DogDodger

2 hours ago, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

The Stabilizer question: Is it a myth it was not used very often?

 

 

What do you guys think?

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..."

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.

On 1/14/2018 at 5:38 PM, Mighty_Zuk said:

Graduation video:

 

1:17 was some great cinematography.

On 12/27/2017 at 9:54 PM, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

 

 

I like that title, you will have to give us a review of Mechanized Juggernaut, it sure sounds interesting.

 

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).

On 1/4/2018 at 11:19 PM, Walter_Sobchak said:

 

You ain't kidding.  I dare anyone to actually read Chapter 14 of Ogorkiewicz's Technology of Tanks, "Soil-Vehicle Mechanics".

No doubt. Getting through these two will surely be pretty intense:

Jeeps, Forging the Thunderbolt is a valuable reference. Your cat has good taste.

3 hours ago, EnsignExpendable said:

I picked up Stackpole's "Germany's Panzer Arm in WWII", which details thoroughly and exactly why the Germans ended up with quite so many horses.

The same author also has available a more detailed look at the German use of horses in WW2:

I'm betting Jeeps would agree.

Postnikov's inspiration.

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.

Valentine used a couple of different engines, and what if we count the A27L and A27M?

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:

Quote

One point that needs to be made early is that the name Firefly is not included in any War Office or Ministry of Supply technical or policy files. Nor was it used by ministers, generals or senior officials in any filed correspondence that the author has seen whilst researching at the Public Records Office (PRO). Typically, it is referred to as Sherman 17-pdr (with many variations) or the official designation of 17-pdr armament C as used in the Sherman IC or VC for the M4 17-pdr and M4A4 17-pdr respectively.

 

The name was used at Brigade and Regimental level in Twenty-First Army Group unit war diaries from March, April and May 1944...These are mentioned as early as March and at the time of the first issues, so it does not seem to have had time to develop within units as a nickname...It is also worth noting that only some units used the name. Most of the units from the sample of war diaries examined still referred to their vehicles as Sherman 17-pdrs or Sherman VCs, not Fireflies...One other comment by Jeff Plowman was that he had not found any mention of the name Firefly by New Zealand units in Italy, where 17-pdr Sherman was used.

 

The issue of the name is further confused by the 24th Lancers use in a report from July in Normandy of the names 'Mayfly' and 'Mayflies' (WO171/849, 24th Lancers War Diary) . Sergeant Jack Moat, whom the author has interviewed, took Fireflies into action and had three shot out from under him...stated that he picked up his first example before D-Day in 1944 and always knew the 17-pdr armed Sherman as a Firefly...The name Firefly seems also to have been used for rearmed US Motor Gun Carriage [sic] M10Cs (commonly called Achilles, although in the files variations on M10 17-pdr is more usual). A 1944 caption at the Imperial War Museum for an M10 17-pdr refers to it as a Firefly.

What's the date on that Canadian document?

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.

On 8/29/2017 at 12:16 PM, EnsignExpendable said:

Shocking German plagiarism

On 8/30/2017 at 8:18 PM, DogDodger said:

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.

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:

Quote

The Light Dragon MkI was fitted in 1931 with a skeleton type track of manganese steel with a pitch of 3 1/2" and and width of 10 1/2". Carden Loyd for use with their Light Tanks had developed this skeleton track type, however the interesting part is that these tracks seem to be a direct ancestor of the German tracks, being almost identical to those of the Pz.Kpfw.I and II. The following year this track was replaced on the Light Dragons by the 9 1/2" M.C.I. [malleable cast iron] track used on the light tanks in order to standardise production.

And while we're making comparisons between the British and Germans, later he says:

Quote

As a result of unfortunate experiences near Mersa Matruth [sic] in 1935, during the Abyssinian crisis, the British Army were alive to the dust menace and was provided with fairly effective air cleaners for its vehicles. These were the 'concertina type' and consisted of a series of felt rings sewn together along their inner and outer peripheries to form a concertina-like tube. One end was closed and the other connected to a pipe to the carburettor intake. All aspirated air had to pass through the felt and periodical cleaning was effected by pumping the concertina and thus blowing the accumulated dust off the outer surface.

 

For ordinary use these cleaners were reasonably effective but it was found that the finest type of alluvial dust would pass through the felt and thus led to oil contamination and heavy cylinder wear. In consequence, the M.E. authorities condemned the felt element and proceeded to carry out experiments with oil bath type cleaners...It wasn't until the Vokes 2-stage cleaner twas introduced on Crusader that the situation was brought under proper control...

 

An interesting sidelight of this period was the capture of an enemy document in which the writer complained about the oil bath cleaners fitted to German tanks and asked why they could not have something similar to the excellent felt filters used by the British.

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.

19 hours ago, EnsignExpendable said:

 

They sent two to the Canadians. The Canadians didn't like it and used them as tractors, since they weren't ordering any more 105 mm ammunition.

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?"

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.

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?

2 hours ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

I guess I never realized that the Pz i and II used the same track.

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.

On 8/29/2017 at 10:15 AM, EnsignExpendable said:

And a lesser known variant

 

 

Those movies would've been a lot cooler if the force they were talking about using was the Armored Force.

Nice work on these images!

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.

That drag race won't be much of a contest...

Whatever the machine, your caption was accurate! And today I coincidentally received the following email with the subject "RE: Wheel Solid For APC M113":

Quote

Dear Sir,

 

As per the subject we are in need of the Wheel Solid for APC M113 the part number is 12313083,NSN-2530-01-139-3-748  Quantity 3000. The manufacturer or supplier should be NATO Approved.

 

 

The requirement is from Pakistan Heavy Mechanical complex where APC are repaired and are there for maintenance.

 

 

Please feel free to contact if any question.

 

 

Best Regards,

 

 

 

  

Mubbashir Bangash

Business Development Manager-Islamabad

Suite # 8, 4th Floor, Plot # 26,

Service Society Markaz, behind MCB Bank,

Sector E-11/2,

Islamabad, Pakistan.

So I should be able to recognize an M113 wheel since I apparently have 3000 to spare!

Are we sure that's not some type of M113-based vehicle?

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.

On 5/30/2017 at 8:25 AM, LoooSeR said:

"Deceives death"

On 5/31/2017 at 2:47 PM, Renegade334 said:

 

In French, un trompe-la-mort (yeah, hyphens) means someone who either doesn't fear death or had a close brush with it. Can also mean a stuntman or daredevil.

 

---- The more you know!(tm)

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.