HistoryNet.com RSS
ArmchairGeneral.com RSS

HistoryNet.com Articles
America's Civil War
American History
Aviation History
British Heritage
Civil War Times
MHQ
Military History
Vietnam
Wild West
World War II

ACG Online
ACG Magazine
Stuff We Like
War College
History News
Tactics 101
Carlo D'Este
Books

ACG Gaming
Boardgames
PC Game Reviews

ACG Network
Contact Us
Our Newsletter
Meet Our Staff
Advertise With Us

Sites We Support
HistoryNet.com
Once A Marine
The Art of Battle
Game Squad
Mil. History Podcast
Russian Army - WW2
Achtung Panzer!
Mil History Online

Go Back   Armchair General and HistoryNet >> The Best Forums in History > Historical Events & Eras > World War II > Armor in World War II

Notices and Announcements

Armor in World War II Discuss all aspects & disciplines of World War II Armor here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 19 Mar 12, 01:01
Scott Fraser's Avatar
Scott Fraser Scott Fraser is offline
Major General
Canada
5 Year Service Ribbon 
 
Real Name: Scott Fraser
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,654
Scott Fraser is a jewel in the rough [500]
Scott Fraser is a jewel in the rough [500] Scott Fraser is a jewel in the rough [500] Scott Fraser is a jewel in the rough [500] Scott Fraser is a jewel in the rough [500] Scott Fraser is a jewel in the rough [500] Scott Fraser is a jewel in the rough [500] Scott Fraser is a jewel in the rough [500] Scott Fraser is a jewel in the rough [500] Scott Fraser is a jewel in the rough [500] Scott Fraser is a jewel in the rough [500]
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBark View Post
Scott Fraser
__________________
A contentedly cantankerous Old Fart.


Yep.
I could not have said it better myself...

Regards
Scott Fraser
__________________
Ignorance is not the lack of knowledge. It is the refusal to learn.

A contentedly cantankerous old fart
Reply With Quote
  #152  
Old 19 Mar 12, 01:02
JBark's Avatar
JBark JBark is offline
Colonel
United_States
Greatest/Best Tank of WW2 Campaign 
 
Real Name: John
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Wayne
Posts: 1,955
JBark has demonstrated strength of character [100] JBark has demonstrated strength of character [100] JBark has demonstrated strength of character [100] JBark has demonstrated strength of character [100] JBark has demonstrated strength of character [100] JBark has demonstrated strength of character [100] JBark has demonstrated strength of character [100] JBark has demonstrated strength of character [100]
Quote:
Originally Posted by clackers View Post
I'll believe you. But your original blanket statement did not indicate you knew this at all.
I don't know what gave you this impression. I think you need to take ownership of that, not me. Are you aware that not all T-34/85's had five man crews?
__________________
John

Play La Marseillaise. Play it!
Reply With Quote
  #153  
Old 19 Mar 12, 01:26
JBark's Avatar
JBark JBark is offline
Colonel
United_States
Greatest/Best Tank of WW2 Campaign 
 
Real Name: John
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Wayne
Posts: 1,955
JBark has demonstrated strength of character [100] JBark has demonstrated strength of character [100] JBark has demonstrated strength of character [100] JBark has demonstrated strength of character [100] JBark has demonstrated strength of character [100] JBark has demonstrated strength of character [100] JBark has demonstrated strength of character [100] JBark has demonstrated strength of character [100]
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShAA View Post
You have been explained in great detail by myself and a few other posters why production quality could not be used as a benchmark to determine the quality of a tank design...
Explained in great detail? Really? I truly must have missed that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShAA View Post
Nevertheless, you still returned to this remark of mine as if no explanation had been provided. Stop beating around the bush and grow up a bit if you want any serious discussion.


I said:
"In all fairnes we should take the T-34 in it's best form, the best the design called for and could be made, and compare it to the same for the M4."

Compare them in the best that the design called for. How you found a problem with that is beyond me. This is exactly what you called for, design only. You see, I chose an M4 that never made it on a battlefield. UNDERSTAND??????????? (Oh, and I confessed that it was meant to be tongue in cheek...but still this? Go figah)

I will not be returning to discussion with you.
__________________
John

Play La Marseillaise. Play it!
Reply With Quote
  #154  
Old 19 Mar 12, 01:26
The Purist's Avatar
The Purist The Purist is offline
ACG Forums - General Staff
England
March Offensive 5 Year Service Ribbon Distinguished Service Award Summer Campaign 
Most Decisive Battle Campaign, 2008 CWiE 1939-45 Campaign 
 
Real Name: Gerry Proudfoot
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: In my castle by the sea.
Posts: 10,979
The Purist has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Purist has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Purist has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
The Purist has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Purist has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Purist has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Purist has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Purist has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Purist has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Purist has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Purist has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Purist has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Purist has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Purist has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
Quote:
Originally Posted by T. A. Gardner
One thing I will say both the Russians and Americans got right in the late 30's was that their next generation tank had to have a 75mm main gun capable of both HE and AP fire....
Meehhh. The US didn't go for a 75mm until they saw the results of the battle for France and the Pz IV in action. The immediate answer was M3 Medium then M4. Up until then the US medium design was still using the good 37mm.

Quote:
Originally Posted by T. A. Gardner
The Germans split the difference. Their 75mm tank was primarily HE (the 75/24). Their AP tank was the 50mm
Yes but the 50mm that was supposed to be used was the L/60 not the L/42. The L/60 approached the AP performance of the US 75mm M2 and the special ammo bettered the M3

Quote:
Originally Posted by T. A. Gardner
The British were looking at a good 57mm AP round with zero HE (big mistake).
Six Pdr had HE,... it simply wasn't used much. Production delays led to 6 pdr being mainly used as an AT gun as MA choices became 75 & 76mm. Even 2 pdr had an HE round,... it just wasn't very good. The guns velocity was too high for a good HE package.

Quote:
Originally Posted by T. A. Gardner
The French hadn't gone beyond their 47mm really...
Yes but the new 47mm (AT gun) outperformed everything up until the PaK 40 came out. Had France been around later it would have had a 75mm like everyone else (see the Char 2C).

Quote:
Originally Posted by T. A. Gardner
So, the US and Russia got it right moreso than anyone else.
Russia was certainly ahead of the game with T-34 and KV-1. The US, not so much. The US played catch up and did have an extra 2+ years to develop its design after seeing the need exposed in battle. M3 was designed in haste after France while turret was developed to handle the 75mm (info I am sure you are aware of).
__________________
The Purist

Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking - John Maynard Keynes.

Last edited by The Purist; 19 Mar 12 at 10:05..
Reply With Quote
  #155  
Old 19 Mar 12, 01:37
The Exorcist's Avatar
The Exorcist The Exorcist is offline
General of the Forums
United_States
5 Year Service Ribbon CWiE 1939-45 Campaign Best Pin-Up Of World War II Greatest/Best Tank of WW2 Campaign 
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Oregon
Posts: 19,662
The Exorcist has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Exorcist has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Exorcist has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
The Exorcist has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Exorcist has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Exorcist has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Exorcist has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Exorcist has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Exorcist has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Exorcist has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Exorcist has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Exorcist has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Exorcist has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Exorcist has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Exorcist has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Exorcist has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
The US was only 5 months behind the USSR getting into the war.
And, as stated, the Grant was in reaction to reports from the 1940 reports from France.

We could have done a lot better anticipating what was to come, as the British did in developing the Churchill and Cromwell tanks.
__________________

Will be absent unpredictably for the next two months or until further notice.


Reply With Quote
  #156  
Old 19 Mar 12, 03:03
MonsterZero's Avatar
MonsterZero MonsterZero is offline
General of the Forums
United_States
5 Year Service Ribbon 
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Northern Illinois
Posts: 9,447
MonsterZero has set a fine example for others to follow [1000] MonsterZero has set a fine example for others to follow [1000]
MonsterZero has set a fine example for others to follow [1000] MonsterZero has set a fine example for others to follow [1000] MonsterZero has set a fine example for others to follow [1000] MonsterZero has set a fine example for others to follow [1000] MonsterZero has set a fine example for others to follow [1000] MonsterZero has set a fine example for others to follow [1000] MonsterZero has set a fine example for others to follow [1000] MonsterZero has set a fine example for others to follow [1000] MonsterZero has set a fine example for others to follow [1000] MonsterZero has set a fine example for others to follow [1000] MonsterZero has set a fine example for others to follow [1000] MonsterZero has set a fine example for others to follow [1000]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exorcist View Post

We could have done a lot better anticipating what was to come, as the British did in developing the Churchill and Cromwell tanks.
Actually British tank production in WWII is often used as an example of military thinking that was inflexible and would not adapt to changing conditions. When it became apparent that the 2-pounder tank gun was a waste of time, that the lightly-armored cruiser tanks were the wrong concept, the British tank designers continued developing those obsolete technologies. The British soldiers did not get a modern tank until the war was over (the Comet).
__________________

"Man is a military animal, glories in gunpowder, and loves parade."
--P. J. Bailey, British poet
Reply With Quote
  #157  
Old 19 Mar 12, 03:54
broderickwells's Avatar
broderickwells broderickwells is offline
General of the Forums
New_Zealand
5 Year Service Ribbon Best Pin-Up Of World War II Greatest/Best Tank of WW2 Campaign 
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Auckland
Posts: 8,757
broderickwells has earned the respect of all [900] broderickwells has earned the respect of all [900]
broderickwells has earned the respect of all [900] broderickwells has earned the respect of all [900] broderickwells has earned the respect of all [900] broderickwells has earned the respect of all [900] broderickwells has earned the respect of all [900] broderickwells has earned the respect of all [900] broderickwells has earned the respect of all [900] broderickwells has earned the respect of all [900]
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBark View Post
I would ask you to define "design developments." It also would help if you explained how choosing the T-44 is analogous to choosing an M4 variant that actually served in the war (granted without the turret I mentioned.) In other words show how it would be considered the best the design allowed for and could be made, since it had so little in common.
The T-44 served during the war, albeit with training units and not in combat. Wisely, the Red Army realised that introducing a new tank would require retraining mechanics, users and carrying new spares. However, it was a development, in the same way that putting new engines in the M4 (what is the engine of an M4?), or throwing a new turret on it was.

Quote:
What I did say, and you have carefully edited was:

In all fairnes we should take the T-34 in it's best form, the best the design called for and could be made, and compare it to the same for the M4. I would suggest a comparison to the M4A3E2 with its 4" to 5.5" frontal armor, angled at 47 degrees, side armor of 1.5" to 3", and turret armor of 6" to 7". Since the turret ring could handle it (without increase) let's put the 90mm T-26 turret on that big boy...since the design could handle it (and it was done.)

I can't imagine why Nick is not running to my defence and calling you a liar?
I took the truncated quote of yours from a post presented by Nick (extreme laziness on my part) as I couldn't be bothered going back through several pages to find the original, and relied on the spirit of your words to pass for the letter of them. However, I would like to know if the M4A3E2 with the T-26 turret could have handled the weight (the original experiment was done with the M4A3). However, as has been stated by several others (Scott Fraser most prominently) the best version of the T-34 would have to be the T-54.
Reply With Quote
  #158  
Old 19 Mar 12, 04:16
broderickwells's Avatar
broderickwells broderickwells is offline
General of the Forums
New_Zealand
5 Year Service Ribbon Best Pin-Up Of World War II Greatest/Best Tank of WW2 Campaign 
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Auckland
Posts: 8,757
broderickwells has earned the respect of all [900] broderickwells has earned the respect of all [900]
broderickwells has earned the respect of all [900] broderickwells has earned the respect of all [900] broderickwells has earned the respect of all [900] broderickwells has earned the respect of all [900] broderickwells has earned the respect of all [900] broderickwells has earned the respect of all [900] broderickwells has earned the respect of all [900] broderickwells has earned the respect of all [900]
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBark View Post
Are you aware that not all T-34/85's had five man crews?
Are you suggesting manpower shortages, or doctrine or what?
Reply With Quote
  #159  
Old 19 Mar 12, 06:30
Scott Fraser's Avatar
Scott Fraser Scott Fraser is offline
Major General
Canada
5 Year Service Ribbon 
 
Real Name: Scott Fraser
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,654
Scott Fraser is a jewel in the rough [500]
Scott Fraser is a jewel in the rough [500] Scott Fraser is a jewel in the rough [500] Scott Fraser is a jewel in the rough [500] Scott Fraser is a jewel in the rough [500] Scott Fraser is a jewel in the rough [500] Scott Fraser is a jewel in the rough [500] Scott Fraser is a jewel in the rough [500] Scott Fraser is a jewel in the rough [500] Scott Fraser is a jewel in the rough [500] Scott Fraser is a jewel in the rough [500]
Pardon me for resurrecting the original question.

Why did the west not build the T-34?

IMHO, the only time that this question might actually have been considered by the powers-that-be was in the twelve months after June 1941. After that point, the introduction of the Sherman into production made the question irrelevant. The M4, which was itself based on the design of the M2 Medium tank, was quite adequate to the task and made extensive use of existing tooling.

With that in mind, discussion of which T-34 should be confined to the second generation of tanks, which appeared at the end of 1941 from three major factories. Of the three (STZ, UTZ, Krasnoe Sormovo), STZ was overrun within months and throughout the period suffered from shortages and poor quality that adversely affected the combatworthiness of the tank. UTZ was still reorganizing after evacuation and quickly shifted to producing T-34s with an improved six-sided turret, which replaced the original flat turret (at that factory) after May 1942.

Krasnoe Sormovo, alone, continued to use a turret based on the original until mid-1943. As a shipyard, they had no experience at all with mass-production, but Krasnoe Sormovo was (and is) an existing major manufacturing facility outside the reach of German bombers. It serves as an excellent proxy for a foreign factory with an established industrial plant taking on production of the T-34 ab initio.

Realistically, I would suggest that the T-34-76 from Krasnoe Sormovo (Zavod No.112) circa mid-1942 is the most likely version of the T-34 that might have been considered and possibly adopted for foreign production. To bring later tanks into the discussion serves no purpose, whether they be the T-44 or M4A3E8. One might as well ask why the USSR didn't build the T-55 in 1941.

Regards
Scott Fraser
__________________
Ignorance is not the lack of knowledge. It is the refusal to learn.

A contentedly cantankerous old fart
Reply With Quote
  #160  
Old 19 Mar 12, 08:45
The Purist's Avatar
The Purist The Purist is offline
ACG Forums - General Staff
England
March Offensive 5 Year Service Ribbon Distinguished Service Award Summer Campaign 
Most Decisive Battle Campaign, 2008 CWiE 1939-45 Campaign 
 
Real Name: Gerry Proudfoot
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: In my castle by the sea.
Posts: 10,979
The Purist has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Purist has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Purist has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
The Purist has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Purist has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Purist has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Purist has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Purist has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Purist has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Purist has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Purist has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Purist has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Purist has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Purist has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exorcist View Post
The US was only 5 months behind the USSR getting into the war.
And, as stated, the Grant was in reaction to reports from the 1940 reports from France....
Yes but that is not the point. While the USSR was deploying the T-34 and had already had operational experience with the KV-1/M39 the best tank in the US arsenal was the Medium M2a1,... mounting a 37mm gun and about 50mm of armour on a tall chassis (over 9 ft tall). This was modified to take the sponson 75mm and became the M3. It was an overly large Pz III or A13 Mk II. A good pix of this is here:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...rounds_014.JPG

One can see how it became the M3 and later the M4 but this is still miles behind the concept of the T-34.
__________________
The Purist

Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking - John Maynard Keynes.

Last edited by The Purist; 19 Mar 12 at 08:52..
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links

  #161  
Old 19 Mar 12, 09:58
JBark's Avatar
JBark JBark is offline
Colonel
United_States
Greatest/Best Tank of WW2 Campaign 
 
Real Name: John
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Wayne
Posts: 1,955
JBark has demonstrated strength of character [100] JBark has demonstrated strength of character [100] JBark has demonstrated strength of character [100] JBark has demonstrated strength of character [100] JBark has demonstrated strength of character [100] JBark has demonstrated strength of character [100] JBark has demonstrated strength of character [100] JBark has demonstrated strength of character [100]
Quote:
Originally Posted by broderickwells View Post
Are you suggesting manpower shortages, or doctrine or what?
I was suggesting that not all T-34/85's had five man crews. I was leafing through one of the books I have on anything Soviet armor, perhaps T-34 In Action, and came across this. I'll be lazy and not do the digging now.
__________________
John

Play La Marseillaise. Play it!
Reply With Quote
  #162  
Old 19 Mar 12, 10:09
The Purist's Avatar
The Purist The Purist is offline
ACG Forums - General Staff
England
March Offensive 5 Year Service Ribbon Distinguished Service Award Summer Campaign 
Most Decisive Battle Campaign, 2008 CWiE 1939-45 Campaign 
 
Real Name: Gerry Proudfoot
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: In my castle by the sea.
Posts: 10,979
The Purist has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Purist has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Purist has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
The Purist has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Purist has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Purist has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Purist has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Purist has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Purist has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Purist has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Purist has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Purist has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Purist has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Purist has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
This is all splitting the hairs a bit too fine, don;t you think?

There were also periods in late 44 when some US tank units also went into battle without full crews (replacement shortages caused by poor planning). The Sherman IC and VC dropped their bow gunners and it didn't make the tank less dangerous. The bow gunner was dropped from post-war designs as superfluous so a four man crew is not a handicap. As long as you have driver, gunner, loader and CC you have very functional tank.
__________________
The Purist

Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking - John Maynard Keynes.
Reply With Quote
  #163  
Old 19 Mar 12, 10:17
JBark's Avatar
JBark JBark is offline
Colonel
United_States
Greatest/Best Tank of WW2 Campaign 
 
Real Name: John
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Wayne
Posts: 1,955
JBark has demonstrated strength of character [100] JBark has demonstrated strength of character [100] JBark has demonstrated strength of character [100] JBark has demonstrated strength of character [100] JBark has demonstrated strength of character [100] JBark has demonstrated strength of character [100] JBark has demonstrated strength of character [100] JBark has demonstrated strength of character [100]
Quote:
Originally Posted by broderickwells View Post
The T-44 served during the war, albeit with training units and not in combat.
This is not what I would call comparable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by broderickwells View Post
Wisely, the Red Army realised that introducing a new tank would require retraining mechanics, users and carrying new spares. However, it was a development, in the same way that putting new engines in the M4 (what is the engine of an M4?), or throwing a new turret on it was.

I would not agree. There were reasons for the various engines and turret changes that were actually used in battle, for instance that the PTO and Soviet Union required a diesel engine. From what I have read this is not a comparable development. Maybe I need better sources?

Quote:
Originally Posted by broderickwells View Post
I took the truncated quote of yours from a post presented by Nick (extreme laziness on my part) as I couldn't be bothered going back through several pages to find the original, and relied on the spirit of your words to pass for the letter of them. However, I would like to know if the M4A3E2 with the T-26 turret could have handled the weight (the original experiment was done with the M4A3).

For the purpose of the tongue in cheek arguement leave the 76mm turret on the M4A3E2 hull.

Quote:
Originally Posted by broderickwells View Post
However, as has been stated by several others (Scott Fraser most prominently) the best version of the T-34 would have to be the T-54.
Yeah, I just don't see this but if excusers for Soviet armor have to go this far why not just compare the T-72...whatever .
__________________
John

Play La Marseillaise. Play it!
Reply With Quote
  #164  
Old 19 Mar 12, 11:00
panther3485's Avatar
panther3485 panther3485 is online now
ACG Forums - General Staff
Australia
Model Forum Group Build (Multiple) Distinguished Service Award 5 Year Service Ribbon Most Decisive Battle Campaign, 2008 
Greatest Westerns Campaign Greatest Spy Movies Campaign Greatest Blunders Campaign Best Pin-Up Of World War II 
Greatest/Best Tank of WW2 Campaign 
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 19,869
panther3485 has achieved enlightenment [1200+] panther3485 has achieved enlightenment [1200+] panther3485 has achieved enlightenment [1200+] panther3485 has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
panther3485 has achieved enlightenment [1200+] panther3485 has achieved enlightenment [1200+] panther3485 has achieved enlightenment [1200+] panther3485 has achieved enlightenment [1200+] panther3485 has achieved enlightenment [1200+] panther3485 has achieved enlightenment [1200+] panther3485 has achieved enlightenment [1200+] panther3485 has achieved enlightenment [1200+] panther3485 has achieved enlightenment [1200+] panther3485 has achieved enlightenment [1200+] panther3485 has achieved enlightenment [1200+] panther3485 has achieved enlightenment [1200+] panther3485 has achieved enlightenment [1200+] panther3485 has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
Yes, I know this is irrelevant to the original question but it's driving me

I have to say, my opinion is leaning somewhat towards John's side in this. I think the evolutionary progression from T-34 to T-44 to T-54/55 is a rather differrent kettle of fish from the WW2 variations of the M4.

Quote:
Originally Posted by broderickwells View Post
"The T-44 served during the war, albeit with training units and not in combat."
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBark View Post
"This is not what I would call comparable."
John, by a narrow margin.


Quote:
Originally Posted by broderickwells View Post
"Wisely, the Red Army realised that introducing a new tank would require retraining mechanics, users and carrying new spares. However, it was a development, in the same way that putting new engines in the M4 (what is the engine of an M4?), or throwing a new turret on it was."
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBark View Post
"I would not agree. There were reasons for the various engines and turret changes that were actually used in battle, for instance that the PTO and Soviet Union required a diesel engine. From what I have read this is not a comparable development. Maybe I need better sources?"
John


Quote:
Originally Posted by broderickwells View Post
"I took the truncated quote of yours from a post presented by Nick (extreme laziness on my part) as I couldn't be bothered going back through several pages to find the original, and relied on the spirit of your words to pass for the letter of them. However, I would like to know if the M4A3E2 with the T-26 turret could have handled the weight (the original experiment was done with the M4A3)."
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBark View Post
"For the purpose of the tongue in cheek arguement leave the 76mm turret on the M4A3E2 hull."
brod, easily.


Quote:
Originally Posted by broderickwells View Post
"However, as has been stated by several others (Scott Fraser most prominently) the best version of the T-34 would have to be the T-54."
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBark View Post
"Yeah, I just don't see this but if excusers for Soviet armor have to go this far why not just compare the T-72...whatever."
John
__________________
Remember the Golden Rule: He who has the gold, makes the rules!
Reply With Quote
  #165  
Old 19 Mar 12, 11:05
panther3485's Avatar
panther3485 panther3485 is online now
ACG Forums - General Staff
Australia
Model Forum Group Build (Multiple) Distinguished Service Award 5 Year Service Ribbon Most Decisive Battle Campaign, 2008 
Greatest Westerns Campaign Greatest Spy Movies Campaign Greatest Blunders Campaign Best Pin-Up Of World War II 
Greatest/Best Tank of WW2 Campaign 
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 19,869
panther3485 has achieved enlightenment [1200+] panther3485 has achieved enlightenment [1200+] panther3485 has achieved enlightenment [1200+] panther3485 has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
panther3485 has achieved enlightenment [1200+] panther3485 has achieved enlightenment [1200+] panther3485 has achieved enlightenment [1200+] panther3485 has achieved enlightenment [1200+] panther3485 has achieved enlightenment [1200+] panther3485 has achieved enlightenment [1200+] panther3485 has achieved enlightenment [1200+] panther3485 has achieved enlightenment [1200+] panther3485 has achieved enlightenment [1200+] panther3485 has achieved enlightenment [1200+] panther3485 has achieved enlightenment [1200+] panther3485 has achieved enlightenment [1200+] panther3485 has achieved enlightenment [1200+] panther3485 has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBark View Post
I was suggesting that not all T-34/85's had five man crews. I was leafing through one of the books I have on anything Soviet armor, perhaps T-34 In Action, and came across this. I'll be lazy and not do the digging now.
IIRC from my own reading, manpower shortages were the main issue. If so, this is not relevant to the design of the tank. A turret designed to take 3 men is a turret designed to take 3 men. If you only put two men into it because only two are available, that doesn't change the turret. I gotta go the other way on this one, John.
__________________
Remember the Golden Rule: He who has the gold, makes the rules!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Please bookmark this thread if you enjoyed it!


Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:19.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.