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

[Stimpy75]

Tiger III? For Real? Wo hast du das her wenn Ich fragen darf? Because that looks more like a what if, that's why I ask

[DogDodger]

15 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?

 

                                                                                                                                      

Could be, haven't read about that.

10 hours ago, TokyoMorose said:

 

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.

 

Interesting, thanks; what is this from? Ogorkiewicz differentiates between double-differentials and the Panther's steering system, and has a pretty high opinion of it:

...

 

 

9 hours ago, TokyoMorose said:

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.

Seeing M48s in person, the gun seemed a bit unimpressive compared to the size of the vehicle to me as well. The original cupola was pretty slick, but couldn't be reloaded from under armor, of course, so the bad M1 cupola was a go.

4 hours ago, delete013 said:

Why did the radioman have a reserve steering set?

 

Commander's cupola is useless for observation. Those glass slits certainly don't offer good vision.

 

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.

 

Because he's the assistant driver; the radio was in the turret bustle. Perhaps a better question would be: why was the assistant driver not provided with duplicated controls in all US designs? The TC's cupola has a rotating periscope in the hatch door, as well. As we mentioned earlier, trials at Aberdeen indicated that the T26E1 was better cross-country than the HVSS Sherman. We're lamenting the M26's near-vertical turret armor while comparing it to the Centurion?

4 hours ago, delete013 said:

Pershing engines burned out and died in Korea. This is akin to early panthers.

The M26's performance in Korea can be considered an outlier as far as reliability goes. MacDonald et al in "The Employment of Armor in Korea," vol.I, noted, "The M26 tanks were a later World War II development and were in a generally poor physical condition." And when discussing the cannibalization required due to spare part scarcity: "This situation was aggravated because many of the tanks brought to Korea had seen extensive service elsewhere or had deteriorated while in storage. One battalion with M26 tanks departed the US with all but 10 to 12 tanks in unsatisfactory operating condition. These tanks, in operation since 1946 in troop training, were in serious need of complete overhaul."

3 hours ago, delete013 said:

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.

 

Scarce indeed. In Korea, the physical width of the tank precluded some routes, and the steep hills were taxing, but what issues were prevalent off-road?

3 hours ago, delete013 said:

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.

The Pershing wasn't really a heavy tank, as noted earlier. It was named a heavy for morale purposes for a couple years, but actual heavy tanks were in development.

2 hours ago, delete013 said:

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.

 

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.

 

The T26E5 was tested starting in July 1945 and performed well besides having to take it easy over rough ground to avoid suspension damage. World War II was over, though, so a prototype was all that was going to be produced. Panther's steering design was clever, but in practice the final drive design and material hindered this advantage since using the steering brakes caused the final drives to shear, no?

Edited March 3, 2021 by DogDodger
Embedding is hard

[Beer]

  

5 hours ago, delete013 said:

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. 

 

Panther was roughly 3 tons heavier than Pershing. It's really strange when you compare Panther with medium tanks and Pershing with heavies when Pershing is lighter than Panther which itself is 10-20 tons heavier than other medium tanks of the war. 

 

By the way in our post war army Panther had a designation "Heavy tank T-42/75 N" and was garaged (not actively used) in a heavy tank regiment.  

  

6 hours ago, delete013 said:

Pershing had the richness of dubious redundancies. Why two gun sights? 

 

Do you suggest that Panther's no observation device for the gunner is better? In Panther the gunner with his extremely narrow field of view located half a meter bellow the commander's cupolla had zero situation awarness and all he could do is to rotate the turret to the azimuth position given by the commander using that crazy gauge. In Pershing the gunner could see every time when the commander could see, while in Panther the gunner was completely blind when the tank was behind the berm or something. That's not some dubious redundancy but IMHO much more practical solution than in Panther. 

  

3 hours ago, delete013 said:

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.

 

This must be the biggest joke of this forum ever. The result of that skill of the designers were vehicles which had around 1/3 larger armoured volume and had a weight of a class above their counterparts made by other countries. 

 

3 hours ago, delete013 said:

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. 

 

13 tons lighter than Panther, much smaller, faster, yet better armoured T-44 was roughly one year newer than Panther. It was officially addopted by RA on 23rd November 1944 but there were 3 brigades equipped with T-44 already since 15th September 1944. There were around 1000 T-44 fielded by May 1945. The fact that it wasn't used in combat doesn't make it a post-war vehicle. It was just easier for the service and logistics to stick with the T-34/85 in the actual combat units (which also tells you that T-34/85 was considered good enough to deal with the Germans). 

  

6 hours ago, delete013 said:

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.

 

It's somewhat weird to criticise Pershing armor layout when there were actually only two penetrations of Pershing in the WW2 (with one tank written off). Sure small number of vehicles was used but only two were penetrated (one by direct KwK-36 hit into the gunner's sights and the other by PaK-43 hit to the lower front plate) hence why saying that its armor was insufficient is unfounded. 

 

 

 

[Sturgeon]

I see you guys have this idiot in hand already.

Panther worst tank, WWII Germany worst country, losers be losers.

[Toxn]

12 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

I see you guys have this idiot in hand already.

Panther worst tank, WWII Germany worst country, losers be losers.

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 taller than the PzIV. But the vehicle is much more heavily armed and armoured (equivalent or better to a Tiger frontally, only a little thinner on the side)."

"Fantastic. Really good, compact design. The Germans were known to be good at efficient layouts."

 

"The drivetrain was extremely compact and reliable, with a better power-to-weight ratio than PzIV, as well as a slick automatic gearbox that reduced workload on the driver and improved offroad mobility."

"Wonderful, truly a vehicle for mobile warfare. Didn't Guderian say, after all, that the principle weapon of the tank was its engine and radio?"

 

"The vehicle had lots of vision devices, a large, roomy interior and nice-to-haves like panoramic gunner's sights and an azimuth indicator in the commander's cupola."

"Brilliant. We know that the crew which sees the target and fires first usually wins. This all adds up to an improvement in firepower!"

 

"Over 2000 were produced in less than a year, making it a relatively common sight on the battlefield when compared to older heavies such as Tiger."

"That's great! Wars are won by industrial production as much as by feats of arms - look at the miracles that Speer accomplished."

 

"It had lots of upgrade potential. Prototypes were produced with guns and armour equivalent to Tiger II, but without completely sacrificing either mobility or reliability."

"This is what made the Germans so formidable during the second world war - their ingenuity and ability to improve on existing designs. If only it had been fielded for longer, it would have had the potential to turn the tide of the war."

 

"It was made by Americans."

"Oh, it's absolute shit then."

[Jeeps_Guns_Tanks]

12 hours ago, DogDodger said:

Could be, haven't read about that.

 

Damn, I was hoping you had heard something about it, now I'm going to have to search for it! I have no idea what book or if it might even be wrong, I mean, you really know your stuff! 

 

Quote

 

Seeing M48s in person, the gun seemed a bit unimpressive compared to the size of the vehicle to me as well. The original cupola was pretty slick, but couldn't be reloaded from under armor, of course, so the bad M1 cupola was a go.

Because he's the assistant driver; the radio was in the turret bustle. Perhaps a better question would be: why was the assistant driver not provided with duplicated controls in all US designs? The TC's cupola has a rotating periscope in the hatch door, as well. As we mentioned earlier, trials at Aberdeen indicated that the T26E1 was better cross-country than the HVSS Sherman. We're lamenting the M26's near-vertical turret armor while comparing it to the Centurion?

The M26's performance in Korea can be considered an outlier as far as reliability goes. MacDonald et al in "The Employment of Armor in Korea," vol.I, noted, "The M26 tanks were a later World War II development and were in a generally poor physical condition." And when discussing the cannibalization required due to spare part scarcity: "This situation was aggravated because many of the tanks brought to Korea had seen extensive service elsewhere or had deteriorated while in storage. One battalion with M26 tanks departed the US with all but 10 to 12 tanks in unsatisfactory operating condition. These tanks, in operation since 1946 in troop training, were in serious need of complete overhaul."

Scarce indeed. In Korea, the physical width of the tank precluded some routes, and the steep hills were taxing, but what issues were prevalent off-road?

The Pershing wasn't really a heavy tank, as noted earlier. It was named a heavy for morale purposes for a couple years, but actual heavy tanks were in development.

The T26E5 was tested starting in July 1945 and performed well besides having to take it easy over rough ground to avoid suspension damage. World War II was over, though, so a prototype was all that was going to be produced. Panther's steering design was clever, but in practice the final drive design and material hindered this advantage since using the steering brakes caused the final drives to shear, no?

 

 

What can we take so for from Delete's responses? He didn't know the US all around vision cupola has a HUGE rotating periscope in it, and it pans up and down too.  He also thinks the design of said cupola is bad, based on his vast knowledge of tanks.  We can also take from his posts, his vast research into the Pershing, led him to believe the co-driver was the radio operator.  It most be super secret or something that US Tanks put the radios in their turrets, at least since the Lee. I mean otherwise how could someone as well read and smart as Delete not know it?  Oh and another wonderful tidbit, he thinks the very conventional HL230 was more advanced than the all aluminum, 4 valve per cylinder, overhead cam motor, that was the Ford GAA. Meaning he also doesn't anything about engines.  

 

10 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

I see you guys have this idiot in hand already.

Panther worst tank, WWII Germany worst country, losers be losers.

It's kind of sad really, Delete is being destroyed by Toxn, Beer, and Dog, and he just shits all over them. 

 

They are better men than me and because of that, I have room to try and go for the comedy relief. There is nothing like watching a hardcore boo, and this guy is about bad as they get ("Nazi tank designers are the best" ROFL OMFG LOL), without going down the path HitlerJr88t took.  You would think he would thank them for straitening him out, instead he's a snarky little dick. I bet the he still hasn't read the whole thread, or anything on the Pershing(LOL the co-driver is the co-driver you idiot), or anything by Zaloga, since Boos HATE him. 

 

8 hours ago, Toxn said:

I occasionally play this mental game where I imagine describing, let's call it the Pz.44, to the typical wehraboo.

 

"It had a low profile, only 10cm taller than the PzIV. But the vehicle is much more heavily armed and armoured (equivalent or better to a Tiger frontally, only a little thinner on the side)."

"Fantastic. Really good, compact design. The Germans were known to be good at efficient layouts."

 

"The drivetrain was extremely compact and reliable, with a better power-to-weight ratio than PzIV, as well as a slick automatic gearbox that reduced workload on the driver and improved offroad mobility."

"Wonderful, truly a vehicle for mobile warfare. Didn't Guderian say, after all, that the principle weapon of the tank was its engine and radio?"

 

"The vehicle had lots of vision devices, a large, roomy interior and nice-to-haves like panoramic gunner's sights and an azimuth indicator in the commander's cupola."

"Brilliant. We know that the crew which sees the target and fires first usually wins. This all adds up to an improvement in firepower!"

 

"Over 2000 were produced in less than a year, making it a relatively common sight on the battlefield when compared to older heavies such as Tiger."

"That's great! Wars are won by industrial production as much as by feats of arms - look at the miracles that Speer accomplished."

 

"It had lots of upgrade potential. Prototypes were produced with guns and armour equivalent to Tiger II, but without completely sacrificing either mobility or reliability."

"This is what made the Germans so formidable during the second world war - their ingenuity and ability to improve on existing designs. If only it had been fielded for longer, it would have had the potential to turn the tide of the war."

 

"It was made by Americans."

"Oh, it's absolute shit then."

 

 

Spot on and very funny, but Delete is going to think your American bias is showing. 

 

I just can't get over he's arguing about the Pershing, and MISSED THE Periscope in the photo of the Pershing in this very thread!! This is why I really think he might be running the "I'm dumb, but also arrogant and ignorant", troll on us.  I mean, he thought the CO-Driver was the radio operator, and was confused why the CO-DRIVER had controls for the tank, but didn't know he didn't have the radio? Has he even looked at a single book on the Pershing? Is there anyone truly this ignorant, arrogant, and stupid left on the internet? 

 

I have to rub it in more!  Look at the HUGE, Fucking gigantic periscope sticking out of the commanders hatch!!~!

 

 

[TokyoMorose]

7 hours ago, DogDodger said:

Interesting, thanks; what is this from? Ogorkiewicz differentiates between double-differentials and the Panther's steering system, and has a pretty high opinion of it:

...

 

 

Thing is, the benefits of compactness and short drivetrain runs apply to cletrac steering as well. All it really adds is multiple geared (non-brake) turning radii and neutral steering, for double the cost and space. It is admittedly probably the cheapest way to achieve multiple radii w/ neutral steer, but are those in practice so useful to spend double the effort on? Panther would have been just as effective with a single controlled diff, and it'd be much cheaper.

[Toxn]

 

5 hours ago, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

It's kind of sad really, Delete is being destroyed by Toxn, Beer, and Dog, and he just shits all over them. 

 

They are better men than me and because of that, I have room to try and go for the comedy relief. There is nothing like watching a hardcore boo, and this guy is about bad as they get ("Nazi tank designers are the best" ROFL OMFG LOL), without going down the path HitlerJr88t took.  You would think he would thank them for straitening him out, instead he's a snarky little dick. I bet the he still hasn't read the whole thread, or anything on the Pershing(LOL the co-driver is the co-driver you idiot), or anything by Zaloga, since Boos HATE him. 

 

 

You flatter me, but I'm really here more in a comedy role myself 

[Toxn]

So another side note: this game also works really well in reverse...

 

Discussing, let's call it the A42 "Cataphract", as developed by the British in 1943:

 

Designer: "Overall its dimensions were comparable to Tiger 1, but about 60cm longer and 30cm narrower. For all that, the turret ring diameter was 160cm. The vehicle weighed around 45 tonnes, ten tonnes less than Tiger, but had a lopsided armour scheme with equivalent (or better) frontal protection and about half the armour everywhere else."

 

Wehraboo: "Typical poor British design: over-emphasising some aspects at the expense of others. This reminds one of Churchill, which paid a heavy tank's bill on weight and mobility (not to mention an over-long hull which makes turning difficult), but only has good protection from the front for the trouble."

 

D: "The tank carried a high-velocity gun in the 75-76mm class, with good armour penetration (able to knock out all but the heaviest tanks). On the other hand, it had a less powerful HE round than existing 75mm guns like KwK40 and M3."

 

W: "This is also typically British. They put can-openers on their tanks and then forgot the most common mission for them: infantry support! It is less of an issue for specialist vehicles such as Archer, but for a mass-production tank it's a crippling defect."

 

D: "The drivetrain was complex, bulky and very unreliable, but provided nice-to-have capabilities like neutral steering and good gun stability over rough terrain. The engine was underdeveloped and needed a massive amount of work (including derating) before it could be used for any length of time successfully. Overall, the time-to-failure was something like a few hundred kilometres, and they didn't foresee being able to improve this (although the lifespan of individual components could have been improved)."

 

W: "This is Covenanter all over again - a bunch of 'clever' ideas that amounted to a mess. At least then they had the good sense to keep it as a training vehicle instead of sending it into battle. They should have stuck to well-proven transmission and suspension components, and used a surplus aero-engine or something rather than bodging it."

 

D: "Due to the issues with the suspension, drivetrain, turret ring diameter and turret design, the vehicle had almost no upgrade potential. The armour could not be thickened appreciably without causing even worse reliability problems, and the gun could not be replaced by a larger-bore weapon without designing an entirely new turret (and even then it would have been a squeeze for the crew)."

 

W: "This was the problem with Cromwell too - forcing the British to make iterative new vehicles when it should have been upgrading existing ones. The Germans, Russians and Americans all realised this with PzIV, T-34 and M4. Each was able to be reworked with new weapons, turrets, armour, and even engines without stopping the whole production line to produce a completely new vehicle."

 

D: "Speaking of the turret, there were technically two hatches (a commander's hatch and an escape hatch directly in the rear), but the placement made it so that only the loader could use the rear hatch and only the commander and gunner could use the commander's hatch. The hatches were very small (around 40cm diameter), but the commander's hatch was well-appointed with periscopes, a mounting for a scissors periscope and a geared azimuth indicator to show the turret's rotation in relation to the hull. The gunner had a single coaxial sight with a single level of magnification (2.5x), but later production was slated to have a selectable 2.5/5x sight. The FoV was around 28' for the 2.5x, and 14' for the 5x."  

 

W: "Again, the British talent for wonky engineering on show. The hatch is a mix of good ideas (they cottoned on to the use of periscopes quickly, after all), dubious ones (a simple ring indicator would have worked just as well) and terrible ones (Comet hatch syndrome strikes again). The gunner's sights were good and workmanlike (3x and 21' FoV is more typical for the British), but the Americans had already introduced modern conveniences such as a second unity/fixed magnification sight mounted to the roof at that point. This tank should have had these, it would made the gunner's life much easier!"

 

D: "The tank used almost no components common to other models besides the engine (which, again, needed massive reworking), and was difficult to service in almost every respect due to the complexities and placement of the drivetrain and suspension components. This, along with a chronic shortage of spare parts (because production of vehicles was prioritised over the production of spares) meant that commanders in the field would have to rely heavily on rail to move the tanks up to the front. There were no road transporters large enough to carry them, and next to no engineering vehicles able to unditch them."

 

W: "This is madness from the perspective of fighting a mobile war - something that the Germans excelled at but the allies had to painfully learn. A tank is only useful when it's moving under its own power. More than that - when winning an industrial war, it is rational production that counts. Look at the effort the Germans made under Speer to rationalise production of aircraft and tanks. This rationalisation probably prolonged the war by a year, giving the Wehrmacht the material to push back against the hordes of Russian vehicles being thrown at it."

 

D: "It was made by Germans."

 

W: "Oh its amazing! A wonder weapon! The ancestor of all modern tanks!"

 

[delete013]

15 hours ago, Beer said:

Panther was roughly 3 tons heavier than Pershing. It's really strange when you compare Panther with medium tanks and Pershing with heavies when Pershing is lighter than Panther which itself is 10-20 tons heavier than other medium tanks of the war. 

 

By the way in our post war army Panther had a designation "Heavy tank T-42/75 N" and was garaged (not actively used) in a heavy tank regiment.  

The fact that German medium has the weight of an allied heavy and heavies go beyond 50tonnes tells a lot about the discrepancy in automotive technology. Panther was medium because of mobility. No way around it. If armour was bad then 

 

Quote

Do you suggest that Panther's no observation device for the gunner is better? In Panther the gunner with his extremely narrow field of view located half a meter bellow the commander's cupolla had zero situation awarness

No need for emotional sweeping statements. The topic is quite interesting to discuss and by no means one sided. Let's see the benefits of German aiming arrangement.

- TZF 12 had 28deg fov on 2,5x magnification. This is a pretty comfortable observation device.

- Zooming from 2,5x to 5,0x is much smoother than shifting from periscope to another device.

- better and more reliable optics

- Together with convenient distance measuring procedure and flat ballistic curve it makes up the highest first hit chance system of the war. Panther's gunner had a cumulative 1km distance error margin on 1km for open targets, giving almost 100% hit probability.

- Commander had better vision and he primarily spots and delegates targets.

 

Incalculating the downsides:

- clumsy turret turning, dependent on the driver and the engine

- no panoramic periscope

- the only sight bound to the turret direction 

- sights of the rest of the crew is fixed

- lack of duplicate turning switch for the commander

 

one can speculate that in theory, panther had somewhat worse aiming arrangement. An advantage long range and disadvantage short-mid range. The crucial thing is how much weight each of these factors have. I believe without tankers we can really only guess.

I would imagine smth like this:

1. Both identify a target at about the same speed (panther's commander has advantage but pershing has better help from other crew members)

2. pershing turns the turret and the gunner acknowledges the target faster

3. panther's gunner zooms on the target and estimates distance better and hits the target faster (higher chance of first hit, maybe faster reload due to shell size).

On shorter range the distance estimation falls away and the turret turning and target acknowledgement are aggravated for the panther and vice-versa.

 

I consider that the link engine-driver-gunner the weakest, because two important roles interrupt each other.

 

The important question is now what ranges did combat take place. Most ranges in W.Europe were apparently fall in two groups, ~300m or ~700m.

 

The unresolved questions are: pershing's hit accuracy and from what distance is range estimation relevant for its M3. Pershing's aiming procedure. Sherman's was afaik quite slow. Rough range estimate by commander, ranging shot then corrected shot. But Pershing has high velocity cannon, flatter curve.

 

Quote

 

 

Quote

This must be the biggest joke of this forum ever. The result of that skill of the designers were vehicles which had around 1/3 larger armoured volume and had a weight of a class above their counterparts made by other countries. 

And better armour, armament and still better mobility. And all you want to compare it with are tanks that were too late for war. You don't actually believe that panthers wouldn't get upgraded too?

The height could have been indeed lower and transmission and suspension simpler, as we all agree, I believe. But with transmission in the back the nice agility goes away. It's all reasonable trade-offs for dire years of 1944-45 but not for 1943 when the decisions were made. Later the decisions have more to do with production economy than design.

 

Quote

 

13 tons lighter than Panther, much smaller, faster, yet better armoured T-44 was roughly one year newer than Panther. It was officially addopted by RA on 23rd November 1944 but there were 3 brigades equipped with T-44 already since 15th September 1944. There were around 1000 T-44 fielded by May 1945. The fact that it wasn't used in combat doesn't make it a post-war vehicle. It was just easier for the service and logistics to stick with the T-34/85 in the actual combat units (which also tells you that T-34/85 was considered good enough to deal with the Germans). 

Weren't there only <2k produced and about 2-300 until may 45? But yeah, "introduced" in november 44. What does that say about Soviet equipment procurement?

 

Quote

It's somewhat weird to criticise Pershing armor layout when there were actually only two penetrations of Pershing in the WW2 (with one tank written off). Sure small number of vehicles was used but only two were penetrated (one by direct KwK-36 hit into the gunner's sights and the other by PaK-43 hit to the lower front plate) hence why saying that its armor was insufficient is unfounded. 

Here we are, at never penetrated in battle meme. Is typical of US scene. Isn't written, doesn't exist. Then by coincidence are issues conveniently absent in the literature.

[delete013]

2 hours ago, Toxn said:

So another side note: this game also works really well in reverse...

You remind me of Liddell Hart, insisting how reality of German maneuver warfare conformed to his ideas.

[Toxn]

16 minutes ago, delete013 said:

The fact that German medium has the weight of an allied heavy and heavies go beyond 50tonnes tells a lot about the discrepancy in automotive technology. Panther was medium because of mobility. No way around it. If armour was bad then 

Pershing was a medium though.

 

16 minutes ago, delete013 said:

No need for emotional sweeping statements. The topic is quite interesting to discuss and by no means one sided. Let's see the benefits of German aimin system.

- TZF 12 had 28deg fov on 2,5x magnification. This is a pretty comfortable observation device.

- Zooming from 2,5x to 5,0x is much smoother than shifting from periscope to another device.

- better and more reliable optics

- Together with convenient distance measuring procedure and flat ballistic curve it makes up the highest first hit chance system of the war. Panther's gunner had a cumulative 1km distance error margin on 1km for open targets, giving almost 100% hit probability.

- Commander had better vision and he primarily spots and delegates targets.

 

Incalculating the downsides:

- clumsy turret turning, dependent on the driver and the engine

- no panoramic periscope

- the only sight bound to the turret direction 

- sights of the rest of the crew is fixed

- lack of duplicate turning switch for the commander

 

one can speculate that in theory, panther had somewhat worse aiming arrangement. An advantage long range and disadvantage short-mid range. The crucial thing is how much weight each of these factors has. I believe without tankers we can really only guess.

I would imagine smth like this:

1. Both identify a target at about the same speed (panther's commander has advantage but pershing has better help from other crew members)

2. pershing turns the turret and the gunner acknowledges the target faster

3. panther's gunner zooms on the target and estimates distance better and hits the target faster (higher chance of first hit, maybe faster reload due to shell size).

On shorter range the distance estimation falls away and the turret turning and target acknowledgement are aggravated for the panther and vice-versa.

I'm not sure how you get to the last part. Pershing had very well laid-out ammunition storage and a shell casing that was actually a bit shorter than Panther's. As for estimation, that's pure guesswork on your part.

 

 

[Toxn]

5 minutes ago, delete013 said:

You remind me of Liddell Hart, insisting how reality of German maneuver warfare conformed to his ideas.

And you remind me of an idiot who fails to understand the point.

 

Edit: since I'm trying, this outburst aside, to approach things in a constructive manner I'll spell it out for you: the point is to sharpen critical thinking by taking the object you are examining and pulling it outside of its context. Because people are shit at objective judgements and good at motivated reasoning.

 

If you approached your assessment of Panther the way you approach your assessment of Pershing, you'd come to a more balanced, objective conclusion about the vehicle. Which is, and I keep harping on about this point, that it was more or less mediocre once all the relevant factors have been considered.

[delete013]

11 minutes ago, Toxn said:

Pershing was a medium though.

That moved like a heavy?

11 minutes ago, Toxn said:

I'm not sure how you get to the last part. Pershing had very well laid-out ammunition storage and a shell casing that was actually a bit shorter than Panther's.

Nono, entire shell length matters. 5kg lighter and 7cm shorter for the same penetration.

Btw, did pershing have automatic casing ejection?

 

11 minutes ago, Toxn said:

As for estimation, that's pure guesswork on your part.

Yes, entirely. Why don't you make yours. Would be interesting to compare.

[Toxn]

Also, since you seem determined to cling onto the idea that Panther's issues were going to be fixed at some point "if the war had gone on", you're dreaming. The tank was in service for around two years and never got the most glaring issues fixed, so expecting that to change is wishful thinking. It also had, as I've been at pains to point out, almost nothing in the way of upgrade potential.

 

If by some chance the war had gone on until 1946 (presumably because the Americans convinced the Russians that watching nuclear weapons hitting Berlin was a life-changing experience or something) then the Panther would have simply found itself as the same unreliable beast from before, only now facing hordes of T-44s, IS-3s, Pershings and Centurions. It wouldn't have been pretty.

[Toxn]

1 minute ago, delete013 said:

That moved like a heavy?

As opposed to the Panther, which moved like a heavy?

 

1 minute ago, delete013 said:

Nono, entire shell length matters. 5kg lighter and 7cm shorter for the same penetration.

Btw, did pershing have automatic casing ejection?

I'm not sure where you get your OAL figures, but sure. So they're functionally identical except for the fact that the Panther's loader would have to go fishing in the sponsons or what-not when the ammo is depleted.

 

1 minute ago, delete013 said:

Yes, entirely. Why don't you make yours. Would be interesting to compare.

I'm not sure why - yours shows that they're either even or that the Pershing is slightly ahead on some sort of "time to first round hit" curve. I'd happily put any major differences as down to crew skill and the situation leading up to an engagement.

 

As it stands we only have a single well-studied clash between a Pershing and a Panther, and the Pershing got the first shot off into the side at short range (according to the German commander he was lined up but didn't order the shot due to confusion, as he'd never seen that type before). Said Pershing then pumped two more rounds rapid-fire into the right-hand side until the Panther completely burned.

[delete013]

10 minutes ago, Toxn said:

Also, since you seem determined to cling onto the idea that Panther's issues were going to be fixed at some point "if the war had gone on", you're dreaming. The tank was in service for around two years and never got the most glaring issues fixed, so expecting that to change is wishful thinking. It also had, as I've been at pains to point out, almost nothing in the way of upgrade potential.

 

It's not like there exist a built panther 2.. But do you read you own link? Soviets have had no "glaring" issues beyond the engine. Engine got more or less fixed and for that short lifespan worked okay. But we made a construct based on two British tests, one opinion of "half of panthers in Normandy had broken final drives", French post war opinion and Guderians report on failing final drives in all tanks and issues in the mud. And this construct is then reduced to the worst case of 150km lifespan, backed up by the interpretation that train based relocation was due to entirely failed drive train design.

So why didn't panther broke down on Soviet trials? How did the British manage to ruin 6 vehicles? Why was suspension estimated as good by the Soviets, while the British experienced troubles?

 

10 minutes ago, Toxn said:

If by some chance the war had gone on until 1946 (presumably because the Americans convinced the Russians that watching nuclear weapons hitting Berlin was a life-changing experience or something) then the Panther would have simply found itself as the same unreliable beast from before, only now facing hordes of T-44s, IS-3s, Pershings and Centurions. It wouldn't have been pretty.

And pershings would be the smallest of a problem.

[Toxn]

11 minutes ago, delete013 said:

 

It's not like there exist a built panther 2.. But do you read you own link? Soviets have had no "glaring" issues beyond the engine. Engine got more or less fixed and for that short lifespan worked okay. But we made a construct based on two British tests, one opinion of "half of panthers in Normandy had broken final drives", French post war opinion and Guderians report on failing final drives in all tanks and issues in the mud. And this construct is then reduced to the worst case of 150km lifespan, backed up by the interpretation that train based relocation was due to entirely failed drive train design.

So why didn't panther broke down on Soviet trials? How did the British manage to ruin 6 vehicles? Why was suspension estimated as good by the Soviets, while the British experienced troubles?

What are you on about? The Panther broke down incessantly when the Soviets tested it:

http://www.tankarchives.ca/2014/04/panther-trials.html?m=1

 

11 minutes ago, delete013 said:

And pershings would be the smallest of a problem.

 

[delete013]

1 hour ago, Toxn said:

Also, since you seem determined to cling onto the idea that Panther's issues were going to be fixed at some point "if the war had gone on", you're dreaming. The tank was in service for around two years and never got the most glaring issues fixed, so expecting that to change is wishful thinking. It also had, as I've been at pains to point out, almost nothing in the way of upgrade potential.

Don't forget that Germans discontinued most of their regular projects by 1945 and switched to Volkssturm improvisations such as Hetzers and Volksjäger. But this has nothing to do with the design skill. If the country managed to function at it did in 1943 they would likely restart the panther 2 development and have them in 1945 if necessary. But the panther 2 proposed in 1943 was apparently botched due to satisfactory side plates against anti-tank rifles. With redesigned turret and suspension (likely removed double torsion bars) and increased frontal armour:

it was not needed. Later on only seriously disfunctional communication between Panzerkommission and the industry would be an alternative explanation.

 

If war went better for the Germans, Allies would face smth akin to this:

https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/firearmcentral/images/2/21/Panther_II.jpg/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/1000?cb=20180503090747
I consider t-54 one of the best designs in tank history but panther 2 would be at least on the same level.

[Beer]

3 hours ago, delete013 said:

The fact that German medium has the weight of an allied heavy and heavies go beyond 50tonnes tells a lot about the discrepancy in automotive technology. Panther was medium because of mobility. No way around it. If armour was bad then

 

Panther was havier than Pershing yet you insisted on comparing Pershing (medium tank per army designation) with heavies and compared Panther with 15 tons lighter medium vehicles. Hence my reaction and by the way you can't omit operational and strategical mobility which was afwful with Panther, definitely not on the level of medium tanks. 

 

  

3 hours ago, delete013 said:

No need for emotional sweeping statements. The topic is quite interesting to discuss and by no means one sided. Let's see the benefits of German aiming arrangement...

 

It was you who claimed that the layout of Pershing was of "dubious redundancy". It is not and Panther layout of vision devices was worse. Simple as that. There is no need to write a wall of text about it.

  

3 hours ago, delete013 said:

And better armour, armament and still better mobility. And all you want to compare it with are tanks that were too late for war. You don't actually believe that panthers wouldn't get upgraded too?

The height could have been indeed lower and transmission and suspension simpler, as we all agree, I believe. But with transmission in the back the nice agility goes away. It's all reasonable trade-offs for dire years of 1944-45 but not for 1943 when the decisions were made. Later the decisions have more to do with production economy than design.

 

Upgraded how? Panther had zero modernisation potential. The chassis could not carry any more load because it was already grossly overweight. The armour could not be made thicker, the gun could not be made larger. The turret ring was small. The final drive could not be fixed in the existing vehicle. It had all to do with the design. 

 

Yes, the decision was made in 1943 and it shows how wrong the decision making process was. Normally you don't put into production something which is overweight before the production even starts because issues are invitable and you can't upgrade it in the future. Pz.IV grew in weight by 19% between Ausf.D and H. Pz.III grew by 18% betwen Ausf.E and Ausf.N. Sherman variants grew up to 27%. T-34 variants grew by 19%. Panther grew by 0 kg in two years because it was overweight from the start. It was a vehicle with no modernization potential already when it first went off the production line and it had all to do with the design.  

 

3 hours ago, delete013 said:

Weren't there only <2k produced and about 2-300 until may 45? But yeah, "introduced" in november 44. What does that say about Soviet equipment procurement?

 

It says that Soviets undersood that logistics and serviceability wins wars while weapons are only tools for doing that. Something the Germans clearly never understood (some did but weren't able to change the course of things). 

 

3 hours ago, delete013 said:

Here we are, at never penetrated in battle meme. Is typical of US scene. Isn't written, doesn't exist. Then by coincidence are issues conveniently absent in the literature.

 

Feel free to show more destroyed Pershings. 

 

 

 

 

 

[delete013]

26 minutes ago, Toxn said:

What are you on about? The Panther broke down incessantly when the Soviets tested it:

http://www.tankarchives.ca/2014/04/panther-trials.html?m=1

"broke down three times"?

[Beer]

41 minutes ago, delete013 said:

So why didn't panther broke down on Soviet trials?

 

How about to read that report. 

Quote

 

- asphalt highway: 58 km

- dirt roads: 162 km

The engine worked for 13.9 hours.

 

During these trials, the tank broke down three times, and had to be towed back to the proving grounds. In addition to the above distance, the tank travelled 36 km while being towed.

 

 

So it broke down 3x over 220 km without even going into hard terrain. 

[Beer]

8 minutes ago, delete013 said:

Apparently the panther 2 with redesigned turret and suspension (likely removed double torsion bars) and increased frontal armour:

was not needed. Seriously disfunctional communication between Panzerkommission and the industry would be the only other explanation.

 

If war went better for the Germans, Allies would face smth akin to this:

https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/firearmcentral/images/2/21/Panther_II.jpg/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/1000?cb=20180503090747
I consider t-54 one of the best designs in tank history but panther 2 would be at least on the same level.

 

Everyone can draw a nice thing on the paper. Considering how other German projects ended we can quite safely say that Panther II would end being something completely different than what it was on the paper. Paper projects are paper projects. Good for WoT but completely irrelevant for reality. 

 

You'd better not even start with arguments based on such stuff. 

[delete013]

44 minutes ago, Beer said:

So it broke down 3x over 220 km without even going into hard terrain. 

Quote

• asphalt highway: 58 km
• dirt roads: 162 km

 

Quote

Dirt road: forest and field, wide, with a large amount of deep ditches, grades up to 10 degrees. The roads are muddy in places. External temperature was between 8-17 degrees Celsius, no precipitation.

 

How can you judge? Less slope than that at Pershing's trial but otherwise no other specific detail.

 

Quote

The reliability, overall design and technological level of the components and assemblies of the Panther is less than that of the PzIII and PzIV.

 

Quote

rapid wear on the (final) drive's gears

 

Seems like less reliable than Pz3-4 or Pershing. Weak engine and final drives. But nothing seems vehicle breaking, like the Brits want us to believe.

[Beer]

48 minutes ago, delete013 said:

How can you judge? Less slope than that at Pershing's trial but otherwise no other specific detail.

 

If you read more Soviet reports you would know what hard terrain means.