RE: OT: Between the Sherman and the Mk 14 torpedo

RE: OT: Between the Sherman and the Mk 14 torpedo (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition

Message

tigercub -> RE: OT: Between the Sherman and the Mk 14 torpedo (9/2/2013 7:50:02 PM)
all true +1 chicken boy...give or take!

Gunner98 -> RE: OT: Between the Sherman and the Mk 14 torpedo (9/2/2013 8:15:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy quote: ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth Tank for tank, man for man, gun for gun, General for General, the Germans were better Meh. 1. Man for man? Not hardly. So many of their troops after mid-1943 were poorly trained Eastern European amalgums of conscripted soldiers that this degraded their capability. 2. Gun for gun? Not hardly. American artillery was par excellence, an unrivaled master of the battlefield post 1943. SP and truck-drawn organic transportation were a rarety to much of the Wehrmacht in this time frame. The German 88mm was a good versatile platform. The USAA 155mm "Long Tom" was unrivaled. The standard issue infantry rifle of the Wehrmacht degraded in quality over time too-the USAA M1 Garand was probably the best production rifle of the war. "Gun for gun' the Germans were better? Nein. 3. General for General? The Germans had some superb leadership. They also had some pretty rubbish leadership too. When you consider that their uber-leader, some douchebag named "Hitler" was the last word on the military, that breaks any stalemate, IMO. Perhaps some individual Germans were better generals than their American counterparts. But I'll stick with the American leadership heirarchy, thank you very much. Thus, perhaps individual generals Germany gets the nod. But in terms of "Generalship" or "Leadership" or "Leadership Heirarchy", no such advantage. I'll add some reinforcing fire here: The British 25lbr was probably the best field gun of the war, high rate of fire, consistent, stable, accurate and an excellent AT gun in a pinch. The only other gun that rivalled it was the US 105mm M101 howitzer because of its heavier shell weight, fuse flexibility and high angle. Many will argue that the Brit Arty C2 was the best in the war, US would argue that theirs was - both were far - far superior to the German (or the Russian) meaning that massive weights of fire were available anywhere on the battlefield at very short notice. The 'Long Tom" was an excellent General Support medium gun, as was the Brit 5.5in, but both were dwarfed in numbers by the Field guns and were often out of range when the feces hit the oscillator. Gun for gun - not a chance - If you trot out the industrial anachronism of the Gustav and Dora - remember that together these two guns fired some 30[X(] shells in anger, not what I would call a good return on investment. BG

Terminus -> RE: OT: Between the Sherman and the Mk 14 torpedo (9/2/2013 8:21:48 PM)
Most of them to little effect.

johng5155 -> RE: OT: Between the Sherman and the Mk 14 torpedo (9/3/2013 1:44:44 AM)
While the Sherman would not have fared well against the Soviet heavy tanks, I imagine the air corps would have been a great equalizer.

wdolson -> RE: OT: Between the Sherman and the Mk 14 torpedo (9/3/2013 2:03:28 AM)
Assuming a late 1940s conventional war between the USSR and the US in Europe, the US would not have been taking out individual tanks on the battlefield as much as they would have cut off the supply chain from the air and then over run the immobilized tanks when they ran out of fuel. The Russians had a very weak truck industry. The advances from 1943 on had Russian troops carried in American made trucks for the most part. By 1945 the Russian supply lines were longer than the Allied lines. Sweep aside the Red Air Force, then use the 9th and 8th AF to knock out the transportation network behind the lines. Medium and heavy bombers concentrating on the rail network with fighter bombers concentrating on taking out the trucks. Within a few months the Red Army would be starved for supplies and when the ground forces move, they would be able to encircle large portions of the Red Army in a sort of repeat of 1941. Though the local fighting would be far more intense. The Red Army had learned how to fight much better since then. The infantry fighting would be brutal, but most of the heavy equipment would be neutralized. An even larger portion of the population of Eastern Europe would die in the cross fire unfortunately. The US could have done severe damage to the Red Army in the late 40s, but they would not have been any better at conquering the USSR than Germany was. To occupy a territory you need 20 troops per 1000 population at minimum. The western Allies didn't have enough troops to do the job. The Germans didn't either which is why the Russian partisans were so effective. The advantage of having a large country is that it is virtually impossible to occupy the country in modern warfare conditions. Bill

MDDgames -> RE: OT: Between the Sherman and the Mk 14 torpedo (9/3/2013 6:32:53 AM)
There would have been differences however. Number 1, the Russian and East Europians didnt care for the Russians any more than they did the Germans. Or number 2, there would have been ready made on the spot reinforcements in using Pattons plan, which would have basically re-mobilized the German army. I say or because I dont think it would have been likely to do both. Having the German army on our side would have nullified any advantage from number 1.

cantona2 -> RE: OT: Between the Sherman and the Mk 14 torpedo (9/3/2013 9:32:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dili Sherman was much inferior to T-34? I don't think so. T-34 much superior to Sherman. especially T-24/85 model

msieving1 -> RE: OT: Between the Sherman and the Mk 14 torpedo (9/3/2013 11:42:44 AM)
There was little wrong with the Mk 14 torpedo itself, which stayed in service into the 1970s. The problems were with the Mk 6 exploder. The Mk 6 combined a magnetic influence exploder, intended to explode the warhead under the target, with a contact exploder to detonated on contact with the side of the target. A reliable magnetic influence exploder was simply beyond the technological capability of the time, largely because variation of the earth's magnetic field were not well understood. The firing pins on the contact exploder was too weak, so it tended to deform on impact without setting off the detonator. The problems were not detect before the war because of poor testing procedures. Because of the cost of the torpedo and exploder, no tests of production torpedos were done with live warhead. All tests were done with practice warheads, which were lighter than the live warhead. This led to depth settings being improperly calibrated, so the torpedo ran too deep with a live warhead.

crsutton -> RE: OT: Between the Sherman and the Mk 14 torpedo (9/3/2013 7:36:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy quote: ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth Tank for tank, man for man, gun for gun, General for General, the Germans were better Meh. 1. Man for man? Not hardly. So many of their troops after mid-1943 were poorly trained Eastern European amalgums of conscripted soldiers that this degraded their capability. 2. Gun for gun? Not hardly. American artillery was par excellence, an unrivaled master of the battlefield post 1943. SP and truck-drawn organic transportation were a rarety to much of the Wehrmacht in this time frame. The German 88mm was a good versatile platform. The USAA 155mm "Long Tom" was unrivaled. The standard issue infantry rifle of the Wehrmacht degraded in quality over time too-the USAA M1 Garand was probably the best production rifle of the war. "Gun for gun' the Germans were better? Nein. 3. General for General? The Germans had some superb leadership. They also had some pretty rubbish leadership too. When you consider that their uber-leader, some douchebag named "Hitler" was the last word on the military, that breaks any stalemate, IMO. Perhaps some individual Germans were better generals than their American counterparts. But I'll stick with the American leadership heirarchy, thank you very much. Thus, perhaps individual generals Germany gets the nod. But in terms of "Generalship" or "Leadership" or "Leadership Heirarchy", no such advantage. +1 on this. The myth of the German superman lives on....[8\|]

crsutton -> RE: OT: Between the Sherman and the Mk 14 torpedo (9/3/2013 7:46:18 PM)
This may be the most schizophrenic thread that we have ever produced. What the hell was the original post anyways? [;)] Well since you asked. Here are the two beast weapons produced in the entire war. What really amazes me is that the US was making enough of those 50 cal. MGs to have the ability to start slapping them onto duce and a half trucks. I can just visualize the tens of thousands of German POWs marching one way down the autobahn while lines of these trucks passed them going the other way. And, visualize some sorry assed German soldier looking up and seeing a supply truck go by with a 50 cal MG on it. And thinking to himself "What the f**k did we get ourselves into?" BTW, the .50 caliber MG is about to turn 100 years old in this decade. It has not really changed that much in all this time. I would have to put it down as one of the most amazing weapons of the modern era. [image]local://upfiles/8095/86E61A36F5324C26BDC0E4F3514F0F00.jpg[/image]

Lecivius -> RE: OT: Between the Sherman and the Mk 14 torpedo (9/3/2013 8:39:07 PM)
The MK 14 torpedo fiasco should have been a major head hunting expedition. But the exploder was so secret, they did not want details to become public knowledge. Conspiracy? Who knows. The follow on contact exploder was also defective. Bad press followed by material teething problems. The Sherman, on the other hand, was a marvel for the Americans. And before you pontificate on how idiotic such a statement sounds, note the specifications mentioned above. It was easy to move. It was easy to support. It was easy to mass produce (very, very important consideration). As for the specs, fer crying out loud, look at what was available to allied designers as "cutting edge" just as the war started! [image]local://upfiles/26061/E437FF56F7B748A799992A9E0A55A5E9.gif[/image]

wdolson -> RE: OT: Between the Sherman and the Mk 14 torpedo (9/3/2013 11:00:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crsutton This may be the most schizophrenic thread that we have ever produced. What the hell was the original post anyways? [;)] Well since you asked. Here are the two beast weapons produced in the entire war. What really amazes me is that the US was making enough of those 50 cal. MGs to have the ability to start slapping them onto duce and a half trucks. I can just visualize the tens of thousands of German POWs marching one way down the autobahn while lines of these trucks passed them going the other way. And, visualize some sorry assed German soldier looking up and seeing a supply truck go by with a 50 cal MG on it. And thinking to himself "What the f**k did we get ourselves into?" BTW, the .50 caliber MG is about to turn 100 years old in this decade. It has not really changed that much in all this time. I would have to put it down as one of the most amazing weapons of the modern era. [image]local://upfiles/8095/86E61A36F5324C26BDC0E4F3514F0F00.jpg[/image] In high school my German teacher had been a Wehrmacht soldier in WW II. He didn't talk much about the war, but one time he did mention he knew Germany was finished when during the Battle of the Ardennes they were marching past abandoned Jeep after abandoned Jeep all with 4 brand new tires. He said getting a bald spare for any vehicle in the German army was virtually impossible at that point. He knew right then that any army that could abandon equipment in such good shape was one that was winning. John Keegan, the British historian, was 12 when the war ended. He said he knew the Allies were going to win when he was walking down a country road before D-Day and a convoy of American soldiers went down the road in trucks. As they went by they pelted him with candy bars. He ended up with so much candy he had to take off his shirt and turn it into a make shift bag. He had seen the state of British soldiers and knew they didn't have so much extra of anything they could afford to throw it at some random school kid walking down the road. An army as rich as the Americans in luxuries like candy was going to win. Even in 1942 there were enough .50 calibers around to start mounting a bunch of them on bombers in the 5th AF. The package guns on the side of the fuselage became standard factory equipment on US medium bombers, but they were originally added by Pappy Gunn in his experimental field modification center to give B-25s and A-20s more punch. Bill

Feltan -> RE: OT: Between the Sherman and the Mk 14 torpedo (9/3/2013 11:50:56 PM)
Hehehe, My German teacher was a young teenage girl in Germany in 1945, probably about 13-14 or so. She related a story. The Americans were coming, and she was upset. She stated she had strong nationalistic feelings for Germany, and that it seemed impossible that anyone could beat the German army. She waited with some friends for the arrival of the Americans. She walked out of her friend's house when she heard vehicles going down the road. Standing on the sidewalk right in front of the house was (as she described him) a Negro about 7 feet tall with several hand grenades and bandoliers strapped across his chest and carrying a machine gun. She fainted. When she came to, she was surrounded by several black G.I.'s alternatively trying to give her chewing gum or putting a lit cigarette in her mouth. Regards, Feltan

t001001001 -> RE: OT: Between the Sherman and the Mk 14 torpedo (9/4/2013 1:37:29 AM)
Regarding the Sherman, she was designed while thinking very carefully about production and logistics. Ultimately her design proved adequate. It's hard to argue w/ success.

t001001001 -> RE: OT: Between the Sherman and the Mk 14 torpedo (9/4/2013 1:49:32 AM)
Regarding Tiger/Panther tanks, all you need to know is in "Kelly's Heroes" [8D] The gunner/commander think it's awesome. The engineer thinks it's a piece of junk.

panzer cat -> RE: OT: Between the Sherman and the Mk 14 torpedo (9/4/2013 2:47:00 AM)
Were all forgetting the A-bomb, we had it the Russians didn't. We win.

Apollo11 -> RE: OT: Between the Sherman and the Mk 14 torpedo (9/4/2013 11:26:28 AM)
Hi all, quote: ORIGINAL: panzer cat Were all forgetting the A-bomb, we had it the Russians didn't. We win. I don't know how many A-Bombs were ready in the summer of 1945 but I doubt that there were many... The hypothetical West vs. East war in the Europe 1945 would be conventional one! [;)] Leo "Apollo11"

Gunner98 -> RE: OT: Between the Sherman and the Mk 14 torpedo (9/4/2013 11:39:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Apollo11 The hypothetical West vs. East war in the Europe 1945 would be conventional one! [;)] Leo "Apollo11" At least for the first few months but after 2-3 years it would become more Nuclear, by then the Russians would probably have the bomb as well![X(] Unless sanity clicked in I think it would have seen the early 50's before it came to some sort of conclusion! We would have a completely different problem set a half century later�. B

Icedawg -> RE: OT: Between the Sherman and the Mk 14 torpedo (9/4/2013 12:27:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gunner98 This discussion reminds me of a film - The Pentagon Wars - while the movie has its faults it a black comedy about bringing the Bradley IFV into production, and its apparently not too far from the truth. Military wants, stakeholder investment and bureaucratic inertia combine to crate a bow wave of problems which become insurmountable - end result is a faulty product. Sounds like confirmation of Ike's farewell address where he warned us of "undue influence of the Military Industrial Complex". People with financial ties to the companies making armaments should not have influence over Pentagon orders and/or foreign policy decisions. Today we see generals retire from the military, to take jobs with companies making weapons systems. In some cases, they move from there to cabinet positions or other posts in the government. Serious conflicts of interest.

catwhoorg -> RE: OT: Between the Sherman and the Mk 14 torpedo (9/4/2013 12:47:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Apollo11 Hi all, quote: ORIGINAL: panzer cat Were all forgetting the A-bomb, we had it the Russians didn't. We win. I don't know how many A-Bombs were ready in the summer of 1945 but I doubt that there were many... The hypothetical West vs. East war in the Europe 1945 would be conventional one! [;)] Leo "Apollo11" 2-3 /month was the expected production

geofflambert -> RE: OT: Between the Sherman and the Mk 14 torpedo (9/4/2013 5:21:33 PM)
IMO Patton's conception was for armoured cavalry and for manoeuver over frontal assault. Use infantry for that. The M-4 was perfect for that and having lots of tank destroyers helped. The breakout from Normandy would have been much more difficult to sustain using HBTs. Another consideration surely was how well they performed in amphibious landings. For the Pacific theatre they were better than perfect. Their flexibility that was developed for things like ad hoc bull dozers, hedgerow chompers, flame thrower tanks and etc. was a large plus.

HistoryGuy -> RE: OT: Between the Sherman and the Mk 14 torpedo (9/12/2013 11:44:45 PM)
Wow! This wandered as far from the original subject as it has proven interesting. East versus West discussion is pretty interesting. Crew quality and experience. As the War in the East demonstrated time and again, technologically better tanks are often beaten by more experienced but technologically inferior opponents. I think the AFV crew experience edge would have to go to the US/UK who suffered far less in terms of casualties than the Russians in the last months of the war. Russians were not used to facing large numbers of enemy armor since 1943. British and Americans used to fighting better tanks since D-Day invasion, but certainly not enmasse. That said, IMHO, both the British and American armies cannot be lumped into one overall category in terms of anti-armor capabilites, nor even in terms of Sherman types, since the British possessed Fireflys, which the U.S. had not procured. Brits were fielding Comets in larger numbers than U.S. fielded Pershings, but that is not saying much. Brits have towed 17-pounders, SP 17-pounders of several varieties (Archer and Achilles), 6-pounders with APDS. Americans have more 90-mm TDs and better ammunition (HVAP and some APDS etc.), though not in significant quantities. Artillery - both sides would experience significant culture shock. Russians can mass far more than the Germans could and the US/British the same with the added benefit of having much better counterbattery and reaction times for calling fire as well as lift/shift. Germans who fought on both fronts commented on Allied artillery being much deadlier because it could be adjusted much faster. Russians hadnt experienced proximity fuzes either. Americans and Brits hit often by Rocket Artillery, but never in numbers that the Russians could mass. That said, one reason the Germans did not mass artillery is the next subject........... Airpower - same as above. Obviously the Russians had a lot more planes than the Germans did. Maybe all the superfluous US/UK AAA units could have been put to better use. That said, I think the appearance of Allied airpower would have had a much worse effect on the Soviet Army as they had not experienced battlefield interdiction used AGAINST them since probably late 1941. Doesnt matter how many IS-2 tanks are in a particular area if they get treated to a replay of the opening minutes of Operation Cobra........ That said, an Air Force isnt much good if the bad guys tanks are sitting on the airfield. But I think Bomber Command and VIII Air Force would have operated with impunity against Soviet ground targets. Logistics - no more Lend Lease probably. Do not see the Soviet Navy lasting long against the USN/RN in any capacity. Germans back in the war on Allied side? A-bombs? Probably would have been as symbolic in nature as the actual bombings. Dont see them as literal war winners in late 1945. On a general note, I marvel at how many sharp people post on this forum. In a collective sense, you guys are awesome.

Apollo11 -> RE: OT: Between the Sherman and the Mk 14 torpedo (9/13/2013 9:14:29 AM)
Hi all, The Soviet red Army was very very formidable force at the end of 1945 despite the fact that they were fighting for 4 years and suffered horrendous casualties! Their tank force was simply enormous and western powers were not match for it (for example let us not forget brand new T-44 which was essentially Soviet equivalent of German Tiger armor/firepower in smaller package - in spring of 1945 there were around 1500 of them and they were total secret)! Their ground force was also enormous and, also, the western powers were not match for it! The air force was big but western air force was more potent and this is where western advantage lied (plus A-Bomb)! All in all it would be extremely interesting "What If"... Leo "Apollo11"

tigercub -> RE: OT: Between the Sherman and the Mk 14 torpedo (9/13/2013 10:55:17 AM)
if the war broke out in May 45...japan still at war no A-bomb yet! I pretty sure the western allies would have there hands full big time! Tigercub

Hiltibrant -> RE: OT: Between the Sherman and the Mk 14 torpedo (9/13/2013 11:33:03 AM)
About that Belton Cooper book - pretty much all tank historians (Honnicutt, Forty, Zaloga) have refuted the claim that it was Patton's personal intervention or even wish that the US Army retain the Sherman; Most of the evidence points to McNair or Ordnance Department which caused the long delay in the Pershing's deployment. Nice panel discussion on this topic can be seen here (with most of the aforementioned historians): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oLY4FOrnjc Most of them agree that Patton in fact favored the Pershing. Most of the resistance against the Pershing stemmed from wishes to simplify logistics - there were a lot of calls for a redesigned Pershing with a 76mm gun, for example.

Gunner98 -> RE: OT: Between the Sherman and the Mk 14 torpedo (9/13/2013 11:44:47 AM)
Would be interesting to speculate where the first two A-Bombs would have been dropped? 1. Historical, to knock Japan out of the war - but that was not a sure thing in May 45; or 2. Stick to Europe first, so - Russia? Where? Did the B-29 have range to reach Moscow? Leningrad for sure but it was a wasteland after the 900 days of being surrounded. Stalingrad - same. The rest of the industry and population was still further East. Winning air superiority would have taken quite some time and with only 2 bombs you would want to make sure it got to the target? It would have been a long, long war. Allied air superiority would only go so far to defeat the Red Army. A headcount doesn't work well when comparing the Red Army to the western forces but just the forces in the battle of Berlin outnumbered the entire Western allies force in Europe by a significant factor: 1.5 million men, 3800 tanks, 45,000 guns and 6,700 aircraft (Le Tissier, The battle of Berlin 1945). I don't have stats on the Western Allies at hand but I think there were fewer than 1.1 million in Europe and ~ 100 combat Divisions. Throughout the NW Europe campaign the west was never fighting more than 1/3 of the German Army. This fight would not have been pretty and would have lasted years. B

wdolson -> RE: OT: Between the Sherman and the Mk 14 torpedo (9/13/2013 12:21:20 PM)
Just FYI, some distances: Saipan to Tokyo ~1500 miles Berlin to Moscow ~1000 miles London to Moscow ~1500 miles Europe is a pretty small continent, as the crow flies, when you start looking at the distances. Bill

sventhebold -> RE: OT: Between the Sherman and the Mk 14 torpedo (9/13/2013 5:42:24 PM)
The video of the Pershing tank was a stroke of luck for the combat cameraman to get. BUT the whole film shows a tank patrol led by a Sherman tank which is knocked out by the Panther. The next frame shows the Sherman crew bailing out. One of the crewman is missing the lower half of his leg blood streaming out and he dies later on. The Pershing tank was either fired upon first by the Panther and panicked because he did not die so the Panther tried to run and the Pershing caught up with him and holed him. Some of the Panther crew did get out but did not survive. Training. Training. Training! You have to think about the German Army in the beginning was the best trained and fairly well equipped with an excellent logistics network behind it. Okay so the tanks weren't the greatest but they had trained with them to use them for their inherent shock value and MOBILITY! If you get there first you win the objective! The usually had infantry on APV's or trucks to hold the position once they took it and they moved on or had to wait for their own supplies to catch up with them.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

5.03125