Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by DogDodger

  1. To be fair, the M24 (the heaviest-armed light tank of WW2?) weighs just about as much as a Stryker...
  2. Reading through the history of the heavy tank M6 over the past couple of days, a dramatic little subplot emerged regarding the employment three French engineers...
  3. Have this and the Tiger one, but they're numbers 50 and 51 on the to-read list... 😕
  4. And for what it's worth, the First Division Museum in Illinois lets people climb on the vehicles in its outside tank park. Soft padding is around the vehicles, but I'm still surprised by it. Great place to get some unusual pictures, though.
  5. Gotta hand it to WG, they certainly played the long game on this ruse with your post history here...
  6. -A3 with the CIV partially hidden by the utility pole, no?
  7. According to Spielberger, the Panther was doomed to unreliability from the start. He says, "Since it was envisaged to produce the Panther in large numbers, production costs of various subassemblies would have to be kept to a minimum...If it had been possible to foresee what difficulties the final reduction gearing was to cause, it would have been a much better solution to have selected a more expensive final drive which provided a greater degree of reliability. In the end, the final drive proved too weak to handle braking with the Klaue disk break [sic] when steering through tight curves. The use of epicyclic gearing for the final drive hinged upon the bottleneck being encountered in the supply of gear cutting machines for producing the hollow gearing. When passing judgement on the double-spur final reduction gear it should be noted that the high-quality steel originally planned for the spur gears in the final drive was not available for mass production and was unexpectedly replaced by VMS 135 (today 37 MnSi5) tempered steel (not as suitable for this purpose)... "The final drive (gear teeth and bearings) was the weakest part of the Panther. It was a risky proposition to use a spur gear system for transferring the drive power - especially considering that the available steel during the war did not have a particularly high stress tolerance. A better solution would have been to use an epicyclic gear system; a prototype final reduction drive using planetary gear reduction had already been tested and had performed flawlessly. However, as mentioned previously, a shortage of gear cutting machinery for the hollow gearing prevented this type of final drive from being mass produced. In order to bridge the gap a final reduction gear system was installed in front of the main gear drive, but due to installation restrictions its mountings were far too weak and could not be strengthened. Because of gear teeth breaking under too great a load and the weak mountings, the gears were pushed out of alignment - virtually guaranteeing mount and tooth breakage. "The general consensus in the industry was that inner-toothed gear wheels could not be produced due to a lack of proper machinery. This meant that a final drive using planetary gear reduction and pre-selector spur gearing - found to be reliable in company testing - could not be installed in production tanks. All attempts to improve the final drive met with failure, despite the offers of a special bonus as an incentive..." To quantify this a bit, Ristuccia and Tooze in "Machine tools and mass production in the armaments boom: Germany and the United States, 1929-44" note that Germany did make strides in increasing the number of gear-cutting machines in service, going from at least 10,407 in 1939 to 28,621 in January 1945. Even with these increases, compared to a US metalworking employee there were only 0.74 gear-cutting machines per German metalworking employee in 1945.
  8. Off the top of my head, the only place in pharmacy that you'll still commonly find drams used is in the sizing of the pill vials.
  9. 10-12 cm of frontal armor and 8 cm on the sides/rear wasn't too shabby in August 1942. Technology advanced pretty quickly, however. And an edit re: your edit re: Lindybeige.
  10. Although not as fast, perhaps, the ballistics don't even have to be matched, per the tip in par. 48b of FM 17-12 Tank Gunnery from 22 April 1943.
  11. Unfortunately, no. Referencing the General Board study on tank gunnery again, their interviewees were interestingly split down the middle on .30 vs .50 cal for the coax. Those who preferred the .30 cal "based their answers primarily on the question of ammunition stowage capacity. The caliber .30 gun is more efficient than the caliber .50 against personnel. In other respects, the caliber .50 offers definite advantages...All interviewees emphasized the increased shock action of the caliber .50 gun on the German soldier." The US toyed with .50 cal coax MGs for a bit in the formative Cold War years, for example early in the M47's life and in the T48.
  12. Hunnicutt noted of the light tank M3, "Tests had shown that more hits were obtained with the driver's fixed sponson machine guns than with the flexible bow machine gun if the tank was free to maneuver and aim itself directly at the target." The fact that the tank was rarely afforded that freedom due to terrain or other obstacles led to their eventual omission.
  13. The sentiment desiring retention of the bow gun was echoed by the 442 tankers (344 enlisted men and 98 officers--75% of which were company grade--representing 12 armored divisions and 10 separate tank battalions, with combat experience ranging from 2 days to 30 months) interviewed by the General Board, USFET, in its Study Number 53 Tank Gunnery:
  14. Re: Great Britain, additionally, its tank production was intentionally throttled in favor of locomotive manufacture after offers of increased numbers of Lend-Lease tanks.
  15. I was intrigued by the vismod the Matilda passed behind, and found this thread that talked a bit about it. P.M. Knight mounted a decent defense of this machine; many of its faults were eventually rectified. Meanwhile Crusader gets sent to the desert with poorly-designed engine air cleaners and water pumps and without giving the driver an engine water temperature gauge...
  16. http://www.tankarchives.ca/2016/03/tank-crew-losses.html
  17. And to provide a sense of scale vs an inline-6, the auxiliary generator engines used in the M48-M48A2 were GM A-41-2 single-cylinder engines making ~15 hp.
  18. My sentimental favorite as well. There was one in a local park when I was a kid, and I spent a lot of time climbing and avoiding wasps on it. But Miatas are reliable. Crusader was certainly a handsome machine, though.
  19. No wonder: Griffin says, "...in Chieftain's case, eight hours was quoted by REME as the length of time needed to convert from diesel to petrol."
  20. It certainly helps being like half the size of many western machines...
  21. Same. Still have fond memories of Brunk's forum software.
  • Create New...