Finest and Most Influential Tanks of WWII

TIGER !!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I think this horse is dead.

 

There's a very big difference between quickly noticing obvious flaws such as poorly placed controls & equipment, which is quickly tested, as apposed to discovering less obvious flaws found whilst conducting much longer spanning tests such as long term operational reliability under adverse conditions.

To put it more simply, the Panther wouldn't have entered service if the Waffenamt hadn't been satisfied with how the interior was laid out or how the crew interacted with the various controls & equipment; and this quite simply because these were the very first things they'd take note of. Next came the general performance aspects of the tank, such as firepower, protection & mobility; and again all of this had been thuroughly tested and accepted as satifactory before the tank ever reached operational units. What wasn't properly tested, and this because of the haste at which the tank was handed over to operational units, was the long term reliability of the tank in certain invironments under less than ideal maintenance conditions, and as such this is where the Panther naturally was found lacking when it first entered operational service in 1943.

As the war progressed however the Panther recieved many rather extensive modificationsk, the majority of which were in response to feedback from operational units. So had a thing as small and easily fixable as the placement of the gunner's sight ever been a problem, then it would've been noticed right away and reported back to the manufacturer who would've addressed the issue right away. Moving the sight a couple of inches to the left would've presented no challenge what'so'ever for the design engineers who were used to designing much more complex modifcations to address more serious issues.

Being able to communicate inside the vehicle was of paramount importance, and not a thing that would be overlooked, esp. not the by the army with the most experience using unit to unit communication on the battlefield.

Problem is that tests of captured enemy material almost never fits the description of a vehicle given by its' daily operators. And there are very obvious reasons for this, ones I've been repeating over and over again in this thread.

Why resort to lying JBark? The pictures only confirm what I've been saying all along, that there is plenty of room for the headphones whilst sighting, the evidence of which is irrefutable. You've been shown picture + video evidence clearly showing that there is plenty of room for the headphones whilst sighting.

This is quite funny. You're claiming that I don't understand the traverse system I've several times been explaining in detail, whilst you on the other hand throughout this thread have been unable to understand even the basics of how a hydraulic traverse system works.

 

You thought wrong!

 

The way it's going it may not be dead but it's certainly very unhealthy.

 

It's definitely getting crowded with moderators in here...never a good sign. I must be getting dense in my almost old age because I didn't see it getting all that bad. I didn't take anything personally and certainly don't mean to insult or hurt Proeliator. I think he is obviously pretty damn knowledgeable and I have learned a lot from him via this thread. I will leave this thread after this post.

Proeliator- Great information and posts. Until mkenny offered his latest pictures I had felt you had provided the data necessary to win your point. His pictures swayed me back as the room next to the gun is tight and the browpad is canted to the left and the gunner's head must be slightly canted as well. Part of the problems with this thread and the subject is the number of different Panther variants that may have to be considered for this subject. You have showed a few different sights so I come around wondering how many changes were made to this. I also have to wonder, as per what you asked about changing mistakes, if some mistakes wouldn't be pushed through. I would also offer what many have posted elsewhere that the Panther crews of '44 were allowed little practice due to ammo shortages and were often not the best trained crews by comparison to years past. I could go on.
I believe you know very well how the turret traverse operates but the discussion is about how it works. I get semantical because I only offer, as did Zaloga, that this system would result in a slower turning speed. Every PTO system I have worked with does so. Yes, there are many, if not the majority of times, when this might not be the case. I don't believe this sytem to be the best it could be.
I don't share your desire to rule out what is said by Allied testors of captured material. I believe them to be experienced tankers and the data collected by intelligent, experienced officers that would get together to write good reports. I also view Zaloga as a very experienced man, a good researcher and writer, and not someone who's view I would dismiss. I've read Jentz' intro and sharing of his bio in Panzertruppen I and don't see him as more experienced in an appreciable way than Zaloga.
I don't expect this to sway you but I thought I would offer it none the less. Mods, I hope this was acceptable and with that I bid my farewell to this thread.

 

Maybe I'm reading this wrong but you state there is no need for manuel adjustments but as I read Jentz GPT page 126 he states that the hydralic traverse enabled coarse laying for the gunner to quickly acquire the target within the viewing field of the sight.Fine adjustment(laying the targe onto the peak of the proper triangle in the sight reticle)was accomplished using the gunners hand traverse and hand elevation wheels.
Just want to get it right in my head as when I read what you say he can do everything with the foot pedal and Jentz say he still has to do the fine adjustments by hand.Or am I missing something.Just looking for clarification as you seem to have the good info on the traverse.

TIA

Bernie Mckenna

 

Do you find the book worth buying.

Bernie McKenna

 

His book are well worth buying IMHO.

 

Its an inexpensive paperback that you can easily find a good used copy online, so its worth a few dollars. Its worth having as a supplemental source for research regarding the M4, Panther and armored operations in the west in 1944. Its value to me is that some of Zaloga's assumptions and conclusions are thought provoking (because I see flaws, holes and I have disagreements with some points) and that provides me the impetus for further research. To me this book is basically marketed for a particular audience, its provides an answer to the "which was better/best" question that is so prevalent now. It supplies it's own metrics for measuring/competition, provides select technical detail (some fact, some supposition or opinion) and historical detail, based on the analysis provided it supplies plausible conclusions and best of all its inexpensive with large font and lots of pictures and illustrations. A nice little package for fast consumption (like a Happy Meal).
So in my opinion it has some value as part of your library or as an additional source, but if it is your only source on the subject then to me it is a net loss because it will create a flawed perspective (his analysis and metrics create a "box" that some readers may never get out of). My opinion and comments are on "Panther vs Sherman" only, I don't speak for anyone else or any of his other work.

 

Hello Bernie,

Yes, the gunner could do final gunlaying in traverse via the foot pedals alone, being able to control the speed of traverse right down to a crawl if he wished by applying different amounts of pressure on the pedals. Basically it works just like the clutch in your car, only in reverse [apply pressure to engage] and in both directions, so it's about controlling it carefully if you want minute changes in traverse. However for elevating or depressing the gun the gunner had to use an elevation handwheel.

Jentz made one of his very few mistakes ever when addressing the L4S turret traverse system, incorrectly believing that manual fine adjustments were necessary in traverse for final gun laying; they aren't, this could easily be done via the footpedals as proven through crew & technical manuals as-well as veteran & modern day crew testimonials. But if someone hasn't seen the system or doesn't know exactly how it works then you can't blame them for thinking otherwise, and in all other tanks (Pz.IV, Sherman etc etc.) Jentz's assertion is indeed correct.

Hope that helps

 

JBark,

I have no I'll feelings towards you but, again all I can say is that all evidence available points towards there definitely being room for a pair of headphones when sighting. The pictures show there is room, if you ask me atleast, but ofcourse pictures can be decieving. So if by picture evidence alone you weren't convinced, then peace be with it, I could understand. My understanding however ceases to exist at the moment you dismiss clear video evidence of a gunner wearing his headphones whilst sighting. On top of this I have been telling you from the start that I've actually been sitting in the gunners seat of a Panther, looking through the sight, and I can tell you there is more than enough room for a set of headphones whilst sighting.

 

thanks Blac6 & Proeliator for the info helps alot.

Bernie McKenna

 

Have you posted actual quotes from said manuals and names of veterans making some of these claims on traverse & headphones? Also what does it matter if you have to fiddle with pedals or hand knobs ?Fiddling is fiddling . Furthermore just how easy is it?? Franly I just say take Jentz's word for it.

 

Take who'evers word you wish Icky, I could care less.

Read the manuals, I have already posted excerpts from them here, and the system is explained in detail in them. Futhermore I have voiced the opinion of the modern day crews I have had the pleasure of talking to.

The debate is over, I can't make it any clearer from here'on, I'd only be repeating myself.

 

Ok let me see then..you state "modern day crews" right? Modern day crews operating the turrett traverse in modern demonstrations maybe an entirely different animal then what would have been the case in a WW2 battlefield. Now as to what s manual might say well it may say it can be used that away but on the battlefield it maybe an entirely different scenario for any number of reasons.

All I'm saying is that Jentz ,a world renowned expert,for some reason or another says the gun needed manual adjustment after the hydraulic system got it onto general targeting,sort of speak. Now in what thread did you post the manual? I certainly didn't see a link to it in this thread.

 

You should read Jentz on the Hornisse. The build of them was really poor. Virtualy every aspect had defects and it was so bad that in November 1943 it was recommended that it should no longer be produced. Only the fact that it was better than not having the L/71 mobile saved it. Clearly defective equipment was getting through because of the worsening war situation.
The tales of bug-free finely tuned and engineered vehicles are not always correct!