tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post8423541484117797858..comments2024-03-28T14:35:30.147-04:00Comments on Tank Archives: Dead End ReinforcementPeterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09622237223229485503noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-24855566557302593662021-02-19T08:24:15.142-05:002021-02-19T08:24:15.142-05:00Well it was the wartime experiences of their limit...Well it was the wartime experiences of their limited utility in practical combat that caused their abandonment. Plus often the bow gunner doubled as radio operator, which role became superfluous once the electronics were refined into more compact and less temperamental designs that the commander could handle himself without undue distraction.<br /><br />The explosive increase in gun power and due need to prune any unnecessary perforations that weakened the main armour belt no doubt also contributed.<br /><br />Tellingly essentially all the next-gen designs in the pipeline at the end of the war had ditched the bow MG or at least reduced it to the vestigial minimum of the T-44 (though that setup had already been used in some interwar tanks). The only holdout was the Americans, still in thrall of what some historians archly call "the cult of the machine gun" - witness the peak "more dakka" lunacy of the M2 Light with its whopping 5 bullet hoses - who stubbornly clung onto that archaic accessory until the introduction of the M48 in '52.Kellomieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04915110653443066212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-36436303469810615062021-01-29T12:23:38.269-05:002021-01-29T12:23:38.269-05:00The straightened upper hull on the IS-2 was a resp...The straightened upper hull on the IS-2 was a response to the appearance of the KwK 42, there wasn't an easy upgrade that could be made to the T-34-85 like that. I agree that the 60 mm front would have been useful, but like Tokyo said the Red Army overreacted and assumed that 75 and 88 mm guns with 1000+ m/s of muzzle velocity were going to be standard going forward.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09622237223229485503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-14060979483050578962021-01-22T17:52:04.492-05:002021-01-22T17:52:04.492-05:00I wholly agree, and personally think the ditching ...I wholly agree, and personally think the ditching of the T-43 (with an 85mm fitted in it, of course) and T-34/85M were bad moves.<br /><br />At least they finally got something nice with the T-44/100 and then T-54.Tokyo Morosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17319803375878393783noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-10863517522994142622021-01-21T12:54:05.957-05:002021-01-21T12:54:05.957-05:00The thing is, Tokyo, the Soviets did not apply the...The thing is, Tokyo, the Soviets did not apply the same reasoning to the IS-2 and its development. The IS-2 model 1944 was not invulnerable to the Pak40 at point-blank range at all frontal surfaces (though it was close). The IS-2 was still vulnerable to the Kwk36 and the Kwk42 at short ranges, and to the Kwk43 still further out. Yet the IS-2's armor deficiencies didn't stop it from being built; its 'imperfect' armor did allow it to engage both Tiger Is and Panthers in relative safety at 1000 meters and even take on King Tigers at 1500 meters with about the same degree of safety. Not perfect (which is why the IS-3 and IS-4 were designed and built) but deemed good enough.<br /><br />If you're ok with that for your heavy tank, why insist that your medium tank be able to withstand a hit from a gun like the Kwk42 and the same or shorter ranges that your heavy tank cannot? That does not compute. A T-34/85M with even 60 mm of hull armor would be able to resist hits from anything with a Pak40 gun--PzIVs, Marders, Hetzers, JadgpzIVs, StugIIIs, etc) at at least 500 meters or longer while being able to destroy all of these with its own gun. That's a huge advantage for the T-34.<br /><br />As for fighting the Panther (only about 300 of which were on the whole Eastern Front in mid-1944) even having impenetrable armor on the T-34/85M does not help the fact its 85 mm would struggle against many of the Panther's frontal surfaces. A T-34/85M with even 60 mm of hull armor would have about equivalent turret and hull protection, and it would resist the Kwk42 at maybe 1200 meters or so, but would still be at a disadvantage in a frontal-head-to-head meeting (the T-34's 85 mm can get through some places on the Panther's frontal armor at c. 1000 meters but they're relatively small and hard to target where the Kwk42 would like penetrate anywhere it hit the T-34 at that range). The T-34's biggest advantage is that the Panther's side armor was weak even against highly oblique hits from the 76.2 mm gun on T-34/76s, let alone the 85 mm.<br /><br />But to 'fix' the T-34/85 vs Panther, problem, you need a new tank with a D-10 or better. That's what later T-44 versions and T-54 were all about. To me that's not a argument against the T-34/85M fix.<br /><br />Stewart Millenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01261690405884935161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-60763756913355447682021-01-21T00:21:14.082-05:002021-01-21T00:21:14.082-05:00If I remember from the T26's development, it w...If I remember from the T26's development, it was for suppressive fire and immediate reaction shots against ambushes when the turret wasn't aimed on target. <br /><br />Ordnance wanted to ditch the hull MG on T26 and fit ammo stowage racks there (to meet the 70 round AGF stowage requirement), but AGF refusing to budge on the hull MG and 70 round requirement meant sacrifices elsewhere - the single-plane gun stabilizer was deleted as a result to free up space for ammo.Tokyo Morosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17319803375878393783noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-28445699661210523492021-01-21T00:19:15.537-05:002021-01-21T00:19:15.537-05:00I think they had mistakenly assumed the KwK42/43 w...I think they had mistakenly assumed the KwK42/43 would become the standard, much as how the PaK40 and KwK40 near-totally replaced earlier weapons of their class in production.<br /><br />T-43 died for the same exact reason - the armor was good against the 75mm L/48 but was just as worthless as the regular T-34 against the long guns. <br /><br />I'm not sure the Soviets realized what a struggle the Germans would have getting the better guns out in number. The L/48 ended up being far and away the most common gun until the end of the war as you say. Tokyo Morosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17319803375878393783noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-18322083531651224522021-01-20T15:26:51.972-05:002021-01-20T15:26:51.972-05:00That's extremely interesting entry for me! Som...That's extremely interesting entry for me! Some time ago I created thesis that in T-34 usage vertical rear armour can be useless. I created this thesis, because if we use vertical rear armour instead sloped armour, in this case we create extra space above gearbox- probably useless space, because if we mount something above gearbox, in this case decrease accessiblity into gearbox and steering system. This entry proved my thesis- extra fuel tanks located above gearbox decrease accessibility.AKMShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08038804619662765120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-24809843826159376822021-01-20T06:00:08.526-05:002021-01-20T06:00:08.526-05:00It's always interesting, given that modern tan...It's always interesting, given that modern tanks have dispensed with hull MGs entirely, to see how nearly all the parties to WW2 clung onto them. There seems to have been a strong strain of thought amongst procurement officers all over the world (presumably reflected in the opinions of the tankers themselves) that the things were useful - even to the point of introducing half-measures like fixed MGs.<br /><br />I'd love to know what the reason is here.Thom Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03200667235769052060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-66074207648362995592021-01-18T11:49:34.641-05:002021-01-18T11:49:34.641-05:00When reading this, it seemed the whole T-34/85M id...When reading this, it seemed the whole T-34/85M idea suffered from mission bloat during its lifetime. The design was not perfect but seemed to do reasonably well (from my reading of this article) and would have been well-protected against the ubiquitous Pak40 AT gun, but then there came an obsession with making a tank with frontal hull protection against both the Kwk42 and Kwk43 guns, both of which were far more rarely encountered. The perfect became the obstacle to the good enough.<br /><br />And why wasn't 60 mm good enough? That would calculate to be equivalent 150 mm of vertical armor, and the Pak40 would certainly struggle with that (even considering overmatching). And even if going to 75 mm would make the T-34/85M impervious to the Pak40 on a hit to the hull, it could still be penetrated by a hit by the Pak40 to the flatter regions of the 90 mm turret front. Why try to make a tank impervious to one a hit on one of its frontal surfaces if a hit on another surface by the same weapon can destroy it? If weight savings was such a big deal, 60 mm on the front would be a good compromise and give the front hull and the front turret equally good resistance, which is what I'd think you'd want. It is quite impossible to design the "unstoppable tank" so don't try. The biggest problem with the T-34/85 was that it's frontal hull armor had become weaker than its improved turret armor (you posted a report by the 2nd Guards Tank Army on cause of gunfire losses a while back, which showed that more T-34s were being lost to hits on the hull than the turret, which confirms this) and thus even going to 60 mm of armor would help that situation markedly. The biggest issue of the Red Army in the later war years was the manpower situation, not hardware availability, and this change might have saved many tankers' lives.<br /><br />The biggest drawback insofar as I could see, would be the thinner armor on the bottom (and subsequent loss from mines). As mines were a common cause of tank loss, that's justified; but I recall more tanks were still lost to AT gunfire than mines, so the changes would still be beneficial. The additional weight and corresponding potential suspension issues are concerns, for sure, but the question to me is "would you rather have to a bit more maintenance on your tanks, or would you rather *lose* both tanks (and crews) in combat? As long as the additional maintenance issues are modest, the additional armor would be justified.<br /><br /><br />Stewart Millenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01261690405884935161noreply@blogger.com