- Thread starter
- #41
schwarzpanzer
Senior Airman
- 662
- Aug 8, 2005
tomo, sorry, but I've had to split my reply to you. I was 1,000 words over the limit. I managed to shorten it to just under 1,500 words, but it was very kurt txt spk!
If this causes problems for the Mods/Admins, just let me know? Thanks.
Yep, that is what I suggested. The engine was possible for mass-production (but the Germans couldnt make it in alu). But it had features that were only useful above 6,000rpm - good in an F1 car, not in a tank!
The Maybach was much better, and bizarrely, simpler here (though the Soviet design was copied from an Italian design). Even then though, I'm not too sure if the 'Hemi-head' of the Maybach was all that necessary and desirable. IIRC/IMO a 'Bathtub' head design would be best (but I dont know Diesels that well).
True. The KV had a poor length-to-width ratio though, whereas the Tiger was almost square. Whether this would be a problem for a German copy though; I dont think so.
Having a wider tank would increase the weight though, and a wider tank is necessary both for the length-width ratio and the turret ring diameter for that 88mm gun.
Oh, right. Good point. Bear in mind though, that the top speed would only then be 25mph - the same as the other Panzers, maybe, but not enough to keep pace with a T-34 or Panther. Was top speed was an important, or silly criteria for the Panther design, do you think?
Both, sorry.![Oops! :oops: :oops:]()
It was a German obsession, but I can see both sides to the arguement. It did have advantages when the engine was moved forward though - as in the Geschutzewagen III/IV. A friend of mine had this design in a raccing car - but got a bit peeved when his competitors rammed him - breaking the connector rods, and leaving him unable to at least change gear!
So it was a vulnerable design, though I have no sources to its breaking in combat directly available, I do remeber seeing one (in regards to the T-34, probably on Battlefield.ru). Also, changing gear in the T-34 and enturion I know was a knighmare. BTW Electronic Autos, IIRC Hydramatics do not have this problem... The Merkava design is a good one, but it puts the driver in a bad position - with a fore deign, there is a gap creted betweeen the input and output shafts that is just the ideal size for a seated person. Personally, I think the engine put in the centre, with a shorter torque tube and the drive inbetween them would be best - with the turret at the reaar. Torque tube lengths can cause knightmares though, however. As I said though, the Geschutzewagen III/IV seemed to have this feature ( wouldve made a cracking basis for a Katzchen-like APC IMO).
Mechanically I have explained above (25mph 'only' - enough?). Weight is a difficult one...(though I will discuss this one elsewhere...).
The T-34 was a much better design IMO. Sloped armour, lighter and faster. The Panther managed to match the last point, but totally missed the 2nd one and only partly got the 1st.
despite all this, it also managed to have thinner armour at the side rear!![Shock :shock: :shock:](/forum/images/smilies/icon_eek.gif)
![Laughing :lol: :lol:](/forum/images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
Would it always work though?... BTW the British would not allow their 3.7in guns (Flak 88 euivalent) to be used for AT work - despite the lessons from Rommel. - This even when they had absolute air superiority!![Roll Eyes :rolleyes: :rolleyes:]()
![Laughing :lol: :lol:](/forum/images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
Drat! Thanks for the source. Can't you just tell me what you learned there?...![Wink ;) ;)]()
You only said tanks, and I said excluding Lend-Lease. But I suppose you could count the Centurion, Bishop, Achilles, Avenger/Challenger (tanks??) Sentinel? I considered those, but deliberately left them out, as only 4 saw service and were considered SPGs, even though they had turrets - and one was Lend-Lease. Also, the Sentinel wasn't British. I suppose we can count the RAM too?
Not all at one time! Not on the same vehicle certainly.
I think that at least 4 (or maybe all) would have been in simultaneous service - the 3 3.7in served together, the 2pdr 6pdr did, and the 75mm might have seen service with older variants. I seem to remeber the Matilda II (2pdr) being used in Europe though - so quite possibly!
Of course, I would try to have just a few (only 2, if possible?...) and phase the older ones out.
This was before you added 5 more to the list!
(Czechs, Austrians, Hungarians, Poles and French). I think these will only be touched on here though? - unless you want to create a new Thread for these? May I suggest a title of 'Other Axis WW2 (HE/Support?) Artillery'?
Great post all BTW, as per!8)
![Laughing :lol: :lol:](/forum/images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
Germans might have sticked with their Maybachs (if Russian engine was SO complicated ) and be done with that.
Yep, that is what I suggested. The engine was possible for mass-production (but the Germans couldnt make it in alu). But it had features that were only useful above 6,000rpm - good in an F1 car, not in a tank!
![Laughing :lol: :lol:](/forum/images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
Those two advantages would've allowe for a more compact vehicle, with better protection for same weight, or less weight for same armor protection.
True. The KV had a poor length-to-width ratio though, whereas the Tiger was almost square. Whether this would be a problem for a German copy though; I dont think so.
Again, we build this instead of Panther, not instead of Tiger.
Oh, right. Good point. Bear in mind though, that the top speed would only then be 25mph - the same as the other Panzers, maybe, but not enough to keep pace with a T-34 or Panther. Was top speed was an important, or silly criteria for the Panther design, do you think?
About the German decision or about advantages of diesel fuel?
Both, sorry.
The advantages do overweight disadvantages - from late 30's till now.
If you want so badly the frontal gearbox, than you might take in consideration the engine position too, and move the engine in front, Merkava-style.
It was a German obsession, but I can see both sides to the arguement. It did have advantages when the engine was moved forward though - as in the Geschutzewagen III/IV. A friend of mine had this design in a raccing car - but got a bit peeved when his competitors rammed him - breaking the connector rods, and leaving him unable to at least change gear!
![Laughing :lol: :lol:](/forum/images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
Both mechanically and by the weight.
Mechanically I have explained above (25mph 'only' - enough?). Weight is a difficult one...(though I will discuss this one elsewhere...).
The folks from Daimler Benz were influenced by a wrong Russian tank - they've should copied the KV...
The T-34 was a much better design IMO. Sloped armour, lighter and faster. The Panther managed to match the last point, but totally missed the 2nd one and only partly got the 1st.
![Laughing :lol: :lol:](/forum/images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
![Shock :shock: :shock:](/forum/images/smilies/icon_eek.gif)
![Laughing :lol: :lol:](/forum/images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
One thing is needed to convert the field gun into AT gun - the will (or order, if you prefer) to do that.
Would it always work though?... BTW the British would not allow their 3.7in guns (Flak 88 euivalent) to be used for AT work - despite the lessons from Rommel. - This even when they had absolute air superiority!
![Laughing :lol: :lol:](/forum/images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
You'd need to go to the tank-net.org to find out more - like I did
Drat! Thanks for the source. Can't you just tell me what you learned there?...
You're forgetting the 17pdr, plus 25pdr for SP arty...
You only said tanks, and I said excluding Lend-Lease. But I suppose you could count the Centurion, Bishop, Achilles, Avenger/Challenger (tanks??) Sentinel? I considered those, but deliberately left them out, as only 4 saw service and were considered SPGs, even though they had turrets - and one was Lend-Lease. Also, the Sentinel wasn't British. I suppose we can count the RAM too?
I was not reffering to the plethora of guns, but to (your) requirement that Cruisers should have carried almost all of those.
Not all at one time! Not on the same vehicle certainly.
![Laughing :lol: :lol:](/forum/images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
![Laughing :lol: :lol:](/forum/images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
New thread perhaps?
This was before you added 5 more to the list!
![Laughing :lol: :lol:](/forum/images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
Great post all BTW, as per!8)