Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Unfortunately all the accounts by dragons have been rejected by Western scholars.
GS makes an excellent point about Columbus. The dispute was over the size of the world not its shape. And Columbus was wrong, but lucked into another continent. Thus his use of the word Indians for native Americans, which stuck. I often wonder if Americans in the 19th century had any idea at all what the term Indian really meant
Quote:
In reality, characteristics of both tanks are very similar
Both the T-34 76 and the US Sherman were undergunned, thinly armored, and (in the later case) prone to catching on fire. Their advantage was in numbers, which is an area the Top Tens on the Military Channel give a good deal of attention to. By 1944 The T-34 85 was displacing the T-34 76 and was a better tank than the Sherman.
Both the T-34 76 and the US Sherman were undergunned, thinly armored, and (in the later case) prone to catching on fire. Their advantage was in numbers, which is an area the Top Tens on the Military Channel give a good deal of attention to. By 1944 The T-34 85 was displacing the T-34 76 and was a better tank than the Sherman.
The Sherman too was up-gunned in 1944 from 75mm to 76mm which had better armor penetration than the Soviet 85mm (with a somewhat poorer HE round). Many 76mm Shermans were used by the Soviets on the Eastern front in some of their guards tank armies and were very well liked by the crews.
As far as being undergunned and thinly armored - this is a complex topic because what sometimes gets lost - and this can be another topic of this thread - is that tanks are not (or at least were not in WW2) primarily designed to fight other tanks. So one has to keep sight what tanks were designed to do on the battlefield according to the military doctrines of the respective armies. Killing enemy tanks was primarily the task of specialized tank destroyers and other anti-tank artillery. Soviets, in addition to the T-34 also had heavy tanks (like KV series early in the war and the IS series late in the war).
Anyway, T-34 and M4 were both medium tanks, comparable to each other and German medium tanks. They were at a disadvantage if they encountered German heavy tanks such as the Tiger and Panther (I know Germans classified the Panther as medium but it was heavy in all but the name).
Its commonly accepted that drinking went way up during prohibition. But historical studies have shown that the reverse is true. People simply paid more attention to what drinking was done, since it was now illegal. The physical quantity consumed went down, consumption of fruit juices went up......
As drinking alcohol was illegal, I wonder how anyone in that era gathered statistics about alcohol consumption.
Historians make guesses based on various indirect evidence.
Quote:
The Sherman too was up-gunned in 1944 from 75mm to 76mm which had better armor penetration than the Soviet 85mm
What do you base this assumption on - that the armor penetration of the 76mm was better than the 85?
Only in the US military were tanks not supposed to fight tanks (tank destroyers were). Other nationalities such as the Russians and Germans did not follow this doctrine - which was a poor one. Recognizing this the US eliminated tank destroyers after the war.
This shows the penetration of Russian tank guns (I assume the number associated with the CP is mm of armor).
Specification and Armor Penetration of the Soviet Tank Guns - THE RUSSIAN BATTLEFIELD (http://www.battlefield.ru/en/tank-armament/98-supplemental-information/355-specification-penetration-soviet-tank-guns.html - broken link)
This is for the sherman. With the exception of rare APCR (which Russian tanks had as well, but I assume is not considered in the above column) the 76.2 had weaker penetration than the 85mm
USA Guns 75mm and 76mm calibre (http://gva.freeweb.hu/weapons/usa_guns5.html - broken link)
It might be noted this is all a guess, being based on tests at ordinance labs. Different labs came up with entirely different results.
What do you base this assumption on - that the armor penetration of the 76mm was better than the 85?
Not an assumption. I'll try to dig something up but I've seen this in several places. IIRC, Soviets tested both guns side by side at their proving grounds and came to the conclusion that the American 76mm was better.
Only in the US military were tanks not supposed to fight tanks (tank destroyers were). Other nationalities such as the Russians and Germans did not follow this doctrine - which was a poor one. Recognizing this the US eliminated tank destroyers after the war.
Still, all sides had tank destroyers during the war (I think the Wehrmacht actually had more destroyers than tanks after a certain point since they were cheaper to make).
Quote:
Originally Posted by noetsi
This shows the penetration of Russian tank guns (I assume the number associated with the CP is mm of armor).
Specification and Armor Penetration of the Soviet Tank Guns - THE RUSSIAN BATTLEFIELD (http://www.battlefield.ru/en/tank-armament/98-supplemental-information/355-specification-penetration-soviet-tank-guns.html - broken link)
This is for the sherman. With the exception of rare APCR (which Russian tanks had as well, but I assume is not considered in the above column) the 76.2 had weaker penetration than the 85mm
USA Guns 75mm and 76mm calibre (http://gva.freeweb.hu/weapons/usa_guns5.html - broken link)
It might be noted this is all a guess, being based on tests at ordinance labs. Different labs came up with entirely different results.
Thanks - I'm a bit busy at the moment but I'll look this up in more detail. We'll probably need a new thread.
We already had one on it, but its not a bad idea as its not on the first page. Russian tank crews like the sherman for reasons that had little to do with its gun or armor. It had a three man turrent compared to the T-34 76 two man turret and it was far roomier. Russian tanks were small and uncomfortable - which proved exhauting in combat. It was the sacrafice made for a smaller silouette. The down side for the Americans was that there tanks were really big, and thus far easier to see and hit.
The Germans went to tank destroyers and assault guns from 43 on because they were cheaper and smaller - thus being more effective in a hull down situation and more difficult to see. As combat switched to defense this was a signficant advantage while the advantages of the tanks (like a turret) were primarily offensive in nature.
April 18th, 1775...Major Pitcairn leads a British light infantry company onto the green at Lexington. He finds a line of armed rebels blocking the road to Concord and orders them to disperse. Captain John Parker, commanding the Minutemen on the green reacts with defiance. He orders his men to stand their ground and the famous.."If they mean to have war, let it begin here." Someone, no one knows who, fired a shot which led to two volley discharges from the British regulars. Eight colonials died and ten were wounded. The Revolutionary War was underway
Among the above, what is truest is that no one does know who fired the first shot, there were several conflicting claims among eyewitnesses.
As for the rest....the "Battle" of Lexington was actually entirely unintentional, neither side had any notion of fighting there.
Some background is required to understand. Beginning in January of 1775, General Gates, commander of the British forces in Boston, started sending out company, regiment and brigade sized patrols into the countryside which was completely controlled by the rebels. These probes were designed to familiarize the British officers with the surrounding geography, and provoke a response from the militia which would allow the Brits to get an idea of the size of the opposition.
Provoke they did. The Minutemen got in quite a bit of practice in their rapid assembly tactics, the system of alarming the countryside was perfected and each time the Brits marched out, they were shadowed by by an armed force which would eventually start to outnumber them. Both sides avoided direct confrontations, all the encounters ended with the British marching back to Boston. It became something of a game.
And that....one more episode in the game, was what Captain Parker had in mind when he assembled his 38 Minutemen on Lexington Green. He had no notion at all of defying or obstructing the British march, his force turned out just as an army of observers who would snarl a bit as the crown's might marched by. To that end, his group was formed up so as to block the Bedford Road, not the road to Concord which he expected the Brits to be using.
Pitcairn had been dispatched with a flying column to rush ahead to Concord and evaluate the reports coming in that the colonials had assembled a huge army there. Pitcairn chose to use the Bedford Road and it was very much to Parker and his men's surprise when 180 British regulars suddenly appeared before them.
Being a sane man, Parker never told his 38 men to stand their ground against 180 muskets, he ordered them to disperse. They had just begun breaking up and drifting away when the shot was fired by the unknown party. A British volley, and then another was delivered in response. A few of the Minutemen tried to return the fire, most had sensibly fled. British casualties were one wounded man and two bullets in Pitcairn's horse.
According to Thomas Fleming in "Liberty", Parker's now immortal words about letting the war begin here, did not originate as part of the story until the mid 1820's and since then have wormed it way into tradition, so much so that no one questions how little sense it would have made for 38 Minutemen to have tried to shoot it out with 180 British regulars, especially since they had not been looking for a fight in the first place.
I always wondered why a small group of colonials would stand up to crack British troops when there was nothing at Lexington to defend.
There are a lot of expressions in the Revolutionary war in dispute. Who (if anyone) said "Don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes." at Bunker Hill (really Breed Hill) is subject to doubt. Patrick Henry's "Give me liberty or give me death" may have been borrowed in part from a well known play of the time, regardless it was not written down until 1816 and there was signficant doubt even when spoken what was said. No notes appear to have been taken.
I doubt George Washington actually stood up in the boat crossing the Deleware. It was an era of myth making.
For more than two centuries its been assumed that GW putting guns on the dorchester heights forced the British out of Boston. Which is true in part, as the commander decided the position was untenable. But it is now known it was a bluff. GW had no gunpowder for the guns.
A lot of people believe Henry the VIII killed his six wifes. In fact two (Catherine of Aragorn and Jane Seymour died of natural causes, two others Anne of Cleves and Catherine Paar outlived him
Its commonly accepted that drinking went way up during prohibition. But historical studies have shown that the reverse is true. People simply paid more attention to what drinking was done, since it was now illegal. The physical quantity consumed went down, consumption of fruit juices went up.
Knights in plate armor who were knocked down could not get back up. This is a refain in many novels of the period. But its not accurate. People were known to swim in plate male and certainly could stand up in it (fighting in something so heavy you could not stand in it if knocked down would have been very stupid militarily).
The early Spanish explorers spread horses across the New World. For example its often said that Coronado spread horses across the South West US. The only problem with that is that studies of his exploration show all the horses were male....or neutered. So its a bit unlikely they breed after escaping.
Guns were far more effective than bows. Well...maybe not. The british long bow could fire faster and further (and do similar damage) than any gun until the 1840's used by the military. It was just a lot more expensive and time consuming to develop long bowmen and few learned it. Guns were cheaper and took far less training.
North Africa is a sandy desert. Another myth of movies. Its actually largely a stony waste - true sand is rare in much of the area. (Amusingly the British actually shipped sand for sand bags to Egypt in WWI; but that might have been really stupid logistics rather than a lack of sand).
Post me some links please, not that I don't believe you but I LOVVVEEE history so want to learn more.
Also, the gun thing, might have been specific timing... when shot in large volleys, both were decently effective, but having a gun ready to go, with a well-trained marksman could be very lethal..
The British in South Africa fought against them (as a colony) they issued camo (khaki) to their men, but snipers would kill somewhere around 30-50 a day, I think it was...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
