Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

StuG III Thread (and also other German vehicles I guess)


Recommended Posts

I'm not so sure.  Here are a Panther and a Sherman sitting on a level, hard surface next to each other:

pTsaWof.jpg

The Panther's cupola appears to be the highest object, but the M4's roof may be a bit higher.  However, the tracks on the Panther appear to be quite loose, and may have lost some tension over time, and in action the tank might have been taller.

If the numbers in books are to be believed, the big cats are both a little taller than the Sherman.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

from physical version of Mittler Report issue on KF41 Lynx (low-res scans are posted on htka.hu forum)   So, I've made couple of comparisons, to the best of my ability

A Dingo 2 of the Belgian army was hit by a pressure-activated IED consisting of about 30 kg explosives. The vehicle was part of a German-lead convoy, several German vehicles narrowly missed the IED be

Maybe me knowledge will suffice as well.   This is the VT-001 (Versuchsträger) prototype of the Marder 2 vehicle. With the introduction of the Leopard 2 there was a need for a new IFV t

5 hours ago, SH_MM said:

Panther is not the only tank taller than (or as tall as) a Tiger though ;)

283a31f37111cf2a1a72b174e2ad96ce.jpg

UrnF44f.jpg

 

Well, the Sherman and just about all German tank designs shared the same flaw, having the transmission, differential and final drives up front while the motor was in the back, making the tank taller so a drive shaft can be run under the turret basket.  The US fixed this in the Shermans follow on, the T20 series that lead to the M26/46. The was a lesson Nazi Germany didn't learn, or decided wasn't good, since the VK3002 was rear motor, rear drive, but of course, the Nazis chose to produce the tank that became the panther, instead of something actually good.  The nice thing with the Sherman was the tranny/dif/final drives were easy to service and replace, this was not the case in German tanks. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Collimatrix said:

Some day I would love to learn why the designers in Germany and the USA were convinced that they needed the drive sprocket to be in the front.  I still haven't found a good explanation for this, especially considering that British and Soviet designers never suffered any such delusion.

Strong reliance on the automotive industries in the case of the US, I bet. Lemme look in Hunnicutt, he may talk about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Collimatrix said:

Some day I would love to learn why the designers in Germany and the USA were convinced that they needed the drive sprocket to be in the front.  I still haven't found a good explanation for this, especially considering that British and Soviet designers never suffered any such delusion.

My understanding was that it was a combination of having the gearbox close to the driver (simple linkage requiring less grunt to change gears) and the simple fact that all their previous designs used the same system.

 

Ultimately, we could blame Vickers for making the concept popular back in the '30s.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The US was no stranger to rear-sprocket tanks with the M1917, Mk.VIII, Cunningham machines, medium tank M1, and various Christie-inspired prototypes all having the sprocket at the rear. The break seems to be in 1933-4 when the light tank T2 (M2) and the associated combat car T5 (M1) were constructed with the rear engine-front transmission layout, as Jeeps noted by Rock Island Arsenal to Ordnance Committee requirements. 1936 saw the start of development of the medium tank T5 (M2), which was basically a larger light tank M2, and the automotive layout was similar. Interestingly, the front-drive layout was not totally abandoned once the T20 series was initiated: the T20 program was started in spring 1942 and the first of those tanks to be completed was a T23 in January 1943, while development of the front-drive light tank T24 (M24) didn't start until March 1943, with the first prototype being completed in October 1943.

Having the transmission closer to the driver supposedly eased the effort needed to work the controls (although Estes quotes a marine veteran tanker saying the steering in the M26 "was done the same as the M4's, pull the levers with 'brute' strength, good way to build the arms and upper body"), and the front sprocket alleviated some worry about track shedding due to mud since the track had more time to clean itself before engaging the sprocket. I haven't seen anything concrete that these factors influenced US designers at the time, though...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Hunnicutt says that with the jump to the 76 mm gun in the T70 from the 75 mm gun in the T67, "The heavier gun installation required that the weight be redistributed in the T70. Thus the transmission and final drives were shifted to the front of the vehicle." :) So maybe this factor played a decently large part as well?

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Collimatrix said:

Some day I would love to learn why the designers in Germany and the USA were convinced that they needed the drive sprocket to be in the front.  I still haven't found a good explanation for this, especially considering that British and Soviet designers never suffered any such delusion.

Wehraboos like to claim that this gives better torque or something like that. Soviet documentation either specifies that the transmission should be in the rear or lets the designer choose. I've only seen a choice available on light tanks, though. The idea that there should be a removable transmission hatch in the front armour was rather unwelcome. The Chaffee gets burned for it during trials.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, DogDodger said:

Well, Hunnicutt says that with the jump to the 76 mm gun in the T70 from the 75 mm gun in the T67, "The heavier gun installation required that the weight be redistributed in the T70. Thus the transmission and final drives were shifted to the front of the vehicle." :) So maybe this factor played a decently large part as well?

Maybe.  Normally the weight of the transmission isn't a big deal, but those TDs had such thin armor that maybe it did make a difference to overall weight distribution.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I don't get is why it took the americans until the M7 before they realised that the drive shaft didn't have to exit the firewall a foot above the floor. The sherman with a transfer case to move the drive shaft lower, bringing the turret basket down and by extension the whole tank roof, would be a much superior option

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, DogDodger said:

The US was no stranger to rear-sprocket tanks with the M1917, Mk.VIII, Cunningham machines, medium tank M1, and various Christie-inspired prototypes all having the sprocket at the rear. The break seems to be in 1933-4 when the light tank T2 (M2) and the associated combat car T5 (M1) were constructed with the rear engine-front transmission layout, as Jeeps noted by Rock Island Arsenal to Ordnance Committee requirements. 1936 saw the start of development of the medium tank T5 (M2), which was basically a larger light tank M2, and the automotive layout was similar. Interestingly, the front-drive layout was not totally abandoned once the T20 series was initiated: the T20 program was started in spring 1942 and the first of those tanks to be completed was a T23 in January 1943, while development of the front-drive light tank T24 (M24) didn't start until March 1943, with the first prototype being completed in October 1943.

Having the transmission closer to the driver supposedly eased the effort needed to work the controls (although Estes quotes a marine veteran tanker saying the steering in the M26 "was done the same as the M4's, pull the levers with 'brute' strength, good way to build the arms and upper body"), and the front sprocket alleviated some worry about track shedding due to mud since the track had more time to clean itself before engaging the sprocket. I haven't seen anything concrete that these factors influenced US designers at the time, though...

The Sherman and T-34 have the same amount of effort required to operate them in Soviet trials, so the effort thing isn't true.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Neither the Sherman nor the T-34 has hydraulically boosted controls, right?  And the steering is just the driver activating a clutch or brake (planetary drive clutch in the T-34, Cletrac steering brake in the Sherman).  So I would think that turns would require about the same muscular effort.

IIRC the first guys to drive the IS-7 were blown away by how easy the thing was to drive, since it was the first tank they'd gotten their hands on that had hydraulic boost for the controls.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if part of the reason the Germans liked the Transmission in the front had to do with their pre-war requirement that the gun not stick out beyond the front of the hull.  With the transmission in the front, the turret sits in the middle of the vehicle, unlike the British or Soviet designs where the turret is in the front half of the hull and the transmission is in the rear.  I have no evidence to back this up, it's just a thought.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Content

    • By SH_MM
      Found a few higher resolution photographs from the recent North Korean military parade. We didn't have a topic for BEST KOREAN armored fighting vehicles, so here it is.
       
      New main battle tank, Abrams-Armata clone based on Ch'ŏnma turret design (welded, box-shaped turret) and Sŏn'gun hull design (i.e. centerline driver's position). The bolts of the armor on the hull front is finally visible given the increased resolution. It might not be ERA given the lack of lines inbetween. Maybe is a NERA module akin to the MEXAS hull add-on armor for the Leopard 2A5?
       
      Other details include an APS with four radar panels (the side-mounted radar panels look a lot different - and a lot more real - than the ones mounted at the turret corners) and twelve countermeasures in four banks (two banks à three launchers each at the turret front, two banks à three launchers on the left and right side of the turret). Thermal imagers for gunner and commander, meteorological mast, two laser warning receivers, 115 mm smoothbore gun without thermal sleeve but with muzze reference system, 30 mm grenade launcher on the turret, six smoke grenade dischargers (three at each turret rear corner)
       


       
      IMO the layout of the roof-mounted ERA is really odd. Either the armor array covering the left turret cheek is significantly thinner than the armor on the right turret cheek or the roof-mounted ERA overlaps with the armor.
       


      The first ERA/armor element of the skirt is connected by hinges and can probably swivel to allow better access to the track. There is a cut-out in the slat armor for the engine exhaust. Also note the actual turret ring - very small diameter compared to the outer dimensions of the turret.
       
      Stryker MGS copy with D-30 field gun clone and mid engine:

      Note there are four crew hatches. Driver (on the left front of the vehicle), commander (on the right front of the vehicle, seat is placed a bit further back), gunner (left side of the gun's overhead mount, next to the gunner's sight) and unknown crew member (right side of gun's overhead mount with 30 mm automatic grenade launcher mounted at the hatch). The vehicle also has a thermal imager and laser rangefinder (gunner's sight is identical to the new tank), but no independent optic for the commander. It also has the same meteorological mast and laser warner receivers as the new MBT.
       
      What is the purpose of the fourth crew member? He cannot realistically load the gun...
       
      The vehicle has a small trim vane for swimming, the side armor is made of very thin spaced steel that is bend on multiple spots, so it clearly is not ceramic armor as fitted to the actual Stryker.

       
      The tank destroyer variant of the same Stryker MGS copy fitted with a Bulsae-3 ATGM launcher.
       

      Note that there is again a third hatch with 30 mm automatic grenade launcher behind the commander's position. Laser warning receivers and trime vane are again stand-out features. The sighting complex for the Bulsae-3 ATGMs is different with a large circular optic (fitted with cover) probably being a thermal imager and two smaller lenses visible on the very right (as seen from the vehicle's point of view) probably containing a day sight and parts of the guidance system.
       

      Non line-of-sight ATGM carrier based on the 6x6 local variant of the BTR, again fitted with laser warning receivers and a trim vane. There are only two hatches and two windows, but there is a three men crew inside.
       
       
      There are a lot more photos here, but most of them are infantry of missile system (MLRS' and ICBMs).
    • By Monochromelody
      Disappeared for a long period, Mai_Waffentrager reappeared four months ago. 
      This time, he took out another photoshoped artifact. 

      He claimed that the Japanese prototype 105GSR (105 mm Gun Soft Recoil) used an autoloader similar to Swedish UDES 19 project. Then he showed this pic and said it came from a Japanese patent file. 
      Well, things turn out that it cames from Bofors AG's own patent, with all markings and numbers wiped out. 

      original file→https://patents.google.com/patent/GB1565069A/en?q=top+mounted+gun&assignee=bofors&oq=top+mounted+gun+bofors
      He has not changed since his Type 90 armor scam busted. Guys, stay sharp and be cautious. 
       
    • By LostCosmonaut
      Backstory (skip if you don't like alternate history junk)
       
      The year is 2239. It has been roughly 210 years since the world was engulfed in nuclear war. Following the war, the United States splintered into hundreds of small statelets. While much knowledge was retained in some form (mostly through books and other printed media), the loss of population and destruction of industrial capability set back society immensely.
       
      Though the Pacific Northwest was less badly hit than other areas, the destruction of Seattle and Portland, coupled with the rupturing of the Cascadia Subduction Zone in 2043, caused society to regress to a mid-19th century technology level. However, in the early 2100s, the Cascade Republic formed, centered near Tacoma. The new nation grew rapidly, expanding to encompass most of Washington and Oregon by 2239. The Cascade Republic now extends from the Klamath River in the south to the Fraser River in the north, and from the Pacific roughly to central Idaho. Over time, the standard of living and industrial development improved (initially through salvaging of surviving equipment, by the late 2100s through new development); the population has grown to about 4.5 million (comparable to 1950 levels), and technology is at about a 1940 level. Automobiles are common, aircraft are less common, but not rare by any means. Computers are nonexistent aside from a few experimental devices; while scientists and engineers are aware of the principles behind microchips and other advanced electronics, the facilities to produce such components simply do not exist. Low rate production of early transistors recently restarted.
       
      The current armored force of the Cascade Republic consists of three armored brigades. They are presently equipped with domestically produced light tanks, dating to the 2190s. Weighing roughly 12 tons and armed with a 40mm gun, they represented the apex of the Cascade Republic's industrial capabilities at the time. And when they were built, they were sufficient for duties such as pacifying survivalist enclaves in remote areas. However, since that time, the geopolitical situation has complicated significantly. There are two main opponents the Cascade Republic's military could expect to face in the near future.
       
      The first is California. The state of California was hit particularly hard by the nuclear exchange. However, in 2160, several small polities in the southern part of the state near the ruins of Los Angeles unified. Adopting an ideology not unfamiliar to North Korea, the new state declared itself the successor to the legacy of California, and set about forcibly annexing the rest of the state. It took them less than 50 years to unite the rest of California, and spread into parts of Arizona and northern Mexico. While California's expansion stopped at the Klamath River for now, this is only due to poor supply lines and the desire to engage easier targets. (California's northward advanced did provide the final impetus for the last statelets in south Oregon to unify with the Cascade Republic voluntarily).
       
      California is heavily industrialized, possessing significant air, naval, and armored capabilities. Their technology level is comparable to the Cascade Republic's, but their superior industrial capabilities and population mean that they can produce larger vehicles in greater quantity than other countries. Intelligence shows they have vehicles weighing up to 50 tons with 3 inches of armor, though most of their tanks are much lighter.

      The expected frontlines for an engagement with the Californian military would be the coastal regions in southern Oregon. Advancing up the coastal roads would allow California to capture the most populated and industrialized regions of the Cascade Republic if they advanced far enough north. Fortunately, the terrain near the border is very difficult and favors the defender;


      (near the Californian border)


      The other opponent is Deseret, a Mormon theocratic state centered in Utah, and encompassing much of Nevada, western Colorado, and southern Idaho. Recently, tension has arisen with the Cascade Republic over two main issues. The first is the poorly defined border in Eastern Oregon / Northern Nevada; the old state boundary is virtually meaningless, and though the area is sparsely populated, it does represent a significant land area, with grazing and water resources. The more recent flashpoint is the Cascade Republic's recent annexation of Arco and the area to the east. Deseret historically regarded Idaho as being within its sphere of influence, and maintained several puppet states in the area (the largest being centered in Idaho Falls). They regard the annexation of a signficant (in terms of land area, not population) portion of Idaho as a major intrusion into their rightful territory. That the Cascade Republic has repaired the rail line leading to the old Naval Reactors Facility, and set up a significant military base there only makes the situation worse.
       
      Deseret's military is light and heavily focused on mobile operations. Though they are less heavily mechanized than the Cascade Republic's forces, operating mostly armored cars and cavalry, they still represent a significant threat  to supply and communication lines in the open terrain of eastern Oregon / southern Idaho.


      (a butte in the disputed region of Idaho, near Arco)
       
      Requirements
       
      As the head of a design team in the Cascade Republic military, you have been requested to design a new tank according to one of two specifications (or both if you so desire):
       
      Medium / Heavy Tank Weight: No more than 45 tons Width: No more than 10.8 feet (3.25 meters) Upper glacis / frontal turret armor of at least 3 in (76mm) LoS thickness Side armor at least 1in (25mm) thick (i.e. resistant to HMG fire) Power/weight ratio of at least 10 hp / ton No more than 6 crew members Primary armament capable of utilizing both anti-armor and high explosive rounds Light tank Weight: No more than 25 tons Width: No more than 10.8 feet Upper glacis / frontal turret armor of at least 1 in thickness Side armor of at least 3/8 in (10mm) thickness Power/weight ratio of at least 12 hp / ton No more than 6 crew members Primary armament capable of utilizing both anti-armor and high explosive rounds  
      Other relevant information:
      Any tank should be designed to operate against either of the Cascade Republic's likely opponents (California or Deseret) The primary heavy machine gun is the M2, the primary medium machine gun is the M240. Use of one or both of these as coaxial and/or secondary armament is encouraged. The secret archives of the Cascade Republic are available for your use. Sadly, there are no running prewar armored vehicles, the best are some rusted hulks that have long been stripped of usable equipment. (Lima Tank Plant ate a 500 kt ground burst) Both HEAT and APFSDS rounds are in testing. APCR is the primary anti-armor round of the Cascade Republic. Either diesel or gasoline engines are acceptable, the Cascade Republic is friendly with oil producing regions in Canada (OOC: Engines are at about a late 1940s/early 50s tech level) The adaptability of the tank to other variants (such as SPAA, SPG, recovery vehicle, etc.) is preferred but not the primary metric that will be used to decide on a design. Ease of maintenance in the field is highly important. Any designs produced will be compared against the M4 Sherman and M3 Stuart (for medium/heavy and light tank), as these blueprints are readily available, and these tanks are well within the Cascade Republic's manufacturing capabilities.  
       
       
       
       
    • By Sovngard
      Meanwhile at Eurosatory 2018 :
       
      The Euro Main Battle Tank (EMBT), a private venture project intended for the export market.
       



×
×
  • Create New...