ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » History, Literature, and the Arts
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 7th December 2017, 08:01 AM   #81
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 13,634
One of the benefits of the Chrysler A57 was that an engine could fail and it would carry on with the other four.
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2017, 09:57 AM   #82
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,379
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Not quite unique, the Matilda had a pair of diesels as did the A2 version of the Sherman. (version of the Sherman favoured by the US Marines as it used the same fuel as landing craft, also the version sent to Russia as they favoured diesel power).
The US Marines didn't favor diesel. They were given a choice of 'you can wait a year in line to get some gasoline powered Shermans or take these diesel powered Shermans that the Army doesn't want.' Marines chose the latter.
__________________
www.spectrum-scientifics.com <- My store of science toys, instruments and general fun!

Thanks for helping me win Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011,2012, and 2014! We won' be discussing the disappointment that was 2013.
kookbreaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2017, 10:16 AM   #83
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 25,292
Originally Posted by Klimax View Post
Talking about fun, how about British AT series of vehicles...
Which ones do you mean? I'm not familiar with a British AT designation, unless I'm missing something.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2017, 10:59 AM   #84
Klimax
NWO Cyborg 5960x (subversion VPUNPCKHQDQ)
 
Klimax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Starship Wanderer - DS9
Posts: 11,743
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Which ones do you mean? I'm not familiar with a British AT designation, unless I'm missing something.

Dave
It was series of designs of superheavy assault tanks agaisnt fortified areas. Culmination of series was Tortoise. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortoi...y_assault_tank
__________________
ModBorg

Engine: Ibalgin 400
Klimax is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2017, 12:25 PM   #85
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 13,634
Tortoise is impressive, there is one at Bovington.
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2017, 02:11 PM   #86
SpitfireIX
Illuminator
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 3,793
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Telly Savalas in Battle of the Bule.

Had his whole turret blown off* while he was in it and still kept on fighting!

*well, the entire top and sides, his gun, seats and crew were completely unharmed!

Not exactly.

https://youtu.be/m9C6zr4wHZ8?t=132
__________________
Handy responses to conspiracy theorists' claims:
1) "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage
2) "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --Wolfgang Pauli
3) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya
SpitfireIX is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2017, 03:24 PM   #87
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 13,384
Technically the Tortoise is an assault gun, not a tank, assault or not. A good one, mind you, but still an assault gun.

Also technically there never was much of a line of British assault tanks, since all three examples I can think of that got tentatively filed under that classification during design, never got past the prototype stage.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 7th December 2017 at 03:26 PM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2017, 03:25 PM   #88
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 13,634
That should have been Bulge of course.

What a film.

Who can ever forget those majestic scenes of German tanks advancing across the dusty, arid plains of the Ardennes.

Last edited by Captain_Swoop; 7th December 2017 at 03:42 PM.
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2017, 03:28 PM   #89
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 13,634
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Technically the Tortoise is an assault gun, not a tank, assault or not. A good one, mind you, but still an assault gun.

Also technically there never was much of a line of British assault tanks, since all three examples I can think of never got past the prototype stage.
There wasn't enough need to justify such a specialised vehicle.
By the time the prototypes were under way the targets that couldn't be handled by existing vehicles like the Churchill AVRE or Churchill 95mm howitzer weren't there.
Post war tanks like the Conqueror, 105mm Centurion and then the Chieftain packed all the punch needed.
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2017, 03:40 PM   #90
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 13,384
I have another WTH myself, though: the Grant.

So the main gun was the 75mm on the hull, and it had a turret with a 37mm AT gun. Which sounds good and fine until you realize that the penetration of the 75mm on the hull was significantly higher than that of the 37mm gun in the turret anyway. And I don't mean the later longer ones. Even the initial 75mm L/31 could go through significantly more armour than the 37mm gun in the turret.

I mean, by way of comparison, at 500m, the APCBC-T ammo for the 37mm gun could go through 61mm of armour if it hit exactly perpendicular, while the more common AP-T ammo that tanks got went only through 36mm in the same conditions. Meanwhile even the original 75mm L/31 on the hull could go through 84mm of face hardened armour at 500m.

Briefly, The 37mm gun in the turret was simply worse against armour, and crap against infantry. So... err... WHY? Why bother with the turret at all, then? It makes it a bigger target, it requires extra crew, and it doesn't really bring anything to the table anyway.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2017, 03:40 PM   #91
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,379
Specialized vehicles were an oddity, I never understood them. I mean, I get putting special weapons on standard tank chasis, but building a whole new frame, suspension, drive, etc. just for what are almost single-purpose tanks? Seems like a waste.
__________________
www.spectrum-scientifics.com <- My store of science toys, instruments and general fun!

Thanks for helping me win Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011,2012, and 2014! We won' be discussing the disappointment that was 2013.
kookbreaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2017, 03:42 PM   #92
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 13,384
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
There wasn't enough need to justify such a specialised vehicle.
By the time the prototypes were under way the targets that couldn't be handled by existing vehicles like the Churchill AVRE or Churchill 95mm howitzer weren't there.
Post war tanks like the Conqueror, 105mm Centurion and then the Chieftain packed all the punch needed.
I never said it was really needed or anything. Just that that the "assault tank" designation never really existed in the British Army. It was only used for some prototypes that the vast majority of the Army never even knew about. Is all I'm saying.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2017, 03:42 PM   #93
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,379
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
I have another WTH myself, though: the Grant.

So the main gun was the 75mm on the hull, and it had a turret with a 37mm AT gun. Which sounds good and fine until you realize that the penetration of the 75mm on the hull was significantly higher than that of the 37mm gun in the turret anyway. And I don't mean the later longer ones. Even the initial 75mm L/31 could go through significantly more armour than the 37mm gun in the turret.

I mean, by way of comparison, at 500m, the APCBC-T ammo for the 37mm gun could go through 61mm of armour if it hit exactly perpendicular, while the more common AP-T ammo that tanks got went only through 36mm in the same conditions. Meanwhile even the original 75mm L/31 on the hull could go through 84mm of face hardened armour at 500m.

Briefly, The 37mm gun in the turret was simply worse against armour, and crap against infantry. So... err... WHY? Why bother with the turret at all, then? It makes it a bigger target, it requires extra crew, and it doesn't really bring anything to the table anyway.
The problem was that a real tank does need a turret and they couldn't make one to handle the 75mm at the time. The 75mm might have been better in every way except ROF but it wasn't in a turret.
__________________
www.spectrum-scientifics.com <- My store of science toys, instruments and general fun!

Thanks for helping me win Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011,2012, and 2014! We won' be discussing the disappointment that was 2013.
kookbreaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2017, 03:46 PM   #94
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,379
Mind you, when it comes to these Assault Tanks ideas the US can't exactly point fingers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank
__________________
www.spectrum-scientifics.com <- My store of science toys, instruments and general fun!

Thanks for helping me win Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011,2012, and 2014! We won' be discussing the disappointment that was 2013.
kookbreaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2017, 03:56 PM   #95
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 13,384
Originally Posted by kookbreaker View Post
The problem was that a real tank does need a turret and they couldn't make one to handle the 75mm at the time. The 75mm might have been better in every way except ROF but it wasn't in a turret.
Well, that was kinda the question: why make it a worse "real tank" when it could be a better assault gun instead?

Edit: I mean, once you factor in less space needed for the crew, less space for two kinds of ammo, etc, you could probably have three assault-gun Grants for the price of two "real tank" Grants. AND you wouldn't have as much tank sticking out above the ground when dug in up to the main gun on the hull. AND less logistics complexity than supplying two different kinds of ammo. Wouldn't that have been a better use of money?
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 7th December 2017 at 04:07 PM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2017, 04:44 PM   #96
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 13,634
A gun in a turret can be trained to any angle. The 37 mm gun was still a good AP gun when the tank was designed and built. In action it would be used against softskins and 'targets of opportunity'
The gun in the sponson had a limited traverse and field of fire.
The Lee/grant was a means of getting the 75mm in to action as quickly as possible while manufacturers tooled up to produce a larger turret ring.

It was only ever a stopgap.
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2017, 07:06 PM   #97
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,379
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Well, that was kinda the question: why make it a worse "real tank" when it could be a better assault gun instead?

Edit: I mean, once you factor in less space needed for the crew, less space for two kinds of ammo, etc, you could probably have three assault-gun Grants for the price of two "real tank" Grants. AND you wouldn't have as much tank sticking out above the ground when dug in up to the main gun on the hull. AND less logistics complexity than supplying two different kinds of ammo. Wouldn't that have been a better use of money?
At the end of the day you need actual tanks. Having a medium assault gun backed by light tanks wasn’t going to cut it.
__________________
www.spectrum-scientifics.com <- My store of science toys, instruments and general fun!

Thanks for helping me win Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011,2012, and 2014! We won' be discussing the disappointment that was 2013.
kookbreaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2017, 12:30 AM   #98
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 13,384
Actually, the 37mm was a piss-poor AT gun at the time it was designed and built. The Pz.III was already doubling the front armour in '41, making the original AP-T ammo for it utterly useless except point-blank and to the side of the panzer.

But really, everything you read about how great the Grant was in Africa revolves around two feature: the armour, and the 75mm gun. The fact that it could engage beyond the effective range of the 50mm Pak 38 anti-tank gun, and the 50,m KwK 39 of the Panzer III? Check. That was the 75mm gun, not the 37mm one. The fact that it out-ranged and out-penetrated the 47mm on Italian tanks? Yeah, ditto. It being useful against infantry and enemy guns? Yeah, that was the 75mm gun too.

And in fact, almost none of the use in Africa depended on using that piss poor gun on the top at all angles. The main advantage was having the first shot from beyond the range of the enemy tanks, with that limited-traverse 75mm gun. (So I'm guessing they had found a way to point it at the enemy.) At which point, just to make it clear, you were also waaay beyond the range of your own 37mm gun.

And by the time the enemy got in range to fire their 50mm gun at you with any chance of success, whelp, you were still beyond the range at which you could do anything to them with the 37mm gun, even with the new ammo.

And if you look at the losses they had, the main enemy was the 88mm German guns, not shots from the side from Panzers. Making the argument for a turret rather moot.

But the 88mm brings me to my other point. If you subtracted not only the tall turret, but also the space for an extra gunner and loader, the 178 rounds for the 37mm gun, etc, you could have a much lower profile target for that 88mm to hit at the ranges it engaged the Germans. Meaning you'd have a much more useful assault gun than it was as a tank.

What real tanks would it be backed by? Well, considering that both the British and the Soviets who ended up using those in combat (the Aussies also got a lot, but they never had to defend from an invasion) had plenty of their own tanks to protect them, I'd say that was a non-factor.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 8th December 2017 at 12:31 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2017, 05:57 PM   #99
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 13,384
Anyway, moving on... my next submission for a joke would be the M56 Scorpion.

Now I'm not going to pick on the fact that it was for all practical purposes about as armoured as your car, or stuff like that. I mean, really, it had extra reinforcement ribs and a force guard just to not deform if it hit a pile of dirt. The "armour" would realistically not even stop small arms fire, or shrapnel if someone fired some HE at you. Which was actually probably the best way to take you out. But fine, sacrifices had to be made, I'm not gonna argue about armour here.

What makes it IMHO incredibly daft is its use of inflated tyres on the road wheels in the track. According to the official manual, they were only rated for 15 miles, at 15mph. If you go faster, well, you might lose a couple of tyres sooner.

Now this is for a virtually unarmoured tank destroyer, where really, the only sane tactic (see, WW2) is to fire a few rounds and get the hell out of there fast, when, not if, the going gets tough. Which means some going really fast and using up those rubber tyers extra fast. So essentially your mobility to get into position was at best half of those rated 15 miles, if you wanted to have some rubber left to get out of trouble if some enemy tanks start taking notice of you.

People pick on stuff like the first Panther models sometimes failing after 150 miles, IF you went in the last gear all that distance. But this thing would self-immobilize in 15 miles.

I think that a few extra pounds for metal road wheels with non-inflated rubber tyres wouldn't have been that bad an idea.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2017, 06:17 PM   #100
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 13,634
You have to remember the lead time on these things.
It was designed to be air portable.
That is, air portable with the aircraft available when it was specified.
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2017, 06:43 PM   #101
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 13,384
Yes, but at that weight, some spoked wheels could hold it just fine, and wouldn't weigh more than a few pounds more than the inflatable tyres.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2017, 06:43 PM   #102
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Great Northwet
Posts: 14,128
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
(So I'm guessing they had found a way to point it at the enemy.)
Turn left.

If it was me, I'd have made left and right hand versions of the M3, to be used side by side. But a more sensible solution was to use it as a stopgap while the M4 was being finalized.
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Trebuchet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2017, 06:46 PM   #103
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 13,384
Originally Posted by Trebuchet View Post
Turn left.

If it was me, I'd have made left and right hand versions of the M3, to be used side by side. But a more sensible solution was to use it as a stopgap while the M4 was being finalized.
If it were me, I'd have put the gun in the centre (and that goes for the Hetzer too).
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2017, 07:19 PM   #104
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 13,634
You have to leave room for a driver, gunner and loader. The gun is served from the left so it is positioned to the right to give the loader space to operate. Driver is in front of him. Gunner is to the left.

A central gun would make more room for the gunner but cramp the loader and driver.

To make a left handed tank the gun would have to be re-engineered and two versions manufactured and parts for the hull, drivers position, hull front and gun mounting etc would have to be different.. It adds a complication to the production, logidtics and support
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2017, 09:15 PM   #105
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 13,384
Well, mind you, speaking of room inside, an even bigger change I'd make would be to go rear wheel drive like the British. That diagonal shaft through the bloody middle of the tank is the reason why both the Grant and the Sherman were such tall targets.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2017, 04:22 AM   #106
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 13,634
German tanks were the same. Gearbox at the front and engine at the rear.
It's partly to do with the steering system using brakes to slow one track for turning and partly to do with engineering the gearbox.
It was a relatively strong, reliable and simple system.

Shermans were so tall because the engine it was designed for was the Wright R-975 Whirlwind nine-cylinder air-cooled radial aircraft engine
This was a relatively tall engine so needs a tall hull. it's advantage was power, reliability, easy of maintenance and wide availability.
It was also used in the M3 Lee, M7 Priest, M18 Hellcat M12 and M40 Gun Motor Carriages and Canadian Ram tank and Sexton self-propelled gun.
Another advantage of using the tall radial engine was a large engine compartment that could be used for a range of other power plants allowing wider and faster production.
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2017, 05:26 AM   #107
erwinl
Graduate Poster
 
erwinl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,619
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Anyway, moving on... my next submission for a joke would be the M56 Scorpion.

Now I'm not going to pick on the fact that it was for all practical purposes about as armoured as your car, or stuff like that. I mean, really, it had extra reinforcement ribs and a force guard just to not deform if it hit a pile of dirt. The "armour" would realistically not even stop small arms fire, or shrapnel if someone fired some HE at you. Which was actually probably the best way to take you out. But fine, sacrifices had to be made, I'm not gonna argue about armour here.

What makes it IMHO incredibly daft is its use of inflated tyres on the road wheels in the track. According to the official manual, they were only rated for 15 miles, at 15mph. If you go faster, well, you might lose a couple of tyres sooner.

Now this is for a virtually unarmoured tank destroyer, where really, the only sane tactic (see, WW2) is to fire a few rounds and get the hell out of there fast, when, not if, the going gets tough. Which means some going really fast and using up those rubber tyers extra fast. So essentially your mobility to get into position was at best half of those rated 15 miles, if you wanted to have some rubber left to get out of trouble if some enemy tanks start taking notice of you.

People pick on stuff like the first Panther models sometimes failing after 150 miles, IF you went in the last gear all that distance. But this thing would self-immobilize in 15 miles.

I think that a few extra pounds for metal road wheels with non-inflated rubber tyres wouldn't have been that bad an idea.
highlighted
Citation please, which we can also look at.
__________________
Bow before your king
Member of the "Zombie Misheard Lyrics Support Group"
erwinl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2017, 10:23 AM   #108
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 13,384
Well, by all means:
https://books.google.de/books?id=L6p...0miles&f=false
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2017, 10:25 AM   #109
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 13,634
It says capable of running flat for 15 miles at 15 mph.
They are run flat tyres.
They don't just last for 15 miles at 15 mph when in good order.

That isn't actually the manual, it's a book on Tank Destroyers of the Vietnam War.
It's not even classed as a tank, it's a self propelling AT gun.

For something similar check out the British Archer. It had an open gun position and the gun faced to the rear of the vehicle. It served from 44 up until the 50s when they were sold to the Egyptians.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archer_(tank_destroyer)

Last edited by Captain_Swoop; 9th December 2017 at 10:30 AM.
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2017, 10:56 AM   #110
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 13,384
Yes, well, he asked for something that he can also look at. The book on google books was the easiest to find that can be easily checked. I'm trying to meet the constraints, you know?

As for the run flat part, true, my memory was failing me about that part. But it just moves it from "incredibly daft" to "quite credibly daft" IMHO. It's still going to limit your mobility and range when you need it the most. If you are going the tracked route and want to save weight, why not some smaller rollers down there instead, like on the Churchill?
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2017, 11:20 AM   #111
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 13,634
Because they were trying to keep the weight don to make it air portable within the constraints of aircraft capacity at the time it was designed.

It's always a trade off, the designers thought that pneumatic tyres were worth the drawbacks.
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2017, 02:06 PM   #112
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 13,384
Hmm, well, all in all, around the time of WW2 and shortly after, I'm still more of a fan of the British tank design choices than the American ones. Only thing the Americans did better was reliability. (Quoth David Fletcher, "which is more than I can say about many British tanks, which broke down just for the fun of it.")
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2017, 02:23 PM   #113
Hubert Cumberdale
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 857
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Actually, the 37mm was a piss-poor AT gun at the time it was designed and built. The Pz.III was already doubling the front armour in '41, making the original AP-T ammo for it utterly useless except point-blank and to the side of the panzer.

But really, everything you read about how great the Grant was in Africa revolves around two feature: the armour, and the 75mm gun. The fact that it could engage beyond the effective range of the 50mm Pak 38 anti-tank gun, and the 50,m KwK 39 of the Panzer III? Check. That was the 75mm gun, not the 37mm one. The fact that it out-ranged and out-penetrated the 47mm on Italian tanks? Yeah, ditto. It being useful against infantry and enemy guns? Yeah, that was the 75mm gun too.

And in fact, almost none of the use in Africa depended on using that piss poor gun on the top at all angles. The main advantage was having the first shot from beyond the range of the enemy tanks, with that limited-traverse 75mm gun. (So I'm guessing they had found a way to point it at the enemy.) At which point, just to make it clear, you were also waaay beyond the range of your own 37mm gun.

And by the time the enemy got in range to fire their 50mm gun at you with any chance of success, whelp, you were still beyond the range at which you could do anything to them with the 37mm gun, even with the new ammo.

And if you look at the losses they had, the main enemy was the 88mm German guns, not shots from the side from Panzers. Making the argument for a turret rather moot.

But the 88mm brings me to my other point. If you subtracted not only the tall turret, but also the space for an extra gunner and loader, the 178 rounds for the 37mm gun, etc, you could have a much lower profile target for that 88mm to hit at the ranges it engaged the Germans. Meaning you'd have a much more useful assault gun than it was as a tank.

What real tanks would it be backed by? Well, considering that both the British and the Soviets who ended up using those in combat (the Aussies also got a lot, but they never had to defend from an invasion) had plenty of their own tanks to protect them, I'd say that was a non-factor.

I'd like to see a source saying that the 88 was the main cause of loss of British tanks in the western desert, but you are touching on something quite important here.

Which is that other tanks were not the primary cause of tank casualties in just about any theatre of WWII.

In the ETO, the British found that tanks were responsible for for only 14% of tank losses, as compared to 23% for anti tank guns and 24% for SPG's (including StugIII's).

This is important as it touches on many subjects discussed in this thread. Yes, the Panther, Tiger etc. had bloody enormous guns, but the data indicates that these were relatively minor impediments to the allies compared to the humble Stug or Hetzer or indeed, the plain dumb anti-tank mine.

Which also explains who the mere appearance of the M3 in the British armoured forces so drastically reversed their fortunes.

A 2 or 6 pdr firing solid shot is almost useless against infantry or AT guns.

The 75mm on the M3 or M4 Mediums, though as a tank gun it was inchoate, meant that the German tactic of throwing up an AT screen suddenly became redundant. When the British stopped suicidally charging German AT screens desperately trying to get within machine gun range, Rommel suddenly lost his shine.
Hubert Cumberdale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2017, 02:40 PM   #114
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,379
In fairness the 2 and 6 pounders could have fired a decent HE shell but the tankers weren’t allowed to have them because of a bizarre separation of artillery and tanker shells.
__________________
www.spectrum-scientifics.com <- My store of science toys, instruments and general fun!

Thanks for helping me win Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011,2012, and 2014! We won' be discussing the disappointment that was 2013.
kookbreaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2017, 02:46 PM   #115
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,199
Originally Posted by Hubert Cumberdale View Post
I'd like to see a source saying that the 88 was the main cause of loss of British tanks in the western desert, but you are touching on something quite important here.
As I recall, the Afrika Korps never really had more than 36 operational Flak 18/36 guns at any one time so the idea these would account for even a significant fraction of British tank losses seems silly. Anti-tank guns in general yes, 88's specifically? No.

The much more numerous 7.62 cm Field Cannon 296 (R) was a much bigger real threat - if not nearly so glamorous.
__________________
So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts.
Mark F is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2017, 02:47 PM   #116
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,199
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Hmm, well, all in all, around the time of WW2 and shortly after, I'm still more of a fan of the British tank design choices than the American ones. Only thing the Americans did better was reliability. (Quoth David Fletcher, "which is more than I can say about many British tanks, which broke down just for the fun of it.")
Why? Even the British preferred American tanks to their own. The British didn't get it right until the Centurion and that wasn't ready for prime time.
__________________
So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts.
Mark F is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2017, 03:39 PM   #117
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 13,634
Originally Posted by Mark F View Post
Why? Even the British preferred American tanks to their own. The British didn't get it right until the Centurion and that wasn't ready for prime time.
Not quite. Cromwell was a good design and was used very effectively in the recon regiments.
Comet was also a very good design.

You touched on the lack of HE for the 2 and 6 pdr.

This as you mention was down to doctrine.
Infantry Support tanks had HE shells but the cavelry formations using 'cruisers' didn't as infantry support wasn't their job.
By 1942 this policy had changed but the 2 pdr didn't have an he round at all and the 6pdr wasn't very good with HE. The 75mm was a good general purpose gun and even when the US switched to the 76mm they retained 75mm tanks as it had a far better HE round than the 76mm.

Most targets that tanks encountered in Italy and Europe needed HE rather than AP.
There was even a 105mm howitzer version of the Sherman and the British as I previously mentioned used 95mm howitzer versions of the Churchill and the Cromwell.

As for Stugs and Hetzers accounting for more targets than the Panthers and Tigers, there were increasing numbers of them as the war went on, the fired from cover in ambush and then moved, they were low and small and easier to conceal.
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2017, 05:54 PM   #118
Matthew Ellard
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,693
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
German tanks were the same. Gearbox at the front and engine at the rear. It's partly to do with the steering system using brakes to slow one track for turning and partly to do with engineering the gearbox. It was a relatively strong, reliable and simple system.
I once read there was another minor advantage in front drive, "cleaning the tracks" although I never understood what this meant. I'll try find the original quote and see if I can work out what this meant.
Matthew Ellard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2017, 05:59 PM   #119
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 13,384
Originally Posted by Mark F View Post
Why? Even the British preferred American tanks to their own. The British didn't get it right until the Centurion and that wasn't ready for prime time.
Not sure about the tank crews, but the government actually first tried to get their own tanks built under contract by American companies. Only when that didn't go through, they kinda went "screw it, we'll have the M3 then. With large fries and a coke." (Not an exact quote.)

Originally Posted by Mark F View Post
As I recall, the Afrika Korps never really had more than 36 operational Flak 18/36 guns at any one time so the idea these would account for even a significant fraction of British tank losses seems silly. Anti-tank guns in general yes, 88's specifically? No.
Actually, it's not silly at all, when you consider that as I've already said the more numerous 50mm guns, both towed and on Panzers, didn't penetrate the thick and sloped front armour of the Grant except at point-blank range, AND were out-ranged by the 75mm gun.

So, yeah, you'd encounter more of the other guns, and get hit more by the other guns, but they wouldn't penetrate.

And the 7.62 cm Pak 36(r) duly noted, had a chance, but even that needed to be relatively close to penetrate the Grant. The problem is that the front glacis was actually sloped at 54 degrees from vertical, although you could get lucky and hit the driver port area where it was only 30 degrees from vertical. The glacis was actually closer to horizontal than to vertical.

Even using the cosine rule, 51mm armour on the front glacis, divided by the cosine of 54 degrees, gives you about 87mm effective thickness. But for WW2 guns the effect of the slope was higher than that. So, yeah, even the 76mm had a somewhat limited effective range.

The 88mm was the biggest threat. Duly noted, followed by the 76.2mm, but still.

Originally Posted by Hubert Cumberdale View Post
I'd like to see a source saying that the 88 was the main cause of loss of British tanks in the western desert, but you are touching on something quite important here.
Bit hard to find a primary source of first notice, but Wiki says "In particular, the lethal, high-velocity 88 mm Flak gun, adapted as an anti-tank gun, proved deadly if British tanks attacked without artillery support." It being wiki, well, you can take it with a grain of salt.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2017, 06:58 PM   #120
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,199
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Not quite. Cromwell was a good design and was used very effectively in the recon regiments.
Comet was also a very good design.
Cromwell was crap. Vertical, riveted armor? In 1944!!!! Really? It had a good engine, nothing much else to recommend it. Cromwell went to the recce regiments because it was fast and it was available. That's it. Except for 7th AD and the Czech armoured brigade no one else wanted it or took it. All the other British AD's used Sherman's as did the otherwise British supplied allies.

Comet would have been a pretty good tank,... in late 1943. In the spring of 1945 it was decidedly old-fashioned.

The most interesting thing to come out of the whole British wartime C tank mess IMHO was the stillborn 75mm HV gun, originally intended to use American 75mm projectiles fitted to British 3-inch AA gun cases. When local production of 75mm ammunition failed to materialize this became the 77mm gun, which was really 76.2mm using 17-pdr projectiles on the same 3-inch AA cases as the 75mm HV, but I really wonder how much of the gun was different. A 3-finger gun is after all, a 3-finger gun.

I've always thought the American's should have gone a similar route as the 75mm HV, given the shortcomings of the 76mm M1 as a tank gun.
__________________
So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts.
Mark F is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » History, Literature, and the Arts

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:39 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.