Bad ideas in military history

[Andy_Ross]

It works nonetheless. There's some virtue in controlling each cartridge through the entire feeding-firing-extraction-ejection odyssey.

There's more virtue in fielding something simpler and cheaper, of course, given how war devours equipment.

Maxim/Vickers gun controls the cartridge from belt extraction to ejection.

 

[sackett]

Maxim/Vickers gun controls the cartridge from belt extraction to ejection.

Well heck, fielding heavy industry is way different than trying to put a light rifle-calibre auto in the hands of the PBI.

 

[Andy_Ross]

That would be the MP18 or maybe the Pedersen Device.

Or the marvellous Farquhar-Hill

 

[catsmate]

Ah, the Pedersen device, the lost assault weapon of the Great War.

 

[Andy_Ross]

More information on the Pedersen device than you thought there ever was.

 

[Andy_Ross]

The one minute version

 

[Andy_Ross]

Don't forget the French had the RSC-1917/1918 self loading rifle in service, with just over 85,000 manufactured in 1917 and used on the frontlines by French troops. Original 1917 version was unreliable butthe improved 1918 was good.

The full hour documentary


One minute version

 

[jimbob]

Operation Barbarossa.

From a different viewpoint

A long interview not just about British tank development, and by D-Day they have learned the lesson not just reliability but durability.
(i.e. distance between overhauls).

Learned from the Americans in the desert.

It's worth looking around the 30 minute mark and by the breakout from Normandy, the British tanks, especially the Cromwell had been designed for campaigns not battles, so they were able to advance 300 miles in a week with the armoured forces intact. Described by one commander as ideally suited to pursuit. Which I guess was one of the roles of a Naval Cruiser.

And how the tanks were kept on the minor roads to preserve the road surfaces of the main roads for the wheeled supply vehicles. Including upgrading one road from Normandy to 70tonne standard to allow use by tank transporters. Which were slower than the tanks

 

[Andy_Ross]

Cromwell was used in the reconnaissance regiments as it was fast, there's a famous picture of one in mid-air after going over a little earth ramp.
They used a derated version of the Merlin engine.
Tank regiments were equipped with the Sherman as the standard tank in Normandy.
A more advanced version of the Cromwell named Comet with a welded hull and a whole new turret with the 17 pounder gun came in as the campaign went on.

Not keen on WW2 TV although they have done a few good videos when they have featured Drachinifel on ships and The Chieftain on armour.

Here's a Cromwell MkIV and a Comet

 

[Andy_Ross]

The flying Cromwell

 

[jimbob]

Cromwell was used in the reconnaissance regiments as it was fast, there's a famous picture of one in mid-air after going over a little earth ramp.
Tank regiments were equipped with the Sherman as the standard tank in Normandy.
A more advanced version of the Cromwell named Comet with a welded hull and a whole new turret with the 17 pounder gun came in as the campaign went on.

Here's a Cromwell MkIV and a COmet
View attachment 58819View attachment 58820

Yes, Knight barely touched the standard design triangle. But he said that the Comet introduction was delayed until it reached 3000 mile overhaul distance (at top speed).

He went backwards in time, then discussing the Desert War, where the you could get 5 Valentines through annual overhauls compared to Matildas. As the Matilda had such a shorter interval.

Assuming 250 miles per month.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I may struggle to watch that as Knight has an annoying way of ending every sentence with "Okay?" or "Right?" (I'm not quite sure why it rubs me up the wrong way but suspect it's because he's challenging me to agree before I've even digested what it was he just said.) I'll persevere for a bit and see if I get over it.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Not keen on WW2 TV although they have done a few good videos when they have featured Drachinifel on ships and The Chieftain on armour.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Okay, I did persevere and he makes a good case with documented support, that the British learned during the desert campaign, from the more reliable US tank designs, that durability really made a big difference when you needed to keep tanks in the fight for more than just a few days at a time, or to travel any distance before going into action, and to avoid clogging up your servicing areas with tanks that needed a weeks-long overhaul.

It was an interesting perspective, to look at armour not from the capabilities of individual tanks but as a complete logistical process of running and service and repair and overhaul, and to contrast that with the German approach which, as he says more than once, produced better individual tanks for a battle while the British learned to continuously supply sufficient tanks for a campaign and not needing such regular servicing was a big contribution to that. (Long-running tanks seem also to have inspired me to write extremely long-running sentences too. How odd.)

 

[Andy_Ross]

The problem with North Africa was the tanks like the Crusader were designed for operation in northern Europe where they were reliable.
They were not designed for the desert, adding air filters is not enough.
For example the engine fan drive chain and sprocket were not enclosed and ground themselves away in just a week or so of operation and the valve gear wasn't completely sealed with similar results. Matilda had similar problems but to a much lesser extent.
There wasn't time to redesign the engine, ancillaries and such then disrupt production to put them in to place.
Later designs learned from the experience, I think he is making too much of what was learned from America. He probably has a book coming out that makes the case and needs to push it.

The Great Tank Scandal and The Universal Tank, the two volumes on the history of British tanks in WW2 by Anthony Fletcher is still the definitive work on the subject, my reading of them disagrees with Knight.

 

[Wudang]

I’ve seen a couple of articles recently about a subtle act of sabotage by Citroen when forced to build trucks for the Nazis in WW2. They shifted the notch on the dipstick a little so the trucks appeared to need less oil than they really did. As a result the trucks ran fine for a while then seized up. When the nazis were pushed out they made correct dipsticks.
Various blogging etc sites who may be copying each other. Hence I’m unsure how true this is.

 

[Klimax]

I’ve seen a couple of articles recently about a subtle act of sabotage by Citroen when forced to build trucks for the Nazis in WW2. They shifted the notch on the dipstick a little so the trucks appeared to need less oil than they really did. As a result the trucks ran fine for a while then seized up. When the nazis were pushed out they made correct dipsticks.
Various blogging etc sites who may be copying each other. Hence I’m unsure how true this is.

Plausible. Such small sabotages are very hard to detect. And considering that Czech factories could get away with some funny stuff (like say storing motorcycles for postwar market inside of SS-exclusive area), wouldn't surprise me.

 

[Pacal]

Speaking of dubious military ideas in the 16th century it was proposed, in England, that archers with longbows hold pikes while shooting arrows.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Speaking of dubious military ideas in the 16th century it was proposed, in England, that archers with longbows hold pikes while shooting arrows.

Source?

Archers already commonly carried a sharpened wooden stake they thrust in to the ground in front of them to form a defensive line against cavalry.

 

[kookbreaker]

Source?

It was the 17th century and the pamphlet is actually moderately famous in modern times;

The Double-Armed Man.