A Panzer 3 is all there needed to be

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Guys,

Was Devers strictly correct?

Leaving aside that the T1E1 was not quite twice as heavy as the early Sherman, it certainly took up much less than twice the area of a Sherman.

Was it really a direct choice between two 30t tanks and a 60t tank?

How much was space, as opposed to weight, a factor?

Cheers,

Sid.

[TheMarcksPlan]

Was Devers strictly correct?

No he was not. I've already made these points upthread.

Average military cargo bulked out long before reaching maximum ship deadweight. 2.6 measurement tons (MT=40FT3) per long ton. A liberty ship could hold similar numbers of MT and long tons so you've usually got much excess weight capacity. ~12k MT and 10k long tons, IIRC. So usually not even half the weight capacity was used.

As I've also pointed out, the tank is a small part of the shipping burden attendant to deploying tank units (trucks, personnel, etc being far more voluminous).

It's a dumb reason for not having better tanks, plain and simple.

Where logistics was concerned, US Army did a lot of dumb stuff.

[Takao]

TMP was not making a direct quote of Devers; he was paraphrasing Hunnicutts summary of Devers opinion.

...which I'd quoted before, a fact about which others in this thread are lying.

While I appreciate the note of sanity, this trainwreck of a thread is really my fault for engaging with several people I usually have the good sense to ignore.

Regretfully, I am not asking about the quote...I am asking WHY Devers said what he said...Hunnicutt does not address this. Thus, the Hunnicutt quote is immaterial to my argument(no matter how many times TMP reposts the quote)

TMP has been asked to provide primary sources to back up his conclusion. Did he provide them? No, he whined, complained, and carried on cranky. But, provided no evidence to support his assumed conclusion about Devers.

[Destroyer500]

I just love how almost every single thread in this forum ends up being an arena

[Cult Icon]

I just love how almost every single thread in this forum ends up being an arena

This has been going on for up to 10-20+ years on multiple forums, same people, same topics too :roll: Change the topic and they disappear.

[Richard Anderson]

Regretfully, I am not asking about the quote...I am asking WHY Devers said what he said...Hunnicutt does not address this. Thus, the Hunnicutt quote is immaterial to my argument(no matter how many times TMP reposts the quote)

Why would Devers say "“that [the T1E1] is the finest job I have ever seen – that is just remarkable” and recommended “putting somebody to work and put it [the electric drive] in the light or medium tank” on 15 June 1942 and then six months later say "Due to its tremendous weight and limited tactical use, there is no requirement in the Armored Force for the heavy tank. The increase in power of the armament of the heavy tank does not compensate for the heavier armor."?

Perhaps because they are not mutually exclusive? Devers thought the electric drive had potential and it took service testing to reveal the flaws in the system. But Devers and the Armored Force never wanted a heavy tank.

What Hunnicutt then said is simply Hunnicutt's belief that Devers' opinion on the heavy tank reflected that of the Armored Force as a whole, which it did. It was Hunnicutt's shorthand that he expressed it as - they would rather have two 30-ton medium tanks than one 60-ton heavy tank - but I do not recall ever running into that exact quote or objection in any of the records of the heavy tank projects.

So was that opinion correct as a logistics issue? Yes, on many levels. The problem was that the Allies early on based bridging, craft, and ship designs on an assumed standard 40-ton heavy, 25-ton medium, and 15-ton light tank, which like Topsy quickly just growed.

Yes, the standard Liberty design could in theory had the cubage to haul up to 260 tanks, nearly five battalions worth, but they were 25-ton medium tanks. Only one boom was capable of 50-ton loads for hold #2, the largest and deepest of five, which was also the only one with decks stressed to accept such loads. Given the U-Boot threat the Allies were also not foolish enough to put all their eggs in one basket, so the maximum load I have found was 51 Medium Tanks M4 and 24 HMC M7 on a single vessel, in most cases fewer than around 20 were hauled on a single ship.

Yes, the LST and LCT could haul 40-ton tanks as designed, but 60-ton ones became problematic. AR 850-15 limited the width of tanks to 124 inches and the weight to 35 tons, since that was the effective limits of bridging and the decking, doors, and ramps on the LCT and LST designs (and yes, durr, durr, durr, the T26E3 exceeded that width but was made acceptable by designing it to be 124 inches with the tracks and other minor items removed for shipping, while a weight exemption was reluctantly granted for specially reinforced bridging).

Yes, it was a logistical problem, yes it was solvable, yes, it was simpler just to go with the medium tanks the end users wanted anyway.

[Carl Schwamberger]

... Yes, the standard Liberty design could in theory had the cubage to haul up to 260 tanks, nearly five battalions worth, but they were 25-ton medium tanks. Only one boom was capable of 50-ton loads for hold #2, the largest and deepest of five, which was also the only one with decks stressed to accept such loads. Given the U-Boot threat the Allies were also not foolish enough to put all their eggs in one basket, so the maximum load I have found was 51 Medium Tanks M4 and 24 HMC M7 on a single vessel, in most cases fewer than around 20 were hauled on a single ship. ...

Boiler plate load planning. Even if the enemy is incapable of sinking a single ship you anticipate storms and breakdowns. Spread loading is a basic practice.

[Richard Anderson]

... Yes, the standard Liberty design could in theory had the cubage to haul up to 260 tanks, nearly five battalions worth, but they were 25-ton medium tanks. Only one boom was capable of 50-ton loads for hold #2, the largest and deepest of five, which was also the only one with decks stressed to accept such loads. Given the U-Boot threat the Allies were also not foolish enough to put all their eggs in one basket, so the maximum load I have found was 51 Medium Tanks M4 and 24 HMC M7 on a single vessel, in most cases fewer than around 20 were hauled on a single ship. ...

Boiler plate load planning. Even if the enemy is incapable of sinking a single ship you anticipate storms and breakdowns. Spread loading is a basic practice.

Exactly. Now add in port clearance issues and the notion logistics was "easy" and it was as easy to ship 60 ton tanks as it was 30 ton tanks becomes even more ludicrous.

[Michael Kenny]

Change the topic and they disappear.

Translation:
Posting in 'What can we change to make Germany win WW2' threads is not advised if you are going to misquote and mangle the facts in order to fulfil the fantasy. You will be challenged over your distortions and your fabrications will be exposed.

[Michael Kenny]

Now add in port clearance issues and the notion logistics was "easy" and it was as easy to ship 60 ton tanks as it was 30 ton tanks becomes even more ludicrous.

Not forgetting the problems of keeping a tank that heavy in running order and how difficult it would be to move around by both rail and transporter.

[Destroyer500]

Change the topic and they disappear.

Translation:
Posting in 'What can we change to make Germany win WW2' threads is not advised if you are going to misquote and mangle the facts in order to fulfil the fantasy. You will be challenged over your distortions and your fabrications will be exposed.

You people talk to each other like some sort of medieval priest that has "contacted god" and has knowledge about everything.Speaking about anything in any other way than you would feels like heresy and so far i have only seen a few what if threads were there exists a single page were the conversation seems like its going somewhere.

[Richard Anderson]

Well, this is what happens when answers become more and more hand wavium. We have yet to be told just why the Germans would compete two tanks that weren't competitors and select one over the other when no such selection was part pf the process. That leaves late 1938 or 1941 as the departure point...except 1941 was the historical point. So drop everything in 1938 to build VK20? Er, what?

[TheMarcksPlan]

So was that opinion correct as a logistics issue? Yes, on many levels.
...
yes, it was a logistical problem, yes it was solvable, yes, it was simpler just to go with the medium tanks

Tautology, n.: 1.a phrase or expression in which the same thing is said twice in different words. 2. a statement that is true by necessity or by virtue of its logical form.

Richard phrases the question in logistical terms and answers it in logistical terms. This is not simply bad analysis. It's a failure to engage in analysis at all, a failure to differentiate ends and means, a belief that history and military studies consist in no more than listing stuff.

Logistics is not an end - only a means to the end of combat power. It is logistically simpler to invade Europe with 1 division than with 90, for example. A heavy tank is obviously logistically more complex than a medium tank, even though Devers/ArmoredForce analyzed that complexity in a nonsense manner by making it only a matter of weight.

The actual question is "Do the benefits of a heavy tank justify increased logistical (and other) cost?"

My assessment: Those costs are undoubtedly justified in the context of a US using its bully-ability on land, rather than at sea/air. There is no danger of the US losing WW2 (assuming Russia survives); the only question is how many will die before victory. Heavy tanks would have saved American lives.

On the particulars of the logistical laundry list, we have:

es, the standard Liberty design could in theory had the cubage to haul up to 260 tanks, nearly five battalions worth, but they were 25-ton medium tanks. Only one boom was capable of 50-ton loads for hold #2, the largest and deepest of five, which was also the only one with decks stressed to accept such loads. Given the U-Boot threat the Allies were also not foolish enough to put all their eggs in one basket, so the maximum load I have found was 51 Medium Tanks M4 and 24 HMC M7 on a single vessel, in most cases fewer than around 20 were hauled on a single ship.

...which is another meaningless list. What is the relevance of the # of tanks on any given to ship to the price of tea? At least this time Richard is not claiming that a single Liberty Ship could move an entire infantry division and its equipment, as he has claimed in the past. [note - that would imply more men than ever sailed Queen Mary, plus their equipment, on a much smaller ship]

I'm still waiting for Richard to apologize for lying that I did not quote Hunnicut, when I in fact quoted Hunnicut.

[Michael Kenny]

You people talk to each other like some sort of medieval priest that has "contacted god" and has knowledge about everything. Speaking about anything in any other way than you would feels like heresy and so far i have only seen a few what if threads were there exists a single page were the conversation feels like its going somewhere.

No one has knowledge about everything but there are quite a few experts in specific areas here. If you rely on Google to validate what-if scenario then be prepared to discover the pitfalls and how it should be used as a starting point for your research and not the last word on any subject. You can either use the corrections provided as free 'Peer Review' or dismiss it is a great big Conspiracy where 'The Establishment' is ganging up to silence you. It all depends on why you post here. Is it to learn or to preach?

[TheMarcksPlan]

This thread has become a tedious and disingenuous argument about arguments. This is partially my fault for engaging people I usually don't. I am unilaterally withdrawing, have fun guys.