Jump to content


Myths of American Armor


  • Please log in to reply
216 replies to this topic

Slayer_Jesse #181 Posted Jun 14 2015 - 09:00

    Major

  • Players
  • 26791 battles
  • 9,096
  • [SAKU] SAKU
  • Member since:
    08-31-2013

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Jun 13 2015 - 23:02, said:

 

the article I did about gree weeks ago is somewhat on point.

 

gree week? what's that? :P

notarussiancactus #182 Posted Jun 14 2015 - 11:51

    Private

  • -Players-
  • 26 battles
  • 3
  • Member since:
    03-20-2015

Very nice video.

 

 

Chieftain, is there any book which has a detailed list of tank engagements between US and German forces in Normandy, with casualties? (Best being cross-checked also)


Edited by notarussiancactus, Jun 14 2015 - 11:51.


Walter_Sobchak #183 Posted Jun 14 2015 - 13:51

    Major

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

I was reading an article about the 737th Tank Battalion and their annual reunion.  Sadly, there were only three veterans of the unit at their last meeting, time is catching up with these guys.  The article gives some history for the unit:

 

Block Quote

Military records show the battalion spent 299 days in actual combat, starting with its landing at Omaha Beach July 12, 1944. It saw some of its fiercest action in the Battle of the Bulge.

A tank battalion took in 750 men, 59 Sherman (medium) tanks and 17 Stewart (light )tanks. As part of Patton’s Third Army, the 737th Tank Battalion was the first to cross the Moselle and Meurthe rivers, the first armored unit of the XII Corps to touch German soil and the first armored unit of the Third Army to cross the Rhine River and enter Frankfurt.

The battalion lost six officers and 58 enlisted men in action. In addition, an officer and 20 enlisted men were reported missing. The battalion’s men received 400 Purple Hearts, 22 commendations, the President’s Unit Citation and the French Croix de Guerre with Silver Star.

 

Notice that they lost 64 men over 299 days of fighting.  That's less than ten percent of the total 750 men in the battalion.  It's hardly more than one fatality per tank over the entire time the unit was in action, which includes some pretty major battles.  I thought these figures dovetailed nicely with what the Chieftain said in the video about how US tank crew losses were actually not all that high.  Certainly not when compared to infantry unit loses. 



night_ #184 Posted Jun 14 2015 - 14:02

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 14712 battles
  • 10
  • [IDF4W] IDF4W
  • Member since:
    08-20-2011
I liked the video very much, I would like to see more.

EnsignExpendable #185 Posted Jun 14 2015 - 18:37

    Major

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

View PostZinegata, on Jun 13 2015 - 21:49, said:

Chieftain - now that I remember it, do you plan on taking a look at the myth of the US Sherman gyros?

 

There are some quarters (scale modelers mostly) that claim that the gyros never really worked, but someone I know who actually tried it out noted that while it didn't allow fire-on-the-move like an Abrams it still greatly increased the chance of a first shot hitting when the tank stopped just before shooting, and that it also allowed for a relatively quick and accurate snap-shot when the column got ambushed and the Shermans needed to back up and escape.

 

The Soviets sure seemed to think that it was helpful on the move. Not from a Sherman, but:

 

The cramped crew space, inconvenient locations of the turning and firing mechanisms, wobbling of the armament and rapid oscillations of the tank make it impossible to aim on the move without the use of the hydraulic stabilizer.

...

Firing on the move without the stabilizer allows for a rate of fire of 3.5 rounds per minute. The use of the stabilizer increases the rate of fire to 5-6 RPM and increases precision of fire.



The_Chieftain #186 Posted Jun 15 2015 - 00:10

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 10153 battles
  • 9,596
  • [WGA-A] WGA-A
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

View Postr_Jesse, on Jun 14 205 - 08:00, said:

 

gree week? what's that? :P

Three weeks. I don't get on well with ipadd



nuttydave1234 #187 Posted Jun 15 2015 - 00:58

    Major

  • Players
  • 27125 battles
  • 2,291
  • [F0XEY] F0XEY
  • Member since:
    07-13-2013

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Jun 15 2015 - 00:10, said:

Three weeks. I don't get on well with ipadd

 

The irony 

JPower #188 Posted Jun 15 2015 - 15:16

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 20297 battles
  • 228
  • Member since:
    02-07-2013

View Postnightz, on Jun 06 2015 - 11:57, said:

Rather lazy of you to post a video.

 

Disappointing...

 

I hope this was sarcasm

CaterpillerMan #189 Posted Jun 15 2015 - 19:37

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 37997 battles
  • 43
  • [B-O-W] B-O-W
  • Member since:
    06-19-2011

View Postcollimatrix, on Jun 06 2015 - 20:19, said:

 

This video shows that the Germans, or at least their propaganda ministry, followed the American practice and called their tanks "General."  Ditto this chart:

 

 

The American Practice was to Name their Tanks after their Generals, Not name their tanks "General Lee". (example in your video example)

Your Video Example does shed some light on the "Naming Myth" the Chieftain was referring to in his video. This Video reminded me of the Aberdeen Proving Ground Videos of the German Tanks. Thanks I enjoyed both of your examples.

 



GLITTERPOOP #190 Posted Jun 17 2015 - 12:15

    Private

  • -Players-
  • 45 battles
  • 3
  • Member since:
    10-12-2011

 

I recall reading the Soviets issues with gyros stemmed from receiving very few spare parts outside of complete engines and the gyro system itself requiring extra maintance.

 

 



Wyvern2 #191 Posted Jun 19 2015 - 20:11

    Major

  • Players
  • 35817 battles
  • 3,124
  • [_D_] _D_
  • Member since:
    06-08-2011

View PostCaterpillerMan, on Jun 15 2015 - 19:37, said:

 

The American Practice was to Name their Tanks after their Generals, Not name their tanks "General Lee". (example in your video example)

Your Video Example does shed some light on the "Naming Myth" the Chieftain was referring to in his video. This Video reminded me of the Aberdeen Proving Ground Videos of the German Tanks. Thanks I enjoyed both of your examples.

 

Except that wasn't an american practice, that was a british practice adopted by the americans. The Sherman, Stuart, Lee/Grant were all named by the brits. In fact, I'm fairly sure most if not all commonly used names for american WW2 tanks are actually british.


Edited by Wyvern2, Jun 19 2015 - 20:11.


AssaultPlazma #192 Posted Jun 20 2015 - 06:44

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 191 battles
  • 22
  • Member since:
    06-15-2015

How did Shermans typically engange enemy armor?

 

Also

 

Does anyone know why the Pershing was deemed acceptable in the first place with such an under powered engine? 


Edited by AssaultPlazma, Jun 20 2015 - 06:44.


Legiondude #193 Posted Jun 20 2015 - 10:08

    Major

  • Players
  • 20134 battles
  • 23,025
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    08-22-2011

View PostAssaultPlazma, on Jun 19 2015 - 23:44, said:

Does anyone know why the Pershing was deemed acceptable in the first place with such an under powered engine? 

I'd imagine it would have something to do with:

1. It's evolution out of the T20-23 series which used the Ford GAN of similar horsepower output

2. The Ford GAF the T26's used were of the same mechanical family as the GAA that M4A3's were deployed with(Meaning some logistical compatibility)

3. The next engine on the table in 1944-45's timeframe available for production and deployment would be the Wright G200. But a glance at the M6's hull compared to the M26's makes it very clear that is not really an option with the intent to preserve it's dimensions.

4. The T29 was designed in Spring 1945 to use the Ford GAC reaching up close to 800 hp but that was far too late in the war to be of use to the Pershing and possibly too large for the M26's engine bay

 

It wasn't until after the war, with projects like the 1948 AV-1790 and 1949's AOS-895, did technology increase power while decreasing weight and volume


Edited by Legiondude, Jun 20 2015 - 10:10.


Guardianleopard #194 Posted Jun 20 2015 - 17:00

    Captain

  • Players
  • 11439 battles
  • 1,134
  • [SAKU] SAKU
  • Member since:
    05-11-2012
M4 should have the least module damage in the game, it deserves that right, for it is M4 Sherman! (while T-34 76 should get a high amount) M4 sherman GLORY TENK! (btw, you can knock out a King Tiger with enough 75mm ammo, just remove the tracks, jam the turret, then jam the gun, and it'll stop moving)

Meplat #195 Posted Jun 20 2015 - 19:03

    Major

  • Players
  • 6635 battles
  • 7,831
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    11-27-2012

View PostGuardianleopard, on Jun 20 2015 - 09:00, said:

M4 should have the least module damage in the game, it deserves that right, for it is M4 Sherman! (while T-34 76 should get a high amount) M4 sherman GLORY TENK! (btw, you can knock out a King Tiger with enough 75mm ammo, just remove the tracks, jam the turret, then jam the gun, and it'll stop moving)

 

What the hell are you on about now?

Guardianleopard #196 Posted Jun 20 2015 - 19:27

    Captain

  • Players
  • 11439 battles
  • 1,134
  • [SAKU] SAKU
  • Member since:
    05-11-2012

M4 should not get nearly as much crew or module dmg because real life lol

T-34's on the other hand...

while you can disable a KT with a 75mm



Meplat #197 Posted Jun 20 2015 - 22:54

    Major

  • Players
  • 6635 battles
  • 7,831
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    11-27-2012

View PostGuardianleopard, on Jun 20 2015 - 11:27, said:

M4 should not get nearly as much crew or module dmg because real life lol

T-34's on the other hand...

while you can disable a KT with a 75mm

 

Cut the dose Eugene.

NL_Celt #198 Posted Jun 22 2015 - 20:48

    Major

  • Players
  • 25310 battles
  • 5,356
  • Member since:
    10-05-2012

Chieftain. Years ago I read a book that gave the account of where the term Honey came from. It was a long time ago so I don't recall either the name of the book nor the author, and the details are hazy enough as well, except for the response quoted below. Just a small paperback. The author was a tank commander of a troop of Honey's in North Africa. The book was all about his battle experiences there. Near the start he recounts the story about the Honey. Said that when they first arrived, and I'm assuming it was in Egypt, that they stood around looking at the them and a senior commander told one of them to take her for a spin. When he returned the senior guy asked "Well?" "She's a honey , sir." was the response and that was why she was called a Honey thereafter. Now I'm not sure if the author drove it for that first test run or was even there and that he may have been just recounting a story he'd heard, or whether it happened in Egypt, or could have been in England, or that the story could have been common mythology. It's too long ago since I read the book. Does any of this ring a bell with you? Does that book sound familiar?


 

To be honest the suggestion that it must be an American term due only to the idea that Brits couldn't have coined it because they consider honey to be something sticky to be a non-argument. Not actually evidence. Also the use of honey might have been more of a reference to women, a honey, by either American or UK, or Aussie or anyone else??


Edited by NL_Celt, Jun 22 2015 - 21:12.


qcarr #199 Posted Jun 22 2015 - 21:29

    Captain

  • Players
  • 27637 battles
  • 1,809
  • [REJCT] REJCT
  • Member since:
    11-22-2012

Hi Chieftain - finally had a chance to watch this video today and I really enjoyed it!  My only slight disagreement with you is on the performance of the Pershing in Korea.  By all accounts, the Pershing performed very well in the summer/autumn of 1950 and successfully engaged enemy tanks, SP guns, infantry, bunkers, etc., on numerous occasions and helped turn the tide for UN forces.  The first three M26's to arrive in country did, indeed, break down and had to be abandoned but that was because they were rushed into battle with incorrect fan belts (at least one of the vehicles had been a monument at a base in Japan).  The M26's mobility shortcomings became unacceptable once the war of maneuver changed to hill fighting in 1951.  

 

The Pershing's legacy was its contribution to the future development of the US tank line in its successors M46 (basically the ultimate version of the Pershing), M47, M48, and M60 Pattons.

 

Thanks for your great video series!

 

Ps.  It is pretty remarkable how well the Easy 8 performed during the Korean War.  It's rumored that tankers even preferred it over the M46.  Here's a great photo I found recently of a Sherman sitting on top of the infamous Korean hill "Old Baldy" (photo from the U.S. Militaria Forum):

 

 

Attached Files

  • Attached File   Old Baldy M4A3E8 small.jpg   36.49K


Priory_of_Sion #200 Posted Jun 22 2015 - 21:37

    Major

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

View PostNL_Celt, on Jun 22 2015 - 14:48, said:

Chieftain. Years ago I read a book that gave the account of where the term Honey came from. It was a long time ago so I don't recall either the name of the book nor the author, and the details are hazy enough as well, except for the response quoted below. Just a small paperback. The author was a tank commander of a troop of Honey's in North Africa. The book was all about his battle experiences there. Near the start he recounts the story about the Honey. Said that when they first arrived, and I'm assuming it was in Egypt, that they stood around looking at the them and a senior commander told one of them to take her for a spin. When he returned the senior guy asked "Well?" "She's a honey , sir." was the response and that was why she was called a Honey thereafter. Now I'm not sure if the author drove it for that first test run or was even there and that he may have been just recounting a story he'd heard, or whether it happened in Egypt, or could have been in England, or that the story could have been common mythology. It's too long ago since I read the book. Does any of this ring a bell with you? Does that book sound familiar?


 

To be honest the suggestion that it must be an American term due only to the idea that Brits couldn't have coined it because they consider honey to be something sticky to be a non-argument. Not actually evidence. Also the use of honey might have been more of a reference to women, a honey, by either American or UK, or Aussie or anyone else??

It's apparently from a South African, possibly cricketer/tanker/journalist Bob Crisp. 






3 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users