HistoryNet.com RSS
ArmchairGeneral.com RSS

HistoryNet.com Articles
America's Civil War
American History
Aviation History
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
StreamHistory.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
  #1  
Old 14 Jun 13, 05:49
Utgardloki's Avatar
Utgardloki Utgardloki is offline
Lance Corporal
Germany
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Düsseldorf
Posts: 43
Utgardloki is on the path to success [1-99]
Tank design limitations by industry and economy

Hey folks. I'd like to discuss limitations in tank design by "outside influences", so to say. As I understand, many issues of certain tanks were not really design flaws (due to forgetfulness or a lack of knowledge or ideas) but necessary evil imposed by local industry, economy and/or logistics. Sometimes the question of a good design has to be answered regarding the issue "did they make the best out of what they had?".
The question came to my mind reading Nicks comment on Italian tanks in "Reading List":
Quote:
It explains why Italian tanks were the way they were, and if used in the terrain they were designed for, ie Northern Italy, they would have been fine. This was because of railway guages, bridge strengths and other logistical issues. They were not designed to fight in the desert and suffered accordingly.
Here's what I think:

Germany:
Apparently did not consider any limitations at all. Late tanks were over-sophisticated and partly weren't even able to cross most of the bridges in Germany itself. A serious limitation they disregarded seems to be that they didn't have the time to sort out machanical flaws by testing the vehicles properly.
Anyway, they thought of things like transport-tracks for the Tiger, so it could be carried by train without making restrictions to it's size.

Russia:
The only limitation that comes to my mind seems to be the self-imposed one that the tanks had to be produced rapidly. That leads, for example, to a declining quality of T-34s in the course of the war.

USA:
Were also very dedicated to producing quickly but seemed not to belittle the quality.
The tanks had to be transported over a great distance. But was that really that much of a restriction, regarding heavy (or at least more heavily armored) tanks? Breakthrough tanks weren't needed in the same numbers as mediums and could have saved lives and material, IMO. M26 for the win!

UK:
"We need a new tank, we need more of them, we need a new tank, we need more of them, we need a new tank..."
Rapid designs under the extreme pressure of being neighbor of the beast did not leave much time for intense testings.
A major issue seems to be that they were always undergunned. Why so? I read once they didn't have the capacity to produce the numbers of large-caliber guns they would have needed, so they were mostly about one step smaller (or shorter) than other contemporary designs. "Hey, we're ready to produce 6-pounders!" - "What? We need 75mm high-velocity now!"
But yet another issue: Engines. The Churchill came up with 350HP in a 40t-tank? In 1942? That thing was huge anyway, why didn't they put a bigger and stronger engine into it?
Yes, I do know that it was designed an Infantry Tank but some kind of acceleration is useful for every AFV... could the Churchill even match the road speed of marching motorized infantry? (that said, I still think the A22 was a great tank and I like it a lot)

France:
I understand that industrial disputes lead to some limitation of the numbers built and some disigns were preferred just because of personal favour of a politician.
I consider french early-war tanks gernerally underrated, though they definately had their flaws. I think they had more issuses with their crews than with their tank designs.

Italy:
I am no expert on italian tanks (thanks for the reading recommendation, Nick!) but even after what Nick has posted, I can't help but consider them all outdated and ineffectual designed. The M15/42 for example. A 1943-design with a 47mm gun? Make it a long-barreled, bigger one or, if you can't, a howitzer. What would this tank have been useful for? A 14t-vehicle going 35kph, tststs.
Maybe Nick can go into some detail here.

Japan:
No idea, to be honest. I guess they mainly had logistical problems but I'd dare to say that what I stated above about italian ones, applies to japanese too...


Okay, I know that these staments are generalized and to not apply to every tank of the respective nation. But this is not about the exceptions.
What do you think?
Reply With Quote
Facebook Connect and Magazine Promotions

World War II Magazine
$26.95

Armchair General Magazine
$26.95
Military History Magazine
$26.95
  #2  
Old 14 Jun 13, 08:43
Arnold J Rimmer's Avatar
Arnold J Rimmer Arnold J Rimmer is offline
General of the Forums
United_States
Most Significant/Influential Tank Campaign Most Significant/Influential Fighter Campaign Most Significant/Influential Multi-Role  Aircraft 
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Red Dwarf
Posts: 21,076
Arnold J Rimmer has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Arnold J Rimmer has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Arnold J Rimmer has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
Arnold J Rimmer has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Arnold J Rimmer has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Arnold J Rimmer has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Arnold J Rimmer has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Arnold J Rimmer has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Arnold J Rimmer has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Arnold J Rimmer has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Arnold J Rimmer has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Arnold J Rimmer has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
In WW2, US tank design was hindered by the low-budget years of the 30s; in order to get tanks into use, it was more efficent to make incremental improvements to existing designs rather than shift production to a wholly new design.

A major hinderance caused by the budget crunch was that early Shermans were equipped with a modified aircraft engine because the Army had a lot of surplus engines on hand.
__________________
Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 14 Jun 13, 09:29
Michele's Avatar
Michele Michele is offline
General of the Forums
Italy
Most Significant/Influential Tank Campaign Most Significant/Influential Fighter Campaign Most Significant/Influential Multi-Role Aircraft C Greatest/Best Tank of WW2 Campaign 
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Udine
Posts: 6,607
Michele is a pillar of the community [1100] Michele is a pillar of the community [1100]
Michele is a pillar of the community [1100] Michele is a pillar of the community [1100] Michele is a pillar of the community [1100] Michele is a pillar of the community [1100] Michele is a pillar of the community [1100] Michele is a pillar of the community [1100] Michele is a pillar of the community [1100] Michele is a pillar of the community [1100] Michele is a pillar of the community [1100] Michele is a pillar of the community [1100] Michele is a pillar of the community [1100] Michele is a pillar of the community [1100]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Utgardloki View Post
Germany:
Apparently did not consider any limitations at all.
I don't agree much. The Pz I, for instance, was very much limited by industrial and political constraints; it had to be sprung out of a so-called agricultural tractor. At best it was usable for training, yet it served in combat until 1941.
Design and development problems in the early stages of the Pz III and Pz IV were the raison d'être of the Pz II.
Industrial constraints likewise forced the Germans to continue using, when not the original and/or upgraded vehicle, at least the original hull for non-tank armored vehicles. That was in order not to scrap existing production plants.


Quote:
Italy:
I am no expert on italian tanks (thanks for the reading recommendation, Nick!) but even after what Nick has posted, I can't help but consider them all outdated and ineffectual designed. The M15/42 for example. A 1943-design with a 47mm gun? Make it a long-barreled, bigger one or, if you can't, a howitzer. What would this tank have been useful for? A 14t-vehicle going 35kph, tststs.
The bottom line is the bottom line here.
I mean, we want armored things, but they have to be cheap.
Sure, there also is the fact that we'll be using them, if at all, for defeniding mountain passes in the Alps. But we want them cheap, chiefly.
As to the M15/42, as the name says it was not a 1943 design, it was a 1943 production of a 1942 design. in theory, the longer-barrelled, bigger-calibred, heavier (but not faster) tank was a 1940 design, the P26/40 - which also came out in 1943, thus somewhat obsolescent at birth, too. And yes, your suggestion is good, indeed it was put into practice. They did place howitzers in M15/42 hulls, these would be the Semovente 75/34.
With all of that, cheap armor, puny numbers, meager bottom line. Italy was waging a war it could not afford.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 14 Jun 13, 10:33
NagaSadow's Avatar
NagaSadow NagaSadow is offline
Sergeant Major
Germany
ACG Ten Year Service Award 5 Year Service Ribbon 
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Germania Incognita
Posts: 361
NagaSadow is on the path to success [1-99] NagaSadow is on the path to success [1-99] NagaSadow is on the path to success [1-99] NagaSadow is on the path to success [1-99] NagaSadow is on the path to success [1-99] NagaSadow is on the path to success [1-99]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Utgardloki View Post
Germany:
Apparently did not consider any limitations at all. Late tanks were over-sophisticated and partly weren't even able to cross most of the bridges in Germany itself. A serious limitation they disregarded seems to be that they didn't have the time to sort out machanical flaws by testing the vehicles properly.
Anyway, they thought of things like transport-tracks for the Tiger, so it could be carried by train without making restrictions to it's size.
There were limitations. Even the E-100 was designed wo fit the standard railway gauge although it had to be partially disassembled (tracks, skirts, sprocket wheel) to fit.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 14 Jun 13, 11:02
Utgardloki's Avatar
Utgardloki Utgardloki is offline
Lance Corporal
Germany
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Düsseldorf
Posts: 43
Utgardloki is on the path to success [1-99]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michele View Post
I don't agree much. The Pz I, for instance, was very much limited by industrial and political constraints; it had to be sprung out of a so-called agricultural tractor. At best it was usable for training, yet it served in combat until 1941.
You're right of course. And the Pz I is often mistaken for not being important in the early stages of the war. Nevertheless, Germany overcame these "contractual" restrictions quite early and ignored them completely afterwards when "it came to the hight of armored combat", I'd say.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michele View Post
Design and development problems in the early stages of the Pz III and Pz IV were the raison d'être of the Pz II.
Industrial constraints likewise forced the Germans to continue using, when not the original and/or upgraded vehicle, at least the original hull for non-tank armored vehicles. That was in order not to scrap existing production plants.
Okay, I didn't cover development problems because of faulty prototypes or so here. Also, I wouldn't consider the descision to upgrade a vehicle, when it's possible without major drawbacks, a limitation...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michele View Post
The bottom line is the bottom line here.
I mean, we want armored things, but they have to be cheap.
Sure, there also is the fact that we'll be using them, if at all, for defeniding mountain passes in the Alps. But we want them cheap, chiefly.
As to the M15/42, as the name says it was not a 1943 design, it was a 1943 production of a 1942 design. in theory, the longer-barrelled, bigger-calibred, heavier (but not faster) tank was a 1940 design, the P26/40 - which also came out in 1943, thus somewhat obsolescent at birth, too. And yes, your suggestion is good, indeed it was put into practice. They did place howitzers in M15/42 hulls, these would be the Semovente 75/34.
With all of that, cheap armor, puny numbers, meager bottom line. Italy was waging a war it could not afford.
Sorry for the generalization of calling it a '43-design. I was aware of the fact, that is was designed in '42 but didn't put it right.
The P26/40 looks solid, on paper at least. I hear the Semovente M41 with that 90mm gun was also quite effective.
So you say the major factor for italian tank production was money? You mean production-whise or in development too?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 14 Jun 13, 11:29
Michele's Avatar
Michele Michele is offline
General of the Forums
Italy
Most Significant/Influential Tank Campaign Most Significant/Influential Fighter Campaign Most Significant/Influential Multi-Role Aircraft C Greatest/Best Tank of WW2 Campaign 
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Udine
Posts: 6,607
Michele is a pillar of the community [1100] Michele is a pillar of the community [1100]
Michele is a pillar of the community [1100] Michele is a pillar of the community [1100] Michele is a pillar of the community [1100] Michele is a pillar of the community [1100] Michele is a pillar of the community [1100] Michele is a pillar of the community [1100] Michele is a pillar of the community [1100] Michele is a pillar of the community [1100] Michele is a pillar of the community [1100] Michele is a pillar of the community [1100] Michele is a pillar of the community [1100] Michele is a pillar of the community [1100]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Utgardloki View Post
Okay, I didn't cover development problems because of faulty prototypes or so here. Also, I wouldn't consider the descision to upgrade a vehicle, when it's possible without major drawbacks, a limitation...
If you consider that as the alternative to designing and building tank destroyers and armored artillery from scratch, with more suitable hulls to start from, you will probably agree that it was a decision constrained by resource availability.

Quote:
So you say the major factor for italian tank production was money? You mean production-whise or in development too?
In development, as well as in production, there was another problem apart from money, i.e. a monopoly. The Germans had Krupp and Porsche. The French started the war with even too many competing designs. But the Italians had one company and one design office. It's too little for the customer (the state) not to be swindled.

Couple this with political restrictions. Dictators are often described as rulers who can do as they wish. On the contrary, Mussolini was quite wary of displeasing his public opinion. At one time the Regio Esercito considered the possibility of canceling an order for the crappy CV35 (later L3/35), and, actually, never ordering one more again. Fiat-Ansaldo told them, OK, in that case we'll have to fire a few hundred workers. Production continued.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 14 Jun 13, 12:03
Mountain Man's Avatar
Mountain Man Mountain Man is online now
General of the Forums
United_States
ACG Ten Year Service Award 5 Year Service Ribbon Greatest Spy Movies Campaign Best Pin-Up Of World War II 
Most Significant/Influential Tank Campaign Most Significant/Influential Fighter Campaign Most Significant/Influential Multi-Role Aircraft C 
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Colorado Rocky Mts, USA
Posts: 68,838
Mountain Man has disabled reputation
Your theory was especially true in Germany, where Hitler decided who got what funding and priority for materials for what project.

His pet projects, huge weapons that were virtually useless on the battlefields, got priority funding while necessary items often got little, particularly is it hinted at "defensiveness".


Hence things like the delivery of the Me262 while experts figured out how to equip it as a dive bomber when it could have been in service as a superior fighter interceptor much earlier, and hence the limited funding for Germany's surface-to-air missile programs.
__________________
Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 14 Jun 13, 14:05
T. A. Gardner's Avatar
T. A. Gardner T. A. Gardner is offline
General of the Forums
United_States
5 Year Service Ribbon Most Significant/Influential Tank Campaign Most Significant/Influential Fighter Campaign Most Significant/Influential Multi-Role Aircraft C 
Greatest/Best Tank of WW2 Campaign 
 
Real Name: T. A. Gardner
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 34,378
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+] 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+] T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+] T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+] T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
Here's a few:

Germany had little ability to produce large castings like other nations did. Their tanks consisted primarily of rolled plate armor as a result.
Most nations cast many large parts of a tank: Turrets, hull componenets, etc. The Austrailians cast the entirety of the Sentinel tank, a pretty significant feat for them.

The US initially was limited by the ordinance department's demand on certain features in AFV. They had to use volute spring suspensions for example.
Availability of engines was another factor. For the US the radial aircraft engine was chosen initially because of its power and widespread availability. This had a big effect on the shapes of many US tanks. Most other nations started off with in-line aircraft engines that had been modified instead.

British tanks were limited by the more restrictive rail gauges in Britian. Tunnel size was a big factor.
Their initial insistance on "Cruiser" and "Infantry" tanks gave them a light and heavy tank but no medium like the Sherman, Pz IV, or T 34. It wasn't until late mid war with the Cromwell (and series) that the Cruiser really became a medium tank instead.
Their initial insistance on the 2pdr and only AP ammunition with a few Close Support tanks was a clear mistake too. The dual purpose gun of about 50 to 75mm became the universal standard for most of the war.

The Germans and French too also initially over specialized tank design. The Germans had a light (Pz I / II), medium (Pz III) and support (PzIV) in service.
The French had cavalry tanks in light, medium, and heavy categories (based on the type of reconnissance they were to do), along with infantry tanks in light and heavy and a series of specialized reconnissance vehicles mostly for the infantry. That resulted in a big collection of different designs.

Another item of note: The US and Germany were the leaders in using welding to assemble their tanks. Everybody else was primarily rivetting or bolting things together due to a various lack of proper rods, trained welders, welding equipment, etc.
The Soviets caught up quickly followed by the British.

Japan was limited in tank design primarily by two factors: Shipping capacity limited weight and armor production that limited them to 25mm or less plates for tanks for much of the war. Anything heavier than a 25mm was too rare and expensive to put into tanks. Those plates went to naval production exclusively.
Lack of opponets having armor up until about 1939 also gave them little incentive to develop heavier tanks or ones that were designed to fight other tanks. Small tanks with a light HE firing gun and some machineguns was generally sufficent.

Russia also initially produced three categories of tank: Light, medium, and heavy. The lights used alot of automotive componenets but proved poorly designed and nearly useless in battle. Their production was largely dropped as the war went on.

The M13/40 that Italy produced wasn't a bad tank at the time it initally went into production. It had a diesel engine that was economical on fuel and fairly reliable. The main gun was a good design and had roughly the performance of contemporary European tanks. The armor was a bit weak but not unacceptably so. It was a bit slow mostly due to choice of suspension and the use of the diesel but not unacceptably so.

There's a few notes.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 14 Jun 13, 14:08
dutched's Avatar
dutched dutched is offline
Lieutenant General
Pirate
5 Year Service Ribbon Most Significant/Influential Tank Campaign Most Significant/Influential Fighter Campaign Greatest/Best Tank of WW2 Campaign 
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Here there be tigers
Posts: 3,382
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] dutched is walking in the light [200]
Before drawing any general conclusions one has to bear in mind:
State of the art known at the start of the design of the object.
The three M-s: Man, Machines and Money.
Not forgetting about design progression.
That is about it, in it's most simple form.
Now you can start your analysis of any individual project.

The time that a need is identified. Leading to a design specification.
The matter of cost of the project. R & D. the use of existing parts and technology usw usw.

Given the fact that all nations suffered during the great depression, you will understand that the first (older) designs suffer from the small budget made available for things military. It was realised in the early 30's that something better would be desirable, but generally large budgets were still kinda out of the question, so production and R & D were not separated that much, series production. Hell no more like batch production. An example of this would be the British Cruiser series. I am of course till looking at the pre 1939
period. For the British probably born because the self image of that of
a seafaring nation.

As for leading tank design the Japanese and the Italians, were very much influenced by pre war British design philosophies. To think that Italian and Japanese design were inferior is a mistake. They were not a the point of conception.

Both the USSR and Germany had things to prove to the world. There was this drive to be better than the rest almost at any cost. Both had financial restriction of course, but both were seeking a leading edge for their respective national industries. With the Germans being practical about developing armour not unlike the British trends but better.
Here the USSR aimed for the high spot, being the best.

Lest to remark that nothing happens in a vacuum, so you will see cross overs following in tank design such as sloping armour, 3-man turrets, radio communication for all vehicles and between vehicles. armament matching.
__________________
The fact that you may end up dead is only a minor distraction

Last edited by dutched; 14 Jun 13 at 14:56..
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 14 Jun 13, 18:26
JBark's Avatar
JBark JBark is offline
Lieutenant General
France
5 Year Service Ribbon Most Significant/Influential Tank Campaign Most Significant/Influential Fighter Campaign Most Significant/Influential Multi-Role Aircraft C 
Greatest/Best Tank of WW2 Campaign 
 
Real Name: John
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Wayne
Posts: 3,427
JBark is walking in the light [200] JBark is walking in the light [200] JBark is walking in the light [200] JBark is walking in the light [200] JBark is walking in the light [200] JBark is walking in the light [200] JBark is walking in the light [200] JBark is walking in the light [200] JBark is walking in the light [200] JBark is walking in the light [200] JBark is walking in the light [200] JBark is walking in the light [200]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
In WW2, US tank design was hindered by the low-budget years of the 30s; in order to get tanks into use, it was more efficent to make incremental improvements to existing designs rather than shift production to a wholly new design.
While their were constraints during the 30's once war became an obvious future event that we would be involved in we started spending. The M3 Medium was a good design for its time; if you examine its features it was not too different than designs in Europe. It was useful through the war. Basing the M4 on the chassis and drive of the M3 made great sense and gave us a design that could hit the ground in the war and not have to work out any major bugs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
A major hinderance caused by the budget crunch was that early Shermans were equipped with a modified aircraft engine because the Army had a lot of surplus engines on hand.
Was this a budget restriction or the plain fact that we had a boatload of the radials available and the time to wait while a new, powerful tank engine was designed was not available? How was this a "major hinderance"? Budget crunch or time...I never got the idea that budget during M4 development was ever an issue. Check Hunnicutt and Zaloga on the M4 as I think they both discuss the factories built just to make M4's. That doesn't sound like a shortage in the budget.
__________________
John

Play La Marseillaise. Play it!
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links

  #11  
Old 14 Jun 13, 18:38
RichardS's Avatar
RichardS RichardS is offline
ACG Forums - Air Marshall
South_Vietnam
Distinguished Service Award ACG Ten Year Service Award 5 Year Service Ribbon March Offensive 
Summer Campaign 100 Greatest Generals, 2008 Most Decisive Battle Campaign, 2008 Greatest Spy Movies Campaign 
Greatest Blunders Campaign Best Pin-Up Of World War II Most Significant/Influential Tank Campaign Greatest/Best Tank of WW2 Campaign 
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Where wolf? THERE WOLF!
Posts: 16,985
RichardS has achieved enlightenment [1200+] RichardS has achieved enlightenment [1200+] RichardS has achieved enlightenment [1200+] RichardS has achieved enlightenment [1200+] RichardS has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
RichardS has achieved enlightenment [1200+] RichardS has achieved enlightenment [1200+] RichardS has achieved enlightenment [1200+] RichardS has achieved enlightenment [1200+] RichardS has achieved enlightenment [1200+] RichardS has achieved enlightenment [1200+] RichardS has achieved enlightenment [1200+] RichardS has achieved enlightenment [1200+] RichardS has achieved enlightenment [1200+] RichardS has achieved enlightenment [1200+] RichardS has achieved enlightenment [1200+] RichardS has achieved enlightenment [1200+] RichardS has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
One thing missed in the discussion about US tanks was that until 1940 the United States did not have a dedicated armoured force. AFVs were split between the infantry branch and the cavalry branch. In fact by law the cavalry could not have TANKS so they had "combat cars". Then toss in the Tank Destroyer branch and you have 3 groups all fighting for funding and using different ideas to design the AFVs.
__________________
Eagles may fly; but weasels aren't sucked into jet engines!

"I'm not expendable; I'm not stupid and I'm not going." - Kerr Avon, Blake's 7

Calling Nazis ratzis is an insult to rats around the world.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 14 Jun 13, 20:00
T. A. Gardner's Avatar
T. A. Gardner T. A. Gardner is offline
General of the Forums
United_States
5 Year Service Ribbon Most Significant/Influential Tank Campaign Most Significant/Influential Fighter Campaign Most Significant/Influential Multi-Role Aircraft C 
Greatest/Best Tank of WW2 Campaign 
 
Real Name: T. A. Gardner
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 34,378
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+] 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+] 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 RichardS View Post
One thing missed in the discussion about US tanks was that until 1940 the United States did not have a dedicated armoured force. AFVs were split between the infantry branch and the cavalry branch. In fact by law the cavalry could not have TANKS so they had "combat cars". Then toss in the Tank Destroyer branch and you have 3 groups all fighting for funding and using different ideas to design the AFVs.
This is no different than some other nations.

France it was between cavalry and infantry. Each had their own tank designs specific to the branch.

Britain had Infantry and Cruiser tanks. Infantry tanks were in "Tank Regiments" while the Cruisers went to "Cavalry Regiments." That distinction blurred and then all but disappeared once the war started.

The Germans had panzers and sturmgeschultz. The later were assigned to the artillery branch and the crews wore grey uniforms with red piping rather than black panzer ones with pink piping.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 14 Jun 13, 22:42
JBark's Avatar
JBark JBark is offline
Lieutenant General
France
5 Year Service Ribbon Most Significant/Influential Tank Campaign Most Significant/Influential Fighter Campaign Most Significant/Influential Multi-Role Aircraft C 
Greatest/Best Tank of WW2 Campaign 
 
Real Name: John
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Wayne
Posts: 3,427
JBark is walking in the light [200] JBark is walking in the light [200] JBark is walking in the light [200] JBark is walking in the light [200] JBark is walking in the light [200] JBark is walking in the light [200] JBark is walking in the light [200] JBark is walking in the light [200] JBark is walking in the light [200] JBark is walking in the light [200] JBark is walking in the light [200] JBark is walking in the light [200]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Utgardloki View Post
A major issue seems to be that they were always undergunned. Why so? I read once they didn't have the capacity to produce the numbers of large-caliber guns they would have needed, so they were mostly about one step smaller (or shorter) than other contemporary designs. "Hey, we're ready to produce 6-pounders!" - "What? We need 75mm high-velocity now!"
If I recall correctly the design teams that were coming up with the new tanks did not communicate well with each other and subsequently a turret capable of a high velocity large gun was not made until later. Going by memory here so...
__________________
John

Play La Marseillaise. Play it!
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 14 Jun 13, 22:46
JBark's Avatar
JBark JBark is offline
Lieutenant General
France
5 Year Service Ribbon Most Significant/Influential Tank Campaign Most Significant/Influential Fighter Campaign Most Significant/Influential Multi-Role Aircraft C 
Greatest/Best Tank of WW2 Campaign 
 
Real Name: John
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Wayne
Posts: 3,427
JBark is walking in the light [200] JBark is walking in the light [200] JBark is walking in the light [200] JBark is walking in the light [200] JBark is walking in the light [200] JBark is walking in the light [200] JBark is walking in the light [200] JBark is walking in the light [200] JBark is walking in the light [200] JBark is walking in the light [200] JBark is walking in the light [200] JBark is walking in the light [200]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michele View Post
I don't agree much. The Pz I, for instance, was very much limited by industrial and political constraints; it had to be sprung out of a so-called agricultural tractor. At best it was usable for training, yet it served in combat until 1941.
What does the above mean please?
__________________
John

Play La Marseillaise. Play it!
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 14 Jun 13, 23:49
T. A. Gardner's Avatar
T. A. Gardner T. A. Gardner is offline
General of the Forums
United_States
5 Year Service Ribbon Most Significant/Influential Tank Campaign Most Significant/Influential Fighter Campaign Most Significant/Influential Multi-Role Aircraft C 
Greatest/Best Tank of WW2 Campaign 
 
Real Name: T. A. Gardner
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 34,378
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+] 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+] 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 JBark View Post
What does the above mean please?
The Pz I was initially called an "agriculturial tractor" to get around the Treaty of Versailles. The Pz II was originally intended as just a training tank replacing the Pz I. The lack of production numbers meant that both ended up being placed in service as combat vehicles, something the Wehrmacht never intended.
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 15:06.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.