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

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

EnsignExpendable

By EnsignExpendable,
in Mechanized Warfare

 Share

Recommended Posts

Recommended

Posted by Toxn,

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
Recommended by Sturgeon

14 reactions

Go to this post
DogDodger Newbie

DogDodger

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, EnsignExpendable said:

Yup, it took up to 35 kg of effort to turn. The Pz 38(t) was the worst out of all the ones I read about at 60 kg.

 

5 hours ago, EnsignExpendable said:

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.

Intriguing data. Are these reports available online anywhere? Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Toxn
Toxn

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 tal

skylancer-3441
skylancer-3441

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

SH_MM
SH_MM

A bit late, but OCCAR has contracted ARTEC to develop and produce prototypes of the new JFSTsw (Joint Fire Support Team schwer) variant of the Boxer for the German Army. The equipment is a bit odd, co

Xoon Newbie

Xoon

Posted
Posted
On 16.2.2017 at 3:56 AM, 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.

Probably simply had to do with weight balance.  When I read through the development of different tanks (polish I believe) in Archive Awareness blog, they mentioned that the transmission was moved to the front for better weight distribution. Considering both the Sherman and Panther evolved from lightly armored vehicles like the early Panzer IV/III and M2/3, the engineers probably just went with what they knew. 

They probably did not think about using the transmission as a counterweight for heavy front armor since earlier vehicles had so thin armor the rear was almost as thick if not as thick as the front.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DogDodger Newbie

DogDodger

Posted
Posted
12 hours ago, EnsignExpendable said:

I'd have to root around for the originals, but my data is all collected here: http://tankarchives.blogspot.ca/2014/06/lever-forces.html

No, this is perfect, and I appreciate the link; I wouldn't be able to read the originals anyway. ;) Very interesting comparison, and a nice validation of the marine Estes quoted.

Link to comment
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.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...