Your favorite AFVs: what the designers got wrong?

[Shortround6]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Shortround6]

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]

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]

double post

 

[stug3]

Originally Posted by Shortround6

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.

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

 

[Denniss]

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]

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


Waffen SS Division 'Adolf Hitler', Eastern front, February 1943.

 

[michaelmaltby]

I think the designers made a mistake not installing 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]

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]

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

MM

 

[vinnye]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[vinnye]

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]

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.