What Were They Thinking?

AbsntMndedProf · Post by **AbsntMndedProf** » Thu Apr 03, 2003 2:15 am

Is there a weapon/weapon system that has a flaw or quirk that seems so obvious that it makes you wonder what the designers were thinking at the time?

One AFV that comes to mind right away, is the British Archer TD. Its 17 pound gun is mounted facing to the rear of the vehicle. This means that, in order to open fire on the enemy, it must face its rear end towards them and that advancing driving forwards points its weapon away from the enemy!

Eric Maietta

jphamel · Post by **jphamel** » Thu Apr 03, 2003 2:51 am

Must be a french vehicle, so they can retreat safely!:D

Irinami · Post by **Irinami** » Thu Apr 03, 2003 3:03 am

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHHAHAA!! *ROFLMAO!!*:D

rlc27 · Post by **rlc27** » Thu Apr 03, 2003 5:09 am

Man, people are ragging so on the French lately. But we have never had to live through the worst of the world wars like they have, the US always comes in at the last moment and beats up the stragglers. They basically lost an entire generation to WWI, so I can understand why they're so squeamish about conflict now...

Les_the_Sarge_9_1 · Post by **Les_the_Sarge_9_1** » Thu Apr 03, 2003 5:10 am

look at the chassis they put the Archer on. Even facing the right direction, that vehicle would have trouble fending off an irate PZ III.

What a supreme waste of guns that belong in a sherman.

Irinami · Post by **Irinami** » Thu Apr 03, 2003 5:35 am

Originally posted by rlc27
Man, people are ragging so on the French lately. But we have never had to live through the worst of the world wars like they have, the US always comes in at the last moment and beats up the stragglers. They basically lost an entire generation to WWI, so I can understand why they're so squeamish about conflict now...

That's all understood, Son, but it's only good to a point. I don't know about you or anyone else here, but I've been royally pissed off at the French and their snooty, ingrateful attitude. Like a young child, they think each of their good deeds equals a dozen of yours, regardless of scope. I've been ragging on the French since about the time I knew there was a France... and the more they say, the more reasons they give me to dislike them. I have respect for the Rural French, a distinction I have only recently learned to make. Point being, war or not the French (at least the ones you hear about) are always at odds with us... and while they're free to do that, I'm also free to bash on them for it.

rlc27 · Post by **rlc27** » Thu Apr 03, 2003 6:05 am

I agree...being descended from the rural French, I agree that they're better.

Parisians in my opinion think that they're still running the French Empire, and they resent that the US has become the dominant power. That, and they have vested business interests in Iraq...

challenge · Post by **challenge** » Thu Apr 03, 2003 10:36 am

Since the fall of Nepolean the French seem to have embrased a national policy of appeasement. "Those who do not learn from the mistakes of history are doomed to repeat them."

Individually I have liked each of the French I have met. I also see their view that it's time we quit holding the Savior of France thing over them. On the other hand, they are fond of reminding us that Lafyette helped save our bacon. I just think they have never gotten over the replacement of French as the laguage of international commerce.

On the original topic: One line of StuG assualt guns had the main gun mounted to the right of the body, even though the gun loaded from that side. It was moved to give the driver more room, I thiink, but the gunners must have had terrible bruses on the right elbow.

Irinami · Post by **Irinami** » Thu Apr 03, 2003 6:50 pm

Type 97 Anti-Tank Rifle for the Japanese. The sucker weighed 120-150 pounds (depending on how many extras you took with it)... which was about the likely weight of a soldier in a nation whose average height of enlistees was 5'3". That's not all, though. It took a 2-man team to carry (a good thing about it was that the Japanese put carrying handles on it). It was a 20mm gas-operated fully-automatic anti-tank rifle... problem being that the rate was much too fast and the recoil much too high unless it were emplanted in the ground. Even firing single shots, the recoil was rather heavy (I've heard everything from .30-06 level to that of a 12-gauge shotgun).

About the only benefits are that at close range, in an emplaced position, the weapon could turn light to medium-armoured vehicles into Swiss-****ing-cheese.

The Japanese realized some of it's problems and eventually turned it into a mounted weapon.

Voriax · Post by **Voriax** » Thu Apr 03, 2003 7:05 pm

Interestingly enough, with Archer they got a hard hitting mobile AT gun that served well into the 50's... Not bad.

Obviously they meant to use it mainly for defense...if you have number of prepared positions I'd think this vehicle would work very well...easy to switch positions.

I think there were some other vehicles with similar layout..some italian semovente perhaps? And some vehicles had two driver positions so that you don't have to turn your back when you want to get away fast. The S-tank for example.

Voriax

AbsntMndedProf · Post by **AbsntMndedProf** » Thu Apr 03, 2003 8:16 pm

I'll throw this one out to the experts around here. Back when I had the Aberdeen Proving Ground Tank Data series, I recall reading about a Soviet AA AFV that was so poorly designed and unpopular with its crews that it was given the nickname 'A coffin for four brothers'. Can anyone recall which unit this was?

Eric Maietta

Voriax · Post by **Voriax** » Thu Apr 03, 2003 11:17 pm

'Coffin for six brothers' was the nickname for the lendleased Lee/Grant tanks. Perhaps you are remembering that?

Voriax

AbsntMndedProf · Post by **AbsntMndedProf** » Fri Apr 04, 2003 12:23 am

Voriax posted:

"'Coffin for six brothers' was the nickname for the lendleased Lee/Grant tanks. Perhaps you are remembering that?"

No, I can even visualize the AFV in question. It was a Russian designed AA AFV with, I think, a 20mm cannon. (Not sure of the cannon's calibre, but I do remember it was a fairly small one.)

Eric Maietta

David boutwell · Post by **David boutwell** » Fri Apr 04, 2003 9:52 am

Originally posted by rlc27
Man, people are ragging so on the French lately. But we have never had to live through the worst of the world wars like they have, the US always comes in at the last moment and beats up the stragglers.

You are kidding, right? I'll attack your comment several ways.

If you were to fight a battle between the 1940 German Army and the 1944 German Army, which side would you choose????? The one with Pz IV's as the "least effective" of it's MBT's or the one that uses primarily Pz 35(t)'s, Pz 38(t)'s, Pz III's, and a small number of Pz IV's???

You call units like 1SS, 2SS, 9SS, 10SS and 12SS stragglers???

Those "stragglers would have given the French Army a bigger "*** whoopin'" than the 1940 German Army did!

Regards,

David Boutwell

AbsntMndedProf · Post by **AbsntMndedProf** » Fri Apr 04, 2003 4:31 pm

The M16 GMC: Oh, yeah! Lets hang a gunner in a sling between two pairs of .50 calibre AA MGs! That will be very good for his hearing.

:rolleyes:

Eric Maietta

AbsntMndedProf · Post by **AbsntMndedProf** » Fri Apr 04, 2003 7:53 pm

Posted previously by Voriax and myself:

"Voriax posted:

"'Coffin for six brothers' was the nickname for the lendleased Lee/Grant tanks. Perhaps you are remembering that?"

No, I can even visualize the AFV in question. It was a Russian designed AA AFV with, I think, a 20mm cannon. (Not sure of the cannon's calibre, but I do remember it was a fairly small one.)"

After a few cups of coffee and some thought, I came up with a bright idea, Go to the horse's mouth. So I emailed the Aberdeen Proving Ground Museum and received the following email from William Atwater:

"Sir: The tank in question is the T-34. The name "coffin for 4 brothers" was given when it was armed with the 76mm gun. When given the 85mm gun the tank became clearly superior to the German armor (with the exception of the
TIGER)."

Eric Maietta

Voriax · Post by **Voriax** » Fri Apr 04, 2003 8:34 pm

Originally posted by AbsntMndedProf

After a few cups of coffee and some thought, I came up with a bright idea, Go to the horse's mouth. So I emailed the Aberdeen Proving Ground Museum and received the following email from William Atwater:

"Sir: The tank in question is the T-34. The name "coffin for 4 brothers" was given when it was armed with the 76mm gun. When given the 85mm gun the tank became clearly superior to the German armor (with the exception of the
TIGER)."

Eric Maietta

Heh..talk about crew morale when more than 1 type of tank is nicknamed 'coffin'..

Reminds me of one fighter..I think it was Lagg-3. It's nickname translates to something like 'Guaranteed lacquered coffin'.

Voriax

Jacc · Post by **Jacc** » Fri Apr 04, 2003 11:23 pm

Comedy T-35 option