Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.

[ANS Kamas P81]

Well, as long as you don't build up vapor from it, diesel in wet storage isn't the absolute worst thing you could do.  Not that it should be your first choice, of course, but as long as you can keep the tanks filled and airtight it'll work once.

AFTER THAT, noooot so sure, but still.

As far as the drum tanks on the back, I never understood why people freaked out about them.  Aircraft do it all the time, and they're smart enough to pickle the tanks (just like the T-72s do) when the shooting starts.

[worktroll]

At least the strap-on tanks weren't located directly above the engine air intakes, like some second-thought addon fuel was ... ;)

W.

[PsihoKekec]

Interstingly, empty strap on tanks still gave a bit of flame and smoke when hit, which contributed to Luftwaffe overclaims on tank kills.

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

Wouldn't a freshly emptied tank actually be easier to ignite given the much higher amount of fuel vapor in it than in a mostly full tank?

[ANS Kamas P81]

Wouldn't a freshly emptied tank actually be easier to ignite given the much higher amount of fuel vapor in it than in a mostly full tank?

Yeah, though an empty tank that goes foof is going to burn very little, since once the immediate vapor's gone there's nothing left to burn.

And if the OPFOR thinks they killed a lot more of your tanks than they did, well, that's not a bad thing.  Surprise is a *****.

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

Generally, tankbuster fixed-wing aircraft tended to report every hit as a kill, often leading to aircraft "confirmed" kill numbers being several times higher than the total number of enemy armored vehicles in the area, right?

[Matti]

IE: those built from the ground up as MBTs and not medium tanks putting on airs.

Irony is T-54 & T-55 are officially medium tanks without "airs".

As far as the drum tanks on the back, I never understood why people freaked out about them.

Red Army lost many tanks for glass bottles of gasoline and tar. So huge external tanks that can be penetrated by rifle or machine gun with tracer rounds like airships of First World War?

[ANS Kamas P81]

So huge external tanks that can be penetrated by rifle or machine gun with tracer rounds like airships of First World War?

That are emptied first in overland travel and dumped when the shooting starts.  Or do you think fighter planes with external fuel tanks are bad ideas because the fuel tank can be penetrated by rifle or machine gun with tracer rounds?

You're also not going to ignite diesel fuel with a tracer.  At all.

[beachhead1985]

Irony is T-54 & T-55 are officially medium tanks without "airs".

About that.

We actually get our modern concept of a Main Battle Tank from Russian Tank design. Once we saw examples of where they were going post-war, we eventually realized there was no-where else to go, but to play their game or lose. But the Russians had only ever had a passing familiarity with the tank design conventions of the day and had never been shy about trying different things if they seemed to work. While T-54/55 may have been thought of...somewhere...as a Medium; it was far off script with a heavy tank gun and heavy tank armour on the frontal arc (especially the turret), while retaining very high-end mobility (cross-country performance, not just speed).

But Post-war Western tanks; which is what I was referring to, suffered by comparison of being developed as other kinds of tanks; mediums for the Americans, which lacked the selective heavy armour and guns of MBTs, Centurion; which was a perfected cruiser tank and various European dumpster fires derived from their own circus/madhouse approach to tank design.

We didn't get away from that until the 1970s and later, for the most part and most of our MBTs STILL had serious issues then; such as Chieftain's chronic underpower issues and the inferior IR system on the Abrams. Thankfully, by then the Russians had their own issues trying to push too far, too fast; which got them the T-64 and it's grab-bag of problems. Only some of which were solved by the follow-on T-80, which also had new issues.

[ANS Kamas P81]

Of course, the 60s and 70s also blew out the armor paradigm for the most part - look at the thicknesses on the Leopard 1 and AMX-30 for example.  Guns had overtopped armor pretty significantly, at least until ERA showed up midway through the latter decade, and composites the next, so you had speed becoming a thing in Europe.  I mean come on, the AMX-30's first run was in the weight range of the Sherman family; while the M4 might have worked fine against 75mm guns of its time that armor mass was not going to deal with the ATGM and HEAT-happy settings of the AMX's threat envelope.  They just gave up on significant protection, as did the (slightly heavier) Leopard.  It'd stop small stuff, but modern kinetic or chemical penetrators would gut the things.

[chanman]

About that.

We actually get our modern concept of a Main Battle Tank from Russian Tank design. Once we saw examples of where they were going post-war, we eventually realized there was no-where else to go, but to play their game or lose. But the Russians had only ever had a passing familiarity with the tank design conventions of the day and had never been shy about trying different things if they seemed to work. While T-54/55 may have been thought of...somewhere...as a Medium; it was far off script with a heavy tank gun and heavy tank armour on the frontal arc (especially the turret), while retaining very high-end mobility (cross-country performance, not just speed).

But Post-war Western tanks; which is what I was referring to, suffered by comparison of being developed as other kinds of tanks; mediums for the Americans, which lacked the selective heavy armour and guns of MBTs, Centurion; which was a perfected cruiser tank and various European dumpster fires derived from their own circus/madhouse approach to tank design.

We didn't get away from that until the 1970s and later, for the most part and most of our MBTs STILL had serious issues then; such as Chieftain's chronic underpower issues and the inferior IR system on the Abrams. Thankfully, by then the Russians had their own issues trying to push too far, too fast; which got them the T-64 and it's grab-bag of problems. Only some of which were solved by the follow-on T-80, which also had new issues.

Arguably the Panther paradigm (okay, its gun was more middling, especially with the poor quality ammo available to it). Which is why I laugh at the idea of the Panther being a 'medium' tank in the WW2 sense of the word - it might have the mobility, but the all-up weight was on par with the early Centurion and greater than the M26 Pershing, itself designed as a heavy tank (obviously the goalposts get shifted in the post-war shuffle)

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

The Panther, like most German vehicles, seems to have gotten a lot of armchair analysis based on a mythical hypothetical performance on paper that it never actually did in real life.  It certainly didn't have the mobility it's often credited for, due to having an engine that was designed for a much smaller tank.

[Kidd]

T-54, Centurion and Pershing are heavy tanks compared to the T-34, Cromwell and Sherman.

[kato]

I mean come on, the AMX-30's first run was in the weight range of the Sherman family

The AMX-30B (non-prototype) weighed 36 tons, same as the T-54 or T-55 contemporarily. The prototypes later redesignated AMX-30A weighed 32.5 tons. The zero-series Leopard 1 prototypes also weighed only around 38 tons.

Neither the Leopard 1 nor the AMX-30A/B fulfilled the original 1957 FINABEL 3A5 requirements for a standard medium tank. Those were set to a 30-ton weight and a 30 hp/ton engine rating.

Of course, the 60s and 70s also blew out the armor paradigm for the most part

50s actually. The original idea was to improve mobility by shoving the powerpack and armament (literally the same) of the late 40s heavy tank designs into the framework of a medium tank at the cost of armor. Produced prototypes like the Char Lorraine 40t, which basically packed the AMX-50 under the armor protection of an AMX-13 - with the mobility of a modern MBT. In 1952.

[chanman]

T-54, Centurion and Pershing are heavy tanks compared to the T-34, Cromwell and Sherman.

Sure, and my point is that the Panther was as well

[Matti]

Arguably the Panther paradigm (okay, its gun was more middling, especially with the poor quality ammo available to it). Which is why I laugh at the idea of the Panther being a 'medium' tank in the WW2 sense of the word - it might have the mobility, but the all-up weight was on par with the early Centurion and greater than the M26 Pershing, itself designed as a heavy tank (obviously the goalposts get shifted in the post-war shuffle)

As I understand Panther, at first it was supposed to be medium tank, but Hitler or someone wanted more protection which increased weight. That, and inadequate reworking and testing because of hurry to get the tanks into the field, resulted a heavy tank with axles and other parts designed for lighter chassis. Result was host of various breakdowns and other reliability problems for early production runs. And shot traps too.

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

They'd also canceled all forms of quality control by that point in order to speed up production.  And they were using POWs to build them, which meant that their workforce was motivated to sabotage production as much as they could.

[beachhead1985]

Panther was a case of trying to do it all with technology that wasn't there yet and far, far too many engineering shortcuts in the drivetrain.

It had a totally adequate main gun, when the 88s were really overkill against anything up to an IS-2. But it also had a very traditional 3-2-1 armour arrangement.

It influenced post-war design most in the sense of; "What if we could do that, but actually make it work?" That thinking got really pinched off with proto-MBT concepts, which was a short-cut to doing even more by making trade-offs that were unthinkable ten years earlier.

What Panther really did most was in the Main gun; which was copied by the French and used with an autoloader in the AMX-13 and ironically in the Israeli M50 Super-Shermans hand-loaded. It was a real medium-tank gun, which when copied and refined a bit was ideal for tanks of it's class.

The class issue is confusing because when discussing tanks; you need to look at design and not designation (I feel i am being condescending here and I appologize profusely); because designations change constantly. The same Pershings were designated as mediums, heavies and then mediums again. The M46 was considered a tank destroyer briefly for truely obscure reasons, despite only having a different turret and the M47 was almost the exact same tank with a new turret again and called an MBT when it entered service.

Panther's problems were probably fixable, but not in a setting where you still have PzIIIs rolling off the lines in mid-44 and PzIVs still being refined in 1945; it's too much energy wasted on divergent lines. A recurring theme for WWII is no-one being willing to gamble enough on production to slow things down to try and come up with something better or try to really switch over fully to a new type of vehicle. The Germans wasted vast resources of all kinds producing and developing and CONTINUING to develop so many different kinds of fighting vehicles. Common sense ideas like going to the hybrid PzIII/IV chassis as seen in Hummel and Nashorn for ALL support vehicles never got off the ground. Going to King Tiger running gear and new transmission solved most of the Panther's remaining automotive issues; but that didn't happen until early 45. The main gun was still totally fine for anything but the IS right through until 1973, when the Israelis found that they really had kept the last of the M50s around too long; thus they all went to Chile and Lebanon after that, while the IDF retained the 105-armed M51s in reserve service for a while longer.

The problem for the Germans was that when you're drowning in T-34s, you don't want to shut down your Panzer III and IV lines for a few months to a year for more Panthers (that aren't there yet, developmentally) you want more tanks you know work and you want them right now. Likewise; people are screaming for more Panthers, Tigers, ect; so any issues they have need to be fixed on the production line; which leads to increased variation (bad) and the fixes may not stick (Worse).

It's easy to forget that real nations aren't run by omniscient power-gamers, willing to gamble big and then reload the game if they lose. Maybe the solution was to pour everything into STUGs/JPzIV in 1941? But who was really going to make that call?

[DaveMac]

at least 32 off omaha, they dropped a battalion in the first wave and only two made it

http://www.duplexdrivetanks.co.uk/DUPLEXPAGES/DDAY1.html

[Sabelkatten]

(I hope this doesn't get to close to rule 4)

As I understand it one of the big German problems in WWII was that, for most of the war, they didn't run a "war economy". The corporations had so much power (a defining feature of Fascism) that they could control the spending to benefit their bottom line.

So even if government wanted to shut down Pz.III/IV production in favor of Pz.V, it would only happen if the corporations thought they could get a larger profit.

Compare this to the US where the government basically said "build M4s!" and that's what happened. ;)

[marauder648]

RE the T-64/T-80 did they ever fix the issue with the T-64's autoloader having a habit of trying to load the arm of the guy operating in in the T-80?

[beachhead1985]

(I hope this doesn't get to close to rule 4)

As I understand it one of the big German problems in WWII was that, for most of the war, they didn't run a "war economy". The corporations had so much power (a defining feature of Fascism) that they could control the spending to benefit their bottom line.

So even if government wanted to shut down Pz.III/IV production in favor of Pz.V, it would only happen if the corporations thought they could get a larger profit.

Compare this to the US where the government basically said "build M4s!" and that's what happened. ;)

Yes and no.

Yes about the German Economy. Which was really a horrifying beast in a lot of ways. That they did so well on a peacetime footing until 42/43; some sources state until 44! Is terrifying. That they used slave labour as effectively as they did and that the allied bombing campaigns turned out to be totally ineffective, are all factors that make the WWII German economy a terrifying thing to be behold.

But, as I understand it, no; Pz III/IV and other types production was a result of a distrust in the armoured corps for the new Big Cats (they wanted something reliable) and the  Oh Cr**! factor of the insatiable demand for armoured vehicles.

A big American advantage was, as recently discussed on Quora; the depth of experience the USA had with industrial age warfare, going back; arguably to the Civil War and their capacity to meld that with an otherwise very free and open form of government to have what ammounted to a switch-on command economy.

This, in turn allowed them to, yes; make buckets of M4s in the beginning. Sticking with the M4 however and refusing to modify the design significantly, however were symptoms of other driving factors. They made their mis-steps too. Ever heard of the M7?

RE the T-64/T-80 did they ever fix the issue with the T-64's autoloader having a habit of trying to load the arm of the guy operating in in the T-80?

I'm not 100% certain, but I think; yes. In the models with the later Rapira guns, which in turn have better/safer autoloaders.

The BMP-1 had the same issue IIRC.

[marauder648]

RE the German war econimy might I suggest reading the wonderfully written and darn well researched

https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/and-they-shall-reap-the-whirlwind-story-only-thread.343760/

There's a great deal about the German econimy, about how allied bombing got most of their ideas wrong (ball bearings were imported from Sweden as an example) and how in reality the US stumbled across the right target, Oil, in 44. This time in that story, things go a bit different.

[grimlock1]

They made their mis-steps too. Ever heard of the M7?

No, but I'd like to. :-)

[DaveMac]

No, but I'd like to. :-)

http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/US/m7-medium.php

[grimlock1]

http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/US/m7-medium.php

Yeah, that seems like just about the right amount of train wreck...

[Garrand]

The M46 was considered a tank destroyer briefly for truely obscure reasons, despite only having a different turret and the M47 was almost the exact same tank with a new turret again and called an MBT when it entered service.

Just a minor correction. The M46 was the M26 Pershing with a new powerplant & transmission. The two tanks were identical & in fact the M46 was a rebuild program of the M26 Pershing. The turrets were the same, but the engine decks & exhausts were quite different. The M47 married the M46 hull with a new turret.

Damon.

[Matti]

The problem for the Germans was that when you're drowning in T-34s, you don't want to shut down your Panzer III and IV lines for a few months to a year for more Panthers (that aren't there yet, developmentally) you want more tanks you know work and you want them right now. Likewise; people are screaming for more Panthers, Tigers, ect; so any issues they have need to be fixed on the production line; which leads to increased variation (bad) and the fixes may not stick (Worse).

It's easy to forget that real nations aren't run by omniscient power-gamers, willing to gamble big and then reload the game if they lose. Maybe the solution was to pour everything into STUGs/JPzIV in 1941? But who was really going to make that call?

Assuming Germany had stuck with quantity of Panzerkampfwagen III, Panzerkampf... IV, and Stürmgeschutz series and left Panther & sequels on the drawing board, would they had have enough fuel to keep the numbers going? According to certain claims, fuel ran low and halftracks were used to clear the minefields. So somebody decided Germany couldn't win through the numbers and it is better to produce better tanks against opposing numerical superiority. But then appeared unexpected problems. Compare to F-35.

[Fat Guy]

The two tanks were identical & in fact the M46 was a rebuild program of the M26 Pershing. The turrets were the same, but the engine decks & exhausts were quite different.

And the M46 had that little track tensioning wheel below the sprocket.

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

Assuming Germany had stuck with quantity of Panzerkampfwagen III, Panzerkampf... IV, and Stürmgeschutz series and left Panther & sequels on the drawing board, would they had have enough fuel to keep the numbers going? According to certain claims, fuel ran low and halftracks were used to clear the minefields. So somebody decided Germany couldn't win through the numbers and it is better to produce better tanks against opposing numerical superiority. But then appeared unexpected problems. Compare to F-35.

Tigers and Panthers (to say nothing of the Maus) were serious gas-guzzlers.  It would have been easier keeping a fleet of Panzer IVs fueled.