soc.history.war.world-war-ii

Geoffrey Sinclair wrote:
: wrote in message
:
:> Late model panthers were intended to be equiped with the
:> 'schmalturm' tiger II like turret, gyros stabalised and equiped with a
:> range finder and a weight of 52 tons was pretty much on what the
:> western post war tanks settled on eg Uprated Centurion, M60, Leopard
:> I, Chieftan etc reaimin for decades.
:
: I really like this, yet again a German design that never made it into
: production is the industry leader it seems.
:
The Panther was probably a good peace time tank, where maintenance
and slow production cycles were plentiful and accepted. As a wartime
design, however, it had a number of faults.

1) The biggest weakness was the straight cut spur gear in the final drive.
I will take your word that pre-war Germany was a machine tool exporter,
but they never had enough machine tools for their own needs as the war
progressed, hence the use of the straight cut gear, when the designers
were well aware that a helical or double helical set up was much more
desirable. The lack of helical gear cutting capacity was apparently a
major reason the Panther II was cancelled - it was to share the Tiger
steering gear.

2) The double torsion bar suspension system was a major monetary and time
cost. Torsion bar suspensions are more expensive than their counter
parts to start with, given the alignment demands, which explains why
it is not in use today.

3) Overlapping running gear was a problem as well, in terms of maintence.
It had to be cleaned daily of snow and mud, least the material freeze
and lock the running gear in place. Plus tire replacement meant the
possibility of removing a dozen wheels to get to the one you really
needed to replace. Again, not a system in use today.

I also question the ability of the Germans to product a truely
stabilized gun. I believe the Sherman system offered vertical stab-
ilization only, and rarely bothered to repair the system if/when it
broke. Still I suppose you have to start somewhere...
:
: The Pershing etc..
:
The Pershing eventually evolved into a useful vehicle as the
M-48 and M-60 Patton series, but it, in itself, was not a very good
vehicle, being chronically underpowered. the T-25 was probably a
better choice for the times, but the field demand for more armor
had reached a crescendo by the time General McNair was killed by
an errant bomb leading up to Operation Cobra that the T-26 was given
the nod. The T-25 chassis featured less armor, but was more mobile
due to its lesser weight.

As for the M-6, I believe one of the main concerns for it not
being put into production was it used a radial engine that was more
powerful than that being used in the M3/M4 mediums, and being that
it was in short supply, the aircraft companies got the priority use.
I am not sure they was a reason to product the M-6 at the time, any-
way, given the disruptions the M-6 would have caused had it gone
into production.
:
:> How would such a tanks be transported? I would assume that the 180
:> ton tank could be broken into 3 or 4 and that it would be transported
:> by 3 flat bed railway carts, lorries with a crane for a relatively
:> rapid reassembly. If it is thought of as a system it makes a bit
:> more sense.
:
: Now think of the forward field workshop equipped to lift 40 or
: 50 ton weights and how long it would take to put a company
: of super heavy tanks back together again.
:
The Maus had a specially designed railcar to move it around by
rail. The obvious problem here is that a significant amount of
equipment can be mission killed by a simple break in the rail lines.
So, that eliminates one of your arguements, the need for specialized
and heavy equipment to prep the heavy tanks for transport/use, but
it does mean that you have to ship things way out of the way to avoid
things like overpasses and tunnels, as the Maus violated the shipping
guage.

Uberpanzer that is "in the mail" is a whole lot more useless than
a gaggle of PzIV's.
:
:> I haven't actually seen any attempts by anyone to understand how these
:> massive tanks were meant to be used tactically.
:
Another problem with uberpanzer is that a mechanical or mission
kill is going to have disporportionally high impacts to your readiness
and firepower levels, at least until the unit can be repaired. And,
recovery is one area that nobody has addressed. Recovering 50 and
60 ton Tigers was bad enough, and probably led to losses of other
equipment when the people involved just would not let it go as a
bad idea and were captured or forced to leave equipment behind.

And, I would argue that these vehilces, for the reason, were
much more vulnerable to the AT mine, particularly as they get funneled
into natural choke points.

Bruce
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I like bad!" Bruce Burden Austin, TX.
- Thuganlitha
The Power and the Prophet
Robert Don Hughes