Could that be the correct answer? That the rounds shipped to Singapore were of lesser quality than those used in North Africa and Europe because someone did not take the threat of Japanese armour seriously enough. Could that ammunition have come from manufacturers who were inexperienced in producing 2bler AT ammo?
Tanks that never should have entered service
- Thread starter Onkel Willie
- Start date
Could that be the correct answer? That the rounds shipped to Singapore were of lesser quality than those used in North Africa and Europe because someone did not take the threat of Japanese armour seriously enough. Could that ammunition have come from manufacturers who were inexperienced in producing 2bler AT ammo?
Hm... that is an interesting possibility. If it were the case, then this could be the origin of an interesting and original POD. Heh, it's been a long time since there's been an original POD with WWII - this might be worth looking into.
The M-3s in the Philippines that ran up against the Type 97s that the Japanese 14th Army had ran into similar problems. AP shells would bounce off, and what they needed was HE. The problem was solved with some improvised HE rounds, and it worked, as they only had either training rounds or AP. Later on, the Type 97 ran up against the Sherman, and those 75-mm rounds tore the Japanese armor apart, as did bazookas and 75-mm pack howitzers. Flame throwers were used on Saipan in extremis, and those little tanks burned.
I do believe that the Sherman is based on a modified M3 hull and chassis. According to wiki, the M3 was a interim design until the M4 could get out into production.
Flocculencio
Donor
Not in Singapore specifically but during the running battle for Malaya. However that was only because there was zero British armour facing them.
Edit: Interesting point, Calbear
Hashasheen
Banned
Weren't the tankettes they had of suprising use considering how small and light they were to get around certain bridges where a medium tank couldnt?
Dude, why are you so harsh on NATO countries for trying to produce their own tanks and IFVs? Is it too much to think that different countries might, you know, have different requirements for their armored vehicles? Like the US; with our traditionally high logistics abilities and lavish supply to our troops, is it so much to wonder that we might prefer raw performance to economy?
Also, do I detect a whiff of pro-German bias here?
The mission of armed forces in any country is to fight wars and prevent them by existing, not to give bribes for corporations, although UK MoD might well disagree on the last point...
The pro-German bias in this case is just for the fact that out of the Western MBT's the Leopard 2 entered service first and has proved to be relatively trouble free, good, upgradeable tank. It was also clearly superior to M1 until M1A1. Challenger, Ariete and Leclerc were started as development projects when both Leopard 2 and M1 were already in service, so the sweet smell of grease was clearly behind the decisions. If Leclerc or Challenger had been available earlier, the Leo-II would be the pork beast.
The trouble of each country making it's own tank or IFV is that they have to spend more money than necessary in order to produce tank that is, at it's best, only marginally superior to the other options. Without the tank pork all the militaries concerned would be either better equipped, they would have more units, or more budget available for other sectors of society. If there's will for jobs to be secured, all the countries mentioned had the ability to produce tanks in their own factories. Naturally if there's only a single type selected the upgrades will be cheaper and more abundant. We must also consider the NATO issue. Out for very narrow industrial interests the ability to interoperate easily was endangered.
As for M1, the concept was very good for narrow range of operations, the defensive battles in Fulda Gap, as long as the opponent does not have thermal imagers. With Challenger, Leclerc, Ariete or Leo-II instead of M1 in the Operation Desert Storm or Operation Iraqi Freedom the manouver ability of the US forces would have been far better and requirement of logistics convoys (which have claimed many casualties) much lower. Fuel consumption kills.
Bradley IFV has been exceptionally expensive and not that impressive. Germany had already good and proven IFV in service, decision to produce an US model of marginally better performance was a decision to provide pork for manufacturers.
I think two generations of tankers who fought in DESERT STORM and IRAQI FREEDOM would have a disagreement with you. I know two vets who fought in 1991 (each had several T-62 and T-72 kills in their M-1s), and I've met several who rolled to Baghdad in either M-1A1s or Bradleys. They wouldn't have it any other way. Sorry, son, but you have one other problem that any purchase of the Leo or Marder would have for the U.S. military: NIH. (Not Invented Here) Do you really think that Congress would agree to a Leo/Marder purchase, or any other foreign tank, let alone the U.S. Army (and Marines for the tanks)? The same goes for other NATO allies (Brits, French, Italians)with armor manufacturers: if they can build their own designs for tanks and APCs/IFVs, they will. Period. If it can be designed and built in (U.S., Britain, France, Italy, or wherever), it will, and that's that. Nice try, but not very likely.
M1A1 and the follow-up incarnations are good tanks for combat, if provided with a fuel HEMTT almost right behind them and the enemy not employing thermal imagers. Other modern Western tanks are just about equal but have much lower logistical tail and much less heat signature. It's not that M1A1 and on would be bad tanks, just that others are better.
With problem of NIH I completely agree and that's the reason why European countries in particular do not get the bang out of buck. The US defense budget is so large it can tolerate massive foul-ups in procurements. But even in case of US, I think additional capability or lower budget would have massive benefits.
HJ Tulp
Donor
You are right ofcourse. That's why I wrote Battle for Singapore instead of Battle of Singapore
Might it have been the storage? You would have thought the British had plenty of experience storing ammo in tropical conditions, but given the complete incompetance of many of the officers in Malaya at the time...
Interesting PoD if it was this, a trivial change could see those Japanese tin cans not being very useful.
Comment from a know-nothing lurker: I'm not even a casual expert in military hardware, but I've noticed, while only a handful of states design their own combat aircraft from the ground up, almost everybody designs their own tanks only taking a few pointers from the heavies, if that. The only significant army using a foreign tank, IIRC, are the Egyptians. This isn't something only in NATO. The US, shamefully, did consider the Leopard II. Went with Chrysler's design instead...
Detroit delende est.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Muar
The AIF's AT gunners DID score some good hits on the Jap tanks during the Battle for Johore- with their 2-pdr AT guns.
HJ Tulp
Donor
Comment from a know-nothing lurker: I'm not even a casual expert in military hardware, but I've noticed, while only a handful of states design their own combat aircraft from the ground up, almost everybody designs their own tanks only taking a few pointers from the heavies, if that. The only significant army using a foreign tank, IIRC, are the Egyptians. This isn't something only in NATO. The US, shamefully, did consider the Leopard II. Went with Chrysler's design instead...
Detroit delende est.
Well there is Turkey but they are designing their own tank now as well.
Have to disagree with the Challenger, the British army considered the Leopard II but turned it down for two main reasons; Firstly the gun, the British army was ( and I think still is ) in favour of a rifled barrel over a smooth bore, secondly the British wanted the new tank to use the new Chobham armour and the Leopard II does not use it.
With regard to the Warrior v's Marder the British rejected the Marder because of Doctrine, the army wanted a battlefield taxi rather than a ifv.
One tank I feel should never have been built is the T44, intended as the replacement to the T34, it seems to have a more complex, less reliable vehicle with no advantages over the T34.
CanadianGoose
Banned
My Comments on Soviet pre-WWII tank designs (I'm completely ingnoring testbeds, i.e. anything built in less than 2 dozen numbers):
T-35. It shouldn't have been put in more-or-less mass production, as extensive testing should have revealed it's main flaws, commander's inability to co-ordinate fire of 5 turrets and extremely narrow design, affecting meneuvrability.
KV-2 (a.k.a. KV-152, a.k.a. KV with 152 gun). The concept ("armoured bunker buster, which could spit at AT guns of the day") was sound (all whining about lack of ability to sustain long marches is missing the point, the machine was intended to be a breaker of defensive lines a-la Mannerheim or Koenigsberg, if it could move 50 km without fataly breaking down it did serve the purpose). However they overrated need for rotating turret (late war SU-152 SPG was more than adequate).
T-24. Desperate attempt to produce indigenious medium tank design, when USSR clearly had no design school to do it. Fortunately, only couple of dozens had been produced.
BT-2. It went into mass production too early.
T-35. It shouldn't have been put in more-or-less mass production, as extensive testing should have revealed it's main flaws, commander's inability to co-ordinate fire of 5 turrets and extremely narrow design, affecting meneuvrability.
KV-2 (a.k.a. KV-152, a.k.a. KV with 152 gun). The concept ("armoured bunker buster, which could spit at AT guns of the day") was sound (all whining about lack of ability to sustain long marches is missing the point, the machine was intended to be a breaker of defensive lines a-la Mannerheim or Koenigsberg, if it could move 50 km without fataly breaking down it did serve the purpose). However they overrated need for rotating turret (late war SU-152 SPG was more than adequate).
T-24. Desperate attempt to produce indigenious medium tank design, when USSR clearly had no design school to do it. Fortunately, only couple of dozens had been produced.
BT-2. It went into mass production too early.
Hm... one has to wonder how that possibility would affect the Malaya campaign. I'm obviously not an expert on that area of WWII, so I don't really know how much use the Japanese got out of their tanks in that situation, but I'd imagine that were the British able to deal with the Japanese tanks, it might make the whole campaign harder for the Japanese. Which could be interesting, since the Japanese offensive was a bit of a shoe-string affair. One can certainly imagine Singapore lasting longer, and Japanese casualties being heavier...
Hm... this is starting to seem like it might be a very interesting POD indeed.
The MİTÜP Altay will also share some similar armor tech with the South Korean K2 Black Panther.
Which will be suplimented by the whole Turkish M-60 fleet being upgraded to Sabras which in their own right are fearsome tanks.
Last edited:
I was thinking both of the delaying effect of killing some tanks, and the probably greater morale effect on the indian troops of seeing that the attacking Japanese tanks can be killed.
The British defenders only need a few delays to make the offensive run out of supply. And while the Japanese can be resupplied, while they are doing this Singapore isnt going to get any easier.