Joined: September 27th, 2011, 9:14 pm

September 14th, 2018, 6:10 pm #171

Phoenix04 wrote:

Yes they have.  You wish, just another fantasy.
So, quote a post, in a topic, where somebody said the 17-pounder was inaccurate with normal ammunition. Not somwhat less accurate. Not inaccurate with APDS. Inaccurate with normal ammunition.

I'll wait.
Tell that to the US tank crews who wanted something better.  The margins you dismiss were their lives.
Tell it to the British infantry that didn't have 60mm mortars or semi-automatic rifles. But I bet you'll have your reasons why the 2" mortar and the No 4 rifle were just what the squaddies needed and wanted.

IOW, don't wave the bloody shirt at me. Look in your own f*cking mirror. Or just accept that not everything makes as much of a difference as you want it to.
Up and forward on the starboard side, down and aft on the port. 

The question of authority stalks the de-religionist project. (Paul Vander Klay)
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: November 21st, 2010, 12:24 am

September 14th, 2018, 6:51 pm #172

Phoenix04 wrote:
sergeante wrote:I think none of those people were denigrating the 17-pounder in anything like the manner accused. At most a certain cold person may have been exagerating the 76mm's superiority to take the piss out of Phoenix.

Well...I think the whole question was mooted by a manpower and material superiority that meant the war was won the minute a secure lodgment in Normandy was attained. I also think it was primarily an infantry and artillery war, on all fronts. The relative capabilities and availabilities of a minority of tanks optimized for counter-armor warfare is debating at the margins of a margin.
Yes they have.  You wish, just another fantasy.

Tell that to the US tank crews who wanted something better.  The margins you dismiss were their lives.
How many lives, on hiw many occasions? Seriously, how often would having a Firefly along have made a bloody difference?

Once again: even at a mere 600 yards a 17pdr firing APCBC could not penetrate a Panther's front glacis. Nor a King Tiger or Jagdpanther at any range. So, that Firefly would be bouncing rounds off just like its 75mm companions. Close to a terrifying 400 yards and it becomes one round in four (at a dead-on target angle). And if the first shot doesn't kill it you had better be repositioning, fast, because that Panther can kill you at will once you've revealed yourself.

The only occasion where 17 pdr had a meaningful advantage, that is an ability to penetrate a German AFV frontally at non-pointblank range, was vs a Tiger I- which as far as the US was concerned was essentially a non issue.
The difference between "democracy" and "populism" is whether or not the ruling elite likes the outcome.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: September 27th, 2011, 9:14 pm

September 14th, 2018, 7:01 pm #173

ChrisPat wrote:

Two sides to that, the tank crews can't be expected to calmly look at the big picture and both US and UK crews noted their disadvantages compared to the German tank.  They also no doubt noted their advantages in terms like "Thankfully, they didn't have many of them and we had masses of support."  Nonetheless it was noted and post war US and UK tank designs have gone for firepower able to defeat the expected armoured opposition as a matter of course.

And Allied Infantry would have been happy if they had something more competitive with the MG 42 -- or at least some of them would have. Or mortars on a scale similar to German infantry battalions, particularly in Normandy.

Things can always be better. But there's a tension between good enough and perfect. There's also a tension between what will win the war and what will win it a little bit better -- in a thousand different ways, for a thousand different values of 'better'. Who's definition of better? Who's need is a priority?

Let's not forget that the tank inferiority complex only existed in Normandy and the Bulge, and was only ever a qualitative issue. Nobody ever quantified the effect of German heavy tanks on anything. Was it a real problem? Events suggest not nearly that much.
Up and forward on the starboard side, down and aft on the port. 

The question of authority stalks the de-religionist project. (Paul Vander Klay)
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 10th, 2006, 7:48 pm

September 14th, 2018, 7:03 pm #174

A couple of additional thoughts struck me about the tank up-calibering issue (following on from Panther 75mm L/70 converted to fire 88mm L/56), both concerning up-calibering the 17 pdr. This had a very wide case ripe for neck expansion - rim diameter 135mm compared with 122mm for the 7,5cm L/70, 111mm for the 8,8cm L/56, and 130mm for the US 90mm:

1. Neck the 17 pdr case up to 87mm (which just happened to be the calibre of the 25pdr field gun). Then the 25 pdr HE shells and the solid AP shot (which happened to weigh 20 lb IIRC) could be used with a much bigger charge behind the AP shot. APDS could then follow on.

The problem would be that due to the length of the HE shell, the case would have needed to be shortened considerably in order to keep the overall length of the round the same, reducing the performance advantage. Which takes me to my second thought: 

2. If the Challenger had two loaders, make use of them by supplying separated ammo so one could load the 25 pdr projectiles, the other the cartridge cases. This should make it much easier to fit the gun into a turret, as the length of the separate ammo elements would be relatively short. 

The complication which strikes me is that the propellant charge when firing HE shell would probably need to be reduced compared with the AP, so two different cartridge cases would be needed. However, given the very short length of APDS projectiles compared with HE, it might be feasible to make this version fixed, with only the HE being separate loaded.

I'm away from my sources at the moment so can't guesstimate performance figures for either option, but I'll try to work on them later, if only for my own amusement...


Quote
Like
Share

Joined: July 8th, 2007, 8:30 pm

September 14th, 2018, 7:24 pm #175

sergeante wrote: And Allied Infantry would have been happy if they had something more competitive with the MG 42 -- or at least some of them would have. Or mortars on a scale similar to German infantry battalions, particularly in Normandy.
....
In a sence they did.  Allied, in particular, American infantry had armored support that the Germans could only dream of.  With attachments a US infantry division had more armor than a German Panzer division.  A Sherman (even or especially one with a 75mm gun) trumps an MG 42.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: September 27th, 2011, 9:14 pm

September 14th, 2018, 7:44 pm #176

ChrisPat wrote: Well, yes.  PzIII and PzIV were not chosen to be the way they were in order to be upgunned later; it was pure luck.  Their design choices were made to equip a Pz Div for war in the near future.  For which a cheaper, smaller tank still able to mount a 3.7cm or a 7.5cm would have been better in that more could have been built and support would have been easier.
Ummm...no. the Mk III was sized for the AT gun of 1939-40, and the Mk IV was sized for the HE howitzer of the same period. There were enough of each projected, even in early development, that TCO was not going to be that different from two different mods of a notional single mark. And they were both definitely designed for the near-term service environment. They were both just well-engineered to meet well thought out requirements.
The Pz38(t) looks like a good pattern; PzIII is double the weight for the same armament, slightly more armour and, it would appear, comparable mobility.  The 38(t) gets praise for its driving qualities but I've never heard of them being held back by other veh.
38(t) was a four man tank with riveted armor. On its best day. Compared to the Mk III, one might say the Germans used them to bulk up their tank numbers in the same way that a cook might add beans to the mix to bulk it up when short on ground beef.

Cruiser MkIV (later A13s with 30mm armour) were almost exactly half way in weight; 38(t) 10t, A13 14.5t, PzIII 20t.  PzIV was 20t too.
And just not as advanced in design.
It would appear that a shorter 8.8cm would have been possible for Panther, given existing designs and that, AFAIK, the L/70 7.5cm was new.  That might result in a Panther that not only has a gun better suited to offensive ops but has been in service a couple of months longer or does not delay the attack at Kursk.
Something people don't understand about Tiger -- it was the German infantry tank. The big gun was capable of fighting enemy tanks very well, but the big gun and the thick armor were there to enable fighting infantry and AT guns in fortifications. The 75mm L/70 existed because the panzer division tank -- which is what Panther was -- was intended to be able to fight any enemy armor encountered on the offensive. That that also made it a good counter-armor gun in the defensive role was a consequence of it being a good counter-armor gun under any circumstance.
Up and forward on the starboard side, down and aft on the port. 

The question of authority stalks the de-religionist project. (Paul Vander Klay)
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 26th, 2011, 1:26 am

September 14th, 2018, 8:03 pm #177

Sillier than your made up Super-Pershings?  You should get down off your high horse, you have already shown us that you know not of which you speak.

Super Pershing are not fantasy. They are a design genesis. Not to mention you have the sense of humor of a fence post. Sorry the self-effacing sarcasm whooshed miles above your head.
"That's Mr. Esquimaux Savage to you"
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 10th, 2005, 2:54 pm

September 14th, 2018, 8:37 pm #178

Getz wrote:
Dave AAA wrote: The M26 is widely acknowledged to have been underpowered with a bad transmission.  The M46 was much better and subsequent Patton tanks were well regarded by users.  Meteor powered Centurions, on the other hand, were not very well regarded by many of their users due to poor mechanical reliability.
That one's new to me.  The Meteor was a well worked up engine and the Merritt Brown Gearbox also had a reliable track record.

Early Centurions had crumby range, but I've never read that they were unreliable.
That's what guys who used them told me. Note that replacing engine and transmission are among the most common upgrades after the mid sixties.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: February 16th, 2007, 11:10 pm

September 14th, 2018, 8:56 pm #179

Dannytoro wrote:
Sillier than your made up Super-Pershings?  You should get down off your high horse, you have already shown us that you know not of which you speak.

Super Pershing are not fantasy. They are a design genesis. Not to mention you have the sense of humor of a fence post. Sorry the self-effacing sarcasm whooshed miles above your head.
The actual T26E4 was - to borrow a phrase - a kludge intended to pack a gun into a turret not nearly big enough to mount it - it's drive train was in no way upgraded over the T26E3 that was dismaying the troops that received it with it's horrible reliability.  Same goes for the M26E1 - a tidied up version of the T26E4 with a more compact gun but still no changes to the drive train.  "Far more mobile, faster Super Pershings" are invention of yours and yours alone.

The so called "Super-Pershings" were dead ends, not because they lacked promise but because the US Army didn't want them.  They preferred to develop better ammo for the 90mm M3.  You can wish and hope as much as you like, but the US Army was never, ever going to take them beyond prototypes.

Oh, and you might have be trying for sarcasm, but that doesn't work very well over the internet so you just came off as ignorant.
Last edited by Getz on September 14th, 2018, 10:46 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: September 27th, 2011, 9:14 pm

September 14th, 2018, 9:35 pm #180

foscadh wrote:
In a sence they did.  Allied, in particular, American infantry had armored support that the Germans could only dream of.  With attachments a US infantry division had more armor than a German Panzer division.  A Sherman (even or especially one with a 75mm gun) trumps an MG 42.
But the tanks had to do it all on their own. From the front of the target only.
Up and forward on the starboard side, down and aft on the port. 

The question of authority stalks the de-religionist project. (Paul Vander Klay)
Quote
Like
Share