Myths Of American Armor With Nicholas Moran

[Colin]

good thoughts, I expect explaining detailed reasons why the crew should be able to see, fight and escape were lost on Stalin and the NKVD, but the "triad" were.

[Corinthian]

 

It's actually sad that US AFV's get so much bad press over the years, when in fact, they are well designed machines, in many cases better designed than their counterparts.

 

A case of adolescents having masturbatory fantasies on German "super weapons" and such that permeate from computer games to models and such. Mebbe brought about by the "underdog" appeal, i.e. Germany on the losing side and had these "super weapons" which were in fact a result of their war propaganda, and there is this image in the minds of people that Germany despite its "technological superiority" was defeated because of sheer numbers and a two front war etc etc etc....

 

It's nice to have such myths busted.

[Damian]

 

 

It's actually sad that US AFV's get so much bad press over the years, when in fact, they are well designed machines, in many cases better designed than their counterparts.

 

A case of adolescents having masturbatory fantasies on German "super weapons" and such that permeate from computer games to models and such. Mebbe brought about by the "underdog" appeal, i.e. Germany on the losing side and had these "super weapons" which were in fact a result of their war propaganda, and there is this image in the minds of people that Germany despite its "technological superiority" was defeated because of sheer numbers and a two front war etc etc etc....

 

It's nice to have such myths busted.

 

 

There is very similiar myth about Soviet AFV's being "super duper". They were not, actually I had many times opportunity to compare for example the quality of steel, T-34's and IS-2's I seen are made from terrible quality steel, also manufacturing quality is terrible and I talk here about war production vehicles, the ones manufactured after war are kind different story.

 

One very interesting thing for me to actually check by myself was the M60A1 armor thickness... it's armor is nowhere thin, and was probably one of the thickest among tanks of it's period and class, we actually have here in Warsaw, an M68 105mm gun in M60A1's gun mantled on display, I did not had meassuring tape to make exact meassurements but definately it's around 200mm thick, if not slightly more. We also have an M48A5, M60A1 and a Chieftain Mk10 or Mk11 here, all in running condition AFAIK, so they can be compared as well.

[scotsman]

Interesting video - but also has it wrong on a couple of things. The US tested 17pdr APDS and came to a somewhat different decision than he is putting out in the video. The report is (or was) available by DTIC. Not sure its out there any more. The premise was there was always something wrong with the APDS ammunition/gun and its interaction that caused accuracy issues with the 17pdr. The thought was muzzle brake sabot interaction or something else (initially). This turned out to be a symptom, but it was not the root cause.

 

The US test identified the likely root cause...and unfortunately it has nothing to do with anything outlined in the video.

 

Saying the 17pdr had an accuracy issue with APDS is thus also compounding a myth. In the final examination it is dependent on the time of production and manufacturer of the APDS ammunition used for the test. This is a good example of how historical documents and one off tests can also lead you astray.

 

The test results he quotes were because of the ammunition lots provided for the initial US test. Different lot = different results.

 

[Paul G.]

 

So happy to see where Manic Moran is now. I recall him asking here about how a foreigner like him could serve in the US military, and his diary thread on OCS I think it was. And now here he is.

Screw that guy, he kicked my ass in Combat Mission about 20 times in 2000-2001.

 

 

Me too. Even after I dropped 155mm VT on his ass.

[pharoahjared]

 

Let's also no forget that T-34/76 was early on kind of "M3 Medium" - it was a "stepping stone" design that was slated to be replaced by something more advanced (T-34M). However the war interceded and USSR was stuck with the Christie suspension. Ironically same way as with the Americans, the replacement, when it came, was not terribly reliable (T-44), so T-34 had to soldier on.

 

This is perhaps the first time that I've heard of the T-44 being declared as unreliable, certainly it wasn't produced in anywhere near the numbers of the tank it was supposed to replace, but then again perhaps there are other reasons for that? I'm not saying the T-44 wasn't unreliable, but its just I cannot recall ever hearing this about that tank before.

 

 

They didn't produce more because the T-54 was uniformly regarded as vastly superior.

 

The T-34 and KV-1 brought some very advanced ideas for the time, but failed miserable elsewhere as Nick pointed out, compared to what the Brit cruisers were like in the same timeframe, the T-34 would have been a step up and would be a good base to start improving.

 

They did quite well despite being handled by raw recruits led by even rawer officers.

 

good thoughts, I expect explaining detailed reasons why the crew should be able to see, fight and escape were lost on Stalin and the NKVD, but the "triad" were.

 

Stalin and Beria didn't give two shits about tank design, they just signed off on what the people who acutally cared wanted.

Edited June 8, 2015 by pharoahjared

[Mikel2]

The T-34 and KV-1 brought some very advanced ideas for the time, but failed miserable elsewhere as Nick pointed out, compared to what the Brit cruisers were like in the same timeframe, the T-34 would have been a step up and would be a good base to start improving.

 

Both tanks were sailing uncharted waters in various aspects of tank design and while they were extremely advanced in certain ways, they were crippled in other ways, which tend to be overlooked.

 

One has to take into account their extremely short development time. How many tanks have been truly innovative and have worked as advertised out of the box? The T-34 and KV-1 didn't have the benefit of learning from the initial mistakes. The T34M shows what those improvements would have looked like hadn't it been for the war.

 

I do have a soft spot for the KV-1. How many viable 45 ton tanks were there in late 1940? Later Soviet tanks IMO owe more to it than to the T34. Considering how many decades the KV's successors soldiered on, the Soviets didn't get it entirely wrong.

[Manic Moran]

 

So happy to see where Manic Moran is now. I recall him asking here about how a foreigner like him could serve in the US military, and his diary thread on OCS I think it was. And now here he is.

Screw that guy, he kicked my ass in Combat Mission about 20 times in 2000-2001.

 

 

You can rest assured, I have lost/destroyed my disks, so cannot do it any more.

 

Does anybody have a link to Nick's old Iraq videos? I was looking for them the other day coincidentally.

 

http://data.primeportal.net/iraq/videos.htm

http://data.primeportal.net/iraq/pictures.htm

 

Had the US tested the 17 pounder for penetration before Isigny, August, 1944? What I recall that the problem with the US 76 mm/3 inch wasn't much the gun but rather the poor qualitfy full-bore projectile. With a combination of the British projectile/US cartridge case American late M4s would have been about on par with the Comet.

 

Not SVDS, to my knowledge. There was the 90mm/17pr side-by-side some time before then. I have not seen that test report, I have only seen a document saying that the test occurred and that 90mm was considered superior. I don't think SVDS would have been available to test.

 

 

Had the US tested the 17 pounder for penetration before Isigny, August, 1944? What I recall that the problem with the US 76 mm/3 inch wasn't much the gun but rather the poor qualitfy full-bore projectile. With a combination of the British projectile/US cartridge case American late M4s would have been about on par with the Comet.

 

Actually, the recommendation was to place the American HVAP on the 17-pdr case. The American APCBC did not perform as well as 17-pdr APC, but 17-pdr APDS suffered from accuracy problems. The combination HVAP/17-pdr was seen as the best solution for both problems, since the HVAP was acknowledged the most accurate projectile.

 

Ooops [EDIT]: yes, IIRC 17-pdr penetration was demonstrated side by side with the 76mm in the April? May? test at Shoeburyness, which first brought attention to the lack of power in the 76mm cartridge. It seems that about that time the ETOUSA Armor Section began trying to convince Ordnance to authorize hotter loads and greater chamber pressures and continued to do so without avail through the end of the war. They got marginally better reaction from SOS/ASF regarding the medium tank replacement factor...after about four months of combat, when it was too late, and an increment that was too little (it wasn't until 1945 that realistic factors were finally authorized). Essentially, then CONUS-based War Department organizations were no better than present CONUS-based Defense Department organizations in providing serious and timely support to the guys at the sharp end. So were little different than their Great War, Spanish-American War, Civil War, Mexican-American War, War of 1812, and Rev War counterparts.

 

 

I've run across a bunch of documents in the Archives which discuss the matter of getting higher pressure loading out of the gun. It looks like it was something which the US had been looking at for some time, but the response from Ordnance was consistently "It can't be done. You want a faster round out of the 76mm, you need a lighter projectile."

 

Interesting video - but also has it wrong on a couple of things. The US tested 17pdr APDS and came to a somewhat different decision than he is putting out in the video. The report is (or was) available by DTIC. Not sure its out there any more. The premise was there was always something wrong with the APDS ammunition/gun and its interaction that caused accuracy issues with the 17pdr. The thought was muzzle brake sabot interaction or something else (initially). This turned out to be a symptom, but it was not the root cause.

 

The US test identified the likely root cause...and unfortunately it has nothing to do with anything outlined in the video.

 

Saying the 17pdr had an accuracy issue with APDS is thus also compounding a myth. In the final examination it is dependent on the time of production and manufacturer of the APDS ammunition used for the test. This is a good example of how historical documents and one off tests can also lead you astray.

 

The test results he quotes were because of the ammunition lots provided for the initial US test. Different lot = different results.

 

 

Probably you refer to "Exterior Ballistics of Armor Piercing Dense-Sheathed Shot for 17-Pounder Gun", Sept 44. AD 492787 and, yes, it does state that the yaw of the projectile "seemed" to be caused by the slow separation process of the sabots and base plates. But for end user purposes, the cause is irrelevant. It either hits what you aim at, or it doesn't. This end result was apparently not solved by 1946 when the US Army did its testing of the 17pr Sherman in Fort Knox. British figures of Sep 44 give SVDS half the accuracy of APC rounds.

 

I have also seen reference, but buggered if I can find it right now, to a modification issued to the field to 17pr sabot projectiles to fix accuracy problems in 1953/54. What I found interesting was that it stated that the modification was not necessary for projectiles if fired from the 77mm, and also was not necessary (or at least not suitable) for application to ammunition manufactured in Canada.

 

I think someone needs to go to Kew and grab a copy of http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C1805743. 17pr Sabot development, dated 1959. It's a bit of a swim for me.

[Cinaruco]

Thanks Nick! I was going to post that I just watched the video, and it was great. Keep up the good job and it is genuinely good to see you here. A great poster, now lecturer. At least gives the links if you have others.

[Oddball31]

Not SVDS, to my knowledge. There was the 90mm/17pr side-by-side some time before then. I have not seen that test report, I have only seen a document saying that the test occurred and that 90mm was considered superior. I don't think SVDS would have been available to test.

 

 

I didn't mean the sabot rounds. Just I was wondering if there was a pre-Isigny side-by-side test between the 17 pounder and the 3 inch/76mm M1 with fullbore (APC) projectiles.

 

British 77 mm fired a shot projectile apx. with the same weight and at the same velocity, but it penetrated about an inch more vertical plate than US 76mm M62. Makes me think that there hadn't been enough interest to the British technology after all (they made great AT guns, their home-built platforms, well, sucked for them). It may sound academic, but apply the same technology for the 90mm, and you have a weapon.

Edited June 8, 2015 by Oddball31

[bojan]

It may sound academic, but apply the same technology for the 90mm, and you have a weapon.

 

Post war 90mm M36 gun on M47 tank and M41 gun on M48 tank were higher pressure then WW2 90mm M3. You can see in Yugo tests, 90mm M36 vs 90mm M3.

[Rich]

 

Actually, the recommendation was to place the American HVAP on the 17-pdr case. The American APCBC did not perform as well as 17-pdr APC, but 17-pdr APDS suffered from accuracy problems. The combination HVAP/17-pdr was seen as the best solution for both problems, since the HVAP was acknowledged the most accurate projectile.

 

Ooops [EDIT]: yes, IIRC 17-pdr penetration was demonstrated side by side with the 76mm in the April? May? test at Shoeburyness, which first brought attention to the lack of power in the 76mm cartridge. It seems that about that time the ETOUSA Armor Section began trying to convince Ordnance to authorize hotter loads and greater chamber pressures and continued to do so without avail through the end of the war. They got marginally better reaction from SOS/ASF regarding the medium tank replacement factor...after about four months of combat, when it was too late, and an increment that was too little (it wasn't until 1945 that realistic factors were finally authorized). Essentially, then CONUS-based War Department organizations were no better than present CONUS-based Defense Department organizations in providing serious and timely support to the guys at the sharp end. So were little different than their Great War, Spanish-American War, Civil War, Mexican-American War, War of 1812, and Rev War counterparts.

 

 

I've run across a bunch of documents in the Archives which discuss the matter of getting higher pressure loading out of the gun. It looks like it was something which the US had been looking at for some time, but the response from Ordnance was consistently "It can't be done. You want a faster round out of the 76mm, you need a lighter projectile."

 

 

Yep, if you find the complete History of the AFV&W Section (bits and pieces are scattered about in RG492 and RG338 IIRC) and read it you immediately get the sense that the whole refusal to increase the charge in the 76mm and 90mm guns royally PO'ed everyone in the Section. The only other thing that got them as PO'ed was the refusal by SOS/AGF to increase the replacement factor, even after they began producing a monthly summary of what the effects were at the sharp end. If I can ever break the time loose I intend to transcribe much, if not all, of it into For Purpose of Service Test.

[Oddball31]

 

It may sound academic, but apply the same technology for the 90mm, and you have a weapon.

 

Post war 90mm M36 gun on M47 tank and M41 gun on M48 tank were higher pressure then WW2 90mm M3. You can see in Yugo tests, 90mm M36 vs 90mm M3.

 

 

Right, but you need a new gun for that. If they had gone for the higher pressure route, it would have been simpler just take the whole package (gun+projectile) from the British.

 

One thing I'm curious at that did they ever consider using such gunsights that had separate range scales for lowered-velocity HE and high-velocity AP rounds- a technology used by Germans and the British. That would have made the HE-issue with the 76mm a moot point?

[Rich]

 

 

It may sound academic, but apply the same technology for the 90mm, and you have a weapon.

 

Post war 90mm M36 gun on M47 tank and M41 gun on M48 tank were higher pressure then WW2 90mm M3. You can see in Yugo tests, 90mm M36 vs 90mm M3.

 

 

Right, but you need a new gun for that. If they had gone for the higher pressure route, it would have been simpler just take the whole package (gun+projectile) from the British.

 

Not neccessarily. The 90mm used a measly 7.31 pounds of NH powder for propellent. The 76mm in its shorter cartridge case utilized 3.62 pounds of FNH powder compared to the 4.62 pounds of NH powder in the 3" cartridge to ballistcally match it. The guns of the 1940s were well over-engineered and I suspect the 90nn and 76mm could easily have sustained greater chamber pressures as they were.

 

Rich

[scotsman]

Hey Nick

 

I'm aware of that report but I think there is another AD that was dropped from DTIC last time I checked. In that report there was data that tied the 17 pdr accuracy issue to specific manufacturers, lots, and production/storage issues. I believe that report was still FOUO and had not been downgraded. Kind of limited in what I can say here if that classification is still in effect. You can read between the lines though. Blanket statements on 17pdr APDS accuracy shouldn't be made if the effects observed are tied to the issues noted, as other ammunition lots will fire without any accuracy issues.

 

That's the problem with these sorts of one off tests. To really know how the weapon behaves you have to test multiple lots and systems. One off tests leave you vulnerable to drawing incorrect conclusions from a small sample. If your ammo is drawn from one manufacture or lot and that lot is not up to spec you're going to arrive at all the wrong conclusions. Too often we quote the one of WWII tests as universally applicable without understanding what the heck was really tested and in what condition the vehicles, ammunition, and tests were run in.

 

That's why multiple lots are always tested in peacetime...a luxury that could not be afforded in war. Hence...even more important to understand all we can in what a given test shows.

 

Interesting notes on the Canadian information. That too would seem to indicate that it's not a system issue...its an ammunition manufacture and storage issue. The 77mm was simply the old 3" 20 cwt casing tied to the 17pdr projectile. Smaller case so it would all fit in the turret ring, but as the projo is in essence the same. It does sort of point back to the same conclusion. That the accuracy issue was not in fact system based, but rather based on ammunition manufacture/quality. That's the only foot note I would make in talking about 17pdr accuracy - that there is in fact evidence which indicates that the 'inaccuracy issue' was lot/manufacturer driven, and saying it applied universally is also a myth. I believe the lot numbers were noted in that AD you referenced. Have to go back and have a look see at that lot number vs. other reported history.

 

I have some contacts in the UK - Ill try and get a copy of that document. I may have it at home already. As the 6pdr and 17pdr APDS rounds were the first of their breed a lot of attention was paid to them. I have a sample of WWI production 6pdr APDS in my collection. A fair number of rounds got stuck in a warehouse in Holland and remained undiscovered until the early 2000s. Also have 17pdr APCBC and 77mm APCBC. Wishing I could afford all the samples of all the AP I would like to own!

 

I have a 37mm steilgranate salvaged from a lake in Finland...and also have a rare 76mm HVAP which laid in a Pa. barn until 2 years ago. No telling where these things will pop up.

 

Will do some more research on the US side and report back.

[Ken Estes]

 

 

It may sound academic, but apply the same technology for the 90mm, and you have a weapon.

 

Post war 90mm M36 gun on M47 tank and M41 gun on M48 tank were higher pressure then WW2 90mm M3. You can see in Yugo tests, 90mm M36 vs 90mm M3.

 

 

Right, but you need a new gun for that. If they had gone for the higher pressure route, it would have been simpler just take the whole package (gun+projectile) from the British.

 

One thing I'm curious at that did they ever consider using such gunsights that had separate range scales for lowered-velocity HE and high-velocity AP rounds- a technology used by Germans and the British. That would have made the HE-issue with the 76mm a moot point?

 

But of course. That's why they are called ballistic sights, as opposed to the non-ballistic sights, with basic crosshairs slaved to the analog FCS commencing with M47 and M103.

 

 

The 120mm AP-T was a single telescope reticle, owing to the ranges desired, but the HE-T and HEAT-T would be combined, and the 90mm AP-T also had HEP-T included, with corrections for the latter's right drift.

[DB]

Treading in shark-infested waters here, but I'm fairly sure that "common knowledge" here on TN was that the APDS accuracy issues were indeed directly related to clean (pot) sabot separation and that the Canadians solved the problem in around 1950. If the modification process referred to by NM is not applicable to Canadian sourced rounds, that may simply mean that the Canadian rounds had solved the problem "properly" and that a expedient modification to those rounds was unnecessary and potentially could undo the good work...

 

Just guessing, as usual.

[scotsman]

Believe the US test document identified the root cause which was nothing to do with the weapon or ammunition design....

[alejandro_]

They were not, actually I had many times opportunity to compare for example the quality of steel, T-34's and IS-2's I seen are made from terrible quality steel, also manufacturing quality is terrible and I talk here about war production vehicles, the ones manufactured after war are kind different story.

 

Do you know in which years they were built? Both IS-2 and T-34-85 received more effective type of steels during the last phase of the war. Factories also got better machinery which allowed better reliability. T-34 quality varies a lot depending on factory and especially year.

 

Regarding Michulec's book, it has been discussed a few times. The way he quotes the sources is not acceptable, and he only presents certain data. It is nice to see books on this tank that try to analyse all the problems it had, but he is really biased. It's like writing a book on Sherman/Vickers tank focusing only on the negative comments given in evaluations. IMO authors like Svirin, Bariantynskiy and Kolomiets have published better books. It is a shame they are not available in English, except for a small volume about T-34-76.

[Oddball31]

M4 and M26 did not have different range scales for anti-personal ammunition. Post-war armor like M47 or M103 had.

[Przezdzieblo]

Manic Moran,

WO 286/7 covers APDS of Canadian (Caddy`s) design, only.

 

 

scotsman,

any more details, please?

 

 

 

P.S. Michulec is biased as hell when it goes to T-34. "Mythical weapon" is strongly Polish-oriented.

Edited June 11, 2015 by Przezdzieblo

[scotsman]

Happily as soon as I confirm the current classification. I have been filing to get some of the older stuff still under wraps reviewed and released into the public domain - but that's a long process - as I'm sure those of you that have done it know full well.

 

Last time I checked it was still FOUO which prevents outright release to the public domain - unclassified but still restricted distribution to the USG and its contractors.

 

You can read between the lines on some of what I have written though. Testing of single lots can and will lead to false conclusions, -especially if quality issues are identified with the test lots before firing-. If other lots from other manufacturers fire without issue, then you are left with manufacturer ammunition production quality and quality assurance as the likely culprit.

 

Need to reread the report...I believe the lot numbers were identified in the report...

 

Again this is why its important to know everything about a test possible before we leap to conclusions and paint with a broad brush...saying that all ammunition or any weapon of type X is universally subject to the test results is not accurate in a case like this.

Edited June 11, 2015 by scotsman

[whelm]

 

 

 

It may sound academic, but apply the same technology for the 90mm, and you have a weapon.

 

Post war 90mm M36 gun on M47 tank and M41 gun on M48 tank were higher pressure then WW2 90mm M3. You can see in Yugo tests, 90mm M36 vs 90mm M3.

 

 

Right, but you need a new gun for that. If they had gone for the higher pressure route, it would have been simpler just take the whole package (gun+projectile) from the British.

 

Not neccessarily. The 90mm used a measly 7.31 pounds of NH powder for propellent. The 76mm in its shorter cartridge case utilized 3.62 pounds of FNH powder compared to the 4.62 pounds of NH powder in the 3" cartridge to ballistcally match it. The guns of the 1940s were well over-engineered and I suspect the 90nn and 76mm could easily have sustained greater chamber pressures as they were.

 

Rich

 

They could have if they really wanted.

 

451.25/16955

APG 471/508

 

In testing the 3" T12 (M7 before standardized) They fired numbers of rounds at varrying charge levels and pressure levels. using a 15lb HE shell and 90mm M1 Gun, powder

 

Normal pressure of 36,000 psi, velocity of 2600 ft/sec

 

They tested the gun at 165% pressure, it worked fine.

 

a 100% "normal" charge gave a velocity of 2600 ft/sec that we all know.

a 115% charge gave a velocity of 2800 ft/sec

a 110% charge gave a velocity of 2700 ft/sec

 

 

5 lbs 8 ounces of powder to get 2800 ft/sec out of the 3 inch.

Edited June 12, 2015 by whelm

[Ken Estes]

Maybe somebody thought 165% rated chamber pressure [max was 38,000 psi] was excessive for issue to the troops? The HE round weighed 12.9 lbs., so perhaps they were using shot in that test.

 

Since the HVAP round had a mv of 3400 fps, you can see why some experts thought going with a lighter round was more efficient.

[Rich]

Maybe somebody thought 165% rated chamber pressure [max was 38,000 psi] was excessive for issue to the troops? The HE round weighed 12.9 lbs., so perhaps they were using shot in that test.

 

Since the HVAP round had a mv of 3400 fps, you can see why some experts thought going with a lighter round was more efficient.

 

Ken,

 

That was not the justification put forward by the Ordnance Department, backed by SOS. Their reason was "excessive barrel and chamber wear", which would reduce the life expectancy of the piece and force a greater replacement factor. It was that short-sightedness that the AFV&W Section highlighted in their history. Every request they made to increase the propellent charge was met with that excuse to which they pointed out - repeatedly - that a 1,200-round life expectancy for the piece was useless when the life expectancy of the tank it was in was calculated as 300 rounds (or something like those numbers, I gotta look it up, but we are now less than four weeks from our move so the mess is reaching exponential proportions here, so I can't guarantee I can find anything right now ).