delete013

48 minutes ago, Beer said:

 

This is also humble Nazi reporting... On 29th April 1945 Karl Körner from SS S.Pz.Abt 503 was awarded a Knight's cross for destruction of over 100 tanks in the past week including an encounter in which he claimed destruction of 39 tanks in  matter of several minutes (that was supposed to be part of an encounter in which his platoon of three Königstigers allegedly destroyed 11 IS-2 and 120-150 T-34 at once, i.e. roughly 3 brigades destroyed with 3 tanks). 

 

Not John Rambo, not even Topper Harley could do this. With all seriousness the only person ever walking this Earth capable of something like that is Chuck Norris and he's the only one. 

 

 

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.

30 minutes ago, Beer said:

Man, millions and millions of automatic gearboxes in past eighty years all around the Globe have been equipped with torque converter. If you never heard about the most common coupling solution in automatic gearboxes, it means without any doubt that you have zero clue about transmissions and since differentials are rather difficult topic to grasp I think you shall not argue about them.

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.

30 minutes ago, Beer said:

Even what you just wrote is simply stupid. 

What is stupid?

45 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

As if you know what kind of device a torque converter is at all!

@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.

34 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

The same reason everyone in that country lied all the time, presumably.

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?

7 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

Literally no one here cares what you would call it.

If you don't care, why do you respond?

7 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

(Don't think I didn't notice the horrendous false dichotomy you threw in there - "it was a choice between being reliable and being combat effective". Bullshit that does not deserve to be addressed, like 80% of everything you say.)

Oh why? Because reliability of Allied tanks killed so many panzers in ww2?

9 hours ago, TokyoMorose said:

And for reference, here is Noak's commentary from the later period. Final drive and track failures come back with a vengeance (yes, I'm suuure all of your final drives, the tiny targets that they are were miraculously hit by enemy artillery and that is why they failed).

 

 

It is even stated! Perhaps not all but clearly enough to be exposed as a reason. Why would he lie?

7 hours ago, DogDodger said:

As we discussed previously, the design itself was poor because it was known that the available materials were not up to the task. Spielberger says that a higher-strength steel was intended for the gears, but after this was "unexpectedly" replaced no alterations in the design were made (and depending on when this replacement occurred, alterations may have been impossible).

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 hours ago, Beer said:

...torque converter. When driving very slow and uphill it makes a great difference

 

...I have never suspected that it was a navigation course. Not at all. 

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.

On 4/17/2021 at 2:36 PM, Beer said:

Soviet evaluation of Pershing in summer 1945 gives some light to the previously discussed terrain speed of Panther and Pershing. The result didn't favour Panther... 

http://www.tankarchives.ca/2018/03/pershing-heavy-by-necessity.html

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?

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.

6 hours ago, Collimatrix said:

I'm not sure if strong conclusions can be taken from that one video.  Different ammo types produce radically different amounts of recoil.  Discarding sabot training ammo doesn't produce too much recoil, while HE-FRAG is firing a big, heavy shell with a lot more momentum.

 

Aside from that, it occurs to me that the 120mm armed tanks listed are all heavier than the 125mm armed ones, although the weight of the K2 and T-14 overlap.

 

How a tank responds to the recoil of its gun firing is a function of the total momentum of the shot, the mass of the vehicle, the moment of inertia about the recoil axis (which is affected by which way the turret is facing), suspension stiffness, suspension damping, and recoil system length and forces.  You are correct in thinking that the stabilizer doesn't have very much to do with it.  In addition, I suspect that the K2 may enjoy very low recoil when firing from a stationary position, as it has adjustable suspension.  The rear hydropneumatic stations can be filled with additional gas pressure, which increases the K* of the stations, which reduces the amount that the tank rocks when firing provided the gun is pointed more or less forward.

 

The most effective way for light vehicles to deal with high trunnion loads from their cannons is to have very long recoil lengths for their cannons' recoil systems, but this comes at a cost.  The longer the recoil path of the cannon, the more empty space needs to be reserved to accommodate the movement of the breech.  This makes the turret more voluminous and taller.

I don't think that it's a significant cost driver.




*Compressed gas doesn't act exactly like a spring, but close enough.

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.

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.

42 minutes ago, Toxn said:

Yup. I mean, it seems plausible. But the source...

Happy reading!

Disclamer: I don't say I agree with everything.

11 hours ago, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

 I mean being a wehraboo is so 2012. 

I thought for US military it was 70s and 80s.

2 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

 

You have absolutely lost the privilege of speaking authoritatively on anything, even if you're right.

What are you so bitter about?

28 minutes ago, Toxn said:

Indeed. Not a good bet, as it turned out.

 

But you can't blame them for at least hedging. The French, at least, went into WW1 adamant that it would a war of offensive manoeuvre (based on their previous experience with the Prussians), and it was for a month or two. And then it wasn't and they lost a generation of young men.

 

If I'd been bled white and had chunks of my country rendered permanently uninhabitable because I didn't put money on the defensive being dominant in the last war...

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.

5 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

That sound more usefull for WW1, not exactly as crucial in WW2.

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.

9 hours ago, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

 

 

Now you've done it, this one post will give Delete enough evidence, he will never grow out of his Nazi Tank obsession. Thus never get laid, and never reproduce, or was that your plan all along???

An honest post, we should appreciate it.

On 1/3/2021 at 5:39 PM, Alzoc said:

Some artist models on the French vision for the MGCS :

 

Three different versions:

 

• Canon which shows a large caliber coax which seem to have en independent elevation (so back to the AMX-30)
• C² : Command and Control which seem to have a 40mm
• Missile: Same autocanon as a secondary than the canon version, 6 missiles ready and no RCWS

 

 

Found on a video from DGA: https://scorpion-future.fr/

 

Not much change from previous drawings:

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?

On 4/6/2021 at 12:58 AM, LoooSeR said:

This thing was posted so many times everywhere, that it is not only "oldschool" by just old and i'm sick of it.

Sorry, I didn't know.

Fire broadside!

On 4/20/2017 at 3:36 PM, LoooSeR said:

 

That is pretty cool

http://btvt.info/2futureprojects/object299.files/image007.jpg

I see an SPG on Object 299 chassis for a first time. Also Gurkhan claims that Heavy IFV at some point wa supposed to be armed with 76 mm autocannon.

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.

On 5/8/2019 at 11:29 PM, LoooSeR said:

Object 490B model for AW game

 

  Hide contents

 

 

I assume something would have to compensate for the tilting of the turret?

2 hours ago, Collimatrix said:

Ah, yeah, that's not great metallurgy for tank armor by postwar standards, but it definitely sounds like they had big enough foundries to make the parts.  I did not realize that the Czech T-72 turrets were domestically produced!

Has this anything to do with the question why Germans weren't casting hulls?

26 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

Oh this whole thing has been just delightful. Let's do a quick mid-season recap, shall we?

It started with Beer making an observation (which he's actually rather well qualified to support, not that you'd know because you don't actually pay any attention at all to who you're talking to), and you claiming his observation was a conjecture, and packaging this with an amusingly ignorant oversight (which any eleven year old tank game enthusiast would know, let alone someone who preens and struts about as if he were a german tank expert) about the Pz.38(t) n.A. Specifically, you didn't know it existed, and I really couldn't ask for a better symbolic prelude to this entire escapade. This pattern repeats with virtually every post you make, and it's frankly this remarkable consistency of complete ignorance that is the whole reason we keep you around rather than banning you out of contempt.

 

 

Make no mistake, although it's pathetic and perverse to see a human being act like a cornered beast, it remains a lot of fun to corner beasts, all the same.

A couple of posts are exchanged in which Beer continues to act extremely sober and measured in his engagement with, if not the nitwit of the century, then perhaps the nitwit of the decade (sadly, you're a couple years too early to escape being in a bracket with Brock, but I admire your tenacity), and then in very short order you drop the absolute bombshell of the thread when you claim that the Allies were worse at maneuver warfare. All of the back and forth about flotation and suspension systems pales in comparison to the magnitude of the stupidity of this statement. To focus on anything else in the thread at the expense of this would be like, well, autistically focusing on engreebled tank suspension systems at the expense of the greater maneuver war of World War II. Which, coincidentally, is an error both you and the Nazis committed.

Down the rabbit hole we go! The rabbit smirks, seeing how readily everyone follows! If he zags left, they zag left; if he goes under the branch, they go under the branch. He self-satisfies with how easily he can manipulate everyone else. Truly, a master of manipulation is he! A nice enough sounding theory. One problem: He's not being chased by other rabbits, but by terriers. What happens when they catch him?

It is unimportant to recount every dart of the rabbit, every puff of dust. It's unimportant to list off every idiotic thing you said, but it must be noted that there were a lot. You demonstrated an absolutely impressive ignorance of just about every topic from mechanical engineering, to history, to basic logic. But, idiots are a dime a dozen, and you, my dear rabbit, are special. You are not only ignorant, but you use it offensively, often throwing out comments about how you don't know and that makes you better somehow. A boar fights with his tusks. A bear with his claws and teeth. An idiot...

 

Indeed, you are a rare and endangered rabbit, which can run and kick and fight for hours, and give a tremendous amount of joy to any terrier. Especially when they finally shake you to death. Or until they lose interest and you are simply shot and buried, whichever comes first.