Nazis Apply Leopard I Philosophy to WW2 Tanks

[marathag]

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.

The differentials and transmissions aren't noticeably larger in a front drive application from that of a rear drive transaxle
The Germans used Clutch and Brake differentials in the Panzer I and II, just like the USSR did thru the KV series
Simple, but non-regenerative, meaning you lose a lot of power when turning

To get around that, some countries like Italy used epicyclic clutch and brake steering, where you could reduce track speed on one side without completely losing power. The Germans also used this setup on the Mk III and IV.

Now almost every else, the British, Czechs, and Japanese used double epicyclic geared steering, a refinement as the War started. It had it's own quirks, like steering wandering or even reversal on certain ground conditions.

The US and French used the Cletrac controlled differential steering. Bulletproof, lost no power in a turn, but a fixed ratio for turning, couldn't easily tighten a turn like was possible with clutch and brake setups.

Later on, both the British and Germans went for fully regenerative steering systems, that also allowed for neutral steer, and US after the War. Russian went for double epicyclic steering, right up till modern day

Back to the Germans before the war.

early design studies for the Mk III ruled out rear drive, as front drive had less wear and tear on the tracks and sprockets, and maintenance would be easier.

For Hulls being high, that was from the US not using an secondary gearbox to drop the propeller shaft along the floor, as the Germans did. US eventually did that with the M18 Hellcat

 

[marathag]

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

Thing is, they really didn't have to worry about the USA, but the Soviets

They needed that reliability. USSR was a big place, few rail lines and roads

The biggest miss of the Germans was having both the Mk III and Mk IV, suould have unified the designs, The Mk III hull was actually wider than the Mk IV, but had a narrower superstructure on top, that limited the turret ring diameter.
Torsion bars gave a better ride, but the leaf springs on the IV were cheaper to make and faster to repair. Both should have had wider tracks from the start, since the plan was eventually to do Barbarossa, but not interleaved road wheels

They needed both more mobility and reliability in a 30 ton tank, not less reliability in a 45 ton tank. They needed a 2/3rds scale Panther with the 88mm/L56. The Panther was easier to build, less man hours(or slave hours, as the case may be) than the Mk IV, just too heavy. Broke down in the rear area is of zero use on the front line

 

[Deleted member 94680]

Certainly the success of the most effective Ww2 tank, the Sherman M4, depended very much on its mobility and reliability.

You spelt “T-34” wrong.

But seriously, I’ve often thought the German’s tanks weren’t necessarily bad but rather victims of their poor logistical support, deficient manufacturing practices and simply being vastly outnumbered in almost every campaign they fought. The Sherman’s greatest quality was its quantity, it was an adequate tank for ‘39-‘42, but distinctly average if not poor after that.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

You spelt “T-34” wrong.

But seriously, I’ve often thought the German’s tanks weren’t necessarily bad but rather victims of their poor logistical support, deficient manufacturing practices and simply being vastly outnumbered in almost every campaign they fought. The Sherman’s greatest quality was its quantity, it was an adequate tank for ‘39-‘42, but distinctly average if not poor after that.

I hope you meant that as a joke, the T-34 was not reliable through most of the war. The Soviets even used captured Pz IIIs because they were more reliable than their own tanks:
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/soviet/soviet-su-76i.php

 

[Alanith]

You spelt “T-34” wrong.

But seriously, I’ve often thought the German’s tanks weren’t necessarily bad but rather victims of their poor logistical support, deficient manufacturing practices and simply being vastly outnumbered in almost every campaign they fought. The Sherman’s greatest quality was its quantity, it was an adequate tank for ‘39-‘42, but distinctly average if not poor after that.

I'm sorry are we talking about the same tank that was so legendarily unreliable that they would drive into combat with a transmission or two tied down on the back of the tank? That had horrible quality control and an engine filter so bad a US Ordinance Board document stated that it "Could only have been designed by a saboteur"?

 

[marathag]

it was an adequate tank for ‘39-‘42, but distinctly average if not poor after that.

seems the M4A3E8 kicked T-34/85 decisively in Korea, and was real embarrassing to have new Syrian T-62s be owned by M51 Shermans in 1973

 

[Deleted member 1487]

seems the M4A3E8 kicked T-34/85 decisively in Korea, and was real embarrassing to have new Syrian T-62s be owned by M51 Shermans in 1973

Well any tank with a big long range gun with modern ammo will own even a new tank. Especially when you're fighting on the defensive. Still, I wouldn't want to be in a Sherman when shot at by a T-62.

 

[marathag]

Well any tank with a big long range gun with modern ammo will own even a new tank. Especially when you're fighting on the defensive. Still, I wouldn't want to be in a Sherman when shot at by a T-62.

That's were the undersize turrets on the T-62 proved a disadvantage, the guns elevation −6° and +16° to the M4 −10° and +25°. Golan along the Taplin Road wasn't exactly flat

 

[thaddeus]

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 production numbers certainly endorse that idea although not sure if the politics would preclude it?

they certainly would have benefited from switching the Czech tank chassis to Hetzer a year or so earlier and the Panzer II to Wespe even earlier still?

 

[Deleted member 1487]

the production numbers certainly endorse that idea although not sure if the politics would preclude it?

they certainly would have benefited from switching the Czech tank chassis to Weser a year or so earlier and the Panzer II to Wespe even earlier still?

There is the issue that the chassis tended to be a bit overloaded and required a lot of maintenance. Unlike towed artillery if the chassis is out of commission then the artillery piece is too, which mean that they needed extras to try and maintain a 4 gun battery, which mean having 6 officially on the TOE.
The other problem was that the Pz II and 38T chassis were also used for the Marder mobile AT guns, which were pretty important in 1942 and IIRC available at the front even before the towed PAK40s.

 

[kalamona]

That's were the undersize turrets on the T-62 proved a disadvantage, the guns elevation −6° and +16° to the M4 −10° and +25°. Golan along the Taplin Road wasn't exactly flat

Human factor. If the crew is not trained, motivated and generally capable, no matter what equipment you gave them, they are more lolely to be defeated, and a motivated, capable crew can build a castle from shit. Like the israelis. Or the finns.

 

[thaddeus]

the production numbers certainly endorse that idea although not sure if the politics would preclude it?

they certainly would have benefited from switching the Czech tank chassis to Hetzer a year or so earlier and the Panzer II to Wespe even earlier still?

There is the issue that the chassis tended to be a bit overloaded and required a lot of maintenance. Unlike towed artillery if the chassis is out of commission then the artillery piece is too, which mean that they needed extras to try and maintain a 4 gun battery, which mean having 6 officially on the TOE.
The other problem was that the Pz II and 38T chassis were also used for the Marder mobile AT guns, which were pretty important in 1942 and IIRC available at the front even before the towed PAK40s.

why did they switch, began to run out of captured weapons?

what is your thinking on the switch (at least mostly) to casemate types?

 

[Deleted member 1487]

why did they switch, began to run out of captured weapons?

what is your thinking on the switch (at least mostly) to casemate types?

Why did they switch to the SP artillery from SP AT? They had enough production to make the switch without disrupting flow to the front, plus the StuG finally lot the 'long' 75mm gun (instead of the L24 howitzer). The problem was the delay in getting casement weapon systems ready, as they couldn't simply put a PAK into a casement design, they needed a tank cannon design with electrical firing mechanism, plus shorter ammo for inside the cramped quarters, which took time to implement.

 

[thaddeus]

Why did they switch to the SP artillery from SP AT? They had enough production to make the switch without disrupting flow to the front, plus the StuG finally lot the 'long' 75mm gun (instead of the L24 howitzer). The problem was the delay in getting casement weapon systems ready, as they couldn't simply put a PAK into a casement design, they needed a tank cannon design with electrical firing mechanism, plus shorter ammo for inside the cramped quarters, which took time to implement.

no I meant switch from proper tanks to casemate types. that was subject of my original post where I was questioning the "politics" of doing that, irrespective of any benefits.

(I was replying to earlier post, not per se advocating for such a switch, although an earlier Hetzer would have been beneficial?)

 

[Deleted member 1487]

no I meant switch from proper tanks to casemate types. that was subject of my original post where I was questioning the "politics" of doing that, irrespective of any benefits.

(I was replying to earlier post, not per se advocating for such a switch, although an earlier Hetzer would have been beneficial?)

So something like the Swedish S tank? That concept ended up relying on a weird hydraulic suspension system.

 

[Orcbuster]

Casemate TDs were never a good replacement for tanks. You need a lot of offensive manouver elements even in a purely defensive fight for counterattacks and the like. S-tank is so far beyond 40s technological capabilities its not even funny, it was actually far more expensive and complex than regular tanks.