Jump to content


Parallel Evolution


  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

The_Chieftain #1 Posted Oct 26 2017 - 23:42

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 10606 battles
  • 9,750
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

If you haven’t been following the NA WoT Facebook page, I’ve been running a series of daily streams called “The Motor Pool”, in which I pick two vehicles, and spend as much, if not more, time talking about their history as I do playing them. Obviously I am limited to vehicles for which history is actually available, but I digress. In the course of these streams, I usually grab a book and read excerpts, and I often either learn, or remind myself of things. Today (I’m typing this the Wednesday just gone by), I read that Crusaders had a reputation for burning almost every time they were hit. Originally blamed as petrol, the cause, it turned out, was the ammunition catching fire. This sounds highly familiar as to an a reputation ascribed to an American-produced vehicle.

 

I was laughing when I read the following excerpts, though, as regards tank destroyer philosophy. Hopefully the author won’t mind the liberal transcribing.

 

From the official correspondence.

July, 1927, from the Chief of Weapons

Tank destroyers are the most effective weapon against tanks. These should be full tracked or wheel-cum-track self-propelled guns with the lowest possible height and the highest possible speed. They must take advantage of the tactical weakness of a tank attack by mobile fighting – if possible, striking in the flank or rear.

 medmkii.jpg

A 1927 tank. Not sure it's necessary to get around the side, honestly.

 

Hmm. I feel like I’ve heard this before, somewhere. Some development work was led towards this goal, but nothing really put into production.

Then, 11 July 1935, the following was reported in a document entitled “Offensive defense agsainst tanks”

 

The Chief of the Army himself emphasized that an offensive tank defense must be strived for .[…] The frequently expressed principle that the best defense against a tank is another tank is at least disputed. Bomber aircraft are not employed against heavy bomber aircraft. Instead, faster and more maneuverable fighter aircraft presenting a smaller target are used that only have to be armed in such a way that they can really damage a bomber. At sea the torpedo boat is fought with a torpedo boat destroyer, the submarine with a submarine destroyer. In both types of destroyers the most important specification is superior speed and maneuverability – armored only as far as it doesn’t interfere with both primary characteristics. Recently this train of thought by many sailors has reached its peak in the [torpedo] boat. Apparently even against the heaviest and largest warships, the [torpedo] boat is a valuable and dangerous offensive weapon. These very small targets have a considerable speed of about 40 knots and therefore are very difficult to hit. Armor is practically renounced. They have fulfilled their role if they can get within effective torpedo firing range undamaged. Even if they are destroyed after achieving their task, their employment is worthwhile, even from a purely economic standpoint. But after firing torpedoes, they will frequently succeed in getting away, thanks to the characteristics of high speed, maneuverability, and small target area.

The question remains whether a tank destroyer can be built exactly corresponding to the fighter aircraft, torpedo boat destroyer, submarine destroyer, and especially, the [torpedo] boat, in which armor is rejected in favour of the following primary characteristics.

  1. Very high road speed to achieve good operational mobility:
  2. Good cross-country mobility, at least the same as a tank.
  3. Cross country speed and maneuverability greatly superior to a tank. [Note, technically, mobility, maneuverability and speed are not the same thing]
  4. Small target area
  5. Good firing platform for accurate shooting while stationary.
  6. Weapons capable of target destruction at ranges from 700m up.
  7. Cheap and quick mass production in comparison to tanks.
  8. If possibly achievable without interfering with the first seven requirements, rapidly dismountable weapon for the purpose of employment in the same way as towed anti-tank guns, as well as rapidly remountable.

                This creates an entirely new automotive problem as well as a totally new weapons problem. The automotive problem on land is certainly very much more difficult than on the sea for a [torpedo] boat. Whether the problem can really be satisfactorily and economically solved is completely undetermined and requires thorough investigation. Some people are thoroughly skeptical. […] The high road speeds (more than double that of a tank) allows anti-tank units to be rapidly sent to threatened sectors.

 

The second-to-last line, I think folks can fully agree with. Even to this day, the question of whether the US Army’s tank destroyers were a good idea is still debated.

 

However, let us move forward another couple of years.

Tactics put forth on 6 May 1940.

 

Fast tank destroyers are unique in their continual readiness to fire, high cross country mobility, and armor protection. They are therefore qualified to combat enemy tanks by attacking.

Unhindered observation with an open top allows early recognition and engagement of enemy tanks which have limited vision.

The combat unit is the company. Employment of the entire battalion as a single unit can be useful in many situations. Employment of a single platoon by itself should be seldom.

When attacking field or fixed fortifications, the [vehicles] can be employed to fire at bunker openings.

On the defense, they are to be held in reserve. They won’t be sent into action until the direction of the enemy tank attack is clearly identified. Their task is to destroy the enemy tanks that have penetrated into the main battlefield.

 

Come 1941…

 

The bulk of anti-tank units should be pooled[…] Mobile, heavily gunned tank chasers

 

Or 1942.

 

Certainly it is poor economy to use a $35,000 medium tank to destroy another tank when the job can be done by a gun costing a fraction as much.

m10td.jpg 

Cheaper than a tank. Not even the cost of a traverse motor.

Or, from the same year,

The destroyer’s gun and mount don’t have the tank’s armor, but its crew commands greater speed, visibility, maneuverability, and at least equal firepower. It can pick the time and place to deliver its punch and then hightail it to a new position to strike again. One good tank destroyer can be produiced for materially less than the cost of a tank, and in far less time and with less critical materials.

 

Or the end of the year,

 

A tank destroyer should be a gun motor carriage with mobility greater than that of a tank, ample space for the crew, not weigh over 20 tons.

 

Through to the manuals, FM 18-5 of 1942

 

Tank destroyer units are used offensively in large numbers, by rapid maneuver and surprise […] Tank destroyers avoid “slugging matches” with tanks, but compensate for their light armor and difficulty of concealment by exploitation of their mobility and superior observation. […] The battalion is the smallest unit which should be engaged separately.

or of 1944

 

Suitable secondary missions are-

                (a) Direct or indirect fire to reinforce or supplement that of artillery units.

                (b) Destruction of pillboxes and permanent defensive works.

 

You’re starting, I’m presuming, to see something of a pattern, or of recurring themes. Over all this time, all this documentation seems to lead directly to the formation of the US Army’s Tank Destroyer battalions. What had me laughing, though, as I was reading it on stream, was that much of the above was being read from German sources as regards the development of the LOLTrak… erm.. Leichttraktor, which, if you didn’t know, was actually developed as a tank destroyer, the 3.7cm TaK (Tank Abwehr Kanone)

 

37tak.jpg

The 1927 statement was put out by the Chef des Heereswaffenamts. Back then, the vehicles were not known as Panzerjaeger, but as Tankzerstoerer. Literally, tank destroyers. The 1935 document from Wa Pru 6, the German automotive design office, in which the Oberkommando des Heeres’s opinions could be found in “Offensive Abwehr von Panzerwagen”. The description of the vehicles in 1940? That came from a Panzerjaeger tactical manual, Merkblatt 28/1. All shamelessly copied from Panzer Tracts 7-1 by Jentz/Doyle.

 

It isn’t until 1941 that the quotes start coming in from the US side of the house. It’s almost as if the Americans had been reading the German writings before coming up with their own doctrine and calling it their own.

There isn’t really much of a point to this article, except to demonstrate a case of parallel evolution. It was almost as if McNair and Bruce had read the German writings before they came up with their own statements. The Americans were evidently not going off in unexplored tangents when they came up with the idea of a light, fast, cheap, open-topped vehicle designed with the primary purpose of killing tanks as massed groups and a secondary purpose of killing bunkers. The fundamental logic of the doctrine and of the vehicle design had been identified a decade prior.

 

Anyway, that’s your food for thought for today.



dday1944 #2 Posted Oct 28 2017 - 19:20

    Corporal

  • Beta Testers
  • 14636 battles
  • 14
  • [-RISK] -RISK
  • Member since:
    08-31-2010

the more you know

 



TheBlueBaron #3 Posted Oct 28 2017 - 20:00

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 68650 battles
  • 403
  • Member since:
    07-07-2011

I think it was the Ram II that made me admire American tanks/tank design. They're made for fighting. Perhaps like American Tank destroyers were meant to fight, although the Ram II seems designed for very close combat. 

 

I don't think the open cabin for 'greater visibility' should be underestimated. I remember reading that, when they designed the Abrams M-1, the ability to find/track targets was placed as a much higher priority than any other aspect of the gun. If you look at the front of one, the M-1 just has a huge gun sight. I'm not sure how it works, but the opening of the gun-sight/periscope is huge. It's not going to be easy sneaking up on an M-1. 


Edited by TheBlueBaron, Oct 28 2017 - 20:05.


HOTA_CHATON #4 Posted Oct 28 2017 - 21:15

    Major

  • Players
  • 12335 battles
  • 13,218
  • [KOFJ] KOFJ
  • Member since:
    09-28-2011

View PostTheBlueBaron, on Oct 28 2017 - 13:00, said:

I think it was the Ram II that made me admire American tanks/tank design. They're made for fighting. Perhaps like American Tank destroyers were meant to fight, although the Ram II seems designed for very close combat. 

 

I don't think the open cabin for 'greater visibility' should be underestimated. I remember reading that, when they designed the Abrams M-1, the ability to find/track targets was placed as a much higher priority than any other aspect of the gun. If you look at the front of one, the M-1 just has a huge gun sight. I'm not sure how it works, but the opening of the gun-sight/periscope is huge. It's not going to be easy sneaking up on an M-1. 

 

Nor should it be easy to sneak up on an Abrams.  It is still the most or one of the most lethal and survivable tanks ever made to date.

Scumbagarty2 #5 Posted Oct 29 2017 - 00:32

    Private

  • -Players-
  • 7709 battles
  • 1
  • [VEN0M] VEN0M
  • Member since:
    01-19-2015
Mojet beet, nam nooshna russki yazook eezuchiyat... then we might better understand how quickly the Russkis adapted in all branches of the military despite catastrophic losses am Anfang des Zweiten Welt Krieges.

Bones__ #6 Posted Oct 29 2017 - 11:35

    Private

  • Players
  • 9791 battles
  • 4
  • Member since:
    12-13-2013
Good read

bjorn1984 #7 Posted Oct 29 2017 - 14:34

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 24101 battles
  • 461
  • Member since:
    09-01-2015
Yeah when you were reading that entry, it reminded me of something you were reading before. Then, I remembered this

ArmoredCorps #8 Posted Oct 29 2017 - 19:03

    Major

  • Players
  • 53927 battles
  • 6,424
  • [REL2] REL2
  • Member since:
    02-07-2011
What kind of gave away the game was the reference to materially-less costly vehicles built with less critical materials.
A Nazi Germany rebuilding in the 30's counted such reservations seriously, (and historically suffered this handicap) whereas by the time the American TD doctrine was coming around, the embarrassment of material riches were already beginning to show. One of the few, great encumbrances to America's material advantage it held over the world was that it's vast Pacific campaign soaked up all the diesel -- guaranteeing gasoline-powered tanks in the ETO. 

Dirizon #9 Posted Oct 30 2017 - 01:04

    Major

  • Players
  • 27063 battles
  • 4,521
  • [THUGZ] THUGZ
  • Member since:
    06-05-2011

No parallel or di-parallel,  l have been wondering alot about convergent layout evolution of various types of AFVs.

 

ln A)  You have standard layout of a central or forward mounted turret, powerpack in the rear. ln B)  You have a forward mounted powerpack along with the driver, and possibly troop compartment, with a rear mounted turret. lt is interesting to note, that in vehicles like Merkava, the engine is actually used for added effective armour thickness, in the case of a penetrating hit it is rated to be resilient. 

 

This was definitely a world wars concept, that didn't fizzle out. Whereas MBTs are still commonly forward to central turret layout, such as tanks like M1A2, Leclerc, Leopards, Ariete, BMP3 and even weapon carriers like Vena, Palmaria, Tunguska, Gepard  -  many vehicles with rear layout are around but more seem to be focused on weapon carriers and lFVs, like M1 Bradley, CV9O, LAVs, Type 89, M1O9, PZ 2K....but tanks exist like Merkava. 

 

From what l understand, by situating the driver alongside the engine forward, you create much more room rear for things such as troop capacity, ammo capacity, fighting compartment space/turret ring/turret motor. This is important l guess for tank destroyer and mobile artillery crew, which have lots of people needing space. lt however does waste volume and mass, in that the rear ends up getting more effective armour as it holds the turret and needs counterweighting. This rear mount apparently also increases center of gravity of the vehicle, as noted by German Engineers commenting on things like self propelled guns (Hummel Wespe) and Ferdinand. The forward mount is self explanatory, being superior layout for echelon combat and covering ground, as well as fighting utilizing gun depression. The front of the tank gets the armour focus, saving weight in the rear. ln urban combat, turning corners is also far more safe and allows quicker discharge of firepower. 

 

Thoughts from the Chieftain?

 

 

 






3 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users