|
|
Post by oldcodger on Aug 16, 2015 20:01:49 GMT
By the time the Maus was ready it would have been impossible to transport it to the front via railway because the German rail lines were being bombed continuously and they had no tank transporters large enough to carry it from the rail head to the battlefield.
|
|
|
|
Post by oscardeuce on Aug 17, 2015 4:20:40 GMT
And then there was the "Maus" ("mouse"), a tank built to the specifications from Hitler himself. 120 tons and then increased to 180 tons. Fully unable to cross bridges, a pure waste of resources. They could have made several hundred "good" tanks instead. are you aware of our saying "an elephant is a mouse built to government specifications"? it seems appropriate to the name of your maus. The Germans already had an Elephant...  |
|
|
|
Post by oscardeuce on Aug 17, 2015 4:28:36 GMT
Tank trench. If you think it through, its not such a good idea... At the start of WW11, I have been hearing "rumours" that they experimented with tank trenches. Here is the idea, during WW1, they had trench warfare, and thats about how it went. So in the beginning of WW2, they thought (and by them, I mean the high-guard of the military) that this new-fangled tank "thingumy" would be an excellent replacement for the rifleman of the trenches, so, experimented with digging long trenches as defence around important places where tanks could trundle about exposing just the top of the turret and the Gun. Sort of dug-in gun emplacements, but with sideways movement to cover different parts of the defence "as needed". If you think of the old style Castle, its like draining the moat and letting the tanks have that as their own personal race-track?... The idea being that the tanks could then go out on the attack at some point. (There would be ramps somewhere...) And for me, its a bloody silly idea, why not just use field cannons and leave the heavy machinery scattered where its harder to find..... I just dont know if this is an old soldiers tale or if there is anything "more" to this. Anyone know?... It does make sense to use tanks stationary - for a while! If you want to defend a strategic place, you really dig in tanks. To do that, you simply dig a ramp down into the ground. It works best if the tank is in top of a ridge. This makes it a very small target which is very hard to hit. This causes a lot of problems for the advancing enemy. First of all, every approaching enemy tank is suddenly exposed to several turrets which can shoot at it. The moving enemy tanks lack accuracy compared to the stationary ones. And the stationary ones are not sitting ducks at all since they are a tiny target to spot and then hit. And a stationary tank can shoot much more accurate so it can destroy the targets on greater distances. And when the enemy manages to break through, the tanks then just floor the accelerator and rush down the ridge into another fortress position to start the trick all over again. The first rule of tanks is stationary tanks die. Once you fire, even from hull down or defilade prepared position, you give away your position. Remember other tanks are not your only enemy. Once you are seen, air assets and artillery will be called in . 1-2 shots then you had better be moving to another position, ideally while other tanks are covering your travel. Then you cover the other tanks, hopefully arty falls on your previous position, then your arty counter batteries, but the. They have to move. It gets complex, but even when defending a position you have to move or die on the modern battlefield. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 17, 2015 14:23:59 GMT
It does make sense to use tanks stationary - for a while! If you want to defend a strategic place, you really dig in tanks. To do that, you simply dig a ramp down into the ground. It works best if the tank is in top of a ridge. This makes it a very small target which is very hard to hit. This causes a lot of problems for the advancing enemy. First of all, every approaching enemy tank is suddenly exposed to several turrets which can shoot at it. The moving enemy tanks lack accuracy compared to the stationary ones. And the stationary ones are not sitting ducks at all since they are a tiny target to spot and then hit. And a stationary tank can shoot much more accurate so it can destroy the targets on greater distances. And when the enemy manages to break through, the tanks then just floor the accelerator and rush down the ridge into another fortress position to start the trick all over again. The first rule of tanks is stationary tanks die. Once you fire, even from hull down or defilade prepared position, you give away your position. Remember other tanks are not your only enemy. Once you are seen, air assets and artillery will be called in . 1-2 shots then you had better be moving to another position, ideally while other tanks are covering your travel. Then you cover the other tanks, hopefully arty falls on your previous position, then your arty counter batteries, but the. They have to move. It gets complex, but even when defending a position you have to move or die on the modern battlefield. as Mr Miyagi said (Karate Kid II) the best way to not get hit is to not be there when he hits you. |
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Aug 17, 2015 16:53:31 GMT
I would say having that many tanks in a trench parallel to the front would be trouble. Either artillery would take them out or advancing forces would. It would be hard to pull back to other positions. Better each tank had a prepared position and another prepared secondary position. This way they can reposition from a defensive/ambush to either withdraw or advance based on the situation Pick up a copy of "Team Yankee" by Harold Coyle. It describes this very well. Yeah - "Team Yankee" is a pretty good read. Sadly, although it was a major hit back in the day (even spawning a graphic novel and a full-fledged video game), it appears to have been forgotten in favor of more recent Coyle works. |
|
|
|
Post by c64 on Aug 19, 2015 11:12:21 GMT
By the time the Maus was ready it would have been impossible to transport it to the front via railway because the German rail lines were being bombed continuously and they had no tank transporters large enough to carry it from the rail head to the battlefield. Holes in the rails were not the problems. The "Maus" was too heavy to put it onto ordinary rail cars and too wide and heavy for most rail tracks. ANd it couldn't cross bridges so they had added a snorkel which didn't work out. ALso it had guzzled a lot of fuel. 1500 liter per 100 kilometers, that's 0.16 mpg! And the maximum range was 100km (200km at best on the Autobahn) Here are pictures, facts and figures: www.panther-panzer.de/Sonstige/Maus.htm |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Aug 19, 2015 12:40:48 GMT
Keep in mind that the original post was in relation to WW2, and at this point the vast majority of tanks had to stop to fire if they intended to actually hit anything. Only the German Panther and Tiger Tanks were capable of firing with any accuracy when moving, due to their revolutionary (and complex) suspension system.
We should also remember that at this point air attacks against Tanks seem to have only been considered dangerous if the tank was in the open - in practically all of the accounts I can remember about aircraft taking tanks out they were usually out in the open and quite often driving on roads. Fortified positions usually came with lots in the way of Anti-Aircraft guns, which for the most part would discourage dive bombing and high altitude bombing wasn't all that effective against such positions due to the inaccuracy inherent in the technology available. (Something the British discovered the hard way)
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 19, 2015 14:11:29 GMT
By the time the Maus was ready it would have been impossible to transport it to the front via railway because the German rail lines were being bombed continuously and they had no tank transporters large enough to carry it from the rail head to the battlefield. Holes in the rails were not the problems. The "Maus" was too heavy to put it onto ordinary rail cars and too wide and heavy for most rail tracks. ANd it couldn't cross bridges so they had added a snorkel which didn't work out. ALso it had guzzled a lot of fuel. 1500 liter per 100 kilometers, that's 0.16 mpg! And the maximum range was 100km (200km at best on the Autobahn) Here are pictures, facts and figures: www.panther-panzer.de/Sonstige/Maus.htmthat is even more impressively inefficient than the original M1 Abrams, which is reported to have run at 4 gallons per mile. |
|
|
|
Post by c64 on Aug 19, 2015 15:01:30 GMT
Depends on what you do. The figures for the Maus are for optimum conditions. The 4 gallons for thr M1A1 are battle average while scouting and driving slow. Travelling at optimum pace, it consumed far less than a gallon per mile.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 19, 2015 15:06:29 GMT
Depends on what you do. The figures for the Maus are for optimum conditions. The 4 gallons for thr M1A1 are battle average while scouting and driving slow. Travelling at optimum pace, it consumed far less than a gallon per mile. as I said, that makes the maus more impressively inefficient. (and the A1 variant of the Abrams runs more efficiently than the 4 gallon per mile figure) |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 19, 2015 15:19:16 GMT
here is a summary in english. www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/nazi_germany/panzer_maus.phpthe wikipedia article also has a lot of information. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_VIII_Mausincluding saying that one Maus made it into combat, where it was caught in a hull down position, engaged by tank destroyers, and ultimately buried with a bulldozer. the wikipedia article also says - which is relevant to someone's question of dismounted turrets being used as fixed artillery - that Germans did produce tanks with diesel-electric power plants, meaning the turrets were electric drive. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Aug 19, 2015 17:43:10 GMT
I believe that the Panther, and probably Tiger, Tanks had electrically powered turrets and electrical firing systems for the main gun.
I know they had electrical firing systems, as I recall a story about a Panther that charged though a village on its own. It shot up four Sherman's in short order, taking no damage in return, then came out the other side of the village to see four more Sherman's in front of it and another four closing fast. The Panther took aim at the nearest Sherman and at that point the electrical system failed preventing it from firing. This was when the Panther withdrew.
The electrical turret system comes from something I recall hearing from a gunner in a Sherman, who noted that the electrically powered turrets on German Tanks allowed them to traverse the turret a lot faster than the Sherman could. This meant that a Panzer crew that knew what it was doing could potentially take out three Sherman's before any of them could flank their opponent to hit them where their shots could penetrate. That latter part makes me suspect that he was talking about Panther tanks, as I don't think the Panzer IV's armor was that thick.
|
|
|
|
Post by oscardeuce on Aug 19, 2015 19:04:25 GMT
The Sherman did have a basic gun stabilizer in elevation only.
Most sources indicate it was not much use,.
|
|
|
|
Post by c64 on Aug 20, 2015 11:56:05 GMT
here is a summary in english. www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/nazi_germany/panzer_maus.phpthe wikipedia article also has a lot of information. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_VIII_Mausincluding saying that one Maus made it into combat, where it was caught in a hull down position, engaged by tank destroyers, and ultimately buried with a bulldozer. the wikipedia article also says - which is relevant to someone's question of dismounted turrets being used as fixed artillery - that Germans did produce tanks with diesel-electric power plants, meaning the turrets were electric drive. These are two different things! The mirrors and seats on your car move electrically but your car doesn't have to be diesel-electric. Hitler had ordered the development of a new tank known as "Tiger" at the end of 1941. Two car manufacturers were ordered to develop it. Henschel just upgraded a classic design they were toying with before the war had started. Porsche built their version from scratch and used an electric drive. Both versions never really worked, while the Henschel actually did drive, the Porsche had failed miserably off-road. It was not so much the electric drive, it was the air cooled Porsche engine! Henschel used a 21-liter Maybach engine (gasoline and with a Halon fire suppression system). Even with both versions failing all tests, Hitler had ordered 60 Henschel and 90 Porsche Tiger tanks. In September 1942, Hitler ordered those 150 tanks to the North Africa front. But it took another month until the military agreed to dump the Porsche design and START building the Henschel version. The Porsche production had actually started and they had a number of tank-tubs (lower part of a tank) and drives but those were rebuilt and used for a heavy tank hunter called "Ferdinant" which later became known as the "Elephant". This is the only tank with electric drive, the Porsche engines were replaced by 2 rather small water-cooled Maybach V12 gasoline engines driving Siemens generators. The total engine power was 560HP but a lot of this power was lost in the electric drive so the Elephant was rather slow but it actually did work. While the (Henschel) Tiger was famous, there were not many encounters during the war. History books often claim this was due to problems with obtaining fuel but the truth is that the Tiger was still very buggy and most of them were in maintenance. Also they often failed during battle and had to be self destructed. More Tiger tanks were lost by self-destruction than were actually shot at! Not many Tigers could reach even 1000km without breaking down several times. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Aug 20, 2015 12:45:14 GMT
German Tanks were usually over designed to the point that they were liable to suffer from mechanical problems in actual combat conditions. This was made even worse by Hitlers decision to break up design, development and production of tanks between the Army, SS and Luftwaffe. (This was to prevent any of them from getting too much support to oust him, and keep them fighting each other rather than co-operate.)
The end result was that there were a bewildering number of different Panther variants, and while basically the same design many used different and incompatible parts that the tank wouldn't work without. If a Sherman unit accidentally received parts intended for another Sherman unit it wasn't a big problem, as they could still use those parts. If, however, a German Army Panther division got parts intended for a Luftwaffe Panther division* most of those parts would be unusable.
Going off my fallible memory I *think* that there were some 6000 Tiger I tanks produced during WW2, but only some 500-1000 Tiger II (King Tiger) produced.
(*Lest we forget the Luftwaffe actually fielded a very significant ground force during WW2. In fact I think that by 1944 they had more personal fighting on land than on their airfields)
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 20, 2015 13:52:22 GMT
just as an item of curiosity, I prefer Siemens circuit breakers and panelboards.
|
|
|
|
Post by c64 on Aug 20, 2015 21:32:24 GMT
German Tanks were usually over designed to the point that they were liable to suffer from mechanical problems in actual combat conditions. This was made even worse by Hitlers decision to break up design, development and production of tanks between the Army, SS and Luftwaffe. (This was to prevent any of them from getting too much support to oust him, and keep them fighting each other rather than co-operate.) The end result was that there were a bewildering number of different Panther variants, and while basically the same design many used different and incompatible parts that the tank wouldn't work without. If a Sherman unit accidentally received parts intended for another Sherman unit it wasn't a big problem, as they could still use those parts. If, however, a German Army Panther division got parts intended for a Luftwaffe Panther division* most of those parts would be unusable. Going off my fallible memory I *think* that there were some 6000 Tiger I tanks produced during WW2, but only some 500-1000 Tiger II (King Tiger) produced. (*Lest we forget the Luftwaffe actually fielded a very significant ground force during WW2. In fact I think that by 1944 they had more personal fighting on land than on their airfields) The major problems were that Hitler wasted too many valuable resources on things which are way too big to be useful. Germania, Bismark, Maus and many things more. This narrowed the available resources down significantly. And then opening up to many front lines stretching the little resources even thinner. What if the Bismark was never built and instead they had built over 300 submarines? What if they never attempted to build the Maus and perfected the Tiger and built a lot more of them? And what scares me most thinking about, what if the Luftwaffe would have bought Zuses Z3 and then gave him the resources to build something like the Z23 which was possible with WW-2 technology? The Z23 was much more powerful than the ENIAC, especially since the Z23 is punched paper stripe programmable, the ENIAC was just a huge "pocket calculator" which needs weeks of rewiring and testing before it can perform one single run on a math problem. The Z23 can be programmed in an hour or less and old programs reloaded within a minute or two. Also with the resources of the ENIAC, a dozen or two Z23 could have been built! |
|
|
|
Post by oldcodger on Aug 21, 2015 0:31:48 GMT
I believe that the Panther, and probably Tiger, Tanks had electrically powered turrets and electrical firing systems for the main gun. I know they had electrical firing systems, as I recall a story about a Panther that charged though a village on its own. It shot up four Sherman's in short order, taking no damage in return, then came out the other side of the village to see four more Sherman's in front of it and another four closing fast. The Panther took aim at the nearest Sherman and at that point the electrical system failed preventing it from firing. This was when the Panther withdrew. The electrical turret system comes from something I recall hearing from a gunner in a Sherman, who noted that the electrically powered turrets on German Tanks allowed them to traverse the turret a lot faster than the Sherman could. This meant that a Panzer crew that knew what it was doing could potentially take out three Sherman's before any of them could flank their opponent to hit them where their shots could penetrate. That latter part makes me suspect that he was talking about Panther tanks, as I don't think the Panzer IV's armor was that thick. According to the Achtung Panzer site the Panther Ausf D(D-1)had a hydraulically rotated turret. www-d0.fnal.gov/~turcot/Armour/pz4.htm |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 21, 2015 1:37:45 GMT
German Tanks were usually over designed to the point that they were liable to suffer from mechanical problems in actual combat conditions. This was made even worse by Hitlers decision to break up design, development and production of tanks between the Army, SS and Luftwaffe. (This was to prevent any of them from getting too much support to oust him, and keep them fighting each other rather than co-operate.) The end result was that there were a bewildering number of different Panther variants, and while basically the same design many used different and incompatible parts that the tank wouldn't work without. If a Sherman unit accidentally received parts intended for another Sherman unit it wasn't a big problem, as they could still use those parts. If, however, a German Army Panther division got parts intended for a Luftwaffe Panther division* most of those parts would be unusable. Going off my fallible memory I *think* that there were some 6000 Tiger I tanks produced during WW2, but only some 500-1000 Tiger II (King Tiger) produced. (*Lest we forget the Luftwaffe actually fielded a very significant ground force during WW2. In fact I think that by 1944 they had more personal fighting on land than on their airfields) The major problems were that Hitler wasted too many valuable resources on things which are way too big to be useful. Germania, Bismark, Maus and many things more. This narrowed the available resources down significantly. And then opening up to many front lines stretching the little resources even thinner. What if the Bismark was never built and instead they had built over 300 submarines? What if they never attempted to build the Maus and perfected the Tiger and built a lot more of them? And what scares me most thinking about, what if the Luftwaffe would have bought Zuses Z3 and then gave him the resources to build something like the Z23 which was possible with WW-2 technology? The Z23 was much more powerful than the ENIAC, especially since the Z23 is punched paper stripe programmable, the ENIAC was just a huge "pocket calculator" which needs weeks of rewiring and testing before it can perform one single run on a math problem. The Z23 can be programmed in an hour or less and old programs reloaded within a minute or two. Also with the resources of the ENIAC, a dozen or two Z23 could have been built! Hitler was better at political tactics than military tactics. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Aug 21, 2015 6:53:02 GMT
What if the RAF had bought the TSR-2 into service?....
We cant go by "What-ifs" because we all know that there were many hard decisions made, and many good designs went by the wayside, mainly due to the inbuilt corruption of he who is paid to shout loudest gets the best governmental projects.
|
|
