Jump to content


Any one lesson learned in tank design during WW2?


  • Please log in to reply
59 replies to this topic

1Sherman #41 Posted May 27 2018 - 04:47

    Major

  • Players
  • 5293 battles
  • 3,290
  • Member since:
    07-10-2013

View PostStrike_Witch_Tomoko, on May 26 2018 - 00:19, said:

 

57mm vs tiger tank.  it was worthless.

 

but in WoT  its pen, dpm, and reliability eat stuff alive

 

According to one of the more reputable history blogs that people around here like to read, the first time the Brits saw the Tiger I in North Africa they were able to kill it with 57mm AT guns. It wasn't easy, but they did it.

1Sherman #42 Posted May 27 2018 - 04:50

    Major

  • Players
  • 5293 battles
  • 3,290
  • Member since:
    07-10-2013

View PostDeathbyGMaC, on May 26 2018 - 15:25, said:

Following the argument of "Commanders Choice" -v- "Tankers Choice" I believe the American and Russian doctrine was more like "We got more bodies to waste then the Germans". I'm not going to do the research but I believe more German soldiers lived to fight another day after their tank was hit then the Allies did. The Allies just had more bodies to waste. I would argue that if the German strategy would have been mass produce the Panther and JagdPanther and played a more defensive roll the Allies time would have been much tougher. The advent of  ground attack aircraft kinda screwed the tank anyway. If you wanna pick one thing that was learned in WWII about armored vehicles is just that, Strike Aircraft win every time.

 

Here's where I got it from: https://tankandafvnews.com/2015/01/27/zaloga_interview/

There's no point in arguing with Steven Zaloga. If someone says something he actually wrote and/or said, they're right. End of story.



The_Chieftain #43 Posted May 27 2018 - 05:06

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 10691 battles
  • 9,766
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

View PostKenshin2kx, on May 24 2018 - 18:03, said:

 

As I read the balancing factors ... the thought kept popping into my mind ... so, why not a really good/great cannon with the best compromise for armor and speed as mitigated by the most advanced (available) powerplant?  Scratches head, I think I would prioritize the design criteria as such ... (hopefully less confusing than my kneejerk rambling above), IMO the engineer should start with the powerplant first ... determine motive potential  which should indicate weight range limits for intended performance goal for a given amount of armor .. then most advanced cannon.

 

It is interesting to see the design priorities of the different nations. In the 1930s, the Germans concluded that radius of action trumped gun power which trumped armor. By the time you start talking Panzer III, crew efficiency is thrown in before armor. The full quote is in one of Doyle’s books, at home. (I’m away right now). By 1942, gun power has come to the front of the line but armor is still last. This matches with US tank crew opinion in late 44/45, the demand was always for a better gun. Demand for better armor (notwithstanding the ersatz sandbag efforts sometimes seen) was much lower. In the German case, the thinking was that troops would not be demoralized by meeting a KV, as they had guns to take it (the proposal was rather Firefly-esque, having a few gun tanks,per unit). The Americans had enough faith in their mobility, supporting assets and training that they believed that they didn’t need the armor to win a duel. (A good enough gun would have made the field-added armor irrelevant).

 

View Post1Sherman, on May 27 2018 - 03:47, said:

 

According to one of the more reputable history blogs that people around here like to read, the first time the Brits saw the Tiger I in North Africa they were able to kill it with 57mm AT guns. It wasn't easy, but they did it.

 

The only working tiger survives today because it was knocked out by 57mm guns, and then sent to the UK.



DVK9 #44 Posted May 27 2018 - 21:41

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 24437 battles
  • 461
  • [-TX-] -TX-
  • Member since:
    05-15-2013

yes the Ratte needs to be a German Tier X heavy and toss the rest. 

Make sure you have the whole 40 man crew for it also and dont sell it as a preemie.

 



DeathbyGMaC #45 Posted May 27 2018 - 22:15

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 29902 battles
  • 636
  • [_RUF_] _RUF_
  • Member since:
    11-27-2013
Wow, ok I stand corrected. I guess I biased because I'm a pilot and would rather take my chances in a plane than sitting in a tank. The P-47 and P-38 would be dream machines to fly, after I got to fly the P-51, Spitfire, ME109 or FW 190!

mrmojo #46 Posted May 28 2018 - 02:13

    Major

  • Players
  • 19733 battles
  • 2,368
  • [-LEG-] -LEG-
  • Member since:
    07-24-2011

View PostThe_Chieftain, on May 27 2018 - 12:06, said:

 

The only working tiger survives today because it was knocked out by 57mm guns, and then sent to the UK.

 

Knocked out?

 

The ability to traverse the turret was lost because of a 1 in a million shot, the crew panicked and abandoned the tank wthout destroying it.

 

 

 

 



ket101 #47 Posted May 28 2018 - 02:48

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 18441 battles
  • 9,071
  • [N-O-M] N-O-M
  • Member since:
    01-10-2011

View Postmrmojo, on May 28 2018 - 11:13, said:

 

Knocked out?

 

The ability to traverse the turret was lost because of a 1 in a million shot, the crew panicked and abandoned the tank wthout destroying it.

 

 

 

 

 

TKO.

Not_Connery #48 Posted May 28 2018 - 04:23

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 6115 battles
  • 498
  • [BTBG] BTBG
  • Member since:
    02-08-2017

View PostDVK9, on May 27 2018 - 21:41, said:

yes the Ratte needs to be a German Tier X heavy and toss the rest. 

Make sure you have the whole 40 man crew for it also and dont sell it as a preemie.

 

 

If they ever were to put the Ratte into the game, they would have to make it a possible respawn point for light tanks in Frontline (ala star wars battlefront 2 from 2005).



1Sherman #49 Posted May 28 2018 - 05:50

    Major

  • Players
  • 5293 battles
  • 3,290
  • Member since:
    07-10-2013

View Postmrmojo, on May 28 2018 - 01:13, said:

 

Knocked out?

 

The ability to traverse the turret was lost because of a 1 in a million shot, the crew panicked and abandoned the tank wthout destroying it.

 

 

 

 

 

If it's stupid but it works, it isn't stupid.

Not_Connery #50 Posted May 28 2018 - 06:02

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 6115 battles
  • 498
  • [BTBG] BTBG
  • Member since:
    02-08-2017

View Postmrmojo, on May 28 2018 - 02:13, said:

 

Knocked out?

 

The ability to traverse the turret was lost because of a 1 in a million shot, the crew panicked and abandoned the tank wthout destroying it.

 

 

 

 

 

If the tank is no longer able to fight to the point that the crew decides to abandon it (which this crew apparently felt the need to do), then I think that qualifies as having knocked the tank out of the fight.



saru_richard #51 Posted May 28 2018 - 08:13

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 23679 battles
  • 2,188
  • [NA-CL] NA-CL
  • Member since:
    08-19-2015
another lesson learn that I'm pretty sure someone has brought up is mini turrets are a bad idea, along with hull mounted machinegun ports

Anlushac11 #52 Posted May 28 2018 - 14:15

    Major

  • Players
  • 35045 battles
  • 2,214
  • Member since:
    05-25-2013

The British OQF 6lbr aka the 57mm was very good at what ti was designed to do...punch holes in armor. The Americans liked the Brit 6lbr well enough to license produce it. I would not consider it a failure, it merely entered service at a time when armor penetration took a back seat to dual purpose guns. When Germans fielded heavier armored vehicles armor penetration took lead again and the 17lbr was put in service.

 

Combat experience showed a good dual purpose gun that could fire a effective AP round and a good HE round was the way to go.

 

The Brits were sufficiently impressed by the US M3 medium and M4 medium and their dual purpose 75mm gun that the Brits used large numbers of Shermans and Vickers developed the OQF 75mm by boring 6lbr to 75mm adn a minor redesign to breech.

 

The Brits only got their own dual purpose gun tank when Cromwells used the OQF 75mm, no Cromwells were ever equipped with the Vickers 75mm HV

 

The Germans developed a similar 75mm gun built from cut down and bored out 50mm guns but to best of my knowledge these were used as towed guns only firing HE and HEAT and never fitted to tanks.

 

On a different note at start of war in 1939 many tanks still used riveted armor. By end of war almost all tanks were welded.



Lunarrise #53 Posted May 29 2018 - 18:52

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 7034 battles
  • 74
  • [TLSC] TLSC
  • Member since:
    04-07-2013

View PostDeathbyGMaC, on May 26 2018 - 15:25, said:

Following the argument of "Commanders Choice" -v- "Tankers Choice" I believe the American and Russian doctrine was more like "We got more bodies to waste then the Germans". I'm not going to do the research but I believe more German soldiers lived to fight another day after their tank was hit then the Allies did. The Allies just had more bodies to waste. I would argue that if the German strategy would have been mass produce the Panther and JagdPanther and played a more defensive roll the Allies time would have been much tougher. The advent of  ground attack aircraft kinda screwed the tank anyway. If you wanna pick one thing that was learned in WWII about armored vehicles is just that, Strike Aircraft win every time.

 

I think it was addressed on one of the Chieftain's videos or in the comments section thereof that the Germans actually suffered more dead crewmen per tank knocked out. The loss of US tank crewmen per vehicle knocked was .6 of a man per vehicle, thanks to things like crew training and the quality of the escape hatches.

The_Chieftain #54 Posted Jun 21 2018 - 02:04

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 10691 battles
  • 9,766
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

View Postmrmojo, on May 28 2018 - 01:13, said:

 

Knocked out?

 

The ability to traverse the turret was lost because of a 1 in a million shot, the crew panicked and abandoned the tank wthout destroying it.

 

 

 

 

 

Knocked out is knocked out. Be it by glorious explosion or causing the crew to run away, it is no longer contributing the the fight, which is good enough.

 

People focus too much on AP vs Armor values, and ignore everything else that can happen. In Italy, one Tiger crew was found to have expired from concussion, from all the HE. When the US forces met Tigers at El Guettar, even the tank destroyers had 75mm guns of, supposedly, dubious capability against the thickly skinned tanks. Yet, at the end, a number of Tigers were removed from the German inventory.

 



Spector668 #55 Posted Jun 21 2018 - 07:43

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 21134 battles
  • 105
  • [K-H] K-H
  • Member since:
    09-23-2011

I just read through this thread, and to the OP's question( which would be a good one for debate and research), I do not believe there is any ONE particular lesson learned regarding tank design. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that several design concepts affected and were reflected in each nations tank design evolution, in addition to another factor I have not seen covered.


 

I can only speak for the performance of the US, but I think the biggest strengths could be summed up with 2 separate but paralleling concepts. The first being design flexibility, pertaining to the tanks themselves and their capability to take on and function in a wide variety of mission roles. The second one pertains to the soft, squishy things in the tanks.... the crews. Good training of the crews to perform their core duties/tasks engenders cohesion within the crew, and trust in their vehicle and fellow crewmembers. When these factors are combined, the result is getting 'more' out of the tank/crew than simply 'drive tank, make gun go BOOM'. IMO the combination of these factors are what made the M4 and that family of variants successful in WWII. Yes, in some ways their German counterparts were more technologically advanced and their crews were well trained, but as the war ground on (particularly after Germany found itself in a 2-front war and dwindling resources in both raw materials and bodies), IMO the Germans began suffering from the liability(and the most important one of all) of having to rush crewmen through training and into the fight, whereas US tank forces at this point were often times seasoned combat veterans who were not only well trained, but also what I call 'Combat savvy'....meaning they knew what to do to get the most out of their tanks, but most importantly could improvise and think on the fly to find solutions in most any combat situation they found themselves in. From what I have read regarding Soviet and British tanks and tankers from that period, much of the same pertains to the tank crews and units as well.


 

But this is just my .02 cents... ;)


Edited by Spector668, Jun 21 2018 - 07:45.


mrmojo #56 Posted Jun 21 2018 - 08:21

    Major

  • Players
  • 19733 battles
  • 2,368
  • [-LEG-] -LEG-
  • Member since:
    07-24-2011

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Jun 21 2018 - 09:04, said:

 

Knocked out is knocked out. Be it by glorious explosion or causing the crew to run away, it is no longer contributing the the fight, which is good enough.

 

People focus too much on AP vs Armor values, and ignore everything else that can happen. In Italy, one Tiger crew was found to have expired from concussion, from all the HE. When the US forces met Tigers at El Guettar, even the tank destroyers had 75mm guns of, supposedly, dubious capability against the thickly skinned tanks. Yet, at the end, a number of Tigers were removed from the German inventory.

 

 

Tank runs out of fuel and is abandoned - knocked out!

 

Tank falls off bridge - knocked out!

 

Tanks can't traverse a rocky beach under enemy fire - knocked out!

 

The British used a sledge hammer to remove the spent AP round and un-jam the turret, then drove the fully functioning "knocked out" Tiger away.



moon111 #57 Posted Jun 21 2018 - 15:20

    Major

  • Players
  • 29563 battles
  • 2,189
  • Member since:
    06-29-2013

Absolutely no expert, but don't think I heard of tank track extensions, grousers, or duckbills until WWII.  


Think there was more development done with how to incorporate tanks then design.  Availability of fuel

becomes a big thing.  Even today, when someone says the Abrams is the best... yes for the U.S., but 

with other countries with more questionable abilities to continuously supply, the answer might be no.



Not_Connery #58 Posted Jun 21 2018 - 16:17

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 6115 battles
  • 498
  • [BTBG] BTBG
  • Member since:
    02-08-2017

View Postmoon111, on Jun 21 2018 - 15:20, said:

Absolutely no expert, but don't think I heard of tank track extensions, grousers, or duckbills until WWII.  


Think there was more development done with how to incorporate tanks then design.  Availability of fuel

becomes a big thing.  Even today, when someone says the Abrams is the best... yes for the U.S., but 

with other countries with more questionable abilities to continuously supply, the answer might be no.

 

RED BALL EXPRESS FTW!!!!!!!



ket101 #59 Posted Jun 22 2018 - 00:31

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 18441 battles
  • 9,071
  • [N-O-M] N-O-M
  • Member since:
    01-10-2011

View Postmoon111, on Jun 22 2018 - 00:20, said:

Absolutely no expert, but don't think I heard of tank track extensions, grousers, or duckbills until WWII.  


Think there was more development done with how to incorporate tanks then design.  Availability of fuel

becomes a big thing.  Even today, when someone says the Abrams is the best... yes for the U.S., but 

with other countries with more questionable abilities to continuously supply, the answer might be no.

 

Grousers were a WWI invention, on the British rhomboidal tanks.  They were extended track plates, intended to help push through the mud.  They called them grousers due to the noise they made.  Google something like "mk IV tank grousers" and you'll see photos.

 

For interest sake, the Hummel at the Cairns museum fitted with Winterketten tracks: https://www.facebook...?type=3

 


Edited by ket101, Jun 22 2018 - 05:27.


The_Chieftain #60 Posted Jun 22 2018 - 00:42

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 10691 battles
  • 9,766
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

View Postmrmojo, on Jun 21 2018 - 07:21, said:

 

Tank runs out of fuel and is abandoned - knocked out!

 

Tank falls off bridge - knocked out!

 

Tanks can't traverse a rocky beach under enemy fire - knocked out!

 

The British used a sledge hammer to remove the spent AP round and un-jam the turret, then drove the fully functioning "knocked out" Tiger away.

 

Yep. As I said, if it’s out of the fight, it isn’t a danger to the enemy and will play no further part in the current battle. Maybe they should build more fuel efficient tanks, or better protect the supply lines against enemy interdiction....






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users