Evan Connell

[Yan Taylor]

Bad news Chuck, they made a remake starring James Belushi in the Bogart role

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara_%281995_film%29

Ian.

[quincannon]

It was not bad news for me, for I did not see it nor do I recall hearing about it.

The plot though would be very good I think for an accurate remake, devoid of wartime propaganda. Take away the steriotypes, like the J Carrol Nash character, and that mean old deceptive German , who appears to be the type to kill his mother for grins. You could do a lot of things with it to make it a very good dramatic presentation. But then what would Casablanca be without "Major Strasser of the Third Reich"

Here's looking at you kid.

[Deleted]

Mr. Connell's book is the most dog eared one of my LBH library. Sad to hear of his passing.

I'd like to add Strother Martin to the list of character actors appreciated here. His horse trading in "True Grit" and the performance in "Ballad of Cable Hogue" were classic as were others.

[quincannon]

Some of the unsung members of the Ford Stock Company - George O'Brien, Mildred Natwick, Authur Shields (Barry Fitzgerald's brother) Tom Tyler, Francis Ford (John's brother), and Yakima Canuck (I think I murdered that spelling, but he was a hell of a stunt man)

Agree about Strother Martin.

[fred]

Jan 14, 2013 15:28:49 GMT -6 @feral said:

I'd like to add Strother Martin to the list of character actors appreciated here.

Feral,

I agree totally! Absolutely! He was marvelous, as well. Do you remember the small part he played with Denver Pyle in Horse Soldiers? Priceless! Great call!

Best wishes,
Fred.

[Yan Taylor]

Yes Chuck it was a beast, but the M3 Medium (Lee to the Americans, Grants to the British) and the M3 Light (Stuart to the Americans, Honeys to the British) were a god send to the 8th Army, our Cruiser Tanks were rubbish and only for the Matilda II and the Valentines (Churchill’s later) we had nothing to take on the Pz Mk IIIs (50mm KwK L/42) and Pz Mk IVs (75mm KwK L/24), plus none of our Tanks could fire HE, the 2 pdr which was similar in performance to the 50mm KwK L/42 was not issued with a HE round, so the German AT Guns could knock out our thinly armoured Cruiser Tanks before they could get close enough to use MG fire, the answer was to arm the Cruisers with a 3.7in Howitzer (close support tanks), and each Armoured Regiment was issued six of these CS tanks for this job, but they still failed to grasp issue and these vehicles were mainly armed with smoke rounds plus a couple of HE shells, (there main role was to provide smoke to mask the enemy AT Guns).

One issue that has always left me wondering is this, in 1944 the Americans had developed an Assault Tank called the M4A3E2 (Sherman Jumbo), it had Armour up to 150mm (6in) thick and had a top road speed of 35 kph (22 mph) they produced 254 of these vehicles and they seen action in Europe (I think the first tank to enter Bastogne was a Jumbo), the British had already developed the 17 pdr AT Gun and mounted it on the standard M4 (Sherman Firefly), the 17 pdr could knock out Panthers and Tigers at ranges up to 1000 yards (914m), so if the British managed to fit the 17 pdr to the Sherman (all though only had a two man turret) why didn’t they fit this gun to the Jumbo and create a Heavy Tank which could match the Tiger.

Tiger I
Max Armour; 100mm (3.9in)
Max Speed; 24 mph (38 kph)
Gun; 88mm KwK 36 L/56 = 100mm (3.9in) @ 914m (1000 yards) @ 30°

Sherman Jumbo (if mounted with the 17 pdr)
Max Armour; 150mm (6in)
Max Speed; 22 mph (35 kph)
Gun; 17 pdr = 131mm (5.15in) @ 914m (1000 yards) @ 30°

But the allies thought different, but in my view they missed a chance to equip their Tank Regiments/Battalions with a tank which could do the job, they could of added one troop or squad of Jumbo’s to every Squadron or platoon.

Ian.

[quincannon]

Ian: My guess would be the two man vice three man turret, and the impending introduction of the M26 Pershing. Other than that I would not know.

I have often asked a similar question regarding the continued production of the Benson/Livermore class of destroyers which were clearly obsolete and saw no post war service, save a few that were refitted as fast minesweepers, when superior destroyers the Fletchers and Sumners were in production. The answer always given is that we had produced so many power plants that were for them exclusively that they had to remain in production.

The iron law of mobilization is that what is in production out the outbreak of war is produced in as much quantity as you can muster. Add to this, the prevailing theory in WWII for us, is that quantity trumps quality. The more you produce even though they may not be the best available will prevail over better but many fewer.

As far as major modifications go, and again using ship production, there was a major flap when the Navy wanted to extend the range of the Sumners, by inserting a fourteen foot section into the hull, thus creating the Gearings, which contained mostly fuel, and allowed for a command information center (built for the purpose not ad hoc). The shipbuilders threw a fit because it would slow production. Now there was a clear requirement for this modification due to wartime experience, but still it caused delays and as a result few Gearings had wartime service. They did form the backbone of the destroyer force until the 1960's though.

[Yan Taylor]

Hi Chuck, yes the allied view was quantity over quality, which in the case of the standard M4 was ok when faced with Pz Mk IV, but the Panther was different kettle of fish, the U.S. doctrine of using Tank Destroyers instead of having a large towed ATG was in my view sound, the M10 (3in M7) M18 (76mm M1A2) & M36 (90mm M3) were very efficient at what they were designed for ‘’shoot and scoot’’. It’s a petty that the British tank designers could have given the army a descent medium tank, even in 1944 when it was evident that the Germans were producing the Panther in large number, they came up with the Cromwell, it was another bad design and led to the deaths of many a tanker, some officers complained over the new tank and were told to shut up or face a court martial.

I believe you spent some time in the Artillery, I ask you this because I was reading about a tactic used by the Americans in WW2, it was called ‘’Time On Target shoot’’ or ToT for short, in short it means widely separated batteries which could fire on a specific target with all the shells bursting at the same moment.

The question I am asking is; did the Americans use a new proximity fuze around the time of the Battle of the Bulge? Some say they didn’t issue a new fuze till 1945 just after the Battle was over.

If they did develop this Fuze and get it into action before the Ardennes offensive the shock of this must have been terrific for the Germans, as the amount of TNT exploding over head from batteries from an entire Corps must have been like the end of the world for the attackers.

It’s ironic because I read somewhere that the German word TOT means Death which was appropriate because these barrages were deadly,

Ian.

[quincannon]

Ian: I believe that the late Charles MacDonald says the proimity fuze was used at the time of the Bulge. I will get out Time For Trumpets this afternoon sometime and see if I can find reference to it.

TOT is an exercise in gunnery mathmatics. It was devestating. Today, with MLRS we can do about the same thing with only one launcher. Can't bring myself to visualize what an MLRS battalion TOT would look like. The difference would be short interval hits, but the effect would be much greater I would think.

Until the advent of second and third generation ATGMs the tank , post war, was thought to be the best AT weapon. Some still think so, I am not so sure. You can never be sure a tank, or better yet lots of tanks, are going to be where you need them defensively. The attack helicopter using its high mobility is I believe a more versitile platform, but one that depends upon at least minimal weather conditions.

The above is why it is essential to have lots of complimentry toys in your toy box.

[Yan Taylor]

Chuck; I believe the day of the tank over, once you get small groups of determined men armed with automatic weapons and RPGs and knocking out tanks with ease then the day of the tank as we know it is gone, I think that in today’s world there are two types of land warfare, one is over open terrain the other street fighting, I remember the Israelis attacking the Lebanon only a few years back and suffering at the hands of these types of small AK-47/RPG units in built up areas, and if we go to tanks operating in open terrain then Helicopter gunships can rip them to shreds, similar to what happened to the Iraqi Republican Guard.

The French went into Mali over the weekend, and they were surprised at how well trained the Islamists fighters were, let’s see what the French do next, they are no mugs so only time will tell.

Ian.

[quincannon]

Ian: The tank like the horse and chariot before it is a weapons system that will dominate until a better system comes along. I am not ready to relegate the tank to the boneyard yet, but neither do I favor the fielding of large armored/mechanized formations either. Brigade size is large enough. The number of these type brigades that a country should field should be based upon threat and affordability. No longer can nations bankrupt themselves on huge battlefield implements when smaller or more versitile ones are available.

I stated that I think the attack or attack/recon helicopter is more versitile than the tank. I am a firm deciple of Gavin's "Cavalry and I Don't Mean Horses". Gavin's ideas as modified by the Brit Brigadier Richard Simkin, and the fact that these two are largely ignored by the motor oil and horse s**t crowd troubles me to no end.

[shatonska]

Jan 13, 2013 17:48:16 GMT -6 quincannon said:

I should have titled that movie Wagon Master not Wagon Train -----I think Worden was in that too.

yes one of the bandits with a young james arness (the great Zeb Macahan??)


i'm watching "Northwest Passage" on Italian paytv and i
just found himmm , a parade of the rangers at the beginning and Hank Worden is there , ahahah

you can add to Stroter all the terrific actors of the Wild Bunch

[quincannon]

He was in Rogers Rangers, the Texas Rangers and fought at the Alamo. Boy did that guy get around.

[Yan Taylor]

James Arness also played an Alien in the movie ‘’The Thing from another World’’.

Chuck, Jim Gavin’s idea of using the Helicopter to transport units armed with automatic (MGs) and AT light weapons is the way forward, it takes time to move heavy support units like Field Artillery, Heavy Armour and Armoured Infantry and the type of warfare we are faced with today does not need all this heavy metal, sure if the Soviets or the North Koreans kick off, then the availability of such units would come into play, but I think that the wars our troops are engaged in at the moment benefit from a fast, light and hard hitting force, with Infantry being equipped with a vast array of weapons from light AT to MGs, in fact every Light Infantry Company should be able to deal with the threats commonly found on the today’s modern battle field.

Plus if you have Helicopter Gunships and fix winged aircraft at hand, then this ordinance could destroy any major threats like enemy armour, strong points and break up any heavy Infantry assaults.

I looked up the book; Deep Battle by Richard Simpkin and it was £85 and that was second hand including post and packaging, so I don’t think it will be amongst my Birthday gifts come July.

Ian.

[quincannon]

Ian: The closest unit now existing in the world that is the model of what Gavin had in mind in "Cavalry and I Don't Mean Horses" is your 16th Air Assault Brigade, based I believe in Essex.

Airmobile/Air Assault units are still heavyweights, just a different kind of heavy.

The thing that infuriates me about Keogh and his infantry mentality thing is that units such as these give lie to his thesis, and he is so ignorent of their capabilities and the thought process behind them, that it is an insult. Yet he still equates the infantry and their leadership of 1876 to what exists today. I would be surprised if he does not still equate the line infantry of Wellington's day to the modern multi role units such as the 16th in todays British Army also.

Race to the Swift is Simkin's best work I think. He used to write extensively for Armor (now Cavalry and Armor Journal) Magazine. Simkin was far ahead of his time, and the entire body of his work is yet to be fully explored His ideas are far more advanced than those of Liddell-Hart, Fuller and the armor pioneers of the 1920's and 30's. Both Simkin and Gavin looked at horse cavalry and concluded that they were nothing but infantry mounted on horses, armed with carbines. This of course was at the end of the horse cavalry's evolutionary process. The only thing that "late" horse cavalry possessed that straight infantry did not was speed, shock action and effect. Their force designs compensated for this by use of the armed helicopter, and rapid troop transport . Cavalry manuals of the 1930's were used by such people as COL Jay Vanderpool to develop proper force structure which was concluded to be scouts, guns and foot (rifles). The mission set was the same. Different horses.

Units of air cavalry in brigade size, supplemented by cavalry groups (smaller but the same mission set) are useful across the spectrum of conflict, where heavy forces are not (in their pure form). What needs to be done though, and it as organizational and technological challenge, is integrate scout, gun, and foot into a single squadron level organization. To do this the US Army requires re-establishment of a cavalry branch, and relegate tanks to the infantry as a seperate skill area. We would then have a versitile cavalry force and a heavy mechanized force capable of facing any threat. It is the ratios and numbers exercise then. The cavalry force needs two brigades and about eight groups I think in the active force.