Forgotten War first impressions, or Where is the searchlight scenario?

[klasmalmstrom]

Are all the HVSS suspension Shermans now low ground pressure, even the dozer?

Yes.

Is that backward adaptable to WW2 like the 81mm mortar?

There is no mention in the rules about it, unlike the specific mention for the 3-in. MTR.

I wonder though if the versions in Korea had wider tracks than those in WW2, since the UN Vehicle Note specifically mention wider tracks. Perhaps one of the designers will let us know more.

 

[Paul M. Weir]

Are all the HVSS suspension Shermans now low ground pressure, even the dozer? Is that backward adaptable to WW2 like the 81mm mortar?

I have not yet got FW, so that is a bit of a surprise.

I suppose it might be a reflection that all Korean era M4s are all HVSS, while in '44-'45 any {M4(105), M4A1(76)W, M4A2(L), M4A3(75)W, M4A3(76)W and M4A3(105)} that could possibly have HVSS could have either VVSS or HVSS with the proportion of HVSS only becoming significant only by the very end of '44. KW M4s also don't seem to to have been festooned with sandbag emplacements anything near as often as in WW2.

From memory of early design notes, the question of whether T-34 m43 and T-34/85 should have LGP like their earlier T-34 m40/41 siblings was pretty close and the designers choose caution and went with NGP.

Still, in US VN 16 they said HVSS was not enough for LGP and I would have preferred consistency. That inconsistency is not the first and won't be the last, especially when some factor is close to a tipping point.

Unless said otherwise I would not back fit any such changes to WW2. If you did really, really want to do that then only for '45 or a Bulge scenario at the earliest.

 

[Brian W]

KW M4s also don't seem to to have been festooned with sandbag emplacements anything near as often as in WW2.

I think that the M4 with the dozer attachment retaining LGP is surprising, as well as the POW FT sherman. If the HVSS were close to the tipping point, the extra weight of the dozer blade or the fuel for the FT might push it over. I am a bit surprised over the change and that it isn't backward compatible, too.

In my internet research, I have the T-34/85 having about .10 kg/cm2 difference (around .77 for the HVSS sherman and .85 for the T-34/85 and .96 for an old M4).

 

[Paul M. Weir]

I think that the M4 with the dozer attachment retaining LGP is surprising, as well as the POW FT sherman. If the HVSS were close to the tipping point, the extra weight of the dozer blade or the fuel for the FT might push it over. I am a bit surprised over the change and that it isn't backward compatible, too.

In my internet research, I have the T-34/85 having about .10 kg/cm2 difference (around .77 for the HVSS sherman and .85 for the T-34/85 and .96 for an old M4).

While I might understand the rationale behind the change, like you, I cast a very dubious eye over it.

As for the T-34 m40/41 vs T-34/85, while early German Barbarossa reports mention T-34s going where Pz III/IV would sink up to their belly plates, I have yet to see reports of T-34/85s floundering where earlier T-34 didn't. Working backward from your .85 kg/cm² and Ch Hs weights of 32 tonnes vs 28.5t for a T-34 m41 would give .85/32*28.5 = .76 kg/cm² which is almost identical to your HVSS M4, for what it's worth. One site gives a T-34/85 weight at 30.2t (vs 32t Ch H) and the T-34 m41 at 28.12t (vs 28.5t Ch H) which would suggests that the ASL T-34/85 might have been a bit over penalised.

Your first post on the matter has got me thinking about the whole question. Once you are well into a soft spot then average pressure (weight/track surface area) will obviously matter. But what about when you are moving into the spot. Most AFV have an imbalance of weight towards the front. This is due to heavier frontal armour and a hulking great big turret and gun in the front 50-60%. So the greatest GP will be forward. To my mind having wide tracks under that forward section should matter a bit more than the overall average. In addition GP will cause both compression of the underlying soil and some displacement to each side (IE earth squeezing out to each side). A wider track leaves a smaller fraction that can be squeezed sideways out from under the track compared to that which remains compressed under the track.

So while GP on it's own is a very good guide, I feel that wider tracks should in effect give an additional floatation boost when being modelled in ASL. But that is just my hunch and could be totally wrong. In the end the rules are what they are and there is little we can do about what is on paper.

 

[Brian W]

like you, I cast a very dubious eye over it.

I'm not so much dubious as I wish it were consistent. I would not have a problem having it retrofitted to WW2 (by SSR) if the vehicles were HVSS equipped for sure.

I've always felt the T-34 should have been LGP at least up to the /85, though--if not by calculation then by reputation. In ASL, the maneuverability of the (post m41) T-34 vis-a-vis the PzII, PzIII and PzIV (and their derivatives) is not really noticeable beyond the extra MPs of the T-34, while the Germans and Russians historically wrote that it was more significant. I, too, think that a heavier tank with wider tracks will be more maneuverable than a lighter tank with thinner tracks, given reasonable equality of ground pressure.

 

[Kenneth P. Katz]

Yes. No.

Vehicle speed is a function of terrain, power/weight, ground pressure, gearing, ground clearance, and steering. The ASL vehicle movement model is greatly simplified compared to reality. LGP is a way of portraying the mobility advantages that E8 Shermans had relative to the M26 and M46 in Korea, which is why they were retained even though otherwise inferior.

Are all the HVSS suspension Shermans now low ground pressure, even the dozer? Is that backward adaptable to WW2 like the 81mm mortar?

 

[Kenneth P. Katz]

The design decision had to do with representing the mobility advantages of the E8 Sherman in Korea, not a calculation of actual ground pressure. The alternative ways considered were rejected because they were too complicated or fiddly.

I think that the M4 with the dozer attachment retaining LGP is surprising, as well as the POW FT sherman. If the HVSS were close to the tipping point, the extra weight of the dozer blade or the fuel for the FT might push it over. I am a bit surprised over the change and that it isn't backward compatible, too.

In my internet research, I have the T-34/85 having about .10 kg/cm2 difference (around .77 for the HVSS sherman and .85 for the T-34/85 and .96 for an old M4).

 

[Mr Incredible]

Design for Effect.

 

[Brian W]

The design decision had to do with representing the mobility advantages of the E8 Sherman in Korea, not a calculation of actual ground pressure.

So, what were the mobility advantages of the E8 in Korea? I don't have the footnotes yet, so maybe they are in there?

 

[Brian W]

Design for Effect.

Yes, that's why I think the T-34 should have LGP, too, as I indicated here:

I've always felt the T-34 should have been LGP at least up to the /85, though--if not by calculation then by reputation.

 

[jrv]

So, what were the mobility advantages of the E8 in Korea? I don't have the footnotes yet, so maybe they are in there?

According to the vehicle note, it "was more reliable than the M26 Pershing, and its narrower width made it better-suited to the poor Korean roads and bridges than the heavier M26 and M46."

JR

 

[samwat]

I think Michael has very nicely summed up the two (to my mind, somewhat incompatible) ways that ASL uses "Elite" status. Looking at the 1950-53 PLA/CPV, I don't believe the "troops of an elite formation" model of "Elite" MMC fits at all, neither Western-style "elite" (i.e., Commandos, Rangers, Paras, Marines or whatever) nor Soviet-style "elite" (Guards), at least I've seen no evidence of PLA/CPV formations being given the kind of preferential treatment in manpower and equipment that that model implies. As for the "performed exceptionally well" type of "Elite" MMC, the bulk of such recognition in the PLA/CPV that I've seen have been titles awarded for "no surrender, no retreat" defensive actions, frequently at the company level (e.g., the 8th Coy, 563rd Regt, 188th Div, 63rd Corps, awarded the title "Kaesong Defence 8th Steel Company" for its role in defending Kaesong, action more akin to the 12th SS at Buron, perhaps?); Andy's suggestion of an SSR awarding the CPVA "1" MMC ML 8 in such actions might work, but Fanatic status, with its other benefits (as well as ML 8) seems a not unreasonable solution - and given the way the troops of the 188th Division went at those Centurions during the 8th Hussars' withdrawal from the Imjin, maybe the CPVA MMC in that scenario should all have been tagged as Fanatic!

Rick

Thanks, Rick and Andy--that was the kind of "enlightenment," both in terms of explanation and simple options, I was looking for.

 

[samwat]

Sam,

I am not "enlightened." But thanks for according me that honor in post 170. I was one of 5 designers and several knowledgeable contributors, Michael (esp. on Canadian forces and weapons and equipment, as you see from the credits) and Rick (ditto on CPVA. I am hoping Rick will write an article for the Journal on the CPVA and he has some lovely tables on Refitting of units that might appear there too) among those who posted above.
My view point, Rick answers on his own (and carries more weight), is that if one deemed a particular CPVA unit worth an 'upgrade' for a given engagement as a result of study of that unit in a HASL one would SSR something to the effect; "All CPVA 1st Line MMC have a Good Order ML level of 8."

Andy

No intent to take anything away from anyone else. Just that you and I had already mailed a bit back when I was on GS 18-24 months ago, so I saw your name and thought, there's my historian.

But are you experienced? Have you ever been experienced?

 

[Justiciar]

No intent to take anything away from anyone else. Just that you and I had already mailed a bit back when I was on GS 18-24 months ago, so I saw your name and thought, there's my historian.

But are you experienced? Have you ever been experienced?

No, I missed Jimmy's trip, not even a strawberry. Lt.Cmdr. Rick Mckown's (RCNR) Foreign Area of Expertise is the CPVA. He is the more qualified historian on the topic at hand.