Jump to content
Please support this forum by joining the SH Patreon ×
Sturgeon's House

DogDodger

Contributing Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    196

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

 Content Type 

Everything posted by DogDodger

  1. DogDodger
    I think it's not a myth, and classification apparently had little to do with it. Green, Thomson, and Roots, in The Ordnance Department: Planning Munitions for War (first published in 1955): "...reports from overseas indicated limited use of the gyrostabilizer in combat. In 1943 an officer returned from the fighting in Sicily stated that despite very careful maintenance no one used the gyrostabilizer to good advantage. He believed that it had possibilities only if it were simplified and if extensive training were given the troops on its operation. All told, he thought gyrostabilizers not worth the effort to put them in tanks; accuracy of fire was so important that tank crews preferred to halt before firing. Again, a report on the ETO in late 1944 stated, 'experience has proven that tank crews have no faith in gyrostabilizers and will not use them. No amount of training seems to convince the tank crews of the value of firing while moving. The gyrostabilizer is an expensive piece of tank equipment never used, and it could be left out of tanks scheduled for theaters of operations.' Consistent evidence in the same tenor finally moved Ordnance to recommend the abandonment of stabilizers, a step that would have permitted a reduction of both maintenance time and expense. But that recommendation was disapproved, and the stabilizer remained. Intensive training of troops in its use made its mark at the very end of the war. In mid-August 1945 AGF reported, 'many tank battalions are using gyrostabilizers extensively.'" More authoritatively, from the Tank Gunnery report of the General Board, United States Forces, European Theater: "99. Gyro-stabilization. "a. Although a few units reported extensive and effective use of the gyro-stabilizer, on the whole, it received only limited employment. It is believed this was due to the following reasons: "(1) Lack of familiarity and confidence, "(2) Many units had received their training on the old stabilizer which was much less efficient. "b. Most interviewees stated there were occasions when they would have used a stabilizer in which they had confidence. Only a few felt that future development should be discontinued..."
  2. DogDodger
    Although the Duke boys' new machine wasn't quite as fast as the General Lee, Rosco was nonetheless presented with an entirely new set of problems.
  3. DogDodger
    1:17 was some great cinematography.
  4. DogDodger
    It's been a while since I've read it, but I recall liking it. If you want to know about the number, sources, and use of horses in the WW2 Heer, to my knowledge this is the book to get. It's a quick read, too, at 133 pp of text (including 10 pp of pictures in the middle).
  5. DogDodger
    No doubt. Getting through these two will surely be pretty intense:
  6. DogDodger
    Jeeps, Forging the Thunderbolt is a valuable reference. Your cat has good taste. The same author also has available a more detailed look at the German use of horses in WW2:
  7. DogDodger
    I'm betting Jeeps would agree.
  8. DogDodger
    Postnikov's inspiration.
  9. DogDodger
    Transport wagon T16E1 or T17E1 for the World War II 240 mm howitzer M1, which were developed since the usual wheeled carriage for the ordnance tended to sink in soft terrain.
  10. DogDodger
    Valentine used a couple of different engines, and what if we count the A27L and A27M?
  11. DogDodger
    That's an interesting topic as, like with the Valentine, nobody appears to know where the name originated. In his book on the Firefly, Hayward gives a bit of background: What's the date on that Canadian document?
  12. DogDodger
    Great meeting you this weekend, Walter! Some type of track chock was my first thought as well for the mystery blocks. Here are a couple more images: They bolt onto mounting points welded to the rear doors that, in other pictures, BMPs are using to attach spare track shoes And there are teeth on the other side., so we were quite sure they were being pounded into the ground or somesuch. Getting a grip into a flatcar bed would definitely make sense.
  13. DogDodger
    In volume 1 of Universal Carriers (if anyone has a decent copy of vol.2 I'd be happy to relieve you of it, btw...), Nigel Watson had this to say on the similarities of the tracks: And while we're making comparisons between the British and Germans, later he says: The grass is always greener, and the filter is always cleaner, I suppose... Off-topic edit: Also hoping to run into Walter Sobchak at the Americans in Wartime Museum's tank show this weekend. Weather's looking good; should be fun.
  14. DogDodger
    These would have to be the M4A4E1 prototypes, I would presume? Canada really is so polite. After WW2 started the USA was all, "Hey Canada, little buddy, we have some World War I-era rhomboid tanks and FT knockoffs, some of which have been in storage for almost a decade. Here you go!" And then later with the Sherman VBs, "Hey Canada, little buddy, we have a couple prototype tanks demonstrating a valid concept but unacceptable execution. Here you go!" And Canada's just, "Thanks US, eh?"
  15. DogDodger
    Absolutely correct, Jeeps: two 105 mm howitzer M4A4E1s were built in late 1942, which led to modifications resulting in the 105 mm M4E5 in mid-1943, changes to which yielded the M4(105) in early 1944.
  16. DogDodger
    The -A suffix was used by the British to designate 76 mm gun tanks. While we're on the subject, HVSS was denoted by a Y. So an M4A3(76)W HVSS would be a Sherman IVAY. What do they say about the Sherman VB?
  17. DogDodger
    FWIW in appendix C4.1 of Panzer Truppen vol.1, Jentz has the Pz.Kpfw.I Ausf.A and B using track with a width of 28 cm (11.0") and a pitch of 9 cm (~3.5"), while he says Pz.Kpfw.II Ausf.a-C and F used a track with width of 30 cm (11.8") and pitch of 9 cm. Spielberger agrees with the widths, but doesn't seem to list the pitch in his book on the Pz.Kpfw.I and II.
  18. DogDodger
    Those movies would've been a lot cooler if the force they were talking about using was the Armored Force.
  19. DogDodger
    Nice work on these images!
  20. DogDodger
    Doctrinal issues may have had a larger effect on US choice than the propeller shaft. Like Walter said, the cavalry's combat car T5 was approved to test separate MG turrets in October 1933, and was shown at APG the next April along with the single-turret light tank T2, which was standardized as the M2A1 once they changed the suspension to the familiar volute spring from the original suspension that was related to that found on the Vickers Six-ton. The tests on the separate-turret T5 convinced the infantry to use this setup on the light tank M2A2, while the cavalry opted instead to put the single, two-machine gun turret from the combat car T4E1 on their T5E2, which was standardized as the combat car M1. The combat car M1 and the light tanks M2A1/M2A2 used essentially the same hull, so we see the infantry initially having a single-turret tank but changing to a separate-turret arrangement while the cavalry tested the separate-turret arrangement and chose the single turret instead, both with the propeller shaft coming through the fighting compartment. Even as late as 1939, FM 100-5 Tentative Field Service Regulations, Operations echoed the immediate post-WW1 tank doctrine of having medium tanks disable antitank weapons while light tanks followed to defeat machine guns and otherwise assist the infantry advance. The combat cars were more for reconnaissance and typical cavalry missions, so may not have benefited enough from the complication of being able to simultaneously engage targets in different directions.
  21. DogDodger
    That drag race won't be much of a contest...
  22. DogDodger
    Whatever the machine, your caption was accurate! And today I coincidentally received the following email with the subject "RE: Wheel Solid For APC M113": So I should be able to recognize an M113 wheel since I apparently have 3000 to spare!
  23. DogDodger
    Are we sure that's not some type of M113-based vehicle?
  24. DogDodger
    Tankograd says the BMP-2 can traverse at up to 35 degrees/sec if the stabilizer is in the less accurate semi-automatic mode, and 30 degrees/sec in automatic mode.
  25. DogDodger
    That's also an historic name for a French tank: After convincing Estienne of the necessity of leading his groupement from the front, Chef d'Escadron Louis Bossut rode into battle in a Schneider CA with the same name on 16 April 1917 in an attack on Berry-au-Bac during the Nivelle Offensive. During the fight, his tank was hit by a shell and caught fire. Bossut and his mechanic were the only ones who managed to exit the vehicle, but both shortly succumbed to the flames.
×
×
  • Create New...