Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Beer said:

Soviet evaluation of Pershing in summer 1945 gives some light to the previously discussed terrain speed of Panther and Pershing. The result didn't favour Panther... 

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

 

This is the measured average speed in comparison with other tanks on the same terrain track. Pershing was the fastest of them in this test mainly thanks to its torque converter. 

 

T26E3 - 18,9 km/h

T-44 - 17,5 km/h

M4A4 - 16,5 km/h

Panther - 15,8 km/h

IS-3 - 14,6 km/h

 

Fuel consumption on the same track however showed that the torque converter made it also very thirsty, basically same as Panther. 

IS-3 - 373 l/100 km

T-44 - 378 l/100 km

M4A4 - 503 l/100 km

T26E3 - 585 l/ 100 km

Panther - 595 l/100 km

 

 

What's extra damning is the M4A4 does better tan the Panther!    The Nazi could only dream of having a motor so complicated, yet reliable!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 198
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I'm sure that all the SH regulars will know this backwards and forwards, so this is more for the benefit of newer people, or people who stumble in via google, or people who want a quick link they can

It's rarely pointed out because it is an absolute load of bullshit, and most self respecting people have enough of a brain to not embarrass themselves in public by making such inherently absurd claims

Definitely unexpected results! Interesting assertion about the reduction gear preventing the Pershing's torque converter from slipping and that the Soviets found it performed well on slopes. In Marine Corps Tank Battles in Korea, Gilbert says, "The M26 was a powerful vehicle, but as the tank crews soon discovered, if it stopped on a steep gradient the transmission would slip, and it was difficult or impossible to get it moving again. Help was needed and Eugene Viveiros, who, with one of the Headquarters Platoon [Sherman] blade tanks, attached himself to the 3rd Platoon, was ready to supply it. He was called upon 'to pat them on the butt end with the blade of the 'dozer tank to shove 'em up and get 'em going again. Once they got traction, then they were all right,' Viveiros explained." Although at least some Army Pershings arrived in Korea in need of repairs or overhaul, these USMC tanks were in decent working order (despite a shipborne flooding mishap en route), so this wasn't a maintenance issue: in a discussion on the state of Korean Pershings over on TankNet Ken Estes said, "...the USMC [Pershings] were drawn from depots, with no miles...all the USMC WWII flame tanks and postwar M26s went from storage through the depot line before being shipped to the units."

 

Any idea what "average technical speed" means? Too bad the off-road test was cancelled; didn't General Fedorenko know that people would be arguing about these things on the Internet 80 years later??

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/17/2021 at 10:59 AM, Lord_James said:


The transmission is also excellent! 

 

 

The whole powertrain, (transmission, differential and final drives) seems to have been overbuilt, or very well designed for its weight class. The powertrain changed very little through its life, and rarely seems problematic on tanks being restored. Most of the time, if it had fluid, remained sealed, and didn't take a round through it, they need little more than cosmetic attention when a Sherman is being restored. This includes the one installed in the M4A3E8 tank used as a bulldozer, to knock down a large section of Oakland California in the 60s. It needed pain job, and they changed the fluid, and replaced some rusty bolts, that's it. 

 

They also came apart in a easy, and were easy to work on. Everything used roller or ball bearings, probably all in sizes still available, and other than just the size, everything seems to have been easy to service. 

 

The only major mechanical change during the war, was going from single to double anchor brakes, and I think the newer brakes could be retrofitted to the older unit. Compared to the weak junk the Nazi's produced it was really an amazing achievement in engineering. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/17/2021 at 7:31 PM, DogDodger said:

Definitely unexpected results! Interesting assertion about the reduction gear preventing the Pershing's torque converter from slipping and that the Soviets found it performed well on slopes. In Marine Corps Tank Battles in Korea, Gilbert says, "The M26 was a powerful vehicle, but as the tank crews soon discovered, if it stopped on a steep gradient the transmission would slip, and it was difficult or impossible to get it moving again. Help was needed and Eugene Viveiros, who, with one of the Headquarters Platoon [Sherman] blade tanks, attached himself to the 3rd Platoon, was ready to supply it. He was called upon 'to pat them on the butt end with the blade of the 'dozer tank to shove 'em up and get 'em going again. Once they got traction, then they were all right,' Viveiros explained." Although at least some Army Pershings arrived in Korea in need of repairs or overhaul, these USMC tanks were in decent working order (despite a shipborne flooding mishap en route), so this wasn't a maintenance issue: in a discussion on the state of Korean Pershings over on TankNet Ken Estes said, "...the USMC [Pershings] were drawn from depots, with no miles...all the USMC WWII flame tanks and postwar M26s went from storage through the depot line before being shipped to the units."

 

Any idea what "average technical speed" means? Too bad the off-road test was cancelled; didn't General Fedorenko know that people would be arguing about these things on the Internet 80 years later??

 

 

Maybe the hills of Korea were more extreme than what the Soviets used? It's an interesting question. Did the Marines lose any M26s to the well deck being flooded on the way to Korea?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt it is possible to compare slope driving tests between each other due to difference in soil composition, weather etc.

 

M26 was rated to climb 27° gradient which isn't much but here the test states it was able to climb 35°, surprisingly more when usually it was less than the rating. Probably the conditions in the particular test were good (soil offering good traction mainly). I think that the value is very difficult to use for any comparison except for the situation when one has the tanks at the same time on the same place, unfortunately the article doesn't give values measured for the other tanks in the test.

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

M26 was rated to climb 27° gradient which isn't much but here the test states it was able to climb 35°, surprisingly more when usually it was less than the rating. 

27 degrees or 27% (15 degrees) gradient?
If it’s a 27 degree gradient, that’s actually pretty good. 

 

Modern western AFV generally can do 60% (31 degrees), so 35 degrees (70%) is very, very good. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, 2805662 said:

27 degrees or 27% (15 degrees) gradient?
If it’s a 27 degree gradient, that’s actually pretty good. 

 

Modern western AFV generally can do 60% (31 degrees), so 35 degrees (70%) is very, very good. 

 

27 degrees but most of the vehicles of that time were rated more. IMHO it has most to do with the vehicle mass and its ground pressure. The modern tanks are pretty bad in that regard. 

 

At least at that time I see a clear pattern of lighter vehgicles being better climbers. For example our pre-WW2 tanks were rated up to 45° (10,5 ton LT vz.35 and 16 ton ST vz.39). 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/17/2021 at 2:36 PM, Beer said:

Soviet evaluation of Pershing in summer 1945 gives some light to the previously discussed terrain speed of Panther and Pershing. The result didn't favour Panther... 

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

Curious isn't it. And we know from Swedish trials, technical stats, combat reports and opinions that panther's mobility was better than sherman's.

 

What is the tank to the left, on this photo?

t26e3heavyussr15-0ee0d8e04aa047aba2d5aaf

Shape looks like sherman's with pretty wide tracks and muzzle brake. why did Pasholok mention comparison with M4A4? Isn't that an early export 75mm version?

 

Panther has more powerful engine and much better steering mechanism than a pershing. I don't believe torque converter is such magical device to overcome both. These things don't add up. The article is only Pasholok's summary of the report.

 

The article states that there were no speed trials, which makes me believe it was an inclined terrain navigation course, as you suspected. Why else would a medium tank be slower than a heavy?

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

Curious isn't it. And we know from Swedish trials, technical stats, combat reports and opinions that panther's mobility was better than sherman's.

 

What is the tank to the left, on this photo?

t26e3heavyussr15-0ee0d8e04aa047aba2d5aaf

Shape looks like sherman's with pretty wide tracks and muzzle brake. why did Pasholok mention comparison with M4A4? Isn't that an early export 75mm version?

 

Panther has more powerful engine and much better steering mechanism than a pershing. I don't believe torque converter is such magical device to overcome both. These things don't add up. The article is only Pasholok's summary of the report.

 

The article states that there were no speed trials, which makes me believe it was an inclined terrain navigation course, as you suspected. Why else would a medium tank be slower than a heavy?

 

That tank at the back looks indeed like a Sherman M4A2(76)W. It could be a mistake in the report but the fuel consumption doesn't add up, it is way too high for a diesel tank, albeit 3 tons heavier than M4A4. 

 

As for the torque converter. When driving very slow and uphill it makes a great difference - that's one of the reasons why it exists in first place. In very slow speeds the torque converter works like a torque multiplier. That's not possible with the mechanical clutch and transmission. The reason is simple - when a clutch is engaged the engine RPM and the vehicle speed is bound together, i.e. at very low speed the engine RPM is also very low, unlike with the torque converter which allows the engine to run in high power RPM even in ridiculously low vehicle speed for the cost of low efficiency, i.e. high fuel consumption. Another important advantage is that it increases traction because it delivers the torque very smoothly. 

 

I have never suspected that it was a navigation course. Not at all. 

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

...torque converter. When driving very slow and uphill it makes a great difference

 

...I have never suspected that it was a navigation course. Not at all. 

My wrong judgement then. If overcoming steep obstacles at slow speeds was the primary factor in speed average and no "max. speed test" was performed, then I don't know what else could be concluded? It would also explain why fairly heavier pershing was faster than T-44.

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

As if you know what kind of device a torque converter is at all!

@Beer is an engineer, no? He should know. I rely on his statement.

I didn't know what torque converter was until yesterday! But I went to check. Clever device. Too bad Americans attached that awful controlled differential to it. Pershing turned like Ever Given.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Man, millions and millions of automatic gearboxes in past eighty years all around the Globe have been equipped with torque converter. If you never heard about the most common coupling solution in automatic gearboxes, it means without any doubt that you have zero clue about transmissions and since differentials are rather difficult topic to grasp I think you shall not argue about them. Even what you just wrote is simply stupid. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Beer said:

Man, millions and millions of automatic gearboxes in past eighty years all around the Globe have been equipped with torque converter. If you never heard about the most common coupling solution in automatic gearboxes, it means without any doubt that you have zero clue about transmissions and since differentials are rather difficult topic to grasp black magic I think you shall not argue about them. Even what you just wrote is simply stupid. 

Fixed.

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

@Beer is an engineer, no? He should know. I rely on his statement.

 

Your delight in your own ignorance is truly astounding. If you could think, you might cogitate on whether it's productive for anyone else to engage in serious conversation with someone so flagrantly uninterested in actually knowing anything.

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

I didn't know what torque converter was until yesterday! But I went to check. Clever device. Too bad Americans attached that awful controlled differential to it. Pershing turned like Ever Given.

 

"I don't know what a torque converter is, but I won't let that stop me from laying down baseless judgments on the rest of the transmission!"

 

BEHOLD! A PERSHING DOING DONUTS!

 

https://youtu.be/si4J0XjClsE

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Beer said:

Man, millions and millions of automatic gearboxes in past eighty years all around the Globe have been equipped with torque converter. If you never heard about the most common coupling solution in automatic gearboxes, it means without any doubt that you have zero clue about transmissions and since differentials are rather difficult topic to grasp I think you shall not argue about them.

I know it is, but I had no idea how it works or what it is good for on a tank. I don't think it was that common on tanks. Renk has it in modern transmissions, but only as a specialised device for climbing.

I can't claim I know about differentials, but at least I know what effect they have on tank steering. I haven't heard anything on differentials from you during the Pershing mobility discussion. Maybe you can comment on that.

 

30 minutes ago, Beer said:

Even what you just wrote is simply stupid. 

What is stupid?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Content

    • By Monochromelody
      IDF had kept about 100 Tiran-6/T-62s since 1973, and remain service until 1990s. 
       
      I wonder if there's any modification on Tiran-6, like changing the powerpack into 8V71T+XTG-411, adapting steering wheel. 
       
      I also heard that British ROF had produce a batch of 115mm barrel for IDF, while MECAR or NEXTER produced high-performance APFSDS for 115mm gun. Did IDF really use these barrels for original barrel replacement? 
       
      And about protection, did IDF put Blazer ERA on Tiran-6? Or they use more advanced APS like Trophy? 
       
      Thank you. 
    • By Sturgeon
      The LORD was with the men of Deseret. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had chariots of steel.
      —The Book of Latter Day Saints, Ch 8, vs. 3:10, circa 25th Century CE
       
      BULLETIN: ALL INDUSTRIAL-MECHANICAL CONCERNS
       
      SOLICITATION FOR ALL-TERRAIN BATTLE TANK
       
      The Provisional Government of the Lone Free State of Texas and The Great Plains issues the following solicitation for a new All-Terrain Battle Tank. The vehicle will be the main line ground combat asset of the Lone Free State Rangers, and the Texas Free State Patrol, and will replace the ageing G-12 Scout Truck, and fill the role of the cancelled G-42 Scout Truck. The All-Terrain Battle Tank (ATBT) will be required to counter the new Californian and Cascadian vehicles and weapons which our intelligence indicates are being used in the western coast of the continent. Please see the attached sheet for a full list of solicitation requirements.
       

       
      Submissions will be accepted in USC only.
       
       
      Supplementary Out of Canon Information:
       
       
      I.     Technology available:
      a.      Armor:
      The following armor materials are in full production and available for use. Use of a non-standard armor material requires permission from a judge.
      Structural materials:
                                                                    i.     RHA/CHA
      Basic steel armor, 360 BHN. The reference for all weapon penetration figures, good impact properties, fully weldable. Available in thicknesses up to 4 inches (RHA) 8 inches (CHA). 
      Density- 0.28 lb/in^3.
                                                                   ii.     Aluminum 5083
      More expensive to work with than RHA per weight, middling impact properties, low thermal limits. Excellent stiffness.
       Fully weldable. Available in thicknesses up to 4 inches.
      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 1 vs CE, 0.9 vs KE.
      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.33 vs CE, 0.3 vs KE.
      Density- 0.1 lb/in^3 (approx. 1/3 of steel).
      For structural integrity, the following guidelines are recommended:
      For heavy vehicles (30-40 tons), not less than 1 in RHA/1.75 in Aluminum base structure
      For medium-light vehicles (<25 tons), not less than 0.5 in RHA/1 in Aluminum base structure
      Intermediate values for intermediate vehicles may be chosen as seen fit.
      Non-structural passive materials:
                                                                  iii.     HHA
      Steel, approximately 500 BHN through-hardened. Approximately 1.5x as effective as RHA against KE and HEAT on a per-weight basis. Not weldable, middling shock properties. Available in thicknesses up to 1 inch.
      Density- 0.28 lb/in^3
                                                                  iv.     Fuel
      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 1.3 vs CE, 1 vs KE.
      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.14 vs CE, 0.1 vs KE.
      Density-0.03 lb/in^3.
                                                                v.     Assorted stowage/systems
      Mass efficiency vs RHA- 1 vs CE, 0.8 vs KE.
                                                               vi.     Spaced armor
      Requires a face of at least 1 inch LOS vs CE, and at least 0.75 caliber LOS vs fullbore AP KE.
      Reduces penetration by a factor of 1.1 vs CE or 1.05 vs KE for every 4 inchair gap.
      Spaced armor rules only apply after any standoff surplus to the requirements of a reactive cassette.
      Reactive armor materials:
                                                                  vii.     ERA
      A sandwich of 0.125in/0.125in/0.125in steel-explodium-steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
      Must be spaced at least 2 sandwich thicknesses away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 81% coverage (edge effects).
                                                                  viii.     NERA
      A sandwich of 0.25in steel/0.25in rubber/0.25in steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
      Must be spaced at least 1 sandwich thickness away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 95% coverage.
      The details of how to calculate armor effectiveness will be detailed in Appendix 1.
      b.      Firepower
                                                                    i.     Bofors 57mm (reference weapon) - 85,000 PSI PMax/70,000 PSI Peak Operating Pressure, high quality steel cases, recoil mechanisms and so on are at an equivalent level to that of the USA in the year 1960.
                                                                   ii.     No APFSDS currently in use, experimental weapons only - Spindle sabots or bourelleted sabots, see for example the Soviet BM-20 100mm APFSDS.
                                                                  iii.     Tungsten is available for tooling but not formable into long rod penetrators. It is available for penetrators up to 6 calibers L:D.
                                                                  iv.     Texan shaped charge technology - 4 CD penetration for high-pressure resistant HEAT, 5 CD for low pressure/ precision formed HEAT.
                                                                   v.     The subsidy-approved GPMG for the Lone Free State of Texas has the same form factor as the M240, but with switchable feed direction.. The standard HMG has the same form factor as the Kord, but with switchable feed direction.
      c.       Mobility
                                                                    i.     Engines tech level:
      1.      MB 838 (830 HP)
      2.      AVDS-1790-5A (908 HP)
      3.      Kharkov 5TD (600 HP)
      4.    Detroit Diesel 8V92 (400 HP)
      5.    Detroit Diesel 6V53 (200 HP)
                                                                   ii.     Power density should be based on the above engines. Dimensions are available online, pay attention to cooling of 1 and 3 (water cooled).
                                                                  iii.     Power output broadly scales with volume, as does weight. Trying to extract more power from the same size may come at the cost of reliability (and in the case of the 5TD, it isn’t all that reliable in the first place).
                                                                  iv.     There is nothing inherently wrong with opposed piston or 2-stroke engines if done right.
      d.      Electronics
                                                                    i.     LRFs- unavailable
                                                                   ii.     Thermals-unavailable
                                                                  iii.     I^2- Gen 2 maximum
                                                                  vi.     Texas cannot mass produce microprocessors or integrated circuits
                                                                 vii.    Really early transistors only (e.g., transistor radio)
                                                                viii.    While it is known states exist with more advanced computer technology, the import of such systems are barred by the east coast states who do not approve of their use by militaristic entities.
       
      Armor calculation appendix.
       
      SHEET 1 Armor defeat calculator 4in-54 1200 yd
       
      SHEET 2 Armor defeat calculator 4in-54 2000 yd
       
      SHEET 3 Armor defeat calculator 6in HEAT
       
      Range calculator
       
    • By Beer
      I haven't found an appropriate thread where to put some interesting rare stuff related to WW2 development, be it industrial one or makeshift field modifications. 
       
      Let's start with two things. The first one is a relatively recently found rarity from Swedish archives - a drawing of ČKD/BMM V8H-Sv tank. The drawing and a letter was found by WoT enthusiasts in Swedish archives in 2014 (the original announcement and the drawing source is here). The drawing is from a message dated 8th September 1941. One of the reasons why this drawing was not known before may be that the Czech archives were partially destroyed by floods in 2002. Anyway it is an export modification of the V-8-H tank accepted into Czechoslovak service as ST vz.39 but never produced due to the cancelation of all orders after Münich 1938 (for the same reason negotiations about licence production in Britain failed). Also later attempt to sell the tank to Romania failed due to BMM being fully busy with Wehrmacht priority orders. The negotiations with Sweden about licence production of V8H-Sv lasted till 1942, at least in May 1942 Swedish commission was present in Prague for negotiations. The tank differed compared to the base ST vz.39 in thicker armor with different front hull shape (armor 60 mm @ 30° on the hull front and also 60 mm on the turret; all sides were 40 mm thick). The tank was heavier (20 tons) and had the LT vz.38 style suspension with probably even larger wheels. The engine was still the same Praga NR V8 (240-250 Hp per source). The armament was unchanged with 47 mm Škoda A11 gun and two vz.37 HMG. The commander's cupola was of the simple small rotating type similar to those used on AH-IV-Sv tankettes. It is known that the Swedes officially asked to arm the tank with 75 mm gun, replace the engine with Volvo V12 and adding third HMG to the back of the turret. In the end the Swedes decided to prefer their own Strv/m42. 

      Source of the drawing
       
      The second is makeshift field modification found on Balkans. It appears Ustasha forces (and possibly some SS anti-partizan units) used several Italian M15/42 medium tanks with turrets from Pz.38(t). There are several photos of such hybrids but little more is known. On one photo it is possible to see Ustasha registration number U.O. 139.

      Few more photos of such hybrid.
       
      It appears that the source of all those photos to be found on the internet is this book, Armoured units of the Axis forces in southeastern Europe in WW2 by Dinko Predoevic. 
       
    • By SuperComrade
      I was recently looking at the Japanese wikipedia page for the Chi-Ha tank, and it had this section on the name of the tank:

       
       
      I have never heard of such nomenclature, and obviously I don't have access to such documents since I don't live in Japan. There is no reference for this part, so can anyone confirm that they actually did use "MTK" etc.?

×
×
  • Create New...