OT: Between the Sherman and the Mk 14 torpedo

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

User avatar
tigercub
Posts: 2009
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2003 12:25 pm
Location: brisbane oz

RE: OT: Between the Sherman and the Mk 14 torpedo

Post by tigercub »

all true +1 chicken boy...give or take!
Image
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life
User avatar
Gunner98
Posts: 5880
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 12:49 am
Location: The Great White North!
Contact:

RE: OT: Between the Sherman and the Mk 14 torpedo

Post by Gunner98 »

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth
Tank for tank, man for man, gun for gun, General for General, the Germans were better

Meh.

1. Man for man? Not hardly. So many of their troops after mid-1943 were poorly trained Eastern European amalgums of conscripted soldiers that this degraded their capability.

2. Gun for gun? Not hardly. American artillery was par excellence, an unrivaled master of the battlefield post 1943. SP and truck-drawn organic transportation were a rarety to much of the Wehrmacht in this time frame. The German 88mm was a good versatile platform. The USAA 155mm "Long Tom" was unrivaled. The standard issue infantry rifle of the Wehrmacht degraded in quality over time too-the USAA M1 Garand was probably the best production rifle of the war.

"Gun for gun' the Germans were better? Nein.

3. General for General? The Germans had some superb leadership. They also had some pretty rubbish leadership too. When you consider that their uber-leader, some douchebag named "Hitler" was the last word on the military, that breaks any stalemate, IMO. Perhaps some individual Germans were better generals than their American counterparts. But I'll stick with the American leadership heirarchy, thank you very much. Thus, perhaps individual generals Germany gets the nod. But in terms of "Generalship" or "Leadership" or "Leadership Heirarchy", no such advantage.

I'll add some reinforcing fire here: The British 25lbr was probably the best field gun of the war, high rate of fire, consistent, stable, accurate and an excellent AT gun in a pinch. The only other gun that rivalled it was the US 105mm M101 howitzer because of its heavier shell weight, fuse flexibility and high angle. Many will argue that the Brit Arty C2 was the best in the war, US would argue that theirs was - both were far - far superior to the German (or the Russian) meaning that massive weights of fire were available anywhere on the battlefield at very short notice. The 'Long Tom" was an excellent General Support medium gun, as was the Brit 5.5in, but both were dwarfed in numbers by the Field guns and were often out of range when the feces hit the oscillator.

Gun for gun - not a chance - If you trot out the industrial anachronism of the Gustav and Dora - remember that together these two guns fired some 30[X(] shells in anger, not what I would call a good return on investment.

BG
Check out our novel, Northern Fury: H-Hour!: http://northernfury.us/
And our blog: http://northernfury.us/blog/post2/
Twitter: @NorthernFury94 or Facebook https://www.facebook.com/northernfury/
User avatar
Terminus
Posts: 39781
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:53 pm
Location: Denmark

RE: OT: Between the Sherman and the Mk 14 torpedo

Post by Terminus »

Most of them to little effect.
We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.
User avatar
johng5155
Posts: 53
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 12:11 am
Location: Kentucky

RE: OT: Between the Sherman and the Mk 14 torpedo

Post by johng5155 »

While the Sherman would not have fared well against the Soviet heavy tanks, I imagine the air corps would have been a great equalizer.
wdolson
Posts: 7648
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Near Portland, OR

RE: OT: Between the Sherman and the Mk 14 torpedo

Post by wdolson »

Assuming a late 1940s conventional war between the USSR and the US in Europe, the US would not have been taking out individual tanks on the battlefield as much as they would have cut off the supply chain from the air and then over run the immobilized tanks when they ran out of fuel.

The Russians had a very weak truck industry. The advances from 1943 on had Russian troops carried in American made trucks for the most part. By 1945 the Russian supply lines were longer than the Allied lines. Sweep aside the Red Air Force, then use the 9th and 8th AF to knock out the transportation network behind the lines. Medium and heavy bombers concentrating on the rail network with fighter bombers concentrating on taking out the trucks. Within a few months the Red Army would be starved for supplies and when the ground forces move, they would be able to encircle large portions of the Red Army in a sort of repeat of 1941. Though the local fighting would be far more intense. The Red Army had learned how to fight much better since then. The infantry fighting would be brutal, but most of the heavy equipment would be neutralized. An even larger portion of the population of Eastern Europe would die in the cross fire unfortunately.

The US could have done severe damage to the Red Army in the late 40s, but they would not have been any better at conquering the USSR than Germany was. To occupy a territory you need 20 troops per 1000 population at minimum. The western Allies didn't have enough troops to do the job. The Germans didn't either which is why the Russian partisans were so effective. The advantage of having a large country is that it is virtually impossible to occupy the country in modern warfare conditions.

Bill
WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer
Image
MDDgames
Posts: 90
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 11:52 am

RE: OT: Between the Sherman and the Mk 14 torpedo

Post by MDDgames »

There would have been differences however. Number 1, the Russian and East Europians didnt care for the Russians any more than they did the Germans. Or number 2, there would have been ready made on the spot reinforcements in using Pattons plan, which would have basically re-mobilized the German army.

I say or because I dont think it would have been likely to do both. Having the German army on our side would have nullified any advantage from number 1.
User avatar
cantona2
Posts: 3749
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 2:45 pm
Location: Gibraltar

RE: OT: Between the Sherman and the Mk 14 torpedo

Post by cantona2 »

ORIGINAL: Dili

Sherman was much inferior to T-34? I don't think so.

T-34 much superior to Sherman. especially T-24/85 model
1966 was a great year for English Football...Eric was born

User avatar
msieving1
Posts: 526
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 2:24 am
Location: Missouri

RE: OT: Between the Sherman and the Mk 14 torpedo

Post by msieving1 »

There was little wrong with the Mk 14 torpedo itself, which stayed in service into the 1970s. The problems were with the Mk 6 exploder. The Mk 6 combined a magnetic influence exploder, intended to explode the warhead under the target, with a contact exploder to detonated on contact with the side of the target. A reliable magnetic influence exploder was simply beyond the technological capability of the time, largely because variation of the earth's magnetic field were not well understood. The firing pins on the contact exploder was too weak, so it tended to deform on impact without setting off the detonator.

The problems were not detect before the war because of poor testing procedures. Because of the cost of the torpedo and exploder, no tests of production torpedos were done with live warhead. All tests were done with practice warheads, which were lighter than the live warhead. This led to depth settings being improperly calibrated, so the torpedo ran too deep with a live warhead.

-- Mark Sieving
User avatar
crsutton
Posts: 9590
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: OT: Between the Sherman and the Mk 14 torpedo

Post by crsutton »

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth
Tank for tank, man for man, gun for gun, General for General, the Germans were better

Meh.

1. Man for man? Not hardly. So many of their troops after mid-1943 were poorly trained Eastern European amalgums of conscripted soldiers that this degraded their capability.

2. Gun for gun? Not hardly. American artillery was par excellence, an unrivaled master of the battlefield post 1943. SP and truck-drawn organic transportation were a rarety to much of the Wehrmacht in this time frame. The German 88mm was a good versatile platform. The USAA 155mm "Long Tom" was unrivaled. The standard issue infantry rifle of the Wehrmacht degraded in quality over time too-the USAA M1 Garand was probably the best production rifle of the war.

"Gun for gun' the Germans were better? Nein.

3. General for General? The Germans had some superb leadership. They also had some pretty rubbish leadership too. When you consider that their uber-leader, some douchebag named "Hitler" was the last word on the military, that breaks any stalemate, IMO. Perhaps some individual Germans were better generals than their American counterparts. But I'll stick with the American leadership heirarchy, thank you very much. Thus, perhaps individual generals Germany gets the nod. But in terms of "Generalship" or "Leadership" or "Leadership Heirarchy", no such advantage.


+1 on this.

The myth of the German superman lives on....[8|]
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg
User avatar
crsutton
Posts: 9590
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: OT: Between the Sherman and the Mk 14 torpedo

Post by crsutton »

This may be the most schizophrenic thread that we have ever produced. What the hell was the original post anyways? [;)]


Well since you asked. Here are the two beast weapons produced in the entire war. What really amazes me is that the US was making enough of those 50 cal. MGs to have the ability to start slapping them onto duce and a half trucks. I can just visualize the tens of thousands of German POWs marching one way down the autobahn while lines of these trucks passed them going the other way. And, visualize some sorry assed German soldier looking up and seeing a supply truck go by with a 50 cal MG on it. And thinking to himself "What the f**k did we get ourselves into?"

BTW, the .50 caliber MG is about to turn 100 years old in this decade. It has not really changed that much in all this time. I would have to put it down as one of the most amazing weapons of the modern era.

Image
Attachments
duceandahalf.jpg
duceandahalf.jpg (16.52 KiB) Viewed 94 times
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg
User avatar
Lecivius
Posts: 4845
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 12:53 am
Location: Denver

RE: OT: Between the Sherman and the Mk 14 torpedo

Post by Lecivius »

The MK 14 torpedo fiasco should have been a major head hunting expedition. But the exploder was so secret, they did not want details to become public knowledge. Conspiracy? Who knows. The follow on contact exploder was also defective. Bad press followed by material teething problems.

The Sherman, on the other hand, was a marvel for the Americans. And before you pontificate on how idiotic such a statement sounds, note the specifications mentioned above. It was easy to move. It was easy to support. It was easy to mass produce (very, very important consideration). As for the specs, fer crying out loud, look at what was available to allied designers as "cutting edge" just as the war started!




Image
Attachments
M2tankengland.gif
M2tankengland.gif (105.51 KiB) Viewed 94 times
If it ain't broke, don't fix it!
wdolson
Posts: 7648
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Near Portland, OR

RE: OT: Between the Sherman and the Mk 14 torpedo

Post by wdolson »

ORIGINAL: crsutton

This may be the most schizophrenic thread that we have ever produced. What the hell was the original post anyways? [;)]


Well since you asked. Here are the two beast weapons produced in the entire war. What really amazes me is that the US was making enough of those 50 cal. MGs to have the ability to start slapping them onto duce and a half trucks. I can just visualize the tens of thousands of German POWs marching one way down the autobahn while lines of these trucks passed them going the other way. And, visualize some sorry assed German soldier looking up and seeing a supply truck go by with a 50 cal MG on it. And thinking to himself "What the f**k did we get ourselves into?"

BTW, the .50 caliber MG is about to turn 100 years old in this decade. It has not really changed that much in all this time. I would have to put it down as one of the most amazing weapons of the modern era.

Image

In high school my German teacher had been a Wehrmacht soldier in WW II. He didn't talk much about the war, but one time he did mention he knew Germany was finished when during the Battle of the Ardennes they were marching past abandoned Jeep after abandoned Jeep all with 4 brand new tires. He said getting a bald spare for any vehicle in the German army was virtually impossible at that point. He knew right then that any army that could abandon equipment in such good shape was one that was winning.

John Keegan, the British historian, was 12 when the war ended. He said he knew the Allies were going to win when he was walking down a country road before D-Day and a convoy of American soldiers went down the road in trucks. As they went by they pelted him with candy bars. He ended up with so much candy he had to take off his shirt and turn it into a make shift bag. He had seen the state of British soldiers and knew they didn't have so much extra of anything they could afford to throw it at some random school kid walking down the road. An army as rich as the Americans in luxuries like candy was going to win.

Even in 1942 there were enough .50 calibers around to start mounting a bunch of them on bombers in the 5th AF. The package guns on the side of the fuselage became standard factory equipment on US medium bombers, but they were originally added by Pappy Gunn in his experimental field modification center to give B-25s and A-20s more punch.

Bill
WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer
Image
User avatar
Feltan
Posts: 1173
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 6:47 am
Location: Kansas

RE: OT: Between the Sherman and the Mk 14 torpedo

Post by Feltan »

Hehehe,

My German teacher was a young teenage girl in Germany in 1945, probably about 13-14 or so.

She related a story. The Americans were coming, and she was upset. She stated she had strong nationalistic feelings for Germany, and that it seemed impossible that anyone could beat the German army. She waited with some friends for the arrival of the Americans.

She walked out of her friend's house when she heard vehicles going down the road. Standing on the sidewalk right in front of the house was (as she described him) a Negro about 7 feet tall with several hand grenades and bandoliers strapped across his chest and carrying a machine gun. She fainted.

When she came to, she was surrounded by several black G.I.'s alternatively trying to give her chewing gum or putting a lit cigarette in her mouth.

Regards,
Feltan
t001001001
Posts: 326
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:06 pm

RE: OT: Between the Sherman and the Mk 14 torpedo

Post by t001001001 »

Regarding the Sherman, she was designed while thinking very carefully about production and logistics. Ultimately her design proved adequate. It's hard to argue w/ success.
t001001001
Posts: 326
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:06 pm

RE: OT: Between the Sherman and the Mk 14 torpedo

Post by t001001001 »

Regarding Tiger/Panther tanks, all you need to know is in "Kelly's Heroes" [8D]

The gunner/commander think it's awesome. The engineer thinks it's a piece of junk.
panzer cat
Posts: 165
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2011 10:28 am
Location: occupied Virginia

RE: OT: Between the Sherman and the Mk 14 torpedo

Post by panzer cat »

Were all forgetting the A-bomb, we had it the Russians didn't. We win.
User avatar
Apollo11
Posts: 24809
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Zagreb, Croatia
Contact:

RE: OT: Between the Sherman and the Mk 14 torpedo

Post by Apollo11 »

Hi all,
ORIGINAL: panzer cat

Were all forgetting the A-bomb, we had it the Russians didn't. We win.

I don't know how many A-Bombs were ready in the summer of 1945 but I doubt that there were many...


The hypothetical West vs. East war in the Europe 1945 would be conventional one! [;)]



Leo "Apollo11"
Image

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE
User avatar
Gunner98
Posts: 5880
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 12:49 am
Location: The Great White North!
Contact:

RE: OT: Between the Sherman and the Mk 14 torpedo

Post by Gunner98 »

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

The hypothetical West vs. East war in the Europe 1945 would be conventional one! [;)]


Leo "Apollo11"

At least for the first few months but after 2-3 years it would become more Nuclear, by then the Russians would probably have the bomb as well![X(] Unless sanity clicked in I think it would have seen the early 50's before it came to some sort of conclusion! We would have a completely different problem set a half century later….

B
Check out our novel, Northern Fury: H-Hour!: http://northernfury.us/
And our blog: http://northernfury.us/blog/post2/
Twitter: @NorthernFury94 or Facebook https://www.facebook.com/northernfury/
User avatar
Icedawg
Posts: 1613
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2006 8:55 pm
Location: Upstate New York

RE: OT: Between the Sherman and the Mk 14 torpedo

Post by Icedawg »

ORIGINAL: Gunner98

This discussion reminds me of a film - The Pentagon Wars - while the movie has its faults it a black comedy about bringing the Bradley IFV into production, and its apparently not too far from the truth. Military wants, stakeholder investment and bureaucratic inertia combine to crate a bow wave of problems which become insurmountable - end result is a faulty product.

Sounds like confirmation of Ike's farewell address where he warned us of "undue influence of the Military Industrial Complex". People with financial ties to the companies making armaments should not have influence over Pentagon orders and/or foreign policy decisions. Today we see generals retire from the military, to take jobs with companies making weapons systems. In some cases, they move from there to cabinet positions or other posts in the government. Serious conflicts of interest.
User avatar
catwhoorg
Posts: 686
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 3:47 pm
Location: Uk expat lving near Atlanta

RE: OT: Between the Sherman and the Mk 14 torpedo

Post by catwhoorg »

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,
ORIGINAL: panzer cat

Were all forgetting the A-bomb, we had it the Russians didn't. We win.

I don't know how many A-Bombs were ready in the summer of 1945 but I doubt that there were many...


The hypothetical West vs. East war in the Europe 1945 would be conventional one! [;)]



Leo "Apollo11"

2-3 /month was the expected production
Image
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”