Bad ideas in war

[Andy_Ross]

BTW, don't get me wrong, the Chauchat embodied several good and progressive ideas. Not gonna argue against that. It's just the execution, especially for the .30-06 version, where... shall we say... a few executions are missing

Long Recoil isn't a bad mechanism, but the way i was implemented in the Chauchat was, it jammed up when it got hot and the barrel expanded inside the surrounding sleeve.

 

[HansMustermann]

Long recoil isn't bad across the board, but the implementation in the Chauchat was really bad. And arguably it's anyway more suited for stuff that's fixed to some pole or tripod (e.g., the M2 Browning) than for something fired from the hip.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Didn't the Panzer IV work pretty well?

It was reliable but complex and expensive to manufacture.
It suffered from the same problem as other German tanks in that the upper hull had to be completely removed to replace or repair the final drive.

 

[Andy_Ross]

C&Rsenal did a series called "Project Lightning"

It compares all the 'light' machine guns of WW! against each other.
They go through the design history, the implementation and do a take apart of each one before taking them to a range for a side by side field test and comparison.


Ian from Forgotten Weapons was involved

Here's the playlist, 8 videos altogether 4 the in depth and number 7 is an 'after action report' and features Mark Novak the gunsmith who got them all working and keep them running, he does a lot of work for both the C&Rsenal and Forgotten Weapons channels. He has his own brilliant in depth channel on restoration and repair of historic weapons.

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJvsSlrbdhn60Ry8LooCCLzfqZaPVVb_Q&si=IQkDiBLLmV04j7lO

 

[Andy_Ross]

Long recoil isn't bad across the board, but the implementation in the Chauchat was really bad. And arguably it's anyway more suited for stuff that's fixed to some pole or tripod (e.g., the M2 Browning) than for something fired from the hip.

For example the Maxim is long recoil, [probably the most reliable mechanism ever developed. In it's Vickers Gun form they ran for millions of rounds without serious problems.
It should be noted though that all the reliable and successful ones have a lot shorter 'long recoil' than the Chauchat.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Chauchat? Go to Forgotten Weapons for some vindication of that old piece of pipe. But Ian is a Francophile and it shows.

Othais from C&Rsenal likes them too.

 

[jimbob]

It was reliable but complex and expensive to manufacture.
It suffered from the same problem as other German tanks in that the upper hull had to be completely removed to replace or repair the final drive.

But as far as an AFV that got progressively upgunned through the war

 

[HansMustermann]

For example the Maxim is long recoil, [probably the most reliable mechanism ever developed. In it's Vickers Gun form they ran for millions of rounds without serious problems.
It should be noted though that all the reliable and successful ones have a lot shorter 'long recoil' than the Chauchat.

Yes, but we're back to what I was saying: if it's fired from a tripod or other fixed attachment, sure, it's not bad. When fired from the hip, and especially with the Chauchat design, it shakes around too much to be accurate. There's a reason why nobody made a long recoil SMG or assault rifle, is all I'm saying.

 

[sackett]

Maxim's a short recoil design. So's Browning M1917, and one helluva lot more guns.

So big deal. Firearms nomenclature -- hell, all weapons' tech talk -- is cluttered and funky.

 

[HansMustermann]

Maxim's a short recoil design. So's Browning M1917, and one helluva lot more guns.

So big deal. Firearms nomenclature -- hell, all weapons' tech talk -- is cluttered and funky.

Hmm. I learned something new, so thanks. I was under the impression that the .50 Browning was long recoil, but I stand corrected. Thanks.

As they say, it takes a big man to admit he's wrong, so... I'm going on a diet

 

[HansMustermann]

Ok, here's one more bad idea: The Uralbomber, and specifically the He-177 Greif (Gryphon).

So the whole idea started in 1933, under the Uralbomber project, under Walther Wever, a proponent of strategic bombing. Literally a 4 engine strategic bomber able to bomb the Urals. Hence the name. But Wever dies in an airplane crash in 1936, and is replaced by Albert Kesselring as chief of staff of the Luftwaffe. Kesselring, like many others in the Luftwaffe (like Udet, Milch, etc) was more of a proponent of dive-bombing as tactical support for the troops.

And so begins the slapstick tale of trying to turn a 4 engine prototype the size of a B-17 into a dive bomber.

So first it goes from 4 engines driving 4 propellers to 4 engines driving 2 propellers to reduce propeller drag in a dive. They literally crammed two engines stacked on top of each other in each nacelle.

And immediately hilarity begins to ensue, as wings fall off when recovering from a dive (torque is a lot larger on a B-17 sized wing as opposed to a Stuka sized one.) Try a shallower dive angle? Wings still break off. Or the engines catch fire. Then a cycle of reinforce the wings, improve cooling, now the landing gear breaks off due to the weight, reinforce that, something else breaks, and so on for years.

Eventually resulting in something that couldn't dive bomb, but to make up for it, couldn't accurately level-bomb either

And normally I'd say, yeah, ok, they were experimenting with what works and what doesn't. Lots of people did that in WW2 and lots of projects went nowhere. Amirite?

But here's the thing: this thing was actually ordered into production while still a very bad experimental aircraft. OVER A THOUSAND of these death traps were produced during WW2, and most were worked on constantly to change them to the latest design. E.g., some 200 went back to have their fuselage lengthened.

 

[jimbob]

As someone with far less knowledge than others in this thread, it seems that the leadership of at least 2 Axis powers (Germany and Japan) not only put out a lot of propaganda but seemed to believe in a sort of heroic approach to war. Especially the Germans - so they try to make weapon systems that would be great in a game of Top Trumps.

The heaviest armour, yes, let's ignore the problem with bridges, because that's not an interesting specification. The fastest fighter yes, let's use rockets. A bomber capable of bombing New York, sure, the biggest transport aircraft both powered and unpowered. A massive dive bomber, great.


And the Japanese seemed to develop a similar idea but about decisive battles and individual heroic acts

 

[3point14]

War? What is it good for?

Rate of technological progress in people killing and associated fields?


Oh, and profit.

 

[HansMustermann]

@jimbob
Partially yes, and partially no. It depends on the exact issue and its context. As usual when talking history, innit?

First of all, yes, you are correct, all the axis powers (or at least I can vouch for Germany, Italy and Japan) drank too greedily and too deep of their own Kool-Aid. They were actually the countries less able to wage a world war, but they all had this... WEIRD... idea, along the lines of some form or another of 'we'll win because we're REAL MEN (TM) while the enemies are a bunch of cowardly inbred mongrels, who'll surely just put their hands up and welcome their new Übermensch overlords.'

BUT... some of the decisions like armour and gun size were at least in SOME cases dictated by real world experience. E.g., yeah, the armour seems overkill, but then the Russians are coming at you with 122mm APCR (tungsten core) rounds that can literally go in the front of a Panther and out the back, and you just lost your supply of nickel for armour quality... yeah, it doesn't seem so dumb to just put a giant slab of iron in front.

But then there was whatever Porsche kept coming up with, which I can only explain by meth or schizophrenia...

 

[HansMustermann]

BTW, just to clarify how big the Speer problem was, in case anyone still wonders why I'm picking on him: I've said before that by October 1944, out of IIRC 28 Me-163 rocket fighters, only 6 were actually usable, because of lack of spare parts. That thing had been accepted into service in August. So yeah, that was about how long it took to be terminally out spare parts under Speer's economic miracle

 

[lobosrul5]

As someone with far less knowledge than others in this thread, it seems that the leadership of at least 2 Axis powers (Germany and Japan) not only put out a lot of propaganda but seemed to believe in a sort of heroic approach to war. Especially the Germans - so they try to make weapon systems that would be great in a game of Top Trumps.

The heaviest armour, yes, let's ignore the problem with bridges, because that's not an interesting specification. The fastest fighter yes, let's use rockets. A bomber capable of bombing New York, sure, the biggest transport aircraft both powered and unpowered. A massive dive bomber, great.


And the Japanese seemed to develop a similar idea but about decisive battles and individual heroic acts

I believe a big problem on the German side of things was everyone was put into competition with one another for resources. So you have things like Porsche and Krupp trying to one up each other with designs. Mines the greatest tank mein Fuhrer... no, you shut your mouth, mine has even more armor, and an even bigger gun, and the most complicated suspension ever designed! <-- im giving comically exaggerated example

ETA: of course yes, Germany also had that propaganda thing going, which I think they actually believed. There are STILL millions of people out there who believe Germany had some sort of almost god like heroic super soldiers who were equal to 10 or more Soviet or 'Muricans, and at least 5 British... they might begrudgingly admit the small profesional British Army was decent.

 

[lobosrul5]

BTW, just to clarify how big the Speer problem was, in case anyone still wonders why I'm picking on him: I've said before that by October 1944, out of IIRC 28 Me-163 rocket fighters, only 6 were actually usable, because of lack of spare parts. That thing had been accepted into service in August. So yeah, that was about how long it took to be terminally out spare parts under Speer's economic miracle

Speer's ineptitude saved god knows how many allied lives.

 

[HansMustermann]

I believe a big problem on the German side of things was everyone was put into competition with one another for resources. So you have things like Porsche and Krupp trying to one up each other with designs. Mines the greatest tank mein Fuhrer... no, you shut your mouth, mine has even more armor, and an even bigger gun, and the most complicated suspension ever designed! <-- im giving comically exaggerated example

Uh, no, you're literally describing Porsche's approach...

 

[theprestige]

Not really, arguably. Sure, it gets some stuff such as, say, engines developed much faster, but that's just the result of allocating more government funding to them. Like, if the US government were to actually pay 87 billion for nuclear research today (roughly the 5 billion in 1945 that the Manhattan Project cost), it would probably produce the same advance. But that comes at the price of less investment in everything else, so it's a bit of a zero sum game. That money comes from SOMEWHERE sooner or later. Like, you can borrow it now, but you have to pay it back at some point.

Add onto that the cost of well, making tens of thousands of tanks, other vehicles, planes, ships, etc, pissed off just to be destroyed in a war, and you're looking at a net minus.

Counterpoint: War liberated France from the Nazis. War secured a transcontinental empire for the United States, and prevented the secession of the Confederacy. War relieved the Japanese oppression of China, liberated the Philippines and other nations from the Japanese, and ultimately secured Japan as one of the west's strongest and staunchest allies in the region.

War acquired lebensraum for Rome. War acquired vassal states for the Soviet Union. If we count the Cold War - which I do - war saved western Europe from Soviet aggression, ultimately defeated the Soviet Union itself, and liberated eastern Europe. War secured half the Korean peninsula for the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, and secured the other half for the Republic of Korea.

Net minus? I think the liberation of France and the destruction of the Third Reich was well worth the investment. I dunno, maybe you're more of an isolationist, or realpolitician, preferring to trade peacefully with a Nazi Europe, than go to war to prevent it.

Me? I think war is a high-risk, high-reward investment. Costly if it fails, often quite profitable if it succeeds. That's why people resort to it.

 

[HansMustermann]

Well,

1. all of those were cases where the war had been already started by someone else. Whether you're pro- or anti-war, the USA didn't exactly make the choice to fight Japan or the Confederacy or any of that, it was forced upon them. And I wasn't arguing that anyone shouldn't defend themselves.

2. It was started by someone who then lost. Which is kinda the important part. I'm not looking at it as "was it good for country A", but was it any good for humanity as a whole. As in, not just "was it good that the USA beat up Japan", but rather that we'd all have been better off if Japan just took a chill pill in the 30's instead of starting wars. Way I see it, starting those wars was a net loss for the planet. Is all I'm saying.