StuG IV vs JagdPanzer IV

Armies of the World
Joined: 13 Nov 2008, 22:19

13 Feb 2018, 20:21 #61

sergeante wrote:The British, on the other hand, had several cruiser models that were not serial developments of the same chassis (Mk IV, Covenanter, Crusader, Cromwell), and likewise several infantry tanks (Matilda, Valentine, Churchill). WRT the specifiers not getting what they wanted, I think history is pretty clear that the specifiers were unclear about what they should want, leading to constant redrafting of specifications as experience proved their pre-war and early war suppositions wrong.
In detail, perhaps, but in outline they settled quite quickly;
Cruisers; 30mm armour frontally, 2pdr / 3" (or 3.7") plus MG, fast, especially across (decent) country.
Is; Heavy armour (70mm frontally for Matilda, less on Valentine), 2pdr / 3" (or 3.7") plus MG, not fast but good in mud or on slopes.

Up until Crusader I IMO the different Cruisers were various attempts to get the above with varying degrees of success or failure.  Cromwell was from a later time when the AT threat had moved on a bit; PzIII and IV got uparmoured, Crusader got replaced.
Matilda was the official answer to the I tank outline, Valentine a private venture; Churchill again from a later time.
"Be harmonious, enrich the soldiers, and scorn all other men"

"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster himself."

"We take pride in the terminatory service we provide"
Reply
Like

Joined: 13 Nov 2008, 22:19

13 Feb 2018, 20:23 #62

ChrisPat wrote:
sergeante wrote:The British, on the other hand, had several cruiser models that were not serial developments of the same chassis (Mk IV, Covenanter, Crusader, Cromwell), and likewise several infantry tanks (Matilda, Valentine, Churchill). WRT the specifiers not getting what they wanted, I think history is pretty clear that the specifiers were unclear about what they should want, leading to constant redrafting of specifications as experience proved their pre-war and early war suppositions wrong.
In detail, perhaps, but in outline they settled quite quickly;
Cruisers; 30mm armour frontally, 2pdr / 3" (or 3.7") plus MG, fast, especially across (decent) country.  The 30mm frontal armour was settled enough to be read across to the Scout Car; it was going to lead Cruiser tank columns so the same protection was specified.
Is; Heavy armour (70mm frontally for Matilda, less on Valentine), 2pdr / 3" (or 3.7") plus MG, not fast but good in mud or on slopes.

Up until Crusader I IMO the different Cruisers were various attempts to get the above with varying degrees of success or failure.  Cromwell was from a later time when the AT threat had moved on a bit; PzIII and IV got uparmoured, Crusader got replaced.
Matilda was the official answer to the I tank outline, Valentine a private venture; Churchill again from a later time.
"Be harmonious, enrich the soldiers, and scorn all other men"

"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster himself."

"We take pride in the terminatory service we provide"
Reply
Like

Joined: 27 Sep 2011, 21:14

14 Feb 2018, 21:09 #63

The point I'm trying to make is that the Germans were fighting in the front line in 1945 with a basic tank type (Pz IV, albeit considerably upgraded) that they first used in combat in 1939. That indicates good technological choices based on doctrine thatvwas correct from the beginning. I'm just not getting that vibe from British doctrine or technological choices.
Last edited by sergeante on 15 Feb 2018, 00:52, edited 1 time in total.
Up and forward on the starboard side, down and aft on the port. 

The Federation can do a lot of things...but it can't make the Kessel Run in less than 12 parsecs!
Reply
Like

Joined: 24 Aug 2007, 23:14

14 Feb 2018, 22:57 #64

Tony is right.  The British choices during the '30s, effectively post the Vickers Medium, were far from optimal.

They were driven by a combination of non combat limitations put on the designs and inter Corps rivalry.

The actual differentiation between C and I tanks wasn't the problem, it was the implementation and design on new ones that was, plus the muddied thinking about how to use them.
You can lead a leftard to knowledge, but you can't make them think
Reply
Like

Joined: 13 Nov 2008, 22:19

15 Feb 2018, 14:22 #65

Agreed, but a cruiser that was roomy enough to upgun to a 6pdr, had enough reserve to uparmour to 3" hull / 4" turret without losing too much speed and was reliable would have served in 1944-45.
That's the outline spec for a late model Cromwell, bar the HV 6pdr was replaced by the MV 75mm.

The Germans built a tank that could be upgraded to about that standard.  Maybe that's excellent design, maybe it's a bit wasteful to begin with.  The reliability is good design and there Britain suffered.  I don't see a huge technical problem with British cruisers other than the drivetrain in the lead up to and early war years.  The 2pdr was a better AT gun than the 37mm, 30mm is marginally more armour than 25mm, the 3" or 3.7" would fire a perfectly useful HE round, the latter more so than the 7.5cm.
The problems were unreliability reducing the numbers from already "not enough" and how they were used - sometimes.  While a "Support Cruiser" about the size of a Cromwell (to become something like a '44 Cromwell by '44) would be nice later it would reduce the numbers even further in the earlies.
As a thought, given that ordinary cruisers managed 3" or 3.7" fine maybe a 4.5" derived from the old field how still in widespread service?  The Finns managed a somewhat unsatisfactory all round traverse 4.5" on the BT-7 chassis.

The much cited width restriction didn't bite until after the 6pdr / 75mm generation.
"Be harmonious, enrich the soldiers, and scorn all other men"

"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster himself."

"We take pride in the terminatory service we provide"
Reply
Like

Joined: 21 Nov 2010, 00:24

15 Feb 2018, 17:00 #66

Nicholas Moran makes an interesting observation about US WW2 tank depots- in all the many photos he's looked at, he's never seen ....a vice.

A vice of course is used to hold a part securely so that it can be filed or hammered to fit wherever it's needed to go.  This was a routine part of British vehicle maintenance.  But US parts were truly interchangeable out of the box.
"There are four types of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable, and praiseworthy."

--Ambrose Bierce
Reply
Like

Joined: 27 Sep 2011, 21:14

15 Feb 2018, 17:01 #67

The Crusader cruiser was fighting with a 2 pdr long after the Germans had moved on to 50mm/L60. And the inability of the British to produce and distribute an HE round for a 40mm gun in anything like adequate numbers is inexplicable.
Up and forward on the starboard side, down and aft on the port. 

The Federation can do a lot of things...but it can't make the Kessel Run in less than 12 parsecs!
Reply
Like

Joined: 21 Nov 2010, 00:24

15 Feb 2018, 17:03 #68

In like fashion, I cannot understand why CS tanks were given only smoke and not HE.
"There are four types of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable, and praiseworthy."

--Ambrose Bierce
Reply
Like

Joined: 14 Jan 2013, 16:04

15 Feb 2018, 17:13 #69

sergeante wrote: The Crusader cruiser was fighting with a 2 pdr long after the Germans had moved on to 50mm/L60. And the inability of the British to produce and distribute an HE round for a 40mm gun in anything like adequate numbers is inexplicable.
I don't think its much of a mystery really.  Take a close look at the decrepit and backward nature of British heavy industry during the period before and during the war for the answer.
Reply
Like

Joined: 27 Sep 2011, 21:14

15 Feb 2018, 17:28 #70

IcelofAngeln wrote: Nicholas Moran makes an interesting observation about US WW2 tank depots- in all the many photos he's looked at, he's never seen ....a vice.

A vice of course is used to hold a part securely so that it can be filed or hammered to fit wherever it's needed to go.  This was a routine part of British vehicle maintenance.  But US parts were truly interchangeable out of the box.
IIRC he was talking about tank factories, and the observation came from a British industrial representative who toured those factories. But yes, the true interchangeability of parts from numerous subcontractors was something taken for granted in US industry. But it's not just the parts msnufacturers routinely holding to spec that's impressive. Think about all of the hull and turret castings, or welded assemblies and all of the holes that had to be drilled and inlets/bosses finish milled to such precision that a part manufactured across town, or across a couple of states, based on nothing but a set of drawings, application point sight unseen, fit the first time, almost every time. Us software engineers talk about designing interfaces to contract, but that's just puttin an integer where an integer goes, a string where a string goes, etc. They had to make it work in the real worldn in metal and plastic, time after time.
Up and forward on the starboard side, down and aft on the port. 

The Federation can do a lot of things...but it can't make the Kessel Run in less than 12 parsecs!
Reply
Like