See this?
I've seen it IN PERSON.
I was at the Kubinka Tank Museum in Russia in 1997. Read it and gnash your teeth in envy.
Posted on 09/08/2014 12:08:25 PM PDT by C19fan
Only the most techno-fanatic would argue that a certain type of tank has changed history. There are so many other causes -- military, political, economic, social -- that explain victory and defeat far better than size of gun or thickness of armor.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalinterest.org ...
Thank you. I got the year wrong.
Must be one of those senior moments...
5.56mm
The US had a flawed armor doctrine.
We maintained that AT guns and Tank Destroyers were for fighting other tanks and that tanks were for destroying infantry and breaking through. Patton supported this doctrine and wanted another coaxial MG in the Sherman’s gun mantlet.
We did, however, learn one VERY important lesson - there must be LOTS of them. Shermans were produced in prodigious quantities, were easy to transport by rail and road, and were mechanically reliable; these are the qualities that made them winners.
The tank that really changed history is the one on top of your toilet. Modern sanitation is a cornerstone of civilization.
Panzer is a German word that is an abbreviation for ‘’panzerkampfwagen’(’’armored fighting wagon or vehicle). The T-34 tank is probably the best tank of WW2 as far as it’s speed, ease of production, the fact that it was the first tank to employ sloped frontal armor to increase deflection and it had a wide track base for better traction.(Ironically it was designed by an America Walter Christie but the US Army wasn’t interested in it.) The Sherman was a piece of junk. Read Captain Belton Coopers book ‘’Death Traps’’ in which he excoriates the Sherman and it’s poor design. It was a gasoline powered tank the Germans called ‘’The Ronson Tank’’ after the Ronson cigarette lighters slogan ‘’Lights up on the first stroke!’One well placed German tank round and the Sherman was toast. With out a doubt the German Mark V Panther tank was a superb tank with a high velocity 75mm gun with a muzzle velocity of 1,120 fps. And of course the dreaded Mark VI Tiger Tank with it’s 88mm. that could destroy any Allied tank on the battlefield and was protected by up to four inches of armor plate was the M1 Abrahms of it’s day. And given to the Prussian tendency to over-build there was the Tiger 2 “Konigstiger’’ or King Tiger. A massive 70 ton brute with up to six inches of armor plate and a long barreled 88mm main gun tapered to increase it’s muzzle velocity to 1,130 fps. There is simply no doubt the German Army of WW2 had the most superb tanks and armored vehicles of any army at the time.
Check out the German Tiger 2. A 70 ton monster with up to six inches of armor and a tapered 88 main gun to increase it’s muzzle velocity.
I read where one of the Germans' big mistakes was handing out tank orders to companies who built locomotives and dockyard cranes. They were used to a much slower rate of production and didn't have the mindset to ramp things up.The Tiger was so big and so complicated it was not possible to manufacture them in vast numbers unlike the Allied tanks.The Germans used the same diesel engine to power all their different - and increasingly massive - tank models. Consequently, the bigger tanks were less mobile than their predecessors.
We, on the other hand, went to the automobile manufacturers, who were used to high production runs.
Very interesting book on the subject of American mass production of WWII weaponry:Basically, American mass production technology depended on precision to make interchangeable parts.
- Freedom's Forge:
- How American Business Produced Victory in World War II
Arthur HermanFDR didn’t wait for Pearl Harbor to start ramping up military production for WWII; that started in earnest after the fall of France in May 1940 and was well started at getting up to speed at the end of 1941. The bricks and mortar, and the precision machine tools, were already largely in place.
Due to his experience in administration during WWI, FDR knew that it would take time - he was advised 18 months - to gear up. Pearl Harbor was 18 months after the fall of France. What a coincidence!!
See this?
I've seen it IN PERSON.
I was at the Kubinka Tank Museum in Russia in 1997. Read it and gnash your teeth in envy.
Tigers had crappy transmissions that couldn’t handle the mass.
Very cool
I still like my Urban Combat Vehicle idea, though.
It was good for what it was, but the US Tanks were way too new. Battleground was better.
If an M1A1-2 isn’t war winning there never was one.
Gasoline Engines + Tank = Boom
What kind is that?
Is the left headlight missing?
I got to my tank unit less than a year after the battle of 73 Easting. My unit had not been in the lead during that, but as it became dark, they passed through the lead elements, to take the lead - and had a battle called the battle for Objective Norfolk...or ‘Fright Night’.
I talked to a lot of the guys about what happened, and I have studied it quite a bit.
After the engagements at 73 Easting, the other Republican Guard units in the area heard the explosions, and assumed it was an air attack - you may remember the protracted bombing phase. As a countermeasure to the perceived air attack, the Iraqi’s made their tanks ‘cold’ - as in shut down engines so they wouldn’t produce as bright of a heat signature. This also disabled power turrets and rangefinders.
So, our tankers described ‘floating watermelons’ - their thermal sights would pick up the heads of Iraqi crewmen peering out of cold tanks. And, our highly mobile, fire on the move, M1 tanks were ‘maneuvering’ against static gun emplacements, rather than a mobile tank force. Yes, earlier in the day they had maneuvered circles around the Iraqis at 73 Easting...but now it was more akin to running a gauntlet.
The Iraqis weren’t stupid, and they would wait for most of the unit to pass by, before firing. This caused great confusion for our guys, and the entire night was a tedious exchange of radio communications getting clearance to fire (the unit I later joined in peacetime was 2-34 Armor - and every single shot had to be cleared from above, while sister units were looser...but did have fratricide).
In general, besides the fact that the Iraqis didn’t have the use of power turrets or fire control systems, the biggest advantage came down to ammunition. The Soviets had not sold their top notch ammo to the Iraqis, and the second tier stuff didn’t penetrate. Now the 125 mm gun they had was a monster - and with the right ammo, who knows how deadly it could have been. Its moot now, since our armor and Russian ammo have both changed since.
And there was also a range component - and the story of our range advantage somewhat disturbs me. If one of our tankers was able to see a ‘floating watermelon’ at max range (4,000 m), he essentially had a 2,000 meter advantage over the Iraqis. And, as he was moving, he tried to work the radio and get clearance to fire before he closed in to the T-72 range. If he got clearance in time, dead T-72. If he didn’t, do you remember stories of M1’s taking direct frontal hits and surviving? That’s generally why it happened. What scares me is - what would happen if we fought against an enemy with equal range, and we still persisted in getting clearance to fire.
Anyway, a little back story on the M1 vs T72 in Iraq. For a few hours, 2nd ACR demonstrated our superior capabilities against an Iraqi maneuver force...literally one Scout Troop (equivalent of a company) destroyed and entire regiment (equivalent of around 6 companies). But after that it was just a slaughter - the complete lack of Iraqi communications made the feared Republican Guard prepare for an air attack, and spelled their doom.
The Sherman was the 5-1 tank. They would send 5 Sherman’s against the Panther4 or a Tiger, 4 Sherman’s were bait and get blown up, while the 5th sneaks up and popped a cap in jerry’s ass. Standard tactics. The US Army had first choice at a tank with the T-34 suspension but passed.
The Sherman was a steel body bag. Using a gasoline engine made it worse but faster.
The Soviets figured out early on that tanks had a pretty short life-expectancy and thus threw the T-34’s together as fast as they could. I don’t think the Germans, with their meticulous standards, could ever come around to that way of thinking. So while the German tanks were certainly amazing specimens, 1 German supertank could not beat 4 or 5 quickly and cheaply produced “good enough” Soviet tanks.
The king Tiger: Too heavy for Normandy bridges, too thirsty for in-short-supply fuel, too wide for Normandy roads.
Nice thinking, Adolf.
Duh! Said Normandy, meant Belgium, as on “Watch On The Rhine”
Russian T-34 - A very good looking and effective tank. The best in WW II. Sloped armor, 76.2 mm gun, 19” treads, V-12 diesel, 500 hp engine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/39/T-34_Model_1940.jpg
http://topicstock.pantip.com/wahkor/topicstock/2010/02/X8897808/X8897808-vote1.jpg
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.
