Invasion of the US by Japan

Gary Grigsby's strategic level wargame covering the entire War in the Pacific from 1941 to 1945 or beyond.

Moderators: Joel Billings, wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami

User avatar
PzB74
Posts: 5069
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2000 8:00 am
Location: No(r)way

RE: Invasion of the US by Japan

Post by PzB74 »

At the end small anecdote:

After the war some Western historians asked Germans why they didn't produce T-34 copies after stunning realization that their PzIII and PzIV tanks in 1941/1942 were no match for Russians.

The answer was that the Russian T-34 would not pass the technical quality test.

I thought it was mainly because it would be too difficult to produce the engine? in Germany, and that it was no way Hitler nor anyone else could live with the fact that they had to copy Russian equippment....

Hm..think I found what I was looking for

"Guderian himself actually escorted his designers and investigators right to the front lines not only to analyse captured and destroyed T34s but to get the opinions of the front-line soldiers who faced them. Most simply asked that German copy the design and produce it themselves. That although they couldn't produce as many as the Soviets, it was obvious that the Germans still had tanks crews not only with superior training and experience but tactics and formations as well and that would hold the day. The designers disagreed however, not only because of national pride, but practicality as well. Vital components of the T34 included an aluminium diesel engine which helped make it so light and fast. While Russia had ample bauxite aluminium mines back in the Urals, Germany had none of significance."

In all of WWII there are very few examples of where the combatants copied each others equippment.
The Jerrycan is one notable exception though [;)]
Image

"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower
User avatar
mogami
Posts: 11053
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2000 8:00 am
Location: You can't get here from there

Firefly

Post by mogami »

Hi, The Sherman "Firefly" used by the British with the 17pounder was able to kill Tigers at least out to 800mm (I mean they killed Wittman and his entire platoon at that range on 8 Aug 44)
Image




I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
User avatar
Apollo11
Posts: 25196
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Zagreb, Croatia
Contact:

RE: Invasion of the US by Japan

Post by Apollo11 »

Hi all,
ORIGINAL: PzB

I thought it was mainly because it would be too difficult to produce the engine? in Germany, and that it was no way Hitler nor anyone else could live with the fact that they had to copy Russian equippment....

Hm..think I found what I was looking for

"Guderian himself actually escorted his designers and investigators right to the front lines not only to analyse captured and destroyed T34s but to get the opinions of the front-line soldiers who faced them. Most simply asked that German copy the design and produce it themselves. That although they couldn't produce as many as the Soviets, it was obvious that the Germans still had tanks crews not only with superior training and experience but tactics and formations as well and that would hold the day. The designers disagreed however, not only because of national pride, but practicality as well. Vital components of the T34 included an aluminium diesel engine which helped make it so light and fast. While Russia had ample bauxite aluminium mines back in the Urals, Germany had none of significance."

Yes... true... also note that each and every one of the German tanks in WWII had gasoline engine...

Also I will try to find the anecdote quote I used in my books (the main emphasis of which was how really poorly, but quickly, Russians did assembly their war equipment).

BTW, there was project VK3002(DB) - Panzerkampfwagen V by Daimler-Benz which started November 25th 1941.

This tank was spitting image of T-34 including diesel engine (already existing Daimler-Benz diesel engine - MB507).

This project even had almost produced prototype but was not chosen.

Instead the new Panzerkampfwagen V "Panther" was MAN design - VK3002(MAN).

The decision was made by Adolf Hitler on May 14th 1942 based on prints and statistics (there was no time for prototype match-out).

In all of WWII there are very few examples of where the combatants copied each others equippment.
The Jerrycan is one notable exception though [;)]

LOL... yes... [;)]


Leo "Apollo11"
Image

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE
User avatar
Apollo11
Posts: 25196
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Zagreb, Croatia
Contact:

RE: Firefly

Post by Apollo11 »

Hi all,
ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, The Sherman "Firefly" used by the British with the 17pounder was able to kill Tigers at least out to 800mm (I mean they killed Wittman and his entire platoon at that range on 8 Aug 44)

Michael Witmann's (in his "Tiger I" model VI E) was killed when surrounded by (I think) 5 Sherman "Firefly" tanks in summer of 1944.

But we have to note that his "Tiger I" model VI E was, in fact, almost unchanged design from July 1942 (no significant changes from initial start of production) and Sherman "Firefly" was rather new upgrade.

Therefore that was battle between almost new weapon (17 pounder gun on proven Sherman chassis) vs. 2 year old unchanged "Tiger I" model VI E design.

Please note that the Germans knew that by that time the "Tiger I" was outdated and in August 1944 they stopped production.


Leo "Apollo11"
Image

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE
User avatar
mogami
Posts: 11053
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2000 8:00 am
Location: You can't get here from there

Tiger I

Post by mogami »

Hi, Yes Wittman had one of the last Tiger I produced. Production switched to the II in Aug 44. This was the same type tank he drove into a British Armoured Bde and wrecked havoc in only a few weeks before he was killed. The difference was in the Villers Bocade the enemy had 75mm guns. His friends reported that he was unaware of the firefly being present else he would not have been so brazen.

(I find it some what humerous that the story says "He had a 6th sense" and then a few line later "was caught by surprise"
Image




I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
mdiehl
Posts: 3969
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2000 8:00 am

RE: Invasion of the US by Japan

Post by mdiehl »

The US state of the art tank in 1944 was an even match for the obsolete PzIV that was being phased out.

Utterly incorrect. The M4A3E8 ("state of the art" in July 1944) was quite superior to any variant of the PzIVJ. The E8 had an outsanding gun. Axis fanboys usually at this point begin to intoduce assertions about "inferior US ammo"... a completely fabricated claim. In head to head encounters, M4s bested PzIVs on most occasions. It was the nature of the terrain as much as anything that even led to M4s being effective against PzVIAs. The PzVIA was, however, a better tank on on one.... when its engine wasn't self-combusting under the excessive load that is.
Personally I would have traded the trusty and reliable M4A1 for a PzIVj. The first was way to tall and noisy to make up for the fact that it was slightly more agile. Ammo quality of the 76mm gun made it no better than the 75/48 (unless using HVAP). Both tanks would have knocked each other out at normal combat ranges, no matter where they hit.

At ranges over 500m the PzIVJ could not penetrate the front glacis of the late M4s without using special ammunition. The ranges were, however, often fought at close quarters. There the superior maneuverability and gyrostabilization on the M4s gacve it a decisive advantage. The only factor that kept the German armor "in the fight" was the fact that they were usually on the defensive and concealed. In a tank battle, he who shoots first tends to laugh last. But the vast majority of Shermans were not destroyed by German armor. They were largely knowcked oout by anti-tank guns.
Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?
User avatar
Apollo11
Posts: 25196
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Zagreb, Croatia
Contact:

RE: Tiger I

Post by Apollo11 »

Hi all,
ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Yes Wittman had one of the last Tiger I produced. Production switched to the II in Aug 44. This was the same type tank he drove into a British Armoured Bde and wrecked havoc in only a few weeks before he was killed. The difference was in the Villers Bocade the enemy had 75mm guns. His friends reported that he was unaware of the firefly being present else he would not have been so brazen.

(I find it some what humerous that the story says "He had a 6th sense" and then a few line later "was caught by surprise"


War is like that...

Also the thing is that almost everyone forgets Witmann's gunner who should have _MUCH_ credit for all the kills the Tiger crew had (he was also highly decorated but not in the Witmann's range). Commander is commander but gunner actually targets enemy and presses the trigger.


Leo "Apollo11"
Image

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE
User avatar
Apollo11
Posts: 25196
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Zagreb, Croatia
Contact:

RE: Invasion of the US by Japan

Post by Apollo11 »

HI all,
ORIGINAL: mdiehl

The PzVIA was, however, a better tank on on one.... when its engine wasn't self-combusting under the excessive load that is.

Just small related thing... there was no PzVIA tank in German army.

The tank was commonly called:

PzVI E "Tiger I"

but full name was:

Panzerkampfwagen VI Auf E (Sd Kfz 181) "Tiger I"


Leo "Apollo11"
Image

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE
Mike Scholl
Posts: 6187
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 1:17 am
Location: Kansas City, MO

RE: Invasion of the US by Japan

Post by Mike Scholl »



"Guderian himself actually escorted his designers and investigators right to the front lines not only to analyse captured and destroyed T34s but to get the opinions of the front-line soldiers who faced them. Most simply asked that German copy the design and produce it themselves. That although they couldn't produce as many as the Soviets, it was obvious that the Germans still had tanks crews not only with superior training and experience but tactics and formations as well and that would hold the day. The designers disagreed however, not only because of national pride, but practicality as well. Vital components of the T34 included an aluminium diesel engine which helped make it so light and fast. While Russia had ample bauxite aluminium mines back in the Urals, Germany had none of significance."
[;)]
ACTUALLY, Germany was the world's leading producer of aluminum in 1940. What they
couldn't do is produce the cast hull and turret of the T-34. The Panther was the German
attempt to build an imporved T-34---but you will notice it's all flat plates welded together.
User avatar
PzB74
Posts: 5069
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2000 8:00 am
Location: No(r)way

RE: Invasion of the US by Japan

Post by PzB74 »

I utterly suggest that you read this long and very interesting link on 76mm HVAP on the TankNet Military Forums.
http://63.99.108.76/ubb/Forum13/HTML/002547.html

People with considerably more backround info than me discuss the quality of the gun with AP/HVAP ammo, and its quite obvious that there were issues with the AP ammo.

If you had mentioned the Firefly, we could finally have agreed on a version of the Sherman that was 'superior' to the MkIV. The superb 17lb gun made it a match even for the Panther and Tiger.

(Notice how I use the terms match, even though the Panther was a better tank than any Sherman.)

Here's a little interesting side note:

The PzIVj was used by the Syrians in the 6 Days War against Israel in 1967...and the Israelis used Shermans!
Here's a pic of a IV that was captured on the Golan Heights.

Image
Attachments
pzivj.jpg
pzivj.jpg (23.08 KiB) Viewed 201 times
Image

"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower
mdiehl
Posts: 3969
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2000 8:00 am

RE: Invasion of the US by Japan

Post by mdiehl »

PZB you have been at best misled. First of all we were discussing the relative merits of the PzIV and the M4. Not the relative merits of the M4 and PzV or PzVI. You have made unsupportable remarks about the ammo quality of the 76mm gun. You're mistaken, although some rounds are better than others. Among AP there was not merely a choice between "AP" and "HVAP." See, for example, http://www.combatmission.com/articles/u ... s/m4a1.asp

Bottom line is that the middling AP rounds used in the 76 (not HVAP) could penetrate "Tiger Is" all PzIV and lesser vehicles. The only impenetrable ones were "Tiger IIs" and *some* PzVs at long range. and Jagdvariants of these. If you're going to fuss about varying ammo quality, however, it is important to note that the quality of the front glacis of PzVs varied considerably among tanks, as indicated bu BuOrd tests in 1944. Some PzVs could be penetrated at long range by the "lesser" US 76 ammunition types. When you add in the fact that the PzV had a propensity to stall, and the "Tiger I" to spontaneously self combust, you make for a situation where highly maneuverable and well equipped M4s could wreak devastation on even German heavy tanks.

Like I said before. Had every battle been fought in Morocco between M4s and Tigers (or Panthers I'll warrant), the differences might have been decisive. Late M4A3s, however, and all M4A176Ws were better than ANY variant of the PzIV without any reasonable doubt. There was NO range at which 76 armed M4s could not penetrate ANY armor from any facing on a targeted PzIV.

The 500m penetration value for the 75L48 (PzIVJ) is about 90mm. 141mm for the 75L71 used in the Panther. US standard M2 75mm gun (early Shermans) rates about 70mm at that range using APC, but using APM61 69 mm, and less (a mere 58) using APM71. The US 76mm M1A1 using APCM62 rounds could penetrate about 90mm, but with APM79 could penetrate 109mm, and with HVAP 157 mm.

As with cars, your mileage may vary depending on the source. I've picked the ballistic-tested and most widely used figures for American ammo.
Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?
User avatar
Zero the Hero
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 8:00 am

RE: Invasion of the US by Japan

Post by Zero the Hero »

Sorry you were entirely right, I got my tanks mixed up, I thought you were refering to a MK IVa instead of a MK VIe, and of course the 37mm gun was what the Mk III started with.

All things being even the Sherman and MkIV were a close match. I would choose a MKIVh over a standard Sherman (providing its in good running order which is the crux of the matter). The MkIVj was an economy model with 'chicken wire' shurtzen and a hand cranked turret traverse.
We do this not for honour, nor glory or riches, but for freedom itself, which no true man surrenders but with his life.
1320
User avatar
PzB74
Posts: 5069
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2000 8:00 am
Location: No(r)way

RE: Invasion of the US by Japan

Post by PzB74 »

I showed you a link to a forum that discussed the 76mm gun in detail and quite a few people said that there were issues with the ap ammo as a response to your mentioning that only Axis fanboys would say that US ammo was inferior, right!?
Personally I wouldn't use inferior, but I think the discussion on the Tankers Forum showed that there were problems with it.

I've read the link you posted before, and it tells about how US tankers bargained and bartered with TD crews to obtain special ammo for their gun. Special ammo made the gun a match for more than the PzIV, unfortunately there was not enough of it to go around.

What I tried to imply was that while the M4A1-3's were much better than their predecessors, it still shouldn't take on the heavier German tanks from the front without using special ammo, which wasn't really available.

So while the PzIV could easily be destroyed by an M4A3, this was also the case with the previous versions of the M4.
The problem was only that the Sherman had to be extremely careful not be hit by a 75/48 round, as it might very well kill it as well.

This is why I consider the Firefly a more superior tank than the M4A's - it carried a lot more shebang, exactly what was needed go around.

I don't think we're that much in disagreement really, but we could always make it sound like it if you'd like to spend another week posting replies to this thread. Unfortunately I have an assignment to do, no actually I got 10 [:(]





ORIGINAL: mdiehl
PZB you have been at best misled. First of all we were discussing the relative merits of the PzIV and the M4. Not the relative merits of the M4 and PzV or PzVI. You have made unsupportable remarks about the ammo quality of the 76mm gun. You're mistaken, although some rounds are better than others. Among AP there was not merely a choice between "AP" and "HVAP." See, for example, http://www.combatmission.com/articles/u ... s/m4a1.asp
Image

"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower
stljeffbb
Posts: 40
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 9:02 pm

RE: Invasion of the US by Japan

Post by stljeffbb »

[&:]

whoa nellie!

Whatever happened to the invasion of the US by Japan?

Jeff
User avatar
PzB74
Posts: 5069
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2000 8:00 am
Location: No(r)way

RE: Invasion of the US by Japan

Post by PzB74 »

It got postponed - indefinitely, or at least until WitP is released [;)]

Discussing Japanese tanks just doesn't give you the kicks, does it? [>:]
Image

"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower
User avatar
Subchaser
Posts: 1015
Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2002 1:16 pm

RE: Invasion of the US by Japan

Post by Subchaser »

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

After the war some Western historians asked Germans why they didn't produce T-34 copies after stunning realization that their PzIII and PzIV tanks in 1941/1942 were no match for Russians.

The answer was that the Russian T-34 would not pass the technical quality test

Apollo, look at VK 3002 Daimler-Benz prototypes of Panther

Image

T-34 was actually copied and one of the main reasons why DB model wasn’t adopted was trivial -tank was ‘too copied’, from a distance Daimler Panther and Soviet tank had almost identical appearance.

It’s very strange argument, “would not pass technical quality test”. They could rework design a bit and install german equipment. That wasn’t big problem.
We may laugh nowadays but, believe me, when you see and touch Russian made tank like T-34 or even after WWII examples like T-55 (I had opportunity to be inside both of them) you will be aghast how poorly they were made (i.e. no finish at all and very sharp interior you can seriously hurt yourself unless you are extremely careful).

I also was inside T-34, in two T-34-76 and in one T-34-85 (operational), never was inside T-55, but I have an idea how post war soviet tanks interior looks like, IS-3, T-10, T-62. And I can tell you that it all depends on factory, export or import model, so-called ‘s-raw’ number and orders placed on a certain series, for what division type it was produced. T-34-76-zavod #100 machines produced in early ’43 were of really good quality, they had fully finished interior (according to T-34 production specifications) with safety protectors, comfortable work seats, RT canvas on interior surfaces, in addition they had ‘navy’ armor of very good quality, somewhat good optics produced by Moscow MNIIO optic factory, US radio stations. Two tanks of this series were used by germans and received good marks. Some other T-34s germans had, were poorly produced replicas of original design, because they were assembled on factories with unqualified personnel and in great hurry to keep up with production plan, only in 1945 shortage of skilled personnel on soviet tank factories became not so sheer as in ’41-’43.

T-62, inside of which I was, belonged to Taman Guard Division, still greatly inferior in terms of comfort to the western designs, it has remarkably good interior outfit for soviet tanks. The only problem that all those rubber protectors smell really awful.
Image
User avatar
Apollo11
Posts: 25196
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Zagreb, Croatia
Contact:

RE: Invasion of the US by Japan

Post by Apollo11 »

Hi all,
ORIGINAL: Subchaser

Apollo, look at VK 3002 Daimler-Benz prototypes of Panther

Image

T-34 was actually copied and one of the main reasons why DB model wasn’t adopted was trivial -tank was ‘too copied’, from a distance Daimler Panther and Soviet tank had almost identical appearance.

You must have missed what I wrote in on the messages above (here is re-post)

> BTW, there was project VK3002(DB) - Panzerkampfwagen V by Daimler-Benz which
> started November 25th 1941.
>
> This tank was spitting image of T-34 including diesel engine (already
> existing Daimler-Benz diesel engine - MB507).
>
> This project even had almost produced prototype but was not chosen.
>
> Instead the new Panzerkampfwagen V "Panther" was MAN design - VK3002(MAN).
>
> The decision was made by Adolf Hitler on May 14th 1942 based on prints and
> statistics (there was no time for prototype match-out).

It’s very strange argument, “would not pass technical quality test”. They could rework design a bit and install german equipment. That wasn’t big problem.

Well... anecgdote is anecgdote...

What it meant was that germans would not directly copy T-34 because they ddidn't like the overall quality of T-34 (thouigh superbly suited for Russians and their mass production).

Of course, the Germans thought of making similar (but not same) tank - the Panther was direct result of that...

I also was inside T-34, in two T-34-76 and in one T-34-85 (operational), never was inside T-55, but I have an idea how post war soviet tanks interior looks like, IS-3, T-10, T-62. And I can tell you that it all depends on factory, export or import model, so-called ‘s-raw’ number and orders placed on a certain series, for what division type it was produced. T-34-76-zavod #100 machines produced in early ’43 were of really good quality, they had fully finished interior (according to T-34 production specifications) with safety protectors, comfortable work seats, RT canvas on interior surfaces, in addition they had ‘navy’ armor of very good quality, somewhat good optics produced by Moscow MNIIO optic factory, US radio stations. Two tanks of this series were used by germans and received good marks. Some other T-34s germans had, were poorly produced replicas of original design, because they were assembled on factories with unqualified personnel and in great hurry to keep up with production plan, only in 1945 shortage of skilled personnel on soviet tank factories became not so sheer as in ’41-’43.

T-62, inside of which I was, belonged to Taman Guard Division, still greatly inferior in terms of comfort to the western designs, it has remarkably good interior outfit for soviet tanks. The only problem that all those rubber protectors smell really awful.

Like I said in my original message... I was indeed appalled/aghast when I saw interior (of both T-34 and T-55) and exterior of T-34...

Sharp (very sharp) edges inside made wearing that ugly and smelly rubber protector a must (and they offered some small protection against noisy noisy noisy ventilators since firing gun made whole interior full of smoke that needed to be put out).

Outside the "seams" on T-34 (with 85 mm gun) were so poorly done as if some child molded it (don't know about steel quality but with rough interior full of sharp edges I think splinter would be flying inside very much).

Really don't know what factories made them but I wouldn't be caught dead to be fighting inside them... [:D]


Leo "Apollo11"
Image

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE
User avatar
Subchaser
Posts: 1015
Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2002 1:16 pm

RE: Invasion of the US by Japan

Post by Subchaser »

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Sharp (very sharp) edges inside made wearing that ugly and smelly rubber protector a must (and they offered some small protection against noisy noisy noisy ventilators since firing gun made whole interior full of smoke that needed to be put out).
[:D]

Wow! [X(]You’ve managed to make some shots from the 85’’gun? What was the target?

I saw T-34, M4, Matilda, Vallentine and many other ww2 tanks standing together, in many museums, and I can say they look pretty similar, sharp edges and so on, shortcomings of ww2 mass production. Do not compare them to modern tanks.
Image
User avatar
Apollo11
Posts: 25196
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Zagreb, Croatia
Contact:

RE: Invasion of the US by Japan

Post by Apollo11 »

Hi all,
ORIGINAL: Subchaser

Wow! [X(]You’ve managed to make some shots from the 85’’gun? What was the target?

I saw T-34, M4, Matilda, Vallentine and many other ww2 tanks standing together, in many museums, and I can say they look pretty similar, sharp edges and so on, shortcomings of ww2 mass production. Do not compare them to modern tanks.

I saw T-34 firing in training movie when I was in the army (before the wars of 1990's) and one of the tank crew told me about it (he also told me that T-55 was not that much better - many similar problems still existed). The T-72 was much better (but had design flaw common to most Russian tanks - automatic loader + fuel line around turret).

This was, believe it or not, because the T-34 (85 mm gun) was still in JNA inventory (former "Yugoslav Federal Army") and was participating in combat in 1990's. I think I also saw pictures M-10's (US tank destroyers)...


Leo "Apollo11"
Image

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE
User avatar
Subchaser
Posts: 1015
Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2002 1:16 pm

RE: Invasion of the US by Japan

Post by Subchaser »

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

but had design flaw common to most Russian tanks - automatic loader + fuel line around turret).

It wasn’t a flaw, it was trade off. Problem was not in tanks, tank doctrine was spoiled and this doctrine generated stupid requirements for tanks to be use under it. Only now there is model which is somewhat better. Black Eagle MBT, order is already placed, but there are only 2 examples in frontline service. Turret is and crewless now.

Image
This was, believe it or not, because the T-34 (85 mm gun) was still in JNA inventory (former "Yugoslav Federal Army") and was participating in combat in 1990's. I think I also saw pictures M-10's (US tank destroyers)...

I knew that 34s are still fighting, but M-10s?!? Who was using them?
Image
Post Reply

Return to “War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945”