinions have so much to do with the debate, but you'd be suprised.

<hr></blockquote>

Maybe so. However, I see Patton as being a very bad example of a trait many (but not all!) Americans tend to share - an overblown sense of their own self-importance (yes, I know I'm going to catch flak for that statement but what the hell). Like Macarthur, Patton was more interested it appears in not only fighting the enemy but his own superiors because both believed they alone where capable of winning the war.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

Patton took on oponents that are considered the best the Germans had. He defeated Rommel's Africa Korps in El Guitar (sp) and Runstedt in the Falaise Pocket (which Patton could have closed but was stopped by SHAEF.)

<hr></blockquote>

Mmmmm, was Rommel still in charge of the Panzer Armee Afrika (as it was renamed) at that point? Personally, I also believe Rommel's reputation is also blown all out of proportion. IMO, he was faced for the most part, fairly mediocre British commanders, and poorly equipped/led units, and also had the added advantage of his SIGINT unit, reading the American Consul's "Black Code" with which daily SITREPs for the 8th Army were dispatched to Washington - with the result he knew exactly his opponent's situation. Once he lost that SIGINT unit at Tel el Arisa his performance in the desert declined markedly.

As for "defeating Runstedt", I rather think a combination of Monty's "Collosal Cracks" and Hitler's insane orders proved far more crucial than anything Patton did. Yes, he helped create the pocket but because of a combination of circumstances beyond the control of all, on the Allied side, it wasn't closed. I'd suggest a little more critical analysis and some wider reading might help you to see the problems with your chosen hero.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

Again, this is all opinion. I myself am rather like Patton, so I have a natural tendency toward his type of leadership anyway. Some people can't understand this personality, though. I understand that, and thats why I don't force the isse.

But its still a load of fun to debate! <hr></blockquote>

See my comments above about American personalities...

[ 01-06-2002: Message edited by: Brian ]</p>

[The Commissar]

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

See my comments above about American personalities... <hr></blockquote>

LOL, you're going to get it now Brian!

Don't tell anyone, but I secretly agree with you to a certain degree - best not voice such opinions too often though, for the sake of your health

[busboy]

Hehe, I'd actually agree with the self importance thing, hell, I'll present myself as Exhibit A! But, atleast some of us are willing to admit that. The worst folks are those who won't admit it, and I know a few.

The issue with Patton wasn't that he thought that only he could win the war, just that he could do it a whole lot quicker, and was prevented from doing so by politics. Wheather or not you're looking strictly at Patton or not, the fact remains that politics dictated army policy almost as much as was, and sometimes it was the war effort that was hurt.

As for the technical questions. By the time Patton faced the Africa Korps, Rommel was out of Africa. He was taken to Germany for illness, and retained by Hitler so he wouldn't have lost the battle.

As for the Faliese pocket, that was a very very intense German counter-offensive that was absorbed by Patton's 6th Armored I believe. While the Faliese pocket wasn't strictly a Patton battle, only Patton was capable of closing the gap at an opertune time, but because of politics Patton was stopped short. I'm not saying Patton was cheated, I'm saying the Allies were cheated. They had the opportunity to drastically shorten the war if the Anglo forces (specifically Polish I believe) had been quicker, or if the Americans were allowed to continue past their boundry.

As for the whole self importance issue. I understand what you're saying there. However, I'd like to offer a slight twist. It was Patton himself that said individuality in war was a load of crap, and personal heroics were hyped by the media. Dicipline is all important in an army, not the courage of the soldiers. Well diciplined soldiers will behave reliably, even though afraid. However, heroics can cause problems if a person's sense of revenge or lust for glory wells up at the wrong time. This has been shwon from ancient days to today, from a Spartian soldier being diciplined for his tremendous heroics at Marathon (I think, forget the name too) to the current saying "never share a foxhole with someone braver than you."

The self is not all important, the unit is the important part. However, leadership is an area where it is the individual that becomes all important because he personifies the force he leads. His soul is taken on by his men, whether this is good or bad.

Look at any great army in history, and you'll see what I mean. Alexander's men, Caesar's X legion and their revolt, the men of the Scipios, the Naepoleons, and the Robert E. Lees.

It is not sucsess that defigned the support and performance that these men got, but their leadership. With skill and determination, they led their men to victory, and sometimes defeat, but the men followed as good soldiers.

But name a faceless General that sucseeded so brilliantly. Name a man who kept, or rather naturally had total humility but led his men to fantastic victories. I'm not saying swagger is a necessarry element for military sucsess, but in every great and fabled army a name has been the standard of the men, as well as the banners and eagles.

Arrogent Americans like me may indeed have an overblown sense of self importance, but as long as diciplin remains most important, this may indeed serve as a positive personality trait, not a negative one.

Just so long as we don't think ourselves superior human beings. More capable at certian tasks...thats one thing, but resepct for one's fellow man is what seperates the proud from the pigs.

[Tanaka]

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

...Mmmmm, was Rommel still in charge of the Panzer Armee Afrika (as it was renamed) at that point? Personally, I also believe Rommel's reputation is also blown all out of proportion. IMO, he was faced for the most part, fairly mediocre British commanders, and poorly equipped/led units...

<hr></blockquote>

On the 15th of Mar Rommel went way, leaving Messe the command of the PAA ...

...one of the best tactical maneuvers of the N African Campaign (there were many) was the Rommel's Retreat at El-Alamein after is return to the battle in November.

What a move... Hitler delayed the retreat, asking for the suiside of the army, how could the DAK escape in the desert without air superiority and in the middle of the battle with such odds (1:3 ? or more ? ) ? It's true he commanded exceptional soldiers (in likes of the Ramcke FJ), but one can never survive to be a good soldier when badly commanded

This last part is for you, “recon by dead” CM commanders !

… I just remember another one I can’t resist typing about… the fake tanks (VWs) mixed with the real ones that battle Gambiers 2nd Armor Div near Nofilia in 41 early in the DAK campaign

As for the IS 85 and 122… sorry for hijacking the topic, but really there is not much technically to add, as always your posts deal with facts, and against facts arguments wont do J … I personally can’t produce any revoking facts…so what you typed seam very plausible as usual

[Iron Chef Sakai]

Historicly, none of the generals of World War 2 for any country add up as any of the greatest generals the earth has seen, not even close.

So in closing this is a pointless debate.

For some proof to my statement i will add here an example for you all to read about if you have'nt already.

Read on Hannibal. His army out numbered 3 to 1, he fought, encircled, and killed 50,000 Roman soldiers in one single day. This feat has not been repiclicated to this day .

And no the Carthaginians did not have machine guns.

[Iron Chef Sakai]

I forgot to add, the battle i spoke of took place at Cannae in case you wanted to look it up.

[Priest]

Actually Chef the issue is not if the Generals of today are as good as those before them, but can we compare the Generals of today with those of the past?

WWII was the beginning of a new type of war with completely new challenges. Before you dismiss the military legends of our day you may want to remember that fact. I would say a great many Generals of the modern era rank up in the higher echeleon of historical military leaders. Hell Guderian and Doernitz (spelled his name wrong) were innovators to the extreme. Nimitz was also very strong. The list goes on and on.

WWII was a central point in time where the fate of the world was decided by some of the most charismatic people ever to walk the face of the earth.

In retrospect they probably canceled each other out to an extent and thus you have a perceived diminished view of the situation.

Just my thoughts.

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

Again, this is all opinion. I myself am rather like Patton,<hr></blockquote>

So, you're saying you have a high, piping voice and carry a couple of revolvers around with you at all times?

[busboy]

Vanir Ausf B...they're ivory handled too, not pearl! Just kidding. I don't model myself after Patton, but after studying him I found the resemblence between us greater than any other historical figure, so I'm naturally drawn to him.

As for the rest, it is impossible to compare ancient with modern leadership. War and its principles haven't changed, but battles have gone from affairs with thousands of men in one place to scattered, driving, rapidly moving thusts and counterthrusts with equipment than an ancient soldier could never dream of.

You cannot compare an modern commander to an ancient one. Modern commanders don't get to prove decisively which is tactically superior against their rivals. Modern leaders don't get the chance to singlehandedly conquer nations for the sake of conquest. You simply can't compare them.

However, if you want to try, Patton's 3rd Army, on paper, is the most efficient army in history I believe. I'll dig out the numbers if you'd like. (Date in operation-date of end of war, casualties inflicted, taken, territory taken, ect.)

As for Hannibal. He was brilliant, but the Romans he faced at Caenne were led by a bumbbling command structure. Two councelor armies were combined...and the councles took turns commanding. Caenne was a masterpiece, but if one competant Roman had been in command, Hannibal would have been slaughtered and the Second Punic war would have eneded right there. But he did win and...he did nothing. He marches up to Rome, lobs a spear at the walls, but cannot take it. One of his own generals told him "You know how to gain a victory, but you know not how to use one."

Hannibal loiters around Italy for a while longer before Scipio utterly destroys Carthage's armies in Africa, and is recalled. He is then soundly defeated by a tactically more brilliantt manuver that has the same effect that Caenne had.

Hannibal was good, but he wasn't great. You want great, study Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanius. B.H. Liddel Hart has a great book on him (written before WWII, yet Hart shows through ancient annalesys what future wars will be like...very good read). Its called Greater Than Naepoleon."

I'd recommend this book to anyone remotely intirested in military methods, or with an eye towards WW2.

[Brian]

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

However, if you want to try, Patton's 3rd Army, on paper, is the most efficient army in history I believe. I'll dig out the numbers if you'd like. (Date in operation-date of end of war, casualties inflicted, taken, territory taken, ect.)

<hr></blockquote>

I rather think you're overstating the case a bit. "Most efficient in history"? Come now, I think you'd have to find the Mongols were that - their empire ranged from Poland to Korea.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

As for Hannibal. He was brilliant, but the Romans he faced at Caenne were led by a bumbbling command structure. Two councelor armies were combined...and the councles took turns commanding. Caenne was a masterpiece, but if one competant Roman had been in command, Hannibal would have been slaughtered and the Second Punic war would have eneded right there. But he did win and...he did nothing. He marches up to Rome, lobs a spear at the walls, but cannot take it. One of his own generals told him "You know how to gain a victory, but you know not how to use one."

<hr></blockquote>

You don't think the same could be said for Patton and his 3rd Army? His success it might be suggested, could only be achieved because he did not face the cream of the enemy's forces and the enemy was hamstrung by an idiot CinC.

If Patton had been faced by the same forces as faced the British in the Eastern sector of the bridgehead, you don't think his performance might have been a tad worse?

[Andreas]

Brian, I have found that there is little point in debating the finer points of Patton's performance with his admirers. You can as well try to teach trigonometry to a donkey (or advanced algebra to me) Apparently in school many Americans are taught that Patton was the best thing since sliced bread, and they then go on believing it for the rest of their lives.

What I found interesting is that Brigadier (then Major General) Essame (commander of the British 214 Infantry Brigade in 43rd Wessex) wrote a very positive work on Patton, while an American Major called Brendan Phibbs (combat surgeon of CCB in 12th Armored) spends a good part of his book (written in the late 1980s - 'The other side of time', a great read BTW) being scathing about him (he prefers Truscott). If nothing else, Patton certainly incites controversy.

As for Hannibal - Cannae was the model for the German envelopment battles (Kesselschlachten) of Barbarossa, and his feat of taking his army across the Alps in Winter, IIRC, has yet to be repeated, AFAIK. Been a while, my memory gets hazy. I'd go along with the Mongols being the most efficient army in history.

[argie]

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

... and his feat of taking his army across the Alps in Winter, IIRC, has yet to be repeated, AFAIK. Been a while, my memory gets hazy. I'd go along with the Mongols being the most efficient army in history.<hr></blockquote>

The General San Martín crossed the Andes in winter, at an average altitude which doubles the Alpes pass, with an infraestructure not much better than the one the Romans constructed through the Alpes, and defeated an Army 4 times bigger in detail thanks to operational surprise (they know he was coming, but he make the cross with a two pronged force, which joins for the battle, and 4 phony forces along the frontier. He won a tactical advantage of 1.2/1 for the first battle, Chacabuco).

The numbers considered were pretty low for European standards (5200 Patriots against 23000 Royalists).

But, of course, nobody study wars with less than 100000 people involved

[Dan Robertson]

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

In the desert, an environment where a heavy tank like the IS-3 would in theory dominate, the Israeliis TORE APART the IS-III. The M-46 and M-47, and Centurion tanks admitedly couldn't penetrate their front armor, but through superior tactics they flanked and wasted 'em.

Combat experiance is all I need to see to show how horrid those tanks are.

<hr></blockquote>

The 20pdr and 105mm guns on the Centurian should be effective against the JSIII. They may not be able to guarentee penetration at all ranges but will be able to suceed in a large portion of hits.

ISIII verses 20pdr APDS

Lower Front Hull: 2000m

Glacis: Invulnerable

Turret Front: 3500+m

Mantle: 3000m

ISIII verse 105mm APDS (capped APDS rounds)

Lower Front Hull: 3500m

Glacis: 200-1000m

Turret: 3500+m

Mantle:3500+m

These are based on the armour figures for the onwar.com site, and do not include any Rexford esque modiefiers for shapper gap, brittle plates ect.

Does any one have a range for 105mm APDS against Nato medium single taget since that is based on the ISIII glacis.

The 105mm was considered by NATO to be effective against the ISIII since it was this effectiveness which cause the US to can the M103 and use the M60.

[offtaskagain]

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

Apparently in school many Americans are taught that Patton was the best thing since sliced bread, and they then go on believing it for the rest of their lives.

<hr></blockquote>

Actually WWII isn't really covered at all :eek: , certainly not any individual person from the war. We spent 3 days learning about the Holocaust, 3 on women's role in the war and approximately 1/2 an hour of video on the war itself. From which we learned the Tiger tank conquered France . This may be a modern development since it was only last year I had American History. The teacher wasn't too thrilled when I told her the only thing I learned was how to make a new style of paper airplane .

[busboy]

Thats right, American kids are tought very little about WW2, mainly about the politics and the attrocities. Patton was never mentioned in my high school text books, or my college one for that matter.

By the way, I don't recall ever saying I'm an American. Maybe I just fit the steriotype that well.

Most Americans not really into war get their military history (sadly) from Hollywood. There is ofcourse the George C. Scott movie, which does an excellent job portraying fact but it strays several times.

I was not not raised loving Patton. Its something that came naturally. Fierce nationalism is not the reason why I find him my favorite general of WW2. If any Patton had been fighting for any given nation, I'd admire him.

As for how would Patton have performed in the Eastern flank of Europe? I don't think he would have advanced as fast as he did in the south, but I think he would have advanced much faster than Montgomery...without resorting to massive airborn operations consuming tremendous amounts of resources.

As for my "efficient" comment, that is an opinion which I can support, though ofcourse not prove, with numbers. Those numbers I base primarily on combat performance. I don't think comparing the similar statistics on the mongels would be a very fair annalesys.

In fact, I now find the term efficient a poor one to say what I ment to. Saying efficient when talking about a modern army can mean several completely different things.

Don't get me wrong here either folks. I'm not some mindless Patton fan. I'm am, or try to be, a student of military history. We're talking about Patton because he was a World War II general. If CM was a Punic War game, I'd be "mindlessly" touting Scipio. I haven't put all my eggs into one favoritism basket here folks, but this topic is one that I could debate ad nausium. I'll continue to do so as well as long as the conversation is as stimulating as it is!

(It would be dull if everyone agreed with me. Just because I think it doesn't make it right, I know. Its only places like this where military history buffs facelessly cluster that I can really have these discussions. I salute you all for your opinions, and your intellegence!)

[Vanir Ausf B]

Busboy, that's a very good post for a donkey (hee hee)

I can confirm the points others have made re: Patton. The details of military history are glossed over in American public schools. WW2 is all about Pearl Harbor, the nuking of Japan, and the Holocaust happening somewhere in-between. Anyone who knows much about Patton at all probably learned it on his own.

[Tanaka]

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

... I'd go along with the Mongols being the most efficient army in history.

<hr></blockquote>

Short and simple... I 2nd that

As for you Argie...an army of 5200 rebels ? …You new world guys...

I could point here some true good moves made by the Vietnamese since the 50's until the 70's.... but giving the nature and the place of this forum.... I better not

[Andreas]

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

The numbers considered were pretty low for European standards (5200 Patriots against 23000 Royalists).

But, of course, nobody study wars with less than 100000 people involved <hr></blockquote>

Decent wars don't have Spanish involvement No wonder nobody knows about it.

[Andreas]

Oh and Argie, was San Martin's real name Diego de Montoya? 'Hello, my name is Diego de Montoya, I have come across the Andes pass. Prepare to die.' Royalist reply: 'Inconceivable'.

[Ogadai]

I believe Brian's correct in the Mongols being the most efficient army in history. They conquored most of the Eurasian landmass, would have completed that, except for the death of my namesake and were only defeated in their invasion of Japan because of a combination of bad advice, bad luck and connivance.

As for feats of invasion in winter, remember this, the Mongols were the only invader to ever invade Russia in Winter and they were successful, as well, subjugating the Russians for over 400 years!

Fuller, Liddel-Hart, Guderian, all drew inspiration from their exploits, seeing them, the perfect model for manaeuvre warfare.

[The Commissar]

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

...and were only defeated in their invasion of Japan because of a combination of bad advice, bad luck and connivance.

<hr></blockquote>

Correct me here if Im off, but didn't the Mongol ships just get taken out by the kamikazi storms before they even reached mainland Japan?

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

As for feats of invasion in winter, remember this, the Mongols were the only invader to ever invade Russia in Winter and they were successful, as well, subjugating the Russians for over 400 years!

<hr></blockquote>

To be fair, Russia really wasn't a nation then. It was divided into regions, each with their own princes, and was really more like a series of small countries then one unified nation. Russia really only become a real nation during the reign of Ivan the Terrible (the grandson of Ivan the Great, who threw the Mongols out of the country).

Here's a good link I found where you can read up on this:

http://historymedren.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.interknowledge.com%2Frussia%2Frushis03.htm

[Bastables]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by The Commissar:

To be fair, Russia really wasn't a nation then. It was divided into regions, each with their own princes, and was really more like a series of small countries then one unified nation. Russia really only become a real nation during the reign of Ivan the Terrible (the grandson of Ivan the Great, who threw the Mongols out of the country).

Here's a good link I found where you can read up on this:

http://historymedren.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?si te=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.interknowledge.com%2Frussia%2Frushis03.htm<hr></blockquote>

They (Mongols aka Timmur I lang's forces known as Timberlane in the west), were defeated by the Mamlukes at Ayn Jayult, halting Mongol expansion in the Orient.

Also Mongol/Chinese fleet Ordered by the Great Khan to present day Indonesia was crushed by Sultan of Borneo/Kalimantann. The Sultan co-opted the Mongol/Chinese fleet into an pact to crush some annoying 'vassels' and then after the victory turned his fleet on the Mongol/Chinese fleet, cunning blighter.

[ 01-06-2002: Message edited by: Bastables ]</p>

[busboy]

Andreas, that is the funniest post I've seen here in a long time! Thanks

I have to admit, I don't know as much as you folks about the mongels, though I know some. Certianly, I don't know enough to get involved in that conversation, but do continue! I'm learning a lot.

Now I DO know a bit about the Hun. Perhaps you've heard about a chap called Atilla? If you ever see a picture of him, he looks evil the second you see him. Know why? Because Atilla was the model that renisance artists used for Satan. Just a neat tid-bit I picked up somewhere.

[The Vyrdolak]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Andrew Hedges:

Patton was a very good general, so

was Monty. Monty hurt his reputation by occasionally lying about things after the

war (i.e., Caen) <hr></blockquote>

AND by not cutting off von Zengen's Fifteenth

Army in the Scheldt estuary, also helping to

the supply problem by clearing the seat approach

to Antwerp. ALSO by planning and ordering

Market Garden. Eisenhower held responsibility

for MG too, but he was trying to let the British

have a little bit of the limelight.

[Iron Chef Sakai]

Hannibal was not great?? he invented encriclement. i beleive every General borrows tactics from Hannibal.

Hannibal marched his army, including war elephants thru the alps. Hannibal did not walk up to Rome and throw a spear at the gates, his army never attempted to capture Rome. He thought that his crushing of the whole Roman army in one day would collapse their sytem. What he did was miscalculate their center of gravity. Nothing stood in his armies way to Rome. The Romans waited decades before deciding to finaly fight Hannibal again, he stayed on thier land for years, before finaly the Romans decided to take out his supply lines. If not for Hannibal the Roman Empire never would have been. He completly changed the face of warfare.

If you do not think Hannibal was a great general, then whats your take on Napolean? was he merely average as well?