Comments by "Hyok Kim" (@hyokkim7726) on "The M1 Abrams Tank Needs to Chill Out" video.
-
3
-
@450Garrett So how do you explain the Soviet breakthrough against the Germans, who had far safer, more ergonomic, tanks? Why, the Red Army simply had had more of them, and keep coming!
Or the German vs Americans. Overall, the Germans had better tanks, better crew, but the Americans had the numbers. No if, no buts about it. The Germans joked Sherman was a cigarette lighter. Yea, but more and more Shermans coming in. American crew had many times panic moments whenever they dealt with Tigers, and very often demoralized when they had to use damaged, but retrieved and repaired, but not cleaned Shermans from the remains of the former crews.
Still, Shermans won the war. Yes, the numbers, and cost effectiveness still count.
3
-
@Mr_Wheels99 ''However, often the terrain of the Western Front could partially negate it with the terrain generally being more hilly.''
Indeed, still given enough time, the German tank crew had already enough understanding of the local terrain to account for that. That's why even after D-day, with the exception of 'Rampage', Americans had a very tough going, but during 'Rampage', when the Germans had not had enough time since the Shermans were breaking through in massive numbers, they were on the run.
''While Wittman has a very impressive record, there is a difference in the tank he operated and a sherman. For one, the Sherman was made for infantry support, which it very much excelled at. The fact that it's gun was also good at taking out most of the tanks fielded by the Germans while it's frontal armor was good at defending from their guns was great.''
Good against Panzer III and IVs but Tiger, and Panthers?
Btw. Rommel's 'favorite tanks' were neither Panthers or Tigers, but III and IVs! Rommel liked his tanks moving fast and furious, the breakthrough. Rommel was not a tank fetishist, but a hard practical user.
III and IVs were known for their durability/reliability in tough conditions, unlike Panthers and Tigers which could be 'temperamental'.
''But it is not a Tiger. A tiger is a breakthrough tank for taking out enemy tanks and hardened positions, so there is an obvious difference in firepower, armor, and doctrine.''
Here, I don't want to sound pedantic. I used to believe myself Tiger was a breakthrough tank myself, and it is still a very popular conception, but when I had read some more 'specialist' literature on Tigers, technically, it was not a breakthrough tank, but actually its opposite, it was an anti-breakthrough tank. Basically, Tiger was a 'fire brigade' tank to prevent the enemy breakthrough, by defending the gap, with its thick armors, and long range, powerful guns/optics, behind the front line, but situated at/near the likely enemy breakthrough spots.
''This is why American Tank Destroyer crews are the only ones comparable in tank kill counts to Wittman- their vehicle was made and was used for taking out tanks.''
I think TDs were some of the most under-rated military formation in WW2. Even the venerable Moran doesn't have much respect: He claims they worked for the time, but stated it was an interesting failure!
His reasoning was if they were really successful in WW2, then why hadn't nations keep using them?
This is a flawed logic. By that kind of reasoning, turbo prop engines for most of the planes in WW2 were also interesting failures, since most nations after WW2 eventually gave up on TDs?
Btw. ROC/Taiwan kept using TDs, and might still have TDs in reserve. I think TDs in the roles it's designed, that is 'fire brigade' to move fast, in enough numbers, to take out the enemy tanks at both long, and short range ( in an ambush scenario) to prevent the breakthrough, still has a role to play, even today.
''I think you might have misunderstood what I said about German tanks being shit. I agree with you, the German doctrine and how they tactically used them was superior! What I was talking about was their doctrine specifically for designing them. Quality over quantity can work, but if you don't have the ability to mass produce then your quality shouldn't be overly complex.''
I agree. Personally, I think the Germans should have standardized their panzers on Hetzers, from the get go, as early as mid 30s! And streamlined the production line 24/7, they would have had enough panzers to take Moscow early (despite all the operational/strategic mistakes they had made), and win the war by a knock out.
You can read an outstanding book by Stolfi, on this.
'Hitlers' Panzers East', he had written a few great books on the German use of panzers.
I'm almost done with '7th Panzer division' as well, another outstanding work by Stolfi. He's not like most military historians, or whom I think are mostly shills, not true intellectuals. He's very objective, through, but still as concise as possible, no 'fillers'.
''I also didn't understand what you were saying about it also, so sorry about that. Happy to see you are a Sherman fan! Definitely my favorite tank of the war!''
Oh, yeah. As far as tanks designed to win wars, not just battles, Sherman was the king. But the German industry no matter what kind of tanks produced was not in a position to win a war of attrition with the Allies.
Which was why I think the Germans should have standardized on Hetzers, technically a TD, not a tank.
In fact, I will go even further. the Germans should have standardized on open topped version of modular Hetzers, the closed topped version being used for winter, and rainy season, but everything else the same, so the economy of scale could still be maintained.
In fact, the Germans should have produced an 'universal' chassis/hull to take an advantage of economy of scale to full effect.
1. An open topped modular chassis/hull, with the closed top being produced/used for winter/rainy season for TD/Assault artillery roles.
2. An open topped modular chassis/hull, being utilized for assault mortars, with the standard infantry mortars, and potential breech loading direct fire mortars developed asap. I know French eventually came up with that concept, but the Germans did have the technology to build direct fire breech loading mortars even back in 30s.
Open topped version would have saved the money/time/weight as well as giving better bail out time, ventilation, situational awareness, better ground travelability, especially through mud, and lower CGs, which would come in real handy, in rugged, uneven terrains, both speed, and freedom of movement, easier/faster repair/maintenance.
3. An open topped version, but unarmed being used as ammunition/fuel carriers/field hospitals/troop carriers/mobile command post/artillery tower. (in good weather).
4. Horizontally opposed gas engines used in general, for even lower CGs, and extra protection from mines, but front mounted V6 diesel engine used for top covered version for winter, for better protection/warmth for the crew, but also to accommodate extra long range gun placed behind the back, for even weight distribution.
... and ax all other tanks, SPGs! This would have given the Germans the economy of scale early to make the difference, and this was on the Wehrmacht, not Hitler. They screwed up.
2
-
1
-
05:42 One big advantage of wire guided missile is jam proof against PPS. As PPS becomes more prolific, this will become more important. One AT tactic that I envision is to use net like projectile to immobilize APS of the latest MBTs, and use wire guided AT missile to attack the tank.
Edit: One contraception I envision is to use hybrid WGM. An aimer, and a local remote control firing unit, could be wired, or wireless. The aimer will aim the optical control unit, and once the sight acquired, will send the signal to the remote controlled firing unit, once the AT missile is fired, the aimer will continue to aim to the remote control unit which will continue to guide the missile through the aimer, but enough distance away from the location the missile was fired.
11:19 How the Germans were so successful with Panzer III and IV against the vaunted T-34.
11:35 It is, except in mountainous terrain: Like they, up in the mountains, ounce equals a pound. Why ROK went K2 and K2 is the contender for Norway, along with the latest Leopard. M1 is not even in the running. Btw. K2 already beat Leopard in Oman, when it came to tactical mobility, the news I hear is it is doing even better in Norway.
13:26 Why MUM-T is the future.
M1 is still a great tank. I think it is the best tank design for U.S. or any country that doesn't have to import oil, and especially if allowed to use uranium depleted armor, mostly flat terrain, and the technological capacity to build/maintain gas turbine engines. ROK still uses local production, and sensor upgraded version, but diesel instead of gas turbine, K1 as the backbone of the armored units, K2 being used as screening/probing tip, and T-80 used as a recon in force element.
Why the countries that have adopted it are primarily OPEC members and/or at least have flat terrain, with the exception of ROC.
1
-
@ricardoospina5970 ''Well that's exactly how Stugna P works the targeting person can be 50 meters away.''
Well, the Ukrainians seem to be in the right direction. Other idea would be installing some kind of INS sensor on the missile itself, with the target being 'locked' by the operator, and once 'locked', the missile will become a sort of 'cruise' missile, adjusting based on the target moving, without operator input, kinda like Nlaw.
Laser beam riding on the other hand, can be neutralized by PPS.
''Well the Germans where successful with Panzer 1 and Panzer II against the French tanks which where clearly superior, and there where more French tanks.''
Indeed, but the Germans had superior tactical doctrine, and superior leadership.
Just like during Barbarossa. Also, most French tanks were not radio equipped.
1
-
1
-
@Thekilleroftanks ''also aces and well combat vetted troops/crew allows combat experience that you cant get from a non experience trainer to be passed onto the rookies.''
Indeed, that's why I am such a proponent of MUM-T. It is really a force multiplier for real.
Training time minimal, morale factor no issues, discipline no issues, either. Imagine just one seasoned vet commanding 9 droids, which are easily replaceable, especially in urban combat vet, or recon.
''its the reason US fighter pilots as the war went on started having a better average compared to germany or japan.''
That is true, however, that is not the most importance/decisive factors why U.S. won. It had to do with absolutely abysmal grand strategy of Axis, not that Allied strategy was brilliant: it wasn't, it simply was less dumb than the Axis.
''(then again japan is weird seeing their navy doctrine involved training their fighter pilots so hard and so long they themselves become aces before seeing combat.''
That's a Japanese thing, an artisan/craftsmen mentality, instead of mass production mentality. They care about individual quality, not the effect of total. Germans were more or less the same.
''..which fun fact becomes a problem when you can both cant get the fuel to fly and the parts to fly. to give them that time.)''
Japanese military had been brainwashed into 'warrior' worship mentality. Anything not having to do with direct combat was to be despised. This explains why they so much neglected logistics, and grand strategy.
They equated winning a battle, and the battle right in front of them is as important as winning the war, NOT!
Sometimes one has to be willing to lose a few battles to win the war. Not the typical Japanese military mentality during WW2, and prior.
Unfortunately, for U.S. today, I see this blind worship of 'warrior' mentality thing over the importance of logistics, and grand strategy, becoming more prevalent.
1
-
1
-
1
-
No, you got it backward. If Japan had been a near peer, then certainly Germany had been a lot more near peer than Japan, Allied top leadership had themselves agreed to defeat Germany first, as the lynch pin of the Axis. Japanese had higher morale than any other nations in WW2, what good did it do for them in the end? I understand it has always been very fashionable to attribute to morale as the most important, not just among academics, and the military crap, but also in popular media, but as I studied facts, it simply does not pass the muster.
1
-
@appleholo2336 I don't know about that. He's very critical of M1 gas turbine, for its fuel inefficiency. This is a non issue for OPEC or nations that produce enough petroleum for military purpose such as U.S. and Russia.
Even ROK that has to import most of the petroleum, its tank crew love T-80, one important reason is the gas turbine. They are just ecstatic how quiet, vibration free, comfortable, and easy to work on for routine maintenance than diesel, light weight, meaning more traversable over different terrain that will slow down diesel tanks, more maneuverable, over uneven terrain. ROK seriously thought about replacing its entire tanks with T-80 at one time.
1
-
@Mr_Wheels99 ''The Germans did not overall have better tanks.''
They did have superior longer range optics than Shermans, which increased the situational awareness as range increased, of course, Shermans had wider fov, but they had to get closer to get that advantage, so the initiative was on German tanks.
Consider individual exploits of German tank aces, such as Witmann. Had Americans ever had anything even close? Again, ironically, when Americans performed such a feat of action was when done by tank destroyers with thin armor, and no top armor on the turret, which greatly increased, speed, maneuverability, ventilation, bail out speed, and the situational awareness. Now, Nicholas Moran aka 'Chieftain' criticized TDs and Hetzer as well. As much as I respect him on tactical matters, he was wrong on the operational/strategic realm.
''German tanks burned just as much as American tanks, except their tanks were harder to get out of.''
Like I had said, they had superior long range optics, more likely to see the Shermans before the Sherman could see any Panzers, giving them. I don't know about you, dude, but I would rather see the enemy tank first before he can see me: That's far more important than how fast I can bail out when hit. That's called situational awareness, which tends to lead to tactical dominance, you can also read all about it in 'Ace Factor' by Mike Spick, no really that's his name for real.
''Plus, it was standard practice to shoot at a tank until it was on fire since that denied the enemy a usable tank.''
That's not how Michael Wittmann, proverbially the greatest tank ace in WW2 achieved his feat. Also other German tank aces in their great tactical triumph usually fired one round per enemy tank, they really couldn't afford to waste ammo on already disabled enemy tanks, when there were other enemy tanks barging in.
Like they say, penny wise, dollar foolish.
''Furthermore, the Germans design doctrine for tanks was shit. Being overly complex to the point where a tank would have to be brought to a depot behind the lines is a bad design, along with the fact that spare parts were in constant short supply. Being over engineered does not make a design good.''
While I agree with you that the German tanks were generally over-rated, and they confused tactical goals with operational strategic goals, without much regard for logistics, they were not shit. Tactically, overall they were superior to the allies.
''Did the Sherman have problems? Definitely. I don’t believe there is a “best tank” in World War Two, as every tank was built around its nations capabilities and doctrine, but if there was it wouldn’t be German''
I don't think you had read what I had already said. Shermans were the best overall tanks of WW2! Not T-34, not any of the Soviet tanks. Tigers and Panthers won battles, but Shermans won the war, that's what I had said.
1
-
@clarkbarrett6274 ''But "Shermans won the war" is at odds with the facts.''
Some 4000 Shermans were sent to the Soviet Union, and their tank crew, especially the veteran tank crew who had enough of T-34s loved them. That was enough number to have made the difference in Kursk, the final swan song for the Wehrmacht as an offensive force.
''27M dead Russians killing 5.5M Germans (80% of German casualties) ON THE EASTERN FRONT won the war. (These numbers will be different depending on your sources, just suffice it to say most of the German casualties were in the East)''
Oh, yes, too many people today, even the soldiers emphasize the kill ratio. I always point out to these people, the Germans had far higher kill ratios in the eastern front, they still lost the war. The Soviets had a far higher kill ratio in Afghanistan against Muj, they still lost the war. The Americans had a far higher kill ratio in Vietnam than Ho, they still lost the war. Some, even veterans who should know better, claim that U.S. didn't lose the war in Vietnam! And they point out kill ratios! The very same people who claim the Soviets lost the war in Afghanistan!
''I'm an American, and a retired soldier, so I love a rah, rah America is awesome story. But we batted clean up in WWII in the European theater. Our logistics and Lend Lease certainly helped the Soviets. But they did the dominant amount of fighting and dying. A fact we should not dismiss in the current environment...lest we see a repeat.''
I thoroughly agree. I am not impressed with the both senior civilian and military leadership for their grand strategic insight. I believe U.S. should not have gone for the Vietnam War, the Iraq war. U.S. should not have tried nation building in Afghanistan. I think Biden did the right thing there, but now doing something irrational in Ukraine, not as irrational as Dick Morris, though.
1
-
@TheChieftainsHatch '' First shot is very arguable. The gunner's sights on German vehicles were excellent for engagement, but atrocious for aquisition.''
Indeed. My speculation is that a commander with the hatch open, and a bino could get a far better situational awareness, and direct the gunner to the location, and with perhaps enough training/experience, the gunner could account for the lack of built in acquisition speed?
Another could be Edward debono's thesis of too many tools actually slowing down the speed of the employing the tools to reach a decision?
''Pretty much every other nation built their tanks with multiple optics for the gunner, both periscopic and direct vision, and the stabilisation system on Sherman also helped get a fast shot off. It's been one of those great mysteries to me as to why the Germans didn't look at the captured tanks from all their enemies and say "Gee, they are all doing this, why aren't we?" until the very end of the war.''
I did notice from my experience with Herr Kast from Military History Visualized, and others as well in the past, they don't like to be wrong, more than the Americans.
One time Herr Kast had made an obvious mistake, that even without air superiority, or at least parity, the German panzer doctrine around the time of D-day was still sound: I reminded him Rommel by that point gave up on the German Panzer doctrine without air superiority.
Another, he told me the reason why the Finns had not advanced faster toward Leningrad during the Continuation war was due to Finland being a democracy! He wasn't joking. I asked him what had Finland being a democracy had anything to do with advancing toward Leningrad. I pointed out that it had more to do with Finland's lack of suitable transport for logistics/supply lines than anything. No further reply from him. I think his lame response has more to do with currently fashionable white washing of Finland than anything.
Another time, Herr Kast claimed we should listen to our generals unconditionally since they have the skin in the game, I reminded him that he had said Japan in WW2 could have never won the war against U.S. due to industrial capacity discrepancies, and the decisions to go to war against U.S. was made by generals.
No response from him.
'' "Gee, they are all doing this, why aren't we?" until the very end of the war.''
The Germans are sometimes powerful iconoclasts. They don't like doing things just because everyone else is doing it.
And sometimes they are right! Just look at the development of tactical panzer doctrines. Everyone else was using tanks for infantry support, not a powerful independent armored thrust, to take the advantage of speed available.
The Germans did something totally different from everyone else, and it worked wonderfully.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheChieftainsHatch .. or it could have been simply Speer had decided to speed up manufacturing to deliver what was urgently needed, and not worry about bells and whistles. Speer was famous for being 'American' when it came to mass production. By that time, Germany was pretty pressed for everything, especially armor.
Why I believe MBT is a good concept, but it should be designed to be more modular and scalable, depending on the needs of the military, and the capacity of manufacturing.
Stripped down, very basic MBTs for the war time production, and full spec with all the bells and whistles, quality inspection of all the relevant components for the peace time production from the getgo, design, blue print stage.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1