Posts
I think every gamer has been there.
There's a lot of WW2 German kit that informed modern kit.
That means you can get modern capabilities at an earlier TL point than modern...
ON PAPER the FG.42 is amazing stuff.
The MKb/MP/StG guns are just like AK's!
Well...
The FG.42, especially in the first widely issued version, is just barely handling the load of firing the 7.92x57mm round. They're also kinda fragile.
The 10 lb. Garand will sling full power .30-06 all day long with a reliability that rivals Maxim guns.
The later versions are more robust, but still not as great as they appear on paper. They're also thirteen pounds loaded. The modern gun it most closely resembled is the FAL, which is a "mere" eleven pounds.
The FAL has far better ergonomics. Especially with the location of the magazine.
That DOES matter.
What about the Sturmgewher?
7.92x33mm and 7.92x39mm are very close in performance.
But an AKM is 8.7 lb. and the StG.44 is 13.2 lb.! Even the original, milled, AK-47 is lighter at 11.3 lb.
The semi-auto G.43 was never as good as the Garand.
But what about tanks?
Everyone mentions tanks!
The gigantic advantage the M4 Sherman has over the Tiger and Panther isn't numbers.
It starts every time. It runs all day.
The crew just has to do their part and do the PMCS.
Tiger and Panther will break even if the crew is proactive about PMCS.
They do have epically good guns and excellent aiming systems.
But: That aiming system only works if the tank commander can talk the gunner into getting the sight's soda-straw field of view on the, likely moving, target.
The Sherman's gunner has a panoramic view through a periscope in the roof of the turret. You can even use it to aim the gun, but it's coarse. What this gets you is you can put the crosshair on the target, then change to the main sight alongside the gun. This has more magnification and finer aiming.
It means the TC can say, get that tank to the left and the gunner can do most of the work of getting the gun aligned himself. That frees the TC to maintain situational awareness.
THAT is why a Sherman could kill a Panther or a Tiger, despite the better guns of the German tanks.
Plus, never discount the advantage of being able to recover knocked out vehicles. When the Germans lost a tank, it was gone forever because the Allies owned the ground. Any Shermans knocked out in the same battle could be taken to depot and fixed (or scavenged for parts).
The actual armor on the Sherman and other American tanks, even the oft-lambasted M3 Mediums (which put a medium velocity 75mm gun on an allied chassis long before anyone else, and scared the crap out of the Krauts and Italians in North Africa with its phenomenal accuracy and quality of ammo) was far better than late production German armor.
ReplyDeleteThe Sherman also had decent sloped armor on the front glacis, and the gun mantel was pretty darned thick enough.
What people forget about Shermans is that they were (usually) the attackers. And any student of history knows, the attacker generally receives more casualties than the defenders.
Then there's the whole usage of Shermans, which were by US doctrine, to be used in support of the infantry against... infantry and field guns, not to be used against other tanks. That was the job of the tank destroyers.
Toss in compatibility of many Sherman parts throughout the whole series of production, and having all those parts available at a depot not too far from the front line, and even without scrounging off of damaged hulls, broken Shermans could be put in the field quicker than anyone else's busted tanks. Same with the M3/M5 Stuarts and the tank destroyers and mobile artillery based off of the M3/M4 medium hull and the M3/M5 light hull.
And you can't forget, the M4 Sherman had a reasonably decent gyrostabilizer that worked quite well once crews were trained on the proper use. Often the difference between victory and death wasn't who got the first shot but who got the first hit.
Later Shermans, firing the 76mm gun and with even better penetrators, were able to disable Tigers and Panthers. And anyone knows, a disabled tank is an eventually dead tank, especially when said disabled tanks are on the defense.
You should read James Holland's "Brothers in Arms: One Legendary Tank Regiment’s Bloody War From D-Day to VE-Day". -JKing
ReplyDeleteThe StG also can't handle the amount of mistreatment the AK can, or so I am informed. Even so I still want one for myself. Just because!
ReplyDeleteA lot of German weapons development was like Top Gear, "ambitious but rubbish". The Me 262 had terrifyinglyshort livedengined, the Me 163's fuel could dissolve the pilot.
ReplyDeleteThe Z36 destroyers had light cruiser sized 6" guns and advanced high pressure steam plants. The heavy guns made the terrible sea boats and the boilers were a reliability nightmare. The Japanese Special Type destroyers used 5" guns and older boiler designs and were very successful. Both classes ended up mostly sunk by the Allies anyway. The USN Fletcher class also managed to run cutting edge high pressure steam plants with decent reliability partly due to design and partly due to the USN using feed water additives.
The Z36s were also horribly balanced, being front-heavy when the oil bunkers were less than half full.
DeleteBeautiful ships, crappy execution.