# Your favorite AFVs: what the designers got wrong?



## tomo pauk (Jan 20, 2013)

Every ww2 enthusiast (or most of them) has an favorite AFV ot the era. 
But don't let the love blinds you - what was the greatest shortcoming (or more of those?) that one could say designers missed their mark? 
Of course, you can bash the AFVs you generally dislike, in case your AFV (please state what one is that) is perfect.

In light of recent forum bad blood pi$$ing contest, I'd like to call for a calm discussion.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 20, 2013)

Most every WW II AFV had some good points and some bad ones. 

Some of the Bad ones were deliberate choices due to faulty tactical thinking or doctrine, some were forced on the designers by circumstances of the times. Certain engine or transmission choices for instance. Some were choices forced by "budgets" either money or raw materials (not always the same thing, you may have the money, it doesn't mean you can get a specific element/alloy). 

Most nations built light tanks in too great a numbers and for too long at the beginning of the war. 
Most nations didn't pay enough attention to vision for the crew and commander.


----------



## davebender (Jan 20, 2013)

*Panzer II F Chassis.*
524 x Panzer II F light tanks.
576 Marder II SP AT guns.
835 Wespe SP howitzer (includes 159 ammo carriers).

*Vehicle Width Comparison*.
Panzer II Ausf C and Ausf F. 2.28m wide.
Panzer II Ausf L. 2.48m wide.
Jagdpanzer 38(t). 2.63m wide. This vehicle commonly called a Hetzer.
Su-76. 2.73m wide.

Panzer II Ausf F was a reliable and inexpensive weapons carrier. However it was too narrow. Soviet Union didn't make that mistake with their similiar size Su-76 weapons carrier. IMO Panzer II Ausf F weapons carrier chassis should be at least 2.48m wide (i.e. similiar to Panzer II Ausf L) and 2.75m would have been ideal. 

Mass produce our wider but still inexpensive Panzer II Ausf F chassis from 1941 onward like hot rolls. It has all sorts of uses. These are probably the most useful.
.....10.5cm SP artillery.
.....7.5cm SP AT gun. Can also be used as low cost assault artillery ILO StuG III.
.....Light flak panzer with flakvierling. Turret similiar to historical Wirbelwind. This would replace historical Sd.Kfz.7/1 half track mounted weapon.


----------



## mikewint (Jan 20, 2013)

For me it has to be any of the Tigers. The Konigtigers were awsome machines with obvious shortcomings, weight, suspensions, fuel consumption, maintainance, etc. and Germany was ill advised to build them but...
The Tiger I's were equally awsome and illustrated German blunt force thinking...penetrate 50mm make it 60mm, 70mm, 80mm, 100mm. Don't consider engines or suspensions, roads, bridges, or railroad gauge. And again the Germans were ill advised to invest so much into them for so little return, but still awesome machines.
The Panthers were probably the best all around tanks though they suffered from many of the same problems. If only the Tiger resources had gone into improving the Panthers.
The Sherman "Tommy-cookers" had to be the worst in the war


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 20, 2013)

Mike, why do you think Shermans were the worst in war?


----------



## meatloaf109 (Jan 20, 2013)

Panther, and the transmission problems.


----------



## davebender (Jan 20, 2013)

I assume you mean the final drive unit. Wikipedia has a surprisingly good description of the problem.

Panther tank - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> Throughout its career, the weakest parts were its final drive units. The problems were from a combination of factors. The original MAN proposal had called for the Panther to have an epicyclic gearing (planetary) system in the final drive, similar to that used in the Tiger I.[35] However, Germany at the time suffered from a shortage of gear-cutting machine tools and, unlike the Tiger tanks, the Panther was intended to be produced in large numbers. To achieve the goal of higher production rates, numerous simplifications were made to the design and its manufacture. This process was aggressively pushed forward, sometimes against the wishes of designers and army officers, by the Chief Director of Armament and War Production, Karl-Otto Saur (who worked under, and later succeeded, Reichminister Speer). Consequently, the final drive was changed to a double spur system.[36] Although much simpler to produce, the double spur gears had inherently higher internal impact and stress loads, making them prone to failure under the high torque requirements of the heavy Panther tank. Furthermore, high quality steel intended for double spur system was not available for mass production, and was replaced by 37MnSi5 tempered steel, which was unsuitable for high-stress gear.[37] In contrast, both the Tiger II[38] and the US M4 Sherman tank had double helical (herringbone gears) in their final drives,[39] a system that reduced internal stress loads and was less complex than planetary geartrains.
> 
> Compounding these problems was the fact that the final drive's housing and gear mountings were too weak because of the type of steel used and/or the tight space allotted for the final drive. The final gear mountings deformed easily under the high torque and stress loads, pushing the gears out of alignment and resulting in failure.[40] Due to the weakness of the final drives their average fatigue life was only 150 km. In Normandy, about half of the abandoned Panthers were found by the French to have broken final drives.[27] However, at least the final gear housing was eventually replaced with stronger one, while final gear problem was never solved.[41]
> 
> Plans were made to replace the final drive, either with a version of the original epicyclic gears planned by MAN, or with the final drive of the Tiger II. These plans were intertwined with the planning for the Panther II, which never came to fruition because Panzer Commission deemed that temporary drop in production of Panther due to merger of Tiger II and Panther II was unacceptable. It was estimated that building the epicyclic gear final drive would have required 2.2 times more machining work than double spur gears, and this would have affected manufacturing output.


----------



## meatloaf109 (Jan 20, 2013)

Yes, that was what I meant.


----------



## Juha (Jan 20, 2013)

I have several favorites
Valentine and Archer, so British. Valentine was a private venture, it was really too small but in that way they managed to keep the weight down and didn't overload the chasis and engine, so they produced a reliable British battle tank, which was extraordinary in early part of war. Archer same way, ingenious way to cram a 17pdr into so small chassis, again a bit too small, driver's head was in the way but the solution made it almost impossible to missuse it as an ersatz tank by the infantry officers. Also easy to withraw when the situation developed too hot in the current fire position (once the drive got into his place)

Comet, IMHO excellent MTB for early 45, fast and reliable with an excellent gun and reasonable protection. Also being correct size, not too heavy. And it showed that also winners had waepons which were "too late and too few"

Tiger I, surely it was maybe too heavy and was expensive but not being standard issue MBT that wasn't so dangerous. It put fear into hearts of the enemies of the Reich. Of course its weight put great burden on logistics and recovery organization.

Puma and Daimler armoured cars, maybe a bit overgunned for recon vehicles while still being unable to meet late war MBTs even with reasonable chances but they were at least capable to put a hole into side and rear armour of enemy's medium tanks.

Juha


----------



## davebender (Jan 20, 2013)

> Puma and Daimler armoured cars, maybe a bit overgunned for recon vehicles while still being unable to meet late war MBTs


Recon vehicles are supposed to remain hidden while sending back a steady stream of intelligence reports. 

Counter recon is secondary mission. Light AT weapons are for the purpose of killing enemy recon vehicles.

Fighting enemy MBTs is not part of the recon mission. High speed should be used to evade such threats.


----------



## Juha (Jan 20, 2013)

davebender said:


> Recon vehicles are supposed to remain hidden while sending back a steady stream of intelligence reports.
> 
> Counter recon is secondary mission. Light AT weapons are for the purpose of killing enemy recon vehicles.
> 
> Fighting enemy MBTs is not part of the recon mission. High speed should be used to evade such threats.



Daimler ac was there to give support for Dingos (Daimler Scout Car), if they needed heavier fire support of course late in the war there were a couple AMCs (6pdr or 75mm) to help. 2pdr was a bit overkill against normal German recon vehicles. IIRC Puma designed to give A/T support for 222s and 234/1s, 50mm was also a overkill against all other recon vehicles but light tanks but again IIRC Puma was designed as an antidose for those and had some chance against T-34s.


----------



## Denniss (Jan 20, 2013)

Puma - there's no such vehicle. There's a 234/2. I actually don't know what the intention was with the 5cm gun - overkill for an AC and also influences commanders to go too offensive. The fire support AC were 233 and 234/3.


----------



## mikewint (Jan 20, 2013)

Tomo, Best/Worst is always opinion based. Is a knife better/superior to a gun? Depends.
Production of the Sherman was favored by the commander of the Armored Ground Forces, Gen. Lesley J. McNair over the heavier M26 Pershing, which resulted in the latter being deployed too late to play any significant role in the war. McNair, an artilleryman, championed the tank destroyer within the U.S. Armored Forces. Tanks were to support the infantry, exploit breakthroughs, and avoid tank-to-tank battles. Enemy tanks were to be engaged by the tank destroyer force, composed of a mix self-propelled tank destroyers and towed antitank guns. The tank destroyers were supposed to be faster and carry a more powerful anti-tank gun than tanks since armor was sacrificed for speed. The tank destroyer doctrine played a large role in the lack of urgency in improving the firepower of the M4 Sherman, as the emphasis was on its role as infantry support. McNair opposed development of the M26 and other proposed heavy tanks during the crucial period of 1943 because he saw no "battle need" for them. In mid-1943, Lt. General Devers, commander of U.S. forces in the European Theater of Operations asked for 250 M26s for use in the invasion of France. McNair refused. Devers appealed to General George Marshall, the Army Chief of Staff. Marshall summarily ordered the tanks to be provided as soon as they could be produced. Soon after the Normandy invasion, General Dwight D. Eisenhower urgently requested the M26 Pershing, but McNair's continued opposition delayed production. General Marshall intervened again and the tanks were eventually brought into production. However, only a few saw combat and were too late to have any effect on the battlefield.
The M4A1 Sherman first saw combat at the Second Battle of El Alamein in October 1942 with the British 8th Army. The first U.S. Shermans in battle were M4A1s in Operation Torch the next month. At this time, Shermans successfully engaged German Panzer IIIs with long barreled 50 mm L/60 guns, and Panzer IVs with short barreled 75 mm L/24 guns. The M4 and M4A1 were the main types in U.S. units until late 1944, when the Army began replacing them with the preferred M4A3 with its more powerful 500 hp engine
Encounters with a company of Tiger Is, with their heavier armor and 88 mm L/56 guns, in Tunisia were a disaster for the Shermans, however, the fearsome quality of a few German heavy tanks and their crews could sometimes be overcome by the quantity and mobility of the Shermans, supported by artillery and airpower, but at a great cost in U.S. tanks and crewmen. By June 1944, the Panzer IV had been up-gunned with a 75 mm L/48 weapon, and the 75 mm Shermans were outgunned on a regular basis. As a result, the M4A1, was upguned to the 76 mm gun in July 1944, closely followed by the M4A3
In typical Army fashion the new 76mm and 90 mm anti-tank guns were rejected by McNair as “unnecessary”. 
In 1943, most German AFVs mounted a 7.5 cm KwK 40. As a result, even weakly armored light German tank destroyers such as the Marder III, which was meant to be a stop-gap measure to fight Soviet tanks in 1942, could destroy Shermans from a distance. The U.S. 76 mm proved comparable in penetrating power to the 7.5 cm KwK 40, however transfer of the upgunned tanks to the front started slowly, and most tanks still had M3's, even by the time of Operation Cobra. 
The bigger 76 mm gun could penetrate roughly 88 mm of armor at 1000 m. This was enough to reliably penetrate a PzIV's glacis. However, the 76 mm was not powerful enough against the frontal armor of a Panther. Due to its angle, the Panther's glacis gave it an effective thickness of 140 mm. Therefore to effectively engage a Panther the Shermans had to get relatively close. Additionally the low-flash powder of the Panther made it harder to spot. While firing from range, the Sherman's high flash powder made their shots easy to spot. The Sherman’s gun sights were fixed magnification as compared to the German's multiple magnification settings with added anti-glare filter. U.S. tank units who were engaged at range from German defensive positions sometimes took 50% casualties before even spotting where the fire was coming from. The British-developed Sherman Firefly was an M4 re-gunned with their QF 17 pounder anti-tank gun. The 17 pounder was a 76 mm gun and had a 55 caliber barrel, but introduced a much bigger charge which allowed it to penetrate 140 mm sloped at 30 degrees at 100 m and 120 mm at 1000 m. This gun allowed the Firefly a slight firepower advantage over the Panther, however the muzzle flash due to unburnt powder from the increased charge left crews momentarily blinded after firing. In late 1943, the British offered the 17 pounder to the U.S. Army for use in their M4 tanks since the 17 pounder could be mounted in a standard M4 turret while the U.S. 90 mm gun would need a new turret. General Devers insisted on comparison tests between the 17 pounder and the U.S. 90 mm gun. The tests seemed to show that the 90 mm gun was equal to or better than the 17 pounder. By then, production of the 76 mm M4 and the 90 mm M36 tank destroyer were both underway and U.S. Army lost all interest in the 17 pounder.
In terms of mobility the M4 was criticized by its crews for inability to pivot turn, limiting its usefulness against pivot-turning Panthers. This deficiency was partially compensated by the faster traverse of its turret. The U.S. Army restricted the Sherman's height, width, and weight so that it could be transported via typical bridges, roads, and railroads. This aided strategic, logistical, and tactical flexibility. The Sherman’s speed and cross country performance was indeed superior to the first generation German tanks such as the PzKfpw. III IV, actual comparative testing with the second generation German tanks (Panther Tiger) conducted by the Germans at their Kummersdorf testing facility as well as by the US 2nd Armored Division, proved otherwise.
Lieutenant Colonel Wilson M. Hawkins of the 2nd AD wrote:
"It has been claimed that our tank is the more maneuverable. In recent tests we put a captured German Mark V [Panther] against all models of our own. The German tank was the faster, both across country and on the highway and could make sharper turns. It was also the better hill climber"
Technical Sergeant Willard D. May of the 2nd AD wrote:
"I have taken instructions on the Mark V [Panther] and have found, first, it is easily as maneuverable as the Sherman; second the flotation exceeds that of the Sherman"
Staff Sergeant and Tank Platoon Sergeant Charles A Carden reports:
"The Mark V [Panther] and IV [Tiger] in my opinion have more maneuverability and certainly more flotation. I have seen in many cases where the Mark V and VI tanks could maneuver nicely over ground where the M4 would bog down. On one occasion I saw at least 10 Royal Tigers [Tiger B] make a counter attack against us over ground that for us was nearly impassible"
The Sherman was one of the first widely produced tanks to feature a gyroscopic stabilized gun and sight. The stabilization was only in the vertical plane, as the mechanism could not slew the turret. The utility of the stabilization was debatable and some operators disabled the stabilizer
The Russian T-34 is often credited for introducing sloped armor in a production tank however one can easily see that the Sherman's upper hull was angled at 56 degrees, while the lower half of the hull was curved. The steel frontal turret armor of the M4 ranged from 64–76 mm. The M4’s gun mantlet was also protected by 76 mm of armor sloped at 30 degrees. The turret side armor was 50 mm at 5-degree angle while the rear was 64 mm at a 90-degree angle and the turret roof was 25 mm thick. The hull front sported 51 mm armor. Perhaps the most telling report on the armor of the Sherman compared to the Panther can be described by statements used in a report to General Eisenhower at SHAEF: “I have actually seen ricochets go through an M4 at 3000 yards. I have seen HEAT fired from a 105mm Howitzer at a Panther at 400 yards. The track was hit and damaged, and a direct hit on the turret only chipped the paint.”
The worst fault of all is what happened after the Sherman’s inadequate armour was penetrated. The Sherman quickly gained grim nicknames like "Tommycooker” by the Germans. While the British took to calling it the "Ronson", the cigarette lighter which had the slogan "Lights up the first time, every time!" Polish tankers referred to it as "The Burning Grave”. Research conducted by the British No. 2 Operational Research Section, after the Normandy campaign, concluded a Sherman would be set alight 82% of the time following an average of 1.89 penetrations of the tank’s armor. United States Army research proved that the major reason for this was the stowage of main gun ammunition in the sponsons above the tracks. At first a partial remedy to ammunition fires in the M4 was found by welding 1-inch-thick armor plates to the sponson sides over the ammunition stowage bins. Later models moved ammunition stowage to the hull floor, with additional water jackets surrounding the main gun ammunition stowage. The practice, known as "wet stowage", reduced the chance of fire after a hit by a factor of four.[


----------



## vinnye (Jan 21, 2013)

Mikewint, you are spot on as far as the "Tommy cooker" or "Ronson" names given to the Sherman. A lot of people beieve it was due to them being petrol driven and this being the cause for the inferno when hit.
It was not this at all. It was as you correctly stated the fact that the ammo stowage was highly succeptible to ignition when the tank was hit. The crews believed (incorrectly) that additional armour was required - but it was only with the addition of water jackets that the tanks improved their ability to survive a hit.
If the Allies had not had the quantity of Shermans during the various campaigns, then the outcome could well have been different.
It was not the perfect tank, but it was versatile and most importantly available in quantity.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 21, 2013)

Doh, Mike, I's like to see a quote when the quote is due 

Now about issues, or 'issues':
-Any tank would burn if the ammo is ignited, not just Sherman. Once the wet ammo storage was introduced, that horror story was over
-The wide tracks were introduced in 1944, so the ground pressure went down
-Nair's management of tank TD fleet has nothing to do with M4's perceived faults, only points out that M4 was able to have 76mm sooner and/or more often than historically
-The tank was been able to be up-gunned with premium AT gun
-It was also able to carry another 6 tons of armor, while still being movable enough, you can check out here: M4A3E2 Sherman 

As for 'seeing ricochets going through M4 from 3000 yards' - even if Dwight made such comments, do you really believe that was the case? If an AP round is that powerful, it would pierce the T-34, or Cromwell, let alone Pz-IV. The 105mm HEAT being unable to penetrate Panther? Yet Panzerfaust was able to pierce IS-2, featuring even ticker armor.
My take is that Eisenhower was using tough talk in order to get the M26 in Europe, since the medium tank, no matter how good, was never going to win vs. a good heavy tank 1:1. 
That M4 gave a sterling service in NA and Russia should not been overlooked here, too.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 21, 2013)

My favorites are British infantry tanks. Their shortcoming was the late installation of 'all target' cannons, along with low powered engines.


----------



## mikewint (Jan 21, 2013)

Tomo, I once thought how geat it would be to be a tanker, riding around, not having to slog through the bush, protective armour, and ALL THAT WATER!!! Then I saw my first tank hit by a rocket. Changed my mind quick. So to me the choice is simple: Would you like to hop in a Sherman to face a Tiger or hop in a Tiger to face a Sherman?


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 21, 2013)

Isn't that unfair, to compare the tanks of different sizes, classes, and availability? Was it M4's (and it's designers) fault that US Army wanted/needed/had to make do with a 30 ton tank, and not the 40-50-60 ton one? 

Back in 1995, our army made a sweeping dash from mountain sides into the Serb-held Knin area. You should see the ravines and like, we (the infantry) have had a tough time to march through that. Yet our T-55s (yep, the ones even Malyutka can pierce through, no problems; 36 ton tanks) were managing through, no problems. So maybe it would be either T-55s, or no tanks at all, so we (the infantry) would need to do heavy lifting.


----------



## mikewint (Jan 21, 2013)

Tomo, while I understand your point, good - bad - better - worst are relative terms. The Sherman was the U.S. Army's MBT in WWII. As such it had to face the likes of the Panther, Tiger, and Konigtiger. Unfortunately there were no referees to call the match because of the unfairness of matching a medium against a heavy weight.
Therefore it is fair to see how they match-up against each other since in the real world they indeed match up against each other.
The Tigers were marvels of engineering but the time, energy, materials used up helped the Germans to loose the war not win it. If the Tiger/Sherman kill ratio was 1:20 the Tiger looses since the US could easily and quickly relace the 20 Shermans with 30 Shermans. Superior weapons cost the Germans the warf


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 21, 2013)

mikewint said:


> Superior weapons cost the Germans the warf



In a way, but the MK IV wasn't going to last forever. 

Some countries over reached with their next generation/s of tanks. Some under-reached. Staying status quo was going to leave you behind even the under-reachers. The Sherman was an excellent tank when it came out in the summer of 1942. Thinking that it would still be a first class tank _without_ any major improvements in the summer of 1944 is depending on your enemy not to make any improvements or introduce new models. 

Conversely the Germans could not _depend_ on the Americans, British and Russians _NOT_ to improve their tanks.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 21, 2013)

I think my favourite would be cruiser tank comet (A-34). It was very much a compromise vehicle, but an exceelent blend and compromise of firepower, protection, mobility and range.

Its biggest drawback IMO was that it was so late to the party...

With the A34, later named Comet, the tank designers opted to correct some of the Cromwell's flaws (the track shedding and broken suspension problems) and enhance the Cromwell's main strengths, low height and high speed. Originally, it had been expected that the tank would use a new gun from Vickers: the "High Velocity 75mm". However, as designed, the gun would not fit into the turret size available. So the gun was changed to a different gun, the "77mm HV". This gun used the same calibre (76.2 mm) projectile as the 17-pounder but the shell casing was from the older QF 3 inch 20 cwt gun loaded to higher pressures. The resulting round was completely different to 17-pounder ammunition. It had a lower muzzle velocity than the 17-pounder but the ammunition was much more compact and more easily stored and handled within the tank. This made it possible to mount the gun on a smaller turret ring - the Challenger turret had been so large to allow space for two loaders - without making the hull wider. Several other improvements were made: armour protection was increased, the hull and turret were welded with a cast gun mantlet, ammunition was stored in armoured bins, the suspension was strengthened, return rollers were added and the turret was electrically traversed (a design feature taken from the Churchill tank), with a generator powered by the main engine rather than the hydraulic system of the Cromwell.

Armour on the Comet ranged from 32 mm to 74 mm on the hull, while the turret was from 57 to 102 mm.

The Comet tank's top speed was limited from the Cromwell's 40+ mph to a slower, but respectable 32 mph (51 km/h) to preserve suspension and engine components and to reduce track wear.

The mild steel prototype was ready in February 1944 and entered trials. Although concerns about the hull gunner and belly armour were put to one side (to avoid redesign), there was still sufficient delay caused by minor modifications and changes that production models did not begin to be delivered until September 1944. Intended to be in service by December 1944, crew training was delayed by the German Ardennes Offensive. By the end of the war, 1,200 had been produced.

Comet was fitted with two radio sets: a No. 19 Wireless, for communication with the regiment and the troop, and a No. 38 Wireless for communication with infantry units. Like many British tanks, it also had a telephone handset mounted on the rear so that accompanying infantry could talk to the crew.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 22, 2013)

It was an unfortunate design practice in the UK to mount the cannons in an 'internal mantlet' style, so much of the cannon was 'eating in' the turret space, limiting the recoil length and hence the gun size. With 'external mantlet', much more powerful cannons were able to be installed. Despite the restrictions of the turret ring.
So, 77mm HV in Cromwell Churchill, 17 pdr in Comet, but it was not meant to be. After the war, the 20 pdr (!) was installed in Cromwell-based tank destroyer, the Charioteer, that Juha posted pictures about.


----------



## yulzari (Jan 22, 2013)

The classic has to be the one man French turrets that ruined the operation of their tanks who were, otherwise, the best in the world in 1940. 

All you have to do is direct your driver, command your troop/squadron/regiment, operate the radio, find a target, load the gun (both the co axial machine gun and the main gun) and aim and fire all at once: meanwhile, with your third hand in your copious free time..........


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 22, 2013)

" After the war, the 20 pdr (!) was installed in Cromwell-based tank destroyer, the Charioteer, that Juha posted pictures about."

And it had roughly 1/2 the elevation and depression of the Comet ( or Centurion) In spite of the large turret. It also only held 25 rounds of ammo.


"All you have to do is direct your driver, command your troop/squadron/regiment, operate the radio,..."

Radios,....Radios...... We don't need no stinking radios...............we have signal flags


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 22, 2013)

Never said 20 pdr was fitting the Cromwell as a glove, nor suggesting the 17 pdr either. The 77mm HV was far more compact, the rounds also being smaller. Compared with 75mm, it was also featuring the muzzle brake, so the recoil was not something brutal either.
The 20 pdr was also being fitted in the internal mantlet style, no wonder the elevation depression were not it's shiny points.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 22, 2013)

On the Comet production 1,200 is total production afaik around 750 were built within may '45. Much less go in operation the 11th Armoured Division was the alone equipped with this tank from february '45.


----------



## Juha (Jan 22, 2013)

Vincenzo said:


> On the Comet production 1,200 is total production afaik around 750 were built within may '45. Much less go in operation the 11th Armoured Division was the alone equipped with this tank from february '45.



Hello Vincenzo
as I wrote earlier "too late and too few"

Juha


----------



## fastmongrel (Jan 22, 2013)

My favourite is the Churchill. Its faults were initially legion because it was ordered straight off the drawing board but it became reliable and the toughest nut to crack of any western allied tank that saw action. It needed a bigger engine I wonder if the Meteor would have fitted, the extra 250 hp wouldnt have turned it into a greyhound but would probably have got it lumbering along at 20mph on the road and 15mph off road enough for the job.

2nd Favourite was the Crusader not the best tank of the war but certainly in my eyes the prettiest. Its faults were rubbish cooling and a too small gun.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 22, 2013)

Ihave soft spots for the tanks of all the minor nationsbecause they represent some really great ideas on what are usually severe constraints. Tanks like the Hungarian Turan, the Swedish Stridsvagn the Polish 7TP all are intesting from that point of view. The Canadians of course developed the Cruiser tank RAM, which had both a frustrating and also a useful alternative use at the end of the war

Not well known, but Australia also developed seeral tank prototypes which disappointingly was never accepted. this was not due to design shortcomings, just that cheaper options were available by the tie the tank designs were ready

With imported British help, the RAAC set about designing her first cruiser tank. Noticeably, the Australians set about designing their tank as an ANTI-TANK weapon. For their first model, the AC-I the only weapon available to Australia as an anti-tank gun was the British 2 pounder anti-tank gun, but that was to change as the Australians planned to jump to the British 17 pounder as soon as they could in their AC-IV. Perhaps revolutinary in 1941, they designed for this possibility in 1941. 

The Sentinel as laid out was going to use available off-the-shelf US automotive tank components as were being used on the M-3 Lee/Grant. Unlike the Americans, though, the Australian designers used an improved transmission train. They opted for a transmission gearbox on their complex Cadillac Gage three-motor layout that would give them a low silhouette tank. They also pioneered the plug in/pull out engine pack layout for a tank.

A type was also notable for a couple of other innovations

-single cast armor hull and turret. This was cutting edge technology at the time. The Australians appear to have beaten the Canadians and the Americans to this innovation by almost half a year. 

-though they followed British layout, the Australians paid attention to ammunition stowage and fire safety in their tank to an extent that the British and Americans were not to emulate until about 1944.

-turret size. The one thing Australians observed was that every time the British had to upgun a tank mto meet the German threat, the British had to go to the drawing board and design a brand new tank because their current tank was too small to take a bigger gun either from the turret size standpoint(turret ring) or the shock standpoint (weak suspension or too small chassis). The Australian designers built the AC-1 deliberately to be upgunnable. It would have in its AC-3 configuration easily have taken a 25 pounder howitzer or a 17 pounder anti-tank gun unmodified as a mantlet slide-in into the planned turret. 

Pictured is the Sentinel inone of its final prooptype forms


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 22, 2013)

Ram and Sentinel showing that ingenuity can beat experience?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 22, 2013)

Yes and no. Both used the suspension and running gear of the US M3 Grant. 

"A prototype Ram was completed in June 1941 and general production of the Ram I began in November of the same year."

"The T6 prototype was completed 2 September 1941. Unlike later M4s, the hull was cast and had a side hatch, which was eliminated from production models. The T6 was standardized as the M4 and production began in October."

Sentinel was a bit later. 

Rams used US supplied engines and transmissions, at least on the early ones. 

Sentinel used a "simplified" M3 transmission, sychros were left due lack of manufacturing capacity in Australia. The Hull casting for the Sentinel, however, was the largest of it's it kind in the world at the time. 

According to one source the Sentinel I used a 54 in turret ring. The Sentinel III with the 25pdr had a 64 in turret ring and was under going trials in Feb 1943. By March it had been modified to take TWO 25pdrs as a test rig to assess the designs ability to stand up to recoil. The prototype with the 17pdr doesn't show up until late 1943 (same vehicle or different one?) 

Fitting the 17pdr to the Sherman had been suggested in Jan 1943 as a back up to the Challenger. The Pilot conversion was ready in Nov 1943. 

Both countries displayed considerable ingenuity but it seems that they were operating pretty much in parallel with the "experienced" design teams. Not having to "invent" things like suspensions and drive gear/steering systems left them free to work on upper hull/armament.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 22, 2013)

I'd have to agree that both countries were drawing on the experience of the major powers that were their allied partners. Just the same, even though it was more like "paint by numbers", compared to an original Renoit, getting a workable design that could be built in the industrial complexes availble in each of these countries, by using "off the shelf" technologies was still remarkable. 

The axis minors showed similar ingenuity

Looking at the hugarians, they actually produced a range of differnt vehicles. Thei turan series of tanks were quite good, but were already outclassed by Soviet armour at the time of their service delivery. A really good, if somewhat complicated vehicle, was their Csaba series armoured cars. 

The 39M Csaba was designed in 1939, based on the Alvis AC2 armored car. It was designed both as a combat and reconnaissance vehicle. Both armor, armament, and performance was similar to comtemporary armored cars, but the automotive design was complicated, making the vehicle difficult to maintain. About 150 39M Csaba were manufactured. Of these, 30 were 40M command vehicles, which had two radios in stead of the main gun. The vehicles served on the Eastern Front throughout the war

Technical Details: 39M Csaba

Crew: 4 

Weight 5.95 t

Length 4.52 m

Width 2.1 m

Height 2.33 m

Armour (max) 9 mm

Performance

Speed (max) 65 km/h

Armament Primary weapon

Solothurn S-18/1000 (1) (a 20mm AT gun - very effective weapopn) 

Secondary weapon Gebauer 34/37M 


Some images


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 23, 2013)

Juha said:


> Hello Vincenzo
> as I wrote earlier "too late and too few"
> 
> Juha



so we are agree


----------



## Juha (Jan 23, 2013)

Vincenzo said:


> so we are agree



Yes


----------



## Juha (Jan 23, 2013)

Finns were also sometimes far-sighted, and thanks to Swedish expertice we got a good AA tank already in 1942.
see: Luftvärnskanonvagn L-62 Anti II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## parsifal (Jan 23, 2013)

Looks very interesting Juha, I never knew that


----------



## yulzari (Jan 23, 2013)

One should never forget the A38 Valiant Infantry Tank. So bad it was retained as an object lesson in how not to design a tank. The testing was abandoned when it was judged too dangerous for the driver to drive it and the ground clearance would have beached it on a molehill and those were just the minor faults.


----------



## Juha (Jan 23, 2013)

Yes yulzari, British tank development during WWII produced surprisng amount of duds, it was also surprising they went to produce excellent AFVs immediately after the war e.g. Centurion.

Juha


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 23, 2013)

As long as you _learn_ from your mistakes


----------



## stug3 (Jan 31, 2013)

Does anybody know how what for the measuring rules on the turret of this Centaur are used?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 31, 2013)

Degree marks for turret rotation???

180 appears it would have been right over the barrel. and with the turret pointed dead forward?

0/360 would be over the engine deck with the gun "stowed".

Just guessing. 

I think some of the 95mm armed versions had similar markings so nearby tanks could pick up on firing bearings of targets easier?


----------



## pinsog (Jan 31, 2013)

mikewint said:


> Tomo, while I understand your point, good - bad - better - worst are relative terms. The Sherman was the U.S. Army's MBT in WWII. As such it had to face the likes of the Panther, Tiger, and Konigtiger. Unfortunately there were no referees to call the match because of the unfairness of matching a medium against a heavy weight.
> Therefore it is fair to see how they match-up against each other since in the real world they indeed match up against each other.
> The Tigers were marvels of engineering but the time, energy, materials used up helped the Germans to loose the war not win it. If the Tiger/Sherman kill ratio was 1:20 the Tiger looses since the US could easily and quickly relace the 20 Shermans with 30 Shermans. Superior weapons cost the Germans the warf



So much has been said about Germany losing the war because of building the Tiger or Panther instead of a Sherman/T34 type tank. I have got to disagree with this thinking. It didn't matter if Germany built a Tiger or some sort of Sherman/T34, they were going to lose because they didn't have the raw material to build enough of anything. So lets say they build a cheaper easy to produce tank: Now instead of a 20-1 kill ratio the Tiger had(or whatever the Tiger to Sherman/T34 kill ratio was), they are back to exchanging tanks 1 for 1 with Shermans and T34's. That strategy wont work any better then the historical strategy did because they can't produce as many tanks as either the US or the USSR much less both of them together. Fact of the matter is, Germany was going to lose, it's what happens when you pick a fight with the entire freaking world and your country is half the size of Texas, oh except for those wonderful butt-kicking Italians, and the Japanese on the other side of the planet.


----------



## vinnye (Feb 1, 2013)

I agree with you Pinsog there was no way the the Germans could go tank for tank v the USSR and USA - even ignoring the tanks that the British produced!
So having designed the Tiger and Panther - that is what they had to build.
Maybe they could have found ways that they could have simplified the designs or production methods to improve the speed of production to improve the numbers of these designs available?


----------



## vinnye (Feb 1, 2013)

Stug3, I think Shortround has the answer to those markings on the turret, I can not see any other reason making sense.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 1, 2013)

From a model website;

"The iconic white degree markings around the turret were to aid in-direct fire from the landing craft. Each would hold four Centaurs, effectively operating as four gun turrets. The markings allowed the four 95mm howitzers to match bearings and fire at the same target – directed from one of the warships accompanying the landing craft so they could fire even if, as they tended to be during the landings, obscured by smoke."

There are some pictures that show several Centaurs on a road, all with the turret markings.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 1, 2013)

pinsog said:


> So much has been said about Germany losing the war because of building the Tiger or Panther instead of a Sherman/T34 type tank. I have got to disagree with this thinking. It didn't matter if Germany built a Tiger or some sort of Sherman/T34, they were going to lose because they didn't have the raw material to build enough of anything. So lets say they build a cheaper easy to produce tank: Now instead of a 20-1 kill ratio the Tiger had(or whatever the Tiger to Sherman/T34 kill ratio was), they are back to exchanging tanks 1 for 1 with Shermans and T34's. That strategy wont work any better then the historical strategy did because they can't produce as many tanks as either the US or the USSR much less both of them together. Fact of the matter is, Germany was going to lose, it's what happens when you pick a fight with the entire freaking world and your country is half the size of Texas, oh except for those wonderful butt-kicking Italians, and the Japanese on the other side of the planet.



Germany did not lost the war because it was building this or that type of tank. It lost the war because of many factors, like trying to take it on 3 major world powers, the quesionable use of it's resources, along with resources of it's allies occupied coutries, mistreatment or outright killing of many people it had under authority etc. Once they were against UK, the sea trade was out, once they were against USSR, they were into a quagmire they could not sustain, manpower fuel wise (but not only that), while loosing the cooperative power that was providing them with raw materials. Germany acquired many war-willing allies, yet it was not in position to equip them with decent arms until it was too late. The Axis have had it's problems in cooperation, the technical cooperation with Japan started way too late to matter.
Then, on battlefield level, Hitler tended to micro-manage stuff, much like Stalin early on, but unlike Allied leaders, and Stalin in later years. 

With all of that taken into account (parsifal can cover economy mis-management), no tank, no matter how god, was to save Germany from defeat from 1942 on. You can note that, when Germany made its greatest victories, the tanks faced by them were mostly featuring either thicker armor, or bigger guns, or both. It was the German skillful use of combined arms, while having competent people from OKW down to riflemen that enabled the victories.

Further about taks Germany can use: we should not forget thousands of AT guns fielded, field fortifications, blockhouses, etc, all thing tanks need to tackle. If there is no enough tanks around, infantry need to do heavy lifting, at dire cost.


----------



## stug3 (Feb 1, 2013)

double post


----------



## stug3 (Feb 1, 2013)

> Originally Posted by Shortround6
> 
> From a model website;
> 
> ...




Thanks Shortround6, I imagine it would be pretty difficult to achieve accuracy in that situation.


----------



## Denniss (Feb 1, 2013)

German tank devs and officials wasted far too many ressources on unrealistic super-heavy tanks projects.
Later-on they recognized there were far too many different tanks around and they tried to simplify stuff with the E-series tank families.

Tank/vehicle manufacturers were also for too long in a peacetime manufacturing mode - no 24-7 production - and also produced over-engineered and thus expensive vehicles without taking mass production into consideration.
From 1942/43 on, many vehicles in production were changed to simplify production, for example armor plates with many curves were changed to flat plates. Could be easily seen on 251 halftracks in version D. 
Also from mid 44 on, the simplified steel road wheels of both Tiger and Panther, still overlapping but not in-depth-interleaving as previous.


----------



## stug3 (Feb 6, 2013)

Talk about high profile! Well, maybe not compared to a full sized tank.


Waffen SS Division ‘Adolf Hitler’, Eastern front, February 1943.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Feb 6, 2013)

I think the designers made a mistake_ not i_nstalling a swivel-mount MG in the Elefant ... they corrected this _after_ Kursk IIRC.

My favorite WW era platform that was so well engineered that it could be upgraded to best '60's era Soviet armor is the Israeli Super Sherman. Every lesson about the Sherman's weaknesses that could be applied to improve it, was applied.

MM


----------



## vinnye (Feb 6, 2013)

If longevity is what you want - then the Centurian would be high on the list.
Arrived post WW2 and was the Cold War battle tank to have. It was modified extensively over the decades and the Israelis and South Africans used it for a very long time.
Lower profile than the Super Sherman, so harder target to hit and it had excellent firepower and armour.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Feb 6, 2013)

I agree the Centurion was a great tank with an innovative fire control and gun ranging system. But it was thirsty IIRC. 

MM


----------



## vinnye (Feb 6, 2013)

It had pretty good survivability too!
The IDF completely rearranged the design and put the engine in the front to add even greater protection!
found this on Wiki 
Though the Sho't tank was not commonly perceived as a principal battle tank during the Six Day War (1967), nor the Yom Kippur war (1973); it was in fact considered the Israeli Army's most effective tank. During the invasion of the Syrian army into the Golan Heights during the Yom Kippur war, two damaged Centurion/Sho’t tanks engaged approximately 150 Syrian T-55/T-62 tanks. In the course of the following 30 hour tank battle, the two tanks knocked out over 60 tanks.[2] The destruction of this entire armored division forced the Syrian army to halt their advance.

Not a bad result for an old warhorse!


----------



## vinnye (Feb 6, 2013)

Just read this on Wiki -
An Australian Army Mk 3 Centurion Type K, Army Registration Number 169041, was involved in a nuclear blast test at Emu Field in Australia in 1953 as part of Operation Totem 1. Built as number 39/190 at the Royal Ordnance Factory, Barnbow in 1951 it was assigned the British Army number 06 BA 16 and supplied to the Australian Commonwealth Government under Contract 2843 in 1952.[32]

It was placed less than 500 yards (460 m) from the blast with its turret facing the epicentre, left with the engine running and a full ammunition load.[33] Examination after detonation found it had been pushed away from the blast point by about 5 feet (1.5 m), pushed slightly left and that its engine had stopped working, only because it had run out of fuel. Antennae were missing, lights and periscopes were heavily sandblasted, the cloth mantlet cover was incinerated, and the armoured side plates had been blown off and carried up to 200 yards (180 m) from the tank.[32] Remarkably, though, the tank could still be driven from the site. Had it been manned, the crew would probably have been killed by the shock wave.

169041, subsequently nicknamed The Atomic Tank, was later used in the Vietnam War. In May 1969, during firefight 169041 (call sign 24C) was hit by an Rocket-propelled grenade (RPG). The crew of the turret were all wounded by shrapnel as the RPG entered the lower left side of the fighting compartment, travelled diagonally across the floor and lodged in the rear right corner. Trooper Carter, was medevaced while the others remained on duty and the tank remained battleworthy.[33]

The Atomic Tank is now located at Robertson Barracks in Palmerston, Northern Territory. Although other tanks were subjected to nuclear tests, 169041 is the only tank known to have withstood atomic tests and subsequently gone on for another 23 years of service, including 15 months on operational deployment in a war zone.[34]

I knew they were tough but this tank is in a different class!


----------



## michaelmaltby (Feb 6, 2013)

During the Korean War - after it went dug-in while the Chinese played games at the table - the British troops were troubled by a Chinese artillery battery that was dug into a cave across the valley facing them. So they drove-hauled a Centurion up the hill and as each Chinese position fired, they spotted it - ranged it - and then took the lot out. High velocity flat trajectory. Sometimes _plunging_ fire just won't get the job done ...

MM

"... The IDF completely rearranged the design and put the engine in the front to add even greater protection!"
Vinnye, I don't think they modified the Centurion _THAT_ much  -- I think you might have _this_ indigenous Israeli tank in mind. Engine up front.


----------



## parsifal (Feb 7, 2013)

centurions were so loved in the Australian military that they were preferred by most of the tank men to the leopard 1A5s that replaced them at least at the beginning. The Leopards at the beginning were not suited to the hot Australian desert conditions, but have since had their habitability issues addressed. .


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7djx-78nf0k_

Australian Centurians in Vietnam were very small in number, but proved valuable just the same, often able to draw fire from the ever increasing numbers of RPGs then entering the battlerfield. The Centurian could generally withstand anything that would brew up an M113 


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIEMKiwxSsE_


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 7, 2013)

Ah, Merkava, my favorite tank. Too bad we did not have a hundred or so back in 1990s.


----------



## vinnye (Feb 8, 2013)

You are probably correct MM - I thought that I had seen / heard on a documentary on Top Ten Tanks that the IDF had put the engine in the front of a Centurion to improve upon its survivability. But it would appear I may have misheard what was said! Won't be the first or last time that happens!


----------



## stug3 (Feb 17, 2013)

There was a lot wrong with the design of the M3, but its one of my favorites because it looks like a pillbox on wheels.


_M3 “Lee” from the U.S. 1st Armored Division during the Battle of Kasserine Pass, Tunisia._


----------



## Jack_Hill (Feb 17, 2013)

Would say PzKpfW V Panther.
For his time, I think nothing went so wrong.
T34-85. Radio and optics.


----------



## Njaco (Feb 17, 2013)

> There was a lot wrong with the design of the M3, but its one of my favorites because it looks like a pillbox on wheels.



I think Humphrey Bogart would agree with you! 


Amazing story about the Atomic Tank!

Centurion tank 169041 survives a nuclear test, kind of funny story : theBRIGADE







"The test was codenamed Operation Totem, and was one of a number of British atomic tests carried out in remote areas of Australia during the 1950s."


----------



## yulzari (Feb 17, 2013)

I have always wondered with the M3 if the turret was ever found useful with a 37mm gun or could the turret have been deleted and the main hull up armoured. I can see that increasing the frontal/side armour would move the weight forward compared to with the existing turret.


----------



## stug3 (Feb 17, 2013)

The first thing they should have done was make a cast hull and get rid of all those rivets.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 17, 2013)

The M3 was _always_ an interim design. Chassis of the M2 Medium adapted to a 75mm gun in the hull _WHILE_ a turret the size needed for the 75mm was worked on. Futzing about with "improved" M3s was only going to delay the M4. 

M2 Medium:







The order for 1,000 M2A1s was cancelled days after it was initially placed and on August 28, 1940, an order for 1,000 M3s was made. The Ordnance Department decided that 60 days was enough in which to design the M3.

On August 29, 1940, (the day after the M3 was decided to be put into production) work began on a tank that would mount a 75 mm gun in the turret


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 17, 2013)

stug3 said:


> The first thing they should have done was make a cast hull and get rid of all those rivets.



They did, sort of. Depending on factory M3s were made with riveted hulls, cast hulls (M3A1) and welded hulls (M3A2)


----------



## yulzari (Feb 17, 2013)

The M3 was in that select group with the Char B and Churchill. Carrying a 75mm HE gun in the hull and it's own anti tank gun in the turret. The Churchill moved the HE capacity to the turret. The Germans in 1940 found that only an 88mm could expect to stop one and they could act with relative impunity where logistics could keep them going. The 47mm gun did at least have some HE capacity and could knock out any German tank at the time vis actions in Stonne and Juniville. But by 1941 the US 37mm turret gun was too weak to be an anti tank gun but could not provide extra effective HE fire either.

I was thinking of British users in the Western Desert. The US M3 troops were too rigidly commanded to change kit in use but the 8th Army were open to initiative in these matters. Already they had replaced the US 75mm ammunition with a better hybrid. The turret had no real utility except to rear up and reveal the tanks position from it's absurd height. Rip out the turret and weld/bolt some extra (ex ship, ex Italian tank?) armour plates to the front and crew sides, some decent netting and you stand half a chance of hiding the vehicle, especially in a prepared position.

If you could only get the tactics to change as well and channel advancing German tanks onto concealed lowered M3s rather than the desperate cavalry charge in brave but flawed attempts to close to within 2 pounder range of German and Italian tanks or machine gun range of anti tank guns.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 17, 2013)

Tiger 1 Porsche and the VK.30.01 leopard, what Mr Ferdinand got wrong ? The electric engines, too much copper that Germany didnt had.


----------



## parsifal (Feb 17, 2013)

I would argue that the whole tiger concept was a tank Germany could not afford. Fantastic Tank, but too heavy, too complex and too expensive for germany to afford or build in her later years. 

Panther was by far a better option and I think StugIII even better, considering germanys economic weakness.


----------



## Denniss (Feb 18, 2013)

CharlesBronson said:


> Tiger 1 Porsche and the VK.30.01 leopard, what Mr Ferdinand got wrong ? The electric engines, too much copper that Germany didnt had.


The whole system was too complex/bulky/heavy and reliability was a major problem.


----------



## Njaco (Feb 18, 2013)

For AFVs you have got to check the pics in this thread on this website. Excellent!!

WW2 Photos


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 18, 2013)

Denniss said:


> The whole system was too complex/bulky/heavy and reliability was a major problem.



Yes, the VK 30.01 (p) was a very cute tank though, It was better armored than panzer III and IV, it could became the "intermediate" tank between the pz III and the Tiger, very expensive to make aniway given his petrol engine-generator-electric motor drive trains.


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 18, 2013)

While the Tiger was an impressive tank, the lack of sloping armor put it at risk...also, the Tiger and Panther's turrets traversed much to slowly, and even the attempt to hydrostatically traverse it in relation to higher engine RPM made it almost a liability on the battlefield...

This was one of it's short-comings in a fast moving tank duel against a more mobile adversary


----------



## parsifal (Feb 18, 2013)

till the very end, both tiger Is and IIs remained formidable on the battle field. Few succumbed to outright battle damage. but relatively large proportions were lost to abandonment, either because they ran out of fuel or broke down. During the Bulge, wasnt an entire battalion (well 42 out of 45 vehicles?) were abandoned due to fuel shortages.. so too did Peipers panthers, but at least peiper was fighting for the fuel dump near to Stavelot(?). the Tigers ran out of fuel enroute. They might have made a difference tactically to the outcome of that battel if they hadnt run out of fuel


----------



## vinnye (Feb 19, 2013)

That was always the gamble that the offensive had to make from the German point of view. They did remarkably well to gather such a force and move it into position for the attack without the Allies finding out. But I would argue that these men and resources would have been better used on the Eastern Front.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 19, 2013)

Would the manpower machinery employed at East (instead at Bulge) represent only a drop in the bucket there? Another thing: German army was under-fueled, even for the limited distances in the West; Germans hoped to capture Allied fuel stocks. Much more fuel would be needed for the Army to do something at East.


----------



## vinnye (Feb 19, 2013)

Yes, that is probably true - a drop in the bucket.
But with so many units under-strength and ill equipped trying to hold up the Soviet juggernaut heading to Berlin, some elite units with first class armour could make a dent / give them a bloody nose?


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 19, 2013)

Germans were hoping to make sort of DUnkuerque redux, effectively putting the Western Allies out of the game? That gives them one land front less to worry about, while plentiful amount of Allied soldiers captured provides them with an important chip in the bargain table?


----------



## vinnye (Feb 19, 2013)

I agree that was the plan, but given the dire situation in the East, I think the men and weapons would have been better used there.
Also, as soon as the weather lifted the fighter bombers were going to make this attack a very risky business!
I am not saying that it would have been a holiday in the East, but maybe could have slowed up the Soviet advance and allowed the Western Allies to get further into Germany before terms were agreed.


----------



## stug3 (Feb 24, 2013)

An American instructor lecturing troops about the Grant tank, February 1942.






The Commander in Chief, General Sir Claude Auchinleck, (farthest from the camera) and Major General Campbell, VC, standing on a Grant tank, watching as it fires at a practise target in the Western Desert, February 1942.






A Grant tank in the Western Desert, 1942.


----------



## yulzari (Feb 24, 2013)

Lovely pictures stug3. 

I can't help thinking that the top of a Valentine turret would come up about as far as the pistol port on the Grant's hull.Huge things.


----------



## Denniss (Feb 25, 2013)

The M3 is really an ugly looking tank


----------



## fastmongrel (Feb 25, 2013)

Denniss said:


> The M3 is really an ugly looking tank



I disagree I think it has a kind of lumbering majesty a bit like a war Elephant. True up against sporty looking beasts like the Panther and the T34 its not going to win any beauty contests but ugly isnt the word.


----------



## Denniss (Feb 25, 2013)

Germany had a prewar multi-gun tank design but it looked smoother than the M3. 
Neubaufahrzeug - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## stug3 (Mar 16, 2013)

Matilda Scorpion flail tank







Close-up view of the revolving drum and chains at work on a Matilda Scorpion flail tank


----------



## stug3 (Mar 20, 2013)

Royal Engineers in a Daimler scout car.


----------



## vinnye (Mar 20, 2013)

I have just been going through earlier posts on this thread and found a couple of guys liked the Comet. I had thought that at some point the Comet was being issued to British units in December 1944. So I checked and found that they were being delivered to the 11th Armoured Division - who were training on them and called back to Shermans to due the Battle of the Bulge emergency.
It would have been interesing if they had been able to re-train and use the Comet during this offensive?


----------



## razor1uk (Mar 20, 2013)

I think the later Centurion rebuild hinted at earlier in this thread, by the Isrealis might be to do with the Namhon or similar-ish named; a HIFV/Medium-APC, A turretless Centurion chassis, with rear crew access and frontal engine and transmission... one of the toughest APC/Heavy Infantry Fighting Vehicle. 
While I don't agree with their ultra-right politcs ethics, their understanding and creating armour know how is inspired and commendable even if its used sometimes wrongly.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 20, 2013)

The APC conversion of the Centurion is Nakpadon, it does not feature the front engine and transmision. The heavy APC in the layout you're mentioning is the Namer, a Merkava based vehicle. For an "engine front, infantry back" APC version of Centurion, we need to cross a border, Jordanian Temsah APC is the vehicle you might want. Me likes.


----------



## Ascent (Mar 21, 2013)

The Infantry tank A12, Matilda II,had to small a turret ring making upgunning inpractical. A real shame as the only thing that could effectivley penetrate it in the early yeafrs was the 88. Also hampered by the lack of HE for the 2pdr.

And that was something that with hindsight should have been sorted. 40mm HE existed for the Bofors so why couldn't they create one for the 2pdr which was a 40mm gun.


----------



## fastmongrel (Mar 22, 2013)

Ascent said:


> The Infantry tank A12, Matilda II,had to small a turret ring making upgunning inpractical. A real shame as the only thing that could effectivley penetrate it in the early yeafrs was the 88. Also hampered by the lack of HE for the 2pdr.
> 
> And that was something that with hindsight should have been sorted. 40mm HE existed for the Bofors so why couldn't they create one for the 2pdr which was a 40mm gun.



HE ammo was available after all the 40mm Pom pom had HE shells but it doesnt seem to have been issued because the explosive effect was about the same as a hand grenade. Still anything should have been better than nothing.


----------



## yulzari (Mar 22, 2013)

Ascent said:


> The Infantry tank A12, Matilda II,had to small a turret ring making upgunning inpractical.


Forgive me for my pedantry but the A12 was eventually fitted with a Cavalier 6 pounder turret but, by that time, the production resource costs of the A12 made it a far better choice to simply build Cavaliers/Cromwells.


----------



## stug3 (Apr 1, 2013)

A recovery team works on a Valentine tank of 30th Armoured Brigade, 11th Armoured Division, which broke down in a stream during exercises near Kirkby Lonsdale in Lancashire.


----------



## Glider (Apr 5, 2013)

Daimler armoured cars had HE for their 2pd gun.


----------



## stug3 (May 1, 2013)

A US Army tank crew take a break somewhere in Tunisia.





Man, that huge side hatch had to be a real weak point. I wonder what the smallest caliber gun would be able to blow that thing off. I bet an 88 would take it off and leave a nice clean, round hole right through it.


----------



## tomo pauk (May 1, 2013)

yulzari said:


> Forgive me for my pedantry but the A12 was eventually fitted with a Cavalier 6 pounder turret but, by that time, the production resource costs of the A12 made it a far better choice to simply build Cavaliers/Cromwells.



I'll make a comment about supposed high cost of Matilda. 
UK have had produced many tanks during the ww2, that never were battlefield-worthy, hence Matilda should look like dirt cheap compared with the effort to design, test produce those. 

And, indeed, it was fitted with 6pdr, 3 men turret, unfortunately just as a prototype.

added: the table showing the volumes of certain parts of the tank. Shows why there are good reasons for Valentine kinda struck the wall when upgrades are concerned. (open the picture in separate tab, for hi-res)


----------



## yulzari (May 1, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> Shows why there are good reasons for Valentine kinda stuck the wall when upgrades are concerned.
> View attachment 232350


Forgive me Tomo. Your English is much better than my Croatian but what does 'kinda stuck the wall' mean?


----------



## vinnye (May 1, 2013)

I believe he means "hit a wall" - came to a dead end?


----------



## Shortround6 (May 1, 2013)

Tomo may have left out the "r" "st_r_uck the wall". 

But the chart quite clearly shows the problem, there is just no place to put "stuff" without redesigning and enlarging the vehicle which does away with a large part of starting with it to begin with.


----------



## tomo pauk (May 1, 2013)

Ooops, indeed the 'r' got lost. I'll edit the post 

As for the 'parts', better term should be the 'compartment', ie. 'engine' compartment (not 'engine' part).


----------



## yulzari (May 1, 2013)

Ahhh. Struck. Thank 'ee kindly young sir.


----------



## stug3 (May 5, 2013)

Armed with the QF 2 pounder, the Tetrarch was employed sparingly by British airborne units and replaced by other types due to its small caliber gun by the end of 1944.


----------



## dutchman (Jul 6, 2013)

Tiger 1"s 88mm gun. maybe you folks help me with a question I've had for years. 
As you know when they made assult guns and tank destroyers the Germans tended to "upgun" to the next level. It was a great way to get a heavier gun of a smaller chassie. Like the 75mm on the THNP chassie. Or the long 88 on the Nashorn. Did they ever try to put the "small 88" of the Tiger 1 into an assult gun or tank destroyer? This would have been as effective a tank killer as the PZKW 4's 75mm and though at 1000 meters and in the Panther would out preform it, as the distance increases the gap in the preformance narrows. Not to mention it's HE's abilities would be far better with the larger shell. They were turning out Tiger I's at a snails pace, I can't imagine the assembly line for that cannon was working at full potential. 
I have never seen anything about them even attempting it, I would have thought they might have given it a look. Any thoughts???


----------



## Civettone (Jul 7, 2013)

Excellent question, Dutchman! The 88 was not used much outside the Tiger.

I assume the reason is that AT had become the main factor and for that reason the 7.5 cm KwK 40 and 42 were preferred. I know of some Grille prototypes which had an 88, but this was meant for AA. 

The cannon was of course mainly used as Flak.

Kris


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 7, 2013)

It may be a question of timing and fit. The 88 used in the Tiger weighed about 2900lbs. the 75mm usid the the late MK Ivs weighed about 1100lbs. The 75mm gun from the Panther went about 2400lbs and the 88/71 went 3726lbs. By the time the Germans really _know_ they need 88s in large numbers the 88/71 is almost ready and the "small" 88 really isn't going to fit into too many other chassis. A short barreled Nashorn is about the only real possibility and that had such thin armor that nobody really wanted to engage in anything but long rang tank "sniping" or ambushes. 

The gun is only 9 in shorter than the Panther gun and is larger on the back end and 500lbs heavier.


----------



## dutchman (Jul 7, 2013)

I was trying to imagine what they might have tried to do with it. A larger version of the Marder III based on the PZKW III chassie might have worked? But those were being used in Strumgeschutz. III's which were doing good service. The Nashorns best protection was distance from things shooting at it. I had read an article saying that the optics on the Nashorn were good enough to score hits at 5000 yards. So stand off was the best method. If an AFV had to get in close it needed 80mm minimum on armour.
It was likely as you say the timing gave no real advantage. While the KwK 36 L/56 shells were about 7 inches shorter then the Panther's 75mm, I guess it would still have drawbacks in confined fighting compartments. Thanks for the input.


----------



## pattle (Jul 7, 2013)

I have always thought the British Crusader tank to look ahead of its time (sort of like a T34) with its sloping armour and low profile. Unfortunately the reality was that the Crusader unlike the T34 had its share problems and was not a very good tank. I used to know a bloke who was a tank driver in North Africa and he always said that the first tank the British had that was any good was the Sherman and that all the tanks he drove before it were always breaking down and leaking oil etc.


----------



## stug3 (Jul 8, 2013)

An interesting account of a Pzkpw IV crewman from Hans Schaufler (Ed.): Panzer Warfare on the Eastern Front of knowing the limitations of your gun and utilising different types of ammo available to maneuver and destroy an enemy tank.


_Oberfeldwebel Allgaier identified a dug-in KV-1, one of many. With typical Swabian composure and calmness, he took up a sight picture. But the distance was still too great; the 7.5-centimeter rounds ricocheted. He then fired with high-explosive rounds in front of them, so that the churned-up dust and dirt would rob the enemy of his visibility. He then used the time to get closer. He repeated the same game several times. Then he was at the spot he needed to be. With an anti-tank round in the breech, he waited in ambush. The dust blew away and revealed the target. Round on the way! Direct hit! lt was masterful._


----------



## dutchman (Jul 8, 2013)

I have another silly question. I've heard many reports of how poor the Panther tank was. While the design was good, it was prone to trouble with the final drives, the transmissions, even the steel wheels that the tracks ran on started with 16 bolts and had to be increased to 24 to hold them on. But, I've never heard a bad word about the turret. All the problems were in the chassie and drive train. But you never hear a bad word about the Jagdpanther. Some say it's the finest tank destroyer of the war. Why didn't it have the same problems as the Panther? This was built on the same chassie and roughly the same weight??? I'm puzzled???


----------



## parsifal (Jul 9, 2013)

Panther never realy overcame its drivetrain problems, but many of the dificulties were significantly redued in the later models (I think AusfA). Jagdpanther was based on the later models so it never experienced the catatrophic breakdowns that the arly marks of the Panther suffered.


----------



## fastmongrel (Jul 9, 2013)

All tanks suffer from problems especially when they are fielded before they are ready. The late model Panthers were pretty well sorted and I believe the French considered putting it back into production after the war. The Germans were just too clever with the hull on the Panther when you compare it to say the Centurion which served from 45 till quite recently. The Cent had a simple suspension system that could be repaired in the field and a relatively unstressed engine that with attention from the crew would run for weeks at a time. The Panther engine was a bit too small and had to be revved a lot shortening its life, the transmission was complicated and the suspension was a nightmare to work on. All these problems were fixed to a degree in later models, luckily for the Allies they werent fixed fast enough.


----------



## dutchman (Jul 11, 2013)

In WW II the U.S. made good use of the 50 cal. for low level anti-aircraft. The Germans seemed to depend on the 20mm for that usage. I saw one triple 15mm mount on a halftrack, did it not work well? I would have thought the 15mm would have been a good choice for low level air defence. Any thoughts??


----------



## parsifal (Jul 12, 2013)

For effective defence against D/B and F/B attacks, you really need an effective ceiling for your ground defences of not less than 6000 feet or so. Im not an ordinance expert, but I beilve you really need a calibre of not less 37mm to achieve an effective ceiling of 6-10000 feet. Moreover you need an effective blast effect. This adds up to a calibre not less than 30-40mm really....and even that is a bit small


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 12, 2013)

The 15mm was too much of one thing and not enough of the other. The gun and ammo both weighed around 1/3 more than the .50 cal. The German 15mm had exploding ammunition but with just under 3 grams per shell it was roughly 1/3 the explosive of most 20mm rounds (mine shells excluded). The German MG 151 came in both 15mm and 20mm versions so each 15mm gun made was a 20mm that wasn't. I am not sure if you could actually change form one to other _just_ by changing barrels. 
The 15mm had a higher velocity which means it is easier to aim (less lead needed) and perhaps a bit more effective range/ceiling than the 20mm version but is much less destructive when it hits.


----------



## dutchman (Jul 12, 2013)

I was looking at trying to fend off straffing and rocket attacks, which are reasonably close work. We were always told in those situations don't follow and lead your target, set up in front and let him fly through it. For that to work you need a high volume of firepower. Rate of fire is a factor as is an adaquate projectile to inflict damage. As demonstrated by the the age old question of 8 303 cal mg's in the wings verse 4 303's and 2 20mm as verse 6 50cals. There are as many answers to that as there are possible combinations. Perhaps the 15mm was as you say too much in one repect and too little in the other. 
I guess I find it odd that we loved the 50 Browning, and the Russians their 12.7mm but the Germans found no real need for the heavy mg. I know they dabbled with it, but it never seemed to find a place in the arms ministry????


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 12, 2013)

In part because the 15mm was more very small cannon than a heavy machine gun. A 15mm solid isn't much more destructive than a 12.7mm solid and a 15mm HE, while much less destructive than a 20mm HE is almost as much trouble to manufacture. German 15mm projectiles being steel bodies with driving bands, a hollow center that has to be filled with HE and most importantly, a reliable fuse that is even smaller than a 20mm fuse. The only other German "heavy" machine gun was the MG 131 13mm weapon that used a much short round than the American and Soviet guns with lighter bullets and lower velecity, much closer to the British .5 in Vickers in power.


----------



## stug3 (Jul 22, 2013)

T-34s


----------



## Civettone (Jul 22, 2013)

parsifal said:


> Panther never realy overcame its drivetrain problems, but many of the dificulties were significantly redued in the later models (I think AusfA). Jagdpanther was based on the later models so it never experienced the catatrophic breakdowns that the arly marks of the Panther suffered.


However, the main problem was the final drive. Around half of all Panthers broke down through a broken final drive. This was never fixed and there is no reason to assume that the same problem did not occur with the Jagdpanter. I believe the only reason why you don't hear about it, is because not a lot has been written about it.
The Panther had the worst reliability rates of all German tanks, including Tiger I and II.

Kris


----------



## Civettone (Jul 22, 2013)

One of my favourite although modest ideas is the refinement of the Marder III. SPATs are very underrated weapons. The lack of armour made them more vulnerable than armoured tank destroyers, but the truth is that they furfilled a different role, that of mobile anti-tank gun, firing from hidden position and at long range. 
The Panzer 38t chassis and drive train was already excellent. But it would have been a better idea to move the engine to the front, next to the driver, as happened with the Ardelt tank destroyer. This would free up space. Second, I would install the 7,5 cm Pak 42 instead of the Pak 40. This is essentially the anti-tank variant of the Kwk 42 of the Panther tank. 

Anyway, the chassis with the engine in front could also be used for a Flakpanzer.

Ardelt tank destroyer, notice the engine in front








Kris


----------



## dutchman (Jul 24, 2013)

I think by 1944 it was obvious to all but Hitler that the end was coming. It would be logical to have given up on the monster heavy tanks and SP guns and make useful reasonable sized vehicles. The Panther with it's troubles and the Tiger I and II with it's size issues had some drawbacks. The 100 ton plus ideas were idiotic. To make an AFV it takes roughly twice it's weight in raw materials. With supplies running low I would rather have say 4 Hetzers or Marder III's then 1 King Tiger. It would mean a change of fighting tactics, but by then the war was defensive and tactics were changing. The Nashorn was a capable tank killer at extreme ranges. It had the same firepower as the Jadgpanther. But only 1/2 the weight and protection. On defence I'd go with 2 Nashorns over one Jagdpanther. But if I were going to attack I'd lean the other way!! 
It's a cold trade because you know you will loose more of the smaller vehicles and that means the crews as well, But that's the nature of "efficient wars"
Might be a bit tough to sell the ideas to the crews!!! hehe


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 24, 2013)

dutchman said:


> ...With supplies running low I would rather have say 4 Hetzers or Marder III's then 1 King Tiger. It would mean a change of fighting tactics, but by then the war was defensive and tactics were changing. The Nashorn was a capable tank killer at extreme ranges. It had the same firepower as the Jadgpanther. But only 1/2 the weight and protection. On defence I'd go with 2 Nashorns over one Jagdpanther. But if I were going to attack I'd lean the other way!!


The Stug III would the best choice as it was one of the cheapest to manufacture cost and material-wise plus took less time to produce than most other German armor. It was a proven performer and exacted quite a toll on Allied armor and infantry during it's career.


----------



## stug3 (Aug 4, 2013)

Char B (France)


----------



## razor1uk (Aug 4, 2013)

One of the heaviest armoured armed early tanks of WW2 there, the 'Suoma'(?), and the last of the over around the hull tracked tanks - reminds me of the GW models of a Imperial Guard 'Chimera' or 'Leman Russ'.


----------



## Denniss (Aug 5, 2013)

Rolling Fortress and as flexible as the Maginot line.
Dangerous if you come too close head-on but easily outmaneuvered. Not easy to penetrate unless you get a clear shot at the rear from close range or an 8.8 is rushed to the frontline.


----------



## Juha (Aug 5, 2013)

razor1uk said:


> One of the heaviest armoured armed early tanks of WW2 there, the 'Suoma'(?), and the last of the over around the hull tracked tanks - reminds me of the GW models of a Imperial Guard 'Chimera' or 'Leman Russ'.



Somua S35 was a different tank, maybe best French tank in 1940, a cavalry tank with 47mm gun in a small turret, well protected and fairly fast.

How about Churchill tank, it also had the over and around tracks.

Juha


----------



## vinnye (Aug 6, 2013)

Char 2c was a bit of a monster.
Char 2C - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## dutchman (Aug 11, 2013)

here's a question for you, Which do you like better the M-7 priest with the 105mm How. or the Wespe with the 105mm How. I know the M-7 is heavier and carries a few extra rounds. But the wespe takes less material to build and is likely cheaper. Let me know what you think!


----------



## stug3 (Aug 11, 2013)

I like the Priest just because of the goofy idea of an spg having a pulpit with an M2 mounted on it.


----------



## dutchman (Aug 11, 2013)

That was very well put!! I guess it was to help those see the light and the error of their ways!! hehe


----------

