Jump to content
Please support this forum by joining the SH Patreon ×
Sturgeon's House

delete013

Scrublord
  • Posts

    204
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by delete013

  1. I also think these numbers are extreme. I'm not sure historians are clear on what happened there. To my info Körner encountered dozens of tanks rearming and refueling in a counter attack. There he could have begged many. I would never choose such unclear case to prove some point.
  2. I know it is, but I had no idea how it works or what it is good for on a tank. I don't think it was that common on tanks. Renk has it in modern transmissions, but only as a specialised device for climbing. I can't claim I know about differentials, but at least I know what effect they have on tank steering. I haven't heard anything on differentials from you during the Pershing mobility discussion. Maybe you can comment on that. What is stupid?
  3. @Beer is an engineer, no? He should know. I rely on his statement. I didn't know what torque converter was until yesterday! But I went to check. Clever device. Too bad Americans attached that awful controlled differential to it. Pershing turned like Ever Given.
  4. Where is the logic here? Germans have no pathological need to prove themselves and their tools better than everyone else. Have you even met a German in your life?
  5. If you don't care, why do you respond? Oh why? Because reliability of Allied tanks killed so many panzers in ww2?
  6. It is even stated! Perhaps not all but clearly enough to be exposed as a reason. Why would he lie?
  7. I wouldn't call it a bad design. Rather no other choice. I agree that from an engineering point of view the vehicle was not very suitable for the situation in 1944-45. That is, imo, the principal criticism of a panther. Choosing the "right" type of vehicle would inevitably mean operating with inferior vehicles. The choice was therefore between larger share of vehicles stuck out of action due to repairs and larger share destroyed in combat. Both versions decrease battle performance and ultimately result in an undesired situation. I can't say to what extent. From a (German) military point of view, the former is imo preferable. It is much harder to replace good crews. Those can compensate for numbers as well as equipment attrition. Weaker vehicles require greater numbers, greater numbers consume more fuel and potentially more spare parts. The question is then, whether Daimler Benz prototype wouldn't decrease performance as much. It could be a plausible choice for 1944, if it could compensate for a lack of artillery and air support on the battlefield. So this is my opinion, design was not a problem. Evaluating German choices, one comes faster to the conclusion that war shouldn't continue beyond 1943, than to a design change.
  8. My wrong judgement then. If overcoming steep obstacles at slow speeds was the primary factor in speed average and no "max. speed test" was performed, then I don't know what else could be concluded? It would also explain why fairly heavier pershing was faster than T-44.
  9. Curious isn't it. And we know from Swedish trials, technical stats, combat reports and opinions that panther's mobility was better than sherman's. What is the tank to the left, on this photo? Shape looks like sherman's with pretty wide tracks and muzzle brake. why did Pasholok mention comparison with M4A4? Isn't that an early export 75mm version? Panther has more powerful engine and much better steering mechanism than a pershing. I don't believe torque converter is such magical device to overcome both. These things don't add up. The article is only Pasholok's summary of the report. The article states that there were no speed trials, which makes me believe it was an inclined terrain navigation course, as you suspected. Why else would a medium tank be slower than a heavy?
  10. I've been dwelling a bit on panther's final drives and came to this. Warning, this can include semantic errors! MAN said that they wanted epicyclic gearing (tiger's in the image) but the lack of machine cutting tools for inner gearing, apparently prevented it. but were forced to resort to adding a reduction gear: Sherman proponents usually give M4's final drives as example of good practice with double helical gears: http://www.theshermantank.com/wp-content/uploads/FFF48-Final-drive-unit-removed-from-assembly.png But then one looks at two other tanks of the same era of about the same weight as panther's, and without known final drive problems: Pershing: Cent: Both tanks feature "conservative" spur gears. Pershing's seems of similar size to panther's and even lacks a reduction gear, resulting in a higher force exercised on the teeth of the big gear. Centurion's final drive has precisely the same principle as panthers, double reduction gear, to enable gradual ratios from one gear to another. So the design doesn't seem to be inappropriate. If gears were too weak, there seems to be no limitation to increasing the size or thickness of inidividial gears, since final drives are outside of the hull anyway. But there is more. We know that the teeth of the big gear were normally the weak point. In Panzertracts 9-3 (Jagdpanther) it is stated that in october 1944, final drive issues of Jagdpanther battalion 654 ceased and that they made several hundred kilometres by then with improved final drives. What improvements those were, is not clear. In the catalog one can see internals of a final drive of a panther A or D This is a presumably "improved" final drive of a late Jagdpanther, restored by Weald Fundation. Comparing those two one sees no major difference, thing that would really improve the design. Maybe with it, the strenghtened bolts and housing, is meant? (It is the only improvement Spielberger mentioned) To bring my point home, 1) we also know that at January 1945 meeting of the Panzer-commission previous defects on all German tanks were mentioned, not only panthers. 2) It is also known that gearboxes, with plenty of gearing inside, were fragile and that the teeth of the gearing for the 3rd gear often broke. 3) It was also suspected at the time that sabotage was probable and mentioned by Spielberger in Panther und seine Abarthen that steel used was sub-par for the industry standards. 4) The only fully functional gearing design was planetary, which, imo, offers the best distribution of force and the least stress on individual teeth. From this I can conclude that most likely cause of final drive failures was weak material, rather that the design itself. The best working German design was one that was the least sensitive to material quality! Now conjecture, warning. This explains for me, why no firm solution could be found. Mass produced vehicles would have to use poor material. It is likely that a vehicle with proper material would require no improvements, beyond those made after the field testing. It is also likely that the prototype version of a vehicle would show less problems due to better materials used. The incentives to the designers went without effect, likely because any design other than planetary would face similar fate. Germans maxed the limitations of resource scarcity and had to put up with material generally considered unsuitable. Without exact analysis of materials is direct comparison between German and Allied designs problematic.
  11. So what is the important factor here? I assume it is the question whether the recoil affects accuracy. Or whether ealignment is needed? I guess if sights are independent from the barrel and wobble doesn't disturb the shot the bounce doesn't matter until the reload is finished.
  12. Bloody hell, what a find. Need more visuals from their glorious fight. Vietnam still uses T-54-1! Cannot say if more valuable for its combat effect or museum relevance.
  13. It is still quite untypical of the French to behave so timidly. They won ww1 but apparently lost the battle of the will, because Napoleon was precisely the opposite.
  14. It was indeed meant to climb trenches in a fashion of 1918. It seems that climbing was still quite useful for infantry support in ww2. Churchills made it much easier for the British to evercome the hills around Tunis. Germans felt safe on the peaks and the British simply drove up to them including to the 754th Grenadier Regiment HQ, bagging the officers. Navigating heavy terrain widens the maneuver space and the tactical solutions available. Lowlands are not everywhere. But as the rest already mentioned, the small turret ring dictated the size of a weapon in the turret and Churchill's ended up being woefully undergunned, which is not very healthy for such a slow vehicle.
  15. These designs seem to stray from the usual good practices of tank building. Bulky, tall and with little space for suspension. Armour on the "cannon" seems equal to that of a c2(IFV?). How is that justified?
  16. If they managed the automated ammunition loading this combination of tanks and ATGM carrier looks the most evolved concepts I've seen, especially comapred to the peacmeal concepts of the West of the time (1991 ?). Oscillating turret with crew separated from the ammo pretty much solves two of the most recurring design issues I have with soviet tanks. Makes FCS look quite silly.
×
×
  • Create New...