Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

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


Recommended Posts

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.4k
  • 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

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

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

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”. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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).

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

 

Eo8x4vF.png

 

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? :rolleyes:

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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!

 

Eo8x4vF.png

 

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? :rolleyes:

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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!

 

Eo8x4vF.png

 

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? :rolleyes:

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.

V5Wrtbl.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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:

V5Wrtbl.png

 

fd0ac3ad058d933ef28358454c1148a0.jpg640px-Captured_StuG_III_in_U.S._service_

Uh oh... :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
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).

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

 

fd0ac3ad058d933ef28358454c1148a0.jpg640px-Captured_StuG_III_in_U.S._service_

Uh oh... :D

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Luftbeweglichen-Waffentraeger-LuWa-%E2%8

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.

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

Luftbeweglichen-Waffentraeger-LuWa-%E2%8

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? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
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:

 

8wsivrz.pngB2yGMeL.png

 

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.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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:

 

8wsivrz.pngB2yGMeL.png

 

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. 

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...