Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

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


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

 

 

I think I've seen charts talking about the same things, they may even be somewhere in these 89s pages! Surely it does not do enough to warrant the nightmare the Panthers Suspension was to deal with in every other way.  We could also really get into the weeds, and talk about Track and road wheel durability. Jentz mentions issues with the Panther tracks bending guide horns, are these problems aggravated off road, negating any advantage the suspension is going to give you. I don't recall the Pershing having similar suspension issues. The advantage the Panthers Road Wheel system offered must be minor enough no copied it on tanks. Surely you can get damn close with an extra normal size road wheel and shocks?;)

 

This is why I added the month to the original question. Operate a Battalion of Perishing's and Panthers under similar conditions, and even with similar supply systems, the Pershing Battalion will have more running, combat ready tanks at the end of the month. Working on the Pershing would be so much easier, it would give it the edge. 

 

Check out this guys Flickr

Jim

He has many car, plane and tank pics, and seems to be connected to a very cool tank restoration shop. 

Upton Military Museum

(That funny feeling in the pit of your stomach, Wehraboos, is the feeling you get when you look upon good tanks)

 

This discussion has actually given me a renewed appreciation for the M26.

 

It's lower and shorter than Centurion or Panther, has worse frontal hull protection than the latter (but better side, top, turret, rear protection) and is generally more comfy than either. It's gun is perfectly fine, and has decent HE capability (unlike the other two). The soft factors (crew comfort, lots of viewing devices, a low and high-magnification gun sight, roof MG mounts, raised driver's seat, duplicated driver's controls, large engine bay hatches, ammunition layout etc) are all nice.

 

Overall, I'd say that the common historical verdict on the Pershing is more or less correct: it was an interim vehicle, advanced in some ways over its predecessor but not fully developed and lacking in certain areas. Even so, I'd say that it's the most balanced and usable of the three late-war heavy mediums. A solid 6/10 to the Cent 1's 5 or the Panther's 4. The T-44, for reference, is more like a 6.5-7, while the first-run T-54 is more like an 8.

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

9 hours ago, DogDodger said:

The Pershing was designated as a heavy for a short while, but was begat by a medium design; actual heavy designs were ongoing but didn't see service before the war ended. Hunnicutt and Yeide agree that the "heavy" nomenclature was mostly for morale purposes.

 

By the way wasn't the reason why no real US heavy tank made it in mass production in WW2 mainly in the maximum lifting capacity of cranes used in seaports? I believe I heard that somewhere. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

There were a few reasons why heavy tanks were considered to be more difficult to deal with, but none of those were strictly speaking enough to disqualify the concept; more so, the inability of the heavy tank projects to bring a product considered sufficiently better than a medium tank (or indeed uparmored mediums like the Jumbo) to justify all the hassle.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

 

 

I think I've seen charts talking about the same things, they may even be somewhere in these 89s pages! Surely it does not do enough to warrant the nightmare the Panthers Suspension was to deal with in every other way.  We could also really get into the weeds, and talk about Track and road wheel durability. Jentz mentions issues with the Panther tracks bending guide horns, are these problems aggravated off road, negating any advantage the suspension is going to give you. I don't recall the Pershing having similar suspension issues. The advantage the Panthers Road Wheel system offered must be minor enough no copied it on tanks. Surely you can get damn close with an extra normal size road wheel and shocks?;)

 

This is why I added the month to the original question. Operate a Battalion of Perishing's and Panthers under similar conditions, and even with similar supply systems, the Pershing Battalion will have more running, combat ready tanks at the end of the month. Working on the Pershing would be so much easier, it would give it the edge. 

 

Check out this guys Flickr

Jim

He has many car, plane and tank pics, and seems to be connected to a very cool tank restoration shop. 

 

(That funny feeling in the pit of your stomach, Wehraboos, is the feeling you get when you look upon good tanks)

You might be able to get close with extra normally-spaced road wheels, but then you risk getting into TOG- or T-35-sized length, which would itself affect maneuverability. ;) Not suggesting that the Schachtellaufwerk is worth the effort (the caveats at the end of the post hint toward my opinion), but when comparing the Pershing and Panther, just wanted to point out that nominal ground pressure tells far from the whole story. :) Perhaps Schachtellaufwerk might be thought of as almost a sort of technology demonstrator: outstanding softer-terrain performance though not necessarily cut out for the ease of use desirable for a war machine.

5 hours ago, Beer said:

 

By the way wasn't the reason why no real US heavy tank made it in mass production in WW2 mainly in the maximum lifting capacity of cranes used in seaports? I believe I heard that somewhere. 

 

4 hours ago, N-L-M said:

There were a few reasons why heavy tanks were considered to be more difficult to deal with, but none of those were strictly speaking enough to disqualify the concept; more so, the inability of the heavy tank projects to bring a product considered sufficiently better than a medium tank (or indeed uparmored mediums like the Jumbo) to justify all the hassle.

Not the lifting capacity per se as I understand it, but as N-L-M said, more of an issue of the products which were presented. Armored Force commander MG Devers said in December 1942, "Due to its tremendous weight and limited tactical use, there is no requirement in the Armored Force for the heavy tank. The increase in the power of the armament of the heavy tank does not compensate for the heavier armor." Hunnicutt opines that the Armored Force would rather have shipped two medium tanks than a single heavy tank. But of course, the heavy tank that Devers was talking about was the M6, so it's no wonder...

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

You might be able to get close with extra normally-spaced road wheels, but then you risk getting into TOG- or T-35-sized length, which would itself affect maneuverability. ;) Not suggesting that the Schachtellaufwerk is worth the effort (the caveats at the end of the post hint toward my opinion), but when comparing the Pershing and Panther, just wanted to point out that nominal ground pressure tells far from the whole story. :) Perhaps Schachtellaufwerk might be thought of as almost a sort of technology demonstrator: outstanding softer-terrain performance though not necessarily cut out for the ease of use desirable for a war machine.

 

Not the lifting capacity per se as I understand it, but as N-L-M said, more of an issue of the products which were presented. Armored Force commander MG Devers said in December 1942, "Due to its tremendous weight and limited tactical use, there is no requirement in the Armored Force for the heavy tank. The increase in the power of the armament of the heavy tank does not compensate for the heavier armor." Hunnicutt opines that the Armored Force would rather have shipped two medium tanks than a single heavy tank. But of course, the heavy tank that Devers was talking about was the M6, so it's no wonder...

 

 

Wasn't there also a flat car limitation? If I recall right, we did not have much rolling stock that could handle a M26 let alone anything heavier during WWII? 

 

 

14 hours ago, Toxn said:

 

This discussion has actually given me a renewed appreciation for the M26.

 

It's lower and shorter than Centurion or Panther, has worse frontal hull protection than the latter (but better side, top, turret, rear protection) and is generally more comfy than either. It's gun is perfectly fine, and has decent HE capability (unlike the other two). The soft factors (crew comfort, lots of viewing devices, a low and high-magnification gun sight, roof MG mounts, raised driver's seat, duplicated driver's controls, large engine bay hatches, ammunition layout etc) are all nice.

 

Overall, I'd say that the common historical verdict on the Pershing is more or less correct: it was an interim vehicle, advanced in some ways over its predecessor but not fully developed and lacking in certain areas. Even so, I'd say that it's the most balanced and usable of the three late-war heavy mediums. A solid 6/10 to the Cent 1's 5 or the Panther's 4. The T-44, for reference, is more like a 6.5-7, while the first-run T-54 is more like an 8.

 

 

I agree. It seems like the Cent had more room to grow, but that may just been shear numbers sold, the Countries with them opting to upgrade instead of getting newer tanks.  The Pershing didn't get used by many countries, and the ones that did, could get better tanks from the US or built their own, so there was not much demand to keep the Pershing around and upgrade it.

 

                                                                                                                                      

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

 

 

Wasn't there also a flat car limitation? If I recall right, we did not have much rolling stock that could handle a M26 let alone anything heavier during WWII? 

 

 

 

 

I agree. It seems like the Cent had more room to grow, but that may just been shear numbers sold, the Countries with them opting to upgrade instead of getting newer tanks.  The Pershing didn't get used by many countries, and the ones that did, could get better tanks from the US or built their own, so there was not much demand to keep the Pershing around and upgrade it.

 

                                                                                                                                      

Upgraded Cents get higher scores - up to Olifant, which gets an 11/10 ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/1/2021 at 6:46 PM, DogDodger said:

You have high standards for ground clearance. ;) The Pershing was designated as a heavy for a short while, but was begat by a medium design; actual heavy designs were ongoing but didn't see service before the war ended. Hunnicutt and Yeide agree that the "heavy" nomenclature was mostly for morale purposes. I'm not sure it was quite as bad off-road as you make it seem, but I do find the T25 a tantalizing what-if.

 

Panther used a geared steering system and not a triple-differential, no? The nominal ground pressures were indeed similar (and even favored the Pershing, depending on the source), but the Panther's mean maximal pressure and other off-road performance characteristics would benefit from its maintenance-unfriendly road wheel setup. Wong has some interesting simulations in Terramechanics and Off-road Vehicle Engineering between a baseline M113-type vehicle with 5 road wheel stations, the same vehicle with 6 road wheel stations, and the same vehicle with 8 overlapping road wheel stations. The simulations are run on snow and clayey soil, and the machine with more road wheels shows better performance in everything from wheel sinkage to drawbar pull to tractive effort to trim angle, etc. Panther weighed 6.9-8.6% more than the M26, but its tracks were 2-3" wider and it had 2 more road wheel stations per track in the same ground contact length and essentially the same track pitch (5.9" for the Kgs 64/660/150 vs. 6" for the M26's tracks). Double torsion bars were probably needlessly complex, the interleaved wheels required inordinate effort and time for maintenance, and the final drive was never adequately strengthened, but credit where due: the thing should perform quite well off-road. :)

 

Panther has this very weird double diff system (not triple, sorry) that is sort of like two Clectrac units hulksmashed together operating in a compound fashion.

 

Ignoring the wherbwank for the "outgun anyone" (laffs in 122mm), this does do a good description of how it works. It is IMHO a lame system overall, being a *slight* improvement over the Controlled Diff system but at literally double the expense and space.

 

double-diff-steering2yb0k.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

Yeah, but then the Pershing's newer stronger brothers the M46/47 and M48, all oddly named Patton come into the picture. 

 

I'd sort of put the rankings as follows (note: I'm not very familiar with the vehicles, so take with a larger block of salt than usual):

 

- M46: an automotive upgrade to M26, but doesn't alter too much otherwise. Shame it never saw combat against anything contemporary. 

6.5-7/10, would thicken the armour and install a rangefinder.

 

- M47: a sort of side-grade considering how soon the M48 came into the picture. The better armour and (supposedly fiddly) rangefinder are a plus. Ugly as sin though, and doomed to fight Indians and Somalis. 

7-7.5/10, would remove the hull MG.

 

- M48: generally good, and with the aforementioned sexy curves. The only complaints I've heard about it are that its 90mm gun was a bit long in the tooth by then (although kept up to date with HEAT-FS and the last of the APCR rounds) and that the commander's mini-turret wasn't great. 

7.5-8.5/10, would upgrade with 105mm L7, delete the mini-turret and up the model number by 12.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Toxn said:

- M48: generally good, and with the aforementioned sexy curves. The only complaints I've heard about it are that its 90mm gun was a bit long in the tooth by then (although kept up to date with HEAT-FS and the last of the APCR rounds) and that the commander's mini-turret wasn't great. 

7.5-8.5/10, would upgrade with 105mm L7, delete the mini-turret and up the model number by 12.

 

 

M48 always struck me as comically huge for how much armor and gun you get for it, (as might be reasonably expected from a literal cut-down heavy tank design) - and it is really quite a shame that they dragged their feet upgunning the things for so long despite the cavernous interior. So many upgrades designed and/or tested for the M48 that went nowhere in the rather chaotic 50s and 60s... and that mini-turret is one of the few things to go into production.

 

Even a great many tank enthusiasts out there don't seem to be aware the M48 originally came with a perfectly reasonable vision cupola with a remote MG mount, only for that to be ditched for that damned tumor.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/2/2021 at 12:10 PM, Toxn said:

 

This discussion has actually given me a renewed appreciation for the M26.

 

It's lower and shorter than Centurion or Panther, has worse frontal hull protection than the latter (but better side, top, turret, rear protection) and is generally more comfy than either. It's gun is perfectly fine, and has decent HE capability (unlike the other two). The soft factors (crew comfort, lots of viewing devices, a low and high-magnification gun sight, roof MG mounts, raised driver's seat, duplicated driver's controls, large engine bay hatches, ammunition layout etc) are all nice.

I never heard any praise of Pershing's comfort. Apart from broad turret ring, it seems rather cramped. Cent on the other hand is pretty famous for its spaciousness. It is also the biggest.

 

Pershing had the richness of dubious redundancies. Why two gun sights? Why did the radioman have a reserve steering set? Why didn't it have two level magnification in a gun sight? This makes it so much easier to observe and aim. Commander's cupola is useless for observation. Those glass slits certainly don't offer good vision.

 

Caped AP shells are bigger but offer about the same effect as smaller PzGr39.

 

Engine bay should have been smaller, not bigger. It pushed the turret to the front and sealed any chances of an upgrade. Armour angle is also smaller due to this.

 

Mobility is obvious also an issue and a medium with poor agility is an easy target.

 

Turret form is sub par. It features plenty of nice vertical surfaces and the inverted heart form makes the cheeks quite vulnerable to hits from 30deg angles. Mantlet also features the panther's shot trap.

 

I seriously doubt it is a match.

 

Quote

Overall, I'd say that the common historical verdict on the Pershing is more or less correct: it was an interim vehicle, advanced in some ways over its predecessor but not fully developed and lacking in certain areas. Even so, I'd say that it's the most balanced and usable of the three late-war heavy mediums. A solid 6/10 to the Cent 1's 5 or the Panther's 4. The T-44, for reference, is more like a 6.5-7, while the first-run T-54 is more like an 8.

As biased as usual. How about an honest opinion by an American officer from Hunnicutt's book?

 

- The Pershing story might well be summarized by the words of Captain Elmer Gray replying to the tank
crews at Aachen when they asked if the Pershing was equal to the German King Tiger and Panther. His answer was, "Hell no, but it is the best tank we have yet developed and we should have had it a year earlier".

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/2/2021 at 7:00 AM, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

This is why I added the month to the original question. Operate a Battalion of Perishing's and Panthers under similar conditions, and even with similar supply systems, the Pershing Battalion will have more running, combat ready tanks at the end of the month. Working on the Pershing would be so much easier, it would give it the edge.

Pershing engines burned out and died in Korea. This is akin to early panthers.
The comparison in context of late ww2 and the numbers is reasonable but putting pershings and panthers on equal ground is just cruel.

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, delete013 said:

I never heard any praise of Pershing's comfort. Apart from broad turret ring, it seems rather cramped. Cent on the other hand is pretty famous for its spaciousness. It is also the biggest.

I went and re-watched Chieftain clambering around in there, as well as read Soviet reports on M26 (they claimed that the commander's station was a bit tight but otherwise had no issues). Seems pretty fine to me, especially given that Panther achieved less with an even larger hull.

 

Edited because the last sentence became its own post. Also - it should be noted that the driver's levers were stiff.

 

Quote

Pershing had the richness of dubious redundancies. Why two gun sights? Why did the radioman have a reserve steering set? Why didn't it have two level magnification in a gun sight? This makes it so much easier to observe and aim. Commander's cupola is useless for observation. Those glass slits certainly don't offer good vision.

Two sights is a good idea for a number of reasons - panoramic is good for seeing over obstacles (mounted higher in turret) while backup can be used to check that the gun tube isn't aimed at something solid. It also provides a measure of redundancy in case one sight or the other gets hit. Redundancy is also key to the radioman's position - provides a way to move if the driver gets shot, as well as allowing him to take a rest during road marches and the like. It's not strictly necessary, perhaps, but not bad.

 

I've not heard much complaining about the commander's cupola.

 

Quote

Caped AP shells are bigger but offer about the same effect as smaller PzGr39.

28g fill vs. 137g. ~120mm penetration at 500m vs ~160mm.

"same effect"

 

Quote

Engine bay should have been smaller, not bigger. It pushed the turret to the front and sealed any chances of an upgrade. Armour angle is also smaller due to this.

This is non sequitur logic - None of these statements follows from the other. Bigger bay = more upgrade potential. Turret ring diameter is 175cm - intermediate between Panther and Centurion. Plus the damn thing obviously had upgrade potential, given that the Super Pershing had a bigger gun and 4 extra tonnes of armour.

 

Quote

Mobility is obvious also an issue and a medium with poor agility is an easy target.

We've dealt with this - mobility on a purely tactical level is mostly the same as Panther. Mobility on every other level (operational, strategic) is infinitely better. So if this is "poor" (which I'm willing to grant) then...

 

Quote

I seriously doubt it is a match.

A match for what?

 

Quote

 

As biased as usual. How about an honest opinion by an American officer from Hunnicutt's book?

 

- The Pershing story might well be summarized by the words of Captain Elmer Gray replying to the tank
crews at Aachen when they asked if the Pershing was equal to the German King Tiger and Panther. His answer was, "Hell no, but it is the best tank we have yet developed and we should have had it a year earlier".

Biased how? I just said that it was mediocre and then jokingly gave it a score out of 10. I never said anything about it being the "equal" to anything - a statement which is almost meaningless anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, delete013 said:

Pershing engines burned out and died in Korea. This is akin to early panthers.
The comparison in context of late ww2 and the numbers is reasonable but putting pershings and panthers on equal ground is just cruel.

My god man, watching you bend over backwards to defend Panther and then turning straight around and drubbing other vehicles for lesser faults is ridiculous.

 

We have, in this exact instance, reliability reports that are directly comparable, and in every instance the Panther is a dog and Pershing is fine:

http://www.tankarchives.ca/2018/03/pershing-heavy-by-necessity.html

vs

https://www.tankarchives.ca/2019/05/none-more-frightening-than-cat.html

(direct report here: http://www.tankarchives.ca/2014/04/panther-trials.html)

 

M26 was, again, mediocre. Certainly as a product of a long-running development program which nonetheless had to be rushed into service to fulfil a seemingly pressing need (do we have to keep hitting you over the head with the parallels here?).

And yet it was better by most standards than Panther.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Toxn said:

I went and re-watched Chieftain clambering around in there, as well as read Soviet reports on M26 (they claimed that the commander's station was a bit tight but otherwise had no issues). Seems pretty fine to me, especially given that Panther achieved less with an even larger hull. Oh, and just to add - the Soviets happily drove this supposedly unreliable beast through 500km of smashed-up terrain and only broke an oil pump.

As I said, nothing special, while cent is more comfy.
It would be nice to know that Soviet testing better. Link? So why did Americans have so many troubles? Poor off road mobility is but in every book on Pershing. Details are as usually scarce.

 

6 minutes ago, Toxn said:

Two sights is a good idea for a number of reasons - panoramic is good for seeing over obstacles (mounted higher in turret) while backup can be used to check that the gun tube isn't aimed at something solid. It also provides a measure of redundancy in case one sight or the other gets hit. Redundancy is also key to the radioman's position - provides a way to move if the driver gets shot, as well as allowing him to take a rest during road marches and the like. It's not strictly necessary, perhaps, but not bad.

With such armour, if tank gets hit to incapacitate the driver or gun sight, then the crew bails. I would understand if it was some exceptional vehicle.

 

6 minutes ago, Toxn said:

I've not heard much complaining about the commander's cupola.

Panoramic telescope windows vs. direct vision slits.

 

6 minutes ago, Toxn said:

28g fill vs. 137g. ~120mm penetration at 500m vs ~160mm.

"same effect"

kwk42, not 40, please.

6 minutes ago, Toxn said:

This is non sequitur logic - None of these statements follows from the other. Bigger bay = more upgrade potential. Turret ring diameter is 175cm - intermediate between Panther and Centurion. Plus the damn thing obviously had upgrade potential, given that the Super Pershing had a bigger gun and 4 extra tonnes of armour.

Upgunning or uparmouring overturned the suspension balance and ended up similar to the jumbo. Super pershing was leaning forward. If turret was more to the back however..

6 minutes ago, Toxn said:

We've dealt with this - mobility on a purely tactical level is mostly the same as Panther. Mobility on every other level (operational, strategic) is infinitely better. So if this is "poor" (which I'm willing to grant) then...

No decent engine, no tactical mobility. Unless there is some remarkable explanation that I do not know of..

 

6 minutes ago, Toxn said:

Biased how? I just said that it was mediocre and then jokingly gave it a score out of 10. I never said anything about it being the "equal" to anything - a statement which is almost meaningless anyway.

My bad then.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, delete013 said:

As I said, nothing special, while cent is more comfy.
It would be nice to know that Soviet testing better. Link? So why did Americans have so many troubles? Poor off road mobility is but in every book on Pershing. Details are as usually scarce.

The Soviet tests are linked in my earlier following post.

 

Different standards may be the root cause here. The Americans expected their vehicles to perform like medium tanks in all respects: operational and strategic mobility, speed, road marches and flotation. They also expected them to be movable by narrow-gauge rail and to cross pontoon bridges. The Soviets, being unburdened by such expectations, merely compared vehicles in the same weight class.

 

9 minutes ago, delete013 said:

With such armour, if tank gets hit to incapacitate the driver or gun sight, then the crew bails. I would understand if it was some exceptional vehicle.

As I said - nice to have more than anything else. Being able to actually back out of a fight rather than either stay in place or bail out under fire is nice.

 

9 minutes ago, delete013 said:

Panoramic telescope windows vs. direct vision slits.

 

kwk42, not 40, please.

Oh, so better armour penetration (~10-15mm) at range, with a worse HE shell? 

 

9 minutes ago, delete013 said:

Upgunning or uparmouring overturned the suspension balance and ended up similar to the jumbo. Super pershing was leaning forward. If turret was more to the back however..

Okay, so:

1) your suggestion is dumb - moving the turret ring back by making the vehicle longer would just make it heavier, compounding the issue; and

 

2) M26E5 managed to increase the armour to Tiger 2 levels all around without sacrificing balance. It didn't get produced in any numbers because, again, the Americans wanted mobile vehicles rather than impenetrable ones. 

 

9 minutes ago, delete013 said:

No decent engine, no tactical mobility. Unless there is some remarkable explanation that I do not know of..

 

The GAF was compact, powerful and reliable (again, though, not enough for the Americans. Hence M46). The end result was something like 2HP/t difference between Panther and M26, with the automatic transmission of the M26 making up a lot of the difference in practice by dint of allowing the driver to simply put foot when needed rather than babying gears and clutches.

 

As with most things M26, the terms I'd spring for here would be things like "adequate". 

 

9 minutes ago, delete013 said:

My bad then.

 

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

My god man, watching you bend over backwards to defend Panther and then turning straight around and drubbing other vehicles for lesser faults is ridiculous.

 

We have, in this exact instance, reliability reports that are directly comparable, and in every instance the Panther is a dog and Pershing is fine:

http://www.tankarchives.ca/2018/03/pershing-heavy-by-necessity.html

 

(direct report here: http://www.tankarchives.ca/2014/04/panther-trials.html)

 

M26 was, again, mediocre. Certainly as a product of a long-running development program which nonetheless had to be rushed into service to fulfil a seemingly pressing need (do we have to keep hitting you over the head with the parallels here?).

And yet it was better by most standards than Panther.

Thanks for the links! Especially interesting is the Pershing test. It gives better impression on mobility. I am confused as to why the mobility is so emphasized in American literature. Seems fine, except that off road speed test was not performed and the agility was a problem.
The test about the panther is however seems quite positive. Apart from confirming the inability to neutral steer it has few of the British problems. It confirms my assumption that the British tests are quite lackluster. I don't know how you consider panther worse. Evaluated as a heavy tank, Pershing clearly didn't impress with firepower nor armour. Panther on the other hand seems good in this respect, even if it is medium. Plus it was nimble.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, delete013 said:

I never heard any praise of Pershing's comfort. Apart from broad turret ring, it seems rather cramped. Cent on the other hand is pretty famous for its spaciousness. It is also the biggest.

 

Pershing had the richness of dubious redundancies. Why two gun sights? Why did the radioman have a reserve steering set? Why didn't it have two level magnification in a gun sight? This makes it so much easier to observe and aim. Commander's cupola is useless for observation. Those glass slits certainly don't offer good vision.

 

Caped AP shells are bigger but offer about the same effect as smaller PzGr39.

 

Engine bay should have been smaller, not bigger. It pushed the turret to the front and sealed any chances of an upgrade. Armour angle is also smaller due to this.

 

Mobility is obvious also an issue and a medium with poor agility is an easy target.

 

Turret form is sub par. It features plenty of nice vertical surfaces and the inverted heart form makes the cheeks quite vulnerable to hits from 30deg angles. Mantlet also features the panther's shot trap.

 

I seriously doubt it is a match.

 

As biased as usual. How about an honest opinion by an American officer from Hunnicutt's book?

 

- The Pershing story might well be summarized by the words of Captain Elmer Gray replying to the tank
crews at Aachen when they asked if the Pershing was equal to the German King Tiger and Panther. His answer was, "Hell no, but it is the best tank we have yet developed and we should have had it a year earlier".

 

 

Pulling stupid shit out of your ass, then putting one quote from a book you don't seem to have read, does not make your arguments better.   You claiming the cupola was bad when it was was universally liked on the Sherman and Pershing, just shows how wrong you are and your just making up.  I'd say you were a Troll, using the "Dumb Troll" technique, but that may be giving you to much credit.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Toxn said:

The Soviet tests are linked in my earlier following post.

Yep got them.

Quote

Different standards may be the root cause here. The Americans expected their vehicles to perform like medium tanks in all respects: operational and strategic mobility, speed, road marches and flotation. They also expected them to be movable by narrow-gauge rail and to cross pontoon bridges. The Soviets, being unburdened by such expectations, merely compared vehicles in the same weight class.

Focus on strategic mobility is obvious. Much less on tactical. I do agree that Soviets really tailored their tanks to fit their numbers and terrain towards Europe at the expense of other features.

Quote

As I said - nice to have more than anything else. Being able to actually back out of a fight rather than either stay in place or bail out under fire is nice.

 

Oh, so better armour penetration (~10-15mm) at range, with a worse HE shell? 

What numbers did you take? Isn't that for 30deg angle?

 

Quote

Okay, so:

1) your suggestion is dumb - moving the turret ring back by making the vehicle longer would just make it heavier, compounding the issue; and

Ideally it wouldn't be longer. The difference is in the skill of the designers. Germans paid attention to it and had good crew compartment to engine bay ratio. More choice for turret placement and more space for complex gearbox. Ergo, throwing transmission in the back wasn't as straightforward as people  want to believe. Long after ww2 were there only two general solutions to the issue, either extending the hull and making the vehicle heavier and less agile or simplifying the steering with another heap of downsides. This is why transversely mounted transmissions are an achievement. Only with 1000+ PS engines was the power loss at turning reasonably solved.
 

Quote

2) M26E5 managed to increase the armour to Tiger 2 levels all around without sacrificing balance. It didn't get produced in any numbers because, again, the Americans wanted mobile vehicles rather than impenetrable ones. 

With zero test info or anything beyond a prototype, I am fairly convinced that it didn't work. If ordinary pershing moved reasonably it couldn't with a few tons more.

 

Quote

The GAF was compact, powerful and reliable (again, though, not enough for the Americans. Hence M46). The end result was something like 2HP/t difference between Panther and M26, with the automatic transmission of the M26 making up a lot of the difference in practice by dint of allowing the driver to simply put foot when needed rather than babying gears and clutches.

GAF was good for a sherman. Let's be honest, it wasn't in the HL230 class, with or without regulator. Panther's steering was quite more advanced and an important part of tactical mobility. Dispensing with it makes the designer's life much simpler but that of a tanker worse. I think being able to have more free leg space is much less important than being able to turn and drive out of opponents sight.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Toxn said:

 

- M48: generally good, and with the aforementioned sexy curves. The only complaints I've heard about it are that its 90mm gun was a bit long in the tooth by then (although kept up to date with HEAT-FS and the last of the APCR rounds) and that the commander's mini-turret wasn't great. 

7.5-8.5/10, would upgrade with 105mm L7, delete the mini-turret and up the model number by 12.


1. 105mm M68 is not L7A. 
 

2. Cries in M48A5 / Magach 3. 

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

Pulling stupid shit out of your ass, then putting one quote from a book you don't seem to have read, does not make your arguments better.   You claiming the cupola was bad when it was was universally liked on the Sherman and Pershing, just shows wrong you are and your just making up.  I'd say you were a Troll, using the "Dumb Troll" technique, but that may be giving you to much credit.

Sorry for sabotaging your Germany-bashing thread.

Universally liked is irrelevant if you had none before. Today Abrams uses "German" cupola arrangement..

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, delete013 said:

Sorry for sabotaging your Germany-bashing thread.

Universally liked is irrelevant if you had none before. Today Abrams uses "German" cupola arrangement..

Don't be sorry, bashing you is fun, the thread will be fine.

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...