LET RUMMY RIDE AROUND IRAQ IN A NAKED HUMVEE
The "questioning" of Rumsfeld only shocked the MSM who never read the web. The lack of Humvee armor, the horrid flack jackets, the sub-par scopes on sniper rifles has been written about endlessly on Military Blogs and on many of us right wing Hitler Lovers since the war was three months old. Rumsfeld's answer to the GI was typical of Washington D.C. brass who could give a fat fuck about the guys on the ground. It was like this in WWII, Korea, and VietNam and it will be like this forever. Many blogs have raised money for armor, scopes, and other equipment the Pentagon refused to supply. I haven't read much lately, but at one point the Military blogs were saying that half the dead soldiers died because their body armor was defective. I always thought that if the Democrats had run to the Right of Bush they'd have slaughtered him, but they are Left. Rumsfeld is just another arrogant Washington prick who sent guys into battle with shit equipment, but he has nothing on the genius assholes of WWII who sent paper tanks (designed by Patton for speed) against the Germans, B-17s in daylight raids with no fighter support, or the Island hopping strategy in the Pacific that resulted in half a million dead. He's the same asshole that sent the first troops into Korea with no ammo and let them die, and then sent in 100,000 troops to fight in a sub zero winter with no boots, underwear, or gloves and let everyone get frost bite or freeze to death. The same prick who sent our guys into VietNam jungles with 50 poound back packs, guns that rotted, and no intention of winning. Let Rumsfeld ride around in Humvees til everybody has armor, let him see how it feels. If he gets it with an IED he deserves it.
4 comments:
" ... The German tanks were better armored, better gunned (the high velocity 75mm in the Panther or the ubiquitous and much-dreaded 88mm in the Tiger models), with better opticals and more dependable powerplants (diesel as opposed to gasoline which led the American tank crewmen to refer to the Sherman as the "Ronsonol Lighter" since a hit would almost always generate a fire. ... "
Umm, the Ronson ciggie lighter epithet. That's the sort of nth hand anecdote every superficial student of WWII military hardware recites.
Converning Mark V tank engines, "Rob's Panther Page" sez:
...
Type: Heavy Tank . Other Designations: Panther (Ausf G), SdKfz 171 . Originating Nation: Germany . Manufacturers: MASCHINENFABRIK-AUGSBURG-NUERNBERG AG, DAIMLER-BENZ, MASCHINENFABRIK NIEDERSACHSEN HANNOVER
CREW five 5
TURRET CREW three 3
WEIGHT 45500 KGS 100309 LBS or 44.8 TONs
GROUND PRESSURE 0.880 kgs/cm2 12.5 psi
VEHICLE LENGTH 6880 mm 271 in
OVERALL LENGTH 8860 mm 349 in
WHEELBASE 2620 mm 103 in
WIDTH 3400 mm 134 in
TRACK WIDTH 650 mm 25.6 in
HEIGHT 2980 mm 117 in
GROUND CLEARANCE 560 mm 22.0 in
GASOLINE CAPACITY 730 litres 193 US gal. or 160 Imp. gal.
ROAD SPEED 46 Kmph 29 mph
ROAD RANGE 200 km 124 miles
CROSS COUNTRY SPEED 24 kmph 15 mph
CROSS COUNTRY RANGE 177 km 110 miles
ENGINE: Maybach HL230P30 V-12 gasoline (petrol) fueled liquid-cooled 23095-cc 700 bhp @3000 rpm
...
http://members.tripod.com/~dietmagic/panther.html
/////////////////////////////////
Panzer PzKpfw Mk VI (Tiger II)
Panzer Mk VI (Tiger II) History
"As the Tiger !l used the same engine as the Panther tank it can be seen that it was seriously underpowered, and so performance was severely restricted."
...
PzKpfw VI Tiger II Ausf B Only one model of the Tiger II was built, the Ausf B. It was the heaviest tank to see operational service during World War 2, and also one of the most powerful. Its main armament was the 8.8 cm KwK 43, developed from the 8.8 cm Pak 43 anti-tank gun. At its thickest point, the Tiger II armour was 185 mm thick (on the gun mantlet), and the gun and armour went a long way towards the Tiger Us prodigious weight of 69.7 tons. As the Tiger !l used the same engine as the Panther tank it can be seen that it was seriously underpowered, and so performance was severely restricted. Also the Tiger II was rushed into action while still undeveloped and suffered from a long string of mechanical breakdowns and troubles. The first 50 tanks were fitted with the Porsche turret, but the rest had the Henschel tur-
ret which was not only simpler to make but also afforded more protection.
In action, the Tiger II was a formidable opponent which could outshoot and outrange nearly all Allied tanks with the possible exception of the Russian Joseph Stalin series, but its huge weight and size made it ponderous and difficult to conceal. In a swift armoured battle it would have been almost useless but by 1944 Germany was fighting a defensive war and the Tiger II was perfect for that role.
...
http://germandressdaggers.com/Panzer%20Mark%206%20Tiger%20%20II.htm
//////
Re P-38's not being used to escort B-17's to Berlin and back: P-38's fitted with external fuel tanks could make the round trip, and P-38's were fitted for external tanks. The P-51 also used external fuel tanks to get to Berlin and back.
The USAAF did not use P-38's for this escort role because the P-38 was judged to be not good enough for dogfighting with Me-109's and FW-190's.
Late model P-47's were used to escort B-29's on the round trip from Tinian and Saipan to Tokyo. I believe those distance are longer than the England to Berlin trip.
Korea: US forces encountered the Soviet's T34/85 tank in Korea. American tanks used there were the M-47 and and the last model of the Sherman tank, the M4A3E8 with 76mm gun. Soviet tanks had little success when opposed by US tanks in Korea. Nevertheless, Russky tanks enjoyed an overhyped reputation for 50 or 60 years after Korea.
"Tank Versus Tank" by Kenneth Macksey gives some comparative data on the performance of the manin gunes of these tanks:
T34 with 85mm 53 cal: 899 m/s using APCBC ammunition
Sherman with 76.2mm 55 cal : 1036 mm/s using HVAP
M26Pershing ( quite similar to the M47 ): 90mm 53 cal : 1120 m/s using HVAP
The Germans?
Tiger I: 88mm 56 cal: 811 m/s using APCBC
Panther D: 75mm 70 cal : 936 m/s using APCBC
Late WWII American tanks and tank destroyers using the 76.2 mm or 90mm main gun were NOT outgunned.
A little saturday morning pedantry
-- david.davenport.1@netzero.com
Wild Boar says,
"... on armor, the issue was the M-4 Sherman up against the German workhorses - not the M-26 Pershing which came into the war too late to share a large slice of the fighting, nor the M-10 Tank Destroyer (which was not used as an MBT)."
Compare this statement to the following:
"The US Army had a unique tactical doctrine during World War II, placing the emphasis for tank fighting on its Tank Destroyer Command whose main early-war vehicle was the M10 3-inch Gun Motor Carriage, based on the reliable M4A2 Sherman tank chassis. ..."
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1841764698/ref%3Dpd%5Fsl%5Faw%5Falx-jeb-9-1%5Fbook%5F5154440%5F2/104-4247254-1187940
M10 and M36 Tank Destroyers 1942-53 (New Vanguard)
by S. J. Zaloga, P. Sarson, M. Badrocke "While many armies used tank destroyers during World War II, the US Army gave them a far more central role in its mechanized doctrine..." (more)
...
26 used & new from $8.99
...
Customers who bought this book also bought:
* M4 (76Mm) Sherman Medium Tank 1943-65 (New Vanguard) by Steven J. Zaloga ( The latter-day Israelites upgunned some of their Shermans all the way to 105mm., and used them in the 1967 war. Anecdotally, the Sherman could not handle the recoil of the 105mm gun too well. --DD)
* Sherman Medium Tank 1942-1945 (New Vanguard, No 3) by Steven J. Zaloga
* M18 Hellcat Tank Destroyer 1943-97 (New Vanguard, 97) by Steven J. Zaloga ( The South Slavs were still operating some WWII veteran M18's in the early 1990's! -- DD )
* M26/M46 Pershing Tank 1943-53 (New Vanguard, 35) by Stephen J. Zaloga ( M26 - M46 - M47: all similar, with about the same main gun, gasoline-fueled engine, and chassis, but with revised turrets on successive models in the series. Tanks M46 though M48 and M60 were all named for notional year of introduction. The M47 and M48 did not make it to Korea. -- DD )
* M3 & M5 Stuart Light Tank 1940-1945 (New Vanguard Series, 33) by Steven Zaloga
* Panther Medium Tank 1942-45 (New Vanguard, 67) by Stephen A. Hart
...
Editorial Reviews
From the Publisher
The unrivalled illustrated reference on fighting vehicles, transport and artillery through the ages. Each volume is illustrated throughout, making these books uniquely accessible to history enthusiasts of all ages.
Product Description:
The US Army had a unique tactical doctrine during World War II, placing the emphasis for tank fighting on its Tank Destroyer Command whose main early-war vehicle was the M10 3-inch Gun Motor Carriage, based on the reliable M4A2 Sherman tank chassis. ( 3-inch = 76.2mm. ) This durable and versatile vehicle saw combat service from the North Africa campaign in 1943. By 1944, its gun was not powerful enough and it was rearmed with the new 90 mm gun, becoming the M36 90mm Gun Motor Carriage. This book details one of the only US armoured vehicles capable of dealing with the Panther and Tiger during the Battle of the Bulge. (M36 -- potent main gun the equal of the greatly celebrated 88 on a Tiger I, tin can candy box thin armor, not quite as good off road as a Panther, because of higher ground pressure due to narrower treads. -- DD )
...
////
There are two pictures of an M10 here:
http://www.wwiivehicles.com/html/usa/m10_tankdestroyer.html
Note the field-improvised, added-on armor on the M10 in the first pic. A parallel to Iraq 2004.
The guy second from right in that photo is driving while standing up in the open hatch. He's probably a tall man. Naturally, the Army would pick a man to drive an M10 who could barely squeeze into the thing with hatch closed.
Also, compare the reality of the M10 in the field in the first pic to the idealized, pristine M10 in the second photo. Looking at the second photo, one can easily tell that the M10 is an M4 Sherman with a cosmetic makeover.
-- david.davenport.1@netzero.com
Let me correct myself. The M47 tank did not make it to Korea. The M46 did go there to duel with T34/85's.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m47.htm
Named for Gen. George S. Patton, the M47 went into production in April, 1951. Technical problems prevented fielding of the M47 until the following year.
...
The lineage of the M-60 Patton tank began with the introduction of the Pershing M26-E3 prototype at the end of WWII. ( The books say twenty M26's were used in action in WWII, beginning in February 1945. --DD) The M-26 Pershing was a test bed for a new design incorporating sloped armor and torsion bar suspension. These formed the basis for the M-46, which used the same basic hull with improvements.
( Torsion bar tank suspension, invented by American Walter Christie. Christie could not sell his stuff to the US Army before WWII. Stalins's Red Army did pay Christie for Christie's T26 tank prototype, the ancestor of the T34. One of the distinctive features of the Sherman is its so-called volute suspension, which is not as good as torsion bar designs.
Prophets sometimes go without armor, I mean honor, in their own country. -- DD)
With the outbreak of the Korean War, a decision was made to utilize existing vehicle designs and to phase in additional changes as new items could be produced, without moving too far from the existing M-46Al design. ( The same debateable rationale was used to justify persisting with the Sherman during WWII --DD )
The M47 was essentially an M46 fitted with the turret from the T42 tank prototype, and was intended to be an interim design until the 90mm gun tank M48 could be produced. While the experimental T-42 hull had been made up of flat plates, the M-46 hull was better ballistically, at least in front. The superior cast turret armed with a 90mm gun was originally designed for the experimental T42 heavy tank that did not enter service. The T-42 turret was put into production, the M-46 hull and chassis was modified, and the two were joined.
This "interim" vehicle was initially called the M-46E1, and soon re-designated the M-47. Compared to the M46, the M-47 included better ballistic protection fire control and layout. Some of the holdovers from the Sherman family were the 5-member crew and inclusion of a bow machine gun. The first fully new tank design after the Second World War was the M-48, which provided a bridge between the Pershing and the M-60. ( Some Israeli reserve units may still use the M-60. )
The M-47 is easily identified by the sharply tapered turret with small gun shield and particularly by the long narrow turret bulge ending in a stowage box. The turret was slightly elliptical with a long bustle or rear turret bulge which acted as a counterweight to the gun, and housed the radio and a ventilator.
...
-- david.davenport.1@netzero.com
You really put thoughtful ideas into my head!
speed reading
Post a Comment