TL9 Heavy Tank

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by dcarson

The US Sherman tank was suboptimal as a tank on purpose.

The Sherman was optimized. It was just that part of the optimization was optimization for logistics.

[The Colonel]

Originally Posted by dcarson

Or when the local wiccan traps it in a salt circle. https://laughingsquid.com/performanc...f-driving-car/

So ... it's actually a cat? Powered by a cat's brain in a jar?

Originally Posted by ravenfish

Plus, it's outright embarrassing to lose tanks when partisans put up "detour" signs pointing off cliffs.

I recall the early days of GPS navigation when commercial artics were driven up goat tracks and into mud wallows by human drivers blindly following the instructions of an AI - including one occasion where one bogged itself so badly it needed the attentions of a ARV from a nearby army training area. And then there was (the legend of) that ferry crossing in Germany that people drove off of into the river because their GPS told them it was a bridge.

[Verjigorm]

Originally Posted by Anthony

The Sherman was optimized. It was just that part of the optimization was optimization for logistics.

I think it should also be mentioned that the Sherman was outright superior to Panzer IIIs and IVs(up to around the F or H models) in firepower, mobility and protection, while also having the advantage of being much easier to work on(because the US really standardized parts for their tanks, and you didn't have to spend two or three hours in with a vise and file adjusting fit). Later IVs were possibly a bit superior.

The Panther was too mechanically unreliable to be considered in the same class as the sherman, imho.

[Witchking]

Originally Posted by Verjigorm

The Panther was too mechanically unreliable to be considered in the same class as the sherman, imho.

You are just saying that because to replace the Panther transmission you had to remove the turrent, the drivers position, and a few other incidentals.

You are just biased against back-breaking hard work that could only be done at the depot level. ADMIT IT!!

[Verjigorm]

Originally Posted by Witchking

You are just saying that because to replace the Panther transmission you had to remove the turrent, the drivers position, and a few other incidentals.

You are just biased against back-breaking hard work that could only be done at the depot level. ADMIT IT!!

Exactly so. :)

[Witchking]

Originally Posted by Verjigorm

while also having the advantage of being much easier to work on(because the US really standardized parts for their tanks, and you didn't have to spend two or three hours in with a vise and file adjusting fit).

One of the things that caught my ear on one of the Chieftan's talks was not just that parts were standardized...but the contrast on what was considered 'an adequate amount of spare parts'.

The US made and shipped a river of spare parts to where ever Shermans and other US tanks went. I would not say a US tank was never laid up waiting for spare parts to start repairs...but from my reading etc., it was a damned rare experience.

Conversely the Germans did not emphasize the production of spare parts...up until the first 3 months of the Russian campaign they had 'adequate' spares. Most of the war the 'authorized' production of spares was 1:1. Build a tank and build 1 spare transmission, engine. etc. They chose to de-emphasize spares production to build more complete tanks. Apparently in the main they did not prioritize the building of EXTRA items in highest demand (like engines and transmissions).

Thus mechanics checking daily at the railhead to see if parts requisitioned had come in or waiting to be 'first in line' for whatever limited number did arrive. Meanwhile the tanks sat 'down for maintenance.'

Indeed one of his talks mentioned posting guards on spares to attempt to prevent 'raids' from their own units trying to jump the line.

I had thought the War Production Board, the War Manpower Commission, the Office of Price Administration, the Office of Production Management, the Supply Priorities and Allocations Board, the War Industries Board, the Price Fixing Committee, the Fuel Administration, the Food Administration, the Palmer Board and the Truman Committee and the rest of the alphabet soup of agencies in Washington was disorganized.

I had a joke that the only thing the US made more of than tanks, ships, planes, etc was planning meetings. But damned if it didn't work.

In 1939 the US Army was lower than Portugal on the list of National Army strength by number of men under arms. (190,000 authorized but tens of thousands less on the books). The miracle of production from there to the 1945 US Army will likely never be matched again.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by The Colonel

So ... it's actually a cat? Powered by a cat's brain in a jar?

To trap a cat you would usually want to draw a rectangle, not a circle.

[Nightrider_88]

Originally Posted by Þorkell

I've always seen it mentioned that the height of the tank was to fit the engine in it. Also the height of the Sherman is 2.74–2.97m (9 ft 0 in–9 ft 9 in) depending on variant, and as I recall that's measured to the mounted .50 cal machine gun. The Panzer IV (the most numerous German tank) had a height of 2.68m. A Panther is 2.99m, a Tiger is 3m.

As a side effect, it was possible to use wide variety of engines in Sherman without many modifications.

Also, it was relatovely easy to rearm it.

[The Colonel]

Originally Posted by Witchking

You are just saying that because to replace the Panther transmission you had to remove the turrent, the drivers position, and a few other incidentals.

You are just biased against back-breaking hard work that could only be done at the depot level. ADMIT IT!!

That and having an additional production run where the transmission had a nasty tendency to burst into flames if you over-revved it.

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

To trap a cat you would usually want to draw a rectangle, not a circle.

Could have sworn it was circles they were binding cats in ... and turning them with zucchini.

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by The Colonel

That and having an additional production run where the transmission had a nasty tendency to burst into flames if you over-revved it.

On the other hand, about 6,000 Panthers were made and fielded, and they weren't, by the standards of WWII, terribly unreliable. Part of the problem wasn't the design either, but rather the use of slave-labour to make them, as the workers 1) had no incentive to produce good parts, and 2) sometimes actively sabotaged their output. What they were was a pain to maintain and too heavy for their transmission, so it took skill to drive them without burning it out, and skilled drivers were in short supply late in the war.

By the way, M4s weren't that great if away from the amazing US logistics chain. The Shermans the British used at El Alamein were supplied without sufficient spares (a problem that seemed to plague the British in North Africa - it had a lot to do with the poor reputation the Crusaders have), and they broke down pretty quickly. I suspect they were easy to fix when they broke, rather than not breaking.

By the way, the Russians were impressed by the way German tanks (presumably meaning the PZ.IV, as that was the most common medium) didn't break down on long road marches. OTOH, if a T-34, M4, or Valentine broke down you could probably fix the thing on the spot.