Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I have to go. It's always a pleasure to discuss CAS with someone at least better informed in the issue than the average.

Yeah you could have been stuck with me wondering why I keep bringing up CDR and what the f**k is that? CAS in the telecom world=Call Accounting System. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 566
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

somehow i think we got distracted

I will post a link trying to steer the conversation to the original path

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/readings/drew1.htm

from the above link

........Perhaps the most ubiquitous doctrinal problem is the tendency to let doctrine stagnate. Changing circumstances (for example, technological developments) must be constantly evaluated because they can modify beliefs about the important lessons of experience.....

Then the authors give an example of how the French doctrine counting on WWI experience became irrelevant because of the interwar tech advancements.

The above shows that doctrine is affected by technology and this is why i mentioned the radical different characteristics of Helos and TDs. This is why i said it is a stretch to argue both doctrines are the same.

And i have to point something else which i didn't have time to address before.

The AT helo was a a design of the late 70s-80s. The TD doctrine in the US army died way before the first appearance of the Apache.

Now i understand you find similarities between TDs and modern AT helos and it is not surprising. All different doctrines have common roots. The deepest one of course are related to what we call "principles of war". Here is one principle- "security", you want to avoid surprise. Now the next level of abstract doctrine (the article compares the different levels of doctrine to a tree) puts more details into the picture.

So when you advance for example, you lead your troops with an advanced guard. Then you have more specific doctrine-say TD doctrine which will state for example that during marches of TD units you have recon and advanced or flank guards at such a distance so that you can have security.

Eventually you become more specific. There is an area where doctrine overlaps with tactics.

The above of course is linked to various factors including technological ones. If your unit needs x time to react-deploy and the enemy is capable to advance with an Z rate then you calculate how far the advance guard should be (and how strong) in order to delay him x time and give the opportunity to the main body of friendly forces to react.

Then you take in consideration other needs, like the need to preserve the advanced guard and delay the enemy without being decicively engaged and destroyed, support or communications and finally you have a manual saying that the leading element marches say 10 km or 2 hours ahead of the main body.

Now it doesn't matter of you advance with TDs or infantry, or tanks. All are going to use some type of guard and try to "satisfy" the security principle of war. Does this "similarity" imply they are all the same?

Another example: take for example modern cavalry. Its mission is similar to the one of the traditional cavalry in wwi and wwii. Basically security of larger units. Does the modern Armored cavalry regiment use the same doctrine as the American cavalry units in wwi or wwii?

Or let's take the French or other countries who actually deployed horses for securing larger units during wwii. Can we argue that their modern mechanized cavalry doctrine is the same to the one they had in wwii simply because both had the same mission?

Before you reply, i encourage you to read the link and before you try to counterargue that all these technical details are related to tactics and not doctrine, i will post the following from the same link

Typically, organizational doctrine discusses roles and missions of an organization, current objectives, administrative organization, force employment principles as they are influenced by the current situation, and, in some cases, tactics.

note that the TD doctrine is an organizational doctrine.

In addition if you read read the FM 18-5 /TD manual 1942-

title: "organization and tactics of tank destroyer units", it says in the forward section

"This manual contains doctrines for the training and combat employment of tank destroyer battalions and groups"

Well these "doctrines" certainly discuss tactics. Just read the manual and see it for yourself.

All the above explain better what i meant before when i argued that i saw your definition of "basic doctrine" as very basic indeed. Yes when you strip a subject from all technical details, you can find at the core some basic unified military theory. It is just that i see this as a very weak assosiation to argue that both doctrines are the same

I will end the discussion here because i will not have time the next few days to participate. You are welcome to reply and disagree. I still think it was an interesting conversation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
M36s were used well after WWII by a number of countries, including Korea (where they were effective against Soviet built tanks), France, and Pakistan.
You're right. I forgot about Korea. But in Korea the US scrapped up all kinds of crap because they won't prepared for another war. I doubt the M36 was "preferred" it was probably just what they could get. The other countries probably had the M36 because they could pick them up cheap not because they were the best answer. I'm sure the Israeli's would have much preferred M60's instead of Sherman's with 105's crammed in, but the price was right on the Shermans. This is just a supposition though, I haven't done any research on weapon procurement for second and third world militaries. Although, it seems logical to me.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sure the Israeli's would have much preferred M60's instead of Sherman's with 105's crammed in, but the price was right on the Shermans. This is just a supposition though, I haven't done any research on weapon procurement for second and third world militaries. Although, it seems logical to me.

The Israelis bought the Shermans in the 1950's so the M60 was a long way off. They did get M48's later that fought in '67 but as you say the price was right on the Shermans so they could get considerably more.

The 105 came along in the 60's up until then they used a French copy of the Panther gun, ironically.

I always look at the Israeli experience as an example of how much of a sound design the M4 really was. It served up until the 1980's, 40 odd years after its debut. Of course by that time it was rather different to the ones in Normandy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You're right. I forgot about Korea. But in Korea the US scrapped up all kinds of crap because they won't prepared for another war. I doubt the M36 was "preferred" it was probably just what they could get. The other countries probably had the M36 because they could pick them up cheap not because they were the best answer. I'm sure the Israeli's would have much preferred M60's instead of Sherman's with 105's crammed in, but the price was right on the Shermans. This is just a supposition though, I haven't done any research on weapon procurement for second and third world militaries. Although, it seems logical to me.

From the Vangard book on the M10 and 36

"The M36 remained a viable tank killer well into the 1950s. During the Korean War crisis of 1950, a shortage developed of the M26 and M46 tanks. As a result, the M36 became one of the preferred armoured vehicles for MAP(Military Assistance Program) transfers."

I was also sold to Pakistan and members of NATO, France, Belgium, Italy and Turkey. It was still serving with the various forces in Yugoslavia in the 90's. In all case tho' it was pretending to be a tank not a TD.

Link to post
Share on other sites
From the Vangard book on the M10 and 36

"The M36 remained a viable tank killer well into the 1950s. During the Korean War crisis of 1950, a shortage developed of the M26 and M46 tanks. As a result, the M36 became one of the preferred armoured vehicles for MAP(Military Assistance Program) transfers."

I was also sold to Pakistan and members of NATO, France, Belgium, Italy and Turkey. It was still serving with the various forces in Yugoslavia in the 90's. In all case tho' it was pretending to be a tank not a TD.

You were sold to Pakistan!?!?! LOL... Anyway, I think you're just repeating what I said. It was used because there was a shortage of "real" tanks. For Third World countries it was probably just a good deal. I'm sure given the choice they would have much preferred M48's or something better.
Link to post
Share on other sites
The Israelis bought the Shermans in the 1950's so the M60 was a long way off. They did get M48's later that fought in '67 but as you say the price was right on the Shermans so they could get considerably more.

The 105 came along in the 60's up until then they used a French copy of the Panther gun, ironically.

I always look at the Israeli experience as an example of how much of a sound design the M4 really was. It served up until the 1980's, 40 odd years after its debut. Of course by that time it was rather different to the ones in Normandy.

If you look at the Sherman 105 in the role the Isaeli's used it in, it is basically a tank destroyer in disguise. The 105 Sherman had no hope of withstanding a hit most of the main guns deployed against, but it did have a deadly main gun. It was basically mobile AT gun.
Link to post
Share on other sites
You were sold to Pakistan!?!?! LOL... Anyway, I think you're just repeating what I said. It was used because there was a shortage of "real" tanks. For Third World countries it was probably just a good deal. I'm sure given the choice they would have much preferred M48's or something better.

Yes just corroboration your suggestions.

What is LOL about selling to Pakistan? For a great many years the Pakistanis were the proxy combatant for the US against the USSR in the "Cold-ish" War. Still are with AQ kinda

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

I agree with the overall frustration of trying to kill Panthers with Shermans in the new version, and wondered (i am sure they are correct) if the point s accurately reflect the numbers. Ok, maybe in the overall production figures and availability for the Normandy era.

But in CMBN you never get any strategic air power, and the artillery takes so long that any commander with half a brain is moving the tanks position long before the rounds usually strike.

The chepaest sherman vs panther is 4/7 approx the cost (200 is vs 350)

the panthers dont get stopped by the resistance taking out the support vehicles, blowing supply lines and rail links etc...every panther counts.

In my overall reading, i would estimate the allies would have had between 4-8 shermans for every panther, and have seen stats saying it took this many to knock out one panther!

If the panthers are advancing early in a counter to your assault, hardly any solution works. Air power is too late, yur infantry scatter and 2 to 1 is not enough odds to do much.

my answer, .. this weekend versus my mate of Squad leader origin.. I am playing the germans!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...