Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

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


EnsignExpendable
 Share

Recommended Posts

Also, when it comes to "muh future plans"... these are well known.

 

Panther II was outright cancelled and never, ever ever considered for a revival. Even mentioning it is pointless, like the original "Tiger II" (an abhorrent Tiger/Panther hybrid) it was a complete dead end.

 

The E series, much beloved, were also a complete dead end for the Germans in that they didn't ever attempt to even guess when they might be built. In '45, in the Twilight of the Nazi Gods, all panzer production was to be on three chassis families - Panzer 38(d), Panther, and Tiger II. And even then, the Tiger II chassis was used for limited volume specialist production only as the Germans more or less finally admitted they couldn't support a dedicated heavyweight branch anymore. 

 

The only planned changeover for medium weight production was the introduction of the Ausf. F and its Schmalturm which has a marginal effect on combat ability. Other than that, it's literally Ausf F. Panthers until the end of the planning periods. If they were lucky they would get the new optics and HL234 at some undecided point in the future. Even if they got everything in research into production, the Panzerwaffe '46 is going to be building the Panther Ausf F. with only minor tweaks.

 

At which point of course, the Russians may well have decided to put T-54-1 or T-44-100 into mass production unlike real life... Centurion II or III is in full production, and the M46 has probably arrived carrying some form of the long 90mm. (The ditching of the long 90mm and the glacial pace at which M46 arrived more or less resulting from postwar budget issues that wouldn't happen in such a timeline.)

 

And the T-54-1 in particular puts such a 1946 Panther to shame.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ADC411 said:

Guys, I've gotta be honest, I'm starting to feel a bit bad about the dogpile going on here. Therefore, I've decided to play Devil's advocate and jump into the discussion as part of team of Wehraboo. I've put together a carefully crafted list of evidence to help convince you all.

 

Exhibit A:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

I think that speaks for itself, but if somehow that objective assessment by a SME doesn't have you convinced, then please take a look at Exhibit B:

 

Massive Panther column up incline, counting 12 Panthers #worldwar2 #tanks | Panther  tank, World of tanks, Tank

 

According to most sources, Panther tanks maintained an average readiness rate of anywhere from 30-35% for the first two years after their introduction, AND YET, in the picture I have provided, you can clearly see no less than TWELVE Panther tanks, all of which appear to be running perfectly.

 

 


This is incontrovertible archival evidence!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, delete013 said:

You say that while shitposting?

 

 

His posts are better than yours. 

8 hours ago, delete013 said:

 

In short, they were fucked from the get go. Also, the economy was not mobilised until 1943, because, among other reasons, nobody even remotely expected to be able to counter the Allied numbers. The early tanks were quite costly, and panthers were only some 25% more expensive than Pz4.

Frankly, I have no idea what is needed to build gear-cutting machines but early mobilisation would be likely advantageous. Sectors of industry also suffered quite significantly from certain bombing raids.

 

 

It's pretty clear you have no idea on just about anything you've talked about in this thread.    Like, do you know anything?  How do you not know ALL U.S. Tank Guns, from the 75mm M2 in the Lee to the current ones automatically ejected their shells. Like have you read anything but that Jentz book you posted with the suspicious stains?

 

You think a conventional pushrod V12 that couldn't make its design horsepower, is some miracle of technology, while shit talking the Ford GAA. The GAA being an overhead cam V8 with 4 valves per cylinder and being all aluminum made it right on the cutting edge of automotive technology. You having no idea about engines is clear when you spew shit about German motors being something special. 

 

13 hours ago, delete013 said:

Notches.jpg

 

This was such a clown shoes response. I guess you believe that propaganda. You still buy this bullshit after most of the big encounters where the Hero Nazi's you worship killed a horde of T-34s or Shermans, have been debunked, many by the guy who started this thread, and that just makes you an asshole.  It boils down to you're a troll, trolling about liking Nazi shit, or moron who actually believes the bullshit you're spewing, in either case, you don't look real good.  I hope you're a stupid kid, many of us really liked German tanks when when we were young and stupid, but we all read enough actual history to grow out of it. You could actually learn something from the people who tried to be nice to you in this thread, but at this point, you presence on this forum is so poisoned, no one is going to take you seriously. 

 

 

 

 

 

ifhwrxb7hi441.jpg

This Panther is like Deletes arguments in this thread. Full of holes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One is free to appreciate the AFVs of WW2 Germany as far as I’m concerned, but it is annoying when certain people just handwave away all of the criticism directed towards tanks like the Panther and engage in all sorts of mental gymnastics when presented with overwhelming evidence against their position. I suspect it’s because many people just can’t deal with the fact that their favourite thing is flawed, but as someone who enjoys plenty of flawed things, like the Star Wars prequels and The Room, and, yes, even the Panther, which IMO is one the better looking tanks of WW2 with plenty of options for modellers, I would like to stress that it’s not only possible but (usually) completely fine as well.

 

But anyway, onto something different…

 

taJ1Nny.jpg

 

This is a Leopard 1A1NO, a tank that was based on Leopard 1A1A2s acquired from Germany after the Cold War had ended, It was only in service for a few years before, ironically, they too had to be retired in accordance with the CFE-treaty. Next to the housing of the PZB 200 image intensifier, we can also see an interesting feature of this tank, the Simrad LV3 laser range finder, which was probably repurposed from retired NM116s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Laser Shark said:

One is free to appreciate the AFVs of WW2 Germany as far as I’m concerned, but it is annoying when certain people just handwave away all of the criticism directed towards tanks like the Panther and engage in all sorts of mental gymnastics when presented with overwhelming evidence against their position.

Are you actually reading the thread or just dropped in for the last 5 posts? This thread is an emotion dumping ground. Some can't sleep unconvinced that German ww2 tanks are shit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, delete013 said:

Are you actually reading the thread or just dropped in for the last 5 posts? This thread is an emotion dumping ground. Some can't sleep unconvinced that German ww2 tanks are shit.

 

 

It's funny, a useless windbag like you would accuse another poster of not reading the thread, you admit to not reading.  More reasons to make fun of you and not take your poorly thought out posts seriously.  Bad troll is bad. You bring shame to your boo ancestors.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SH_MM said:

UMCPgpF.jpg

 

j7ISQtl.jpg

3uWUsEL.jpg

 

puma-seitenansicht.jpg

Fancy photos.

 

Apparently, IFV Puma represents and achieved ideal for German mechanised infantry, set already in ww2. Together with PzH 2000 and Leopard 2 it forms perhaps the most potent conventional land combination in existence.. but then, a rather confusing move when the structure "Neuen Heer für neue Aufgaben"  disolved the armoured reconnaissance and replaced Luchs and Leopards 2 with Fenneks and drones.:blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Post-Kursk penetration trials of Ferdinand dated september 1943. The most interesting perhaps is that a non-penetration close-distance frontal hit from 85 mm 52-K AA gun tore off the screws of the front armor and destroyed radio and some other internal equipment. Non-penetration 122 mm A-19 HE hit caused cracking of the whole casemate along the weld seems. 

http://www.tankarchives.ca/2021/04/elephant-hunters.html

 

If someone hasn't read that yet, in this older post there is a breakdown of known Ferdinandd losses (over 50 documented cases from Kursk or Italy). Very few were lost to gunfire (not a single one in Italy) but as expected many were lost due to mechanical breakdowns, being stuck in terrain or by mines... 

http://www.tankarchives.ca/2013/12/ferdinand-losses.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been dwelling a bit on panther's final drives and came to this. Warning, this can include semantic errors!

 

MAN said that they wanted epicyclic gearing (tiger's in the image) but the lack of machine cutting tools for inner gearing, apparently prevented it.

BalhCCK.jpg

 

but were forced to resort to adding a reduction gear:

w9zyKeM.png

 

Sherman proponents usually give M4's final drives as example of good practice with double helical gears:

http://www.theshermantank.com/wp-content/uploads/FFF48-Final-drive-unit-removed-from-assembly.png

 

But then one looks at two other tanks of the same era of about the same weight as panther's, and without known final drive problems:

 

Pershing:

EwLWHRG.jpg

 

Cent:

osJG2qX.jpg

 

Both tanks feature "conservative" spur gears. Pershing's seems of similar size to panther's and even lacks a reduction gear, resulting in a higher force exercised on the teeth of the big gear. Centurion's final drive has precisely the same principle as panthers, double reduction gear, to enable gradual ratios from one gear to another. So the design doesn't seem to be inappropriate. If gears were too weak, there seems to be no limitation to increasing the size or thickness of inidividial gears, since final drives are outside of the hull anyway.

 

But there is more. We know that the teeth of the big gear were normally the weak point. In Panzertracts 9-3 (Jagdpanther) it is stated that in october 1944, final drive issues of Jagdpanther battalion 654 ceased and that they made several hundred kilometres by then with improved final drives. What improvements those were, is not clear.

 

In the catalog one can see internals of a final drive of a panther A or D

Panther+Project+Volume+I+%252816%2529.jp

 

This is a presumably "improved" final drive of a late Jagdpanther, restored by Weald Fundation.

26232223_1802271213404505_90175229503719

 

Comparing those two one sees no major difference, thing that would really improve the design. Maybe with it, the strenghtened bolts and housing, is meant? (It is the only improvement Spielberger mentioned)

 

To bring my point home,

1) we also know that at January 1945 meeting of the Panzer-commission previous defects on all German tanks were mentioned, not only panthers.

 

2) It is also known that gearboxes, with plenty of gearing inside, were fragile and that the teeth of the gearing for the 3rd gear often broke.

 

3) It was also suspected at the time that sabotage was probable and mentioned by Spielberger in Panther und seine Abarthen that steel used was sub-par for the industry standards.

 

4) The only fully functional gearing design was planetary, which, imo, offers the best distribution of force and the least stress on individual teeth.

 

From this I can conclude that most likely cause of final drive failures was weak material, rather that the design itself. The best working German design was one that was the least sensitive to material quality!

Now conjecture, warning. This explains for me, why no firm solution could be found. Mass produced vehicles would have to use poor material. It is likely that a vehicle with proper material would require no improvements, beyond those made after the field testing. It is also likely that the prototype version of a vehicle would show less problems due to better materials used. The incentives to the designers went without effect, likely because any design other than planetary would face similar fate. Germans maxed the limitations of resource scarcity and had to put up with material generally considered unsuitable. Without exact analysis of materials is direct comparison between German and Allied designs problematic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My three cents. 

 

Things are much more complicated than what can be conculed by looking at non-scaled pictures. 

 

Panther has higher engine output than Pershing. Panther has 4 tons higher weight than Pershing. Panther's transmission is subject to more shocks than that of Pershing (the torque converter combined with the planetary geabox must have eased the shocks in the transmission a lot). All points worse for panther but that's only the base factors. 

 

The main point IMHO is that Panther's final drive housing was designed very opened and thus weak (there is very little material mainly from the inner side due to the space taken by the double gears and their bearings) while Pershing assembly is basically a fully enclosed massive box which means it must be much more rigid. It is well known that one of the major problems with Panther's final drive was its weak housing and its fixation to the hull which deformed and caused oil leaks damaging the gears. Another result of such deformation was the gear misalignments further worsening the situation. In my understanding the resulting defects were also very often related to the breaking of the screws from the resulting shear stress. The September 1944 modification is not related to the gears but instead to the housing strength and its fixation. You are searching for the wrong thing. Anyway it looks like it never solved the problems completely which seems logical because there is no way to add material from the inner side or in the return roler area. 

 

As for the gears alone inside the final drive assembly there is one gear more in Panther while the completele assembly isn't larger. I dare to say it looks even smaller especially in gear depth (considering there is a space used for the return roller on it as well) which logically means that the two gears in Pershing are larger than those three in Panther but without being able to determine torque on each gear it may be misleading (but I doubt the torque processed by Panther final drive was smaller especially considering the shock peaks which must have been flatten a lot by Pershing's torque converter). Straight-cut gears didn't help too. The herringbone gears like on Sherman would help for sure. Centurion final drive assembly is clearly much larger even judging just by the naked eye.  

 

As for the material IMHO the situation with it is relatively the easiest to establish. Even if you have bad material you know what you use for the design or at least you shall have some quality control which guarantees that you get material which is equally bad every time. In short it means that with worse material you simply end having things larger and heavier but having worse material does not prevent design of a reliable machine unless the issue is non-existent material quality control and the defects coming from quality differences in material supplies. Nothing seems to point in that direction though. Of course designing a complex shape of a final drive housing without simulation SW is difficult but they had experience and were able to do that with proper and in-time given inputs. 

 

Having things larger isn't always easy. In case of Panther it simply looks like the tank weight grew so much that a larger final drive simply couldn't fit on the vehicle without a radical redesign. How that could have been prevented is also rather easy to establish - the most obvious way is to stick with the design specifications and not to throw tons of additional armor on it late in the development phase. The other option is to start the design anew with new specifications but that takes time. Then there is the third option and that is to pray...  

 

 

Pershing final drive: 

http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/pics/m26pershingfinaldrive1.jpg

http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/pics/m26pershingfinaldrive2.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seconding @Beer here; Pershing and Cent both look to have bulkier, more rigid drive housings. Also seconding the point about materials: if you know the issue and have space to work with, you can make chunkier components out of pot metal and still have them work to a point.

 

Panther was just all tapped out in terms of margins. More or less from the get-go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone have Panzer Tracts No.9-3? This is alleged quote from there. It would be good know more info especially when that report was created.

 

Quote

During the approx. 300 km march.. the following mechanical failures occurred in the 25 Jagdpanthers: 18 final drives, 2 HL 230 engines, 3 oil coolers, 3 fan drives, 2 idlers, 1 idler crank arm, 1 torsion bar, 4 road wheels,4 drive sprockets, and 1 main drive shaft as well as wearing out 109 track links.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Beer said:

Does anyone have Panzer Tracts No.9-3? This is alleged quote from there. It would be good know more info especially when that report was created.

 

 


Kinda hard to meet the enemy on the battlefield, when you can’t even make it to the battlefield :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Beer said:

Does anyone have Panzer Tracts No.9-3? This is alleged quote from there. It would be good know more info especially when that report was created.

 

 

 

Why yes, I do. Lets open it up. Nothing to suggest the incident in October 28th was anything but an above-average batch. Final drive complaints come back when fighting with the 654th picks back up in November.

 

6Z8Xb0U.pngbg0TcpS.pngdQ1DVL7.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, delete013 said:

From this I can conclude that most likely cause of final drive failures was weak material, rather that the design itself. The best working German design was one that was the least sensitive to material quality!

Now conjecture, warning. This explains for me, why no firm solution could be found. Mass produced vehicles would have to use poor material. It is likely that a vehicle with proper material would require no improvements, beyond those made after the field testing. It is also likely that the prototype version of a vehicle would show less problems due to better materials used. The incentives to the designers went without effect, likely because any design other than planetary would face similar fate. Germans maxed the limitations of resource scarcity and had to put up with material generally considered unsuitable. Without exact analysis of materials is direct comparison between German and Allied designs problematic.

As we discussed previously, the design itself was poor because it was known that the available materials were not up to the task. Spielberger says that a higher-strength steel was intended for the gears, but after this was "unexpectedly" replaced no alterations in the design were made (and depending on when this replacement occurred, alterations may have been impossible).

4 hours ago, Beer said:

Does anyone have Panzer Tracts No.9-3? This is alleged quote from there. It would be good know more info especially when that report was created.

 

 

The report was from  Hauptmann Noak, commander of s.H.Pz.Jg.Abt.654, and was written on 24 July 1944, before the final drive improvements, to be fair.

Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...