|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Sept 28, 2019 21:09:10 GMT
The T-34 was produced in much larger numbers than the Sherman.
Not exactly.
Both viewed the tanks primary role as supporting the infantry by dealing with armored or fortified units infantry would struggle to deal with alone, if indeed they were capable of doing so.
The difference is that German Doctrine tended to deploy armored units to seek out and destroy such forces in advance of the infantry. Where as the American and British Doctrine tended to deploy tanks where they thought the infantry would need them. (Note; I say 'tended to' because you will find differences in the actual deployment and use of armored units based on the tactical and strategic situation.)
Both understood a basic principle of warfare; Only infantry can take and hold ground.
Incorrect.
The first Sherman model to have a high velocity gun dates to 1942, almost a full year before the Firefly was developed and several months before the Panther first appeared.
The 76mm gun was installed, tanks almost entered production and then the tankers themselves blocked production until they'd actually had a chance to test it. While the gun physically worked the design was rejected as the gun was simply too large for the then current turret. It wasn't until the new, larger, turret was developed (and a slightly more compact 76mm) that production of the 76mm Sherman commenced.
The US Army had the 76mm Shermans available for use in time for D-Day, indeed they had several hundred of them sitting in depots in the UK. However the army opted not to take any into action at that time as;
The 75mm had at that time proved capable of dealing with German armor in North Africa and Italy, so field commanders didn't see any need for the larger gun at that time.
It would have added an additional strain to the logistics network.
They would have had to remove front line troops for retraining on the new tanks.
The British however did take the Firefly on D-Day, which is why it is the one people remember. That said the firefly was not all it was cracked up to be. The turret was cramped, rate of fire low as a result and worse the 18 pounder, while powerful, was wildly inaccurate. Even British tank crews said that shooting at anything over 500 yards was a waste of time as you were not going to actually hit your target.
Hardly surprising since by the time the Sherman entered service, at least on the Western front, German forces were on the defense. Units on the defense will almost always inflict heavier casualties than they will sustain unless utterly outclassed.
Most Sherman's were knocked out by Anti-tank guns or the Stug IV.
The first part alludes to one significant aspect of the Sherman in which it utterly outclassed its opponents; Crew Survivability.
Getting out of a Sherman in a hurry is easy, with every crew member being able to get to and out of a hatch in seconds; Except for the loader on the early models as they apparently forgot how to drill a hole in the turret roof for the loader.
German tanks were not that easy to get out of, depending on your position. The Commander on a Panther had to unscrew his hatch to exit that way, so presumably would have made a dive for the large loaders hatch at the rear of the turret. An act that would require him to fight with the loader and gunner (who were also trying to exit that way, although the loader was probably several meters from the tank by the time the gunner or TC got to the hatch, as well as get around or under the gun.
This probably also goes into the second part about German Tank crews. By 1944 the cream of the German Armor was, and had been, fighting and dying on the Eastern front for several years. The German military as a whole was starting to suffer from being unable to fully train troops before having to send them into action.
No, the Soviets won the war by inflicting casualties the German military couldn't sustain.
The Soviets won by capturing German oil field thus depriving them of fuel for their forces.
the German's lost by fighting on three fronts at once against three main opponents all of whom had vastly greater industrial bases.
You seem to be taking a somewhat simplistic view that 'technologically advanced' means 'better in every regard'. In reality when it comes to armored combat the most advanced and 'best' tank is the one you can rely on to do the job it was designed for. Thus while the Panther had a technically 'better' gun on its own. The overall design, while capable, was not as good as the Sherman.
Of course if you wanted to be REALLY pedantic about the best World War Two tank design then you can say 'The Centurion'.
It was a WW2 design, being tested as of June 1944 and entered service before the end of the war although it didn't see combat.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 29, 2019 2:47:47 GMT
I am taking the somewhat simplistic view that "technically advanced" means having a higher level of technology in active use than the other team.
now if you REALLY want to talk about a tank with great crew survivability, there is an Israeli tank that is built on the premise that if they put all the mechanicals in the front of the tank and the crew in the back, then if the tank takes a hit that disables it, the crew can simply leave through the back door, and go get another tank.
and then on the opposite end of the scale, there is a Russian troop transport that has the fuel tanks mounted on the inside of the back doors. don't want someone sneaking up behind you if you're in that.
|
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Sept 29, 2019 3:24:33 GMT
and then on the opposite end of the scale, there is a Russian troop transport that has the fuel tanks mounted on the inside of the back doors. don't want someone sneaking up behind you if you're in that. The BMP-1? That thing was a horror show all the way around. To begin with, not only did the vehicle have the commander sitting right behind the driver, the slope of the front armor was such that it was abnormally vulnerable to a type of outdated tilt-rod landmine that was still being used in Afghanistan. Drivers could be replaced, but experienced tank commanders couldn't, yet both were easy prey for these mines. The firing ports for the infantry? They were at a fixed angle, limiting what the infantry could do to defend themselves. And the fuel tank? Underneath the infantry, meaning that if the tank was ruptured the entire complement on board was done for. Of course, an even worse disaster than the BMP-1 was the first generation of HIND helicopters. The tail section had no armor, meaning that all the Taliban fighters had to do is wait for one to pass and they could bring it down with machine gun fire. Not only that, the usual low production quality of Soviet machinery meant that the blades on the main rotor had a bad habit of slipping if the pilot engaged in certain maneuvers. Couple this with how little room there was between the tail mast and the main rotor blades, and there were alleged reports of pilots chopping their own tail rotors off. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 29, 2019 9:54:21 GMT
and then on the opposite end of the scale, there is a Russian troop transport that has the fuel tanks mounted on the inside of the back doors. don't want someone sneaking up behind you if you're in that. The BMP-1? That thing was a horror show all the way around. To begin with, not only did the vehicle have the commander sitting right behind the driver, the slope of the front armor was such that it was abnormally vulnerable to a type of outdated tilt-rod landmine that was still being used in Afghanistan. Drivers could be replaced, but experienced tank commanders couldn't, yet both were easy prey for these mines. The firing ports for the infantry? They were at a fixed angle, limiting what the infantry could do to defend themselves. And the fuel tank? Underneath the infantry, meaning that if the tank was ruptured the entire complement on board was done for. Of course, an even worse disaster than the BMP-1 was the first generation of HIND helicopters. The tail section had no armor, meaning that all the Taliban fighters had to do is wait for one to pass and they could bring it down with machine gun fire. Not only that, the usual low production quality of Soviet machinery meant that the blades on the main rotor had a bad habit of slipping if the pilot engaged in certain maneuvers. Couple this with how little room there was between the tail mast and the main rotor blades, and there were alleged reports of pilots chopping their own tail rotors off. yes. the back doors were hollow and filled with diesel. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Sept 29, 2019 16:43:00 GMT
The fuel carried in the doors was intended to extend the range of the vehicle for transit not in combat. In combat areas the tanks in the doors were empty and disconnected from the fuel system. They were also meant to be filled with sand to increase protection, although this wasn't always done.
Without sand the rear doors of the BMP-1 could be penetrated by some small arms, making them a primary target. It is unclear if the tanks would provide additional protection if filled with fuel. But as MB showed small arms fire is not going to ignite the fuel, certainly not diesel, to a point at which it is going to threaten the crew - or at least not before they have plenty of time to exit.
The bigger issue would be that rounds that go through the doors are then going to be flying around inside the BMP.
Fire might not get the crew, but unless put out very quickly would set off the ammunition. This was also a problem as anti-tank weapons would likely set off the ammunition directly, or by puncturing the main fuel tank starting a fire inside the compartment which in turn would ignite the ammunition.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 29, 2019 22:58:37 GMT
The fuel carried in the doors was intended to extend the range of the vehicle for transit not in combat. In combat areas the tanks in the doors were empty and disconnected from the fuel system. They were also meant to be filled with sand to increase protection, although this wasn't always done. Without sand the rear doors of the BMP-1 could be penetrated by some small arms, making them a primary target. It is unclear if the tanks would provide additional protection if filled with fuel. But as MB showed small arms fire is not going to ignite the fuel, certainly not diesel, to a point at which it is going to threaten the crew - or at least not before they have plenty of time to exit. The bigger issue would be that rounds that go through the doors are then going to be flying around inside the BMP. Fire might not get the crew, but unless put out very quickly would set off the ammunition. This was also a problem as anti-tank weapons would likely set off the ammunition directly, or by puncturing the main fuel tank starting a fire inside the compartment which in turn would ignite the ammunition. to be fair, it was originally designed with the idea of carrying troops around a post apocalyptic wasteland, not for combat against armor. they would send tanks against armor. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Sept 30, 2019 17:15:43 GMT
Yeah, Infantry Fighting Vehicles are only really intended to protect against small arms and heavy machine guns not anti-tank weapons. Basically taking over the 'Infantry' tank role in terms of close support for the infantry.
Those that are fitted with heavier weapons that can deal with tanks, such as anti-tank missiles, are taking over the Tank Destroyer role. Meaning that they fast heavily armed but lightly armored units than can disrupt armored attacks until more effective units can be deployed.
The issue with the BMP-1 was that it wasn't fully capable of dealing with small arms which compounded problems with the internal layout and location of the fuel tank and ammunition. Of course to be fair it was also being deployed in an area and in a way that it wasn't really designed for. And of course it was also the first of its kind, so some design problems would be expected.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 30, 2019 17:22:51 GMT
Yeah, Infantry Fighting Vehicles are only really intended to protect against small arms and heavy machine guns not anti-tank weapons. Basically taking over the 'Infantry' tank role in terms of close support for the infantry. Those that are fitted with heavier weapons that can deal with tanks, such as anti-tank missiles, are taking over the Tank Destroyer role. Meaning that they fast heavily armed but lightly armored units than can disrupt armored attacks until more effective units can be deployed. The issue with the BMP-1 was that it wasn't fully capable of dealing with small arms which compounded problems with the internal layout and location of the fuel tank and ammunition. Of course to be fair it was also being deployed in an area and in a way that it wasn't really designed for. And of course it was also the first of its kind, so some design problems would be expected. the wikipedia article implied it was intended to deal mainly with sticks and rocks. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Sept 30, 2019 17:58:27 GMT
It was designed to be able to handle heavy machine gun and some light cannon (read, 20mm cannon) fire from the front and 7.62 NATO rounds to the sides and rear. (There not being much point in transporting troops in an armored vehicle if said troopers can be shot by small arms fire while still inside).
As noted however there were areas where it failed to provide even the minimum amount of protection. In the case of the rear doors I suspect that the amount of protection required or predisposed the fuel tanks in the doors were filled with sand or fuel. This idea sound great on paper and on a test ground. It's less practical in actual use by troops as you are basically requiring the vehicle be put out of service for a few hours while the tanks are emptied and filled with sand (assuming you can find any sand to fill the tanks). Then the tanks would need to be emptied AGAIN and cleaned out before you could fill them with fuel once more. (And god help you if you fail to fully clean the tanks and end up with sand in the fuel system, because the units mechanics are going to hate you).
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 30, 2019 18:12:40 GMT
It was designed to be able to handle heavy machine gun and some light cannon (read, 20mm cannon) fire from the front and 7.62 NATO rounds to the sides and rear. (There not being much point in transporting troops in an armored vehicle if said troopers can be shot by small arms fire while still inside). As noted however there were areas where it failed to provide even the minimum amount of protection. In the case of the rear doors I suspect that the amount of protection required or predisposed the fuel tanks in the doors were filled with sand or fuel. This idea sound great on paper and on a test ground. It's less practical in actual use by troops as you are basically requiring the vehicle be put out of service for a few hours while the tanks are emptied and filled with sand (assuming you can find any sand to fill the tanks). Then the tanks would need to be emptied AGAIN and cleaned out before you could fill them with fuel once more. (And god help you if you fail to fully clean the tanks and end up with sand in the fuel system, because the units mechanics are going to hate you). kind of like other countries' APCs, it was not originally intended to go into a fair fight. military doctrine after WWII has been to make sure the opponent is outclassed whenever possible. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Sept 30, 2019 19:39:12 GMT
It has always been a staple of Military tactics, at least by good commanders, to fight on terms that are in some way favorable to them. Napoleon for example utilized more and heavier field artillery than his opponents. Henry III utilized far more archers than his opponents. In both cases this helped offset disparity in numbers.
Infantry Fighting Vehicles are the logical progression from PanzerGranaders which in turn was a logical progression from using trucks to move troops to the front lines.
From a technological viewpoint its not just about having the best technology, its making the best use of that technology in the most efficient way possible. In this case IFV's are an efficient use of resources since they fill multiple functions in a single platform that would/were formally have been filled by a number of other units. So instead of needing field artillery, tank destroyers, transportation trucks and (to some degree) supply vehicles you have everything in one package.
|
|
|
|
Post by wvengineer on Sept 30, 2019 19:58:10 GMT
I think it was Patton who said "I adhore a fair fight." Meaning that he will take every tactic and advantage he can get to go into a fight with the upper hand.
Anyway, I think our discussion of tanks has gotten a bit off topic from space fighter design.
So here's an idea. Pick a Scifi universe with it's given rules, technologies, and limitations. What is your design for the ultimate fighter for that universe?
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 30, 2019 20:21:07 GMT
I think it was Patton who said "I adhore a fair fight." Meaning that he will take every tactic and advantage he can get to go into a fight with the upper hand. Anyway, I think our discussion of tanks has gotten a bit off topic from space fighter design. So here's an idea. Pick a Scifi universe with it's given rules, technologies, and limitations. What is your design for the ultimate fighter for that universe? I think the characteristics of a good "fighter" tend to be pretty universal. I'm inclined to go with a pilot-gunner/navigator model and with the second seater available to manage it, I would be inclined to have a rear facing weapon available.. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Sept 30, 2019 21:18:52 GMT
Unless you start dogfighting at close range the primary characteristic that would define a good fighter would be its ability to see and fire at an enemy before it can see and fire at you. This is one major factor in air combat that has remained unchanged since WW1, the difference here being that its a lot harder to stay out of sight in space.
Thus in terms of space-fighters the main advantage probably wouldn't come from raw performance but from its passive sensors and stealth systems; at least for space combat alone. If the fighters are also expected or designed for combat within an atmosphere then performance would become of concern.
A two seater in this context would be the best option, allowing a pilot to focus on flying and the RCO to focus on the ECM/ECCM systems. Rear weapons would add mass for possibly little practical value 99% of the time. However a turreted Phalanx type system might prove valuable for defense if missile technology is the primary type of weapon used, and could be used at closer ranges as a direct fire gun.
Missile weapons are likely to be the primary weapon in space, due to their far longer effective range (since they can alter course unlike a solid projectile). This in turn would mean that taking down enemy fighters would either mean saturating a targets defenses with more targets than it can handle, or trying to hit it so quickly and suddenly the defense systems simply can't react fast enough. The latter would either require getting very close to a target before opening fire, or cold dropping missiles towards a target where they only activate and fire once close in.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Sept 30, 2019 21:32:59 GMT
its very variable, universes like Ian M Banks Culture or Neal Ashes Polity novels don’t need fighters they use AI drones, the Culture are extremely high tech a drone that is t size of a person fistbcan be armed and have warp drive capability fighters are not used in that universe.
On the other hand in the Grimdark universe of WH40k a void fighter requires a pilot, gunner, a Navigator to pierce warp space ( think Dune) and an Astropath physic should FTL communications be needed. A Fury fighter is 40 metres long but is considered a small fighter in that universe. Of and several servitors lobotomised cybernetic slaves, that may if they are lucky be vat grown or if they are unlucky convicted criminals to operate systems like loading.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Sept 30, 2019 21:36:19 GMT
Unless you start dogfighting at close range the primary characteristic that would define a good fighter would be its ability to see and fire at an enemy before it can see and fire at you. This is one major factor in air combat that has remained unchanged since WW1, the difference here being that its a lot harder to stay out of sight in space. Thus in terms of space-fighters the main advantage probably wouldn't come from raw performance but from its passive sensors and stealth systems; at least for space combat alone. If the fighters are also expected or designed for combat within an atmosphere then performance would become of concern. A two seater in this context would be the best option, allowing a pilot to focus on flying and the RCO to focus on the ECM/ECCM systems. Rear weapons would add mass for possibly little practical value 99% of the time. However a turreted Phalanx type system might prove valuable for defense if missile technology is the primary type of weapon used, and could be used at closer ranges as a direct fire gun. Missile weapons are likely to be the primary weapon in space, due to their far longer effective range (since they can alter course unlike a solid projectile). This in turn would mean that taking down enemy fighters would either mean saturating a targets defenses with more targets than it can handle, or trying to hit it so quickly and suddenly the defense systems simply can't react fast enough. The latter would either require getting very close to a target before opening fire, or cold dropping missiles towards a target where they only activate and fire once close in. Have you read or seen the Expanse series of novels or TV show, pretty similar to your ideas. It’s probably true in the real world in the near future as well. But it depends on the technologies within a particular universe as wvengineer has suggested a near future hard sci-fi then yes but a more space opera not always. A universe were ECM has the upper hand and missiles cannot be relied upon not to be subverted and stay on course or even returned to sender, then you may want manned fighters. Perhaps that why BSG needed manned Vioers. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Oct 1, 2019 0:22:02 GMT
BSG needed manned fighters due to the Cylons ability to hack into and subvert computer systems. In fact the Cylons were in effect used as military drones by the colonies.
But yes, it does depend on the technologies. Drones have the disadvantages of effective controllable range, meaning that unless faster than light communications is cheap, compact and unhackable they would have to be either limited to very short range encounters or have some degree of autonomy; Which may not be a great idea as there is a risk of them going rogue and they could be rather predictable. (These are more or less the reasons drones are not used in Star Wars)
Even if you have faster than light communications using it may end up revealing the position of both the drones and the launching ship as they communicate with each other. Manned fighters would have the same problem, but a manned crew would probably know when not to start communicating.
Advantages and disadvantages of technologies and their use can be seen on Babylon 5, where human Starfury fighters could outperform their Minbari counterparts in terms of performance. But got shot out of the sky in droves due to Minbari ships having ECM systems that prevented Earth ships from being able to detect or lock onto them.
Missile systems in the B5 universe were known, but rarely used against military targets since they had point defense systems. Primary weapons were plasma-based pulse cannons which could, in turn, be intercepted and dispersed by the 'Interceptor' point defense systems (also plasma weapons). The Interceptor systems could also be used against fighters, although that job was usually handled by friendly fighters who could also act as a mobile defense system against enemy fire as well as be used offensively to directly attack larger ships aiming for weapon mounts and weak areas. The interceptor grid itself could be used offensively to target and fire at larger targets if needed.
Larger capital ships also tended to carry beam weapons, which were shorter ranged but far more powerful. It is unclear as to how effective the interceptor system was against beam weapons, as in one episode it is noted that a ship only had a clear kill shot against an opponent due to their grid being down. But elsewhere it doesn't seem as if interceptor fire had any effect. Meaning the only defense against beam weapons was staying out of range or thick armor.
This view from B5 is a mixture of 'real world' technologies and space opera ones.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 1, 2019 1:38:42 GMT
in a missle heavy universe, as I've mentioned, the Honorverse is a really good example. the standard ship classes start at around a thousand tons and combat ranges tend to be measured in light minutes. the three general weapon types are missiles, focused gravity guns, and coherent light guns. a standard engagement consists of firing broadsides of missiles at the other ship, which it then tries to intercept with waves of countermissiles, followed by point defense lasers. old naval doctrine involved getting your capital ships close enough to your opponent to finish them off with graser fire, but improved throw weight with missile tubes often means you never reach graser range.
the "Light Attack Craft" introduced midway though the saga as something more than a system patrol craft is, as I recall, about a hundred foot class ship, with a crew of six. the ship would carry six antiship missiles, a capital ship class graser, and generous point defense lasers. its primary defense was based on stealth - a normal tactic being to accelerate towards the enemy, and then go into stealth until close enough to an enemy ship to catch it by surprise - or to flood its defenses with missiles. - the crew would be the skipper, scan officer, engineer, and three people managing the weapons and ECM systems. below that, there are basically two sizes of gunship, that are atmospheric or near space craft.
|
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Oct 1, 2019 5:59:58 GMT
Unless you start dogfighting at close range the primary characteristic that would define a good fighter would be its ability to see and fire at an enemy before it can see and fire at you. This is one major factor in air combat that has remained unchanged since WW1, the difference here being that its a lot harder to stay out of sight in space. Thus in terms of space-fighters the main advantage probably wouldn't come from raw performance but from its passive sensors and stealth systems; at least for space combat alone. If the fighters are also expected or designed for combat within an atmosphere then performance would become of concern. A two seater in this context would be the best option, allowing a pilot to focus on flying and the RCO to focus on the ECM/ECCM systems. Rear weapons would add mass for possibly little practical value 99% of the time. However a turreted Phalanx type system might prove valuable for defense if missile technology is the primary type of weapon used, and could be used at closer ranges as a direct fire gun. Missile weapons are likely to be the primary weapon in space, due to their far longer effective range (since they can alter course unlike a solid projectile). This in turn would mean that taking down enemy fighters would either mean saturating a targets defenses with more targets than it can handle, or trying to hit it so quickly and suddenly the defense systems simply can't react fast enough. The latter would either require getting very close to a target before opening fire, or cold dropping missiles towards a target where they only activate and fire once close in. For the "Battletech" RPG campaign I have going, I have it that one faction developed the "Nemesis" stealth fighter, which is classed as a "space dominance" aircraft. It's got 3 PPCs (re: particle cannons that fire the equivalent of a 100mm round), the fusion engine to power them, the heat sinks to dissipate them, the space-type blackball paint & an ECM suite to help it avoid detection, and a rear-firing 50mm laser to boot. A skilled pilot can literally sneak up on a dropship, corvette, or other space combat vehicle, fire off a devastating volley (under the game rules, destroying 10% of a ship's hit points in a single blast results in a die roll to determine if the hull was breached), and absolutely haul out of there whilst using the rear-firing laser to sting any would-be pursuers. The first appearance of the Nemesis in combat is *literally* going to be 20 of them jumping a warship. The head of a planet's defense force correctly determined where the warship would be when it left hyperspace, and the planes were waiting. |
|
|
|
Post by wvengineer on Oct 1, 2019 13:05:39 GMT
I understand the use of Missiles in long range space combat where relativistic weapons are ineffective. However, the reason you use them is also what would make them ineffective. A missile is fired so that it can track a ship as it moves. However, because it is long range and take a noticeable amount of time to reach it's target, you also have plenty of time of the other side to detect it and deploy countermeasures.
For a missile to be effective, it would almost have to have its own stealth design/systems to allow it to get closer and allow less time for evasive action/countermeasures to be deployed.
|
|
