What is your favorite WWII tank?

[Ursa MAior]

Well it is 40mm for the reading challenged. [;)]

Did the weight and the speed matched? Not by the slightest! The pak 36 apcr was even faster than the M3 projectile! Yes it had better pentration due to the longer barrel 65,5 vs 82,5 BUT NOT SIGNIFICANTLY! None was useful after 42, which given the M3 was a development based on the PAK/ZIS is interesting.

[Rune Iversen]

ORIGINAL: Paul Vebber

What's the source for this (the M26 assertion).

I believe Hunnicutt's "Firepower" (heavy tank hisory) I will look into it this evening...

On 24 May 1943 The War Department approved production of 10 T26 tanks as part of a larger production order on T20-series tanks. In an indorsement to an earlier Armored Command letter requesting adjustment to the production numbers of M4, on 13 September 1943 , the Ordnance Department requested production of an additional 500 T26s. General Lesley J. McNair, CG of AGF, successfully opposed this request. On 13 November 1943 General Jacob Devers, CG of the European Theater of Operations, requested production of 250 T26s. Because of McNair’s continued opposition to production of the T26 and other objections, on 7 December 1943 MG Joseph McNarney queried Devers whether his request was based on operational requirements. On 10 December 1943, Devers confirmed his request for production of 250 T26s. As of 21 February 1944 the Ordnance Department estimated first production of the 250 T26s in October 1944. Production actually began in November. Prototypes from the batch of 10 ordered in May 1943 started arriving during February 1944. On 20 May 1944 The Armored Board at Fort Knox emphasized that the T26 was not ready for production in its present state.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... rshing.htm

Surely FAS is a reputable (albeit secondary) source [;)]

[Paul Vebber]

Well it is 40mm for the reading challenged.

That is for PzGr 40 - APCR which would be tumbling by 1000m and STILL would have less penetration than the M51...

Might as well quote the StGr 41...

[Ursa MAior]

Hey it is not about some freakn' details it is about equivalency. And you failed in that hombre.

edit

It is a sad day for allied fanboys. First mdiehl and then you. [:-]

[ezzler]

hmmm Be2c or a Roland c2
hmm Neiuport 17 or an Albatross D2
hmmm sopwith pup or Albatros d3

if being beaten in top speed , endurance , ceiling , manouverability and firepower doesent count as OUTCLASSED for aircraft then what does?

Why didn´t the germans win the air war then?

Don't be silly... you might as well ask why the coalition is losing in iraq. they have superior weapons , yet they lose , so those weapons can't be superior??????

The point is, that those of US willing to defend the Sherman as "good enough" is not blind to the shortcomings of US tank development or doctrine. So we aren´t really excusing those aspects. But even partially faulty development tracks abd doctrinal discussions can´t take away from the fact that the Sherman was a fine design.

Which i'm sure is correct . The Sherman was better than 'good enough' as has been amply demonstated. My complaint was the few who alledged that it was actually THE BEST.

[mdiehl]

Hey it is not about some freakn' details it is about equivalency.

The problem is that the guns were not equivalent. Using APCR and assuming the figures that you quoted the PaK36 developed 40mm penetration at 500m. This against the US M3's 53mm (in the M3 ATG) or 50mm (in the M5/M6 tank gun version) against the same (30 degree sloped) armor at 500m.

Details matter alot. In detail, the US gun had 20% better penetration at 500m than the Pak36, and substantially better penetration at 900m (a factor of two at least).

The M3/M5/M6 can hole a PzIII out to 900m, other than PzIIIL types with the reinforced (70mm) lower glacis, and many of the early PzIVs. A PaK36/Skoda could not have done same.

Judging by their actual merits the M3/M5/M6 was a substantially better 37mm than the German or Czech weapon. None of them were main battle weapons in 1943. But the M5/M6 soldiered on to the end of the war in recce vehicles including the M8 Greyhound and M5 Stuarts --- largely because for busting up lightly armored AFVs (SD251, German armored cars) and light duty infantry support (where the greater shell weight also made it a better HE weapon) it could still get the job done.

I don't think anyone imagines it to have been a great AP weapon after 1942. By then tanks simply had much thicker armor. But if you'd wanted to hole, say, a Crusader I at 900m, or an early PzIIIJ at 800m, you'd have been far better off firing an M3 than a PaK36.

[IronDuke_slith]

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen

ORIGINAL: Paul Vebber

What's the source for this (the M26 assertion).

I believe Hunnicutt's "Firepower" (heavy tank hisory) I will look into it this evening...

On 24 May 1943 The War Department approved production of 10 T26 tanks as part of a larger production order on T20-series tanks. In an indorsement to an earlier Armored Command letter requesting adjustment to the production numbers of M4, on 13 September 1943 , the Ordnance Department requested production of an additional 500 T26s. General Lesley J. McNair, CG of AGF, successfully opposed this request. On 13 November 1943 General Jacob Devers, CG of the European Theater of Operations, requested production of 250 T26s. Because of McNair’s continued opposition to production of the T26 and other objections, on 7 December 1943 MG Joseph McNarney queried Devers whether his request was based on operational requirements. On 10 December 1943, Devers confirmed his request for production of 250 T26s. As of 21 February 1944 the Ordnance Department estimated first production of the 250 T26s in October 1944. Production actually began in November. Prototypes from the batch of 10 ordered in May 1943 started arriving during February 1944. On 20 May 1944 The Armored Board at Fort Knox emphasized that the T26 was not ready for production in its present state.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... rshing.htm

Surely FAS is a reputable (albeit secondary) source [;)]

Yes, but we should note that this represented an about face from Devers who didn't want heavies in December 1942. The Tank also looked distinctly Germanic in that it wasn't ready for combat (perhaps in part to a lack of urgency about heavies partly engendered by Devers himself - although in the main by MCNair).

Besides, I thought the ordnance board had proposed building 500, so what did Devers have in mind wanting half that number. I also understood from Ellis and Chamberlain that the armoured board wanted the 90mm putting into M4s rather than anything new and opposed the T26 as well, so there was more holing this proposal than just the usual suspects.

I do understand that AGF eventually proposed (around April 1944) getting around 8000 of these vehicles, 7000 75mm and 1000 76mm so I'm not sure this proves much save doctrine wanted Cavalry Tanks until harsh experience taught them otherwise.

[Big B]

Hello all,

As a point of interest for this discussion, but mainly for anyone with an interest in WWII Armor in general, there is a very infomative website entitled "Guns vs Armor 1939 to 1945".  the link is here -   http://www.freeweb.hu/gva/index.html

This is a very good website and has a lot of info available online that has been obtained from some of the best published sources in print.
I thought I should share this with everyone.

B

[Paul Vebber]

Regarding heavy tanks - the M6 program was ongoing until February 1944 when the last of 40 Production vehicels was made. Much of the disatisfaction withthe "heavy tank program" by 'the Armored Force' were made regarding the M6. I don't have Hunnicutt's volume on the Pershing - though it is clear from the coerage in Sherman and Firepower, that the Pershing ws considered a Medium, not a Heavy tank by some, and not by others originally, causing some confusion.

Anyway, I will try to find a copy of Pershing...

[Paul Vebber]

Gus v Armor is a good resource. IIRC Robert Livingston was the original compiler. The best overall reference is the book he and Lrrin Bird did, WWII Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery. Using his trajectory approximation, and the GvA projectle information, pluggin it into a spreadsheet that uses the Natioanl Phsics Lab equation for armor penetration (I managed to get a copy of "Penetration of Armored Plate From NTIC before they stopped doing paper "publish on demand"...

Anyway the NPL was tested on a wide variety of t/d ratios, Plate hardness form the standard 250 up to 450 and for nearly 1000 trial combinations and ws determined to be accurate with a standard deveiation of ~2% across an envelop (95%) that would rarely approximately 3% above the computed value to 5% below.

The following graph is done using the appropriate slope modifier (from Bird and Liingston) for 30 degrees.

Note that these will differ from "official" figures - which are based on national criteria that vary considerably. Calculations such as these are teh only way to do an "apples to apples" comparision for a standard plat hardness and succes criteria.

The APCR performance is good out to bout 400 yards, but drops off dramatically nd is actually worse than the solid AP at 800 yards. The M5 is consistantly superior to the standad AP, and more than double either of the others at 1000 yards.

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: mlees

Forgive me if this has been covered (this thread has grown to 16 pages, after all...)

I was wondering why the Germans stuck with the Panther, even though it was not being produced in the numbers that the Germans needed. (They probably knew, roughly, the size of the Red Army bearing down on them...)

By 1944, Germany was fighting in France, Italy, and a line extending from the Baltic to the Black Sea, garrisoning the Balkans (Yugoslavia, Greece), fighting off hordes of Allied bombers, and trying to wage a Uboat campaign, as well as trying to keep it's industrial centers running.

Was there a manpower shortage, such that, it influenced the planners to stick with fewer, but (hopefully) better quality equipment? (In other words: "Well, we could make 45,000 of these MkIV, or 10,000 Panthers. But we only have the manpower to man 15,000 tanks...")

Just thinking out loud. Thank you.

Just a small comment here. While I think you would expect that the the Panther took a great deal more materials to produce (armor if nothing else) in addition to what the PZIV had, the production numbers for the Panther were actually higher than for the PZIV by several hundred in 44-45 (introduced in 43). The PZIV production was slightly higher than in the previous years in 44, but the Panther still beat it.

[Ursa MAior]

[font="times new roman"]I was wrong. 10mm of steel is 10 mm of steel. If I take the distance and the slope in account it will be around 50mm for the M3 at 500 yds. Which is something you would expect from a later developed, longer barreled gun. [/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]I stand corrected.[/font]

[Rune Iversen]

ORIGINAL: ezz


[Don't be silly... you might as well ask why the coalition is losing in iraq. they have superior weapons , yet they lose , so those weapons can't be superior??????

I am going to call Non Sequitur on this one.

Which i'm sure is correct . The Sherman was better than 'good enough' as has been amply demonstated. My complaint was the few who alledged that it was actually THE BEST.

[8D]

[Rune Iversen]

ORIGINAL: IronDuke



Yes, but we should note that this represented an about face from Devers who didn't want heavies in December 1942.

He didn´t want a "Heavy", yes. But as Vebber alludes to, the T26 project is often presented in contemporary US sources as a "Heavy Medium". The "Heavy" designs were the M6 and T95. And the freewheeling Armor Branch predictably didn´t want to be saddled with those turkey designs.

The Tank also looked distinctly Germanic in that it wasn't ready for combat (perhaps in part to a lack of urgency about heavies partly engendered by Devers himself - although in the main by MCNair).

I agree.

Besides, I thought the ordnance board had proposed building 500, so what did Devers have in mind wanting half that number. I also understood from Ellis and Chamberlain that the armoured board wanted the 90mm putting into M4s rather than anything new and opposed the T26 as well, so there was more holing this proposal than just the usual suspects.

True. But 90mm armed Shermans by midearly fall 1944 instead of the M26 would still have been a better solution than the one they chose in "Real Life" (Fullblown TD programme paired with fitful Sherman armament upgrades)

I do understand that AGF eventually proposed (around April 1944) getting around 8000 of these vehicles, 7000 75mm and 1000 76mm so I'm not sure this proves much save doctrine wanted Cavalry Tanks until harsh experience taught them otherwise.

True. But those in the know also wanted Cavalry tanks with either heavy enough armament to tackle all comers (76 or 90mm Sherman). Or wanted a "Heavy" cavalry tank (T 26) to supplement the lighter Shermans. All of this in mid-late 1943.

[Rune Iversen]

ORIGINAL: Charles_22


Just a small comment here. While I think you would expect that the the Panther took a great deal more materials to produce (armor if nothing else) in addition to what the PZIV had, the production numbers for the Panther were actually higher than for the PZIV by several hundred in 44-45 (introduced in 43). The PZIV production was slightly higher than in the previous years in 44, but the Panther still beat it.

A logical consequnce of full economic mobilization and rationalization, coupled with an unsuccesful attempt to switch from one type to another.

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen

ORIGINAL: Charles_22


Just a small comment here. While I think you would expect that the the Panther took a great deal more materials to produce (armor if nothing else) in addition to what the PZIV had, the production numbers for the Panther were actually higher than for the PZIV by several hundred in 44-45 (introduced in 43). The PZIV production was slightly higher than in the previous years in 44, but the Panther still beat it.

A logical consequnce of full economic mobilization and rationalization, coupled with an unsuccesful attempt to switch from one type to another.

I would only call it unsuccessful if indeed they intended to totally eliminate new PZIV production. I'm not convinced they did. I'm also not convinced that they didn't do the best thing between the two afterall. I think the Panther cost quite a bit more money to produce, so it was probably wise to do just what they did. If eliminating PZIV's would have given them only another 1,000 - 1,500 Panthers I don't think it would had been the better thing to do. I don't think having more PZIV's and less Panthers than they had would had been a better thing, but there had to be a threshold somewhere where you kept making the cheaper design just to get a few more numbers out there. I wouldn't make that same argument for german light tanks compared to PZIV's and Panthers, mainly because the light ones were pretty much incapable of taking out an allied tank even from side and rear shots. At least the PZIV had enough punch to hole even a few from the front.

So do you really think they wanted to eliminate the PZIV in favor of the Panther? In a one-to-one comparison it's easy to make the choice, but as economics play into RL decisions it's not such an easy choice, and since the Panthers had more than likely greater difficulty in crossing obstacles and bridges, and so forth, you would have to have some decent punch from an actual medium tank to not limit operations too seriously. I consider the Panther a hybrid. The speed of a medium, but the weight and punch of a heavy.

[Rune Iversen]

ORIGINAL: Charles_22


So do you really think they wanted to eliminate the PZIV in favor of the Panther?

I don´t think. I know. Look at production figures in 1945. The germans are increasingly using their PZ IV chassis (almost 2/3 of the entire 1945 hull production run) for making Assault guns and SPTD´s. In 1944 the corrsesponding number is about half the PZ IV hulls used for SP Guns of all types. So yes, they were indeed (unsuccesfully) trying to phase out the MK IV.

I wouldn't make that same argument for german light tanks compared to PZIV's and Panthers, mainly because the light ones were pretty much incapable of taking out an allied tank even from side and rear shots

They kept the "lights" in production untill the end. Used them as either reconnaisance vehicles, or as the basis for SP Guns of all sorts (AA, AT, Assault, Flamthrowers, etc.)

[Charles2222]

I don't think you understood what I was saying. You cannot base production figures alone on whether they wanted to phase it out or not during WWII. It's about intent. In the case where I say that I think they did the right thing in that regard, then clearly if it were up to me I would have intended for what happened to have happened, and yet the figures would be the same, whereas they might not had intended to entirely eliminate them (and it wasn't eliminated anyway). What I'm trying to say, is that if they really intended to eliminate PZIV production in favor of the Panther, which I believe 'eliminate' is the word you used, then clearly they wouldn't have botched it so badly to keep producing so many PZIV's a good two years after the Panther introduction. Maybe given another 1-2 years they would have stopped producing it completely in favor of the Panther, but as things stood during WWII, they didn't even come close, but merely had it to the point of producing more Panthers. If the war had lasted another 2-3 years, the germans would had been stupid to entirely stop making the PZIV in favor of the Panther. The Panther just took a lot more to produce.

I don't have the link here at work, but I have seen charts that seemed to suggest that light "tanks" simply weren't produced anymore after '44 in germany. That's not to say they didn't produce Pumas for example, but that wasn't technically a light tank anyway, though in many ways it could pretty much function as one. They also might had been making light tank "hulls" for the likes of assault guns and so forth, but I was talking about entire tanks produced themselves and not just hulls.

So did I completely understand you?

Oh, nevermind the last paragraph, I don't know how I didn't see that you were basically agreeing that the lighth tanks weren't being made anymore, but only their hulls. I thought you were trying to argue that light tanks were being produced just because their hulls were. By the way, as far as armored cars go, I don't think you could use a light tank hull on those. I think it would have to be classified more like an assault gun or tank destroyer.

[11Bravo]

My favorite tank, even in SPWAW. The Sherman is OK but has trouble keeping up with the mech infantry and Greyhounds.

(Is the commander getting ready to be "relieved"?)

[Rune Iversen]

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

I don't think you understood what I was saying. You cannot base production figures alone on whether they wanted to phase it out or not during WWII. It's about intent. In the case where I say that I think they did the right thing in that regard, then clearly if it were up to me I would have intended for what happened to have happened, and yet the figures would be the same, whereas they might not had intended to entirely eliminate them (and it wasn't eliminated anyway).

Yup. And the germans clearly intended to phase out the Panzer IV. Otherwise they wouldn´t use half the 1944 and the majority of the 1945 MK IV hull production run to make anything but MK IVs proper. Compare with the 1943 MK IV hull production run, where about 80% of the produced hulls are completed as MK IV Tanks proper.

What I'm trying to say, is that if they really intended to eliminate PZIV production in favor of the Panther, which I believe 'eliminate' is the word you used, then clearly they wouldn't have botched it so badly to keep producing so many PZIV's a good two years after the Panther introduction. Maybe given another 1-2 years they would have stopped producing it completely in favor of the Panther, but as things stood during WWII, they didn't even come close, but merely had it to the point of producing more Panthers. If the war had lasted another 2-3 years, the germans would had been stupid to entirely stop making the PZIV in favor of the Panther. The Panther just took a lot more to produce.

You just don´t throw out serviceable tanks (especially not in 1944-45) and retool production lines at the drop of a hat. Doesn´t happen. Didn´t mean they didn´t want to, and the MK IV production history tells us as much.

I don't have the link here at work, but I have seen charts that seemed to suggest that light "tanks" simply weren't produced anymore after '44 in germany. That's not to say they didn't produce Pumas for example, but that wasn't technically a light tank anyway, though in many ways it could pretty much function as one. They also might had been making light tank "hulls" for the likes of assault guns and so forth, but I was talking about entire tanks produced themselves and not just hulls.

So did I completely understand you?

Oh, nevermind the last paragraph, I don't know how I didn't see that you were basically agreeing that the lighth tanks weren't being made anymore, but only their hulls. I thought you were trying to argue that light tanks were being produced just because their hulls were. By the way, as far as armored cars go, I don't think you could use a light tank hull on those. I think it would have to be classified more like an assault gun or tank destroyer.

Modifications of the light tanks (PZ IIL, Aufk. 38(t)) was kept in production as tracked reconnaisance vehicles untill the end, and used as such instead of armoured cars or halftracks. So it wasn´t just the hulls they were converting. But yeah, after 1942 the german pre war "light" tanks mostly lived on as SP Guns of various kinds.