History buffs, strut your stuff!

[Barbas]

You mean the people that that thought the M10 with paper armor and an open top was effective. All the ergonomics in the world does not mean a thing if you are dead. The difference between able to knock out a tiger and panther at average engagement range and not is the difference between life and death.

Well, you're talking about the 'Wolverine'/'Achilles' tank destroyer, right? Those'd be different people to the ones who decided how the tanks were employed.

 

[MrFalconfly]

The only point at which the T-34 is qualitatively better would be armament, given that the T.34/85 has an 85mm gun, while the most heavily armed hole-puncher of the Shermans was following the Easy-8 programme with the wide tracks, HVSS suspension, and 76mm gun M1.

The Sherman firefly with the 17pdr gun was the best hole puncher of the Shermans. The 17pdr firing APDS could go through the front armor of even a King Tiger. German standing orders made the firefly a priority target.

The APDS of the British 17 Pdr was very good at punching holes. It just had the unfortunate issue, that you couldn't hit the broadside of a barn with it (see the US Army Gun trials at Isigny in France).

Apart from that, the Sherman Firefly itself had horrendous ergonomics compared with the Easy-6 and Easy-8. There was barely any room in the turret for the crew with that massive 17 Pdr in there (not to mention that the gunner basically had to reach up under the roof for the trigger, and down under the gun for elevation and traverse).

The US Army didn't like the Firefly, for the same reason they didn't like the M4A1 Sherman with a 76mm mounted in a quick-fix turret from 1942. They deemed them both combat-ineffective because of terrible ergonomics.

You mean the people that that thought the M10 with paper armor and an open top was effective. All the ergonomics in the world does not mean a thing if you are dead. The difference between able to knock out a tiger and panther at average engagement range and not is the difference between life and death.

The Gun Motor Carriage M/10 (whether it's the American Wolverine, or British Achilles) is a Tank Destroyer. Basically a gun-emplacement on tracks.

It's meant as a defensive measure, not an assault weapon like the tank.

As for "All the ergonomics in the world does not mean a thing if you are dead".

All the penetration in the world doesn't help you if you can't swivel the gun around without having to do contortions.

As for the Panther and the Tiger (we'll dismiss the K?nigstiger since that thing only saw service on the Eastern front, and the few tanks that were there had a habit of breaking down)

The thickest armour on the Panther was the upper glacis of the hull which had a LOS thickness of 160mm RHAe. The M93 HVAP of the 76mm M1 only has a penetration of 157mm (at an angle of 30 degrees from Vertical), however the APCBC of the 17 Pdr only has a penetration of 140mm (at an angle of 30 degrees from Vertical).

Both these values are at 500m distance (the distance at which the APDS of the 17 Pdr is almost unusable, because of lacking accuracy).

So at 500m neither the Easy-8, nor the Firefly, can reliably penetrate the frontal glacis of the Panther.

The Tiger is an easier target (flat sides, and the thickest armour is only 120mm meaning both guns will pen).

These facts leave us with the conclusion that the only quantifiable difference in survival-likelihood would be ease-of-use of the weapon-system that you sit in. And from that standpoint, I'd rather sit in the Easy-8 (more comfortable to work in, which means I'm rested when I have to fight, and better ergonomics meaning that there's less of a delay between the thought of the commander and the execution of the order).

 

[DefunctTheory]

You mean the people that that thought the M10 with paper armor and an open top was effective. All the ergonomics in the world does not mean a thing if you are dead. The difference between able to knock out a tiger and panther at average engagement range and not is the difference between life and death.

The M10 was satisfactory in its role as a mobile fire support vehicle. And the 'people' who thought it was effective recognized its flaws and replaced it, mid-war, with the M36 and M18, both excellent vehicle in their own right that performed admirably.

To the 17pdr question, the US Army disliked it because, while the Firefly had greater penetration, it had massive flaws. It massively increased the bulk of the cannon assembly, which cut down on crew comfort and ergonomics, and more importantly, took away from the 75/76mm's impressive rate of fire. It was less accurate as well, and necessitated additional industrial support.

At the end of the day, the US Army was largely unconcerned with anti-armor capacity in its primary tank. The majority of tank battles were, in fact, not tank on tank, but tank on infantry/fortification, a job at which the smaller American cannons excelled. When tank on tank fights did occur, the deciding factor was frequently not penetration, but a) who was fortified or b) who was able to dictate the terms of the fight. Towed cannons account for a huge amount of tank kills on both sides of the conflict. When tanks met outside of pre-prepared battlefields, it almost always boiled down to 'who shot first' or 'who got caught on the move.' And the 76mm, and even the 75mm cannon, was capable of taking the bulk of German armored forces on, head to head. Even the heavier Panther was still subject to defeat to the weaker guns, sometimes even being beaten to submission by rapidly firing HE shells into its front or weak points.

In short, the 17pdr caused more problems then it fixed and reduced the platform's overall effectiveness at its primary and most frequently encountered job.

 

[Albino Boo]

You mean the people that that thought the M10 with paper armor and an open top was effective. All the ergonomics in the world does not mean a thing if you are dead. The difference between able to knock out a tiger and panther at average engagement range and not is the difference between life and death.

Well, you're talking about the 'Wolverine'/'Achilles' tank destroyer, right? Those'd be different people to the ones who decided how the tanks were employed.

Snip.

The US armor doctrine between 1941 and early 1944 was for Shermans to operate as infantry support and for tank destroyers to operate as anti armor. The M10 was a disaster in the anti armor role and only the heavy losses amongst Shermans in Italy finialy got the message though to the US war department that the doctrine was wrong. The lead time for a factory to re jig for new tanks was 4-6 months. The start of work on the firefly started in 1943 so the tank was available for D-day. The US choice not to take the firefly was based on the number of lives lost versus the loss in tank production caused by re jiging when the E8 was good enough coming on stream. It had nothing to do with ergonomics but the fact the US government was fighting by industrial production. The extra number of lives lost by using the E8 was not considered enough to lose production.

Further more King Tigers took part in operation market garden, the ardennes offensive and operation norwind

 

[Dimitriov]

Poo! I came in expecting real history and this all just silly 20th century nonsense. Practically current events! I can't really consider something history until all those who were alive at the time are dead.

So here's a fun titbit from proper history: in several coroner's reports I've read from the 13th and 14th centuries in London people died when they went to use the toilet, sat down on the seat (which had apparently rotted), and fell through and suffocated below!

Just another reason to be thankful for indoor plumbing.

 

[MrFalconfly]

You mean the people that that thought the M10 with paper armor and an open top was effective. All the ergonomics in the world does not mean a thing if you are dead. The difference between able to knock out a tiger and panther at average engagement range and not is the difference between life and death.

Well, you're talking about the 'Wolverine'/'Achilles' tank destroyer, right? Those'd be different people to the ones who decided how the tanks were employed.

Snip.

The US armor doctrine between 1941 and early 1944 was for Shermans to operate as infantry support and for tank destroyers to operate as anti armor. The M10 was a disaster in the anti armor role and only the heavy losses amongst Shermans in Italy finialy got the message though to the US war department that the doctrine was wrong. The lead time for a factory to re jig for new tanks was 4-6 months. The start of work on the firefly started in 1943 so the tank was available for D-day. The US choice not to take the firefly was based on the number of lives lost versus the loss in tank production caused by re jiging when the E8 was good enough coming on stream. It had nothing to do with ergonomics but the fact the US government was fighting by industrial production. The extra number of lives lost by using the E8 was not considered enough to lose production.

Further more King Tigers took part in operation market garden, the ardennes offensive and operation norwind

I refer you to this video (it has been posted before but here it is).


Nicholas Moran is a US Army Historian.

He knows more about US Armoured doctrine than you or me.

Tanks were "Infantry Support, or Exploitation Weapons".

Exploitation means that once the tanks punch a hole through the enemy lines, they'll roam around, raiding, and destroying whatever they found.

"Whatever they found", could include enemy tanks, meaning that they absolutely positively needed their own anti-tank capability.

 

[Barbas]

(Snip).

Well, I've certainly seen at least one photo of a captured Tiger II with American decals and crew riding on it. As for the tanks not engaging other tanks, I've read that in a fair few places, but it honestly makes less sense the more I think about it. I mean, what good's a tank that'll get knocked out right away by another and doesn't have guns good enough to hit back? A lot of tanks that were given the 'infantry support' role suffered badly due to the drawbacks inherent in their design, being under-gunned or having significantly limited mobility. Shermans could go at a fair lick, which doesn't make sense if they're designed to be tied to the infantry. So I doubt that the doctrines you're describing were strictly enforced, especially several weeks into the Normandy invasion - I think inflexibility like that would have spelt doom.

 

[FalloutJack]

I'm currently reading My Tank Is Fight!, the incredible-yet-true detailing of numerous World War II era machines designed for the army (mostly Germany). Because of this, I want to go to a museum in Russia which contains the only surviving 'Maus' supertank. This is a great book. I've also found Sam Kean's books on the elements (Disappearing Spoon) and other important things to learn their historical backgrounds. Very interesting.

 

[Silverbeard]

(Snip).

Yeah, I think I worded that misleadingly. I can't recall the proper wording of it without finding the book again, but from what I read, if it weren't for the uniforms they'd have been unrecognizable. Sort of like how if you take someone off the street and dress them up like a soldier next to a real soldier, unless you picked a pretty good actor your eye would figure out that something was up. Does that make sense? I'm not sure I'm running on a full tank of caffeine.

No it makes sense. Admittedly the tank crews wouldn't have acted much like regular trench grunts and not been up on the typical lingo on the same. They might even have been viewed as demi-gods (at least initially) for their ability to ride such unusual vehicles and emerge without their beards on fire or whatnot!
What I'd like to learn more about is how tank crews who surrendered to the enemy were treated. Did the Germans view British and French tank crewmen as regular prisoners, with all that entailed? Was there a bit of revenge killing going on? Might be worth looking into if I can find the right literature.

 

[TwistedEllipses]

So I want to tell you how several thousand Vikings in the 10th century became the personal guard for the emperor of the Byzantines all the way done in Constantinople (modern day Istanbul). Historical accounts are a bit sketchy, questionable and this outside my normal area of expertise, but it's pretty interesting to me at least.

The story is tied-up with Vladimir Sviatoslavich the Great of Kievan Rus (Kievan Rus or Ruthenia was a country centred around Kiev and made of parts of Ukraine, Belarus and Russia). He was the youngest of three sons and when one of his brothers killed the other, he was forced to flee to a relative in Sweden. Life was hard in Scandinavia, so many Vikings sought wealth through raids or becoming mercenaries. So Vlad comes back Viking army in tow and conquers Rus, but now he's in a new predicament.

He needs allies, but his country is a lone island of Slavic paganism among big rivals with competing religions - Catholicism to the West, Orthodoxy to the South, Islam to the South & East and even Judaism to the East in Khazaria. He sends out envoys and hears about each religion. Islam he dismisses - no alcohol? no pork? no fun! Judaism he dismisses - they lost Jerusalem, how can their God favour them? Catholicism he dismisses - too drab! More importantly Orthodoxy offers political options, a chance for an alliance with the Byzantine empire. The problem is they've been on/off warring for decades, so he takes the town of Chersoneus in Crimea and offers to give in back in exchange for marrying the emperor's daughter and Vlad getting baptised. Later to cement the alliance Vlad sends a few thousand Viking mercenaries as a gift.

Meanwhile the Byzantine emperors are having their own issues. Even back in the days of a united Roman empire, the personal guard had the habit of bumping off more emperors than they protected. So what they needed was someone outside of the usual scheming and counter-scheming of high society. These mercenaries were perfect and they formed the first generation of the Varangian guard, who were an effective fighting force until the 13th or 14th century.

 

[Thaluikhain]

At the end of the day, the US Army was largely unconcerned with anti-armor capacity in its primary tank. The majority of tank battles were, in fact, not tank on tank, but tank on infantry/fortification, a job at which the smaller American cannons excelled. When tank on tank fights did occur, the deciding factor was frequently not penetration, but a) who was fortified or b) who was able to dictate the terms of the fight. Towed cannons account for a huge amount of tank kills on both sides of the conflict. When tanks met outside of pre-prepared battlefields, it almost always boiled down to 'who shot first' or 'who got caught on the move.' And the 76mm, and even the 75mm cannon, was capable of taking the bulk of German armored forces on, head to head. Even the heavier Panther was still subject to defeat to the weaker guns, sometimes even being beaten to submission by rapidly firing HE shells into its front or weak points.

To add to that, most discussions of quality vs quantity neglect to mention availability.

If you are a WW2 infantry commander, and you call for armour support, you want tanks. Whether or not the design is superior is secondary to whether or not there are enough tanks around for some to be actually sent to support you.

 

[mrdude2010]

I know a surprising amount about the Napoleonic Wars and the historical weapons involved, but I don't know if I would consider my self a history buff about it.

 

[Dimitriov]

So I want to tell you how several thousand Vikings in the 10th century became the personal guard for the emperor of the Byzantines all the way done in Constantinople (modern day Istanbul). Historical accounts are a bit sketchy, questionable and this outside my normal area of expertise, but it's pretty interesting to me at least.

The story is tied-up with Vladimir Sviatoslavich the Great of Kievan Rus (Kievan Rus or Ruthenia was a country centred around Kiev and made of parts of Ukraine, Belarus and Russia). He was the youngest of three sons and when one of his brothers killed the other, he was forced to flee to a relative in Sweden. Life was hard in Scandinavia, so many Vikings sought wealth through raids or becoming mercenaries. So Vlad comes back Viking army in tow and conquers Rus, but now he's in a new predicament.

He needs allies, but his country is a lone island of Slavic paganism among big rivals with competing religions - Catholicism to the West, Orthodoxy to the South, Islam to the South & East and even Judaism to the East in Khazaria. He sends out envoys and hears about each religion. Islam he dismisses - no alcohol? no pork? no fun! Judaism he dismisses - they lost Jerusalem, how can their God favour them? Catholicism he dismisses - too drab! More importantly Orthodoxy offers political options, a chance for an alliance with the Byzantine empire. The problem is they've been on/off warring for decades, so he takes the town of Chersoneus in Crimea and offers to give in back in exchange for marrying the emperor's daughter and Vlad getting baptised. Later to cement the alliance Vlad sends a few thousand Viking mercenaries as a gift.

Meanwhile the Byzantine emperors are having their own issues. Even back in the days of a united Roman empire, the personal guard had the habit of bumping off more emperors than they protected. So what they needed was someone outside of the usual scheming and counter-scheming of high society. These mercenaries were perfect and they formed the first generation of the Varangian guard, who were an effective fighting force until the 13th or 14th century.

Indeed. That had some details I myself didn't know. Thanks for that!

Also, Harald Hardrada, king of Norway and one of the three claimants to the throne of England in 1066, had served as the commander of the Varangian guard in his youth. He was able to acquire a great deal of wealth from his time in Constantinople which he used to secure the throne of Norway later.

But then he got himself killed at the battle of Stamford Bridge when he lost to Harold Godwinson, who was in turn killed at the battle of Hastings when he lost to Duke William of Normandy.

Edit: The latter 11th century is full of interesting people and wars. It was also the time of El Cid and a turning point in the Reconquista of Moorish Spain, The Norman conquest of Sicily and southern Italy (those Normans got around! They were distant cousins of Duke William seeking their own fortune elsewhere), and the first Crusade which captured Jerusalem.

It was also when Countess Matilda of Tuscany personally led her forces in a campaign on behalf of the pope during the investiture controversy.

The 11th century is one of my favourite periods of history!

 

[Alssadar]

I had a class about Pre-Modern Europe, and I recall a particularly fun lecture about the papacy during the late 13th, early 14th centuries, involving a lot of internal struggles between kings and popes, and 3 popes all being pope at the same time.
It all kind of goes down like this: so, during the 13th century, the Popes had a lot going for them. Innocent III establishes the Franciscans, the Domincians, calls about the 4th Crusade, and also the 4th Lateran Council. Meanwhile, England gets its Magna Carta, but still has lay investiture (the king choosing who inherits bishoprics, not the papacy), and so King John is excommunicated. Fearing invasion by the French, King John appeals the Pope, and so England is an official vassal to the Papacy, so that's pretty great.
So the church is expanding and whatnot, being this massive polticial power, but also more corrupt. In particular, papal elections become more fraut with corruption and faction, and it takes 2 years to elect a pope in 1294. This Pope, Celestine, was elected because they needed a pope. After serving 6 months as pope, he passes a decree saying that Popes can resign, and promptly does so (the next would be our own Benedict). The next pope, Boniface, arrests Celestine, accusing him of plotting to become pope again (though he just surrendered it), and Celestine dies in prison.
But here's the fun part: so, Philip IV, the king of France, wants to expand the monarchy's power, and so he denies clerical lawmanship and taxes the clergy to fund the nobility. Boniface doesn't like this, so he sends a messenger to stop Philip from overstepping his boundaries against the church. So Philip arrests the messenger. So Boniface sends a papal order, demanding Philip stop. Philip burns the order. Boniface gets made, declares absolute Papal Power over all humans. Philip's chief minister declares Boniface a heretic. Boniface excommunicates Philip. Philip 's minister leads an army to Rome and Boniface dies after 3 days of imprisonment.
But that's not all: so then the next pope lives only 8 months, and the following Pope, Clement, is a Frenchman from the bishopric of Avignon. Now, it's suspected that Philip rigged Clement's election, but who can say. Now, Philip doesn't want to leave France, so he declares that Avignon is now going to be the home of the papacy. Now, there's conflict between the French popes and the Italian cardinals. England,meanwhile, says fuck it, and decides it's no longer going to be a vassal of the Papacy, because they're basically French puppets.
So, now, after seven French Popes, Pope Gregory returns to Rome in 1377, and dies shortly thereafter. Now, as he is in Rome, the Italians want a Roman Pope that will stay in Rome, but the French dislike that. After the election of Pope Urban of Bari, the cardinals elect another Avignon Pope.
So now we've two Popes, one in Italy, one in France. Some Parisian theologians declare the Pope no longer to be a temporal leader, and so they elect a third Pisan anti-pope, so he's off doing other things. England is independent, and there's some heresy going around in eastern Germany under the name of Jan Huss.
Emperor Sigismund of the Holy Roman Empire doesn't like Huss, and declares a council to discuss theology, inviting Huss himself. Huss comes, and is arrested and executed, because he actually fell for it. Meanwhile, the 3 different Popes all came, and decided to elect a Pope Martin to be a single Pope and everyone else will step down. The Council, however, declares that all popes are under the control of the council (which is later declared a heresy), and it takes some time before all things die out. It's all fun stuff.

Fun fact: Philip VI of France disbanded the Knights Templar, and is the last of the Capetian Kings, one of the largest and longest lasting medieval dynasties.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

America and the UK bombed the city of Dresden, Germany, in 1945. They killed 25,000 people and razed the city.

 

[rcs619]

This mostly depends on what the tank-crews themselves value the most (and that tends to be ergonomics).

All the T-34 variants have absolutely horrible ergonomics in common.

* There's no turret-basket (meaning, bigger chance for the turret-monster to grab some vital equipment, or a limb).
* No seat for the loader (meaning he has to follow the turret around, while it traverses, stepping over spent casings, risking tripping over, and being grabbed by the aforementioned "turret-monster". This lack of a seat and proper turretfloor is further compounded by the relatively high speed of the turrets powered traverse)
* The drivers compartment and fighting compartment isn't separated like in most tanks (meaning there's a risk of various heavy metal bits of the turret, interfacing with the heads of the driver and radio-operator/machine-gunner).
* The variants prior to the T-34/85 had the very serious issue, that the Commander had to pull double-duty as loader.

The only point at which the T-35 is qualitatively better would be armament, given that the T.34/85 has an 85mm gun, while the most heavily armed hole-puncher of the Shermans was following the Easy-8 programme with the wide tracks, HVSS suspension, and 76mm gun M1.

Another T-34 fun-fact. Apparently it wasn't uncommon for the driver to carry a hammer with him. It seems that the gear-shift had a tendency to seize up, and the hammer was there so that they could literally beat the tank into gear.

I will say, one of my favorite stories to come out of WWII is the saga of the USS William D. Porter, arguably the most hilariously unlucky ship to ever sail under the banner of the United States Navy.

During World War II alone it:
> Dragged its partially-raised anchor across the deck of a neighboring ship while pulling out of port.
> Nearly killed FDR when they accidentally dropped a live depth-charge over the side during an anti-submarine drill. (They were part of the escort fleet for the USS Iowa, which he was riding on at the time).
> Nearly killed FDR again when they accidentally launched a live torpedo towards the USS Iowa during a torpedo drill.
> Had it's *entire crew* arrested as a result of the aforementioned instances of nearly killing the President.
> While in exile in Alaska, one of the crew got drunk and fired off one of the guns... sending a shell right into the base commander's front yard. While he was holding a party for various other officers.
> Was returned to active duty in the pacific, where it was eventually sunk by a Japanese bomber... that had already been shot down by another ship. It landed in the water next to the porter, the momentum carried it underneath, and then its bombs exploded. It was killed by a plane that had already crashed.

 

[Dalisclock]

I've been big into the space program/space race for a couple years(Thanks, Kerbal Space Program)so I've absorbed a lot.

Among other tidbits:

-The American lead in the Space Race was a result of the top German Rocket Scientists intentionally defecting to the US(because "The British can't afford us and the Russians terrify us") and a lot of sneaky tech acquisition. The US Army captured the main V-2 Rocket factory before the Soviets did(being occupied with Berlin), and knowing it was in the Soviet half of Germany, stole as many rockets and rocket parts as they transport out before the Red Army arrived. The British were also annoyed to learn about this, being that the US didn't bother to share any rockets or engineers with them.

-The first man into space, Yuri Gagarin, did his entire flight on auto-pilot, because the Soviet Space Engineers didn't want the Cosmonauts causing problems. The Pilot could take manual control, by hitting a manual override(which I believe was in a locked box). In fairness, the American Space Engineers tried to do the same thing with Mercury and the Astronauts outright rebelled at the idea.

-The American Gemini Capsule was designed to the workhorse of the program and for a while, a series of variants were planned, including: A mini-space station attached(called the MOL/Manned Orbital Laboratory), a winged variant for runway landings, a variant(called "Gemini Blue") which would have landed on the ground, because the USAF disliked the idea of the Navy performing recovery operations after each flight, and some plans to use the Gemini as the command ship for a moon landing(which would have used a one-person mini-LEM docked to it). When Apollo started coming into it's own, the more exotic Gemini designs were scrapped before ever being produced.

-The Soviets didn't really have any chance of reaching the moon before the US did. The Soviet Moon Rocket, the N-1, had 4 test flights, all of which ended catastrophically and the Soviets had no backup. Their program was also underfunded and subject to continuous meddling from above for political purposes, which led to it going pretty much nowhere after the mid-1960's as far as the moon was concerned. There were brief plans to beat the US to the moon by putting a Cosmonaut up there in 1969 with no way to get him home, hoping supply landers would keep him alive until a return mission could be developed and launched(months or years later). This was never attempted and likely never taken seriously.

 

[somersetsaxon]

I haven't read anything historically related an interesting lately, so I'll just, once again, recommend Ulysses S. Grants memoirs again, my favorite autobiography.

Now, users, recommend me more WWII and Civil War stuff! Do it!

If you've read Grant's memoirs you're probably more widely read on the US Civil war than I am, but if you've not read either James Ford Rhodes' History of the Civil War or Battle Cry of Freedom by James McPherson then both of them are worth a read, McPherson's particularly so. As a Brit who would never have been taught about the US civil war at school both of those books were good overviews of the topic. I prefer McPherson's as it explores the run-up to the outbreak of war more thoroughly and is more thorough when looking at the war on the international stage (like the Trent incident, the attitudes of the British Aristocracy versus the general population. When looked at in that context the emancipation proclamation is almost perfectly timed to quell any intervention by Britain (and by extension France, who was pushing for intervention if they could convince Britain to back them) to mediate for cease fire in favour of the Confederacy).
I was also really happy to see that Netflix UK managed to acquire the Ken Burns documentary series, which I binge watched over the summer.

In terms of WW2 stuff, the last book I read was Ardennes 1944 by Antony Beevor. In terms of overviews of situations including military, political and civilian perspectives I don't think I can recommend Beevor highly enough.

The other book I'd recommend is Fortress Malta by James Holland which I read a while ago. Really emphasises how precarious the situation in Malta was while also suggesting how pivotal it was when it came to allied control of the Med and the effects of this on North Africa and the far east.

My interesting tidbit is something I learned from this book. The most successful Allied submarine of the war was HMS Upholder, a U-Class submarine based out of Valetta. The U-class was designed as a cheap submarine to be sunk as targets by destroyers and other submarines but they were pressed into actual service as the need for subs increased. Their small size made them fairly well suited to the shallower waters of the Med, but they were so light that surface swell made it difficult to aim torpedoes as the boat would be pitching and rolling with the waves. Despite the drawbacks U-class submarines were relatively successful, particularly when it came to sinking oilers carrying fuel to north Africa. The highs and lows of German progress in North Africa links quite closely to the submarine numbers based in Valetta (Africa Korps made huge advances when the airborne siege of Malta and lack of fuel led to the U-classes being relocated to Alexandria and the return of the submarines coincides with Rommel's momentum running out and his eventual reverse).

A couple of questions for the tank fans, how much truth is there to the idea that the lower calibre Allied tanks needed an approximate 4:1 advantage in order to successfully create enough distraction to enable their mobility to get a tank behind a heavier German tank in order to attack the weaker armour? The ratio is one I've heard, and while I know the US could churn out Sherman's at a huge rate it still seems like a ratio you'd never achieve in practice.
Flipping from heavy armour to really light armour, is there any truth to American tanks using anti-infantry HE shells on Japanese tanks? I'd heard a story that the armour on Japanese tanks was so thin that AP shells were found to pretty much go straight through the tank, often without hitting anything which would disable the tank.

 

[SckizoBoy]

Read up a bit on the French Revolutionary Wars...

Who knew that the nation that re-legalised slavery after being the first to codify its abolition had the first black four star general (equivalent) in western history...?!

And it's kind of a shame that he's so unknown, to the extent that the most famous picture of him is actually his son, glammed up, Napoleon deliberately sidelined him and made sure as best he could so that no-one could help his widow...

And why is he still not part of the Legion d'Honneur?!?!

 

[Thaluikhain]

A couple of questions for the tank fans, how much truth is there to the idea that the lower calibre Allied tanks needed an approximate 4:1 advantage in order to successfully create enough distraction to enable their mobility to get a tank behind a heavier German tank in order to attack the weaker armour? The ratio is one I've heard, and while I know the US could churn out Sherman's at a huge rate it still seems like a ratio you'd never achieve in practice.

I'm led to believe that the ratio normally given is 5:1, but that's not a quality thing, that's because you always want to send more than is adequate, and US tanks operated in units of 5. One enemy tank, send more than one US tanks, which meant 5.

If it's a matter of distracting them to get round them, a fixed ratio wouldn't seem to make sense. It'd depend on the terrain (amongst other factors), and why must the distraction be in the form of other tanks?