Jeeps_Guns_Tanks

Look at that magnificent son of a bitch!!   This is the almost final version, the final major change was to move all the carbs up in a row at the top of the motor. They solved the different length tubes going to each engine by putting baffles in them to get even flow across all five carburetors.  Finding images of this is hard most display motors have the earlier setup.
 
Here's one. 

 
 
 

Look at that magnificent son of a bitch!!   This is the almost final version, the final major change was to move all the carbs up in a row at the top of the motor. They solved the different length tubes going to each engine by putting baffles in them to get even flow across all five carburetors.  Finding images of this is hard most display motors have the earlier setup.
 
Here's one. 

 
 
 

I've gotten really good at fixing messed up scans, and cleaning up old images. I have a system to the simple ones can be done in like 10  to 15 minutes. The complicated ones depend on how many extra things I want to label, and how bad the original was. 
 
Bad scan
 
FIxed
 
A few more GAA things. I'm going to redo all these one more time. 
 
 
 
I put a little tutorial on my website about scanning printed media. Descreen is your friend people!!
 

His posts are better than yours. 
 
 
It's pretty clear you have no idea on just about anything you've talked about in this thread.    Like, do you know anything?  How do you not know ALL U.S. Tank Guns, from the 75mm M2 in the Lee to the current ones automatically ejected their shells. Like have you read anything but that Jentz book you posted with the suspicious stains?
 
You think a conventional pushrod V12 that couldn't make its design horsepower, is some miracle of technology, while shit talking the Ford GAA. The GAA being an overhead cam V8 with 4 valves per cylinder and being all aluminum made it right on the cutting edge of automotive technology. You having no idea about engines is clear when you spew shit about German motors being something special. 
 
 
This was such a clown shoes response. I guess you believe that propaganda. You still buy this bullshit after most of the big encounters where the Hero Nazi's you worship killed a horde of T-34s or Shermans, have been debunked, many by the guy who started this thread, and that just makes you an asshole.  It boils down to you're a troll, trolling about liking Nazi shit, or moron who actually believes the bullshit you're spewing, in either case, you don't look real good.  I hope you're a stupid kid, many of us really liked German tanks when when we were young and stupid, but we all read enough actual history to grow out of it. You could actually learn something from the people who tried to be nice to you in this thread, but at this point, you presence on this forum is so poisoned, no one is going to take you seriously. 
 
 
 
 
 

This Panther is like Deletes arguments in this thread. Full of holes. 

His posts are better than yours. 
 
 
It's pretty clear you have no idea on just about anything you've talked about in this thread.    Like, do you know anything?  How do you not know ALL U.S. Tank Guns, from the 75mm M2 in the Lee to the current ones automatically ejected their shells. Like have you read anything but that Jentz book you posted with the suspicious stains?
 
You think a conventional pushrod V12 that couldn't make its design horsepower, is some miracle of technology, while shit talking the Ford GAA. The GAA being an overhead cam V8 with 4 valves per cylinder and being all aluminum made it right on the cutting edge of automotive technology. You having no idea about engines is clear when you spew shit about German motors being something special. 
 
 
This was such a clown shoes response. I guess you believe that propaganda. You still buy this bullshit after most of the big encounters where the Hero Nazi's you worship killed a horde of T-34s or Shermans, have been debunked, many by the guy who started this thread, and that just makes you an asshole.  It boils down to you're a troll, trolling about liking Nazi shit, or moron who actually believes the bullshit you're spewing, in either case, you don't look real good.  I hope you're a stupid kid, many of us really liked German tanks when when we were young and stupid, but we all read enough actual history to grow out of it. You could actually learn something from the people who tried to be nice to you in this thread, but at this point, you presence on this forum is so poisoned, no one is going to take you seriously. 
 
 
 
 
 

This Panther is like Deletes arguments in this thread. Full of holes. 

His posts are better than yours. 
 
 
It's pretty clear you have no idea on just about anything you've talked about in this thread.    Like, do you know anything?  How do you not know ALL U.S. Tank Guns, from the 75mm M2 in the Lee to the current ones automatically ejected their shells. Like have you read anything but that Jentz book you posted with the suspicious stains?
 
You think a conventional pushrod V12 that couldn't make its design horsepower, is some miracle of technology, while shit talking the Ford GAA. The GAA being an overhead cam V8 with 4 valves per cylinder and being all aluminum made it right on the cutting edge of automotive technology. You having no idea about engines is clear when you spew shit about German motors being something special. 
 
 
This was such a clown shoes response. I guess you believe that propaganda. You still buy this bullshit after most of the big encounters where the Hero Nazi's you worship killed a horde of T-34s or Shermans, have been debunked, many by the guy who started this thread, and that just makes you an asshole.  It boils down to you're a troll, trolling about liking Nazi shit, or moron who actually believes the bullshit you're spewing, in either case, you don't look real good.  I hope you're a stupid kid, many of us really liked German tanks when when we were young and stupid, but we all read enough actual history to grow out of it. You could actually learn something from the people who tried to be nice to you in this thread, but at this point, you presence on this forum is so poisoned, no one is going to take you seriously. 
 
 
 
 
 

This Panther is like Deletes arguments in this thread. Full of holes. 

I'm sorry but building a prototype (or in this case just a turretless demonstrator) is something very different than to develop vehicle suitable for production. The Schmalturm on the picture was not an integral Panther II feature but a separate later development considered for various vehicles but it also never got anywhere - not even to the final specification. 
 
In the end Panther II was replaced by another, this time pure-paper project E-50 before there was even an attempt to start Panther II production done. No prototype testing was done, no trials, not even any final design specification was done and nothing was ordered. 
 
Using such projects for comparison with anything actually fielded is completely useless and on the level of pure fantasy. There were dozens of demonstrators and prototypes made in all countries and comparing them to anything is simply pointless because what matters in reality is not paper stats but real service record.
 
Besides that there is very good reason to expect that a new lale war German armor design would end in a failure because that was the general trend in vehicles which were getting to the production towards the end of the war. 
 
 
 
 

This. This right here is an absolute choice bit of consequential apologism. It doesn't occur to you at all that Panther might have been a dysfunctional product of a dysfunctional system. If it does occur to you, your brain runs interference and blocks you from allowing yourself to even imagine such a thing could be true. Hitler has cucked your brain. Your raising his little aryan kiddies in your head! Only question is: why?

Sorry but that is fantasy and wishful thinking on your side and a clear misunderstanding how AFV development process is complicated and what needs to be done between the drawing board and the serial production. I'm sorry but if you don't understand how utterly useless is to over and over bring these dream projects into the discussion, I have nothing more to add to the subject. You can keep living in your fantasy land. 
  
 
Seriously, WTF? Those heavier vehicles were an unreliable nearly useless mass of steels which failed miserably and you somehow expect that if you take some of their parts and put them in new vehicles everything will somehow start to work well? 
 
E-series except E-100 had rear transmission a thing completely new for the Germans, yet you somehow consider it a carry-over of the previous designs. There was no decision about suspension done with three existing options, one completely new and one never used for such heavy vehicle. The engine was all new direct-injection optionally turbocharged, never tried before. The hydraulic gearbox was all new never tested. Nothing is known about the turrets and armamament. All what circles about them on the internet is nothing more than made-up theories.  
 
Regarding E-series of tanks you shall read this: https://warspot.net/13-e-50-and-e-75-a-story-of-failed-unification
  
 
War is not a football and is never ever won by score. In the end it's irrelevant if you kill one or million enemies when you loose. Wars are not fought to make impression on future generations of teenagers. War is won by the side which best achieves its strategical objectives. Everything else is secondary.  
 
 
T-54 prototype says hello to German paper tanks, March 1945. 

 

Halloooo Deutschland hat den Krieg trotzdem verloren!!! Trotz hart wie Krupp Stahl und zäh wie Leder und beste Technologie und Panzerschokolade und Düsenjäger und Sturmgewehr....so plz stop wanking one on German war Technology.....it has been mentioned before, Russian took a monument of an IS-2 fueled it up and put some oil in the engine and started the engine with press air...try that with an Über Panther and this was not long ago, less watching discovery channel or dmax or history channel...and especially stay away from tank game forums
 
 
 
 

I have this idea that most of our irrational attachments are due to the fact that our brains can only process things as a web of the other things its related to - you pull on a word and the whole person comes out.
 
Take the word "carriage". For me the word has built-in associations from children's stories and rhymes (Private Parrige brought the carriage), illustrated history books read in the school library, and the carriages rented for the matric dance. I cannot think the word without some tiny part of me remembering sitting on my mother's lap as she read to me as a child. So I probably can't rationally think about carriages as some sort of utilitarian object without resorting to tricks like de-identification.
 
Which is where this all gets tragic, because it means that Hitler cucked this kid's brain from beyond the grave by hijacking his childhood memories of watching the history channel with his dad or something.

Anybody else just... mentally exhausted? Who new just reading about people talking to a brick wall would be tiring, let alone actually arguing with said brick wall. Blessings to you, brave souls. 

Now give poor old delete some credit.
 
It DOES say something about the respective auto technologies... Just not what he thinks it does.
 
The Pershing worked specifically because american engineers were capable of engineering something that was within the limits of their automotive technology while the Germans couldn't even manage to not fuck that up!
 
Anyone Actually capable in their field would have known that the panther final drives wouldn't have even been satisfactory on something 15 tons lighter, like the Pershing, so they built final drives that would actually WORK with what they had!
 
Delete keeps trying to act like it's some sort of accomplishment to build a "medium" that's 15 tons heavier than it should be while having inferior fit out because he apparently doesn't understand that the goal is to get x set of capabilities with y mobility at the lowest weight and bulk possible.
 
It's a fundamental misunderstanding of what the purpose of tanks truly is at it's core.
 
Delete believes in the stat block over all else while sane people understand that AFV design is about striking the best compromise between all the competing factors and design considerations to come out with a system that does the most with the least so that you can make deploy and supply as many of them as possible.
 
These are not vegas air races aircraft delete. No points are awarded for the most sleek sophisticated and on the edge of your technological capabilities designs.
 
Your entire approach for deciding what is good is based in a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of afv's.

Ha, thanks. Flattery will get you...well pretty far, I suppose.
Indeed. The state of German automotive technology was unprepared for mass-production of a 45,000 kg tank. As we've been over, and as Spielberger notes, "Since it was envisaged to produce the Panther in large numbers, production costs of various subassemblies would have to be kept to a minimum...If it had been possible to foresee what difficulties the final reduction gearing was to cause, it would have been a much better solution to have selected a more expensive final drive which provided a greater degree of reliability. In the end, the final drive proved too weak to handle braking with the Klaue disk break [sic] when steering through tight curves. The use of epicyclic gearing for the final drive hinged upon the bottleneck being encountered in the supply of gear cutting machines for producing the hollow gearing. When passing judgement on the double-spur final reduction gear it should be noted that the high-quality steel originally planned for the spur gears in the final drive was not available for mass production and was unexpectedly replaced by VMS 135 (today 37 MnSi5) tempered steel (not as suitable for this purpose)...
 
"The final drive (gear teeth and bearings) was the weakest part of the Panther. It was a risky proposition to use a spur gear system for transferring the drive power - especially considering that the available steel during the war did not have a particularly high stress tolerance. A better solution would have been to use an epicyclic gear system; a prototype final reduction drive using planetary gear reduction had already been tested and had performed flawlessly. However, as mentioned previously, a shortage of gear cutting machinery for the hollow gearing prevented this type of final drive from being mass produced. In order to bridge the gap a final reduction gear system was installed in front of the main gear drive, but due to installation restrictions its mountings were far too weak and could not be strengthened. Because of gear teeth breaking under too great a load and the weak mountings, the gears were pushed out of alignment  - virtually guaranteeing mount and tooth breakage.
 
"The general consensus in the industry was that inner-toothed gear wheels could not be produced due to a lack of proper machinery. This meant that a final drive using planetary gear reduction and pre-selector spur gearing - found to be reliable in company testing - could not be installed in production tanks. All attempts to improve the final drive met with failure, despite the offers of a special bonus as an incentive..."
 
To quantify this a bit, Ristuccia and Tooze in "Machine tools and mass production in the armaments boom: Germany and the United States, 1929-44" note that Germany did make strides in increasing the number of gear-cutting machines in service, going from at least 10,407 in 1939 to 28,621 in January 1945. Even with these increases, compared to the US there were only 0.74 gear-cutting machines per German metalworking employee in 1945.

OK, with this you can seriously fuck off. Your beloved fuckers murdered millions of innocent people and I'm sure I'm not the only one on this forum whose ancestors fought the Nazi scum and eventually died on the battlefield. 
 
Go fuck yourself. 

So another side note: this game also works really well in reverse...
 
Discussing, let's call it the A42 "Cataphract", as developed by the British in 1943:
 
Designer: "Overall its dimensions were comparable to Tiger 1, but about 60cm longer and 30cm narrower. For all that, the turret ring diameter was 160cm. The vehicle weighed around 45 tonnes, ten tonnes less than Tiger, but had a lopsided armour scheme with equivalent (or better) frontal protection and about half the armour everywhere else."
 
Wehraboo: "Typical poor British design: over-emphasising some aspects at the expense of others. This reminds one of Churchill, which paid a heavy tank's bill on weight and mobility (not to mention an over-long hull which makes turning difficult), but only has good protection from the front for the trouble."
 
D: "The tank carried a high-velocity gun in the 75-76mm class, with good armour penetration (able to knock out all but the heaviest tanks). On the other hand, it had a less powerful HE round than existing 75mm guns like KwK40 and M3."
 
W: "This is also typically British. They put can-openers on their tanks and then forgot the most common mission for them: infantry support! It is less of an issue for specialist vehicles such as Archer, but for a mass-production tank it's a crippling defect."
 
D: "The drivetrain was complex, bulky and very unreliable, but provided nice-to-have capabilities like neutral steering and good gun stability over rough terrain. The engine was underdeveloped and needed a massive amount of work (including derating) before it could be used for any length of time successfully. Overall, the time-to-failure was something like a few hundred kilometres, and they didn't foresee being able to improve this (although the lifespan of individual components could have been improved)."
 
W: "This is Covenanter all over again - a bunch of 'clever' ideas that amounted to a mess. At least then they had the good sense to keep it as a training vehicle instead of sending it into battle. They should have stuck to well-proven transmission and suspension components, and used a surplus aero-engine or something rather than bodging it."
 
D: "Due to the issues with the suspension, drivetrain, turret ring diameter and turret design, the vehicle had almost no upgrade potential. The armour could not be thickened appreciably without causing even worse reliability problems, and the gun could not be replaced by a larger-bore weapon without designing an entirely new turret (and even then it would have been a squeeze for the crew)."
 
W: "This was the problem with Cromwell too - forcing the British to make iterative new vehicles when it should have been upgrading existing ones. The Germans, Russians and Americans all realised this with PzIV, T-34 and M4. Each was able to be reworked with new weapons, turrets, armour, and even engines without stopping the whole production line to produce a completely new vehicle."
 
D: "Speaking of the turret, there were technically two hatches (a commander's hatch and an escape hatch directly in the rear), but the placement made it so that only the loader could use the rear hatch and only the commander and gunner could use the commander's hatch. The hatches were very small (around 40cm diameter), but the commander's hatch was well-appointed with periscopes, a mounting for a scissors periscope and a geared azimuth indicator to show the turret's rotation in relation to the hull. The gunner had a single coaxial sight with a single level of magnification (2.5x), but later production was slated to have a selectable 2.5/5x sight. The FoV was around 28' for the 2.5x, and 14' for the 5x."  
 
W: "Again, the British talent for wonky engineering on show. The hatch is a mix of good ideas (they cottoned on to the use of periscopes quickly, after all), dubious ones (a simple ring indicator would have worked just as well) and terrible ones (Comet hatch syndrome strikes again). The gunner's sights were good and workmanlike (3x and 21' FoV is more typical for the British), but the Americans had already introduced modern conveniences such as a second unity/fixed magnification sight mounted to the roof at that point. This tank should have had these, it would made the gunner's life much easier!"
 
D: "The tank used almost no components common to other models besides the engine (which, again, needed massive reworking), and was difficult to service in almost every respect due to the complexities and placement of the drivetrain and suspension components. This, along with a chronic shortage of spare parts (because production of vehicles was prioritised over the production of spares) meant that commanders in the field would have to rely heavily on rail to move the tanks up to the front. There were no road transporters large enough to carry them, and next to no engineering vehicles able to unditch them."
 
W: "This is madness from the perspective of fighting a mobile war - something that the Germans excelled at but the allies had to painfully learn. A tank is only useful when it's moving under its own power. More than that - when winning an industrial war, it is rational production that counts. Look at the effort the Germans made under Speer to rationalise production of aircraft and tanks. This rationalisation probably prolonged the war by a year, giving the Wehrmacht the material to push back against the hordes of Russian vehicles being thrown at it."
 
D: "It was made by Germans."
 
W: "Oh its amazing! A wonder weapon! The ancestor of all modern tanks!"
 

You flatter me, but I'm really here more in a comedy role myself 

I see you guys have this idiot in hand already.

Panther worst tank, WWII Germany worst country, losers be losers.

TIL that sauropods had terrifying nightmare feet:
 
 

I occasionally play this mental game where I imagine describing, let's call it the Schwer-mittel panzerkampfwagen 44 "Cougar", to the typical wehraboo.
 
"It had a low profile, only 10cm taller than the PzIV. But the vehicle is much more heavily armed and armoured (equivalent or better to a Tiger frontally, only a little thinner on the side)."
"Fantastic. Really good, compact design. The Germans were known to be good at efficient layouts."
 
"The drivetrain was extremely compact and reliable, with a better power-to-weight ratio than PzIV, as well as a slick automatic gearbox that reduced workload on the driver and improved offroad mobility."
"Wonderful, truly a vehicle for mobile warfare. Didn't Guderian say, after all, that the principle weapon of the tank was its engine and radio?"
 
"The vehicle had lots of vision devices, a large, roomy interior and nice-to-haves like panoramic gunner's sights and an azimuth indicator in the commander's cupola."
"Brilliant. We know that the crew which sees the target and fires first usually wins. This all adds up to an improvement in firepower!"
 
"Over 2000 were produced in less than a year, making it a relatively common sight on the battlefield when compared to older heavies such as Tiger."
"That's great! Wars are won by industrial production as much as by feats of arms - look at the miracles that Speer accomplished."
 
"It had lots of upgrade potential. Prototypes were produced with guns and armour equivalent to Tiger II, but without completely sacrificing either mobility or reliability."
"This is what made the Germans so formidable during the second world war - their ingenuity and ability to improve on existing designs. If only it had been fielded for longer, it would have had the potential to turn the tide of the war."
 
"It was made by Americans."
"Oh, it's absolute shit then."

My god man, watching you bend over backwards to defend Panther and then turning straight around and drubbing other vehicles for lesser faults is ridiculous.
 
We have, in this exact instance, reliability reports that are directly comparable, and in every instance the Panther is a dog and Pershing is fine:
http://www.tankarchives.ca/2018/03/pershing-heavy-by-necessity.html
vs
https://www.tankarchives.ca/2019/05/none-more-frightening-than-cat.html
(direct report here: http://www.tankarchives.ca/2014/04/panther-trials.html)
 
M26 was, again, mediocre. Certainly as a product of a long-running development program which nonetheless had to be rushed into service to fulfil a seemingly pressing need (do we have to keep hitting you over the head with the parallels here?).
And yet it was better by most standards than Panther.

Tiger III? For Real? Wo hast du das her wenn Ich fragen darf? Because that looks more like a what if, that's why I ask

Panther has this very weird double diff system (not triple, sorry) that is sort of like two Clectrac units hulksmashed together operating in a compound fashion.
 
Ignoring the wherbwank for the "outgun anyone" (laffs in 122mm), this does do a good description of how it works. It is IMHO a lame system overall, being a *slight* improvement over the Controlled Diff system but at literally double the expense and space.
 

You might be able to get close with extra normally-spaced road wheels, but then you risk getting into TOG- or T-35-sized length, which would itself affect maneuverability. Not suggesting that the Schachtellaufwerk is worth the effort (the caveats at the end of the post hint toward my opinion), but when comparing the Pershing and Panther, just wanted to point out that nominal ground pressure tells far from the whole story. Perhaps Schachtellaufwerk might be thought of as almost a sort of technology demonstrator: outstanding softer-terrain performance though not necessarily cut out for the ease of use desirable for a war machine.
 
Not the lifting capacity per se as I understand it, but as N-L-M said, more of an issue of the products which were presented. Armored Force commander MG Devers said in December 1942, "Due to its tremendous weight and limited tactical use, there is no requirement in the Armored Force for the heavy tank. The increase in the power of the armament of the heavy tank does not compensate for the heavier armor." Hunnicutt opines that the Armored Force would rather have shipped two medium tanks than a single heavy tank. But of course, the heavy tank that Devers was talking about was the M6, so it's no wonder...

By the way wasn't the reason why no real US heavy tank made it in mass production in WW2 mainly in the maximum lifting capacity of cranes used in seaports? I believe I heard that somewhere.