Da Paul Challenge

Status
Not open for further replies.

witchbottles

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2010
Messages
9,100
Reaction score
2,254
Location
Rio Vista, CA
Country
llUnited States
Japanese: They could be forgiven as their intended victims were the Chinese and various European colonies. The did produce very good light infantry support tanks that were long ranged (first diesel powered tanks in the world) and reliable. They however were under armoured and under gunned compared to everyone else. Basically the wrong land war.

Italian: Only in late '42 or '43 did the Italians produce reliable tanks. For most of the war the produced slow, unreliable tanks with easily shattered armour. They simply were death traps. The only saving grace was the use of the 47/32 gun which was about equal to the British 2 lbr but could also fire HE. It was only by '43 that they surpassed the French in AFV capability and the French had been hors de combat for 3 years.

British: While they did produce an amazing menagerie of lash-ups and trials vehicles, especially during the '40 Invasion Scare, they did roughly keep pace with the US, though not with the USSR and Germany (in turn German development driven a good part by Soviet designs). While many of their prototypes were not up to scratch and abandoned, their only real sin was the A13 Mk III Covenantor, a dreadfully unreliable tank with 1771 built. While many of us have heard of reliability issues with the A15 Crusader in the desert, the Germans had similar hair tearing issues. The Germans though had an advantage in that their tank recovery system was far more efficient and speedy. Both sides tanks in the DTO broke down at a similarly depressing rate but the Germans fixed theirs far, far quicker for most of the Desert Campaign. Finally don't forget that they produced the Centurion, a tank that was among the best for some 30 years.

What really condemns the Japanese and Italians in my eyes were their MGs. While I regard most nations' B11 MGs as being a bit overly harshly treated (though some allowance for possible limited ammo supply), the I/J MGs really deserve B11. Many of them required oiled cartridges to work well and what happens when you mix oil and grit? You get grinding paste! Go figure!

In addition, while their medium/heavy MTRs were in general very good, most I/J artillery were WW1 designs or even manufacture.

While we know that Japanese combatants had suicidal bravery, let us not forget Italian tank and artillery crews who often died beside their guns, little evidence of cowardice with them.
You forgot to mention the Valiant effort put into producing the Valiant (A38) tank.... ;)

It's tough to beat the whole "Here is a prototype AFV- you guys in tank school crawl through it and make a list of everything you see done wrong in its design, okay?" mentality. That does help it top the list of really bad design decisions... :)
 

Paul M. Weir

Forum Guru
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
8,706
Reaction score
3,732
Location
Dublin
First name
Paul
Country
llIreland
You forgot to mention the Valiant effort put into producing the Valiant (A38) tank.... ;)

It's tough to beat the whole "Here is a prototype AFV- you guys in tank school crawl through it and make a list of everything you see done wrong in its design, okay?" mentality. That does help it top the list of really bad design decisions... :)
Correct, I didn't mention the Valiant, but I implicitly included it in "While they did produce an amazing menagerie of lash-ups and trials vehicles,". Every country has had it's share of design disasters or bad misreading of tactical requirements.

British: Valiant, TOG I & II being the former : The Excelsior, Harry Hopkins, Tortoise and even the Black Prince the latter.
US: T1/M5 3" GMC : Heavy Tanks T-28 (aka T-95 GMC), M1, T29, T30, T32, T34, Assault Tank T14, T-48 GMC (aka SU-57). To some extent the whole T-20->T23 series and the M7 Medium (formerly Light) are a mix of both.
USSR: KV-7 & KV-7-2 TDs, with 1x76L+2x45L and 2x76L in a casemate, respectively : T-50, KV-1s, KV-13, T-43.
Germany: Elephant/Ferdinand : Luchs. The Germans had multiple projects/prototypes like the DW series that could fit both camps. Likely only beaten by the US.

I didn't include the British Mk VI light tank as it was better than the Pz I and Soviet T-37 & T-38, only slightly inferior in some respects to the Pz II and roughly equal to the US M1/M2 Light Tanks and the Soviet T-40. The Tetrarch was just barely in time to become an excellent light tank but the British had gone off light tanks by then.

The Soviet T-40/60/70/80 series were or quickly became marginal but could be made in factories that could not build anything heavier. Any tank is better than none.

The British, Germans and Soviets all pursued a great variety of unsuccessful designs pre-war, the Germans somewhat continued that during the war and the US tried the most number of unsuccessful varieties during wartime. During the war the Soviets and British did have a fair number of development projects but theirs' were more in the form of incremental improvements on previous lines like the British A13-A15-A24-A27L-A27M sequence that ended with the Comet and the Soviet KV-anything that ended with the IS series.

So while the Valiant might have been an utter design disaster, only 1 was produced, unlike the 1771 A-13 Mk III Covenantors. The US seemed to have the lead in producing ultimately dead ends, but I suppose could much better afford it.
 
Last edited:

witchbottles

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2010
Messages
9,100
Reaction score
2,254
Location
Rio Vista, CA
Country
llUnited States
The covenanter can be excused on a basis that any tank is better than no tank when you are losing (or at least, no yet winning) a war (same-same for the soviet T50/60/70 series). The Valiant can't meet that excuse, being designed at war's end, after it was obvious even to those in the UK that the Axis powers were going to lose the war, and they still designed a monstrosity :)
 

Paul M. Weir

Forum Guru
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
8,706
Reaction score
3,732
Location
Dublin
First name
Paul
Country
llIreland
I can only imagine the Black Prince and Valiant being effective as Dug In AFV'S.
While the Black Prince, like all new tanks, had its share of early faults, its real problem is that it was developed at roughly the same time as the Centurion. The Centurion I had the same armament and from the front roughly the same level of protection while being much, much more mobile. In addition the Centurion series had more scope for up armouring and gunning as its subsequent long career showed.

The Valiant was in a design league of it's own! Let's just leave it at that.
 

footsteps

Just visiting
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
7,379
Reaction score
3,532
Location
Ontario
Country
llCanada
Here's a different challenge for you, Paul.

What armour factors would you recommend/guess for this AFV, present at Kwajalein?

JA06a Type 3 Ka-Chi A.png
 

Paul M. Weir

Forum Guru
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
8,706
Reaction score
3,732
Location
Dublin
First name
Paul
Country
llIreland
The Type 3 Ka-Chi was developed from the Type 1 Chi-He and that has 6, [2]. What few references I have found don't contradict that. Note that is for the Ka-Chi without pontoons. With pontoons there would be a little extra protection and BFP use (8), [2] on the pontoon side and 6, [2] on the pontoon-less side. The frontal armour was 50mm and given that welding rather than riveting was widely used, rounding up from 5 to 6 seems quite reasonable. If 5 was a valid ASL AF then 5, [2] without and 6, [2] with pontoons would be the ideal. I don't think the pontoons would add enough to bring it to 8, but that's just my gut feeling.

In contrast the Type 2 Ka-Mi going from 2, [0] (without) to (3), [0] (with) is quite reasonable.

With pontoons: My = 6, [2], BFP's = (8), [2], but I'm definitely not going to throw a fit over it.
Without pontoons: My = 6, [2], BFP's = 6, [2]

BFP did the Type 3 in B&J with MP of 13 (without) and 112 (with).

I suspect both MMP's Type 2 Ka-Mi's and BFP's Type 3 Ka-Chi's MP are a little bit optimistic as they only had a power to weight ration of 9.3 and 8.4 HP/Ton respectively while the Type 95 Ha-Go had 16 HP/Ton giving 15 MP or the Type 97 Chi-Ha with 11.3 HP/Ton giving 14 MP.

Are you sure the Type 3 Ka-Chi was used in combat? All I have read suggests that only 19 were produced and kept in Japan. The Type 2 Ka-Mi did see combat, the Soviets captured one which is displayed at Kubinka and of course against the US.

http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/jap/type-3-ka-chi.php
 

witchbottles

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2010
Messages
9,100
Reaction score
2,254
Location
Rio Vista, CA
Country
llUnited States
1544451422878.png

An interesting way to mount a turret of a Sherman dontcha think? ;). I bet they never put this one in the field manuals.
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
"Naval Mine Recovery and Disposal Squad at Work, Tayport Members of the Mine Recovery and Disposal Squad examine a naval mine on the beach at Tayport, Scotland, before its removal with the aid of a Bren gun carrier being operated by Polish troops."

https://www.alamy.com/naval-mine-recovery-and-disposal-squad-at-work-tayport-members-of-the-mine-recovery-and-disposal-squad-examine-a-naval-mine-on-the-beach-at-tayport-scotland-before-its-removal-with-the-aid-of-a-bren-gun-carrier-being-operated-by-polish-troops-image178226385.html

JR
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,733
Reaction score
2,765
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
"Naval Mine Recovery and Disposal Squad at Work, Tayport Members of the Mine Recovery and Disposal Squad examine a naval mine on the beach at Tayport, Scotland, before its removal with the aid of a Bren gun carrier being operated by Polish troops."

https://www.alamy.com/naval-mine-recovery-and-disposal-squad-at-work-tayport-members-of-the-mine-recovery-and-disposal-squad-examine-a-naval-mine-on-the-beach-at-tayport-scotland-before-its-removal-with-the-aid-of-a-bren-gun-carrier-being-operated-by-polish-troops-image178226385.html

JR
That makes sense. Carriers were popular for all kinds of tasks. I have seen similar photos of my own regiment using them in the UK for pulling stumps for local farmers and land-owners.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top