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

[ZloyKrolik]

4 hours ago, heretic88 said:

I do not think there is such a thing as "best tank of the war". Total BS. In certain situations "A" tank was the better, in another, "B" tank. And it could reverse with time passes. T-34 was a better tank in 1941 than a Panzer IV, but one year later it reversed. In 1944 T-34/85 again became better... The Königstiger was absolutely the best heavy tank when it came to tank to tank combat... yet it failed miserably when put into a role where the IS-2 excelled in... Context, context, context. 

So neither, the Panther, T-34 or Sherman was the best tank of the war. All had their strenghts and weaknesses.

I think Zaloga was on to something in Armored Champion: you have to take into account the period of the war and the difference in best tank for the actual crews and for the high command.

[Lord_James]

On 2/3/2021 at 4:28 AM, DIADES said:

 but really, who did it well? ... US?  What development? 

 

7 hours ago, DIADES said:

You are kidding.  Sherman is a PRODUCTION success, not a development success.  T34 is both a production success and a development success.  Production wins wars but in no way is the Sherman an exampe of development success.  And what onwards?

“I felt a great disturbance in the force; as if millions of @Jeeps_Guns_Tanks cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced”. 

[Sturgeon]

Good lord, I leave you boys alone for just 5 years and look at the place! It's a mess! There's apologism and hot steamers everywhere! Clean it up THIS INSTANT!

[DogDodger]

On 2/3/2021 at 6:48 AM, Toxn said:

- The transmission is completely inaccessible short of pulling the turret.

FWIW...

[Beer]

Any idea how did they change torsion bars in real life? 

[Toxn]

Just now, Beer said:

Any idea how did they change torsion bars in real life? 

Oxyacetaline torch, apparently.

[Laser Shark]

3 hours ago, SH_MM said:

Slide showing the PMMC G5:

 

 

The Janes article also mentions a fifth variant that is more or less confirmed for Norway, that being a light armoured recovery vehicle with a recovery winch and strong crane ( I briefly mentioned this vehicle in a post last year). I expect it will be outfitted with a module similar to the one they developed for the Boxer.

 

They also write a bit about how the various mission modules (anti-air, ARV, EW, counter-battery radar) are integrated into the G5:

 

Quote

It ist tailor designed to carry either a 10 ft (3.05 m) container or 6.5 ft (1.83 m) container and has a loading crane that can lift up to 5 tonnes, such as various mission modules.

 

(...)

 

For fast integration of these modules all vehicles are equipped as standard with a comprehensive interface box, providing high electric power, a wide range of connectors for exchange of data and speech, and hydraulic power. 

 

Additional variants, including ones based on the full hull configuration, is also looking very likely since Norway has to acquire more AFVs in order to outfit the new mechanized battalions, and then there is also fact that the oldest M113s and M577s of the Norwegian Army, the A2s, are at the end of their service life (the F3s still have another 10-15 years left in them, so there will probably be a "high-low mix" for some time still).

 

[Beer]

2 minutes ago, Toxn said:

Oxyacetaline torch, apparently.

 

Maybe better question is how do you get a new one in? 

 

Panther gearbox installation

 

 

And detail of the torsion bars 

 

[SH_MM]

I really don't like these kind of questionable discussions on World War 2 tanks, specifically not those bashing topics and "what if" scenarios with any set number of requirements and realistic look at the constraint and different doctrines. "Germany simply should have build more PzKpfW IV with sloped armor or more StuG IIIs!" is a useless statement and doesn't work. All this bashing of American/British/French/German/Soviet tanks using criteria from the respective other parties or modern day is silly. Obviously an American report will complain about the gunner/loader in other tanks not having enough optics, as in the American tank commanders - even in modern day - still love manning the turret-mounted MG to play Rambo (not the catious Oscar-worthy First Blood Rambo, but the Rambo from the later movies).

 

That is also why its silly to make any statements on the best tank - there are different ways to operate a tank, different requirements and different capacities. For the Brits the Panther might have been a bad tank (even though they copied the concept in some form to create the Centurion, but whatever...), but for a German or Soviet tank commander the M4 Sherman might have been a bad tank. That is why most such arguments are usually bullshit.

 

When the Brits tested the Leopard 1 in the 1960s, they came to the conclusion that it would offer less (or at best: comparable) mobilty when compared to the Chieftain, as the rubber-coating on the road wheels would overheat and thus limit maximum possible speed. This was obviously a false conclusion, thee rubber-coated road wheels never made issues and even faster tanks such as the Leclerc and Leopard 2 retained the concept. But this shows how silly it is to limit one's sources to a single side.

 

 

The hatch for the Panther's loader is too small? No, that is a matter of preference. The loader's hatch is not really smaller than those found on much modern tanks such as the Centurion, the Japanese Type 90 and the K1 tank. The loader of a Panther is lucky enough to have his own hatch (!) and not to be required to use the commander's hatch as in case with most early Sherman variants!

 

 

Certainly that is a good design, huh? Having gunner, loader and commander all escape from the same hatch onto which usually an machine gun was mounted.  Good luck getting out of this thing when it burns, but let me guess, its still "the best"? The Panther's loader also could escape the tank through the rear hatch of the turret, if necessary (which mean that he actually could exit the vehicle under cover...). The rear hatch might even have been the primary exit for the loader by design.

 

Just like having only a single optic for the loader isn't bad. This is a not a flaw, this is a different preference. It was good during WW2 and is still standard on many much more modern tanks just look at the Centurion, Chieftain, Challenger 1, Challenger 2 or at the T-54, T-55, T-62... they all have similar setups for the loader (but due to them being newer, these are better). On some of these tanks they are not fixed, on others they are fixed or effectively fixed (by not being usable outside of a very narrow field of view due to the interior or exterior layout).

 

The gunner had only a single optic? That's perfectly fine. How many modern MBTs provide the gunner with more than one primary and one back-up optic? Its just some bollock statement that is based on a different doctrine, not on actual short-comings.

 

The positions of (some) crew members are cramped? Well, this was a WW2 tank for fuck's sake. Pretty much all of them were cramped. The Panzerkampfwagen III and IV were more cramped, the M3 Lee/Grant, the Firefly variant of the M4 Sherman, etc. Every tank in WW2 was cramped if you apply modern ergonomic standards... even the Sherman. The Sherman however was also an incredible tall target. The gun wasn't awkward to load from a modern perspective, but by WW2 standards the huge size of the shells was uncommon and akward. I don't remember exactly if it was the Firefly or the Pershing, but in one of these tanks the loader had to rotate the round taken from the ready rack in both axis in order to load the gun. That was awkward.

 

 

Certainly the Panther was far from perfect - but it also was designed and produced in the middle of a war with an urgent need to rush tanks into service as fast as possible. The attempts to improve the Panzerkampfwagen IV (by reducing the amount of individual parts required for welding turret & hull, by replacing the commander's cupola and by implementing sloped armor) for example all failed due to the industry stating that it would introduce war-loosing delays into the delivery of further tanks.

 

The Panther's issues were known and several improvements were developed. The Panther II hulll had a completely new road wheel arrangement (that still wasn't optimal, but would reduce the amount of additional roadwheels that needed to be removed for replacement/maintenance significantly) and a new gearbox - but it didn't went into production due to the course of the war. New engines, stabilized optics, stabilizers for the gun, mechanical autoloaders and optical range finders are all upgrades that were in different stages of development at the end of the war. Meanwhile the M4 Sherman is "upgradable", because the US Army produced new and new variants every few months?

 

 

 

The reliability of the Panther certainly was bad, but its issues also seems to be massively exaggerated due to the French report on post-war use. It might have required some skill to drive, but that is also nothing unheard of for a WW2 tank. The Centurion had reliability issues well into the fifties, its specifications were massively affected by the British desire to have a Panther-equivalent tank, yet it somehow "the British got it right" with the Centurion?

Even the Sherman was not the reliability wonder that people love to make it seem. The M4A4 variant was rejected as lend-lease tank by the Soviet Red Army due to reliability concerns, and the US Army also only took a few hundred (with the bulk of the ~7,500 M4A4 tanks made being sent to the UK, who had issues making competent tank designs on their own). But hey, we only count reliable variants (for which there often is very limited data)...

 

 

The Panther was bad. The Sherman was bad. The Centurion was bad. The T-34 was bad. Don't judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree.

[Rico]

51 minutes ago, Laser Shark said:

 

The Janes article also mentions a fifth variant that is more or less confirmed for Norway, that being a light armoured recovery vehicle with a recovery winch and strong crane ( I briefly mentioned this vehicle in a post last year). I expect it will be outfitted with a module similar to the one they developed for the Boxer.

 

Great to see the ACSV G5 coming into action on one side but sad to see Leopard 1 going out of service.

I always liked that vehicle a lot.

[DogDodger]

34 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

Certainly that is a good design, huh? Having gunner, loader and commander all escape from the same hatch onto which usually an machine gun was mounted.  Good luck getting out of this thing when it burns, but let me guess, its still "the best"? The Panther's loader also could escape the tank through the rear hatch of the turret, if necessary (which mean that he actually could exit the vehicle under cover...). The rear hatch might even have been the primary exit for the loader by design.

 

Even the Sherman was not the reliability wonder that people love to make it seem. The M4A4 variant was rejected as lend-lease tank by the Soviet Red Army due to reliability concerns, and the US Army also only took a few hundred (with the bulk of the ~7,500 M4A4 tanks made being sent to the UK, who had issues making competent tank designs on their own). But hey, we only count reliable variants (for which there often is very limited data)...

 

The rear hatch for the loader may very well have been his primary egress method, since there was no loader's hatch on the roof... The Sherman indeed had no loader's hatch until October 1943, and a small hatch is better than no hatch.

 

Where can we read of reliability issues of the M4A4? Thanks! G. Macleod Ross, a member of the British Purchasing Commission, says of engine testing when there was discussion of dropping the A57 from production: "...four engines of each type [Ford GAA, R975, GM 6046, Chrysler A57 were] being run in their respective tanks. Only four engines completed 400 hours when the trial was stopped. Of these four, three were Chrsyler A57 engines, while the fourth Chrysler entrant logged 339 hours to failure." Likewise, the M4A4 seemed to give no undue issues during Exercise Dracula.

[Beer]

7 hours ago, SH_MM said:

I really don't like these kind of questionable discussions on World War 2 tanks, specifically not those bashing topics and "what if" scenarios with any set number of requirements and realistic look at the constraint and different doctrines. "Germany simply should have build more PzKpfW IV with sloped armor or more StuG IIIs!" is a useless statement and doesn't work. All this bashing of American/British/French/German/Soviet tanks using criteria from the respective other parties or modern day is silly. Obviously an American report will complain about the gunner/loader in other tanks not having enough optics, as in the American tank commanders - even in modern day - still love manning the turret-mounted MG to play Rambo (not the catious Oscar-worthy First Blood Rambo, but the Rambo from the later movies).

 

That is also why its silly to make any statements on the best tank - there are different ways to operate a tank, different requirements and different capacities. For the Brits the Panther might have been a bad tank (even though they copied the concept in some form to create the Centurion, but whatever...), but for a German or Soviet tank commander the M4 Sherman might have been a bad tank. That is why most such arguments are usually bullshit.

 

When the Brits tested the Leopard 1 in the 1960s, they came to the conclusion that it would offer less (or at best: comparable) mobilty when compared to the Chieftain, as the rubber-coating on the road wheels would overheat and thus limit maximum possible speed. This was obviously a false conclusion, thee rubber-coated road wheels never made issues and even faster tanks such as the Leclerc and Leopard 2 retained the concept. But this shows how silly it is to limit one's sources to a single side.

 

 

The hatch for the Panther's loader is too small? No, that is a matter of preference. The loader's hatch is not really smaller than those found on much modern tanks such as the Centurion, the Japanese Type 90 and the K1 tank. The loader of a Panther is lucky enough to have his own hatch (!) and not to be required to use the commander's hatch as in case with most early Sherman variants!

 

 

Certainly that is a good design, huh? Having gunner, loader and commander all escape from the same hatch onto which usually an machine gun was mounted.  Good luck getting out of this thing when it burns, but let me guess, its still "the best"? The Panther's loader also could escape the tank through the rear hatch of the turret, if necessary (which mean that he actually could exit the vehicle under cover...). The rear hatch might even have been the primary exit for the loader by design.

 

Just like having only a single optic for the loader isn't bad. This is a not a flaw, this is a different preference. It was good during WW2 and is still standard on many much more modern tanks just look at the Centurion, Chieftain, Challenger 1, Challenger 2 or at the T-54, T-55, T-62... they all have similar setups for the loader (but due to them being newer, these are better). On some of these tanks they are not fixed, on others they are fixed or effectively fixed (by not being usable outside of a very narrow field of view due to the interior or exterior layout).

 

The gunner had only a single optic? That's perfectly fine. How many modern MBTs provide the gunner with more than one primary and one back-up optic? Its just some bollock statement that is based on a different doctrine, not on actual short-comings.

 

The positions of (some) crew members are cramped? Well, this was a WW2 tank for fuck's sake. Pretty much all of them were cramped. The Panzerkampfwagen III and IV were more cramped, the M3 Lee/Grant, the Firefly variant of the M4 Sherman, etc. Every tank in WW2 was cramped if you apply modern ergonomic standards... even the Sherman. The Sherman however was also an incredible tall target. The gun wasn't awkward to load from a modern perspective, but by WW2 standards the huge size of the shells was uncommon and akward. I don't remember exactly if it was the Firefly or the Pershing, but in one of these tanks the loader had to rotate the round taken from the ready rack in both axis in order to load the gun. That was awkward.

 

 

Certainly the Panther was far from perfect - but it also was designed and produced in the middle of a war with an urgent need to rush tanks into service as fast as possible. The attempts to improve the Panzerkampfwagen IV (by reducing the amount of individual parts required for welding turret & hull, by replacing the commander's cupola and by implementing sloped armor) for example all failed due to the industry stating that it would introduce war-loosing delays into the delivery of further tanks.

 

The Panther's issues were known and several improvements were developed. The Panther II hulll had a completely new road wheel arrangement (that still wasn't optimal, but would reduce the amount of additional roadwheels that needed to be removed for replacement/maintenance significantly) and a new gearbox - but it didn't went into production due to the course of the war. New engines, stabilized optics, stabilizers for the gun, mechanical autoloaders and optical range finders are all upgrades that were in different stages of development at the end of the war. Meanwhile the M4 Sherman is "upgradable", because the US Army produced new and new variants every few months?

 

 

 

The reliability of the Panther certainly was bad, but its issues also seems to be massively exaggerated due to the French report on post-war use. It might have required some skill to drive, but that is also nothing unheard of for a WW2 tank. The Centurion had reliability issues well into the fifties, its specifications were massively affected by the British desire to have a Panther-equivalent tank, yet it somehow "the British got it right" with the Centurion?

Even the Sherman was not the reliability wonder that people love to make it seem. The M4A4 variant was rejected as lend-lease tank by the Soviet Red Army due to reliability concerns, and the US Army also only took a few hundred (with the bulk of the ~7,500 M4A4 tanks made being sent to the UK, who had issues making competent tank designs on their own). But hey, we only count reliable variants (for which there often is very limited data)...

 

 

The Panther was bad. The Sherman was bad. The Centurion was bad. The T-34 was bad. Don't judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree.

 

A lot of the criticism has nothing to do with docrine or today's point of view. Panther was a typical product of a one big mess in which the German AFV design turned during the war. There were people even at that time in Germany who were perfectly aware of that but not strong enough to change the course. I dare to say there were many more problems related to the non-combat properties (missing unification, non-optimized production, high cost, low serviceability, difficult mainteanance, totally overloaded logistics, fragmented training, sabotages coming from slave labour or outright waste of resources on stupid projects and small-series of countles vehicle types) than tactical issues. Panther is an excelent example of all the problems German AFV development program had. 

 

It can't be said that this is a judgement from today's point of view when others understood it. See both USA and USSR who mastered the unification and serviceability. Tanks taken out of action were quickly recovered, repaired and taken back to action. Both states managed to resist introducing every new vehicle they developed for the sake of unification, rapid production, easy service and logistics despite them having seemingly better vehicles available and despite them having larger industrial capacities. That's complete opposite to what Germany with its limited capacities started doing during the war. In the end thank God for that. 

[Jeeps_Guns_Tanks]

Yeah, not wanting to compare tanks in a thread and forum for discussing tanks seems legit.  Did someone shit in someone's cheerios?  Or is this because when you compare tanks, it hurts the feelings of the wehraboo?

 

On 2/4/2021 at 9:16 AM, Lord_James said:

 

“I felt a great disturbance in the force; as if millions of @Jeeps_Guns_Tanks cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced”. 

 

 

Yeah, @DIADES this seems like a great argument, "the Sherman was not a developmental success, because I'm ignorant of it being the basis for the T20 series." The T20 series basically being a Sherman, with its main flaw, the foreword mounted drivetrain being fixed.  You would then also have to ignore all the technology developed on the Sherman that was used and improved on in later tanks. Yeah, not a very good argument. 

 

The Sherman only having one turret hatch is a flaw, and it took a little to long for the fix to reach the troops.  Crew Casualties figures show it wasn't a huge problem though, since the Commanders hatch had a HUGE opening, and two men could stand in it.

http://www.theshermantank.com/wp-content/uploads/1st_armored_division_M4_sherman_in_piazza_del_duoma_Milan_Italy_1945.jpg

2 men 1 hatch. 

http://www.theshermantank.com/wp-content/uploads/14AD_M4Sherman_Silz.jpg

2 men 1 hatch small loaders hatch edition. 

http://www.theshermantank.com/wp-content/uploads/M4A1DT_ANZ44.jpg

2 men 1 hatch, Anzio edition, with inflatable! 

 

I too would like to see any Data on the M4A4 not being reliable in service, since the data we have show it was pretty much the most reliable version.  I think the Soviets rejected it based on one of the early versions without all the engine fixes.  They were well liked in service with the British. 

 

And a final note. Who ever said the Army didn't think the R975 radial was a flaw?  Like, if you look at the T20 series, it was never considered for those tanks. It was used because that's what they had when they started working on the M3 Medium.  If you look into it, the R975 was not a great engine for tanks, and took a whole redesign to get it to run past 500 hours if I recall right. 

[Toxn]

10 hours ago, SH_MM said:

I really don't like these kind of questionable discussions on World War 2 tanks, specifically not those bashing topics and "what if" scenarios with any set number of requirements and realistic look at the constraint and different doctrines. "Germany simply should have build more PzKpfW IV with sloped armor or more StuG IIIs!" is a useless statement and doesn't work. All this bashing of American/British/French/German/Soviet tanks using criteria from the respective other parties or modern day is silly. Obviously an American report will complain about the gunner/loader in other tanks not having enough optics, as in the American tank commanders - even in modern day - still love manning the turret-mounted MG to play Rambo (not the catious Oscar-worthy First Blood Rambo, but the Rambo from the later movies).

 

That is also why its silly to make any statements on the best tank - there are different ways to operate a tank, different requirements and different capacities. For the Brits the Panther might have been a bad tank (even though they copied the concept in some form to create the Centurion, but whatever...), but for a German or Soviet tank commander the M4 Sherman might have been a bad tank. That is why most such arguments are usually bullshit.

 

When the Brits tested the Leopard 1 in the 1960s, they came to the conclusion that it would offer less (or at best: comparable) mobilty when compared to the Chieftain, as the rubber-coating on the road wheels would overheat and thus limit maximum possible speed. This was obviously a false conclusion, thee rubber-coated road wheels never made issues and even faster tanks such as the Leclerc and Leopard 2 retained the concept. But this shows how silly it is to limit one's sources to a single side.

 

 

The hatch for the Panther's loader is too small? No, that is a matter of preference. The loader's hatch is not really smaller than those found on much modern tanks such as the Centurion, the Japanese Type 90 and the K1 tank. The loader of a Panther is lucky enough to have his own hatch (!) and not to be required to use the commander's hatch as in case with most early Sherman variants!

 

 

Certainly that is a good design, huh? Having gunner, loader and commander all escape from the same hatch onto which usually an machine gun was mounted.  Good luck getting out of this thing when it burns, but let me guess, its still "the best"? The Panther's loader also could escape the tank through the rear hatch of the turret, if necessary (which mean that he actually could exit the vehicle under cover...). The rear hatch might even have been the primary exit for the loader by design.

 

Just like having only a single optic for the loader isn't bad. This is a not a flaw, this is a different preference. It was good during WW2 and is still standard on many much more modern tanks just look at the Centurion, Chieftain, Challenger 1, Challenger 2 or at the T-54, T-55, T-62... they all have similar setups for the loader (but due to them being newer, these are better). On some of these tanks they are not fixed, on others they are fixed or effectively fixed (by not being usable outside of a very narrow field of view due to the interior or exterior layout).

 

The gunner had only a single optic? That's perfectly fine. How many modern MBTs provide the gunner with more than one primary and one back-up optic? Its just some bollock statement that is based on a different doctrine, not on actual short-comings.

 

The positions of (some) crew members are cramped? Well, this was a WW2 tank for fuck's sake. Pretty much all of them were cramped. The Panzerkampfwagen III and IV were more cramped, the M3 Lee/Grant, the Firefly variant of the M4 Sherman, etc. Every tank in WW2 was cramped if you apply modern ergonomic standards... even the Sherman. The Sherman however was also an incredible tall target. The gun wasn't awkward to load from a modern perspective, but by WW2 standards the huge size of the shells was uncommon and akward. I don't remember exactly if it was the Firefly or the Pershing, but in one of these tanks the loader had to rotate the round taken from the ready rack in both axis in order to load the gun. That was awkward.

 

 

Certainly the Panther was far from perfect - but it also was designed and produced in the middle of a war with an urgent need to rush tanks into service as fast as possible. The attempts to improve the Panzerkampfwagen IV (by reducing the amount of individual parts required for welding turret & hull, by replacing the commander's cupola and by implementing sloped armor) for example all failed due to the industry stating that it would introduce war-loosing delays into the delivery of further tanks.

 

The Panther's issues were known and several improvements were developed. The Panther II hulll had a completely new road wheel arrangement (that still wasn't optimal, but would reduce the amount of additional roadwheels that needed to be removed for replacement/maintenance significantly) and a new gearbox - but it didn't went into production due to the course of the war. New engines, stabilized optics, stabilizers for the gun, mechanical autoloaders and optical range finders are all upgrades that were in different stages of development at the end of the war. Meanwhile the M4 Sherman is "upgradable", because the US Army produced new and new variants every few months?

 

 

 

The reliability of the Panther certainly was bad, but its issues also seems to be massively exaggerated due to the French report on post-war use. It might have required some skill to drive, but that is also nothing unheard of for a WW2 tank. The Centurion had reliability issues well into the fifties, its specifications were massively affected by the British desire to have a Panther-equivalent tank, yet it somehow "the British got it right" with the Centurion?

Even the Sherman was not the reliability wonder that people love to make it seem. The M4A4 variant was rejected as lend-lease tank by the Soviet Red Army due to reliability concerns, and the US Army also only took a few hundred (with the bulk of the ~7,500 M4A4 tanks made being sent to the UK, who had issues making competent tank designs on their own). But hey, we only count reliable variants (for which there often is very limited data)...

 

 

The Panther was bad. The Sherman was bad. The Centurion was bad. The T-34 was bad. Don't judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree.

[Laser Shark]

12 hours ago, Rico said:

 

Great to see the ACSV G5 coming into action on one side but sad to see Leopard 1 going out of service.

I always liked that vehicle a lot.

 

They’ll still be around for at least a handful of years, perhaps even a decade.

 

The project that has produced this G5 based ARV, Project 2592 “tracked recovery capacity”, contains two parts:

• A new light ARV (class 1) that will be based on the M113 (now ACSV G5).
• Exploiting the remaining service life of the current medium ARVs (class 2).

Of course, it’s possible that the switch from the M113 platform to the much more powerful G5 has reduced the need for maintaining the NM217/Bergepanzer 2, but I still don’t think they will be fully retired until Norway has acquired another batch of Wisent 2s ARVs, which probably won’t happen before the future MBT has been chosen. The same might also hold true for the Leo 1 based AEVs and AVLBs as 6 Wisent 2 AEVs and 6 Leo 2 AVLBs aren’t really enough to support five mechanized battalions either.

[SH_MM]

13 hours ago, DogDodger said:

The rear hatch for the loader may very well have been his primary egress method, since there was no loader's hatch on the roof... The Sherman indeed had no loader's hatch until October 1943, and a small hatch is better than no hatch.

 Oh, damn. I must have been thinking of the Tiger then. Still the loader had a hatch; the one in the back of the turret. Earlier tanks often had none for the loader.

 

13 hours ago, DogDodger said:

Where can we read of reliability issues of the M4A4? Thanks!

This is based on Peter Samsonov's Tank Archives blog, in which he posted various summaries, snipplets and translation of documents taken from the Soviet archives. There are multiple articles on the lend-lease Sherman; in regards to the M4A4 variant of the Sherman there are aspects mentioned in multiple articles but the short summary is here. There is also an article describing the visit of a Soviet officer to the Chrysler tank factory and an article on the actual tests of the M4A4 (where overheating and leakage issues arose). 

 

I guess he goes into more detail in his book Sherman Tanks of the Red Army. The American vehicle in Soviet service, though I haven't read that one yet.

 

The Soviet opinion on the Sherman was quite a lot different from the opinions touted in various web forums and English-language books (aside of the beloved Emcha), so I am a bit sceptical about the mythical performance of the Sherman, specifically after the reasoning for the "wet stowage made the Sherman tank have the highest post-penetration survivability" story turned out to be a myth/an error.

 

E.g. according to Samsonov, the Soviets found several issues with the M4A2 (their main Sherman variant) such as the clutch breaking down often (even after just traveling 200-250 km; although these might related to less experienced users), poor visibility for the commander, a mediocre (gunner's ?) sight, "normal" ergonomics with an uncomfortable position for the commander and poor work distribution, which only illustrates of subjective these facts are, as they are based on different point-of-views how a "good" tank should look and what should serve as a reference for good ergonomics, reliability, etc.

 

The Soviets even also found that the Sherman had a too high ground pressure, was too height, too few optics, and that the installation and removal of components was unnecessarily complicated and difficult. They noted that the tank is hard to maintain/service, which goes pretty much against the mainstream opinion in the English-language literature and public discussions, because these are often only based on the American & British point-of-view.

 

I am not sure how the American trials running 12 different, well-kept M4 tanks with the various engines along the same static course at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds is a real indication to reliability in field...

 

10 hours ago, Beer said:

A lot of the criticism has nothing to do with docrine or today's point of view. Panther was a typical product of a one big mess in which the German AFV design turned during the war.

I agree that German AFV design (or German arms programs) in WW2 was a mess. It was pretty much idiotic with many different parties being involved/represented and requirements were often utterly stupid and influenced by political figures with little to no knowledge on the military's actual needs. This had the side effect that a lot silly, sometimes advanced "high-tech" programs were funded and sometimes rushed into production before the technology was ready, helping to create the stupid "technological superiority" myth.

 

I am not trying to defend the German arms industry or the Panther tank. I also don't mind comparisons between different tanks, as long as they don't end in unreasonable bashing. For example the requirement for the 500 mm suspension travel for the Panther was utterly stupid - that's more than what is achieved by a Leopard 1 tank, a T-90 or even a M1 Abrams! It resulted in the only technical viable solution being the adoption of a complicated and heavy double torsion-bar suspension (without increasing the weight by an even more unreasonable amount).

 

I am just getting sick of discussions (I know that they are not common on Sturgeon's House, but in other forums you can see them weekly/daily) revolving around cherry-picking specific features of one tank and then ignoring all other factors, e.g. the Sherman had no loader's hatch until 1943, so accusing the Panther of having a poor one is a little bit silly. Just like complaining about the tall engine is silly, when other tanks incl. the Sherman have equally tall ones.

 

The Sherman - like the Panther, T-34, etc. - had lots of issues. But due to the very different geo-strategical situation the US were in compared to Germany, these issues could still be resolved during war (in some cases, in other such as the commander's optics, the situation got worse...). Meanwhile upgrades to/replacements for the PzKpfw IV, Panther and Tiger Ausf. B were developed/planned, but delayed/canceled due to any impact on production being detrimental to Germany's position in the later stages of the war.

 

I'd argue that any tank that only served half of the war should not be described as the "best" tank of the war (if there is such a thing). Obviously more modern designs are more modern, but the impact on the battlefield - and on later tank developments - of tanks such as the Sherman and also the Panther is limited.

 

11 hours ago, Beer said:

It can't be said that this is a judgement from today's point of view when others understood it. See both USA and USSR who mastered the unification and serviceability. Tanks taken out of action were quickly recovered, repaired and taken back to action. Both states managed to resist introducing every new vehicle they developed for the sake of unification, rapid production, easy service and logistics despite them having seemingly better vehicles available and despite them having larger industrial capacities. That's complete opposite to what Germany with its limited capacities started doing during the war. In the end thank God for that

I can not agree with this statement; while there are certain truths to it - such as the stupidly fractured state of the German defence industry, stating that tanks were onlly "quickly recovered, repaired and taken back to action" by the USA and USSR. Likewise there are several tank projects - such as the WW2 Leopard "light" tank, Mehrzweckpanzer replacement for the PzKpfW IV, the PzKpfW IV Ausf. H and the Panther II - that were were canceled/delayed for exactly the same reasons. It probably was the political interference (pushed by influential companies/figures) that fucked up the stupid requirements/procurement procedures even more.

 

There was lots of weird stuff going on the Wehrmacht's material office and the lack of communication between the different companies was bad. But the way the industry was organized and the number of available factories capable of producing standardized parts was limited, because the Nazis feared backlash when switching over to a real wartime economy and seizing the factories of their rich supporters. Porsche's meddlings in German arms programs is symptomatic.

 

The lack of communication and ever changing requirements lead to many interesting solutions being limited to only certain vehicles or departments. The Jagdpanzer 38(t) ("Hetzer") for example had blow-out panels (for the fuel tanks), other tanks had none. The PzKpfW II was intended to be semi-modular and act as base for a wide variety of vehicles (by having the super-structure bolted to the lower hull section, so the design could be easily adapted for different roles), the PzKpfW III and IV (which were used in more different roles) lacked this layout. The coastal artillery received first thermal sensors (bolometers) made by Zeiss, but other branches never saw any. A lot of good solutions remained limited in use, while redudant developments were common due to the fractured ownership/leadership of the industry.

 

5 hours ago, Toxn said:

 

Uh oh...

[Rico]

3 hours ago, Laser Shark said:

 

They’ll still be around for at least a handful of years, perhaps even a decade.

 

The project that has produced this G5 based ARV, Project 2592 “tracked recovery capacity”, contains two parts:

• A new light ARV (class 1) that will be based on the M113 (now ACSV G5).
• Exploiting the remaining service life of the current medium ARVs (class 2).

Of course, it’s possible that the switch from the M113 platform to the much more powerful G5 has reduced the need for maintaining the NM217/Bergepanzer 2, but I still don’t think they will be fully retired until Norway has acquired another batch of Wisent 2s ARVs, which probably won’t happen before the future MBT has been chosen. The same might also hold true for the Leo 1 based AEVs and AVLBs as 6 Wisent 2 AEVs and 6 Leo 2 AVLBs aren’t really enough to support five mechanized battalions either.

Well money needs to be found for everything and MBTs are more important and still not done yet.

 

Class 2 should support CV90 as well (at least how I see it) and that would be tricky for a ACSV (aluminium version) at least from protection and weight perspective (but Leopard 2 ARVs can fill that gap for front line duty and maybe already do in eFP).

 

If it comes to value for money there is nothing that can beat a good, old Leopard 1 ARV but maybe a K1 ARV comes into play as well (if korean way is chosen).

[Toxn]

40 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

 Oh, damn. I must have been thinking of the Tiger then. Still the loader had a hatch; the one in the back of the turret. Earlier tanks often had none for the loader.

 

This is based on Peter Samsonov's Tank Archives blog, in which he posted various summaries, snipplets and translation of documents taken from the Soviet archives. There are multiple articles on the lend-lease Sherman; in regards to the M4A4 variant of the Sherman there are aspects mentioned in multiple articles but the short summary is here. There is also an article describing the visit of a Soviet officer to the Chrysler tank factory and an article on the actual tests of the M4A4 (where overheating and leakage issues arose). 

 

I guess he goes into more detail in his book Sherman Tanks of the Red Army. The American vehicle in Soviet service, though I haven't read that one yet.

 

The Soviet opinion on the Sherman was quite a lot different from the opinions touted in various web forums and English-language books (aside of the beloved Emcha), so I am a bit sceptical about the mythical performance of the Sherman, specifically after the reasoning for the "wet stowage made the Sherman tank have the highest post-penetration survivability" story turned out to be a myth/an error.

 

E.g. according to Samsonov, the Soviets found several issues with the M4A2 (their main Sherman variant) such as the clutch breaking down often (even after just traveling 200-250 km; although these might related to less experienced users), poor visibility for the commander, a mediocre (gunner's ?) sight, "normal" ergonomics with an uncomfortable position for the commander and poor work distribution, which only illustrates of subjective these facts are, as they are based on different point-of-views how a "good" tank should look and what should serve as a reference for good ergonomics, reliability, etc.

 

The Soviets even also found that the Sherman had a too high ground pressure, was too height, too few optics, and that the installation and removal of components was unnecessarily complicated and difficult. They noted that the tank is hard to maintain/service, which goes pretty much against the mainstream opinion in the English-language literature and public discussions, because these are often only based on the American & British point-of-view.

 

I am not sure how the American trials running 12 different, well-kept M4 tanks with the various engines along the same static course at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds is a real indication to reliability in field...

 

I agree that German AFV design (or German arms programs) in WW2 was a mess. It was pretty much idiotic with many different parties being involved/represented and requirements were often utterly stupid and influenced by political figures with little to no knowledge on the military's actual needs. This had the side effect that a lot silly, sometimes advanced "high-tech" programs were funded and sometimes rushed into production before the technology was ready, helping to create the stupid "technological superiority" myth.

 

I am not trying to defend the German arms industry or the Panther tank. I also don't mind comparisons between different tanks, as long as they don't end in unreasonable bashing. For example the requirement for the 500 mm suspension travel for the Panther was utterly stupid - that's more than what is achieved by a Leopard 1 tank, a T-90 or even a M1 Abrams! It resulted in the only technical viable solution being the adoption of a complicated and heavy double torsion-bar suspension (without increasing the weight by an even more unreasonable amount).

 

I am just getting sick of discussions (I know that they are not common on Sturgeon's House, but in other forums you can see them weekly/daily) revolving around cherry-picking specific features of one tank and then ignoring all other factors, e.g. the Sherman had no loader's hatch until 1943, so accusing the Panther of having a poor one is a little bit silly. Just like complaining about the tall engine is silly, when other tanks incl. the Sherman have equally tall ones.

 

The Sherman - like the Panther, T-34, etc. - had lots of issues. But due to the very different geo-strategical situation the US were in compared to Germany, these issues could still be resolved during war (in some cases, in other such as the commander's optics, the situation got worse...). Meanwhile upgrades to/replacements for the PzKpfw IV, Panther and Tiger Ausf. B were developed/planned, but delayed/canceled due to any impact on production being detrimental to Germany's position in the later stages of the war.

 

I'd argue that any tank that only served half of the war should not be described as the "best" tank of the war (if there is such a thing). Obviously more modern designs are more modern, but the impact on the battlefield - and on later tank developments - of tanks such as the Sherman and also the Panther is limited.

 

I can not agree with this statement; while there are certain truths to it - such as the stupidly fractured state of the German defence industry, stating that tanks were onlly "quickly recovered, repaired and taken back to action" by the USA and USSR. Likewise there are several tank projects - such as the WW2 Leopard "light" tank, Mehrzweckpanzer replacement for the PzKpfW IV, the PzKpfW IV Ausf. H and the Panther II - that were were canceled/delayed for exactly the same reasons. It probably was the political interference (pushed by influential companies/figures) that fucked up the stupid requirements/procurement procedures even more.

 

There was lots of weird stuff going on the Wehrmacht's material office and the lack of communication between the different companies was bad. But the way the industry was organized and the number of available factories capable of producing standardized parts was limited, because the Nazis feared backlash when switching over to a real wartime economy and seizing the factories of their rich supporters. Porsche's meddlings in German arms programs is symptomatic.

 

The lack of communication and ever changing requirements lead to many interesting solutions being limited to only certain vehicles or departments. The Jagdpanzer 38(t) ("Hetzer") for example had blow-out panels (for the fuel tanks), other tanks had none. The PzKpfW II was intended to be semi-modular and act as base for a wide variety of vehicles (by having the super-structure bolted to the lower hull section, so the design could be easily adapted for different roles), the PzKpfW III and IV (which were used in more different roles) lacked this layout. The coastal artillery received first thermal sensors (bolometers) made by Zeiss, but other branches never saw any. A lot of good solutions remained limited in use, while redudant developments were common due to the fractured ownership/leadership of the industry.

 

 

Uh oh...

Proof that the Stug was the best german afv of the war ofc.

[Beer]

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

I can not agree with this statement; while there are certain truths to it - such as the stupidly fractured state of the German defence industry, stating that tanks were onlly "quickly recovered, repaired and taken back to action" by the USA and USSR. Likewise there are several tank projects - such as the WW2 Leopard "light" tank, Mehrzweckpanzer replacement for the PzKpfW IV, the PzKpfW IV Ausf. H and the Panther II - that were were canceled/delayed for exactly the same reasons. It probably was the political interference (pushed by influential companies/figures) that fucked up the stupid requirements/procurement procedures even more.

 

Wehrmacht fielded far more AFV designs than any other cuntry even if we don't count any trophies or vehicles based on them. I doubt there is even anyone able to count them all. One might say that few Jagdtigers don't play any role. That's true in regards to their positive effect but it's not true in terms of negatives they bring - even a dozen of such vehicles loads logistical train, requires trained crews and mechanics, spare parts production etc. Someone needs to spend thousands of hours to design them, test them and evaluate them. They require production tools to be established and labor force and material to build them (and ironically in the end they are lost due to no means to recover them when they get stuck in mud). The problem is that there were dozens of such low-volume vehicles fielded - Ferdinand/Elephant, Sturmtiger, Jagdtiger, Pz.I Ausf.F, Pz.II ausf.J, Pz.II ausf.L and plenty of others (arguably Königstiger can be counted into this group as well). They were also far from optimal for production and mainteanance (such low volume vehicles can hardly be optimized in first place). Even many of the mass-produced vehicles were not optimized - one must ask why even such stupid thing like halftracks or Kettenkrad has to be so complicated?  

 

It's fine for me if tanks are compared based on technical and combat properties but it's far from the whole picture which shall be taken into account. I'm myself a mechanical designer and I like the technical stuff but one has to see beyond that and that is why for me Panther is a vehicle which shall not be mass produced despite having some clearly excelent features. 

[SH_MM]

Artist's impression of the LuWa demonstrator (Wiesel 1 replacement), armed with a 27 mm autocannon.

 

2 hours ago, Beer said:

Wehrmacht fielded far more AFV designs than any other cuntry even if we don't count any trophies or vehicles based on them.

Yes, but not necessarily by intention, but often out of the need to push anything into service, as there wasn't enough production capacity to deal with the US and Soviet mass production. Operation Barbarossa was based on a gamble, but the Soviet relocation of production capabilities to the east lead to a failure. Germany wasn't tooled for a long war were production capacity was the deciding factor and hence lost (and for numerous other reasons) when it became more and more important.

 

Just look at your list: Panzerkampfwagen I Ausf. F order was withdrawn, but the pre-series vehicles entered service as the need for new tanks was dire. Ferdinand/Elefant entered service due to Porsche simply being too optimistic about his chances winning the Tiger contract, and the Wehrmacht needing as many tanks/tank destroyers as possible. The PzKpfw I and PzKpfw II weren't really meant to participate in actual wars and variants like the PzKpfw II Ausf. J were just attempts to gain as much use of the existing facilities as possible.

[123]

1

[Lord_James]

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

Artist's impression of the LuWa demonstrator (Wiesel 1 replacement), armed with a 27 mm autocannon.

What’s the point of a 27mm gun when there are 2 perfectly fine 30mm guns in service, and a variety of 25mm guns to choose from? 

[DogDodger]

6 hours ago, SH_MM said:

 Oh, damn. I must have been thinking of the Tiger then. Still the loader had a hatch; the one in the back of the turret. Earlier tanks often had none for the loader.

 

This is based on Peter Samsonov's Tank Archives blog, in which he posted various summaries, snipplets and translation of documents taken from the Soviet archives. There are multiple articles on the lend-lease Sherman; in regards to the M4A4 variant of the Sherman there are aspects mentioned in multiple articles but the short summary is here. There is also an article describing the visit of a Soviet officer to the Chrysler tank factory and an article on the actual tests of the M4A4 (where overheating and leakage issues arose). 

 

I guess he goes into more detail in his book Sherman Tanks of the Red Army. The American vehicle in Soviet service, though I haven't read that one yet.

 

The Soviet opinion on the Sherman was quite a lot different from the opinions touted in various web forums and English-language books (aside of the beloved Emcha), so I am a bit sceptical about the mythical performance of the Sherman, specifically after the reasoning for the "wet stowage made the Sherman tank have the highest post-penetration survivability" story turned out to be a myth/an error.

 

E.g. according to Samsonov, the Soviets found several issues with the M4A2 (their main Sherman variant) such as the clutch breaking down often (even after just traveling 200-250 km; although these might related to less experienced users), poor visibility for the commander, a mediocre (gunner's ?) sight, "normal" ergonomics with an uncomfortable position for the commander and poor work distribution, which only illustrates of subjective these facts are, as they are based on different point-of-views how a "good" tank should look and what should serve as a reference for good ergonomics, reliability, etc.

 

The Soviets even also found that the Sherman had a too high ground pressure, was too height, too few optics, and that the installation and removal of components was unnecessarily complicated and difficult. They noted that the tank is hard to maintain/service, which goes pretty much against the mainstream opinion in the English-language literature and public discussions, because these are often only based on the American & British point-of-view.

 

I am not sure how the American trials running 12 different, well-kept M4 tanks with the various engines along the same static course at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds is a real indication to reliability in field...

 

 

Thanks; Samsonov's blog is a valued bookmark, and I have his Sherman book pre-ordered. In a cursory search of his blog, I failed to find the articles complaining of the M4A4 overheating and leaking. Indeed, in this article Pasholok says of the A57, "This monster had its upsides as well. The design worked quite reliably and had sufficient power for a medium tank," "The experimental tank travelled for 6500 km. Trials showed that the experimental engine needed a little more work, but overall it performed well," "The tanks turned out to be quite reliable, but service turned into a nightmare for its crews. Each engine had its own water pump with its own linkages" [this was changed with the 1304th engine produced for the M4A4, where a single water pump served all engines], "The British became active users of the M4A4. Why would they use a tank that the Americans rejected? Short answer: reliability. According to data given to the GBTU by the British, the M4A4 (Sherman V) was the most reliable tank from the M4 family. The mean distance between refurbishments was 3200 km for the M4A2 (Sherman III), but 4000 km for the Sherman V. This explains why the British were not fazed by difficulty of servicing the engine." Pasholok relates that during Soviet trials of the M4A4, "The only advantage of this engine was that it worked flawlessly. The only problems during the trials were with the running gear and oil filter. The oil consumption was much less than the gasoline: only 2 L for 118 hours of work."

 

I mentioned Exercise Dracula in addition to the APG tests, where the M4A4 gave no issues beyond fuel thirst.

[SH_MM]

3 hours ago, Willy Brandt said:

@SH_MMI really like the concept. Alot of COTS Prodcuts. And some lesser known Firms but who probably cann pull it off.
I find the Hybrid Drive very interesting. And it uses a hydropneumatic suspension? Or how are they gonna fit 2 into a CH53K/CH47F?

It is an interessting vehicle concept, but I'm not so sure on the COTS/MOTS parts. Valhalla Turrets hasn't much experience and the selected turret (unmanned, but with a channel for the soldiers to observe/operate over the hatch) has AFAIK not yet been made. However at the current stage LuWa has only been ordered as a technology demonstrator, so hopefully any immaturities will be detected and fixed before it enters service.

 

As far as I am aware, the requirement for the LuWa is/was that at least one signle vehicle has to fit into the CH-53G, there was/is no requirement to transport two at the same time (with the CH-53G).

 

1 hour ago, Lord_James said:

What’s the point of a 27mm gun when there are 2 perfectly fine 30mm guns in service, and a variety of 25mm guns to choose from? 

Well, what's the point of a 25 mm or 30 mm gun, when you have a 27 mm one already? The Bundeswehr doesn't have any gun in the 25 x 137 mm and 30 x 113 mm calibers, but the 27 x 145 mm caliber in various applications (Tornado, Typhoon, MLG-27); there is a supply chain and there are ammo stocks for it. The 30 x 173 mm Mauser MK 30 would likely be too powerful/heavy for such a light-weight platform.

 

1 hour ago, DogDodger said:

In a cursory search of his blog, I failed to find the articles complaining of the M4A4 overheating and leaking. Indeed, in this article Pasholok says of the A57, "This monster had its upsides as well. The design worked quite reliably and had sufficient power for a medium tank," "The experimental tank travelled for 6500 km. Trials showed that the experimental engine needed a little more work, but overall it performed well," "The tanks turned out to be quite reliable, but service turned into a nightmare for its crews. Each engine had its own water pump with its own linkages" [this was changed with the 1304th engine produced for the M4A4, where a single water pump served all engines], "The British became active users of the M4A4. Why would they use a tank that the Americans rejected? Short answer: reliability. According to data given to the GBTU by the British, the M4A4 (Sherman V) was the most reliable tank from the M4 family. The mean distance between refurbishments was 3200 km for the M4A2 (Sherman III), but 4000 km for the Sherman V. This explains why the British were not fazed by difficulty of servicing the engine." Pasholok relates that during Soviet trials of the M4A4, "The only advantage of this engine was that it worked flawlessly. The only problems during the trials were with the running gear and oil filter. The oil consumption was much less than the gasoline: only 2 L for 118 hours of work."

 

I also wasn't able to find the old article on the Soviet trials of the M4A4; not sure if it was deleted or I am simply mis-remembering things. As far as I am aware, Pasholok's articles are usually not based on the actual Soviet archives, but rather on Western sources such as the British sources mentioned by you. E.g. he cites the US National Archives Records Administration and R. P. Hunnicutt's book on the Sherman.

 

The A57 engine was rejected by the the Canadians (as option for the Ram tank), the US Army and the Soviets, which makes me really question the British data and methodology. When the A57 was first tested in the United States on Aberdeen Proving Ground, it performed well, but upon closer inspection it became apparent that it had overheated and damaged seals and bearings:

 

 

From "The Ordnance Department: Planning Muniitons for War" of the Office of the Chief of Military History, Department of the Army's 1955 series "United States Army in World War II".

The later 400 hours trials also held at Aberdeen Proving Ground are not really a valid representation of actual performance, at least according to Peter Samsonov, these tanks were essentially given unlimited maintenance and spare parts for everything that was not directly the engine, while the test conditions were mild.

 

 

[Jeeps_Guns_Tanks]

7 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

It is an interessting vehicle concept, but I'm not so sure on the COTS/MOTS parts. Valhalla Turrets hasn't much experience and the selected turret (unmanned, but with a channel for the soldiers to observe/operate over the hatch) has AFAIK not yet been made. However at the current stage LuWa has only been ordered as a technology demonstrator, so hopefully any immaturities will be detected and fixed before it enters service.

 

As far as I am aware, the requirement for the LuWa is/was that at least one signle vehicle has to fit into the CH-53G, there was/is no requirement to transport two at the same time (with the CH-53G).

 

Well, what's the point of a 25 mm or 30 mm gun, when you have a 27 mm one already? The Bundeswehr doesn't have any gun in the 25 x 137 mm and 30 x 113 mm calibers, but the 27 x 145 mm caliber in various applications (Tornado, Typhoon, MLG-27); there is a supply chain and there are ammo stocks for it. The 30 x 173 mm Mauser MK 30 would likely be too powerful/heavy for such a light-weight platform.

 

 

I also wasn't able to find the old article on the Soviet trials of the M4A4; not sure if it was deleted or I am simply mis-remembering things. As far as I am aware, Pasholok's articles are usually not based on the actual Soviet archives, but rather on Western sources such as the British sources mentioned by you. E.g. he cites the US National Archives Records Administration and R. P. Hunnicutt's book on the Sherman.

 

The A57 engine was rejected by the the Canadians (as option for the Ram tank), the US Army and the Soviets, which makes me really question the British data and methodology. When the A57 was first tested in the United States on Aberdeen Proving Ground, it performed well, but upon closer inspection it became apparent that it had overheated and damaged seals and bearings:

 

 

From "The Ordnance Department: Planning Muniitons for War" of the Office of the Chief of Military History, Department of the Army's 1955 series "United States Army in World War II".

The later 400 hours trials also held at Aberdeen Proving Ground are not really a valid representation of actual performance, at least according to Peter Samsonov, these tanks were essentially given unlimited maintenance and spare parts for everything that was not directly the engine, while the test conditions were mild.

 

 

 

 

You keep bringing up objections to the A57 based on the early engine, there were only 1300 or so made without the single water pump.  Once the Water pump and Generator issues were solved, it was very reliable. It also kind of weird your going on about an engine no one liked, because it was a stop gap, and just looking at it looked like it would be unreliable. That doesn't change the fact until the GAA V8 had all its bugs worked out, the A57 was more reliable in service than the 6046 and R975. 

 

@EnsignExpendable can clear up this claim of documentation from his site that talks about A57 problems, when the Soviets only ever got the multi water pump version to test.