Best Tank of WW2?????? - Page 5

Drucius · #**101** (**permalink**) May 12th, 2008, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tomcat

I know this my argument is that they shouldn't be shoot and scoot tactics but to actually have the capability to engage and actually win engagments with medium and in some cases heavy tanks.

The point being that tanks that have the ability to take on medium and heavy tanks tend to be other medium and heavy tanks. Which aren't really suitable for recon work.

Tomcat · #**102** (**permalink**) May 12th, 2008, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drucius

The point being that tanks that have the ability to take on medium and heavy tanks tend to be other medium and heavy tanks. Which aren't really suitable for recon work.

I know this but lessons learned throughout the war showed that any type of military hardware or unit must be able to take on anything that they face, the STuG showed this, the lack of anti infantry guns on tanks showed this, the lacking idea of type 1 tank take on the infantry and type 2 tank take on the tanks failed miserably. The same goes for light tanks, why should a light tank just be able to take on other light vehicles? Why could it not take on harder targets without compromising to much speed, just like the German Puma.

Infantry units are supplied with both MG's, anti infantry weapons, and AT weapons, yes lacking compared to actuall units designed to be specifically for those roles, such as sappers and engineers but in terms of simple combat, why not a bigger gun?

Every tank should be able to do the bare minimum of any tank, that way if you for some reason run out of meduim tanks your light tanks at least can fill in their role until reinforcements show up, it shows capability and not needing one unit only for one role. Have you never heard the saying "never be irreplacable" It means that if you cant be replaced then you cant get a raise or be moved. In terms of tanks, if a medium tank cant be replaced because the light tanks arnt up to the job then what happens when all your medium tanks are knocked out?

Drucius · #**103** (**permalink**) May 12th, 2008, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tomcat

Why could it not take on harder targets without compromising to much speed, just like the German Puma.

AFAIR, the Puma was equipped with a 50mm Kwk 38, which by the time it was introduced would struggle against many Allied machines, especially on the Eastern front. There's no doubt that confronted by an Allied armoured force, the Puma would have to use its speed to withdraw and then report back, just like any other recon unit. The fact is that a light tank or armoured car just isn't a suitable vehicle for a heavy gun. Put an 88 in a Puma and it would whizz backwards with the recoil everytime it was fired. Not to mention squishing the turret crew. The turret was too small for anything bigger.

Za Rodinu · #**104** (**permalink**) May 12th, 2008, 01:43 PM

Yawn.

skunk works · #**105** (**permalink**) May 12th, 2008, 02:05 PM

One model of Sdkfz 234 had a long (longer than short) 75 mm gun. ?

Joe · #**106** (**permalink**) May 12th, 2008, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drucius

Light tanks tended to be used for recon and would withdraw in great haste if they encountered any resistance greater than a 4 year-old with a popgun. They weren't equipped to engage hard targets.

Phew, at least now I know I am not on my own...

Quote:

Put an 88 in a Puma and it would whizz backwards with the recoil everytime it was fired. Not to mention squishing the turret crew. The turret was too small for anything bigger.

I can imagine that now!

Quote:

One model of Sdkfz 234 had a long (longer than short) 75 mm gun. ?

Yes, but it wasn't in a turret. I can't the name for it, but just think of it like a larger version of the MG in the halftracks (the German ones BTW), sorta that type of mounting.

And Tomcat, a bit of arguing does a guy some good once in a while!

Za Rodinu · #**107** (**permalink**) May 12th, 2008, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skunk works

One model of Sdkfz 234 had a long (longer than short) 75 mm gun. ?

Yes, the Sdkfz234/4. A 7.5cm PaK40 was dropped into a turretless hull. Only a few were made, they were deployed IIRC 2 to a squiadron at most, as integral AT support to the squadron, no need to make it into a superweapon because it wasn't one.

Tomcat · #**108** (**permalink**) May 12th, 2008, 08:16 PM

The puma with the 88 would be pretty funny

I don't mean that the light tanks should be something of a rambo tank (being able to destroy everthing in its path) or anything, just that it should be more capable in a more diverse role thats all.

This more alterntive I think, and I am just throwing this one out there.
The British Crusader tanks are fast and manovuerable could you not downgade some aromour plating and use them as recon tanks, thus you get you fast medium tank with a bit of a punch, would that worK?

Za Rodinu · #**109** (**permalink**) May 12th, 2008, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tomcat

I know this my argument is that they shouldn't be shoot and scoot tactics but to actually have the capability to engage and actually win engagments with medium and in some cases heavy tanks.

Have you gone nuts? Reconnaissance vehicles (that's what light tanks are) are made to carry a few pairs of eyes and ears under a bit of bullet proof only armour, nothing else. The guns are there only to provide protection against other vehicles of the same ilk, which may be encounterd along your regular line of screen work.

All you have to do is find the enemy and bug out to report, fighting is for the big guys only.

http://www.louisdimarco.com/mecz_cavalry_doctrine.htm

Za Rodinu · #**110** (**permalink**) May 12th, 2008, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tomcat

The puma with the 88 would be pretty funny

I don't mean that the light tanks should be something of a rambo tank (being able to destroy everthing in its path) or anything, just that it should be more capable in a more diverse role thats all.

This more alterntive I think, and I am just throwing this one out there.
The British Crusader tanks are fast and manovuerable could you not downgade some aromour plating and use them as recon tanks, thus you get you fast medium tank with a bit of a punch, would that worK?

Trust the Brits for thinking ahead of you!

AEC Armoured Car - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Can't you guys trust the Allies for doingsomething right once in a while?

Tomcat · #**111** (**permalink**) May 13th, 2008, 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Za Rodinu

Have you gone nuts? Reconnaissance vehicles (that's what light tanks are) are made to carry a few pairs of eyes and ears under a bit of bullet proof only armour, nothing else. The guns are there only to provide protection against other vehicles of the same ilk, which may be encounterd along your regular line of screen work.

All you have to do is find the enemy and bug out to report, fighting is for the big guys only.

Mechanized Cavalry Doctrine

Fair enough mate, I just think that they should be more diverse and able to do more then run, that is all.

I know about the AEC cars but I was referring more along the lines of a fast medium tank but obviously the wieght would always be an issue.

Za Rodinu · #**112** (**permalink**) May 13th, 2008, 09:38 AM

Of course they do more than run! It's all in the link I provided. Cavalry does more than scout and run, they do screen and counter-screen, flank protection, recconnaissance in force (you need some punch for this - remember the Brit heavy '44-45 recce squadron was made up of Cromwells ), route security, convoy escort, etc, etc.

The armoured car recipe (Brit, German, Sov, etc) was fine as so much reconnaissance work was road bound, especially in W.Eur., as the need for scouting was along practical logistical routes (i.e. roads) that tracked vehicles would be an excessive luxury. Hence the M-8s, Foxes, Humbers, SdKfz 222/232/234, Several BAs, etc.

Tomcat · #**113** (**permalink**) May 13th, 2008, 11:33 AM

I did read it, it was actually very interesting and in depth.

But it does back up a few of my points

Quote:

North Africa demonstrated that reconnaissance units required the capability to attack and defend as a natural extension of their reconnaissance and security missions.

Quote:

The M3 Stuart light tank was the mainstay of not only the reconnaissance forces but also a large portion of the armored units as well (each armored regiment had an entire battalion of light tanks). As indicated earlier, at the time of its development it was a fairly capable vehicle, but by the time of its employment by US forces in North Africa light tanks had been supplanted by mediums as the predominant force on the armored battlefield. It was quick, agile, and reliable, but its 37-mm gun was ineffective against the frontal armor of medium tanks.(50) Because of this, the Stuart's performance in combat was marginal. The Stuart did very well against light armored vehicles, machine guns, and infantry - the enemies most frequently encountered by the reconnaissance units. Thus, although North Africa demonstrated that the 37-mm gun was inadequate against medium tanks, the consequence of this shortcoming was not yet fully recognized, and the Stuart's utility continued to be rated fairly high by the Army.

Quote:

It is apparent that weak reconnaissance can get nowhere on its mission against this much stronger opposition. On the other hand, on many occasions it will be overrun and destroyed before it can obtain any information of value. Also, on occasions in the desert, it was not even possible for weak reconnaissance to pause only enough to send in valuable information that had been collect, and it was not unusual to see light, long distance reconnaissance piling back just ahead of a strong attack.

Quote:

The light tank was one of the cavalry squadron's greatest weaknesses, primarily because of the poor performance of the 37-mm gun. Because the armored car mounted the same gun, the tank contributed very little to the capability of the squadron. The problems experienced by the 14th Cavalry's ineffective counterattacks in the Ardennes demonstrates the difficulty the M5 light tanks had fulfilling their assigned doctrinal role of supporting the reconnaissance troops.

Quote:

his mission demonstrates that the lessons learned in North Africa regarding combat and reconnaissance still apply. Even with the enemy disengaging and withdrawing, the squadron was required to fight for information. The purely combat elements of the squadron, Troops E and F, were critical to the mission's success. Likewise, the reconnaissance troops also had to fight to conduct reconnaissance and took over 50 prisoners of war during the period.(78) The terrain and enemy was such that by-passing was usually impractical. Finally, the mission demonstrated the truism that reconnaissance is rarely pure, but at different times incorporates aspects of defense, offense, and security. The mission required an attack to secure the bridge heads over the river Sinope to start the mission. It also ended in attacks to determine the nature of the defense in the vicinity of Gonneville, and then defense to continue to secure the right flank of the 4th Infantry Division.

It does mention in the article about the use of 75mm self propelled guns being used but mainly the light M3 and M5 tanks with the 37mm gun, which from all I read was detested due to the size of its gun. SO how can you reconiotire with an M5 and a couple of jeeps while transmitting information if you are being hit by medium tanks? That doctrine seemed to display the same views.

Do you happen to have a site dedicated to the British and German doctrines in armoured Recon?

Za Rodinu · #**114** (**permalink**) May 13th, 2008, 12:18 PM

You are speaking of a 1942-3 North African context, where the 37mm gun was still viable against German and Italian armour, and where the Light Tank was still a part of the Armored Regiment. However they were already obsolescent and later on the 37mm gun tanks etc were relegated to reconnaissance as being unable to survive in the battlefield. See your own 2nd quote.

Right now I'm not finding anything worthwhile, maybe later.

CrazyD · #**115** (**permalink**) May 13th, 2008, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Za Rodinu

You are speaking of a 1942-3 North African context, where the 37mm gun was still viable against German and Italian armour, and where the Light Tank was still a part of the Armored Regiment.

And even then, a 37mm would be viable *at best*.

Biggest problem with smaller tanks and recon vehicles in WW2 was simply space/weight. With the tech we have today, it's pretty viable to make a recon vehicle that can adapt and fight in many circumstances. Anti-tank missiles, composite armor, electronics, etc.
WW2- one could only fit so much in terms of arms/armor/mechanical components. If your base is only a few tons, no chance of incorporating enough "stuff" to fight heavier tanks.

Za Rodinu · #**116** (**permalink**) May 13th, 2008, 01:19 PM

Yes, theoretically today a Jeep with a TOW II firing post can catch a tank, but beware of the general tactical context or you'll enjoy a short life

When the Brits got their Honeys in 1942 these were fine battle tanks, with their 37mm guns and 30mm front armour, as compared to their Crusaders, etc. But times do change

Drucius · #**117** (**permalink**) May 13th, 2008, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tomcat

This more alterntive I think, and I am just throwing this one out there.
The British Crusader tanks are fast and manovuerable could you not downgade some aromour plating and use them as recon tanks, thus you get you fast medium tank with a bit of a punch, would that worK?

If you took any armour off a Cru it would be practically see-through and vulnerable to anything bigger than a Pak 36. Wouldn't last long in a firefight. Not that they did in the first place. Plus, the punch wouldn't be that great, the Cru III being the only version with a decent maingun, and there were only 150 (or so) of those.

Tomcat · #**118** (**permalink**) May 13th, 2008, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Za Rodinu

You are speaking of a 1942-3 North African context, where the 37mm gun was still viable against German and Italian armour, and where the Light Tank was still a part of the Armored Regiment. However they were already obsolescent and later on the 37mm gun tanks etc were relegated to reconnaissance as being unable to survive in the battlefield. See your own 2nd quote.

Right now I'm not finding anything worthwhile, maybe later.

Quote:

The light tank was one of the cavalry squadron's greatest weaknesses, primarily because of the poor performance of the 37-mm gun. Because the armored car mounted the same gun, the tank contributed very little to the capability of the squadron. The problems experienced by the 14th Cavalry's ineffective counterattacks in the Ardennes demonstrates the difficulty the M5 light tanks had fulfilling their assigned doctrinal role of supporting the reconnaissance troops.

In this quote they used the M5 in the ardennes during the German offensive, and still provided to be lacking.

and this one is about the the battle for cherbourg during the invasion of normandy.

Quote:

his mission demonstrates that the lessons learned in North Africa regarding combat and reconnaissance still apply. Even with the enemy disengaging and withdrawing, the squadron was required to fight for information. The purely combat elements of the squadron, Troops E and F, were critical to the mission's success. Likewise, the reconnaissance troops also had to fight to conduct reconnaissance and took over 50 prisoners of war during the period.(78) The terrain and enemy was such that by-passing was usually impractical. Finally, the mission demonstrated the truism that reconnaissance is rarely pure, but at different times incorporates aspects of defense, offense, and security. The mission required an attack to secure the bridge heads over the river Sinope to start the mission. It also ended in attacks to determine the nature of the defense in the vicinity of Gonneville, and then defense to continue to secure the right flank of the 4th Infantry Division.

But I found nothing that indicated that they changed the light tanks role, only they they could be supported by assualt guns on occasion. I might go through it a