Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

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


EnsignExpendable
 Share

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Collimatrix said:

The ability to make wider radii turns at higher speed would be nice, but a Sherman driver could approximate a wider-radius turn by using the turning brakes intermittently (and in fact they were instructed to do so to save wear).  So there would definitely be some speed range where the Sherman could simply initiate a turn, but a Panther would have to slow down to downshift into third or lower.

Exactly, and that's what the writer of that report was trying to get across. He goes on to detail what a PITA it is to have to estimate the radius of the turn "sufficiently far in advance to permit the vehicle's speed to drop low enough so that the desired low gear can be engaged, and has the further disadvantage that the vehicle's forward speed may be slower than is necessary or is desirable." So if you drop a guy into the Panther and send him off in a race, the writer implies there's a good chance he'll take the turns too slowly since he isn't familiar with the steering system.

 

2 hours ago, Xlucine said:

Didn't the french find the panther broke after 150km, not 1500?

 

Panther was better than sherman at swimming uphill through mud, but churchill was dominate in poor conditions. Tigger was just hopeless, for some reason, and T14 (!) was about the same as the sherman

https://imgur.com/a/fV825TZ

Great report. We always have to be careful in the first place with these types of singleton tests, though, I suppose. In Mr. Churchill's Tank Fletcher details how the British 1st Armoured Division staged a trial between the Churchill and Sherman in December 1943 during which the tanks would "climb a scrub covered slope of average gradient, traverse the side of a hill which was cut up by small wadis and then tackle a very steep hill." The tankers reported that while Churchill could tackle difficult terrain slightly faster, the test was a draw: "There was no obstacle which the Churchill surmounted that proved impossible to the Sherman on the day of the trial." The trial was repeated after a rainstorm, and again the results between the tanks were similar: "Neither the Churchill nor the Sherman managed to get more than one third of the way along the course and both broke tracks when mud got into the drive sprockets and under the tracks." The Sherman reportedly got stuck and towed out of its mire by the Churchill, but the Churchill's final drive broke when driving on the wet plowed ground. Flecther states that driver skill would be more of a factor in mobility than the two tanks themselves.

 

1 hour ago, heretic88 said:

 

Still, the Panther in the swedish tests was damn impressive. It didnt appear to be underpowered at all. Sure, the Sherman in the test was an earlier variant, with narrower tracks, but I dont think even an M4A3E8 could beat the Panther in any of those tests. Equal at best. And Im pretty sure that the apparent inferiority of the Panther in curved courses was caused by the inexperience of the drivers. Putting an M60 driver in the seat of the T-72 would produce similar results.

I'd largely agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Xlucine said:

Didn't the french find the panther broke after 150km, not 1500?

 

Final drives gave out after 150km on average, transmission excluding 3rd gear was ~1500km. (Governed) Engines were also around ~1,500km. The French also found that pivot steering greatly accelerated wear on the final drives, to the point of having cases of the drives breaking mid-turn, and they gave strict orders to avoid pivot steering it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a question about a main SPz-Puma design change :

Does anyone knows why the first rear ramp design was cancelled to have a more basic one now ?

Was-it a mechanical nightmare ?

Was-it an fancy rear hatch concept ?

Was-it a matter of cost ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Serge said:

I have a question about a main SPz-Puma design change :

Does anyone knows why the first rear ramp design was cancelled to have a more basic one now ?

Was-it a mechanical nightmare ?

Was-it an fancy rear hatch concept ?

Was-it a matter of cost ?

Can i have a Picture of the rear ramp that are you refering to?
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Serge said:

Was-it an fancy rear hatch concept ?

 

Yes, that was the case. The idea was to open the door only halfway, so the opening could be used as a makeshift hatch. The series production variant has a proper hatch on the roof, I don't think the pre-production variant featured that already.

 

2015-06-24_Puma-06.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, SH_MM said:

Yes, that was the case. The idea was to open the door only halfway, so the opening could be used as a makeshift hatch.

So nobody ‘s got the exact opinion of the panzergrenadieren (cost, awkward...).

the concept was not ridiculous. It :

- suppress a balistic hole ;

- leave no interdiction angle for the turret ;

- has a sacrificial armored plate ;

- was possible to recover 2 soldiers ;

- can carry 2 RPG to direct resupply from the outside. 

23 hours ago, SH_MM said:

he series production variant has a proper hatch on the roof, I don't think the pre-production variant featured that already.

The initial rear ramp concept was only available on 5 road wheels chassis.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

German concept proposed during the Kampfpanzer 3 / FMBT project to the UK via https://andrei-bt.livejournal.com/928203.html

 

Twin-gun casemat tank from Maschinenbau Kiel:

1347258_original.jpg

1347012_original.jpg

1347343_original.jpg

 

Low-profile turret tank with driver in turret by Krauss-Maffei (similar to MBT-70, but with 120 mm smoothbore gun and manual loader - maybe derived from the Eber concept):

1347589_original.jpg

1347874_original.jpg

 

Data:

1345361_original.jpg

1345617_original.jpg

 

Armor is spaced steel plates, sometimes with fuel inbetween them. The MaK design has 727 mm thick armor, but the actual steel thickness is just 259 mm...

1345841_original.jpg

1346063_original.jpg

1346392_original.jpg

1346748_original.jpg

 

Note that according to Krapke a third concept (AFAIK either turretless or with unmanned turret?) was proposed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Wiedzmin said:

 

Dw5hoO3Nkzg.jpg

RAiC7g-sM3E.jpg

 

and its armour. posted by Yuri Pasholok  

 

This is not entirely correct, because the frontal armor is only 703 mm thick instead of 727 mm. I guess it is a slightly different state of development of the same vehicle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

 

This is not entirely correct, because the frontal armor is only 703 mm thick instead of 727 mm. I guess it is a slightly different state of development of the same vehicle.

i guess brits made some wrong calculations(frontal stucture 7 plates for example. not 6) because german report(from which they take this drawings) gives scheme that Yuri posted.

 

ofcourse there can be some variants, but it(drawings) look like same in german source report 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Wiedzmin said:

ofcourse there can be some variants, but it(drawings) look like same in german source report 

 

The vehicle shown in the drawings sent to the UK has air vents on both sides of the engine compartment, but none at the rear. The armor scheme shows air vents on only one side of the hull, but also at the rear of the hull. The overall width is also different. IMO that also suggests that both vehicles are related to the same design, but at different stages of development. The twin-gun casemate tank concept was being considered between 1972 and 1985 with multiple, slightly different designs (later ones I supposed with composite armor).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, SH_MM said:

So roughly 177 mm steel when seen directly from the front, with a slightly higher effective protection due to the armor being spaced. Is the outer layer made of high-hardness steel like on the Leopard 2 PT with spaced turret ("Leopard 2K")?

(30+35)65mm/65 degree 

 

HZB 301 370-410HB and up to 490 for 12mm plates,roof HZB20 260-300HB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/7/2018 at 3:41 PM, SH_MM said:

So roughly 177 mm steel when seen directly from the front, with a slightly higher effective protection due to the armor being spaced. Is the outer layer made of high-hardness steel like on the Leopard 2 PT with spaced turret ("Leopard 2K")?

 

I find hard to understand the logic behind this armor... Only barely more than bullet and autocannon proof. No chance to stop even 85mm APHE of ASU-85. Then why overly complicate this? What is this double layer for? A single, slightly thicker (~40mm) plate would work just as well, like the original Leopard turret. A little bit more for turret front, to make it resistant to at least the 76mm gun of PT-76.

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

×
×
  • Create New...