Link: Copy link
So, quote a post, in a topic, where somebody said the 17-pounder was inaccurate with normal ammunition. Not somwhat less accurate. Not inaccurate with APDS. Inaccurate with normal ammunition.Phoenix04 wrote:
Yes they have. You wish, just another fantasy.
Tell it to the British infantry that didn't have 60mm mortars or semi-automatic rifles. But I bet you'll have your reasons why the 2" mortar and the No 4 rifle were just what the squaddies needed and wanted.Tell that to the US tank crews who wanted something better. The margins you dismiss were their lives.
How many lives, on hiw many occasions? Seriously, how often would having a Firefly along have made a bloody difference?Phoenix04 wrote:Yes they have. You wish, just another fantasy.sergeante wrote:I think none of those people were denigrating the 17-pounder in anything like the manner accused. At most a certain cold person may have been exagerating the 76mm's superiority to take the piss out of Phoenix.
Well...I think the whole question was mooted by a manpower and material superiority that meant the war was won the minute a secure lodgment in Normandy was attained. I also think it was primarily an infantry and artillery war, on all fronts. The relative capabilities and availabilities of a minority of tanks optimized for counter-armor warfare is debating at the margins of a margin.
Tell that to the US tank crews who wanted something better. The margins you dismiss were their lives.
And Allied Infantry would have been happy if they had something more competitive with the MG 42 -- or at least some of them would have. Or mortars on a scale similar to German infantry battalions, particularly in Normandy.ChrisPat wrote:
Two sides to that, the tank crews can't be expected to calmly look at the big picture and both US and UK crews noted their disadvantages compared to the German tank. They also no doubt noted their advantages in terms like "Thankfully, they didn't have many of them and we had masses of support." Nonetheless it was noted and post war US and UK tank designs have gone for firepower able to defeat the expected armoured opposition as a matter of course.
In a sence they did. Allied, in particular, American infantry had armored support that the Germans could only dream of. With attachments a US infantry division had more armor than a German Panzer division. A Sherman (even or especially one with a 75mm gun) trumps an MG 42.sergeante wrote: And Allied Infantry would have been happy if they had something more competitive with the MG 42 -- or at least some of them would have. Or mortars on a scale similar to German infantry battalions, particularly in Normandy.
Ummm...no. the Mk III was sized for the AT gun of 1939-40, and the Mk IV was sized for the HE howitzer of the same period. There were enough of each projected, even in early development, that TCO was not going to be that different from two different mods of a notional single mark. And they were both definitely designed for the near-term service environment. They were both just well-engineered to meet well thought out requirements.ChrisPat wrote: Well, yes. PzIII and PzIV were not chosen to be the way they were in order to be upgunned later; it was pure luck. Their design choices were made to equip a Pz Div for war in the near future. For which a cheaper, smaller tank still able to mount a 3.7cm or a 7.5cm would have been better in that more could have been built and support would have been easier.
38(t) was a four man tank with riveted armor. On its best day. Compared to the Mk III, one might say the Germans used them to bulk up their tank numbers in the same way that a cook might add beans to the mix to bulk it up when short on ground beef.The Pz38(t) looks like a good pattern; PzIII is double the weight for the same armament, slightly more armour and, it would appear, comparable mobility. The 38(t) gets praise for its driving qualities but I've never heard of them being held back by other veh.
And just not as advanced in design.Cruiser MkIV (later A13s with 30mm armour) were almost exactly half way in weight; 38(t) 10t, A13 14.5t, PzIII 20t. PzIV was 20t too.
Something people don't understand about Tiger -- it was the German infantry tank. The big gun was capable of fighting enemy tanks very well, but the big gun and the thick armor were there to enable fighting infantry and AT guns in fortifications. The 75mm L/70 existed because the panzer division tank -- which is what Panther was -- was intended to be able to fight any enemy armor encountered on the offensive. That that also made it a good counter-armor gun in the defensive role was a consequence of it being a good counter-armor gun under any circumstance.It would appear that a shorter 8.8cm would have been possible for Panther, given existing designs and that, AFAIK, the L/70 7.5cm was new. That might result in a Panther that not only has a gun better suited to offensive ops but has been in service a couple of months longer or does not delay the attack at Kursk.
Sillier than your made up Super-Pershings? You should get down off your high horse, you have already shown us that you know not of which you speak.
That's what guys who used them told me. Note that replacing engine and transmission are among the most common upgrades after the mid sixties.Getz wrote:That one's new to me. The Meteor was a well worked up engine and the Merritt Brown Gearbox also had a reliable track record.Dave AAA wrote: The M26 is widely acknowledged to have been underpowered with a bad transmission. The M46 was much better and subsequent Patton tanks were well regarded by users. Meteor powered Centurions, on the other hand, were not very well regarded by many of their users due to poor mechanical reliability.
Early Centurions had crumby range, but I've never read that they were unreliable.
The actual T26E4 was - to borrow a phrase - a kludge intended to pack a gun into a turret not nearly big enough to mount it - it's drive train was in no way upgraded over the T26E3 that was dismaying the troops that received it with it's horrible reliability. Same goes for the M26E1 - a tidied up version of the T26E4 with a more compact gun but still no changes to the drive train. "Far more mobile, faster Super Pershings" are invention of yours and yours alone.Dannytoro wrote:Sillier than your made up Super-Pershings? You should get down off your high horse, you have already shown us that you know not of which you speak.
Super Pershing are not fantasy. They are a design genesis. Not to mention you have the sense of humor of a fence post. Sorry the self-effacing sarcasm whooshed miles above your head.
But the tanks had to do it all on their own. From the front of the target only.foscadh wrote:
In a sence they did. Allied, in particular, American infantry had armored support that the Germans could only dream of. With attachments a US infantry division had more armor than a German Panzer division. A Sherman (even or especially one with a 75mm gun) trumps an MG 42.