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
  #91  
Old 16 Mar 12, 18:44
Imperial Dane's Avatar
Imperial Dane Imperial Dane is offline
Sergeant
Denmark
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Odense
Posts: 79
Imperial Dane is on the path to success [1-99]
I'm going to have to go with the whole retooling and fitting factories to make T-34s.

And i suppose there's also the line of thought that they might have figured that the germans would be working on something to outdo the T-34 so as pointed out with Guderian, why work on that ?

Never mind that the T-34 was built for the soviet army and not the British or American armies were tank doctrine might require something else than a T-34.
__________________
Looking for CoH Commentary ? Why not check out the Propagandacast ?
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 16 Mar 12, 19:28
T. A. Gardner's Avatar
T. A. Gardner T. A. Gardner is online now
General of the Forums
United_States
5 Year Service Ribbon Greatest/Best Tank of WW2 Campaign 
 
Real Name: T. A. Gardner
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 14,609
T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+] T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+] T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+] T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+] T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+] T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emtos View Post
Inferior yes. Worthless no. T 60 and T 70 were made during the most difficult period of the war and were designed to be massively and easily produced. There were far more T 60-70 produced during the same time frame than Pz II and III for the German side.
Yes, useless. The T60 has a two man crew. It has no radio or intercom. The commander is the gunner and loader. He is limited when in the turret to just the gun sight for forward vision. He has no periscope or other vision device. There are a couple of vision slits on the sides of the turret. The driver has a single vision slit looking forward.
Essentially, unless the target is directly in front of the tank it won't be seen. The 20mm gun is about as good as the German 20mm. That means it is pretty much worthless as an antitank gun by 1941. Against infantry the T60 will never see them. Its armor is thin enough that even the German 37 will punch it and, it will never see what hit it.

The T70 has a bigger gun and somewhat more armor but suffers all of the same problems otherwise above. Two man crew, no vision devices, lack of communications, etc.

Basically, both are mobile targets in tank warfare.
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 16 Mar 12, 19:47
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: 2,680
Scott Fraser is simply cracking [600]
Scott Fraser is simply cracking [600] Scott Fraser is simply cracking [600] Scott Fraser is simply cracking [600] Scott Fraser is simply cracking [600] Scott Fraser is simply cracking [600] Scott Fraser is simply cracking [600] Scott Fraser is simply cracking [600] Scott Fraser is simply cracking [600] Scott Fraser is simply cracking [600] Scott Fraser is simply cracking [600] Scott Fraser is simply cracking [600]
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Purist View Post
Well,... the T-70 did carry a 45mm gun and could at least penetrate the flank armour of the late Pz III and IVs. Poor T-60 had only a 20mm (2 versions) and might shoot holes in a Pz II or similar light vehicles. In both cases, however, 1/3 of the tanks in the brigades found in tank corps in 1942 and 43 were these light tanks. This explains, in part, the heavy tank losses suffered by Red Army tank formations. It was only after Kursk that they were given to rifle divisions and replaced by T-34s.
Actually, you might be surprised at the breakdown of losses. It was of course known that the T-70 was clearly outclassed, so they generally accompanied the infantry coming up behind the T-34s. In relative terms, very few T-70s were lost compared to T-34s, only 20% IIRC. I was surprised. I have a table of losses from Kursk broken out by type and category somewhere. I will try and find it.

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

A contentedly cantankerous old fart
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 16 Mar 12, 19:50
JBark's Avatar
JBark JBark is offline
Brigadier General
United_States
Greatest/Best Tank of WW2 Campaign 
 
Real Name: John
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Wayne
Posts: 2,005
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 Emtos View Post
To speak about what the design allowed you can go to the alternate timelines section. "Super" Shermans will look great during the defence against Sea Lion.
Ding ding ding...CORRECT!!!! GIVE THE MAN A CIGAR!!!!

Shall we talk about the T-34 that hit the fileds of Russia or the one we hear was designed and could have been?
__________________
John

Play La Marseillaise. Play it!
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 16 Mar 12, 21:32
Gixxer86g's Avatar
Gixxer86g Gixxer86g is offline
General of the Forums
United_States
5 Year Service Ribbon 
 
Real Name: Jim Geoghegan
Join Date: May 2009
Location: The Lost Valley
Posts: 10,900
Gixxer86g has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Gixxer86g has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Gixxer86g has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
Gixxer86g has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Gixxer86g has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Gixxer86g has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Gixxer86g has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Gixxer86g has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Gixxer86g has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Gixxer86g has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emtos View Post
B-29 that was copied, was simply abandonned on the Soviet territory.
And I suppose that the interred crews were really just seeking refuge in Soviet custody?
__________________
"Who the hell is that? One bastard goes in, another comes out!" --- Tuco

"People like Obama are in charge because Civilization is dying... they are nothing but the harbingers of death." ---The Exorcist
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 16 Mar 12, 21:46
T. A. Gardner's Avatar
T. A. Gardner T. A. Gardner is online now
General of the Forums
United_States
5 Year Service Ribbon Greatest/Best Tank of WW2 Campaign 
 
Real Name: T. A. Gardner
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 14,609
T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+] T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+] T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+] T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+] T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+] T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gixxer86g View Post
And I suppose that the interred crews were really just seeking refuge in Soviet custody?
They were seeking a worker's paradise and the joys of socialist labor.....
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 16 Mar 12, 22:37
dutched's Avatar
dutched dutched is offline
Major General
Pirate
Greatest/Best Tank of WW2 Campaign 
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Here there be tigers
Posts: 2,841
dutched is walking in the light [200] dutched is walking in the light [200] dutched is walking in the light [200] dutched is walking in the light [200] dutched is walking in the light [200] dutched is walking in the light [200] dutched is walking in the light [200] dutched is walking in the light [200] dutched is walking in the light [200] dutched is walking in the light [200] dutched is walking in the light [200] dutched is walking in the light [200]
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddie3rar View Post
In Panzer Leader Guderian said there was no point copying the T-34 because that just leaves you stuck at that evolution, what they wanted to do was jump a design generation ahead.
This is not quite so. The first itteration in the design that lead to the panther looked too much like a T 34. The leader of the Germans did not like
the idea. Even if Guderian had like the T 34, his master would have stopped the very idea with a Fuehrerenscheid. It would not be the first time.
The panther like a T34 but not a T34, sounds a bit like the advert for that
German populist car.

Ed.
__________________
Happu Biraki
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 16 Mar 12, 23:47
DogDodger's Avatar
DogDodger DogDodger is offline
Lieutenant Colonel
United_States
5 Year Service Ribbon Greatest/Best Tank of WW2 Campaign 
 
Real Name: Chris
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: WV
Posts: 1,289
DogDodger is walking in the light [200] DogDodger is walking in the light [200] DogDodger is walking in the light [200] DogDodger is walking in the light [200] DogDodger is walking in the light [200] DogDodger is walking in the light [200] DogDodger is walking in the light [200] DogDodger is walking in the light [200] DogDodger is walking in the light [200] DogDodger is walking in the light [200] DogDodger is walking in the light [200]
Quote:
Originally Posted by clackers View Post
You're quite right, DogDodger, I see now those storage bins were originally above the tracks, and then lowered to the floor ... thanks for pointing that out!

But below is a picture of rounds being kept in the turret, in a separate black box, not a sponson ... from http://panzerfaust.ca/AFV%20interiors/m4a3b.html

The stowage box in the picture is on the turret floor. That's a relatively safe place for it, and essentially where the main gun rounds were moved to in wet stowage tanks. Stowing a few rounds in the turret was a common practice for the entire war; even wet stowage Shermans featured a turret ready rack, but they still caught fire much less than tanks with ammo stowed in the sponsons.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Erkki View Post
Still I doubt that the fact that Khrushchev killed a program way back in the 1960 would prevent anybody from researching in that area again.... Or maybe he is still in charge, some kind of life extension? Maybe that is why he killed it, so he could use the funds...
You've lost me. Are you disputing the reason the Soviets came out with automatically-loaded tanks? What was the reason, then, in your opinion?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Erkki View Post
Surprisingly enough about the ammo storage they are working on that in newer versions. Must be a treason however as they by Khrushchev's divine orders havenīt got a loader in their crew....
I'm not sure what ammo stowage in one-off pilots has to do with our subject, and the second sentence here seems totally out of place. I get that you're trying to be snarky (bad form for a moderator, though?), but it just doesn't seem to relate to anything that's being said.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Erkki View Post
I donīt try anything, you can try if you want, I do if I want to, if I donīt want to I donīt do it. Now speaking of which, what divine knowledge make you think that you can predict my thought patters? I recommend you to stop trying, even if you achieved even a minimal success in such attempts and actually could follow my patterns it would probably drive you insane.
With this I'll agree. I'd remind you that you were the one who brought up that the USSR didn't care about its soldiers with the comment, "Surely a land that has been accused of not caring for itīs soldiers lives wouldnīt mind having 4 burning to death inside a tank instead of 3?" The ammo stowage of the carousel tanks--with ammo and propellant outside of the carousel littered around the fighting compartment--does in fact provide evidence that the land doesn't care too much for its tankers...

Quote:
Originally Posted by JBark View Post
I'd like to make sure we are comparing apples to apples though I am pretty sure I don't have resources for both rounds. I will look too.
I meant to include the 76 mm info with the original post, but forgot and edited it in later.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dutched View Post
This is not quite so. The first itteration in the design that lead to the panther looked too much like a T 34. The leader of the Germans did not like
the idea. Even if Guderian had like the T 34, his master would have stopped the very idea with a Fuehrerenscheid. It would not be the first time.
The panther like a T34 but not a T34, sounds a bit like the advert for that
German populist car.
The Daimler-Benz T-34 copycat proposal was stopped before it got to Hitler, really. A commission reviewing the designs from MAN and Daimler-Benz recommended the MAN Panther for reasons including: Daimler-Benz had not completed a turret design, and consequently their tank couldn't be in production by December 1942; MAN's torsion bar design was preferred to Daimler-Benz's leaf springs; MAN's front drive sprocket was thought to cause less track fouling than Daimler-Benz's rear drive; MAN's tank had a longer cruising range; and MAN's engine compartment could be submerged without special preparation. Hitler reviewed the findings of the commission and agreed.
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 17 Mar 12, 04:18
broderickwells's Avatar
broderickwells broderickwells is offline
General of the Forums
New_Zealand
5 Year Service Ribbon Greatest/Best Tank of WW2 Campaign Best Pin-Up Of World War II 
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Auckland
Posts: 8,899
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
Yes but a poster noted that: "...it's pretty retarded to discuss a tank's production quality where only design is concerned...."

So let's look at what the design of each allowed.
Okay: 1941: T-34m v M4

Best version of T-34 family = T-44-100, or even "Object 137" better known as T-54 second model, made in July 1945.....

Best possible M4 = M4 with T-26 turret. Oh dear.
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 17 Mar 12, 04:47
Erkki's Avatar
Erkki Erkki is offline
ACG Forums - Field Marshal
Sami
Distinguished Service Award 5 Year Service Ribbon 
 
Real Name: Erik
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 13,067
Erkki is simply cracking [600]
Erkki is simply cracking [600] Erkki is simply cracking [600] Erkki is simply cracking [600] Erkki is simply cracking [600] Erkki is simply cracking [600] Erkki is simply cracking [600] Erkki is simply cracking [600] Erkki is simply cracking [600] Erkki is simply cracking [600] Erkki is simply cracking [600] Erkki is simply cracking [600] Erkki is simply cracking [600]
Quote:
Originally Posted by DogDodger View Post
You've lost me. Are you disputing the reason the Soviets came out with automatically-loaded tanks? What was the reason, then, in your opinion?
I am doubtful I said that, what I am saying is basicaly: if the design is so flawed why not go back to a ordinary loader? If they considered that so important then they still had and still have the opportunity to go back to a 4 man crew, however from the development that I have seen they are addressing the ammo storage problem but keeping the Autoloader.

Quote:
I'm not sure what ammo stowage in one-off pilots has to do with our subject, and the second sentence here seems totally out of place. I get that you're trying to be snarky (bad form for a moderator, though?), but it just doesn't seem to relate to anything that's being said.
Oh it does! But donīt worry, if you canīt understand my logic it doesnīt mean that you are incorrect in any way!

So: ammo storage in bad place= problem on old designs/existing- arms industry working on new versions that addresses that issue

Khrushchev's killing heavy tank project- thus as you said: forced USSR designers to have the autoloader- as they apparently for some reasons couldnīt work on a loader design after Khrushchev death that had a human loader one could assume that they are locked from creating a safer ammo storage as well.


Quote:
With this I'll agree. I'd remind you that you were the one who brought up that the USSR didn't care about its soldiers with the comment, "Surely a land that has been accused of not caring for itīs soldiers lives wouldnīt mind having 4 burning to death inside a tank instead of 3?"
Good that we are in agreement on one point!

Ah I suppose my point didnīt come across quite as I wanted.

USSR was accused of not caring for their own soldiers- human wave attacks, bad safety, stupid doctrines etc - true enough on some points, a whole lot of propaganda on the other hand. We can take a example, the autoloader, it is claimed that these had a tendency to eat the gunners arm. However I spoke to Russian reservist tank officer and he had never heard of this issue! So it may have been a problem on the initial designs but was apparently corrected later, people tend ignore the last part and use this as an example of the USSR not caring about their soldiers loosing their arms for as a silly reasons as to not bother fixing such a simple problem.

Back to the initial thing though: a autoloader is quite complex, and expensive and it would probably be a lot easier just to have a conscript doing this. Then you noted by Khrushchev's order the kill the heavy tank program forced them to use the autoloader. But here is what I am trying to say: if it truly was such a disadvantage why are there no tanks designs after his death addressing the issue by bringing back the loader as there is fixing the ammo storage issue? Apparently they think that it is more useful with a smaller tank with a autoloader then a bigger one with a loader.

Quote:
The ammo stowage of the carousel tanks--with ammo and propellant outside of the carousel littered around the fighting compartment--does in fact provide evidence that the land doesn't care too much for its tankers...
But the fact that they issuing it show something else! The cancelled black eagle project if I remember right have a better storage then say the T-72. And it was even started by the USSR if I remember correctly.
__________________
"The only friend I know, is this gun I have
Listen to my voice, this is not a threat
But now you see the nine are you worried yet?
You've been talking 'bout' you want the war to cease
But when you show us hope, then we will show you peace"

Bounty Killa - look into my eyes

When in doubt: Blame Putin!
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links

  #101  
Old 17 Mar 12, 05:00
Erkki's Avatar
Erkki Erkki is offline
ACG Forums - Field Marshal
Sami
Distinguished Service Award 5 Year Service Ribbon 
 
Real Name: Erik
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 13,067
Erkki is simply cracking [600]
Erkki is simply cracking [600] Erkki is simply cracking [600] Erkki is simply cracking [600] Erkki is simply cracking [600] Erkki is simply cracking [600] Erkki is simply cracking [600] Erkki is simply cracking [600] Erkki is simply cracking [600] Erkki is simply cracking [600] Erkki is simply cracking [600] Erkki is simply cracking [600] Erkki is simply cracking [600]
Quote:
Originally Posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
Yes, useless.
Absolute rubbish! Even if we apply completely skewed logic they could: make German tanks/AT guns run out of Ammo, ram German tanks, mash German infantry, pull equipment etc etc etc. Even the most insane and stupid use that gains anything proves that it was not useless.

Quote:
The T60 has a two man crew. It has no radio or intercom. The commander is the gunner and loader. He is limited when in the turret to just the gun sight for forward vision. He has no periscope or other vision device. There are a couple of vision slits on the sides of the turret. The driver has a single vision slit looking forward.
Essentially, unless the target is directly in front of the tank it won't be seen. The 20mm gun is about as good as the German 20mm. That means it is pretty much worthless as an antitank gun by 1941. Against infantry the T60 will never see them. Its armor is thin enough that even the German 37 will punch it and, it will never see what hit it.


The T70 has a bigger gun and somewhat more armor but suffers all of the same problems otherwise above. Two man crew, no vision devices, lack of communications, etc.

Basically, both are mobile targets in tank warfare.
What you are mentioning is setbacks, and even major such. But it still doesnīt prove that they are useless in more then say anti-tank role. And as far as I recall soviet doctrine as well as Russian to some extent is based on using tanks to smash through infantry, cut the supplies of the enemy tank unit and Finnish them off when they are out of supplies. I donīt know about by you but in the unlikely and quite illogical situation of ww3 and US having to use outdated tanks, I would not send them deliberately at the enemy's best tank but at their weaker units where they actually have a chance of being useful.
__________________
"The only friend I know, is this gun I have
Listen to my voice, this is not a threat
But now you see the nine are you worried yet?
You've been talking 'bout' you want the war to cease
But when you show us hope, then we will show you peace"

Bounty Killa - look into my eyes

When in doubt: Blame Putin!
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 17 Mar 12, 05:11
Emtos's Avatar
Emtos Emtos is offline
Banned
Belgium
Greatest/Best Tank of WW2 Campaign 
 
Real Name: Anton
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Charleroi
Posts: 6,493
Emtos is simply cracking [600]
Emtos is simply cracking [600] Emtos is simply cracking [600] Emtos is simply cracking [600] Emtos is simply cracking [600] Emtos is simply cracking [600] Emtos is simply cracking [600] Emtos is simply cracking [600] Emtos is simply cracking [600] Emtos is simply cracking [600] Emtos is simply cracking [600] Emtos is simply cracking [600]
Quote:
And I suppose that the interred crews were really just seeking refuge in Soviet custody?
What about reading something on the subject ? They were damaged by the Japanese AA and were forced to land in USSR.


Quote:
Yes, useless. The T60 has a two man crew. It has no radio or intercom. The commander is the gunner and loader. He is limited when in the turret to just the gun sight for forward vision. He has no periscope or other vision device. There are a couple of vision slits on the sides of the turret. The driver has a single vision slit looking forward.
Essentially, unless the target is directly in front of the tank it won't be seen. The 20mm gun is about as good as the German 20mm. That means it is pretty much worthless as an antitank gun by 1941. Against infantry the T60 will never see them. Its armor is thin enough that even the German 37 will punch it and, it will never see what hit it.

The T70 has a bigger gun and somewhat more armor but suffers all of the same problems otherwise above. Two man crew, no vision devices, lack of communications, etc.

Basically, both are mobile targets in tank warfare.
Once again they were made to be easily produced, reapired and to replace the losses that occured. When they were used against the infantry and to pursue enemy, they were pretty good at this job.
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 17 Mar 12, 05:42
dutched's Avatar
dutched dutched is offline
Major General
Pirate
Greatest/Best Tank of WW2 Campaign 
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Here there be tigers
Posts: 2,841
dutched is walking in the light [200] dutched is walking in the light [200] dutched is walking in the light [200] dutched is walking in the light [200] dutched is walking in the light [200] dutched is walking in the light [200] dutched is walking in the light [200] dutched is walking in the light [200] dutched is walking in the light [200] dutched is walking in the light [200] dutched is walking in the light [200] dutched is walking in the light [200]
Quote:
Originally Posted by DogDodger View Post
The Daimler-Benz T-34 copycat proposal was stopped before it got to Hitler, really. A commission reviewing the designs from MAN and Daimler-Benz recommended the MAN Panther for reasons including: Daimler-Benz had not completed a turret design, and consequently their tank couldn't be in production by December 1942; MAN's torsion bar design was preferred to Daimler-Benz's leaf springs; MAN's front drive sprocket was thought to cause less track fouling than Daimler-Benz's rear drive; MAN's tank had a longer cruising range; and MAN's engine compartment could be submerged without special preparation. Hitler reviewed the findings of the commission and agreed.
I though my old story was to good to be true.

Thanks

Ed.
__________________
Happu Biraki

Last edited by panther3485; 17 Mar 12 at 07:54.. Reason: tidying up the quote
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 17 Mar 12, 07:48
Nick the Noodle's Avatar
Nick the Noodle Nick the Noodle is offline
General of the Forums
Wales
5 Year Service Ribbon SPQR Campaign Greatest/Best Tank of WW2 Campaign Greatest Westerns Campaign 
Greatest Spy Movies Campaign Greatest Blunders Campaign CWiE 1939-45 Campaign Best Pin-Up Of World War II 
 
Real Name: Tin Pot Noodle
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Land of the Red Dragon
Posts: 14,248
Nick the Noodle has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Nick the Noodle has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Nick the Noodle has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Nick the Noodle has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Nick the Noodle has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Nick the Noodle has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Nick the Noodle has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
Nick the Noodle has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Nick the Noodle has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Nick the Noodle has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Nick the Noodle has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Nick the Noodle has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Nick the Noodle has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Nick the Noodle has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Nick the Noodle has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Nick the Noodle has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erkki View Post
USSR was accused of not caring for their own soldiers- human wave attacks, bad safety, stupid doctrines etc - true enough on some points.......
Just thought I'd make a point about this comment. Soviet generals could be put on trial for excessive losses. Really . Pavel Rotmistrov was nearly court martialed at Kursk, but saved from Stalin by his colleugues.

Also Soviet troops could earn bonuses for destroying enemy tanks (source for both here).

I don't know about anyone else, but that appears very capatalist imo.

Back to the T-34 in Western use, it offered nothing extra that the Sherman couldn't do at least equally. However, being simple, easily constructed, and well rounded enough, it was about a perfect tank for the Soviets and their operational method.
__________________
BoRG
I will either find a way or make one.
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 17 Mar 12, 08:39
DogDodger's Avatar
DogDodger DogDodger is offline
Lieutenant Colonel
United_States
5 Year Service Ribbon Greatest/Best Tank of WW2 Campaign 
 
Real Name: Chris
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: WV
Posts: 1,289
DogDodger is walking in the light [200] DogDodger is walking in the light [200] DogDodger is walking in the light [200] DogDodger is walking in the light [200] DogDodger is walking in the light [200] DogDodger is walking in the light [200] DogDodger is walking in the light [200] DogDodger is walking in the light [200] DogDodger is walking in the light [200] DogDodger is walking in the light [200] DogDodger is walking in the light [200]
Quote:
Originally Posted by broderickwells View Post
Okay: 1941: T-34m v M4

Best version of T-34 family = T-44-100, or even "Object 137" better known as T-54 second model, made in July 1945.....

Best possible M4 = M4 with T-26 turret. Oh dear.
So you're going to allow T-44-100--in which the only major component shared with the T-34 was the (modified) engine--but not the M26A1, which would be analagous to the M4?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Erkki View Post
I am doubtful I said that, what I am saying is basicaly: if the design is so flawed why not go back to a ordinary loader? If they considered that so important then they still had and still have the opportunity to go back to a 4 man crew, however from the development that I have seen they are addressing the ammo storage problem but keeping the Autoloader.
They obviously prefer the autoloader setup. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, and I never dubbed the autoloader a disadvantage. I said it was a design compromise they accepted. Their remaining crewmen have to work harder to accomplish all of their tasks, and with the current designs any penetration will brew up the vehicle, but they get a small tank with a large gun and thick armor for its weight.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Erkki View Post
So: ammo storage in bad place= problem on old designs/existing- arms industry working on new versions that addresses that issue
What new versions? Omsk has gone bankrupt, Black Eagle is dead, and the USSR has stated that it won't buy the "T-95" that Uralvagaonzavod had been working on. Black Eagle was supposed to have blowoff panels in its bustle-mounted magazine, but we haven't seen anything conclusive on its ammo stowage arrangements.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Erkki View Post
USSR was accused of not caring for their own soldiers- human wave attacks, bad safety, stupid doctrines etc - true enough on some points, a whole lot of propaganda on the other hand. We can take a example, the autoloader, it is claimed that these had a tendency to eat the gunners arm. However I spoke to Russian reservist tank officer and he had never heard of this issue! So it may have been a problem on the initial designs but was apparently corrected later, people tend ignore the last part and use this as an example of the USSR not caring about their soldiers loosing their arms for as a silly reasons as to not bother fixing such a simple problem.
The autoloaders of very early T-64s were inadequately shielded, but that was remedied and as you said the arm-eating autoloader is largely a myth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Erkki View Post
Back to the initial thing though: a autoloader is quite complex, and expensive and it would probably be a lot easier just to have a conscript doing this. Then you noted by Khrushchev's order the kill the heavy tank program forced them to use the autoloader. But here is what I am trying to say: if it truly was such a disadvantage why are there no tanks designs after his death addressing the issue by bringing back the loader as there is fixing the ammo storage issue? Apparently they think that it is more useful with a smaller tank with a autoloader then a bigger one with a loader.
Like you said, they obviously don't consider it a disadvantage. Other nations have experiemented with autoloaders (e.g, the US, who has worked on them since WW2) and have decided they don't like them, at least until the next jump in gun caliber. Just different priorities and decisions.
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 12:58.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.