German Wündertanks vs Shermans


Depends who’s war we’re talking about...


Anyway, patriototic chest thumping aside, the British got the LCA right first time and designed a thoroughly combat worthy assault landing craft first go, they thought of everything, (always best to involve the people going to be running out of it and up a beach from the get go in these things), right down to a scaling ladder for getting over obstacles, and double silencers on the exhaust that made them all but inaudible at 20 paces.The only modification of note in service was to fit armour to the rear transom after reports of stokers getting wounded when sailing away from beaches after raids,
 
Last edited:
One thing the 'murricans were very good at was making sure everything fitted prior to assembly without some gaffer with a fag and a file spending hours on a component to get it to fit.
We went down the handbuilt by craftsman route and had to be dragged into the 20th century by being exposed to US industry making shit cheaper and quicker.
 
the gunlayer on the 88 and the Russian 85 faced towards the barrel, watching the traverse scale, so I guess it didn't matter where they faced as long as the needle pointed where it was supposed to.
Yes in anti aircraft mode no problem, anti tank, direct fire it is a problem and the guns had to modified.
 
There were truck mounted AA guns in service with pretty much everyone on the Western Front by 1918, it wasn't a new concept. The British had a fully armoured, tracked SP 18Pdr in 1925.
That was an SP field gun, not designed for Atk work, and at least the early versions of the birch gun had the crew very exposed.

Like we did with the portee & two & six pounders.
About 2-3 years later I think.

Yes in anti aircraft mode no problem, anti tank, direct fire it is a problem and the guns had to modified.
Why is everyone getting hung up on the reverse seating for the layers on the 3.7"? As has been previously said, by a couple of people. The 3.7" Mk.I had a telescope/periscope device built into it, from scratch for the layer to use in DF.
Granted this might have been removed on later marks. However there's plenty of accounts, throughout the war where the 3.7" was used in DF mode. Often with success.
 
In a perverse way, our future defence could do a lot more and look at how services without all the Gucci kit, refocus on training warriors.
That's the most stupid statement you've made - so you've got a bayonet and a 'warrior mentality', I've got an MRLS and your GPS location........

The last moron to come up with that level of ridiculous died in a bunker in Berlin in 1945
 
That's the most stupid statement you've made - so you've got a bayonet and a 'warrior mentality', I've got an MRLS and your GPS location........

The last moron to come up with that level of ridiculous died in a bunker in Berlin in 1945
Hitler was actually quite keen on better equipment so of all the things you might castigate him for I think that's unfair. Sadly I suspect the idea is also alive and well in places it shouldn't be today.
 
Hitler was actually quite keen on better equipment so of all the things you might castigate him for I think that's unfair. Sadly I suspect the idea is also alive and well in places it shouldn't be today.

He was, really?

He went to war with an army equipped with bolt action rifles and moved by horsepower of the 4 legged variety and arguably the worst personal kit of any of the combatants.
 
One thing the 'murricans were very good at was making sure everything fitted prior to assembly without some gaffer with a fag and a file spending hours on a component to get it to fit.
We went down the handbuilt by craftsman route and had to be dragged into the 20th century by being exposed to US industry making shit cheaper and quicker.
The master race couldn’t even manage to do something as basic as standardise wheel and tyre sizes.
A ‘motorised’ German Battalion could have over 40 different wheels and tyres for it’s few hundred vehicles. Only in the much over vaunted German arny could a puncture routinely mean the need to abandon a perfectly serviceable truck.
 
D

Deleted 154930

Guest
That's the most stupid statement you've made - so you've got a bayonet and a 'warrior mentality', I've got an MRLS and your GPS location........

The last moron to come up with that level of ridiculous died in a bunker in Berlin in 1945
You are intentionally misrepresenting intent, because you don't like me, playing the person again.

I made no suggestion we go back to the bayonet, that is your words, not mine. Are you suggesting the USMC who love the bayonet, are not equipped with enough equipment that could flatten the UK Army in fairly short order ?

My intent was if the army gets smaller, then each man has to carry even more of the load, which inevitably been the non teeth arms should in theory be more warrior orientated and trained in more than one role, just as the Reichswehr was highly trained.
 
D

Deleted 154930

Guest
The master race couldn’t even manage to do something as basic as standardise wheel and tyre sizes.
A ‘motorised’ German Battalion could have over 40 different wheels and tyres for it’s few hundred vehicles. Only in the much over vaunted German arny could a puncture routinely mean the need to abandon a perfectly serviceable truck.
Look at the modern Israelis they are still carrying lots of old kit, because they have such a large reserve army.
Its unfeasibly expensive to standardise if you have a large military.
 
Look at the modern Israelis they are still carrying lots of old kit, because they have such a large reserve army.
Its unfeasibly expensive to standardise if you have a large military.

No, it went to first principles.

You bid for a British or American army truck contract, certain standard parts were required. It’s no good having six models of 2 1/2 ton GS trucks with different tyres and wheels in the same unit.

Every German vehicle maker just sold the German army what it felt like. The same nominal model of truck from a maker could come with differ carburettors, radiators, wheels, lights, distributors.... it was bloody madness.

The Germans were so fixated on wunderwaffen, they never bothered with the basics.... keeping your army moving.
 

jrwlynch

LE
Book Reviewer
The Germans were so fixated on wunderwaffen, they never bothered with the basics.... keeping your army moving.
The question of logistics is a distraction for the commander and should be left to the quartermasters to resolve.

In the event of any shortfall or difficulty, the troops will simply make greater exertions.

(How do you say "MUAHahahahaha!" in German because der Uberkaiser von Mong has just passed on another of his brilliant plans?)
 
Calvert was posted to Hong Kong in 1934 and witnessed the "Rape of Nanking" and the Battle of Shanghai so he'd likely have seen the Jap landing craft in 1937 or thereabouts. I'll dig out my copy of "Fighting Mad" tonight and see if my memory is accurate.

depends when you think WW2 started?
For China some time before 1939
The usual dates of 39-45 are what I assumed you were talking about, as in this post you were referring to pre-war Jap amphibious operations:
Japanese Pre war Amphib ops were usually landing by Whaleboat on the Bund of ships landing party. SNLF which pre war were only Battalion sized made small landings along rivers more akin to traditional cutting out parties than WW2 style ops
I think Chesty Puller was in China slightly later (1940-41). Both he and Calvert were very impressed by the Japanese operations in China that they saw.
 
The question of logistics is a distraction for the commander and should be left to the quartermasters to resolve.

In the event of any shortfall or difficulty, the troops will simply make greater exertions.

(How do you say "MUAHahahahaha!" in German because der Uberkaiser von Mong has just passed on another of his brilliant plans?)

You jest, but its astonishing how often Geman Staff orders actually did include the phrase… 'the troops shall make great exertions'!
 
Somewhere on a hard disk, I've prob'ly still got an MP3 file of Richard Holmes delivering what sounds as though it might have been an after dinner address, but I think it was more serious, in which he explains how cautious he learned to be, about the accuracy of first-person accounts, retold years after the event. Basically, he was of the view that a significant proportion - having been told, re-told, and perhaps embellished over time - bore no relation to the established, documented facts, and that while they might be valuable illustrations, no self-respecting historian would rely solely on such stories as a substitute for more solid collateral.

His words always cross my mind when I listen to some of the BBC iPlayer archive material of interviews with WW1 veterans, filmed for the B+W 1960s classic series The Great War, but which didn't make it into the final cut.
Similarly, in "Dusty Warriors" (story of PWRR in Afghanistan), he recalls differences between soldiers recollections given an hour after the event compared to 24 hours later.

He attributes this to individual soldiers having little idea of the time ("time slows down when under stress"), and only being able to see a small portion of the battlefield. A day later, when everyone has talked about an action, an accepted version emerges which fits most peoples experiences, and the others mould their experiences to fit the accepted version.
 
Hitler was actually quite keen on better equipment so of all the things you might castigate him for I think that's unfair. Sadly I suspect the idea is also alive and well in places it shouldn't be today.
Unfortunately - for his Armed forces, at least - he was also in love with the notion of victory through superior Herman engineering (Sieg durch technik, anyone?), and even more committed to the dog-eat-dog / survival-of-the-fittest bollix that was absolutely fundamental (heavy emphasis on the syllables 'MENTAL', imho) to Nazi ideology.

Hence he was never gonna concede that shitloads of "good enough" produced to common standards across a range of factories working at full capacity 24/7 was the only chance - and even then at best only the slimmest of chances - that Der Vaterland could ever have, of staving off defeat in the face of the sheer mass of Soviet manpower, and American manufacturing.
 
Last edited:
The master race couldn’t even manage to do something as basic as standardise wheel and tyre sizes.
A ‘motorised’ German Battalion could have over 40 different wheels and tyres for it’s few hundred vehicles. Only in the much over vaunted German arny could a puncture routinely mean the need to abandon a perfectly serviceable truck.
See my #5,298, above
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top