German T-34?

[marathag]

same with the universal Pz III/IV chassis (that never really worked right anyway).

My opinion is that was a form of NIH, similar to how Ordnance couldn't get the MG42 to work with .30-06 ammo, when postwar it worked great with 308 Nato

Krupp didn't want to deal with Daimler-Benz and Henschel , and vice versa.

I think that's the real reason the Pz III K failed with the Mk IV Turret with the longer 75mm. Krupp(who did the conversion) said, awww, won't work. Looks like we get to keep selling the Mk IV to the Heer. Too bad, D-B

 

[Deleted member 1487]

My opinion is that was a form of NIH, similar to how Ordnance couldn't get the MG42 to work with .30-06 ammo, when postwar it worked great with 308 Nato

Krupp didn't want to deal with Daimler-Benz and Henschel , and vice versa.

I think that's the real reason the Pz III K failed with the Mk IV Turret with the longer 75mm. Krupp(who did the conversion) said, awww, won't work. Looks like we get to keep selling the Mk IV to the Heer. Too bad, D-B

You sure? I thought the Pz III had too small of a turret ring. But supposedly the 38t had one big enough for a Pz IV turret???

 

[Bad@logic]

They were really the only nation to do this, as it had some drawbacks with balance. The Israelis did this with their M50 Super Sherman to fit the 75mm gun that was derived from the Panther's gun postwar into the original small M4 75mm Turret

Quibble, but the CN-75-50 being "derived from" the Panther's 75mm" is something of a myth. The CN-75-50's barrel has different length (L/61 instead of L/70), the French ammunition is quite different from the German stuff(projectile are somewhat similar, but the case is different), modified breech, AMX-13 recoil is stronger, ammunition ejection is different, of course the entire autoloader system... If I recall the French do have a similar system with a bore evacuator using compressed air, but that might just have been on the Leclerc. The AMX-13's gun probably was influenced and possibly inspired by the Panther's, but it probably is not derived from it.

 

[marathag]

You sure? I thought the Pz III had too small of a turret ring. But supposedly the 38t had one big enough for a Pz IV turret???

The chassis width and ring of the Mk III was sufficient for the Kwk 40 gun

T-34/76 had a turret ring diameter of 1420mm (two man turret)

Valentine Mk XI had a diameter of 1466mm (two man turret)

M24 Chaffee had a ring diameter of 1524mm

PzIII had diameter of 1560mm

T-34/76M and T-34/85 had a diameter of 1590mm

PzIV had diameter of 1650mm

Now I never have been able to determine the 38(t) diameter, but the 35(t) had 1267mm

The Panther had the same diameter as the Mk IV, and it had the more powerful Kwk 42 gun

 

[marathag]

The AMX-13's gun probably was influenced and possibly inspired by the Panther's, but it probably is not derived from it.

I would agree on that would have been a better term, same class of HiVel 75mm

 

[fastmongrel]

Jumo 204 was an aluminum aircraft diesel of 1739 cubic inches and 740HP@1800 rpm It weighed 1653 pounds. It was lighter and narrower than the V-2, but taller and shorter in length.

Taller, as in 7" taller than a Wright R-975.

So the engine compartment would be humped, unless it was mounted at a angle, like Chryslers 'Slant Six' was to lower the hoodline. Transverse mount would also be possible

The British also has this engine, as it was licensed to Napier during the '30s.

They called it the Culverin

These were an opposed piston design, 6 cylinders, but pistons on both ends

Google Leyland L60 for an idea how bad using the Junkers 205 series diesels in a tank is.

 

[Alex1guy]

The T-34 as it was could not be produced just the same in Germany due to the type of methods the Soviets used due to the availability of equipment and factory floor space the Germans lacked or were using for something else. They couldn't directly copy it for that reason and would have fallen behind in the arms race by just copying it; they were better off doing what they did IOTL, going for a technically superior, more advanced model to leapfrog the Soviets because the Germans couldn't compete on numbers (though they nearly did in 1944). If not for strategic bombing and the blockade their production would have been plenty in 1944-45 in terms of AFVs, especially of Panthers. The Panther was not a bad tank, it just didn't get the time to mature that it needed and was seriously deprived of the necessary spare parts due to strategic bombing; Germany's problem wasn't tanks, it was the war situation in general being that they were fighting the world's three greatest powers besides themselves with minor allied powers.

Had they fought the Soviets one-on-one the Panther would have done the job, though I know at least one poster on this forum vehemently disagrees with me.

Essentially this is important, shifting over production takes a lot of time. First there's reverse engineering the design, finding German parts that work and fit that they can't directly copy or replace, refitting machines to build the parts, retraining workers etc. It all takes a lot of time to shift production. Also remember that the Germans probably didn't recognize the T-34 as being better (or were smart enough to not bring the idea up with Hitler), their tanks were fine as far as they were concerned.

 

[Ian Hathaway]

This is what you want...

 

[marathag]

Google Leyland L60 for an idea how bad using the Junkers 205 series diesels in a tank is.

British Leyland was no paragon of quality production. They would have screwed up making hammers.

Napier, however, did the far more complex Deltic with very good reliabilty

 

[Michel Van]

the Panther gear box got complexity of Swiss clockwork, while Königtiger range was only 120 km do it thirsty Maybach engine.
if the Königstiger got any petrol to drive at end of war.

The Tiger had the problem with the gear box, but that was necessary due to its heavy size and role. The heavier Tiger was up armored by Hitler, who fell into the trap the US did with Airland battle in the 1980s: more Dakka to counter Soviet numbers.

There were German diesel developments, but by the time they were ready it was too late to put them into production without unacceptably lowering production temporarily.

why they not switch to diesel had allot of reason:
They consider diesel as inferior to Petrol
the logistic had to be change for Petrol to Diesel
the Luftwaffe had monopoly on Diesel engine and Diesel fuel and refuse to give that up for Wehrmacht or the SS

in November 1944 the shortcoming of Petrol and diesel was already crippling the Wehrmacht, SS and Luftwaffe
during The Battle of the Bulge, the SS tank division run out fuel and Crews went to there targets by Foot (no Joke)

General Patton say about this "one thing is sure the germans know to build excellent road blockade"
as his troop during there march encounter Tiger and Königtiger abandon by there crew because of empty tank and Ammo stack-room...

 

[fastmongrel]

British Leyland was no paragon of quality production. They would have screwed up making hammers.

Napier, however, did the far more complex Deltic with very good reliabilty

The opposed piston engine isnt suitable for a tank. Junkers aero engines and Deltic railway loco, and marine engines work at mostly constant revs and are started and carefully warmed before use which suits the opposed piston layout. This isnt what happens to a tank engine which spends long times switched off whilst the tank runs off the auxillary power unit. Then its start and the driver has to boot it from cold the saying was "hit 4th in the length of the tank". It was fun to see the ground pounders scatter as we came out of a camouflaged bivvy at max revs the engine and transmission screaming.

As an opposed piston engine has no cylinder head the pistons, cylinders and rings are under greatest pressure when cold, Leyland went through possibly dozens of cylinder and cooling jacket variations before they eventually solved the problem. They solved a lot of problems when the engine was modded to retain oil when switched off, in an opposed engine (whitch had no crankcase in the traditional sense) to prevent oil settling on top of the lower piston and risking hydraulic lock and bent con rods the oil is designed to be scavenged out of the engine and the engine is nearly dry of oil with the oil in the oil tank and oil cooler. Leyland did something to the pumps and valves which meant that 5 gallons of oil sat in the engine when switched off and stayed warm for longer.

The L60 became reliable and by the time I joined most problems we encountered where with the transmission not the engine. They never solved the oil leaks though any work in the engine bay and you ended up looking like you had been swimming in a mixture of oil, mud and tranny fluid.

The L60 was hamstrung by the NATO requirement to run on any fuel available. The idea was that varying the crankshaft timing would alter the compression to allow anything to be used. Multi fuel was a crap idea and by the time they realised it was too late the Cheiftain had been built round the engine. Other nations learnt from the problems we had and just ignored the multi fuel policy.

What should have happened was Gardner or Perkins should have been told to double up there ultra reliable straight six lorry diesels and leave enough room for Brown to build a decent transmission.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

Quibble, but the CN-75-50 being "derived from" the Panther's 75mm" is something of a myth. The CN-75-50's barrel has different length (L/61 instead of L/70), the French ammunition is quite different from the German stuff(projectile are somewhat similar, but the case is different), modified breech, AMX-13 recoil is stronger, ammunition ejection is different, of course the entire autoloader system... If I recall the French do have a similar system with a bore evacuator using compressed air, but that might just have been on the Leclerc. The AMX-13's gun probably was influenced and possibly inspired by the Panther's, but it probably is not derived from it.

French army had a well advanced 75mm tank gun project (& a 90mm gun design) in 1940. Odds are they would have had a high velocity 75mm gun on a tank in 1941. While they took a close look at German ordnance their own earlier work influenced their post war designs more than the German work.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

French army had a well advance 75mm tank gun project (& a 90mm gun design) in 1940. Odds ar ethey would have had a high velocity 75mm gun on a tank in 1941. While they took a close look at German ordnance their own earlier work influenced their post war designs more than the German work.

Do you have any info about those projects? I'd like to learn more.

 

[Bad@logic]

French army had a well advance 75mm tank gun project (& a 90mm gun design) in 1940. Odds ar ethey would have had a high velocity 75mm gun on a tank in 1941. While they took a close look at German ordnance their own earlier work influenced their post war designs more than the German work.

If I recall the engineers on the ARL 44 project also came up with the idea of a much higher velocity gun to replace the SA 44 they were originally going to mount on it, so that would be the logical predecessor of the SA 50 as well and would continue backwards the underpinning of the gun.

Reading that was from an informative post on the WoT forums.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

Do you have any info about those projects? I'd like to learn more.

Easiest is a French web site with info on all their production tanks and a partial list of prototypes. Look over the prototypes for the 1930-40 & late 1940s. Those descriptions have some info on the 75 & 90mm guns contemplated for the post 1940 tanks.

http://www.chars-francais.net/2015/index.php/liste-chronologique/de-1930-a-1940

Ther eare a couple other French language site that are a lot more technical & which I dont have bookmarked. I dont have any english language books on this subject. Not even sure if there are any.

Note, that it is not clear to me if the 90mm gun project was going to remain underway. It was intended for the next generation of superheavy tanks. Since the G series would be the most likely and useful of the prototypes it is possible the 90mm was to be shelved in favor of the 75mm for medium tanks vs any superheavy production. Still it was being tested & would have been available were the need seen later. After 1945 a 90mm gun was installed on the limited production heavy tank.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Easiest is a French web site with info on all their production tanks and a partial list of prototypes. Look over the prototypes for the 1930-40 & late 1940s. Those descriptions have some info on the 75 & 90mm guns contemplated for the post 1940 tanks.

http://www.chars-francais.net/2015/index.php/liste-chronologique/de-1930-a-1940

Ther eare a couple other French language site that are a lot more technical & which I dont have bookmarked. I dont have any english language books on this subject. Not even sure if there are any.

Note, that it is not clear to me if the 90mm gun project was going to remain underway. It was intended for the next generation of superheavy tanks. Since the G series would be the mostly likely and useful of the prototypes it is possible the 90mm was to be shelved in favor of the 75mm for medium tanks vs any superheavy production. Still it was being tested & would have been available were the need seen later. After 1945 a 90mm gun was installed on the limited production heavy tank.

AFAIK the only proposed 'high velocity' 75s were L32 or 40, which was high velocity for 1939, but not say 1945. Also didn't the AMX13 use US 90mm guns?

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

If I recall the engineers on the ARL 44 project also came up with the idea of a much higher velocity gun to replace the SA 44 they were originally going to mount on it, so that would be the logical predecessor of the SA 50 as well and would continue backwards the underpinning of the gun.

Reading that was from an informative post on the WoT forums.

Thanks. I recall that forum, but never book marked the thread. Some of those guy really know the subject.

Looking over those prototypes makes one think about what the French vs German tank line up might have been by early 1942 when the French rearmament was near completion. Some of those G prototypes look really serious with the low profile, thick side armor, and dome turret.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

AFAIK the only proposed 'high velocity' 75s were L32 or 40, which was high velocity for 1939, but not say 1945. ...

Against the likely German tanks of 1941 they would have been more than adaquate. Most of the likely models of 1942 as well.

.... Also didn't the AMX13 use US 90mm guns?

Cant remember. The 'SA' guns had nothing to do with the US 90mm design, unless the US gun was derived or influenced from some decades earlier French gun. Several US made 75mm & 155mm guns were derived directly from French designs. However I dont remember what was installed in the AMX.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Against the likely German tanks of 1941 they would have been more than adaquate. Most of the likely models of 1942 as well.

No doubt, but the issue was whether those shorter barrel designs were the basis of the longer post-war models.

Cant remember. The 'SA' guns had nothing to do with the US 90mm design, unless the US gun was derived or influenced from some decades earlier French gun. Several US made 75mm & 155mm guns were derived directly from French designs. However I dont remember what was installed in the AMX.

I thought I saw that the F3 90mm was fitted to the French AMX 13

 

[fastmongrel]

AFAIK the only proposed 'high velocity' 75s were L32 or 40, which was high velocity for 1939, but not say 1945. Also didn't the AMX13 use US 90mm guns?

The AMX13 started with the 75mm but went to a 90mm which iirc was a Belgian medium velocity smoothbore.