6 ms·

Tanks Are Mighty Fine Things (1946)

73 points by smacktoward 8y ago

temptemptemp111 8y ago
How to download?
csours 8y ago
The association may not be remembered now, but Imperial was a Chrysler brand from times past. Here's another booklet I love from the site: http://www.imperialclub.com/Repair/Lit/Master/003/cover.htm http://www.imperialclub.com/Repair/Lit/Master/003/cover.htm and previous HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15397926 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15397926 Re: Tanks - there are so many things that are obvious in hindsight, but its amazing how effective US production was.
- smacktoward 8y ago
  I just watched a good talk by Nicholas Moran, the in-house historian at the shop that makes the game World of Tanks, talking about all the little ways the designs of the M3 and Sherman tanks were optimized for maximal production. It’s on YouTube here: https://youtu.be/TwIlrAosYiM https://youtu.be/TwIlrAosYiM
- arethuza 8y ago
  I think it was Max Hastings in one of his books on WW2 who makes the point that there is no point having tanks that are six times as good as your opponents if your opponent has ten times as many tanks as you do!
  - marvin 8y ago
    The tank crews would probably disagree; Allied tank crews sustained terrible casualties during the invasion of Europe. And it did little good for morale to know that a German tank would knock out yours and probably kill your crew in the time it would take to fire tree rounds. (Twice to find the correct angle and the third to score a hit). Strategically, this worked out nicely in WWII due to massive manpower advantage and the Germans’ severe weakening on the Eastern front, but the poor performance of Allied tanks was still a serious strategic blunder.
    - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
      >The tank crews would probably disagree; Allied tank crews sustained terrible casualties during the invasion of Europe. Sarting on page 72ish TFA handles this common criticism. While the crews probably would have preferred something that could go toe to toe with the Tiger in a 1:1 engagement the strategic and tactical reality of invading Europe with such a tank meant that was basically out of the question. The article also mentions the differences between a tank that's optimized for offensive use and one optimized for defensive use. If you read up on German armor you'll see them actually making this transition as they refined their tanks throughout the war. With such a superior numerical advantage your average allied tanker never engaged more than one or two enemy tanks and had a pretty good chance of surviving the war all things considered. American tanks in France spend more time blowing up fortifications and hosing down enemy infantry than engaging enemy tanks because when you have such a massive numbers advantage your tanks do not need to spend all their time engaging other tanks. Your average German tanker was not so lucky. He would have a nearly endless supply of allied tanks to shoot at. >but the poor performance of Allied tanks was still a serious strategic blunder. How was it a strategic blunder if it worked exactly as intended? It's really easy to sit in an air conditioned office and hand wring about people in 1940 not caring enough about the value of human lives but the simple fact is that times were very different and a lot of lives were going to be lost regardless so they may as well be lost winning quickly.
    - AmVess 8y ago
      EVERYBODY suffered terrible casualties during the war. Statistically speaking, tank crews had one of the lowest mortality rates of anything else in the war that also was in battle. Also, all tank crews were not happy to see any other tank. Germans hated seeing Allied tanks just as must as we hated seeing Axis tanks. 70% of ALL engagements were won solely on who got the first shot off. The Germans had Tiger I and Tiger II tanks, but the reality is that they didn't make very many of them. The vast majority of the tanks the USA went up against were Panzer III's and Stugs...of which any variant of the M4 was more than a match for. The so called poor performance of the Allied tanks was a complete myth. The M4 was a giant success and more than filled its mission. Further, the M4 was so good that it remained in production for more than 40 years after WWII and was used very effectively by Israel during the 6-day war which occurred 22 years after WWII.
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  > Here's another booklet I love from the site: http://www.imperialclub.com/Repair/Lit/Master/003/cover.htm http://www.imperialclub.com/Repair/Lit/Master/003/cover.htm I think the bit about doing a hone job on a single cylinder without taking the crank out is a wee bit dated, lol. And in case anyone was wondering most of the tolerances mentioned are out of date thanks mostly to better materials but somewhat also to better manufacturing as well though the general principals remain.
michaelt 8y ago
One of the interesting things I've heard the Soviets did [1] was operational research: The lifespan of a tank on the Eastern front was less than 6 months, and once in combat was less than 14 hours. Less than 1000 miles driven. Knowing they didn't need a tank that lasted more than 1000 miles let them lower the number of parts and man-hours for each tank, allowing them to get them off the production line that much faster. You can imagine what an advantage it was that the Allies produced four times as many tanks as the Axis powers. [1] https://youtu.be/N6xLMUifbxQ?t=2295 https://youtu.be/N6xLMUifbxQ?t=2295
- AllegedAlec 8y ago
  Although it was immensely efficient, I cannot help but wonder if it was a circular reasoning: they wanted cheap, mass produced tanks, which means you're going to hand in on quality, which means that they break down faster and are less resilient, so your research shows that tanks don't last long, so you spend less on each individual tank, etc. etc.
  - pimmen 8y ago
    You would also need to look at the causes of decommisioning to avoid this.
  - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
    Russian strategic thinking in the 1930s was "we don't fight wars of attrition, we fight wars of annihilation" (not 100% sure on the exact quote but the words "attrition" and "annihilation" were used and that was the gist of it). The biggest advantage they brought to the table was sheer manpower (the second biggest arguably being the Russian winter). They specifically intended to fight Verdun type engagements where both sides take massive losses because they could replenish the losses but all their potential enemies could not. They fought exactly kind of war they had been planning to fight. Once you've committed to that on a strategic and tactical level throwing in many lower quality but still good enough to hold their own tanks is exactly what you want to do.
    - 8y ago
mothsonasloth 8y ago
1946 - "Tanks Are Mighty Fine Things" 1955 - First Anti Tank Guided Missiles developed 2019 - "ATGMs Are Mighty Fine Things"
jeffrallen 8y ago
War is stupid.
- LifeLiverTransp 8y ago
  Written on a device, invented for war, send by a device ment for a war, transfered by a device, engineered for economic competition (a war in all but name forced to peace by a governments monopolizing force), read while eating food that was taken away from other critter who would prefered to have eaten it. Stupid processes can give rise to usefull things and create intelligent incentives. The people dieing in wars, are lost to us forever though. Thinking about all the russian mathematicians, jewish pianists, german painters and american poets who died in the war, oftenn without ever noticing there talent, one can come to the conclusion that war makes stupid.
- loco5niner 8y ago
  Yes, but unfortunately necessary.
rmason 8y ago
I knew that the authors name as my late grandfather was fond of saying 'rang a bell'. This guy started in newspapers at 17 and ended up editing the Saturday Evening Post. The Post at the time was the largest selling and most influential magazine in America. They actually sold the magazine like a newspaper complete with paperboys. My father was one of those delivery boys in Detroit during the depression. https://www.nytimes.com/1971/11/16/archives/i-wesley-w-stout-is-dead-at-82-i-edited-saturday-evening-postj.html https://www.nytimes.com/1971/11/16/archives/i-wesley-w-stout...

73 points by smacktoward 8y ago

How to download?

The association may not be remembered now, but Imperial was a Chrysler brand from times past. Here's another booklet I love from the site: http://www.imperialclub.com/Repair/Lit/Master/003/cover.htm http://www.imperialclub.com/Repair/Lit/Master/003/cover.htm and previous HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15397926 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15397926 Re: Tanks - there are so many things that are obvious in hindsight, but its amazing how effective US production was.

smacktoward 8y ago
I just watched a good talk by Nicholas Moran, the in-house historian at the shop that makes the game World of Tanks, talking about all the little ways the designs of the M3 and Sherman tanks were optimized for maximal production. It’s on YouTube here: https://youtu.be/TwIlrAosYiM https://youtu.be/TwIlrAosYiM
arethuza 8y ago
I think it was Max Hastings in one of his books on WW2 who makes the point that there is no point having tanks that are six times as good as your opponents if your opponent has ten times as many tanks as you do!
- marvin 8y ago
  The tank crews would probably disagree; Allied tank crews sustained terrible casualties during the invasion of Europe. And it did little good for morale to know that a German tank would knock out yours and probably kill your crew in the time it would take to fire tree rounds. (Twice to find the correct angle and the third to score a hit). Strategically, this worked out nicely in WWII due to massive manpower advantage and the Germans’ severe weakening on the Eastern front, but the poor performance of Allied tanks was still a serious strategic blunder.
  - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
    >The tank crews would probably disagree; Allied tank crews sustained terrible casualties during the invasion of Europe. Sarting on page 72ish TFA handles this common criticism. While the crews probably would have preferred something that could go toe to toe with the Tiger in a 1:1 engagement the strategic and tactical reality of invading Europe with such a tank meant that was basically out of the question. The article also mentions the differences between a tank that's optimized for offensive use and one optimized for defensive use. If you read up on German armor you'll see them actually making this transition as they refined their tanks throughout the war. With such a superior numerical advantage your average allied tanker never engaged more than one or two enemy tanks and had a pretty good chance of surviving the war all things considered. American tanks in France spend more time blowing up fortifications and hosing down enemy infantry than engaging enemy tanks because when you have such a massive numbers advantage your tanks do not need to spend all their time engaging other tanks. Your average German tanker was not so lucky. He would have a nearly endless supply of allied tanks to shoot at. >but the poor performance of Allied tanks was still a serious strategic blunder. How was it a strategic blunder if it worked exactly as intended? It's really easy to sit in an air conditioned office and hand wring about people in 1940 not caring enough about the value of human lives but the simple fact is that times were very different and a lot of lives were going to be lost regardless so they may as well be lost winning quickly.
  - AmVess 8y ago
    EVERYBODY suffered terrible casualties during the war. Statistically speaking, tank crews had one of the lowest mortality rates of anything else in the war that also was in battle. Also, all tank crews were not happy to see any other tank. Germans hated seeing Allied tanks just as must as we hated seeing Axis tanks. 70% of ALL engagements were won solely on who got the first shot off. The Germans had Tiger I and Tiger II tanks, but the reality is that they didn't make very many of them. The vast majority of the tanks the USA went up against were Panzer III's and Stugs...of which any variant of the M4 was more than a match for. The so called poor performance of the Allied tanks was a complete myth. The M4 was a giant success and more than filled its mission. Further, the M4 was so good that it remained in production for more than 40 years after WWII and was used very effectively by Israel during the 6-day war which occurred 22 years after WWII.
dsfyu404ed 8y ago
> Here's another booklet I love from the site: http://www.imperialclub.com/Repair/Lit/Master/003/cover.htm http://www.imperialclub.com/Repair/Lit/Master/003/cover.htm I think the bit about doing a hone job on a single cylinder without taking the crank out is a wee bit dated, lol. And in case anyone was wondering most of the tolerances mentioned are out of date thanks mostly to better materials but somewhat also to better manufacturing as well though the general principals remain.

michaelt 8y ago

One of the interesting things I've heard the Soviets did [1] was operational research: The lifespan of a tank on the Eastern front was less than 6 months, and once in combat was less than 14 hours. Less than 1000 miles driven. Knowing they didn't need a tank that lasted more than 1000 miles let them lower the number of parts and man-hours for each tank, allowing them to get them off the production line that much faster. You can imagine what an advantage it was that the Allies produced four times as many tanks as the Axis powers. [1] https://youtu.be/N6xLMUifbxQ?t=2295 https://youtu.be/N6xLMUifbxQ?t=2295

AllegedAlec 8y ago
Although it was immensely efficient, I cannot help but wonder if it was a circular reasoning: they wanted cheap, mass produced tanks, which means you're going to hand in on quality, which means that they break down faster and are less resilient, so your research shows that tanks don't last long, so you spend less on each individual tank, etc. etc.
- pimmen 8y ago
  You would also need to look at the causes of decommisioning to avoid this.
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  Russian strategic thinking in the 1930s was "we don't fight wars of attrition, we fight wars of annihilation" (not 100% sure on the exact quote but the words "attrition" and "annihilation" were used and that was the gist of it). The biggest advantage they brought to the table was sheer manpower (the second biggest arguably being the Russian winter). They specifically intended to fight Verdun type engagements where both sides take massive losses because they could replenish the losses but all their potential enemies could not. They fought exactly kind of war they had been planning to fight. Once you've committed to that on a strategic and tactical level throwing in many lower quality but still good enough to hold their own tanks is exactly what you want to do.
  - 8y ago

mothsonasloth 8y ago

1946 - "Tanks Are Mighty Fine Things" 1955 - First Anti Tank Guided Missiles developed 2019 - "ATGMs Are Mighty Fine Things"

jeffrallen 8y ago

War is stupid.

LifeLiverTransp 8y ago
Written on a device, invented for war, send by a device ment for a war, transfered by a device, engineered for economic competition (a war in all but name forced to peace by a governments monopolizing force), read while eating food that was taken away from other critter who would prefered to have eaten it. Stupid processes can give rise to usefull things and create intelligent incentives. The people dieing in wars, are lost to us forever though. Thinking about all the russian mathematicians, jewish pianists, german painters and american poets who died in the war, oftenn without ever noticing there talent, one can come to the conclusion that war makes stupid.
loco5niner 8y ago
Yes, but unfortunately necessary.

rmason 8y ago

I knew that the authors name as my late grandfather was fond of saying 'rang a bell'. This guy started in newspapers at 17 and ended up editing the Saturday Evening Post. The Post at the time was the largest selling and most influential magazine in America. They actually sold the magazine like a newspaper complete with paperboys. My father was one of those delivery boys in Detroit during the depression. https://www.nytimes.com/1971/11/16/archives/i-wesley-w-stout-is-dead-at-82-i-edited-saturday-evening-postj.html https://www.nytimes.com/1971/11/16/archives/i-wesley-w-stout...