Jump to content

Exercise Dracula

  • Please log in to reply
287 replies to this topic

Johnny_Wishbone #281 Posted Jul 21 2014 - 23:36

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 5839 battles
  • 272
  • Member since:

View PostIcon_Charlie, on Jul 05 2014 - 02:27, said:

IMHO most of the British Tanks were Dogs during WWII.  Only when the very successful Centurion tank came out is when the militarys  of the world took notice that British can build a quality tank.


To be fair to the British, the Cromwell, and tanks of the same generation, were designed under tremendous strategic pressure, very much as the Panther was, and were not given the full round of redevelopment that was (and is) the norm.  They weren't really mature vehicles; they were more like modified prototypes.

Meplat #282 Posted Jul 21 2014 - 23:52


  • Players
  • 6774 battles
  • 7,831
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:

View PostCombatCommandD, on Jul 21 2014 - 13:39, said:

Okay, I was curious as it clicked that the Chieftain said he was in Utah and there had been a Hellcat restored in Utah. I thought they might have been one and the same. Oh well. It would have been a bit nice. Like how 131 was used for Fury.


Though, geez! Talk about low to the ground. Were the TD men short?

I can't close the hatch when I drive that one. With the seat all the way down, my knees are almost to my chest, and I have issues fully pulling the steering levers because they hit my knees.

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Jul 21 2014 - 14:18, said:

There were two M18s used in filming. One was based in Utah, the other in New Mexico. The New Mexico one is the same we used to film the FPS Russian episode. The chap in Utah owns two M18s, one of which was the restored one to which you refer. I am unsure as to if this one was the same as that.

I'm not sure how many "hero Hellcats" they had, supposedly this one got a lot of screen-time. My dealings with it are limited to field repair/maintenance and occasional driver duties.

Here's a side shot with the movie markings. (Pardon the glare from my dome)


Anlushac11 #283 Posted Jul 22 2014 - 00:34


  • Players
  • 39317 battles
  • 2,361
  • Member since:

View PostXlucine, on Jul 20 2014 - 15:55, said:


!!! we have proof of a german tank burning from a hit to the transmission!!! Thanks for sharing that wonderful sheet, it really shows up a lot of the big cat myths


The only hit I saw listed that might be considered was the penetration in front of the Panther sprocket. We have very little information to go on as to whether this was a transmission hit. 


Its just likely that round penetrated lower front plate and hit the ammo stored vertically behind driver and hull gunner initiating a ammo fire.


It has also been long established that the Tiger I was vulnerable to Sherman 75mm at under 500m and Panther's side armor vulnerable at under 1000m


Regarding M4-105 replacing M7 as arty that was a bad choice of words on my part.


It was my understanding that Sherman units had a platoon or battery of M7's attached to Sherman units for organic fire support. The M4-105's I thought replaced these attached M7 units and were used in same role attached to Sherman units.


I thought it was at battalion level but someone explained it went a lot lower in organization.

Edited by Anlushac11, Jul 22 2014 - 15:47.

Otto_matic_Reiffel #284 Posted Jul 22 2014 - 11:44


  • Beta Testers
  • 7046 battles
  • 2,008
  • Member since:

View PostXlucine, on Jul 21 2014 - 05:25, said:


!!! we have proof of a german tank burning from a hit to the transmission!!!

No you don't, unless I've missed something. Don't read more into the document than what is written.

cashdash #285 Posted Aug 09 2014 - 01:46


  • Players
  • 5558 battles
  • 7,254
  • Member since:
so did rocksitter every provide that source i asked of him?

Wyvern2 #286 Posted Sep 08 2014 - 21:33


  • Players
  • 35835 battles
  • 3,114
  • [_D_] _D_
  • Member since:

View Postcashdash, on Aug 09 2014 - 02:46, said:

so did rocksitter every provide that source i asked of him?


yes, maybe, not really no....

I don't really see why people don't like the british tanks, the early war ones suffered reliability issues, but at the same time, the african desert was pretty demanding on maintenance required, and quite frankly, the brits often didn't have the resources necessary for maintenance. What few people seem to realize(or it seems like they don't realize it) is that the british restricted british tank width due to railway gauge. This results in boxy tank design for example, since they were trying to maximize internal space, albeit at the cost of sloped armor protection. The Churchill proved to be an extremely good tank design as far as cross country performance goes, basically making it the best tank for specialized roles. The cromwell had amazing speed and a very low silhouette, unlike the sherman(which happens to be taller than the challenger iirc from chamberlain), it equipped armored reconaissance regiments in the british army, including the airborne ones after normandy. And of course, it also served as a classic medium tank as well. The comet is essentially pushing a tank of such size to its limits, and the centurion is basically the first british service tank to do away with old rail gauge requirements.

Fishrokk #287 Posted Sep 09 2014 - 01:43


  • Players
  • 18336 battles
  • 2,110
  • [K-S-W] K-S-W
  • Member since:

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Jul 16 2014 - 17:40, said:

Dunno. Never took it off.


You never had anyone convenient to blame, did you?

pamak #288 Posted Jul 13 2015 - 13:06


  • -Players-
  • 10 battles
  • 4
  • Member since:

continue the conversation from




First, let me say that I do not have the full report to read it. However, based from what is available  online, it is pretty clear that at least a portion of the exercise  was designed to test both the  road and cross country mobility of the vehicles.


From https://worldoftanks.com/dcont/fb/document/draculamaintopt.pdf

page 7 (32 day of exercise) gives a "cross-country lap" and a "road circuit." In addition, it  says  under the headline "General Remarks and Summary" that the vehicles should reach a target of 25% cross country running. 


On the other hand, as I said in the beginning of the discussion there are no data (at least online) to separate breakdowns among the different types of movement (road and cross country).


Even though It is difficult to find data to compare a vehicle's road movement mechanical reliability to that of cross country, I do have an obscure document which makes indirectly such a comparison for a modern tracked vehicle.


From http://www.gao.gov/products/403173#mt=e-report


Block Quote

 Further, since the 1987 M113A3 test was conducted using a mission profile of 40 percent cross-country, while the IAV mission profile in the OMS/MP envisioned 50 percent cross-country (at least during the small scale contingency), the SSEB made a 10-percent downward adjustment to the baseline based on the SSEB's engineering judgment that the increased cross-country travel would lead to reliability degradation because of increased shock, vibration and introduction of contaminants


The document is related to the evaluation and rejection of a proposal for the development of a new tracked Infantry Armored Vehicle.

The SSEB is the Source Selection Evaluation Board: A group of military and/or government civilian personnel, representing functional and technical disciplines, that is charged with evaluating proposals and developing summary facts and findings during source selection.

The "adjustment to the baseline" mentioned in the quote refers to an adjustment of the baseline reliability figure of mean miles between critical  failures (MMBCF).


The above quote shows  that according to the "engineering judgment" of the SSEB a conversion of 10% of the total distance covered during a mission from  road movement to cross country movement affects the tracked vehicle's reliability by 10%. Roughly speaking, if the mission profile was 100% cross country movement, the MMBCF would be 100% degraded (in other words, number of failures doubled) compared to a mission profile of 100% road movement.  


Of course, I understand the limitations of the assumptions implied in the previous explanations. This is why I try to find more concrete figures from field tests which give a direct comparison of the mechanical reliability of armored vehicles during  cross country and road movements.









Edited by pamak, Jul 13 2015 - 13:26.

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users