WWII bolt action in the Pacific???

[Mike Irwin]

We all hear about how tall the Sherman was... 897 feet, with the turret often in the clouds...

In reality, it wasn't the tallest tank on the battlefield...

The basic Sherman was 9 feet tall.

The Nazi Panther and Tiger 1 were both 9 feet 10 inches, and the Tiger 2 (King Tiger) was over 10 feet tall.

The PzKw IV was only slightly shorter than the Sherman, at 8 feet 10 inches.

By contrast, the T-34 was 8 feet tall, and the KV-1 8 feet 11 inches.

Britain's tanks -- the Churchill, the Comet, and the Cromwell -- were all between 8 feet 2 to 6 inches.

The lowest medium/heavy tank of the war was Britain's Crusader, at 7 feet 4 inches.

So, it's not entirely true that the Christie suspension automatically resulted in a much lower profile tank.

[jimbob86]

I've also seen British reports talking of how much wasted space there was in US fighter plane cockpits. Like a roomy, empty office.....odd folk, the British...

I'm sure they think us odd, as well ..... and not just the Brittish, but all the Europeans that I have met (I lived in Germany for several years, and had friends in Holland and Italy, and we had an Italian exchange student here for a year)..... they are used to being crowded together .... IME, they stand closer to you than Americans .... houses and apartments are smaller, "yards" as Americans know them don't exist, or could be mowed with a pair of hand shears in 5 minutes ..... food and energy are ridiculously expensive ..... these people think nothing of living their entire lives, (aside from "Holidays"- tourist trips) in the same 20 kilometer radius area ...... some of the Germans I met were proud that their families had lived in the same house since before America was a country .....

[Mike Irwin]

"The engine, by all accounts I have read, was a relatively simple rugged design, and easily maintained in the harshest conditions"

The engine was rugged. Its design was apparently broadly based on a German diesel design, but with numerous modifications to make it more powerful and weigh less.

Stalin awarded the engine's designer, Chelaptan, IIRC, with the Order of Lenin followed, by a firing squad.

The true failing of the T-34's drive train, at least early on, was the transmission. Initial designs were prone to rapid failure, and it wasn't uncommon to see T-34s moving towards the front with spare transmissions strapped to their hull. Fortunately for the Soviets, the transmission was fairly easily accessed and could be replaced relatively quickly.

Early production T-34s also suffered greatly from the lack of quality control. Bad steel mixes, bad production and heat treating of parts, etc. etc. etc. Some of those problems dogged Soviet production until the end of the war.

[Mike Irwin]

"One place where the VVSS and HVSS suspension has a drawback is that when you need to "fix a flat" (replace a wheel)."

Individual wheels could be replaced without having to jack up the entire tank. Page 23 of this manual (https://archive.org/stream/TM9-1750K#page/n23/mode/2up) shows use of a bogie lift on a VVSS system.

Another great advantage of the VVSS and HVSS design is that it is self contained. In the Christie system, as well as other suspension systems, primary components are integral with the tank's hull.

The VV/HVSS are bolt on and go -- they're self contained units.

[44 AMP]

The T-34 also had what today are called serious ergonomic flaws.

Chiefest of these was the two man turret, where the commander was also the gunner. And there were only 9 rounds stored in the turret ready racks. After that, the loader had to pull up the rubber matting that formed the turret floor, and open the metal bins where the rest of the ammo was stored to get more rounds.

There were also a number of other things that made the crews suffer more, and work harder to do the same jobs than in most "western" tank designs. It was the combination of design innovations put together (sloped armor, powerful gun, diesel engine, wide tracks, etc) that made the T-34 the successful tank it was. But it was far from perfect, in many important ways.

No one weapon or weapon system "saves" a country, or defeats the enemy. But some did make noticeably significant contributions to the effort.

[skoro]

There were still a few old WW2 vets in the USMC when I served. They said that yes, they went to Guadalcanal with the 03 Springfield, but had the M1 Garand after that and were plenty glad to get it. Even in my time (and I suspect today, also) plenty of Marine Corps gear was US Army cast-offs. So, the USMC wasn't/isn't priority 1 in receiving new equipment, unless it's specialized amphibious stuff.

My dad was Army infantry in WW2 and his weapon was the M1919a1 Browning machine gun. He has nothing but good things to say about the M1 Garand, though. And the snipers in his outfit used 03 Springfields mounted with scopes.

[jimbob86]

The basic Sherman was 9 feet tall.

Yet when you see a 30 ton Sherman side by side with a 60 ton Tiger I, the sherman, though about a foot shorter in length and height, and 3 feet narrower chassis, gives a larger apparent silhouette- more of it is up high to get hit. Put next to a Panzer IV, the Sherman's silhouette looks gigantic. Add to that that a hit from most any german gun on the battlefield in 1944 would put it out of action at ridiculous ranges ..... even handheld anti-tank weapons would easily set the thing afire ....

[Mike Irwin]

I recall reading something that, when first offered the new rifle in 1938 or 1939, the commandant of the Marine Corps turned it down, and it wasn't until very late 1941 that the reversed course.

[Mike Irwin]

"Yet when you see a 30 ton Sherman side by side with a 60 ton Tiger I, the sherman, though about a foot shorter in length and height, and 3 feet narrower chassis, gives a larger apparent silhouette- more of it is up high to get hit. Put next to a Panzer IV, the Sherman's silhouette looks gigantic."

To tell you the truth, I've never gotten that impression from the "side bys" that I've seen.

"Add to that that a hit from most any german gun on the battlefield in 1944 would put it out of action at ridiculous ranges"

Yeah, that's a little over dramatic.

Actually, a lot over dramatic.

So you're saying that a Wirblewind, mounting four 20mm auto cannon, could stand off in Berlin and put a Sherman in Normandy out of action?

As for the dreaded "tommy cooker" reputation of all Shermans...

Overwrought, especially once wet jacket ammunition storage was adopted in later versions to replace the "stick ammo anywhere you can" theory.

As for the armor penetration issue, yes, Shermans didn't have great armor compared to other tanks. The simple fact is, thoguh, that pretty much nothing the Allies had would stand up to the guns the Germans had in their later tanks.

Later versions of the Sherman, upguned to the American high velocity 76 mm and, especially, those fitted with the 17-pound British gun, were capable of killing German tanks at extended ranges.

The Sherman also had an advantage that the Russian, British, and German (ast least until fairly late in the war) didn't have...

Gyroscopic gun stabilization. Yes, it was primitive, but it was effective enough that it allowed Shermans to fire, and get hits, while on the move, something largely impossible for other tanks.

Maybe in 1942 the Americans should have called time out for a couple of years it would have taken to design, implement, manufacture, train, and equip new tanks.

Or maybe the US shouldn't have fielded any tanks at all?

[jimbob86]

it wasn't uncommon to see T-34s moving towards the front with spare transmissions strapped to their hull.

I'd read about that as well- but that account was late in the war, and the transmission problem was blamed on the added weight of the new, larger turret to accomodate the 85mm gun and added armor.

The new turret made the gun easier to fight the tank, but reduced survivability- part of the genius of the T-34 was it's radically sloped armor, including that of the turret.

[Mike Irwin]

"even handheld anti-tank weapons would easily set the thing afire"

Yeah....

Simple fact.

There was no armored vehicle on either side during the war that could survive some of the late-war hand held anti-tank weapons.

[jimbob86]

There was no armored vehicle on either side during the war that could survive some of the late-war hand held anti-tank weapons.

The germans added standoff side and turret skirts on late war tanks and assault guns to defeat the shaped charge rockets (bazooka, PIAT, etc), as well as anti-magnetic Zimmerit coatings to protect against the magnetic mines popular with the Russians ......

[Mike Irwin]

Yes they did. And none of those measures were 100% effective.

[jimbob86]

none of those measures were 100% effective.

The side skirts certainly made the covered area nigh impervious to small shaped charges ..... true, they did not cover everything ..... but the odds were pretty heavily against the unprotected bazooka/PIAT crew as it was .... shielding 70% of the target compounded matters immeasurably, I imagine .....

[44 AMP]

The stabilized gun was a benefit, although far from the systems we have today. The Germans didn't work on stabilized guns until very late in the war. However they often did make a practice of firing cannon and mgs on the move during attacks. To ensure hits, they had to stop, but the often fired on the mover for suppressive fire.

And while they didn't manage a real stabilized gun, they did manage a sort of stabilized gun, buy stabilizing the entire tank. Look at film of a Panther or Tiger, moving at speed over rough ground, the flex of the suspension "floats" the hull of the tank much more effectively than many other designs. So, while not quite as good as a truly stabilized gun system, they were better able to accurately fire on the move than many other unstablized gun tanks.

As an interesting, and somewhat ironic twist, when on the rare occasions when US armor met Japanese armor, our gunners found that AP often didn't knock out the light Japanese tanks. Made to deal with the Panzers, even our 75mm AP often just punched through both sides of the Japanese armor, and sailed off into the distance. Kind of like an FMJ bullet. Our guys quickly switched to HE which, while not up to taking out a heavy panzer, would bust the Japanese light armor open.

[jimbob86]

And while they didn't manage a real stabilized gun, they did manage a sort of stabilized gun, buy stabilizing the entire tank. Look at film of a Panther or Tiger, moving at speed over rough ground, the flex of the suspension "floats" the hull of the tank much more effectively than many other designs. So, while not quite as good as a truly stabilized gun system, they were better able to accurately fire on the move than many other unstablized gun tanks.

It stands to reason that 60 ton gun platform would be naturally more stable than a 30 ton gun platform, particularly when moving offroad in western Europe- the soft earth itself would act to to smooth the ride, and moreso with the heavy tank ...... having ridden in 30 ton armored vehichles a bit ..... high speed travel on even good roads is a teeth-rattling experience, I can assure you ..... off road at 1/2 the speed is like being in a boat..... I think one could probably track a target, given a powered turret .....

[James K]

Talk about a wandering thread! I never saw a tank that mounted a Model 1903!

Jim

[jimbob86]

Talk about a wandering thread! I never saw a tank that mounted a Model 1903!

Aye, but it has certainly ben interesting!

[Dragonflydf]

Never seen a bolt operated Tank, but I have seen a wind up tank

[44 AMP]

That is absolutely wonderful! Memories....

WW II history, focused most heavily on armor (and modeling it) and firearms has been my other main hobby for many years. Between model kits and reference material and just general material on the subjects, I've probably spent as much money as I have on my firearms activities. And certainly more time.

I love to discuss it, and am easily led astray. PM me and I'll go on till your eyes bleed.

Sorry for aiding and abetting thread drift...


I'll now return to working on a 1/16th scale King Tiger, detailed down through fuel, coolant and wiring lines. I now have a really good idea why they only built so few and why each one took so long!

[Mike Irwin]

"The stabilized gun was a benefit, although far from the systems we have today. The Germans didn't work on stabilized guns until very late in the war."

WHAT? You mean, like, the American military people didn't get Albert Einstein to design them a time machine so they could come to today, get modern laser/radar range finding systems and thermal imaging, take it back to the 1940s, and use it to win World War II?

Those short-sighted, troop killing bastards!


"However they often did make a practice of firing cannon and mgs on the move during attacks. To ensure hits, they had to stop, but the often fired on the mover for suppressive fire."

Uhm... yeah. Everyone did that. Only with gyrostabilization, the American Sherman had a far better potential for hitting the target while on the move than any other Allied or Axis tank.

"Floating" the tank over rough ground doesn't come even remotely close.

Oh, and regarding German stand-off armor, they actually started adding it to their armored vehicles not late in the war to deal with shaped charges, but early in the Russian campaign to deal with Soviet kinetic energy rounds (shells).

It must have been effective, because they only lost what, about 13,000 armored vehicles of all types fighting the Russians?

[Mike Irwin]

Dragon, very nice tin toy!

If that were in better condition and with the original box it would be worth close to $1,000. As is, maybe $200...



And yah, no bolt action armored vehicles.

But some of my all time favorite threads on TFL have been "organic" threads that started from a question about a military firearm and which grew to a much larger conversation on armor, ships, etc.

[Mike Irwin]

"I'd read about that as well- but that account was late in the war, and the transmission problem was blamed on the added weight of the new, larger turret to accomodate the 85mm gun and added armor."

That was a different failure vector entirely.

Early T-34s also had serious transmission issues due primarily to crap manufacturing processes.

Army testing of two T-34s that the Soviets provided to the US in 1942 highlighed this issue. The transmission on at least one failed during testing due to absolutely terrible manufacturing QC.

As the Soviets got things smoothed out manufacturing wise during the war the transmission issues largely went away, until the T-34/85 rolled out.

[emcon5]

I was lucky enough to spend a couple hours with the Panther at the Littlefield collection with one of the main guys who restored it. He said it was a great tank, but had some really poor design features. It was an incredibly complex vehicle, and they figured that it easily has 5X the number of parts that a comparable vintage T-34. It was under powered for it's weight, (even more so for the Tiger, which had the same engine but was heavier) and the final drives were weak for the weight (Their Panther had different Final Drive variations on the left vs right). He also said it was really difficult to service in the field, where as on a Sherman you could undo 4 bolts and the whole ass-end of the tank came off giving access to the engine, the Panther you had to unbolt everything and service the engine from the top. Much more time consuming. The suspension on them was ridiculous, each road wheel had two torsion bars, the width of the tank, to a coupler, then the width again mounting to the hull on the same side as the wheel. This gave each road wheel ~20" of suspension travel. (detailed here: http://youtu.be/aS3rP7rLJN4 )

It is really a good thing they were so complex, if they were a simpler design, they could have made a lot more of them.

They are a good looking bastard though.....

[44 AMP]

Overcomplex, overheavy, and underpowered were the main flaws of the German heavy tanks. Excellent guns, and optics, and quite a bit of pretty good armor were their strong points.

Original plans for what became the Panther were for a 30 ton tank. When demands made the final design come in at 45 tons, even though beefed up the transmissions and final drives were under a lot of strain and failed often. This was generally overcome in the later models.

Sources vary a bit, but the Germans produced something less than 5,000 Panthers, about 1350 Tigers and 484 King Tigers. Considering the numbers, they had a very potent effect.