Reliability in ww2 (war, general, Europeans, biggest)

[krsheely]

Reading previous threads in the history forum as I've become fond of doing I came accross this point made in a thread about the sherman m4.


Originally posted by Grandstander speaking on the topic of general reliabilty of American Equipment

Quote:
Originally Posted by j_k_k
In most of WWII for us, it wasn't that we had the best equipment. Often we did not, technically speaking. But when I look back to WWII equipment systems, what strikes me most is the utter reliability of so many of them. ..

Resonse by Grandstander....

A portion of that reliability springs from the fact that the American army of the time was chockablock with mechanics. So many of the draftees were young men who grew up taking cars apart and putting them back together, so many had backgrounds as machinists of one kind or another, that there was seldom a time when there wasn't someone on the spot who knew what to do to get the vehicle or weapon functioning again.

As good as the Soviet T-34 was, if one of them broke down during an advance, it was abandoned and left to be towed back to some central location for repairs. The peasant farmers and laborers who composed the majority of the Red Army, had no capcity for such tasks. The Germans had more mechanics, but again, their armies were composed largely of agragrian types, especially among their allied forces from Hungary, Rumania etc. Not very many of these people grew up owning cars.

If a Sherman broke down, half the guys in the platoon would be competing with one another to do the fix up job.

Another aspect of the reliabilty was the extraordinary logistical ability of the Allies to get spare parts to the front and keep them moving forward with the advances.

So, the American military equipment came with something of a defacto warranty which their opponents could not come close to matching. """


What do you guys think about this?

Also Credit was given to American Soldiers for the ingenuity in battle. Giving credit to Americans ability to improvise against better trained and more disciplined troops.

[noetsi]

I have never heard it stated that Russian T-34's were simply abandoned to be set back to the rear area. While its true the US had more people with some knowledge of mechanics than Russia, I doubt very much that they fixed tanks very often.

Two things led to greater reliability of US vechicles. First, they were designed to be mechanically reliable, this was a central emphasis of US wartime industry. In contrast German and Russian industry stressed firepower and armor over reliability. Second, German and Russian tanks (particularly the former) were heavy, with tempermental engines that often stalled. When a problem did occur they often lacked transport capable of moving them (this was especially true of tanks such as the Tiger which had a single vechicle capable of moving it).

The down side was that US tanks were totally outclassed by their opponents in combat. The US felt that it took ten Shermans to equal one Tiger in Normandy.

[krsheely]

That is kind of what i was wondering, I mean I know mechanics and people like that love to fix things but how believable is it that in the middle of combat some infantryman comes up and tinkers with a tank and gets it running again. I mean how does one even fix a tank while getting shot at with 88's and every other crazy thing one can think of.

Also on an aside, reading this same previous thread a respected member made the comment that people thought "Americans hid behind their artillery" what does this mean, was ours better than anyone else? What exactly is artillery?

[Chango]

I was under the impression that American car culture didn't really take off until AFTER WWII.

But having restored a Willey's MB in the past I can vouch for the simplicity and easy-to-maintain nature of it. MBs are so simple that you can literally tear the whole thing apart on your driveway with basic hand tools and reassemble it all on a Saturday afternoon without killer mechanic skills.

I think the K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple Stupid) principle was very important to wartime design, and it served the country well.

[noetsi]

Simple is relative. A tank, even one simpler than average is still not something most could fix. Particularly since US tanks that were broke tended to have holes in various important parts of machinery and burn damage.

[NJGOAT]

I don't know whether or not the average American had that much more mechanical knowledge than other nations troops, but they certainly had more exposure to cars than most Europeans. While it is true "car culture" really didn't come into it's own until after the war, cars were still very ubiquitous in America during the war. Not to mention that during the Depression I'm sure the average guy who may have had a car became pretty adept at fixing it.

What I do know is that the American manufacturing base was significantly more advanced than those in Europe. What I mean by that is that American factories were far better at mass producing items especillay those, like vehicles, that required strict tolerances.

From my understanding, the German war industry was very boutique and not as well controlled as the in the U.S. This led to vast differences in production tolerances and a difficulty in making field repairs. The U.S. was very good in making sure that for instance, the drive gear on a Sherman M4 was exactly the same drive gear on EVERY Sherman M4 regardless of where it, or the replacement part was produced. This allowed the U.S. to repair vehicles far more efficiently and ensure that parts were available.

In contrast the Germans often struggled with extremely complex machinery and out of tolerance replacement parts requiring extensive work to make the parts work and repair the vehicles. This was especially true in the larger lower production tanks like the Tiger and Panther variants and less so in smaller equipment like half tracks and Kubelwagens.

The Soviets relied on mass production, but they were unable to match U.S. quality, which caused issues when it came to field service. However, the Russians were able to produce vast numbers of tanks that overcame any of their shortcomings. So, even if they couldn't fix a broken or damaged T-34 there were 3 more ready to take it's place. Russians often struggled in the later years, not with a lack of equipment, but a lack of crews to man the equipment they had.

***

Artillery refers to howitzers and other guns that provide indirect fire support. Think of a war movie when the commander calls on the phone and the scene cuts to guys ramming shells into a howitzer and then it cuts back and explosions are taking out the enemy. That's artillery.

The Americans were a highly mechanized force and were able to rapidly deploy their artillery to support forward units. The Americans also had excellent communication and control systems that made their artillery very effective. Therefore, American commanders were hesitant to advance without artillery support being available and were more likely to halt an advance and call in artillery support to take out a position then they were to simply assault it. This led to criticism from some allied commanders that the Americans were too reliant on their artillery.

[Irishtom29]

I get the impression from my father that working class people at the time of the War were very adept at keeping cars running and doing some pretty major repairs on their own. Many still are.

[TravisW]

If you can fix a truck, you can keep supply lines flowing. A certain percentage of breakdowns will happen during battle, but if you're covering a lot of miles, I can guarantee that a ton of stupid stuff goes wrong just driving down the road, like dead batteries, clogged fuel filters, bad ignition points, etc. This is the kind of stuff that a guy who grew up tinkering with Model Ts, Model As, and Farmall tractors would have a pretty good chance of fixing. The issue isn't always fixing a tank in the middle of a battle, it's getting the thing to the battle.

70+ years ago, manufacturers of automobiles and machinery were under the belief that their customers were actually competent enough to fix a lot of things that could go wrong on their products. If you look at a lot of the owners manuals from those days and compare them to today, it's a pretty astonishing difference.

[Mathguy]

Originally Posted by noetsi

The down side was that US tanks were totally outclassed by their opponents in combat. The US felt that it took ten Shermans to equal one Tiger in Normandy.

Yes, but the terrain helped the heavier german tanks a lot.
Once the americans were able to break out of the bocage and manuever they fared better. Imagine how those early fast\light soviet tanks would have done in western france instead of the open plains of the east. Same scenario.

Second, the americans had to design for amphibious landings and so a medium tank like the Sherman was a heckuva lot lighter than the late war heavies.

I think the legend of the Tiger etc. is bolstered by all the avalon hill and other WW2 games where tanks are quantified by armor and gun for the most part for simplification. Break downs, extremely slow turret traversing and other related issues are ignored completely where in reality they were big issues.

[NJGOAT]

Originally Posted by Mathguy

Yes, but the terrain helped the heavier german tanks a lot.
Once the americans were able to break out of the bocage and manuever they fared better. Imagine how those early fast\light soviet tanks would have done in western france instead of the open plains of the east. Same scenario.

Second, the americans had to design for amphibious landings and so a medium tank like the Sherman was a heckuva lot lighter than the late war heavies.

I think the legend of the Tiger etc. is bolstered by all the avalon hill and other WW2 games where tanks are quantified by armor and gun for the most part for simplification. Break downs, extremely slow turret traversing and other related issues are ignored completely where in reality they were big issues.

The biggest reason for American tanks to be designed the way they were, was simply that's what the tactics dictated.

The Americans believed that basic tanks (like the Sherman) were there for infantry support and to exploit breakthroughs. Look at the design, average armor, above average speed, low velocity gun designed for firing HE rounds. The Sherman was all about support and exploit, not tank to tank warfare.

The U.S. believed that tanks shouldn't be engaged by other tanks, but by tank destroyers (e.g. Wolverine and Hellcat). They designed extremly light, but fast "gun chassis" that mounted a high velocity gun for engaging armor. The idea was that the tank destroyers could rapidly close on enemy armor, fire and quickly escape.

American tanks weren't designed the way they were because the U.S. couldn't build heavy tanks. They were designed the way they were to support U.S. tactics.

Designs changed throughout the war to improve the Shermans survivability and tank to tank effectiveness, but the basic "idea" of the tank to American commanders never changed. One good example of this was the British modification of the Sherman into the "Firefly". The British 25 pounder anti-tank gun was fantastic and they found a way to mount it in a Shermans turret. It gave them enough firepower to take on PZIV's head to head and confidently attack Panthers and Tigers in groups at normal combat ranges. The British offered the gun to the U.S. and the general staff refused. The issue? The 25 pounder wasn't good at firing low velocity HE rounds that were needed in the infantry support role.