Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Best Soldiers Tank - Europe 12/44-5/45

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by cbo View Post
    You did (89mm vs 95mm side armour), but I'll leave the poor horse alone.
    So I was a few mm's out. Sue me.
    Originally posted by cbo View Post
    You seem very obsessed with insults and winning. I couldn't care less.
    So why use them? Harry Potter has no place in a tank forum, but if you had said I was about as correct of Guderian's so called miracle tank program in 44, I would have been impressed :. Remember that as soon as someone uses insults, they have lost the argument.
    Originally posted by cbo View Post
    There we go agiain - it is not all about you
    So why put it in your response to me ?
    Originally posted by cbo View Post
    The M26 in Korea had fan-belt issues as one of their main mechanical problems and I've seen that mentioned as a problem for the M26 used in WWII. This would suggest - again - that the M26 used in Korea were plagued by different problems from those used in WWII.
    I have both volumes of Armor in Korea by the Operations Research Office dated May 51. These deal with all the issues of the main US tanks, plus the Centurion III. Some of the details are here https://archive.org/stream/KoreanWar...Study_djvu.txt

    Shouldn't really be doing your work for you should I
    Originally posted by cbo View Post
    If you think so, then give us the numbers.
    Get yourself a copy of Hunnicutt. Everything is in there. I also have a pdf of that copy (and others), and if you had been nicer, I would have sent you it . Maybe (much) later .
    How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
    Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
      I have both volumes of Armor in Korea by the Operations Research Office dated May 51. These deal with all the issues of the main US tanks, plus the Centurion III. Some of the details are here https://archive.org/stream/KoreanWar...Study_djvu.txt

      Shouldn't really be doing your work for you should I
      Nick, you have really lost the plot here. The point is, that Korea data may not be applicable to 1945 fresh-from-production M26. Only data on those vehicles will tell us the status of their mechanical parts.

      Get yourself a copy of Hunnicutt. Everything is in there. I also have a pdf of that copy (and others), and if you had been nicer, I would have sent you it . Maybe (much) later .
      As I said elsewhere - I have a copy. It just dont substantiate you claims.

      I'll let it rest for now, as we are clearly not getting anywhere.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by DogDodger View Post
        The Marine Estes was quoting was indeed talking about post-WW2 use. However, when discussing the matter me on TankNet Estes said "the USMC ones were drawn from depots, with no miles," so these would presumably not be in as bad of condition as the Army ones that were rushed to Korea already in need of overhaul.

        The M26A1 also used the 90 mm gun M3A1 with its bore evacuator and single-baffle muzzle brake, which is why--without being able to see the tank's rear--the sprocket height seemed to me to be a better differentiation point.
        Clicked on your link. A new page, all in red, stated malicious website ahead?
        How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
        Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
          Clicked on your link. A new page, all in red, stated malicious website ahead?
          Worked perfectly OK for me.
          "England expects that every man will do his duty!" (English crew members had better get ready for a tough fight against the combined French and Spanish fleets because that's what England expects! However, Scotland, Wales and Ireland appear to expect nothing so the Scottish, Welsh and Irish crew members can relax below decks if they like!)

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
            Clicked on your link. A new page, all in red, stated malicious website ahead?
            Ah, yes. Some search engines have flagged TankNet as a phishing site for some reason. I consider it trustworthy, but ymmv. Should've mentioned it, but I bypass the warning so often it doesn't even register anymore.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by DogDodger View Post
              Ah, yes. Some search engines have flagged TankNet as a phishing site for some reason. I consider it trustworthy, but ymmv. Should've mentioned it, but I bypass the warning so often it doesn't even register anymore.
              There doesn't seem to be a way past the red screen?
              How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
              Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                There doesn't seem to be a way past the red screen?
                If you are using Google Chrome, there is a text-link at the bottom of the screen - "Details". Click that and you come to another red screen. At the bottom of this one, there is another text-link - ".. go to this unsafe website" or something like that. Click that and you are in.

                Internet Explorer does not have any issues with it.

                I use that site alle the time and have not had any problems with it.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by cbo View Post
                  If you are using Google Chrome, there is a text-link at the bottom of the screen - "Details". Click that and you come to another red screen. At the bottom of this one, there is another text-link - ".. go to this unsafe website" or something like that. Click that and you are in.

                  Internet Explorer does not have any issues with it.

                  I use that site alle the time and have not had any problems with it.
                  Thanks .
                  How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                  Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by broderickwells View Post
                    I'm surprised you reached that conclusion, but then you've explained your logic. Unfortunately, IMO it is flawed.

                    Originally posted by broderickwells View Post
                    During WW2, winning a battle did not necessarily mean that the enemy withdrew in disorder. Frequently, it meant the enemy withdrew in good order and could set up a new defensive line on terrain of his choice. Worst case meant the offensive failed. What commanders wanted was to breach the enemy's defences and run amok in his rear. Step one required a heavily armoured tank, such as the Churchill/Tiger/KV/IS. Running amok requires a cavalry equivalent - T-34/Sherman/Cromwell/Panther/Pz III, because while reliability is good, speed is vital. The enemy must be put off balance, and this can't be achieved with a vehicle marginally faster than a sloth on Mogadon.
                    If you outrun your infantry you die. If you travel down roads, even at speed with infantry in half tracks, you will usually die, as these routes will be covered. What you need to to exploit is a reliable tank that amply deals with bad terrain, going where the enemy is unprepared, and turning the position.

                    You also really need one tank to do both jobs. You cannot exploit if you cannot defeat an enemy, and I would place the emphasis on winning the battle first.
                    Originally posted by broderickwells View Post
                    Specialist variants are usually produced on the chassis that will handle them (or if you're the Heer, available). They also indicate that the initial armament is subpar in some aspect or another. An important indicator is the numbers of the variants constructed, both the count of variants and the count of output of these variants.
                    In the case of the Churchill, not only was it tough and tactically mobile, its suspension meant it was incredibly roomy inside. This is why the AVTE was possible with this tank.
                    Originally posted by broderickwells View Post
                    The biggest criticism of the Churchill is not its lack of AT firepower but the lack of HE firepower. Most targets an infantry support tank faces are soft and require HE to deal with effectively. The Churchill, for much of its life, was worth squat in these situations. And your Churchill battle story has variable Tigers (four become one). Judging by the time of post, you were suffering sleep deprivation.
                    Churchill CS tanks initially had one or two 76.2mm howitzers, and later had 95mm howitzers. As far as HE was concerned, there was no problem with either of these rounds in that role. However, I do agree that the Churchills standard armament was its weakest element, whether 6pdr or 75mm.

                    Back to Prokhorovka, it was two Churchills, probably III's, maybe IV's, that took on four Tiger 1's and five Panzer IV's. The German tanks were on the defensive so had the advantage, having found a position where they could shoot up T-34-76's, before the Soviet tanks could reply. The Churchill's were able to get to 500m of the German tanks, Ko'd at Tiger and destroy a Panzer IV, before succumbing to the inevitable. That's the equivalent of a rifle section (10 men) taking on a reinforced and prepared heavy weapons platoon (45 men) frontally, doing as much or more damage to the enemy, then retiring without loss of life.
                    Originally posted by broderickwells View Post
                    Imo, the Hare is more important and more useful than the Tortoise.
                    If we were talking about a track race, I'd agree, and there were times when a Sherman type of tank was better, eg the Normandy breakout. However, most of WW2 was actually a tough cross country slog as far as the fighting edge of units were concerned.
                    How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                    Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post

                      If you outrun your infantry you die. If you travel down roads, even at speed with infantry in half tracks, you will usually die, as these routes will be covered. What you need to to exploit is a reliable tank that amply deals with bad terrain, going where the enemy is unprepared, and turning the position.
                      Generally speaking, with a breakthrough event, the advances were down roads, even on the Eastern Front. Clearing routes was usually achieved with aerial close support (and air recce). Advancing at speed along multiple lines forces the enemy to behave like a one-armed paperhanger whose belt has broken. What slowed everyone down was the need to capture certain critical river crossings.
                      You also really need one tank to do both jobs. You cannot exploit if you cannot defeat an enemy, and I would place the emphasis on winning the battle first.
                      As you, and several others have said before, there was no universal tank during WWII. But emphasising winning battles over was not a successful strategy for the Wehrmacht on the Eastern Front in 1941, nor was it how Cases Weiss or Gelb were successful either.
                      In the case of the Churchill, not only was it tough and tactically mobile, its suspension meant it was incredibly roomy inside. This is why the AVTE was possible with this tank.
                      I think AVTE is a typo - AVRE perhaps? There were Covenanter and Valentine AVRE examples before the Churchills. Interior room was not a requirement.
                      Churchill CS tanks initially had one or two 76.2mm howitzers, and later had 95mm howitzers. As far as HE was concerned, there was no problem with either of these rounds in that role. However, I do agree that the Churchills standard armament was its weakest element, whether 6pdr or 75mm.

                      Back to Prokhorovka, it was two Churchills, probably III's, maybe IV's, that took on four Tiger 1's and five Panzer IV's. The German tanks were on the defensive so had the advantage, having found a position where they could shoot up T-34-76's, before the Soviet tanks could reply. The Churchill's were able to get to 500m of the German tanks, Ko'd at Tiger and destroy a Panzer IV, before succumbing to the inevitable. That's the equivalent of a rifle section (10 men) taking on a reinforced and prepared heavy weapons platoon (45 men) frontally, doing as much or more damage to the enemy, then retiring without loss of life.
                      Lie most treatments of Prokhorovka, the use of AT guns has been ignored.
                      If we were talking about a track race, I'd agree, and there were times when a Sherman type of tank was better, eg the Normandy breakout. However, most of WW2 was actually a tough cross country slog as far as the fighting edge of units were concerned.
                      Nope, most of WW2 was following roads or railways with numerous skirmishes to establish who was where, followed by a battle to decide who held a key feature or force a breakthrough, then rinse and repeat. Going cross-country was avoided as much as possible because it's a lot of hard work.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        At the operational-level, initiative was gained or maintained mainly by keeping the pedal to the metal. The trick was sustainment. On the eastern front and Manchuria, the Red Army would pool operational vehicles and fuel in leading tactical units or ad hoc forward detachments to keep moving. Aerial resupply of fuel was also used.
                        Leadership is the ability to rise above conventional wisdom.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          I don t like the KingTiger or Pershing options.

                          After reading the debate on this thread, I voted Churchill.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by R.N. Armstrong View Post
                            At the operational-level, initiative was gained or maintained mainly by keeping the pedal to the metal. The trick was sustainment. On the eastern front and Manchuria, the Red Army would pool operational vehicles and fuel in leading tactical units or ad hoc forward detachments to keep moving. Aerial resupply of fuel was also used.
                            Bold is mine.

                            Agreed. However the ability to pursue an enemy is more about reliability, winning a campaign is a marathon, not a sprint.

                            As for Manchuria and 'Steppe' scenarios, I would agree that reliability and speed would be vital, and that the Comet would be best in this case.

                            Back to this particular poll, with this particular stage of the campaign, and at this time, we are often talking about extremely poor ground, eg 'The Bulge'. This was the second time tankers poured scorn upon their Shermans, simply because they could not use the ground to their advantage.
                            How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                            Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Tiger II. It was a clumsy weapon to actually deploy in 1945 but it was simply more survivable than the medium tanks.
                              Zhitomir-Berdichev, West of Kiev: 24 Dec 1943-31 Jan 1944
                              Stalin's Favorite: The Combat History of the 2nd Guards Tank Army
                              Barbarossa Derailed I & II
                              Battle of Kalinin October 1941

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X