Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Ahhh, ok, I missed that part. I agree with you, on the suspension superiority of the PZIII.As I said above - they should have built the wider Panzer IV chassis with the Panzer III suspension. Its superior torsion bar suspension was introduced in 1939 with the E model.
If they had not wasted so much resources (both materiel and manpower) into these two similar-sized tanks they could have improved the Panzer IV a lot with torsion bars very early on.
This video series goes over all the design flaws you mention, and more.The Panther is an excellent example of how not to design and produce a tank. On paper it's brilliant.
Excellent gun, armour, and mobility. Everything covered.
In reality it was really good as a long range tank destroyer but in other aspects of a tanks prime use such
as infantry support / protection which required close in fighting and good HE coverage, it doesn't rate any
higher than poor.
Yep. As far as WW2 RAF combat aircraft, all they needed was Spitfires, Mosquitos and Lancasters in vast quantities. But no, they had to make a cornucopia of competing and/or mediocre designs. And tanks, why put a 2pdr with no HE round into your tanks? The US put both HE and canister rounds in their 37mm.
Why not send both?
I know I'm a year late, but this is what you are envisioning: A drone dispensing smaller dronesIs anyone familiar or remembers the 80's Bundeswehr Luftwaffe system – MW-1 Luftverlegesysteme (aerial mine dispenser system). Or similar the British system JP233 LAAAS
(Low-Altitude Airfield Attack System)? See photo of the MV-1 system.
Now just envision these mines replaced by independently operating mini attack drones, armed with explosive or respective tank, vehicle, infantry or building destruction devices.
And that kind of system could be deployed from any kind of launching device right down to a manpad system – not just restricted to an aircraft.
They used the pre WW2 76.2mm close support howitzer as fitted to a proportion of Valentines and Matilda II. Unsuited to normal tank HE work but ideal for the extreme close range requirements of jungle tank warfare.I had a dream once that the Valentine tanks made in Canada swapped out their 2pdrs for USA 37mm and instead of shipping to Russia, shipped to Malaya - along with thousands of HE and canister rounds. Even if we stick with the 2pdr, we'll tear up the thinly armoured Japanese tanks. Unfortunately I also need to change the calendar a little for the tanks to arrive on time, since the very first Canadian-built Valentine rolled off the production line in May 1941.
Valentine tank
Harold writes articles on Canadian military history, including Military Parachuting, Warplanes, Armour and Artillery, Castles, Fortifications, Sieges and Battles, Warships, The Cold War, Women in the Canadian Forces, First Nations and Black Canadian Military Service. Each article is supported by...www.silverhawkauthor.com
The ANZACs did well with their Valentines in the jungle. I believe they'd got the 6pdr version with its HE round.
View attachment 722240
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7zh4nGFSh0
I thought so too. I had no idea that beyond the pointy or shaped bit, NATO 120mm rounds were made of cellulose, nor how fragile they were when handling. I expect the soft casing allows for easier, less explosive burn offs from BOPs.Thanks for the link. That was informative.
The Poles may have some Sturmgeschütz.As far as vintage tanks go, just imagine what Ukraine could do with a few hundred of these.
View attachment 730577