OT - Odd WW2 Facts

[HansBolter]

Damn plungers are never at hand when you need them....

Picture included just in case it has a different name in other places:

[wdolson]

The Germans did tend to over-engineer things. You know your design is too complex when you need a trained technician to flush the toilet.

My SO's father was a forensic crash investigator during WW II. His job was to figure out why planes crashed so causes could be reduced or eliminated down the line. His specialty was engines.

He also worked on a project reverse engineering some German crashed aircraft. He was amazed at the extra detail they went to like chrome plating every screw. He said they probably added a hundred pounds or more in chrome.

A general rule of thumb in most engineering is the last 10% of quality is going to take 90% of the effort to achieve. American engineering tended to aimed for the 90% that was easy to achieve and left the rest aside.

Another example of German over perfection was in a recent article in WW II magazine comparing tank production between Germany, the USSR and the US. The US settled on some tank designs early, made sure quality was fairly good, then mass produced them as quickly as possible. The Russian way was what the article called "calculated shabbiness". Tanks rarely survived for more than a few months and a few hundred miles of driving time, so the Russians economized on the running gear parts. They were only designed to survive about 1500 miles of driving distance before they were worn out. They also weren't too picky about good welds. As long as they didn't leak and weren't a vector for allowing explosive charges into the tank, they didn't care how bad they were.

Then there were the Germans who built tanks to the highest specifications up until about mid-1944. They had legions of shop workers and constantly fiddled with the design. Each tank under construction could be a little different as improvements were added piece meal during construction.

So I'm not surprised the Germans had such a complex toilet on a sub that it contributed to its loss.

Bill

[aspqrz02]

ISTR a movie about the US Submarine service where there were similar problems with high pressure toilet flushing ... and I am fairly certain that there were some fairly specific steps (and dire warnings for not following them EXACTLY) on several of the submarines I saw at various places in the US on my trips there in 2010 and 2014.

Maybe not complicated enough to need Toilet Flushing Techs, but evidently fairly complex even so.

Phil

[aspqrz02]

See ...

http://firehead.net/2009/08/submarine-t ... tructions/

... fairly complex!

Phil

[rockmedic109]

I can see now. An older gentleman and his grand son sitting on a swinging chair in front of a house looking over the small but well kept family farm.

"Grandpa? What did you do in the war?"

"I flushed toilets."

[wdolson]

Toilet flushing mate 2nd class

Bill

[LargeSlowTarget]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

The Germans did tend to over-engineer things. You know your design is too complex when you need a trained technician to flush the toilet.

In a German Wargaming / Naval History forum I once saw a thread with some jingoist boasting about superior quality of German ships, taking the CA Prinz Eugen as an example. Apparently, after the German crew left the Prinz, the US crew taking over had problems keeping the boilers running, most ceased functioning. The stupid reasoning in the thread was that the Americans were unable to cope with superior German Engineering.

BS of course. The German cruiser's high-pressure power plant was so complex that it took a bunch of highly trained specialists just to keep it running (German cruisers and DDs with high-pressure power plants were plagued with propulsion problems throughout the war). US power plants had at least equal performance with much higher reliability and being operated by crews being predominantly "civilians in uniform" - undoubtly the better design.

[Skyros]

ORIGINAL: aspqrz

See ...

http://firehead.net/2009/08/submarine-t ... tructions/

... fairly complex!

Phil

Kinda reminds of the scene in 2001 when he has to use the zero G toilet.

[wdolson]

The Germans tended to design Ferrari type weapons.

When in top running condition, a Ferrari can probably blow the doors off almost any car on the road. However, don't buy one if you want to get to work on time every day. A plain old Chevy or Toyota will spend a heck of a lot less time in the shop and is a lot easier to keep running.

The US had the concept of "good enough". It permeated most of American weapons of WW II. The US had some weapons that were well beyond the competition, but most were in the ballpark, but not the best. Especially the weapons used in large quantities like infantry weapons.

I hadn't read about the German cruisers, but I'm not surprised. In a head to head on a perfect day, a German heavy cruiser probably was better than a treaty cruiser and probably better than a Baltimore class. However the American cruisers kept going through a marathon run of the fast carriers in 1944/45. I doubt any German ship could have taken the demands the fast carriers put on their escorts and stood up to the wear and tear.

Even the Farragut class destroyers which were getting a bit elderly at the beginning of the war and were really too small for extended use in the Pacific kept up with the carriers. The older destroyers were usually put on the outermost layer of the screen with the thought they were the most expendable. This required those destroyers to spend more time at high speed keeping up with the zigs and zags of the formation. When a carrier is doing 20 knots in the center of the formation makes a small turn, the ships on the outside edge of the turn have to cover significantly more ocean than the rest of the formation to keep position.

Not long after VJ Day all the surviving Farraguts were brought together and were among the first ships scrapped post war. The last two years of the war wore them out beyond easy repair. But they kept going when they needed to.

Bill

[warspite1]

The problems with the German heavy cruisers in particular was well known - just one example was after Bismarck suffered her loss of oil due to a combination of PoW (initial hit) and Swordfish (dislodging the repairs) Operation Rheinubung was going to be continued with Prinz Eugen alone. But she immediately hit engine problems and had to return home.

It was when the Germans copied the "simple" firing mechanism the British used for their torpedoes (from capturing HMS Seal) that the problems with German torpedoes began to ease.

wdolson's car analogy is pretty good I think. Let's face it, German engineering can be pretty special - but in times of war - when its all about numbers, you would rather have a lot of reliable Hondas than a good looking but utterly fragile Maserati.

EDIT: actually that's not true... in times of war I would rather have something with a great big 88mm barrel attached to it [:)]

[wdolson]

The US 90mm was not quite as good as the 88mm, but it was not a bad gun in the caliber. The 88 got it's fearsome reputation because it came into action as a stand alone AT gun at a time when most armies had tank guns of 50mm or less.

A lot of veteran stories refer to any German gun as an 88. Against the high altitude bombers of the 8th AF, the primary gun doing most of the damage was the 128mm flak. The 88mm didn't have the altitude to be effective above 20,000 ft. A lot of infantry stories I've read refer to being shelled by German 88mm artillery. Occasionally high velocity gun were pressed into the artillery role in emergencies, but probably the most common artillery the Germans used was the 80mm mortar. For field howitzers they fielded similar calibers to most other nations, with the 75mm being pretty common.

Against armor in a land battle, the 88mm was a bit better than other guns of similar calibers (such as the US 90mm and the Russian 85mm), but the Germans fielded the Tiger in September 1942. The first 85mm Su-85s didn't appear until about a year later. After the initial appearance of the Tiger, the Russians were sweating the introduction of massed produced Tigers, but fortunately for the Allies the Germans were slow to build them and they were in chronically short supply.

The Russian 85mm became commonplace by late 1944, but there were never enough American 90s. The M-36 and Pershing were the only vehicles to be fielded with them during the war, and the Pershing didn't show up until the end.

It's been a while since I looked at the ballistic numbers for the 88mm, 90mm, and 85mm. If I recall correctly, in hitting power per mm of bore, the 88 was probably the best, but only by a couple of percent. The 85mm was the worst of the three from my recollections, but it was also a little bit smaller shell too. The 88 did actually earn a good reputation, but I think history has also embellished its reputation a little too.

I have wondered what the war in Northern Europe would have been like if the US had foreseen the arms race going on in the East and realized they would need a Tiger killer ASAP. The Pershing lineage began in the spring of 1942, but progressed slowly. If there had been more push to have a 90mm armed tank fielded ASAP, development work could have advanced possibly a year earlier than it did. Then if the US had just abandoned the light tank and retooled the factory for Pershings, they may have been available in some numbers (though probably not huge numbers) by the Battle of the Ardennes at least.

The Israelis also proved post war that a 90mm could be mounted on a Sherman chassis, though I think it stretched the design to the limits.

Bill

[afspret]

Fact 1 states the highest ranking American killed was LtGen McNair, when in fact there were three others who were killed during the war. One was LtGen Simon Buckner, who commanded the 10th Army, was killed by enemy shell fire on Okinawa on 18 June 1945. LtGen Frank Andrews, who was Commander, US Forces ETO, was killed in a plane crash while on an inspection tour of Iceland in May 1943 and LtGen Millard Harmon, Commander, Army Air Forces POA, was declared dead one year after his plane disappeared over the Pacific, somewhere between Kwajalein & Hawaii, in Feb 1945.

Maybe it would be better to state LtGen Buckner was the highest ranking American killed as a result of enemy fire and LtGen McNair as a result of friendly fire. LtGens Andrews & Harmon could be listed as well, as they died while serving in combat zones, but not a result of enemy, or friendly, fire.

[Big B]

Not to disagree strongly, but the US 90mm Gun M3, the common gun used on all M-36 Tank Destroyers and M-26 Pershing's, actually had better performance all round than the German kwk36 88mm L/56, by far and away the most common incarnation of the famous German '88'.

There is a good website here that tabulates all of it's info from all the best known books concerning all things WW2 Armor related.
This site makes for informed comparisons of all WW2 armor and guns, and I highly recommend anyone to peruse it at their leisure.

The variety of German 88 that was more powerful than the US 90mm was the kwk43 L/71 found on the Tiger II and a few other late war machines. However this superiority is only valid for common APCBC ammo; using tungsten APCR rounds - the US 90 M3 even tops this magnificent weapon.

A lot of mythology has been enshrined concerning what was what in WW2, but the truth is most contemporary tanks were all quite capable of destroying anything on the battlefield (Yes - even 75mm M3 Gun M-4's penetrating and destroying Tigers). What mattered by far the most to any battlefield outcome was situation of circumstances of any engagement.

Just my 2c

B

ORIGINAL: wdolson

The US 90mm was not quite as good as the 88mm, but it was not a bad gun in the caliber. The 88 got it's fearsome reputation because it came into action as a stand alone AT gun at a time when most armies had tank guns of 50mm or less.

A lot of veteran stories refer to any German gun as an 88. Against the high altitude bombers of the 8th AF, the primary gun doing most of the damage was the 128mm flak. The 88mm didn't have the altitude to be effective above 20,000 ft. A lot of infantry stories I've read refer to being shelled by German 88mm artillery. Occasionally high velocity gun were pressed into the artillery role in emergencies, but probably the most common artillery the Germans used was the 80mm mortar. For field howitzers they fielded similar calibers to most other nations, with the 75mm being pretty common.

Against armor in a land battle, the 88mm was a bit better than other guns of similar calibers (such as the US 90mm and the Russian 85mm), but the Germans fielded the Tiger in September 1942. The first 85mm Su-85s didn't appear until about a year later. After the initial appearance of the Tiger, the Russians were sweating the introduction of massed produced Tigers, but fortunately for the Allies the Germans were slow to build them and they were in chronically short supply.

The Russian 85mm became commonplace by late 1944, but there were never enough American 90s. The M-36 and Pershing were the only vehicles to be fielded with them during the war, and the Pershing didn't show up until the end.

It's been a while since I looked at the ballistic numbers for the 88mm, 90mm, and 85mm. If I recall correctly, in hitting power per mm of bore, the 88 was probably the best, but only by a couple of percent. The 85mm was the worst of the three from my recollections, but it was also a little bit smaller shell too. The 88 did actually earn a good reputation, but I think history has also embellished its reputation a little too.

I have wondered what the war in Northern Europe would have been like if the US had foreseen the arms race going on in the East and realized they would need a Tiger killer ASAP. The Pershing lineage began in the spring of 1942, but progressed slowly. If there had been more push to have a 90mm armed tank fielded ASAP, development work could have advanced possibly a year earlier than it did. Then if the US had just abandoned the light tank and retooled the factory for Pershings, they may have been available in some numbers (though probably not huge numbers) by the Battle of the Ardennes at least.

The Israelis also proved post war that a 90mm could be mounted on a Sherman chassis, though I think it stretched the design to the limits.

Bill

[wdolson]

I'm no expert on guns and the article I read was some time ago. I'll defer to your wisdom. In any case, the 90mm was not available in large enough numbers.

The tanker's ideal was to be able to engage the enemy at a range greater than the gun on the enemy's tank. These sort of engagements usually only happened in open ground common to the Russian steppes and North Africa and few other places. Most tank guns in use by 1944 could punch through a Tiger's armor at suicidal ranges. It was the suicidal range people tried to avoid.

As far as unlikely kills, there was a Spitfire in the Southern France campaign that caught a fleeing Tiger and knocked it out with just 20mm cannon fire. Nobody believed him until the Allies overran the burnt out tank the following day and someone from the Resistance had painted "Viva la Spitfire!" on the side of the turret. Apparently some rounds bounced off the road and went into the belly. It was a freak hit.

Bill

[Rising-Sun]

A lot of interesting stuffs in here. Keep bringing in the bacons

[Symon]

With respect, BigB, I'll disagree strongly. I was Artillery. I knew the 90mm M3 very well. I understand ballistics, and using ballistics, the 90mm M3 was superior to the German FLaK 18/36/37.

The 90/M3 was designed as an AA weapon. As it moved into the AP role, it retained its fundamental ballistic properties. Certain 'rounds' were designed to take advantage of the muzzle energy, but it was not a specific AT weapon, despite the fact it was mounted on tanks. What the tanks got was the base 90/M3 with a full boogie AP load-out.

The Germans dinked with the 88mm unmercifally. They made hi-velocity versions with chambers for larger and larger cartridges, and longer barrels, and different rifling twists. They made so many that they couldn't make any one of them in an efficient manner. So just which 88mm is one supposed to compare the 90/M3 to?

The Soviet 85mm/D44/48 was an AT gun, yes, but on a tank it was a DP gun. You must understand that Sov philosophy (like many others) was to gun and load their vehicles with anti bunker/emplacement rounds. Super hi-velocity doesn't work in this environment. The Sovs, like the Americans, went with moderate velocity weapons that would kill emplacements with HE to let the assault troops through.

Neither the 90/M3 nor the 85/D48 was considered a hi-v AT weapon. It worked out that they were ok, but they weren't designed that way. You really need to understand what a gun was designed to do before making comparisons.

BTW, I've made more fish tacos, in the past couple years, than the Germans made hi-v AT 88s. So what does that say?

[Big B]

[;)]

ORIGINAL: Symon

With respect, BigB, I'll disagree strongly. I was Artillery. I knew the 90mm M3 very well. I understand ballistics, and using ballistics, the 90mm M3 was superior to the German FLaK 18/36/37.

The 90/M3 was designed as an AA weapon. As it moved into the AP role, it retained its fundamental ballistic properties. Certain 'rounds' were designed to take advantage of the muzzle energy, but it was not a specific AT weapon, despite the fact it was mounted on tanks. What the tanks got was the base 90/M3 with a full boogie AP load-out.

The Germans dinked with the 88mm unmercifally. They made hi-velocity versions with chambers for larger and larger cartridges, and longer barrels, and different rifling twists. They made so many that they couldn't make any one of them in an efficient manner. So just which 88mm is one supposed to compare the 90/M3 to?

The Soviet 85mm/D44/48 was an AT gun, yes, but on a tank it was a DP gun. You must understand that Sov philosophy (like many others) was to gun and load their vehicles with anti bunker/emplacement rounds. Super hi-velocity doesn't work in this environment. The Sovs, like the Americans, went with moderate velocity weapons that would kill emplacements with HE to let the assault troops through.

Neither the 90/M3 nor the 85/D48 was considered a hi-v AT weapon. It worked out that they were ok, but they weren't designed that way. You really need to understand what a gun was designed to do before making comparisons.

BTW, I've made more fish tacos, in the past couple years, than the Germans made hi-v AT 88s. So what does that say?

[danlongman]

Just remarking on the Prinz Eugen. The vessel ended up in the hands of USN after the war after being handed over to the RN by the Germans.
She was towed to the Pacific and survived a nuclear explosion (test). German engineering indeed! The ship was irradiated and badly damaged by the nuke
and eventually capsized at Kwajalein Atoll after being towed there. Here is a video of divers visiting the wreck:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mm36x4T2Zbc

Rather interesting.

[wdolson]

I don't know how close the Prinz Eugen was to the blast. I believe the Saratoga took two nukes to sink her. The Independence survived a nuke too. There are pictures of the damage from the 1st nuke.

Bill

[danlongman]

There is a map on this video near the end of the positioning of the ships for Operation Crossroads
2 bombs were detonated.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIyh6wdqCH0