WWII bolt action in the Pacific???

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tactics is a mixture of what works, in general, and what works with the equipment you have in the field with you.

WWII armor is another hobby of mine, and in general, the comments are correct, but I would make a couple of points...

General Patton himself was involved in the decision not to field a heavier tank than the Sherman. It wasn't a matter of that we couldn't make one, or ship it, it was that we could ship 2 (almost 3) Shermans for the same effort. (no, its not straight math, shipping a 60 ton tank is more work than shipping two 30 ton tanks.) And this decision was made well before we got into ground combat in Europe.

Later, when it became obvious, even to a General that a heavier tank would be needed, we did produce the Pershing, although we only managed to get a handful into combat at the end of the war in Europe.

We "could" have built the T-34, except for the fact that hell would freeze over before the Soviets gave US anything but grief, while taking everything we offered, and denying it helped.

Kosh, I have seen the movie, I was making a joke. And the fighter has the wrong markings for that time & place. And there is a difference between the M3 Lee /Grant and the M4 Sherman.

I was going to recommend Belton Cooper's book, it is a real eye opener. He was featured in a History Channel show several years back.

WWII revealed a LOT of flaws in US pre-war doctrine, in armor, in small arms training, aircraft, a lot of things. We made do, and as better equipment appeared, adapted our tactics to make best use of it.

One classic example is small arms training. What was taught to recruits in the States was classic pre-war doctrine until fairly late in the war. Essentially it was 'a soldier was expected to shoot only when he had a target" (enemy soldier) and suppressive fire was the job of the machine guns.

The first thing combat vets taught new recruits about shooting was, "if you see a bush that might have a Jap in it, shoot it". (or something similar).

I thought that the show "The Pacific" was very well done, having read the books its based on I was impressed. Not sure the sexual adventures of the characters was needed for the story, nor as graphically as portrayed, but that's just me.
 
if you or i had close encounters ( some damn near spitting distance) against several combatents as my uncle and others did and we had 03 rifles we would most likely be dead, the m-1 gave the US grunt a chance to live, by being able to shoot 8 shoots faster than the enemy could shot two with a bolt action rifle. making the US grunt less likely to become cannon fodder. eastbank.
 
"I note that for all the fascination with the M1A1 Carbine I have seen exactly ONE picture of a WWII GI holding one."

Wow.

Not sure what pictures you're looking at... Or not, as the case may be.

I was watching WW II in Color last night, and the episode on island fighting in the Pacific showed many US troops armed with the Carbine.
 
We "could" have built the T-34, except for the fact that hell would freeze over before the Soviets gave US anything but grief, while taking everything we offered, and denying it helped.
Click to expand...

The T-34 was designed in large part by J. Walter Christie, an American engineer who was the sole developer its suspension system, and those of a host of allied (mainly British) tanks. If the U.S. had REALLY wished to produce a T-34, a way would have been found to do so. In the days when the Sherman was adopted, the Soviets were BADLY on the ropes, and grateful for whatever help we could give them. Had we adopted a T-34-like design, there was little they could have done about it, except pout (for which Stalin RARELY needed good reason).

Kosh, I have seen the movie, I was making a joke. And the fighter has the wrong markings for that time & place.
Click to expand...
Sorry about not catching the humor ingrained in your remark. Context is everything, and I missed it.

And there is a difference between the M3 Lee /Grant and the M4 Sherman.
Click to expand...
You could not be more right, and I stand corrected. Duffer's mistake, no question about it.

One classic example is small arms training. What was taught to recruits in the States was classic pre-war doctrine until fairly late in the war. Essentially it was 'a soldier was expected to shoot only when he had a target" (enemy soldier) and suppressive fire was the job of the machine guns.
Click to expand...
It seems I remember reading this somewhere, also. Again, this sounds like a logistics and supply specialist who was a grunt in the previous war, using the tactics therefrom to assure that ammunition and supplies at the battlefront were used slowly enough to prevent their exhaustion, rather than making an effort to maximize said items' delivery at higher rates, if needed.

I was going to recommend Belton Cooper's book, it is a real eye opener. He was featured in a History Channel show several years back
Click to expand...
The name is certainly familiar to me, and I'm pretty sure I caught all or part of the History Channel feature you mention. Please DO relay the title of his book, and I'll look for it.
 
My Father was in the Idaho NG before WWII. 41st IN Div. They were activated and were in route to the Philippines but were diverted when they fell.

They were issued Springfield's which later were replaced by the M1's and Carbines. Since they were fighting in the heavy jungles my father snatched up a carbine, saying they were more effective then either the Springfield or Garand in heavy jungles where you were lucky to see beyond 25 yards.

It was hard to be the Springfield as a sniper rifle with the existing scopes they had back then, with modern scopes they can compete with the M24/M40s used today.

--------------------------------------

Now on another point, I take exception to the pistol not having a valid place in todays infantry. I had one in Vietnam which I found to be most valuable.

Anyone who ever packed an M-60 knows, when you have to have a weapon AT ALL TIMES, its much easier going through the chow line with a M1911 on your hip then a PIG on your shoulder.
 
"The T-34 was designed in large part by J. Walter Christie, an American engineer who was the sole developer its suspension system..."

That makes it sound as if Christie was actively working with the Soviets on production and design of the T-34 -- he wasn't.

In the late 1920s the Soviets managed to get hold detailed design drawings and later, two M1931 tanks, through one of their front organizations, and these were the basis for the BT-series of tanks, which later morphed into the T-34.

One thing needs to be said about tank suspensions... The Christie system was certainly innovative and revolutionary, but it wasn't full of God like qualities that made it superior to everything else ever conceived.

The US adopted the volute spring suspension (both vertical and horizontal types), which compared very favorably with the Christie suspension in most ways.

Even more importantly, it was generally easier and faster to repair when damaged.

All of this talk about the US could have had this if it REALLY wanted to is interesting...

The US could have had invisible flying laser tanks if it REALLY wanted to, as well. Just nobody had the foresight or will to make it happen...

Realistically, the Sherman design and production was well under way before the United States even learned about the T-34, and it wasn't until sometime in 1942 that American advisors had a chance to really lay hands on one.

Prior to that the T-34, as most new things were in the Soviet Union, treated as state secrets whose existence was jealously guarded.

The T-34 also had a litany of issues, from unreliable tracks, engines, air filters, and the like to the fact that it was extremely cramped.

Many of these issues were worked out in later models, but some remained almost through the end of production.
 
Last edited:
The US adopted the volute spring suspension (both vertical and horizontal types), which compared very favorably with the Christie suspension in most ways.
Click to expand...

The one way that it compared so very unfavorably was it made for a very tall tank...... and that portion of height it added was relatively open and had to be pretty much flat and vertical ..... all this detracted from the tank's survivability.

The T-34 also had a litany of issues, from unreliable tracks, engines, air filters, and the like to the fact that it was extremely cramped.
Click to expand...

The engine, by all accounts I have read, was a relatively simple rugged design, and easily maintained in the harshest conditions ..... the tracks were all steel, so the did not last as long as the rubber bushinged tracks the American tanks had .... at least theoretically: very few American tanks in the ETO would have been driven far enough to wear out a set of tracks- they were supposed to be driven on something like 1000 miles with a maintenance inspection every 250 for the T41 ....... and it's only about 600 miles from Omaha Beach to the Elbe ...... In practice, the Shermans were destroyed in most cases before their first scheduled maintenance inspection ....


The Soviets (and Germans, for that matter) OTH .... they had more than twice as far to go, and the front moved back and forth many times- they were locked combat for twice as long ..... if a tank survived the many combats, it would have ample milage to wear out many sets of their all steel tracks, and engines, and guns, and every other system .... (and yes, I understan much of the vast distances on the Eastern Front would be covered on a flat railcar ..... but still ...... ).

....as for the "extremely cramped" spaces ...... I doubt the Sherman crews relished their nice, roomy turret for very long .....
 
Christie offered his designs to the Army, but in those Depression era times, the US simply wasn't buying.

British Cruiser tanks used the Christie type suspension as well. German Panther and Tiger tanks use what looks like a Christie suspension, but isn't. Large road wheels like the Christie design, but the Germans used torsion bars, not springs.

One place where the VVSS and HVSS suspension has a drawback is that when you need to "fix a flat" (replace a wheel). With Christie (and some other) type suspensions, you jack up the wheel or bogie truck or axle. On a Sherman, you have to jack up the whole tank. We can also talk about rolling resistance and other things, but that's too in depth for this discussion.

My point was that the Soviets wouldn't have been willing to provide specs or tooling for us to make the T-34, even had we asked, which we didn't.

Many pre war decisions, made either due to budget restrictions, or doctrinal error (which was only discovered to be in error in combat) shaped the early phases of our involvement in WWII.

I'm sure the P-39 and P-40's combat performance would have been much better, if they had been built with the two stage supercharger that was offered. They weren't. High altitude performance wasn't meant to be their mission. The Flying Tigers proved that using the right tactics, could still prevail over the more nimble Japanese fighters.

If we had spent the money to test our torpedoes with actual live warheads before the war (and so find the flaws that showed up in combat) things would have been a lot different as well.

We ALMOST didn't get the M1 Garand.

It has become axiomatic that democracies are well prepared to fight the last war, and have a learning curve to make in order to fight the current war...

It wasn't that we used the Sherman because we were able to make so many, but rather that we were able to make so many because we used the Sherman. It wasn't numbers alone that won the war, but they certainly did help.

I'm reminded of the old joke, arrogant German tanker captured by GIs, brags how "one of our tanks is worth ten of yours!" GI then says "oh yeah? then how come we're kicking your ass?
German sighs, and answers, "because you alvays haff eleven! "

....as for the "extremely cramped" spaces ...... I doubt the Sherman crews relished their nice, roomy turret for very long .....
Click to expand...

Probably not, but if any of those Sherman crews had ever been inside a T-34/76 they would think the Sherman roomy and luxurious.

British evaluation of the Tiger tank described it being cramped, and speculated on how this would lower crew efficiency. Contemporary German accounts from Tiger crewmen talk of how roomy the Tiger was, compared to their previous tanks....

I've also seen British reports talking of how much wasted space there was in US fighter plane cockpits. Like a roomy, empty office.....odd folk, the British...
:D
 
Well time proved that the M1 was plenty accurate. If you had been shooting a 1903 and took your time shooting, then the M1 was better however if you were issued an M1 and rushed your shots, then you get into this situation where you need strong logistic support (guys bringing up more ammo). If you had a platoon with a couple of automatic rifles (BAR) to cover the flanks and everyone else had 1903's plus a 1911 if you got charged and needed lots of fast, close range fire power AND you didn't have good back up with extra ammo- not a bad scenario even today. In fact some national guard units, etc.- might be better off so armed.
 
We all hear about how tall the Sherman was... 897 feet, with the turret often in the clouds...

In reality, it wasn't the tallest tank on the battlefield...

The basic Sherman was 9 feet tall.

The Nazi Panther and Tiger 1 were both 9 feet 10 inches, and the Tiger 2 (King Tiger) was over 10 feet tall.

The PzKw IV was only slightly shorter than the Sherman, at 8 feet 10 inches.

By contrast, the T-34 was 8 feet tall, and the KV-1 8 feet 11 inches.

Britain's tanks -- the Churchill, the Comet, and the Cromwell -- were all between 8 feet 2 to 6 inches.

The lowest medium/heavy tank of the war was Britain's Crusader, at 7 feet 4 inches.

So, it's not entirely true that the Christie suspension automatically resulted in a much lower profile tank.
 
Cultural Differences

I've also seen British reports talking of how much wasted space there was in US fighter plane cockpits. Like a roomy, empty office.....odd folk, the British...
Click to expand...

I'm sure they think us odd, as well ..... and not just the Brittish, but all the Europeans that I have met (I lived in Germany for several years, and had friends in Holland and Italy, and we had an Italian exchange student here for a year)..... they are used to being crowded together .... IME, they stand closer to you than Americans .... houses and apartments are smaller, "yards" as Americans know them don't exist, or could be mowed with a pair of hand shears in 5 minutes ..... food and energy are ridiculously expensive ..... these people think nothing of living their entire lives, (aside from "Holidays"- tourist trips) in the same 20 kilometer radius area ...... some of the Germans I met were proud that their families had lived in the same house since before America was a country .....
 
"The engine, by all accounts I have read, was a relatively simple rugged design, and easily maintained in the harshest conditions"

The engine was rugged. Its design was apparently broadly based on a German diesel design, but with numerous modifications to make it more powerful and weigh less.

Stalin awarded the engine's designer, Chelaptan, IIRC, with the Order of Lenin followed, by a firing squad.

The true failing of the T-34's drive train, at least early on, was the transmission. Initial designs were prone to rapid failure, and it wasn't uncommon to see T-34s moving towards the front with spare transmissions strapped to their hull. Fortunately for the Soviets, the transmission was fairly easily accessed and could be replaced relatively quickly.

Early production T-34s also suffered greatly from the lack of quality control. Bad steel mixes, bad production and heat treating of parts, etc. etc. etc. Some of those problems dogged Soviet production until the end of the war.
 
"One place where the VVSS and HVSS suspension has a drawback is that when you need to "fix a flat" (replace a wheel)."

Individual wheels could be replaced without having to jack up the entire tank. Page 23 of this manual (https://archive.org/stream/TM9-1750K#page/n23/mode/2up) shows use of a bogie lift on a VVSS system.

Another great advantage of the VVSS and HVSS design is that it is self contained. In the Christie system, as well as other suspension systems, primary components are integral with the tank's hull.

The VV/HVSS are bolt on and go -- they're self contained units.
 
The T-34 also had what today are called serious ergonomic flaws.

Chiefest of these was the two man turret, where the commander was also the gunner. And there were only 9 rounds stored in the turret ready racks. After that, the loader had to pull up the rubber matting that formed the turret floor, and open the metal bins where the rest of the ammo was stored to get more rounds.

There were also a number of other things that made the crews suffer more, and work harder to do the same jobs than in most "western" tank designs. It was the combination of design innovations put together (sloped armor, powerful gun, diesel engine, wide tracks, etc) that made the T-34 the successful tank it was. But it was far from perfect, in many important ways.

No one weapon or weapon system "saves" a country, or defeats the enemy. But some did make noticeably significant contributions to the effort.
 
There were still a few old WW2 vets in the USMC when I served. They said that yes, they went to Guadalcanal with the 03 Springfield, but had the M1 Garand after that and were plenty glad to get it. Even in my time (and I suspect today, also) plenty of Marine Corps gear was US Army cast-offs. So, the USMC wasn't/isn't priority 1 in receiving new equipment, unless it's specialized amphibious stuff.

My dad was Army infantry in WW2 and his weapon was the M1919a1 Browning machine gun. He has nothing but good things to say about the M1 Garand, though. And the snipers in his outfit used 03 Springfields mounted with scopes.
 
The basic Sherman was 9 feet tall.
Click to expand...

Yet when you see a 30 ton Sherman side by side with a 60 ton Tiger I, the sherman, though about a foot shorter in length and height, and 3 feet narrower chassis, gives a larger apparent silhouette- more of it is up high to get hit. Put next to a Panzer IV, the Sherman's silhouette looks gigantic. Add to that that a hit from most any german gun on the battlefield in 1944 would put it out of action at ridiculous ranges ..... even handheld anti-tank weapons would easily set the thing afire ....
 
I recall reading something that, when first offered the new rifle in 1938 or 1939, the commandant of the Marine Corps turned it down, and it wasn't until very late 1941 that the reversed course.
 
"Yet when you see a 30 ton Sherman side by side with a 60 ton Tiger I, the sherman, though about a foot shorter in length and height, and 3 feet narrower chassis, gives a larger apparent silhouette- more of it is up high to get hit. Put next to a Panzer IV, the Sherman's silhouette looks gigantic."

To tell you the truth, I've never gotten that impression from the "side bys" that I've seen.

"Add to that that a hit from most any german gun on the battlefield in 1944 would put it out of action at ridiculous ranges"

Yeah, that's a little over dramatic.

Actually, a lot over dramatic.

So you're saying that a Wirblewind, mounting four 20mm auto cannon, could stand off in Berlin and put a Sherman in Normandy out of action?

As for the dreaded "tommy cooker" reputation of all Shermans...

Overwrought, especially once wet jacket ammunition storage was adopted in later versions to replace the "stick ammo anywhere you can" theory.

As for the armor penetration issue, yes, Shermans didn't have great armor compared to other tanks. The simple fact is, thoguh, that pretty much nothing the Allies had would stand up to the guns the Germans had in their later tanks.

Later versions of the Sherman, upguned to the American high velocity 76 mm and, especially, those fitted with the 17-pound British gun, were capable of killing German tanks at extended ranges.

The Sherman also had an advantage that the Russian, British, and German (ast least until fairly late in the war) didn't have...

Gyroscopic gun stabilization. Yes, it was primitive, but it was effective enough that it allowed Shermans to fire, and get hits, while on the move, something largely impossible for other tanks.

Maybe in 1942 the Americans should have called time out for a couple of years it would have taken to design, implement, manufacture, train, and equip new tanks.

Or maybe the US shouldn't have fielded any tanks at all?
 
it wasn't uncommon to see T-34s moving towards the front with spare transmissions strapped to their hull.
Click to expand...

I'd read about that as well- but that account was late in the war, and the transmission problem was blamed on the added weight of the new, larger turret to accomodate the 85mm gun and added armor.

The new turret made the gun easier to fight the tank, but reduced survivability- part of the genius of the T-34 was it's radically sloped armor, including that of the turret.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top