Jump to content

DogDodger

Members
  • Posts

    820
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by DogDodger

  1. I've used some AK mags with aftermarket BHO followers; personally, I think it's a handy feature. Not as noticeable as on an AR or somesuch in my limited experience, but you get used to the feeling pretty quickly.
  2. Speaking of, Boltgun was fun. I have no background with Warhammer so had no idea really what was going on, but you just have to murder everything that moves so no big deal really. The lack of a map and some questionable decisions on color filters that appear when powerups are acquired are a couple of the weaker points, but overall well worth the $20.
  3. It makes perfect sense. You go from M60 to XM803 to XM815 which you rename as M1 then call your IFV and CFV M2 and M3 but your contemporary MLRS becomes M270 and then by the time you get to Strykers and MRAPs you’re above M1100-M1200 and now 20 years later your new light combat vehicle is M10. Voila.
  4. That was a poignant piece. There's also this selection from Loza's Commanding the Red Army's Sherman Tanks: "...We had to say farewell to the Emchas. It would be a sad moment. We had wished it would be otherwise. A funeral parting, a great pain. "Finally, an order arrived. But with other, stunning contents, that sent chills running up and down our spines: 'Remove the turrets and hull machine guns from the Shermans. Warehouse them. Deliver the armored hulls--as tractors--to civilian enterprises.' We had to report compliance with this order within five days. "Why, for what reason, from where did such an abrupt change in the subsequent fate of the foreign tanks come? What forced Moscow to take such a final ['murderous' in the original text] decision? "For days after the receipt of the 'death certificate' [as the tankers nicknamed the order], work proceeded on a broad front. All the brigade, corps, and army maintenance units were thrown into the demilitarization of the tanks, making 'tractors' out of them. "I cannot forget the total dejection of the crews as they stood on the sidelines with heads bowed. The death of each tank showed on their faces. At one time the Emchisti had signed hand receipts for the tanks from the brigade command. We all were heavy-hearted. Many choked back tears, and some, not holding back, cried bitterly. How could this be? How much effort and energy had been given to them--the Shermans--there in the dry Mongolian steppe, in the silent desert sands of the Gobi, in the rugged southern reaches of the Grand Khingan? And how many obstacles had been overcome on the cenrtal Manchurian plain? These men had cared for them, cared for them like the apple of their eye. And now this final humiliation. Farewell, Emcha! Each inomarochnik will have good memories of you for the rest of his life. "An epitaph came out of these mournful days (how could it not): 'Yesterday it was a menacing tank, and now, by order--they took off the turret--it has become a tractor. Front-line comrade, how painful to witness the death of the Emcha. Try not to cry!'"
  5. Are you talking about the M48C? If so, it's the other way around: these hundred and twenty M48 hulls were found to be ballistically deficient, and were therefore used for training only. Similarly, fifteen of the earliest M60s produced had insufficiently thick hull armor, and were subsequently used by the Armor School as training tanks. These M60s didn't get a special designation, though.
  6. The light tanks would have 37 mm guns M5 or M6, to be fair.
  7. If anyone's interested, this book could have used some more stringent editing but is still the gold standard on the subject:
  8. Exactly. Edit: They idled the engine for a bit late Sunday afternoon, which was unexpected.
  9. According to PM Knight, from 17-25 July 1944 the British conducted firing trials against Comet pilot no.3. Two 6 pdr AP rounds were fired at 1745-1750 ft/sec and from 30 degrees from normal to assess the effect of the four spare track links mounted on the turret. The first round was fired at the turret plate itself, and resulted in a Code E penetration ("Deep impression with flake of back of plate, or with bulge and crack sufficient to see daylight through the plate."). The second round was fired at the track shoes hung on the turret, resulting in a Code C penetration ("Deep impression and bulge at back."). This was surprising since it was assumed spare tracks were more of a morale booster, but the testers reported that "It is estimated that the links provided 20% more protection." So, at least for off-angle attack, spare tracks apparently could add a significant amount of protection.
  10. Congrats, will be looking forward to it. Feel free to tell the marketing people that one reader prefers your original title, despite the pizazz of the new one.
  11. I think a decent amount of material could have been cut with no loss to the subject, at least in volume I. Volume II seems to be getting better in this regard, but there is still some content I'd consider superfluous in the first 57pp. Maybe someone else could chime in with their opinion, keeping in mind I'm only through one-and-a-third volumes, but I like to think I'm pretty tolerant of books that thoroughly discuss background or relevant tangential information. I mean, Lawrence took 359 pages to get to the battle of Kursk in his book about the battle of Kursk, and I thought that was still worthwhile.
  12. Well to throw a bone to British tank manufacturers and their contracting numbers from 1943 on, beginning in that year their efforts began to be redirected towards locomotive assembly with the large number of Lend-Lease tanks anticipated, as assembling the locomotives in the UK would save much valuable shipping space and handling effort. On 29 March 1943 LTG Somervell himself mooted the possibility of the UK making railroad equipment instead of the Cromwell to Director-General of the British Supply Mission General Sir Walter Venning due to US fears of Sherman overproduction. Knight shares correspondence between British officials where the fear of becoming completely dependent on US tanks is discussed, which led to the Cromwell's continued production. Continued pressure did result in concessions, though: according to Coombs, there were 27 British firms working in tank production in 1943, and by 1945 this number had dwindled to 11. E.g., London, Midland, and Scottish's Crewe location switched to locomotive assembly after their Covenanter contract expired in August 1942 (even before Somervell's request), while their Horwich location started on locomotives in November 1943 after its Centaur contract was complete; ditto Beyer Peacock's last Churchill was delivered in March 1943, and they were able to switch to locomotive production that same month; after completing their Matilda contracts, Vulcan changed to locomotives in June 1943 and North British Locomotive the following month. But on the other hand again, the main production reductions were taken from the Centaur, so it's probably just as well.
  13. Finally got to these books; 40pp into volume 2 so far, and the thing that has struck me the most so far is how little the Tiger has been discussed. There are detailed accounts of dispositions and actions in Tunisia, but we can seemingly go tens of pages without mentioning the ostensible subject of the project. We'll see how the rest of it goes, but Newsome may have been able to condense everything into a single volume if the subject had been rigidly adhered to.
  14. Speaking of captured T-90s, there's apparently one in Louisiana just hanging out.
  15. As someone who has owned three Audis, this definitely sounds plausible.
  16. Perhaps a couple of pieces of corroboration for this theory as far as the US goes include the medium tank M7 fiasco (on which 16M contemporary dollars were spent), and the fact that there were enough unwanted and ultimately unused T23s manufactured to equip around one and a half armored divisions...
  17. Re: the transmission changing process starting at ~52:00, does anyone have an approximate timeframe that a typical Panther transmission swap would take? The Sherman's powertrain assembly took several hours to remove and weighed 8,800 lb, so a crane or wrecker was required as well.
  18. Great news! And 700+pp doesn't scare me; I made it through Lawrence's Kursk. Looking forward to it!
  19. Although it was not unheard of for US tank projects to get moved from one weight class to another during development (e.g., M7), the case of the M26 was less of a change to the classification system and more of a temporary redesignation of a medium tank as a heavy tank for morale purposes. Even with the increased armor over the T25E1, the M26 weighed >34k lb less than the heavy tank M6 and ~50k lb less than the T29 and T30.
  20. And then there's the Germans in WW2: According to Jentz in Tank Combat in North Africa, "The German system of rating tanks as light, medium, and heavy was based on the caliber of the gun and not by the weight of the vehicle. Therefore the Pz.Kpfw.III with its 3.7 cm and 5 cm guns was classified as a light tank and the Pz.Kpfw.IV with its 7.5 cm was classified as a medium tank, even though various models of both tanks weighed nearly the same."
  21. Speaking of, 76 mm and 90 mm gun tank TCs also had difficulty sensing shots due to blast, but one may infer that this could have been aggravated by the guns' muzzle brakes? 1LT Edward E. Johnson and 1LT George E. Rowland conducted a survey in 1952 to try to determine tank crew problems that could be "alleviated by human engineering research." They questioned 894 students attending the Armored School at Fort Knox in November-December 1951 and ended up with 623 incidents relatable to human engineering 521 of these were concerned with tank design, which the authors divided up by individual crew position and the crew as a whole. Of the 45 "problems of the commander," seven complaints were about "Error in sensing fire when back blast hits commander in face." Two selected quotations were included in the appendix.
  22. As I understand it, the IS-2 stowed propellant charges in boxes that made up the turret floor in a similar manner to the floor ammunition stowage of the T-34? If so, I'm not sure the lack of a turret basket was that serious of an issue: indeed, a turret basket was often seen as a hindrance in vehicles with ammunition stowed in the floor. For example, Study No.53 of the General Board, USFET, on Tank Gunnery (which involved interviews with 344 enlisted men and 98 officers [75% of whom were company grade], with combat experience ranging from 2 days to 30 months, representing 12 of 15 US Army armored divisions and 10 of 40 separate tank battalions that fought in the ETO) found that: "a. Few interviewees favored a 'half floor' in the turret such as in medium tank M4A3 (76mm gun). When traversing the turret, empty cartridge cases, ammunition bin covers, and miscellaneous equipment which often falls to the floor, easily becomes jammed between the half floor and the top of the ammunition compartment. Also, the loader must guard against his feet becoming entangled with the half floor when quick deflection changes are made. "b. Approximately 30% of the interviewees desired a moving full floor. Those opposed to the full floor felt it complicated ammunition stowage under the floor and made it more difficult for personnel in the driving compartment to escape through the fighting compartment. "c. Approximately 60% preferred no floor, such as in light tank M24. However, it was felt that tanks so designed should include: (1) A foot rest for the gunner. (2) Folding platform for the tank commander. It should revolve with the turret and be adjustable in height. (3) A seat for the loader which would revolve with the turret. "d. It is recommended that: (1) The half floor be considered unsatisfactory. (2) Tests be conducted to determine whether a full moving floor or no floor should be incorporated in future tanks. (3) All tanks equipped with a no floor fighting compartment be provided with the devices listed in paragraph c. above." In US medium tanks, a turret basket was omitted from late-production Shermans and didn't reappear until the M47. Similarly, the light tank M24 and heavy tank M103 were also designed without one. Note also the point about the driver escaping through the fighting compartment, which would be very relevant for IS-2 crews.
×
×
  • Create New...