Deleted member 1487
Well then it isn't a low pressure gun, it is just a high velocity regular cannon that uses a heavy duty recoil compensating system to deal with the fact that it is no longer a low pressure weapon meant for 7 ton vehicles.
Nazis Apply Leopard I Philosophy to WW2 Tanks
- Thread starter hammo1j
- Start date
marathag
Banned
Why bother?
US had the Atom Bomb, and no one else.
Who needs tanks, heavy or otherwise anymore?
Then conventional war crept back into the picture with Korea after the soviet got their bomb, far sooner than expected
marathag
Banned
Still put on 14 ton armored cars.
and I did put quotes around medium pressure description.
It's only medium today. back then, that would be very high
Deleted member 1487
The M46 was developed from 1948-1950.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M46_Patton
It was enough of a mess plus didn't have enough firepower for the army that they developed the M47 stopgap...which was plagued with problems from the get go:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M47_Patton
Deleted member 1487
Yeah...they're 14 ton, not 7 tons like I said. Its just a regular cannon with a special recoil system to allow it to work in heavier armored cars than the low pressure model.
So what qualifies as high pressure today then? I'm also willing to bet 45k psi was pretty common back in WW2 as well for 48.5L cannons (which is the caliber-length ratio of the Mark 8 Cockerill, more than the late war Panzer IV's 75mm cannon).
Edit:
I found this about an L/45 88mm cannon:
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_88mm-45_skc13.php
The operating pressure was about 39,100 psi. It is a significantly shorter caliber length of weapon than the Cockerill Mk8's max MPa and lower than the L52 88mm Tiger cannon/FLAK gun, so I'm thinking that the 'medium' 88mm gun was about the same operating pressure as the Cockerill, while the high velocity long 88 or 75mm guns comfortably exceeded the pressure of the Cockerill. So that means that the Cockerill Mk8 would have been a medium velocity cannon by WW2 standards, its just that it's recoil mechanisms are very modern and capable of producing a 'low' pressure felt recoil on the vehicle it is attached to.
Last edited by a moderator:
You don't understand how truly revolutionary the leopard was compared to everything that came before it in this area. It is not a hyperbole. EVERYTHING that has to do with the engine, transmission and running gear is in the powerpack and the entire thing can be changed in 15 minutes. It is the first tank to use this design and pretty much everything that came after copied that design. It basically changed how tanks are designed from a maintenance perspective completely.
Good to create contrast.
Last edited:
marathag
Banned
In the 1950s, the French, Germans and a few other countries were working on a common medium tank. After some development(and De Gaulle) countries went their own way.
The French did the AMX-30, Germans the Leopard. Both used the powerpack idea, along with light armor and high mobility.
The fast replace pack was important to the AMX-30, as the DNA from the transaxle was gifted from the Panther. French thought they had fixed all the flaws. They were wrong.
marathag
Banned
The US M3 90mm was 38,000, along with the M3 75mm and M7 3"
M1 76mm was 43,000
M41 90mm was 47,000, used in the M47 and M48
M58 120mm was 48,000 in the M103, the earlier T54 120mm in the T34 Heavy was also 38,000
The German Kwk 42 75mm/70 was 48,000
Deleted member 1487
I think the number for the M3 90mm is incorrect, though I've also found it on a data sheet, because it doesn't seem to match the rest of the weapons in it's size and muzzle velocity. Take the M1 76mm, it has about the same muzzle velocity and length to caliber ratio, but somehow has 5000 more psi?
Deleted member 1487
I believe you, its just that the shorter 88 had with lower muzzle velocity and smaller bore had a higher pressure. Something doesn't smell right. Perhaps Hunnicutt got one detail wrong.
marathag
Banned
Around 1500 pounds for the thinner glacis. still be too heavy. It needed to lose 5 tons, or more. Hull is just too big
And the issue is that Germany didn't necessarily have the materials or technology to make smaller transmissions that could be at the back, so you're still going to have high hulls like the Sherman.
Another aspect is that to have some level of ergonomy with the long 75 gun or the 88 L/56 you need to have a large turret and fighting compartment.
And looking at the PZ IV which was a bit cramped with the 75 L/48, the most balanced tank Germany could possibly get is one in the 30-35 metric tonnes range with a 75 L/48 (or even a full blown Pak 40 which could use longer shells) with a better fighting compartment than a Pz IV and about 60/40/30mm of armor for the hull (not necessarily with angled armor as you have to find the optimum balance between weight, armor and internal space) and 80/~50/30 for the turret.
The thing is that while such designs might be easier to produce and maintain they will also be more vulnerable to existing Allied AT weaponry, who will therefore focus less on stronger weapons and will have an easier time fighting German tanks.
Germany just can't outplay the Allies in terms of raw numbers and medium tank quality (because in particular the Americans have better technology and materials to improve them eventually). Indeed one can wonder whether it would be better for Germany to just go full defense and mass produce casemated tank destroyers only which are way simpler and cheaper to produce and not necessarily less effective than turreted tanks (the latter are less stealthy and in the case of the Pz IVJ for example the turret traverse was damn slow).
Another aspect is that to have some level of ergonomy with the long 75 gun or the 88 L/56 you need to have a large turret and fighting compartment.
And looking at the PZ IV which was a bit cramped with the 75 L/48, the most balanced tank Germany could possibly get is one in the 30-35 metric tonnes range with a 75 L/48 (or even a full blown Pak 40 which could use longer shells) with a better fighting compartment than a Pz IV and about 60/40/30mm of armor for the hull (not necessarily with angled armor as you have to find the optimum balance between weight, armor and internal space) and 80/~50/30 for the turret.
The thing is that while such designs might be easier to produce and maintain they will also be more vulnerable to existing Allied AT weaponry, who will therefore focus less on stronger weapons and will have an easier time fighting German tanks.
Germany just can't outplay the Allies in terms of raw numbers and medium tank quality (because in particular the Americans have better technology and materials to improve them eventually). Indeed one can wonder whether it would be better for Germany to just go full defense and mass produce casemated tank destroyers only which are way simpler and cheaper to produce and not necessarily less effective than turreted tanks (the latter are less stealthy and in the case of the Pz IVJ for example the turret traverse was damn slow).
The problem with the Germans using a tank that is more dependable, faster and more mobile at the cost of armor is the Sherman tank.
The Germans doing this just plays into the Americans hands, No mater what Germany does they are never going to build enough of them in comparison to the Sherman. And anything that has lighter armor is going to make the Sherman more effective.
So the Germans are building more dependable tanks that The Sherman can more easily kill.
Thus on the battlefield the Germans are still outnumbered by a wide margin and now are easier to take out.
Not sure how that really helps.
And it is not just the Sherman’s that will have an easier time taking out lighter armored tanks. It is Aircraft other armor/tanks/tank killers ect, So you have just made the mathematically superior armies job of killing tanks easier.
How exactly does this help Germany?
Yes it may result in a few more destroyed Sherman’s as logic says 8 tanks shooting will kill more then 5, but that will be offset by how long the survive in any given combat.
Starting with 8 tanks and having on drop ever 2 minutes gives you 76 minutes of tanks firing. Staring with 5 tanks one dropping every 6 minutes (3 times as hard to kill) gives you 90 minutes of tanks firing. So in this example the better armored option gives you more shots.
The debate is how many more tanks vs how much longer each tanks survives in combat. But in general when out numbered making a tank that is really hard for your enemy to destroy is probably a better idea then getting a few more tanks that give you a total that is STILL hopelessly outnumbered.
You want to kill more Shermans try this. Put a faster firing smaller gun (that still can take out a Sherman) on the tank. That way you get more shots off before you run out of tanks.
The math is harsh in that you are talking about dead crews but when outnumbered the reality is you want whatever mathematically works out to the most shots fired before you run out of tanks. And playing into your enemies design is not going to help.
Frankly odds on the Sherman crews will LOVE the idea of giving the Germans a few more tanks in exchange for the Sherman being able to damage them vs bouncing shells off a more heavily armored tank.
The Germans doing this just plays into the Americans hands, No mater what Germany does they are never going to build enough of them in comparison to the Sherman. And anything that has lighter armor is going to make the Sherman more effective.
So the Germans are building more dependable tanks that The Sherman can more easily kill.
Thus on the battlefield the Germans are still outnumbered by a wide margin and now are easier to take out.
Not sure how that really helps.
And it is not just the Sherman’s that will have an easier time taking out lighter armored tanks. It is Aircraft other armor/tanks/tank killers ect, So you have just made the mathematically superior armies job of killing tanks easier.
How exactly does this help Germany?
Yes it may result in a few more destroyed Sherman’s as logic says 8 tanks shooting will kill more then 5, but that will be offset by how long the survive in any given combat.
Starting with 8 tanks and having on drop ever 2 minutes gives you 76 minutes of tanks firing. Staring with 5 tanks one dropping every 6 minutes (3 times as hard to kill) gives you 90 minutes of tanks firing. So in this example the better armored option gives you more shots.
The debate is how many more tanks vs how much longer each tanks survives in combat. But in general when out numbered making a tank that is really hard for your enemy to destroy is probably a better idea then getting a few more tanks that give you a total that is STILL hopelessly outnumbered.
You want to kill more Shermans try this. Put a faster firing smaller gun (that still can take out a Sherman) on the tank. That way you get more shots off before you run out of tanks.
The math is harsh in that you are talking about dead crews but when outnumbered the reality is you want whatever mathematically works out to the most shots fired before you run out of tanks. And playing into your enemies design is not going to help.
Frankly odds on the Sherman crews will LOVE the idea of giving the Germans a few more tanks in exchange for the Sherman being able to damage them vs bouncing shells off a more heavily armored tank.
I know this isn't the exact topic of the thread, but would German Tigers be more effective if the Ferdinand chassis were made into recovery vehicles instead of heavy tank destroyers?
Deleted member 1487
I asked that on another forum once and got back the answer about 1.2 tons or something about that.
Deleted member 1487
The Daimler VK30.02 begs to differ (and it was the final drive, not transmission):
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/nazi_germany/German_what-if_armour.php
IIRC the DB actually wasn't capable of carrying the L70 but let's say it does. Another issue I've heard about is that it would be ready later than the Panther.
Most importantly it had a diesel engine which is not a very good idea in 1943+ Germany (diesel production, engine production and maintenance...), and it might be even worse off technically (but not logistically) with a gasoline one.
Most importantly it had a diesel engine which is not a very good idea in 1943+ Germany (diesel production, engine production and maintenance...), and it might be even worse off technically (but not logistically) with a gasoline one.
Deleted member 1487
It did have the final drive and engine in the rear in one compact package (not Leopard one integrated package, but it allowed the entire platform to be lower due to no need for machinery running under the tank to power the drive at the front). The initial design was not with the L70, which is what the delay was about, redesigning the turret ring to take a bigger turret with the L70. The Germans had diesel engines, they'd just have to compete with Uboat production for diesel production. That doesn't mean it couldn't have used a smaller, lower powered, less gas guzzling gasoline engine than the Panther.