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

[Toxn]

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

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)

 

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.

[Beer]

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. 

[N-L-M]

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.

[DogDodger]

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

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...

[Jeeps_Guns_Tanks]

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.

 

                                                                                                                                      

[Toxn]

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

[Jeeps_Guns_Tanks]

33 minutes ago, Toxn said:

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

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

[TokyoMorose]

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.

 

[Toxn]

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.

[TokyoMorose]

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.

[delete013]

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".

[delete013]

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.

[Toxn]

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.

[Toxn]

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.

[delete013]

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.

[Toxn]

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.

 

[delete013]

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.

[Jeeps_Guns_Tanks]

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.

 

 

[delete013]

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.

 

[Lord_James]

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. 

[Toxn]

3 minutes ago, Lord_James said:

1. 105mm M68 is not L7A. 
 

2. Cries in M48A5 / Magach 3. 

Is joke, tovarisch

[delete013]

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..

[delete013]

 

Comparison of drive train and turret arrangements. Showcasing the balanced but high panther hull and compact t-55.

[Jeeps_Guns_Tanks]

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.

[delete013]

(Up) Panther's cupola periscope. Also on tigers and stugs.

(Down) The panthers dead angle when buttoned up. Not as bad but clearly blind to what is happening near the vehicle.

 

Compared to US cupola:

http://www.theshermantank.com/wp-content/uploads/COMMANDERS-CUPOLA-7054771-ASSEMBLED-VIEW-IMPROVED-flat-918x1600.png