Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Sign in to follow this  

The Chieftain on US Armor Myths

Recommended Posts

Jeeps is probably going to have to change his underwear after watching this.   :lol:


That was some good stuff! I think my Sherman project agrees with most of it too, I may have to adjust the Sherman name section a little though. 

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Look Sparky, just because some bad bastard welded a bunch of bazookas to a puddle jumper and managed to kill tanks with it does not make it a good idea.


[sparky]Yes it does! You will see! Raaaar, mudfighters, raaaawwr, Piper Cubs carrying James Bond holding an SKS and a bazooka, raaaaaawr nothing can stop it! You are IN LEAGUE WITH SATAN, so you will never recognize my genius! So many Satan worshippers, all around me, that's why they won't promote me above 2nd Lt![/sparky]

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ive seen it before


Not that bad of an idea, since if i was a tanker i would probably shoot the back of a Panther's turrent before its engine 

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Arming an artillery observation vehicle with bazookas is rather missing the point.

Kind of..

It became SOP for most FO/FAC birds to mount some form of armament, usually for firing WP/Smoke.

Some would even carry pretty decent fixed armament (by WW2 standards) to provide a modicum of CAS.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Over at Tanknet, author Ken Estes was less than impressed with the Chieftains presentation.  



Poor Nick!


I just viewed the video of the OP. They make a carnival barker out of him, when he has been trying to become the ultimate tank guru for WGA.


The choice of Tank Myths was perhaps too ambitious and unfortunate. "Myths" are more few and far between than 'common misunderstandings' but everybody wants hype. To be a myth, it seems that it has to be a deliberate falsehood put out for convenience sake, and it has to be recurring across various media. I don't think several of the ones Nick postulated are really myths.  Erroneous tank naming, for instance, can be chalked up to the activities of the model industry, which grasped at anything to emblazon a kit box. One can rely on Fletcher's work for the Brit tank names and the naming of their US tanks, but Nick's posting of the Barnes letter on the WoT website was too hasty. Barnes had no authority for it, and in the archived doc there are many strikeouts that signify [to me] that they were rejected. In any case, the army CoS complained years later that there was still no naming of army equipment for public recognition and wanted to know why that was. So, we can still reject the list as having any authority, hence no answer apart from the obvious.


I noticed he made frequent reference to Wiki to define some myths....indeed, but the recurrent and extensive myths are not so evident. Just errors. It's also foolish to use Belton Cooper's Death Traps as a foil.


The venue was a poor one as well, with the noise and distractions. The problem of this topic is that it requires lengthy explanations and charts, and he tried to get so much info across in a compressed time that he jumps around and loses track, gets mired in citing exceptions. It's not really a good lecture topic. In addition to the correction notes added to the video, there are several more. It is not true that the USMC kept their M26s in Korea the whole time, as they changed to the M46s in early 1951 just as did the army. The army may have changed over to the M4s in Korea [for better hill and bridge mobility], but that was only after the last T-34 had been chased down and killed, and many M46s remained in service at Armistice.


Claiming to purge the 'myth of tanks don't fight tanks' in US Army doctrine did not take anything more than reading a field manual. So what's the myth? This is just misunderstanding, and it was not so widespread. The tank destroyer doctrine and equipment is more misunderstood.


The '5 M-4 tanks to kill a cat' was just silly, no myth posing that platoons were five tanks and that's all. I never knew 2:1 is a good enough ratio for the attack, though.


I don't see any mythology about the 75mm in the M4 being kept too long or unduly well-regarded. It's a 1940 decision and works well for several years. I don't consider it a low-velocity gun, either.


Oddly, he ends extolling the virtues of M4A3E8 over Firefly but that's not very competent. "The Sherman was a very good piece of equipment" sounds good, but they are all declared obsolete in 1945 except the 76mm (W) variants.




Books work better for explaining. Consider what the late Mike Baily wrote back in the 1980s:



Gen. McNair's opposition to production of the T26 did not delay the
arrival of that tank in Europe by a single day. AGF consistently
supported development efforts and approved production of ten T26s in
May 1943. The nine months that elapsed before the Ordnance Department
managed to build the first T26 were not the result of AGF
interference. McNair's firm stand against producing extra T26s in the
fall of 1943 had been overruled by Marshall only three months after
the Ordnance Department first recommended production. Before the first
prototype of a T26 had moved a track block, the Ordnance Department
had orders for 300 of the tanks. These tanks did not begin arriving on
the battlefield for fourteen months. In 1943 the tank existed only on
paper. Furthermore, the original T26 had serious deficiencies that had
to be corrected during the summer of 1944 before the tank was ready
for combat. AGF did not invent those deficiencies. McNair supported
efforts to perfect the T26 and, in fact, came to the rescue when
Campbell wanted a large production order in 1944. [Faint Praise,



Baily was also clear that all was not well, He carefully documented that everyone involved was burying his head in the

sand about the need, whether in Washington or in the field, up to Normandy and even beyond. He showed as well we
passed up getting improvised Sherman variants with 90mm or 17 pounder guns into service, as well as improving
the AT ammunition for existing guns.
Charles M. Baily was an Army armor officer with a PhD in US History from Duke who also taught at West Point, 1975-78.



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's hardly foolish to mention Cooper's book, since that seems to be what every two bit slotfiller "documentary" and schlock website cites as primary information.


I do agree with Mr Estes on the U.S. 75mm though.  Too many people have the impression that it's akin to a mortar or grenade launcher.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Estes is being pretty unfair, and the semantics game over myths not actually covering misunderstandings common among laymen is a bit silly.


It's an effort to correct common misunderstandings and whether it fits his contrived definition of a myth doesn't really matter as far as the goal of better pop-cultural understanding of history goes.


Books may work better for understanding but that's only if they can get people to read them, and actual history is already at a disadvantage for exposure compared to reassuring just-so stories that justify peoples' biases.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, Estes isn't thinking about the audience, this is not focused for people at some armor convention with real historians; it's aimed at the dumbasses that he has to deal with all the time, the WOT community. 




The 5/1 myth is alive and well in the WOT community.  If Ken was a regular on the WOT forums, he wouldn’t have made some of the complaints, though he was right about the venue. 

Edited by Jeeps_Guns_Tanks

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Similar Content

    • By Toxn
      So I got a request recently from {NAME REDACTED} as to whether we have a how-to guide or something for competitions. After a few moments of bitter, bitter laughter at the decade-plus of my life that I've spent cobbling together things that can maybe, sort-of, squint-your-eyes produce a facsimile of a realistic vehicle, I thought I'd share my process:
      Note: I was half-right - we definitely have supplementary info for aspiring pretend tank designers pinned to this very board.
      Finally, I'm inviting our forum grognards and past winners to share their process for folk that haven't been here since before the last ice age, so that all can benefit.
    • By Proyas
      Hi guys,
      Does anyone know of any military studies that analyzed the reload speeds for different tanks? The question occurred to me when I watched this video tour of the T-55's interior: 
      At the 10:00 mark, Mr. Moran demonstrates how the loader would put a shell into the tank's cannon, and the effects of the turret's small size and of the loader's awkward seating make it clear that the process would be slow. My question is: how slow? 
      Side question: Am I right to assume that storing the tank shells all over the inside of the turret like that is an inherent design flaw of the T-55 that makes it inferior in that regard to modern tanks? 
      Thanks in advance. 
    • By Collimatrix
      Sturgeon's House started with a community of people who played tank games.  At the time, most of us were playing World of Tanks, but I think there were a few Warthunder and even Steel Beasts players mixed in there too.  After nearly five years, we must be doing something right because we're still here, and because we've somehow picked up a number of members who work with, or have worked with tanks in real life.

      I know that @AssaultPlazma served as an Abrams loader, @Merc 321 and @Meplat have helped maintain and restore privately-owned armor, and @Xlucine has volunteered in a tank museum.  I'm sure I'm missing several more!

      So, what are your favorite personal tank stories?
    • By N-L-M
      Restricted: for Operating Thetan Eyes Only

      By order of Her Gracious and Serene Majesty Queen Diane Feinstein the VIII

      The Dianetic People’s Republic of California

      Anno Domini 2250

      SUBJ: RFP for new battle tank

      1.      Background.
      As part of the War of 2248 against the Perfidious Cascadians, great deficiencies were discovered in the Heavy tank DF-1. As detailed in report [REDACTED], the DF-1 was quite simply no match for the advanced weaponry developed in secret by the Cascadian entity. Likewise, the DF-1 has fared poorly in the fighting against the heretical Mormonhideen, who have developed many improvised weapons capable of defeating the armor on this vehicle, as detailed in report [REDACTED]. The Extended War on the Eastern Front has stalled for want of sufficient survivable firepower to push back the Mormon menace beyond the Colorado River south of the Vegas Crater.
      The design team responsible for the abject failure that was the DF-1 have been liquidated, which however has not solved the deficiencies of the existing vehicle in service. Therefore, a new vehicle is required, to meet the requirements of the People’s Auditory Forces to keep the dream of our lord and prophet alive.

      Over the past decade, the following threats have presented themselves:

      A.      The Cascadian M-2239 “Norman” MBT and M-8 light tank

      Despite being approximately the same size, these 2 vehicles seem to share no common components, not even the primary armament! Curiously, it appears that the lone 120mm SPG specimen recovered shares design features with the M-8, despite being made out of steel and not aluminum like the light tank. (based on captured specimens from the battle of Crater Lake, detailed in report [REDACTED]).
      Both tanks are armed with high velocity guns.

      B.      The Cascadian BGM-1A/1B/1C/1D ATGM

      Fitted on a limited number of tank destroyers, several attack helicopters, and (to an extent) man-portable, this missile system is the primary Cascadian anti-armor weapon other than their armored forces. Intelligence suggests that a SACLOS version (BGM-1C) is in LRIP, with rumors of a beam-riding version (BGM-1D) being developed.

      Both warheads penetrate approximately 6 cone diameters.

      C.      Deseret tandem ATR-4 series
      Inspired by the Soviet 60/105mm tandem warhead system from the late 80s, the Mormon nation has manufactured a family of 2”/4” tandem HEAT warheads, launched from expendable short-range tube launchers, dedicated AT RRs, and even used as the payload of the JS-1 MCLOS vehicle/man-portable ATGM.
      Both warheads penetrate approximately 5 cone diameters.

      D.      Cascadian HEDP 90mm rocket
      While not a particularly impressive AT weapon, being of only middling diameter and a single shaped charge, the sheer proliferation of this device has rendered it a major threat to tanks, as well as lighter vehicles. This weapon is available in large numbers in Cascadian infantry squads as “pocket artillery”, and there are reports of captured stocks being used by the Mormonhideen.
      Warhead penetrates approximately 4 cone diameters.

      E.      Deseret 40mm AC/ Cascadian 35mm AC
      These autocannon share broadly similar AP performance, and are considered a likely threat for the foreseeable future, on Deseret armored cars, Cascadian tank destroyers, and likely also future IFVs.

      F.      IEDs

      In light of the known resistance of tanks to standard 10kg anti-tank mines, both the Perfidious Cascadians and the Mormonhideen have taken to burying larger anti-tank A2AD weaponry. The Cascadians have doubled up some mines, and the Mormons have regularly buried AT mines 3, 4, and even 5 deep.

      2.      General guidelines:

      A.      Solicitation outline:
      In light of the differing requirements for the 2 theaters of war in which the new vehicle is expected to operate, proposals in the form of a field-replaceable A-kit/B-kit solution will be accepted.

      B.      Requirements definitions:
      The requirements in each field are given in 3 levels- Threshold, Objective, and Ideal.
      Threshold is the minimum requirement to be met; failure to reach this standard may greatly disadvantage any proposal.

      Objective is the threshold to be aspired to; it reflects the desires of the People’s Auditory Forces Armored Branch, which would prefer to see all of them met. At least 70% must be met, with bonus points for any more beyond that.

      Ideal specifications are the maximum of which the armored forces dare not even dream. Bonus points will be given to any design meeting or exceeding these specifications.

      C.      All proposals must accommodate the average 1.7m high Californian recruit.

      D.      The order of priorities for the DPRC is as follows:

      a.      Vehicle recoverability.

      b.      Continued fightability.

      c.       Crew survival.

      E.      Permissible weights:

      a.      No individual field-level removable or installable component may exceed 5 tons.

      b.      Despite the best efforts of the Agriculture Command, Californian recruits cannot be expected to lift weights in excess of 25 kg at any time.

      c.       Total vehicle weight must remain within MLC 120 all-up for transport.

      F.      Overall dimensions:

      a.      Length- essentially unrestricted.

      b.      Width- 4m transport width.

                                                                    i.     No more than 4 components requiring a crane may be removed to meet this requirement.

                                                                   ii.     Any removed components must be stowable on top of the vehicle.

      c.       Height- The vehicle must not exceed 3.5m in height overall.

      G.     Technology available:

      a.      Armor:
      The following armor materials are in full production and available for use. Use of a non-standard armor material requires permission from a SEA ORG judge.
      Structural materials:

                                                                    i.     RHA/CHA

      Basic steel armor, 250 BHN. The reference for all weapon penetration figures, good impact properties, fully weldable. Available in thicknesses up to 150mm (RHA) or 300mm (CHA).
      Density- 7.8 g/cm^3.

                                                                   ii.     Aluminum 5083

      More expensive to work with than RHA per weight, middling impact properties, low thermal limits. Excellent stiffness.

       Fully weldable. Available in thicknesses up to 100mm.
      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 1 vs CE, 0.9 vs KE.
      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.33 vs CE, 0.3 vs KE.
      Density- 2.7 g/cm^3 (approx. 1/3 of steel).

      For structural integrity, the following guidelines are recommended:

      For light vehicles (less than 40 tons), not less than 25mm RHA/45mm Aluminum base structure

      For heavy vehicles (70 tons and above), not less than 45mm RHA/80mm Aluminum base structure.
      Intermediate values for intermediate vehicles may be chosen as seen fit.
      Non-structural passive materials:

                                                                  iii.     HHA

      Steel, approximately 500 BHN through-hardened. Approximately twice as effective as RHA against KE and HEAT on a per-weight basis. Not weldable, middling shock properties. Available in thicknesses up to 25mm.
      Density- 7.8g/cm^3.

                                                                  iv.     Glass textolite

      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 2.2 vs CE, 1.64 vs KE.

      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.52 vs CE, 0.39 vs KE.
      Density- 1.85 g/cm^3 (approximately ¼ of steel).

                                                                   v.     Fused silica

      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 3.5 vs CE, 1 vs KE.

      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 1 vs CE, 0.28 vs KE.
      Density-2.2g/cm^3 (approximately 1/3.5 of steel).
      Non-structural, requires confinement (being in a metal box) to work.

                                                                  vi.     Fuel

      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 1.3 vs CE, 1 vs KE.

      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.14 vs CE, 0.1 vs KE.


                                                                vii.     Assorted stowage/systems

      Mass efficiency vs RHA- 1 vs CE, 0.8 vs KE.

                                                               viii.     Spaced armor

      Requires a face of at least 25mm LOS vs CE, and at least 50mm LOS vs KE.

      Reduces penetration by a factor of 1.1 vs CE or 1.05 vs KE for every 10 cm air gap.
      Spaced armor rules only apply after any standoff surplus to the requirements of a reactive cassette.

      Reactive armor materials:

                                                                  ix.     ERA-light

      A sandwich of 3mm/3mm/3mm steel-explodium-steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.

      Must be spaced at least 3 sandwich thicknesses away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 81% coverage (edge effects).

                                                                   x.     ERA-heavy

      A sandwich of 15mm steel/3mm explodium/9mm steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
      Must be spaced at least 3 sandwich thicknesses away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 81% coverage (edge effects).

                                                                  xi.     NERA-light

      A sandwich of 6mm steel/6mm rubber/ 6mm steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
      Must be spaced at least 1 sandwich thickness away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 95% coverage.

                                                                 xii.     NERA-heavy

      A sandwich of 30mm steel/6m rubber/18mm steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
      Must be spaced at least 1 sandwich thickness away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 95% coverage.

      The details of how to calculate armor effectiveness will be detailed in Appendix 1.

      b.      Firepower

                                                                    i.     2A46 equivalent tech- pressure limits, semi-combustible cases, recoil mechanisms and so on are at an equivalent level to that of the USSR in the year 1960.

                                                                   ii.     Limited APFSDS (L:D 15:1)- Spindle sabots or bourelleted sabots, see for example the Soviet BM-20 100mm APFSDS.

                                                                  iii.     Limited tungsten (no more than 100g per shot)

                                                                  iv.     Californian shaped charge technology- 5 CD penetration for high-pressure resistant HEAT, 6 CD for low pressure/ precision formed HEAT.

                                                                   v.     The general issue GPMG for the People’s Auditory Forces is the PKM. The standard HMG is the DShK.

      c.       Mobility

                                                                    i.     Engines tech level:

      1.      MB 838 (830 HP)

      2.      AVDS-1790-5A (908 HP)

      3.      Kharkov 5TD (600 HP)

                                                                   ii.     Power density should be based on the above engines. Dimensions are available online, pay attention to cooling of 1 and 3 (water cooled).

                                                                  iii.     Power output broadly scales with volume, as does weight. Trying to extract more power from the same size may come at the cost of reliability (and in the case of the 5TD, it isn’t all that reliable in the first place).

                                                                  iv.     There is nothing inherently wrong with opposed piston or 2-stroke engines if done right.

      d.      Electronics

                                                                    i.     LRFs- unavailable

                                                                   ii.     Thermals-unavailable

                                                                  iii.     I^2- limited

      3.      Operational Requirements.

      The requirements are detailed in the appended spreadsheet.

      4.      Submission protocols.

      Submission protocols and methods will be established in a follow-on post, nearer to the relevant time.
      Appendix 1- armor calculation
      Appendix 2- operational requirements
      Good luck, and may Hubbard guide your way to enlightenment!
  • Create New...