Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

  • Nick the Noodle
    replied
    Originally posted by cbo View Post
    Nick, you are essentially a troll. You fire off blanket statements and flat out untruths, then change your position when called or ignore the response. To your credit, you are an amusing troll that get some interesting discussion going, but a troll none the less

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

    I do fire off blanket statements, that much is true. However, this is to denote what is normal and usual.
    If I ignore a response, it could be for several reasons. The primary one is that while I'm a bloke, I'm also a full time housewife and mum. Best job ever, and ACG is extremely second comparred to raising my kids.
    Originally posted by cbo View Post
    But it is a wrong statement, none the less. Firepower cannot be "relatively unimportant" in a tank unless you are talking about tanks that have about equal firepower. An advantage in obserservation is good to have, but if your gun cannot damage the enemy, then the point is moot. T-34s in 1941 had very poor observation while the Germans they were facing had very good observation. But it didn't really matter as the T-34s could knock out German tanks at will at up to 1600 meters while the Germans couldn't do anything about it.
    I've quoted you the sources that armour and weapons are relatively unimportant in tank fights in NW Europe. This is because war is not fair, and tank fights are not jousts, but generally ambushes. Terrain favours the defender, and if you had read both volumes I referenced, you would have reached the same conclusion as myself. The fact is that the main difference between German and W Ally tanks being destroyed is the range. The gun/armour on the German tanks was often superior, but this simply meant the tanks were destroyed at a closer range. Net result is the same. However, it is important to note we are talking about NW Europe here, because circumstances were different on the Eastern Front.
    Originally posted by cbo View Post
    But it did not have a range finder as you said in your post #73: "
    Concerning observation, the Churchill tank was equipped with probably the best commanders cupola of WW2. It was certainly good enough for the British to convert Shermans to be equipped with this type, and included a range finder as well as all round vision. Most elements were copied by the US with their next design, with the main exception in that the portal was wider."
    Basically copied from D Fletchers excellent 'The Universal Tank'.
    Originally posted by cbo View Post
    As for the gun sights - I was speaking of the Panther gunner having only his telescopic sight. Suggesting that the Panther loader had a telescopic sight is, I assume, just more trolling.
    Reread your post .
    Originally posted by cbo View Post
    Read your post #73. It says directly: ". Further, much of this time period sees the troops fighting a hard slog, where for much of the time, the main allied tank, the Sherman, was road bound." You may have meant something else or you may have been trolling, but that is what you wrote.
    I totally stand by that comment. WW2 was more WW1 than most think from the soldiers POV, especially infantry casualties.

    Originally posted by cbo View Post
    You forgot the source for you last statement re: Australian tests of the Churchill.......

    As for sourcing comments, I do that when I think it contributes to the discussion and preferably to sources where others can read the text on-line. Either by me quoting the text or the text being available on-line.
    Several books I can quote on Australia prefering Churchills to Shermans. However, you don't need to take my word on it, just look up how many Shermans were purchased by Australia.
    Originally posted by cbo View Post
    You simply referring to a book is pointless, as we saw with your reference to Hunnicutts Pershing.

    Anyway, that is enough fun with this subject

    Care to elaborate? I can also reference Pershing reliability in Korea if you are interested?

    The fact remains that I will change my opinion if decent information is provided to do so. History proves this (eg Sealion and Strategic Bombing threads). Many think I cave easily. I do cave easily when convinced by relevant material. You have simply failed to do so at the present. Don't let stop you from trying .

    Leave a comment:


  • cbo
    replied
    Nick, you are essentially a troll. You fire off blanket statements and flat out untruths, then change your position when called or ignore the response. To your credit, you are an amusing troll that get some interesting discussion going, but a troll none the less

    Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
    1. You really need to read my posts more carefully. I did not say the gun was unimportant. I said it was relatively unimportant compared to observation. That's an important distinction.
    But it is a wrong statement, none the less. Firepower cannot be "relatively unimportant" in a tank unless you are talking about tanks that have about equal firepower. An advantage in obserservation is good to have, but if your gun cannot damage the enemy, then the point is moot. T-34s in 1941 had very poor observation while the Germans they were facing had very good observation. But it didn't really matter as the T-34s could knock out German tanks at will at up to 1600 meters while the Germans couldn't do anything about it.


    2. Other tanks did use the same cupola as the Churchill. Doesn't stop that cupola being the best. As for the Gunner only having his telescopic sight, you are wrong. The loader also had one as well.
    But it did not have a range finder as you said in your post #73: "
    Concerning observation, the Churchill tank was equipped with probably the best commanders cupola of WW2. It was certainly good enough for the British to convert Shermans to be equipped with this type, and included a range finder as well as all round vision. Most elements were copied by the US with their next design, with the main exception in that the portal was wider."

    As for the gun sights - I was speaking of the Panther gunner having only his telescopic sight. Suggesting that the Panther loader had a telescopic sight is, I assume, just more trolling.

    3. I did not say the Sherman was road bound. I said it was considered more road bound than its German counterparts by US troops.
    Read your post #73. It says directly: ". Further, much of this time period sees the troops fighting a hard slog, where for much of the time, the main allied tank, the Sherman, was road bound." You may have meant something else or you may have been trolling, but that is what you wrote.

    Further, when the Australians compared Shermans vs Churchills, they went Churchill after a 'jungle' test, due to superior tactical mobility. The A22 pulling the M4 out of a river probably helped in that judgement, as did superior levels of armour.

    I've sourced the reasons for my opinions, perhaps you might try the same .
    You forgot the source for you last statement re: Australian tests of the Churchill.......

    As for sourcing comments, I do that when I think it contributes to the discussion and preferably to sources where others can read the text on-line. Either by me quoting the text or the text being available on-line.

    You simply referring to a book is pointless, as we saw with your reference to Hunnicutts Pershing.

    Anyway, that is enough fun with this subject

    Leave a comment:


  • Cult Icon
    replied
    IS-2 may have been the best.

    Leave a comment:


  • panther3485
    replied
    Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
    From: http://english.battlefield.ru/tanks/...s/19-js-2.html


    This is the linchpin of my belief in this IS-2 turret armour issue. It is the fact that the Soviets conducted a test to explain higher than expected losses among their heavies. Spalling was found to be the cause.

    I happen to trust battlefield.ru website, and given that its opinion on the IS-2 is otherwise favourable, give credence to their statement. However, it would be useful to have the original source documentation of the test to back up what was stated.
    Yes Nick, I've already read this and taken it on board. I have no problem with the information as such. Issues with the quality of turret armour castings on the IS-2 have been established beyond doubt already; and acknowledged by myself.
    However, I don't see how this particular test - or anything else I've seen so far - makes any difference to my conclusions. Indeed, taken in sum with everything I have read or seen quoted, it forms part of the reason for my conclusions.
    I'm getting the feeling we've been "talking past each other" here.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nick the Noodle
    replied
    Originally posted by panther3485 View Post
    ... and I agree totally, based on what I've read too.
    The difference, such as it may be, is in what we appear to make of it.
    I would maintain that the range of practical detrimental effects that resulted from these issues - which in themselves, I believe, must have differed quite a lot by degree (and sometimes even by nature) from one case to another - would have varied very considerably, from relatively minimal in some cases and situations, all the way through to disastrous in other cases and situations.

    Therefore, I do not find the effects of these issues to be so easily quantifiable.
    IMO it's a can of worms, quite frankly. A bad can of worms, to be sure; but still very hard to measure, in terms of its effects from one case to another, with any real hope of consistency.
    From: http://english.battlefield.ru/tanks/...s/19-js-2.html
    In March 1944, firing tests were conducted with a 76.2 mm Gun ZiS-3 firing at an JS-2 tank from 500-600 metres. The tank's armour was penetrated from all sides of the tank. Whilst while most of the projectiles did not penetrate the armour completely, they created major splintering and fragmentation inside the turret. This explains the considerable losses of JS-85 and JS-122 tanks during the Winter-Spring of 1944.
    This is the linchpin of my belief in this IS-2 turret armour issue. It is the fact that the Soviets conducted a test to explain higher than expected losses among their heavies. Spalling was found to be the cause.

    I happen to trust battlefield.ru website, and given that its opinion on the IS-2 is otherwise favourable, give credence to their statement. However, it would be useful to have the original source documentation of the test to back up what was stated.

    Leave a comment:


  • panther3485
    replied
    Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post

    While you have every right to be suspicious of sweeping statements, every decent source on the IS-2 tank I've read states there were issues with the IS-2 turret armour.
    ... and I agree totally, based on what I've read too.
    The difference, such as it may be, is in what we appear to make of it.
    I would maintain that the range of practical detrimental effects that resulted from these issues - which in themselves, I believe, must have differed quite a lot by degree (and sometimes even by nature) from one case to another - would have varied very considerably, from relatively minimal in some cases and situations, all the way through to disastrous in other cases and situations.

    Therefore, I do not find the effects of these issues to be so easily quantifiable.
    IMO it's a can of worms, quite frankly. A bad can of worms, to be sure; but still very hard to measure, in terms of its effects from one case to another, with any real hope of consistency.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nick the Noodle
    replied
    Originally posted by panther3485 View Post
    My position, based on a combination of my own reading and everything I've seen offered here at ACG, begins with the fact that conditions for mass production of tanks in the Soviet Union were a world apart from those in countries such as the USA, Britain or even Germany for most of the war; and that as a result, much wider variations of quality, in terms of the types/degrees of problems found in WW2 Soviet tank armour across the board but especially with large turret castings, were the norm rather than the exception.

    Even though certain common tendencies have indeed been identified (as you have referenced) and are perfectly valid, nevertheless my conclusion is that actual, practical quality would probably still have varied considerably from one tank to another; certainly between plants and to a significant extent also even within plants; much more so than for comparable product from any Western factory at that time.

    Therefore IMO, the concept of taking a relative few examples as representative of the whole production of a series, while perfectly reasonable with regard to British, US or even German tank production, would be significantly less reliable with regard to WW2 Soviet production where IMHO, quality was much less consistent and more easily varied between really good and bloody terrible, with every shade of difference in between.

    This is why I am strongly inclined to be much more cautious coming to hard-and-fast conclusions about Soviet armour quality; particularly castings; and I will reject sweeping conclusions that seem to suppose that said quality was consistently bad, or consistently good, or consistently anything in those kinds of terms.
    I maintain that stance.
    If we disagree, we disagree. However, I don't think too much should be made of the fact that we (apparently) derive somewhat differing conclusions from the same basic information.

    While you have every right to be suspicious of sweeping statements, every decent source on the IS-2 tank I've read states there were issues with the IS-2 turret armour.

    The IS-2 was a mixed bag in terms of ability. While its turret protection was of suspect quality, OTOH, the glacis appeared to be virtually proof against everything. In terms of mobility, it lacked agility, but was incredibly reliable, especially for a heavy. In terms of gunpower, it lacked rounds and had a slow rate of fire. However, a single hit would be usually all what was needed.

    I quite like the IS-2, but when every source appears to state the same thing, I tend to believe it. However, 'every source' need not be correct, such as the A10 only having a maximum speed of 16mph .

    Leave a comment:


  • panther3485
    replied
    Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
    If I make sweeping statements, there is uaually a good reason for stating so, and I know you have access to the following .


    http://english.battlefield.ru/tanks/...s/19-js-2.html





    https://www.amazon.co.uk/Russian-Tan...f+world+war+ii

    While IS-2 armour looks good on paper, it had major flaws. Further, catastrophic explosions from panzerfaust hits on fuel cells was another real flaw with this tank.
    My position, based on a combination of my own reading and everything I've seen offered here at ACG, begins with the fact that conditions for mass production of tanks in the Soviet Union were a world apart from those in countries such as the USA, Britain or even Germany for most of the war; and that as a result, much wider variations of quality, in terms of the types/degrees of problems found in WW2 Soviet tank armour across the board but especially with large turret castings, were the norm rather than the exception.

    Even though certain common tendencies have indeed been identified (as you have referenced) and are perfectly valid, nevertheless my conclusion is that actual, practical quality would probably still have varied considerably from one tank to another; certainly between plants and to a significant extent also even within plants; much more so than for comparable product from any Western factory at that time.

    Therefore IMO, the concept of taking a relative few examples as representative of the whole production of a series, while perfectly reasonable with regard to British, US or even German tank production, would be significantly less reliable with regard to WW2 Soviet production where IMHO, quality was much less consistent and more easily varied between really good and bloody terrible, with every shade of difference in between.

    This is why I am strongly inclined to be much more cautious coming to hard-and-fast conclusions about Soviet armour quality; particularly castings; and I will reject sweeping conclusions that seem to suppose that said quality was consistently bad, or consistently good, or consistently anything in those kinds of terms.
    I maintain that stance.
    If we disagree, we disagree. However, I don't think too much should be made of the fact that we (apparently) derive somewhat differing conclusions from the same basic information.
    Last edited by panther3485; 16 Jan 17, 04:04.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nick the Noodle
    replied
    Originally posted by panther3485 View Post
    In addition to this, I have some reservations about the conclusion regarding armour quality on IS-2 turrets or, for that matter, over the tank generally.
    This is not to say that I disagree with Nick per se; because, IIRC based on some evidence of sampling the problem of over-hardening was indeed real.
    Rather, it's that from my reading that the finished quality of the large armour castings on Soviet tanks during WW2 was very far from being consistent, even in the final year of the conflict.
    IMO it's therefore reasonably likely that the range of variability included the outcomes of armour hardening processes.
    For this reason, I'm extremely wary of "hard and fast" sweeping conclusions.
    If I make sweeping statements, there is uaually a good reason for stating so, and I know you have access to the following .

    In March 1944, firing tests were conducted with a 76.2 mm Gun ZiS-3 firing at an JS-2 tank from 500-600 metres. The tank's armour was penetrated from all sides of the tank. Whilst while most of the projectiles did not penetrate the armour completely, they created major splintering and fragmentation inside the turret. This explains the considerable losses of JS-85 and JS-122 tanks during the Winter-Spring of 1944.
    http://english.battlefield.ru/tanks/...s/19-js-2.html
    The existing cast armour is penetrated by 88mm ammunition...due to its low quality, eg low density and bubbles.

    In reality, the IS-2 had several major shortcomings....splintering remained a problem for the IS-2's own armour. Tempering the armour to a very strong hardness proved too complex and costly to introduce, and the deficiency was allowed to remain.
    ...post battle analysis again revealed that the IS-2's armour was vulnerable up to 1000m because of faulty casting.

    https://www.amazon.co.uk/Russian-Tan...f+world+war+ii

    While IS-2 armour looks good on paper, it had major flaws. Further, catastrophic explosions from panzerfaust hits on fuel cells was another real flaw with this tank.

    Leave a comment:


  • broderickwells
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    So long as the gap isn't wider than the bridge...
    That is always the problem, isn't it? Looking at the stream and bridging equipment in the example, the problem of bank-to-bank access is not usually a big one for individuals or fully tracked vehicles. It is usually a problem for wheeled vehicles.

    Basic rule of thumb: if a bridging vehicle is used, the water obstacle is not significant, if a bridging vehicle can't do it, then it is a significant obstacle.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dibble201Bty
    replied
    Originally posted by Gooner View Post
    Same thing except shorter

    For the wider gaps -



    It's amazing just how good the Bailey was!

    Paul
    Last edited by Dibble201Bty; 12 Jan 17, 15:20.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dibble201Bty
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    Own



    Even customized it...

    Yea, that's right... REAL MEN own heavy construction machinery!
    Surely you mean for inadequate men who need a 'front'.... And who in their right mind would show evidence of drinking gaseous p**s water in a tin?

    Paul
    Last edited by Dibble201Bty; 12 Jan 17, 15:17.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gooner
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    Same thing in Sherman tank form...

    Same thing except shorter

    For the wider gaps -



    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by Dibble201Bty View Post
    So! you collect Tonka Toys?

    Paul
    Own



    Even customized it...

    Yea, that's right... REAL MEN own heavy construction machinery!

    Leave a comment:


  • Dibble201Bty
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    My John Deere 410D backhoe has all of 56 hp (officially) and it will lift and move a cubic yard of material or dig a quarter yard of material with the "stinger." Heaven help the car or pick up that it gets "angry" with.

    But, the same is true of bulldozers. They trade speed and horsepower for torque. A good construction bulldozer has lots of traction and tons of torque to literally move mountains. That's what they're supposed to do.
    That's why combat tanks make so-so bulldozers. But, if you're going to build one, you want it to have some capacity to fight too. The bulldozer is secondary to being a tank. I can also tell you that a bulldozer tank is incredibly valuable to the unit its with.

    Mine's a older model. This is the current equivalent...

    https://www.deere.com/en_US/docs/con...ckhoes/410.pdf
    So! you collect Tonka Toys?

    Paul

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X