Sure, but I mean forget not having a roof, this one lacks a back and sides. A
British army create a universal tank class
- Thread starter SCOUT 5249
- Start date
U.T 3
After months of arguing it was the US army finally was persuaded to finally field their own universal tank the T24 tank but only on as a field experiment.
The T24 used an improved electric drive from the m6 heavy tank and a more powerful v12 ford engine. It was armed with a long barreled 3in 76.2 cannon housed within an up armoured and enlarged M10 turret.
34 of the tanks several of which were E1 equipped with auto loading device were trialled in early 1943, the results were a mixed bag the low silhouette and transmission were praised as was the 3in cannon even it failed to penetrate a tiger I frontal armour, it's high speed was also well liked.
However at the same time the 3in was criticised for having a poor H.E shell, poor weight distribution and excessive ground pressure. The auto loader was problematic also.
But it had proven the universal tank class was worth it.
------------------------------------------------
I might be pushing it with the M10 turret.
So yes this is the T23 tank.
Is this bad?
The T24 used an improved electric drive from the m6 heavy tank and a more powerful v12 ford engine. It was armed with a long barreled 3in 76.2 cannon housed within an up armoured and enlarged M10 turret.
34 of the tanks several of which were E1 equipped with auto loading device were trialled in early 1943, the results were a mixed bag the low silhouette and transmission were praised as was the 3in cannon even it failed to penetrate a tiger I frontal armour, it's high speed was also well liked.
However at the same time the 3in was criticised for having a poor H.E shell, poor weight distribution and excessive ground pressure. The auto loader was problematic also.
But it had proven the universal tank class was worth it.
------------------------------------------------
I might be pushing it with the M10 turret.
So yes this is the T23 tank.
Is this bad?
Hardly.
Look at the level of build quality engineering in a PZ IV vs. a T34. They built PZ's to a standard to last for years when their operational lives were just a few hundred miles.
Look at the overengineered nightmare of their Panthers. Compare that to...anything.
Just look at the number of parts for the firing mechanisms in their artillery vs. US artillery. Double the parts.
The German tendency to over engineer things was not only in design but production. Instead of batching changes, they would continuously change designs on the manufacturing line, slowing up production tremendously.
marathag
Banned
Ease Repair was not high on the list for the Panther design. Would have been less an issue, had interleaved suspension with double torsion bars been replaced with Horstmann, and double epicyclic transaxle and straight cut final reduction drives replaced with Cletrac transaxle and herringbone gears.
Exactly. Nor was ease of manufacture. They maintained manufacturing standards that were substantially wasteful right up to the last months of the war.
Additionally manufacturing four to five self propelled tank destroyer models at the same time is the height of logistical complexity.
EDIT: Even the initial Panther concept reflects their overengineering nature. At the start they had the option of a Teutonicized T-34. They dropped that in favor of the far more complex Panther series.
They could have taken the PZ IV design. Keep the suspension and basic structure. Max the gun (like they did). Angle and thicken the armor. Call it a day and grab some good bier.
This would have led to minimum design time changes, minimum retooling and minimum disruption of the lines. Its what the Russians did with the T34/85. Its what the Allies did with the upgraded M4 series.'
Last edited: