Which is why, back in the '80s, we got the Sherman (M4A1E8), instead of the T34 (T34/85, Fresh out of Polish Army Reserve Stock. The Russian Stuff - Simple, in its way, and, as you note, you can fix it with a rock. But you need a lot of rocks.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Which is why, back in the '80s, we got the Sherman (M4A1E8), instead of the T34 (T34/85, Fresh out of Polish Army Reserve Stock. The Russian Stuff - Simple, in its way, and, as you note, you can fix it with a rock. But you need a lot of rocks.With the transmission in the front, the driver can be equipped with a hammer to give the transmission a whack if it's misbehaving!
Merkeva was born out of the experience of the 1973 Yom Kippur War against Egypt & Syria. Out of 2,500 Israeli Army dead, nearly 1,500 came from the Armoured Corps. That included many experienced reservists and severely weakened the Corps with the threat still remaining. So existing armour was extensively modified to make it more survivable.Indeed, this is often explained as the reason for the Merkava series layout. But there must be some significant downsides to this arrangement considering that nobody else has adopted it? (Except for IFV's where something like that is common)
The German and US Tanks with front differentials were built well enough that it was unnecessary to use 'Percussive Maintenance'With the transmission in the front, the driver can be equipped with a hammer to give the transmission a whack if it's misbehaving!
Not to skew the thread, but isn't this why an M113 APC has the whole drivetrain in the front? (aside from other fringe benefits achieved from doing that provides)You can make a very compact drive section by having everything in the front or the rear, but that make servicing more difficult, and in the T-34 example, even operation. Note this wasn't a problem with the KV or later IS tanks
US APCs after the M3 series half track, was the big M44, based on the Hellcat TD, but longerNot to skew the thread, but isn't this why an M113 APC has the whole drivetrain in the front? (aside from other fringe benefits achieved from doing that provides)
Hey, it used the engines as protection for the Crew/dismountsUS APCs after the M3 series half track, was the big M44, based on the Hellcat TD, but longer
View attachment 791849
For scale, it was planned to carry a whole platoon, 18-24 guys in back and a crew of three. All the mechanicals were moved up front to make room. Driver on one side, gunner on the other
It was big, heavy(steel, 16mm in front and 13mm sides) 25+ tons and expensive.
Budget cutting was the norm, so few were made before the Korean War.
Now the Korean War. A smaller, but not much cheaper all steel M75, based on the then new M41 Walker Bulldog tank
It had armor up to 25mm, but carried half the troops, as the Army desired, one squad.
View attachment 791852
Modern layout appears, no more bow gunner, pistol ports gone, side doors gone, no more radial and has a 300 HP Continental 6 cylinder gasoline engine. Handfull saw combat in Korea.
Army wanted something even cheaper. Thin armor, and had a truck engine in each side. The M59
It was cheap.
It was light enough to be amphibious.
It was underpowered, slow and unreliable. Could carry 10 troops, but cramped
So the Army ordered thousands.
View attachment 791853
View attachment 791855
View attachment 791854
6V-53 DDA, IIRC.Hey, it used the engines as protection for the Crew/dismounts
Engine in the M113 was good for protecting the knees, shins, ankles.
A few of my T-34 picsWhich is why, back in the '80s, we got the Sherman (M4A1E8), instead of the T34 (T34/85, Fresh out of Polish Army Reserve Stock. The Russian Stuff - Simple, in its way, and, as you note, you can fix it with a rock. But you need a lot of rocks.
A few of my PT-76 picsA few of my T-34 pics
A few of my T-55 picsA few of my PT-76 pics
The T-55 (a modification of the T-54) has almost nothing to do with the T-34. It originated from the T-44, which was completely new in relation to the T-34 - new layout, new armor scheme, new transmission, new undercarriage. Only the engine was a descendant of the V-2 - almost the only thing the T-34 and T-44 had in common.The T-55 was originally a follow on design from the T-34 / 44 with probably elements of the JS series as well.
That's why it's a follow on.The T-55 (a modification of the T-54) has almost nothing to do with the T-34. It originated from the T-44, which was completely new in relation to the T-34 - new layout, new armor scheme, new transmission, new undercarriage. Only the engine was a descendant of the V-2 - almost the only thing the T-34 and T-44 had in common.