Tank War Room Chats with The Chieftain

Tank War Room was lucky enough to talk tanks with Nicholas “Chieftain” Moran!

On Tank History

TWR: Let’s shift fully into tank history. What challenges exist when researching tanks?

Chieftain: Challenge #1. I don’t speak Russian or German very well. Challenge #2. I do not live near Kew, Munster, Paris, Fort Benning, or even College Park, MD, where the archives are. The foreign archives, in particular, are pricey enough to get to with little guarantee of a return for Wargaming, so I’ve not pushed the matter. Neither do I live particularly close to many musea which let me crawl over the tanks. Challenge #3. Much of the information is not easy to find because it has been misfiled, or even destroyed to make room.

For a longer assessment of the joys of researching tanks, I would refer you to my talk on the matter filmed at a player event in the Chicago area:

TWR: It's almost a universal concept that mid- to late-war German tanks of WW2 were feared by all Allied tankers. Was it because of superior optics? Crew (motivation and/or skill)? Leadership? Firepower? Perhaps it was because the Germans were often on the defense and were able to fight out of hull-down positions more than the Allies?

Chieftain: I’m not entirely sure I’m confident of any one answer. Armor seems to be the most common factor, the fact that the German tanks could be tough nuts, physically, to crack, and that the American and British guns didn’t always punch through easily.

Us tankers are a simple lot, we just like to be able to see-shoot-kill. Having to use… bleh… tactics… is a nuisance we’d rather avoid. There seemed to be less of a concern about friendly armor levels, given the acceptance of the levels of compromise which would be necessary. In other words, they didn’t worry so much about the fact that the enemy could kill them, as long as they had an equal chance of killing the enemy back.

However, perception bias does not necessarily square with reality, and I have taken quite a bit of flak for my position that the allied tankers were not as disadvantaged overall by the designs of their vehicles as popular culture states. I was chatting away with James Holland last month (British historian, see above-mentioned forthcoming Spitfire video) about the matter, as to how veterans will always reflect on the horrors of being on the receiving end of Stuka bombs, Panther gunfire etc… and ‘yes, but note that you’re here to talk about it.’ Rarely will they talk about their successes in as much detail or emotion. I sort of touch on this in my article “Significant Emotional Events.” 

To slightly mis-paraphrase Samuel Johnson, death concentrates the mind wonderfully. Having someone trying to kill you is going to make a very significant impression on your world view and memories. After all, we all rather fear death, and when a friend is killed, you notice it. You don’t so much fear the death of someone ‘over there’ who you never met or knew, though, and at the end of a battle, your thoughts lean more towards ‘hooray, I survived’, than ‘hooray, we killed the other guy.’

Thus, in my opinion, veterans' accounts are far more skewed to the concept of surviving ‘an equal fight’, tanko-a-tanko, than considering the vehicles’ design features which lead to the reduced likelihood of a fight being fair in the first place.

Sure, US armor is less than a Panther. On the other hand, the fact that it’s light and reliable has resulted in the tanks being in a position of advantage, popping up in numbers and unexpected locations thus, as Sun Tzu advocated, winning the fight before it is even started.

Sure, the US tankers remarked on the clarity of German optics, but they were looking at them as an individual component, not as part of a weapon system. A Sherman’s (and I’d argue a T-34’s) optics could allow for a faster engagement on most targets, even if the target was a little fuzzy. Shooting first is important. Very important. Shooting in numbers is also important. The percentage of allied tank crews who survived until 1945 vs the percentage of German tank crews who survived until 1945 probably is worth considering in the overall assessment (or, if you wish, the number of allied tank crews killed until 1945 vs the number of German tank crews killed until 1945).

TWR: What is the logic behind having a drive sprocket in the front of a tank versus the rear or vice versa? The Sherman might not have been so darned tall if they didn't route that drive shaft from the back of the tank to the front.

Chieftain: There are several stated reasons for such a layout. Seems to be a common question, recently, given the Lindybeige video last month. There are some arguments like ‘pulling’ the tank is easier, or ‘the track is cleaner at the end of the return run’. I don’t entirely buy them, though.

I put a bit more credence to arguments such as “Having the transmission near the driver, and in the days of mechanical linkages, makes actually driving the vehicle far easier.” (Face it, T-34 gear shifts are notorious, Shermans far less so). Mostly, though, I’d go for accessibility and reliability.

Back in the day, these pieces of equipment could be very big. Can you imagine what a Panzer IV, Panther or Sherman would look like if you had to leave room for their transmissions, differentials, brakes, and final drives all in the back instead of at the front where they are located? How would you replace a rear-mounted Sherman transmission in as quick an amount of time as you could the front? Or, better yet, do any necessary tweaking which doesn’t require a full lift-out?

By the end of the war, though, we had reached the point where systems were getting smaller and more reliable. There was less need to routinely access or change out systems as well, so you see the move to the rear with a complete pack. These days, the decision of front/rear drive is usually more related to function. IFVs or SPGs, which require open space in the rear, will default to the pack at the front. Tanks, which have usually no such requirement, will default to the pack at the rear. (Merkava the significant exception, but, again, there was a requirement for opening at the rear).

TWR: As you’ve mentioned, finding information is paramount to understanding these vehicles. Do you have a “most-used” book relating to tank research?

Chieftain: Depends on the nature of the research. For US vehicles, Hunnicutt is the default. For German stuff, Jentz/Doyle. Fletcher is port of call #1 for the British, French vehicles it’s the Trackstories of Editions du Barbotin. These are in no way exclusive, there are plenty of other good authors out there.

TWR: How about for people interested in diving into tank history, where is a good place to start?

Chieftain: Steve Zaloga is worth a look for Americans. He writes in clear English, and not to a level which is so technical that neophytes can’t understand it. Michael Green does good introductory level work too.

Better yet, go to a good museum like Bovington. If you can get a tour (My first tour of Bovington, back in 1993 or so, was conducted by Fletcher) to put the development and use of the tank into context, better yet.

The problem is that the history of the tank is so long that there is no single book you can go to in order to get “Tank 101”. But now I mention it, I do have a “Tank 101” video:

TWR: If you could design a tank, what specifications would you try to reach? (speed, firepower, armor)

Chieftain: I think at this point the ‘hard’ basics of tanks have been settled. They max out at 70 tons, because they have to cross bridges. The 120mm seems to still be quite adequate after the last couple of decades, and so on. About the only ‘new’ game changer is the application of active protection systems.

The real distinguishers now are not the levels of capability, but how well the crew can utilise them. What is the target acquisition system? What is the ability to incorporate the new ‘smart’ munitions into the fire control system to increase lethality? Can training be integrated into the tank? (See Merkava IV where the tank can be quickly and easily converted into a simulator). How much of the workload can be off-loaded from the crewman to the system? (See automatic Muzzle Reference Systems) How much easier can the maintenance be made? (See AIMS Abrams system, or the Challenger 2 track tensioning system). Tanks are already plenty capable of being lethal, fast, and tough. The improvements now have to be related to best achieving that capability.

TWR: How does your passion for tanks translate from WW1 vehicles to modern tanks?

Chieftain: Well enough. I’m by nature actually a modern guy, so I do try to keep abreast, even though I get less access to modern materials than the older stuff. The story of tank development from WW1 to today has always been one of ingenuity and deliberate design decisions, what to sacrifice vs what to emphasise and it’s fascinating to see how the designers have tackled what is, in effect, the same question over the last 100 years by incorporating new technologies or new philosophies. Sure an FT is less impressive than a T-54, but when viewed from the position of the FT designer, as an achievement it is no less remarkable.

TWR: Can you tell us about your favorite battle?

Chieftain: The first Officer Professional Development assignment I give my lieutenants was Suez ‘73. I think there are a lot of lessons to be learned in that little campaign, varying from the risks of hubris, the relative advantage of technology, and the need for rapid adaptation. I am also quite a fan of studying the Falklands War, as a reasonably modern, almost-all-arms war which is still small enough to get your head around in its entirety, to include strategic, logistical and support elements as well as the tactical and operational level.

TWR: Could you share with us some “little-known” facts about tanks and their crews?

Chieftain: US tankers hate apricots. We wear special boots. The Turret Monster exists. Honestly, probably not, mainly because what may be ‘little known’ to most folks is quite well known to me and I don’t view it as little-known!

The interview continues on the next page as we discuss World of Tanks.

Sam Chandler is the Australian piece of the AllGamers puzzle. Out of all his gaming-related passions, collecting N64 games, speedrunning, and Souls games rank among the most important. You can reach Sam through Twitter, @SamuelChandler, or through his email, sam.chandler@allgamers.com, at any time of the day or night on either side of the globe.

Keyboards

Shop Now

Nintendo Products

Shop Now