Jump to content


Rants and Death Traps


  • Please log in to reply
441 replies to this topic

Walter_Sobchak #401 Posted Oct 26 2014 - 13:40

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 236 battles
  • 5,140
  • Member since:
    11-22-2010

View PostDonward, on Oct 26 2014 - 03:58, said:

Better drop the $30 to buy Bill O'Reilly's "Killing Patton" book then.

 

I dunno, that sounds like one of those books with lots of words.  Can't I just get this instead?

 



Walter_Sobchak #402 Posted Oct 26 2014 - 14:00

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 236 battles
  • 5,140
  • Member since:
    11-22-2010

View PostAccount_Name, on Oct 26 2014 - 07:30, said:

I wonder if the "Red hordes" myth also owes something to the tactics of the Communist forces in Korea?  The Chinese infiltration often gave the impression that they were a numberless horde (they weren't, but it seemed that way to the Tommies and GIs at the sharp end) and the North Korean strategy in the early days of the war basically consisted of pointing their T34s in the direction of Seoul and opening the throttles wide open.

 

For American audiences, I would not be surprised if this is true.  The US had a bad habit of lumping all communist nations together as part of the "communist monolith", ignoring the factors that differentiated each country from the other. 

 

As far as the German troops during WW2,  they often felt as if they were fighting an enemy with limitless manpower.  The Red Army was pretty good at using it's overall manpower advantage to concentrate forces at critical sectors and overwhelm the enemy.  Concentration of forces is a basic military principle and the Red Army was good at it.  It also helped that they generally had better intel, a key factor in being able to build up a local superiority without the enemy knowing it.

 

The overall manpower advantage of the Red Army was not as high as people think.  Glatz provides ratios for troops at the front in "When Titans Clash".  In 1941 the manpower is only about 1.2 to 1 in favor of the Soviets.  In 42 its around 1.5 to 1.  By 43 it's roughly 1.75 to 1 and by 44 it's 2 to 1.  By late 44, early 45 it's 3 to 1 roughly. 



AdmiralTheisman #403 Posted Oct 26 2014 - 14:26

    Captain

  • Players
  • 30786 battles
  • 1,821
  • Member since:
    07-01-2013

View PostWalter_Sobchak, on Oct 26 2014 - 13:40, said:

 

I dunno, that sounds like one of those books with lots of words.  Can't I just get this instead?

 

 

Why read a book when you can get history from the "experts"?



Account_Name #404 Posted Oct 26 2014 - 15:49

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 0 battles
  • 50
  • Member since:
    09-07-2014

@Walter

 

Good point.  This extended even into officialdom - the US during the run-up to the Korean War were incapable of seeing regional differences within the Communist bloc, to their ultimate cost.



EnsignExpendable #405 Posted Oct 26 2014 - 18:38

    Major

  • Players
  • 23745 battles
  • 17,792
  • [SGLE] SGLE
  • Member since:
    04-22-2011

View Poststalkervision, on Oct 26 2014 - 01:09, said:

let me know when you actually read a military history book or even one on Joseph Stalin.

 

Stalin isn't a Voldemort either. And would you like to see a picture of my bookshelf? It is not as impressive as it could have been in the digital age, but I think you will agree that I have read many military history books.

 

View PostAccount_Name, on Oct 26 2014 - 07:30, said:

I wonder if the "Red hordes" myth also owes something to the tactics of the Communist forces in Korea?  The Chinese infiltration often gave the impression that they were a numberless horde (they weren't, but it seemed that way to the Tommies and GIs at the sharp end) and the North Korean strategy in the early days of the war basically consisted of pointing their T34s in the direction of Seoul and opening the throttles wide open.

 

That's the nature of maskirovka. Conceal the forces you have in one place and make it look like you have forces in another place. While you are rolling over your enemy with concealed forces, they don't have time to double-check that the force they were preparing to defend from actually consists of three guys and a lot of balloons. The survivors then record ridiculous numbers for enemies they are facing. 

 

I found a record of the Germans attempting the same thing against the Soviets, where the first commander to have read the report of what happened and compared it against received intelligence realized that the Germans were sending a large amount of tanks to one area, opening mass fire, and then left 2-3 tanks there as bait, relocated the main group of tanks, and repeated the trick. This worked well for about one battle.

 

View PostWalter_Sobchak, on Oct 26 2014 - 09:00, said:

The overall manpower advantage of the Red Army was not as high as people think.  Glatz provides ratios for troops at the front in "When Titans Clash".  In 1941 the manpower is only about 1.2 to 1 in favor of the Soviets.  In 42 its around 1.5 to 1.  By 43 it's roughly 1.75 to 1 and by 44 it's 2 to 1.  By late 44, early 45 it's 3 to 1 roughly. 

 

In 1941, the Red Army was also mobilized in waves. The USSR was fast at mobilizing, it may have even been the fastest, but it could not mobilize everyone immediately. Therefore, until about November-December when the front lines stopped rushing eastward and the Soviets ha some time to breathe, the Germans, despite popular narrative, had a numerical advantage literally all the time.

 



Wyvern2 #406 Posted Oct 26 2014 - 19:00

    Major

  • Players
  • 35835 battles
  • 3,124
  • [_D_] _D_
  • Member since:
    06-08-2011
The Communist Chinese and NK forces were decidedly inferior to the USSR in organization and combat capability. There is just no comparison. Yes, they did infiltrate and used cunning at times, but in the end, it came down to using raw manpower to try to win out and the loss statistics make this brutally clear. Of course, this also stems from their lack of heavy fire support. the USSR tended to outmatch the Germans in number of heavy weapons of all kinds by 1943 onward(from anti tank guns to tanks proper to aircraft to artillery and mortars) and this was where their key numerical advantage lay, not in bodies to throw at the problem like people want to believe.

Suryia #407 Posted Nov 12 2014 - 15:00

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 13617 battles
  • 63
  • Member since:
    08-17-2012

It seems to me that the point the Chieftain is getting at is to critically assess any information source before forming opinions based on that source.

 

I haven't had enough beer today to dive into another variations of the "What's my favorite WWII tank" debate. :justwait:


Edited by Suryia, Nov 12 2014 - 15:03.


pamak #408 Posted Jul 12 2015 - 15:33

    Private

  • -Players-
  • 10 battles
  • 4
  • Member since:
    07-12-2015

Hello everybody,

I am a newbie, just completed my first battle and I am ready to post.

I am 45 years old and have studied military history for quite a few decades.

I have to say that I have read many thoughts related to the debate about the Sherman, and I still have not arrived at a definite answer about many things.

 

One of the most interesting pieces of information I have ever read was the article and thread in this forum about the Dragon Exercise.  Since that thread is locked, I would like to ask the more experienced members here if they have more information regarding the specific cross-country performance of the Shermans in that exercise. I read all the available documents and I saw the very low incidents of repairing the Shermans during the test. However, to my knowledge so far there has not been any classification of the immobilization-break down incidents according to the nature of the tank's movement (road or cross country).

 

I wonder if there was a case where the performance of the Shermans was far superior compared to the other models during the road movement but not so during the cross country movement. I assume that a tank with comparatively low cross country mobility will load its engine and other mechanical components  to a higher degree which will increase the incidents of mechanical breakdowns . The key word is comparatively to another model with higher cross country mobility. It does not necessarily mean that in absolute numbers the Sherman had a smaller number of break downs during the cross country portion of the exercise, but it could mean that the performance gap between the Sherman and the other tanks was narrower. 

 

I also do not know if during the exercise they kept statistics regarding all the number of all cases of tank immobilization (mechanical breakdown, bogging, etc) during a cross country movement which needed some type of intervention to resume the tank's movement. I read the reports on specific dates posted by Chieftain but it was just too short and could not find the information I was looking for.     

 

Much of my curiosity about the existence of cross country data come from my suspicions about the Sherman's overall   cross country mobility. As an example, here is one comparative tests by the Swedish army in the early 50's with a very good English translation.:

 

 

I have to say though, that my intent is not to rant about the Sherman. I am more interested in general about the probability of any tank's breakdown or immobilization in general during a cross country movement as opposed during a classic road movement. I have tried for may years to find hard data but without success.

I will appreciate if anybody here can offer his comments about this subject.

Thank you

 

 


Edited by pamak, Jul 12 2015 - 15:34.


zloykrolik #409 Posted Jul 13 2015 - 03:30

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 36669 battles
  • 410
  • [RDTT2] RDTT2
  • Member since:
    05-05-2012
Welcome. Thank you for your reasoned & well written 1st question. 

The_Chieftain #410 Posted Jul 13 2015 - 08:08

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 13140 battles
  • 9,885
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

Hmm. A lot of those older threads have been locked. I've started unlocking them.

 

The general impression I got from reading the Dracula (I presume that's what you meant) documents was that it was almost exclusively on-road testing.

 

It is certainly true that off-road use can strain components in different ways, perhaps bringing to greater light issues at low gearing ratios, for example. That said, inferior off-road performance is more a matter of design capability than durability. The tank will move slower, traverse less terrain, etc. But unless the driver's incompetent (eg, if mired in mud, caused by the narrow tracks of the early Sherman shown in the Swedish video, he continues to gun it to wear out the power train instead of accepting that he's stuck and waiting for a pull), I don't see component failure as being a particularly dramatic deviation. 



pamak #411 Posted Jul 13 2015 - 11:57

    Private

  • -Players-
  • 10 battles
  • 4
  • Member since:
    07-12-2015

Thank you for the reply,

 

I will continue the conversation on the Dracula  thread



pamak #412 Posted Jul 13 2015 - 13:54

    Private

  • -Players-
  • 10 battles
  • 4
  • Member since:
    07-12-2015

By the way,

 

The Swedish video gives the Sherman Track width being 58 cm. This is 22.8 inches which is way more than the narrow track of early Sherman models. The puzzling thing is that it is even wider than the figure I have seen of Sherman tracks with extended end connectors (about 20 inches). Since the video is from the early 50's, I suspect that there were some post-war modifications. Moreover, the video shows different types of Shermans during the trials (see for example the Sherman in the snow test) and at least in some cases I can see narrow tracks (although I have to say that I am not familiar with the technical characteristics of the different tank types).

 

Edit: okay, I did find this

 

 http://the.shadock.free.fr/sherman_minutia/tracks/hvss_tracks.html

 

Block Quote

 In the Summer of 1943, the Chrysler Corporation began development of "horizontal volute spring suspension and 23” center guided tracks

 

 

 


Edited by pamak, Jul 13 2015 - 14:41.


Vanagandr #413 Posted Jul 13 2015 - 15:39

    Major

  • Players
  • 25407 battles
  • 3,622
  • [-G-] -G-
  • Member since:
    04-22-2011
Today I learned how to talk about track pressure in Swedish. 

Slagbroder #414 Posted Jul 13 2015 - 16:20

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 19697 battles
  • 69
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011

I just want someone to build a big metal box, fill it halfway up with transmission fluid, and shoot it with a 20mm AP round as many times as they want, and see how long it actually takes for that to catch on fire.  

Then, after 25 or so attempts when it still hasn't caught on fire, I want Wargaming to issue a public apology to anyone who played a German tank from 2011-2014 



Vanagandr #415 Posted Jul 13 2015 - 17:02

    Major

  • Players
  • 25407 battles
  • 3,622
  • [-G-] -G-
  • Member since:
    04-22-2011

View PostFree_Belfast1971, on Jul 13 2015 - 09:20, said:

I just want someone to build a big metal box, fill it halfway up with transmission fluid, and shoot it with a 20mm AP round as many times as they want, and see how long it actually takes for that to catch on fire.  

Then, after 25 or so attempts when it still hasn't caught on fire, I want Wargaming to issue a public apology to anyone who played a German tank from 2011-2014 

 

This is very related to the conversation at hand.

The_Chieftain #416 Posted Jul 13 2015 - 23:01

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 13140 battles
  • 9,885
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

View PostVanagandr, on Jul 13 2015 - 16:02, said:

 

This is very related to the conversation at hand.

 

Not only that, but heaven forbid that the US Army should conclude that transmission fires occurred.

 



Slagbroder #417 Posted Jul 14 2015 - 02:22

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 19697 battles
  • 69
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Jul 13 2015 - 14:01, said:

 

Not only that, but heaven forbid that the US Army should conclude that transmission fires occurred.

 

 

I'm well aware that 80/90W gear oil can catch on fire, the type of oil (probably) used in a manual gearbox in an American tank. 

I'm more specifically concerned with how the hydraulic fluid used in the Tiger's semi automatic transmission was catching on fire constantly in game for years. 

I digress, obviously the Tiger's mechanical configuration was more fire prone than the American and other tanks which in reality were more prone to transmission fires.  oh well 



Priory_of_Sion #418 Posted Jul 14 2015 - 03:50

    Major

  • Players
  • 14866 battles
  • 6,761
  • Member since:
    11-08-2011



Slagbroder #419 Posted Jul 14 2015 - 03:57

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 19697 battles
  • 69
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011

View PostPriory_of_Sion, on Jul 13 2015 - 18:50, said:

 

yes, this is how you make transmission fluid burn. It has to be aerated at high pressure onto an extremely hot surface.  That's not a surprise and nobody is contesting that.  Shooting the reservoir on an automatic transmission or hitting the main housing and smashing gears apart is not going to cause a fire. A steering hose leaking onto exhaust manifold?  sure.  

Priory_of_Sion #420 Posted Jul 14 2015 - 04:17

    Major

  • Players
  • 14866 battles
  • 6,761
  • Member since:
    11-08-2011

View PostFree_Belfast1971, on Jul 13 2015 - 21:57, said:

 

yes, this is how you make transmission fluid burn. It has to be aerated at high pressure onto an extremely hot surface.  That's not a surprise and nobody is contesting that.  Shooting the reservoir on an automatic transmission or hitting the main housing and smashing gears apart is not going to cause a fire. A steering hose leaking onto exhaust manifold?  sure.  

I'm surprised that gears being smashed apart inside a tank by a large projectile is not going to create an environment with high pressures or hot surfaces. 






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users