Posted on 11/24/2014 6:30:37 AM PST by C19fan
You were doing well with your argument until you threw in the “comic book” comment. Why did you feel the need to do that?
No problem. My own family can’t decide how to spell it.
My experience is 27 years in that same Marine Corps as an artillery officer, commanding an artillery battalion at one point. My sole actual operational experience with tanks was with M-48s in Vietnam where they were used more as security and convoy protection more than anything else. For my secondary experience, I have spent some time with the T-34 (I was the one who crawled into the belly hatch of the one at Quantico and traversed the main gun to point at the TBS admin offices one weekend in '73. They are probably still looking for me). I have also examined the captured one we had Aberdeen and several of them in the Sinai desert at different points of time. I have had occasion to go through the German stuff at Fort Knox and Aberdeen and Israel (a Mark IV) and my interest and prejudices stem from after-action reports I have gone through from the European theater during my time in Command and Staff. I liked the T-34 - there was a simple functionality to it and the T-34/85s I crawled around in had plenty of room as compared to the M4s. Mainly I liked the fact that it was an example of a weapon whose design matched its requirements perfectly. The German stuff was nicely made but with weaknesses that doomed its usefulness in the long run. We have similar problems with our stuff now: our artillery whizzes insist on keeping the multi-ton 155mm as an expeditionary fire support weapon - in the end, how well does that technology choice help our Marine mission?
I was in the Marine Corps myself so that makes three of us. However, my experience was in the Air Wing so unless C-130s or other Marine aircraft happens to come up, I'll let you two go back to talking tanks!
In 1939, there was one automobile manufacturing operation in the Soviet Union. They were making a slightly improved version of the 1931 model A Ford.
I can only observe that the T-34 really was cramped inside and the crew could not be more than 5\ 4' tall, the Germans over-engineered weapons that were essentially disposable, and the Shermans used surplus radial aircraft engines that burned gasoline... in an environment filled with fire... Really!
The Germans did make things complicated. I read somewhere that just the fuel injection on the Messerschmidt 109 fighter had over 1,500 precision parts, as I recall. Thanks for the discussion from the front line.
The KV-1 was armed with the same 76 mm gun as the 1941 & 42 T-34s were armed with. It’s armor was heaver but the KV-1 was slower,and less maneuverable, The Soviets had already decided to end production of the KV-1 series by the time of the Battle of Kursk. At the beginning of the Battle of Kursk tank strength for the Soviet Central and Voronezh fronts was as follows: T-34 1,847, KV-1 108, M3 Grant 108,M3 Stuart 24, M4A2 Sherman 38, MK II Matilda 18, MK III Valentine 31, MK IV Churchill 42. Actual Soviet armor strength was greater when including the BT series light tanks, and SU self propelled anti tank guns. Unable to get tank breakdown for the Steppe Front which was Zhukov’s strategic reserve. Would have to think that it was equipped with approximately the same ratio of T-34s to other tanks.
It is doubtful that any significant number of American tanks aided in the defense of Moscow. The Lend-Lease Agreement was extended to the Soviets in October of 1941. American supplied equipment in significant quantities did not start reaching the Soviets until mid-42.
Yeah, my colleague at UD is one of the nation’s authorities on auto history. We discuss this stuff all the time. Fun.
>>I have had occasion to go through the German stuff at Fort Knox
Just a side note - I think all/most of that stuff is at Fort Benning now, and that the Patton Museum is a shell of its former self, housing just the Patton items. A buddy was the architect on the new museum at Benning, and told me they were moving all the armor. I went to high school at Fort Knox, and remember the old Patton museum.
I haven’t been to the Fort Benning museum, but this seems to verify his assertions.
http://www.nationalinfantrymuseum.org/armorcavalry-gallery/
The Armor collection, which moved to Fort Benning with the Armor School, includes more than 280 macro artifacts that reflect both American and international armored developments from World War I to the present. The new gallery tells the Armor story through a mix of actual combat vehicles, uniforms, soldier equipment, wall displays, and dioramas that also showcase the Armor museum collection.
?
Hope that survived the move to Benning intact...
I tend to get wrapped around the axle when I hear my fellow Freepers extolling the virtues of the Kraut stuff when we should be 1. learning the lessons from their loss and 2. being thankful that the jerks did lose.
The Nazis were whackos and even though they had some really good stuff, the greatest proportion of their equipment was ridiculous. For every ME-262 they had useless siege guns and dumb revenge weapons. For all of their technical advance, what use did a V-1 or V-2 have to win a war? What good is an 1898 bolt action rifle against a nation that pops out super dependable and accurate semiautomatics? (or for that matter, really dependable long-range bombers with nukes..)
The whole Nazi nation was a study in the worst of mental illness and misplaced creativity.
They moved the Armor school to Ft. Benning?
No apology necessary, Col. as I certainly did not take offense.
I too have been in a T-34 as well as a T-54 and T-72 down at Aberdeen. The Russians do believe in minimalizing when it comes to armored vehicles. The auto-loader in the 72 took up most of the turret... and I can’t imagine the smell after a couple of months living in those things.
Did the tour at Knox as well as a few other armor museums and would have liked to have crawled around in a Tiger but too few of those survived the war intact.
Your point is well taken on meeting the mission and the utter simplicity of the T-34 and I for one dislike the direction the Army has taken with the M1A2 (overloaded with electronics), but cannot get past the point that an armored vehicle is supposed to be able to take fire. We are missile magnets for a reason: better us than the AAV we are escorting.
I also believe that we are in violent agreement in how the Corps has tended to go bigger instead of maintaining our amphibious roots and stay light and agile. We ain’t the Army and should not compete with them for weaponry.
Happy belated Birthday, Marines!
Semper Fi
Excellent! Those things are a PITA for the KV-1 I like to fight in World of Tanks Blitz. Great game if you have an iPad.
Should be “most of their airplane engines.” After the war, Soviet jet engines came from the Brits for a while.
We had sold stuff to the Brits for gold. After the Lend Lease act they were carried on credit. We were not talking about Lend Lease to the Brits, but the Soviets. The lend Lease act was signed March 11, 1941. The President extended the act to include the Soviet Union in October 1941. At best a small trickle of material and equipment would have reached the Soviet Union by the time of the Battle of Moscow. This, being said, the Brits may have shipped armor to the Soviets starting at an earlier date than the Americans.
Yes, indirect.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.