The best tank killer of WWII

One minor point on hydraulic turret traverse vs. electric: A retired tanker once pointed out to me that if a hydraulic-turreted tank is penetrated, the crew can be exposed to a high-pressure spray of hot oil to add to their miseries. He considered this a significant factor in his preference for electric traverse.

I say this not to support any side in the controversy, just to point out an interesting thing I once heard.

 

Care to produce some of them?

 

Still not going to answer about your mis-statement about the Panther's turret traverse in your post #209? You stated traverse was 360 degrees in 15 seconds at 2000 RPM's when it was actually,according to Jentz, 360 degrees 15 seconds at 3000 RPM's BUT after November,1943 the engines were governed down to 2500 RPM's.

 

Ah the mythical German report on the Sherman.
Often referenced by this poster over a number of forums but strangely never produced.
When the 'lying' British took apart the 3 engines they listed all the damage and faults they found. As was the case with every single item when they stripped the Tiger. There is no mention of any damage to the hydraulics.
It is comical to hear the repeated claims that every captured Tiger was in some way faulty!
Can we have a reference to the stupid British putting the wrong fuel in tank engines plesase.
Note I said TANK engines.

 

Is there more of that report available online? Some of these statements, while surely having some merit, are quite hilarious. Makes you wonder in what sort of tank (in their mind) the British went over the hill.
I read the American evaluation of the T-34, they got sent midwar, a while ago. They teared that thing apart, but not before stating that it had also a lot going for it. So whenever a report has absolutely nothing positive to say ("Even the rubber's to hard!") one should become a little sceptical. Or simply assume that the engineers and planers of the other side simply went full retard. Your choice.

 

Share your amusement and then we can all have a laugh.

 

It's from the Motion Study Wing of the Military Operational Research Unit in 1947.
Carried out by that department with the tanks crewed by experienced British crew.
They thoroughly asessed Panther, Tiger, & Tiger 2.
The title of the report:
Military Operational Research Report No.61 - Study No. 11 - Motion Studies of German Tanks.
Prepared by Capt. G Tunnicliffe.

The Abstract above is available in David Fletcher's 'Tiger: A British View'.
If you read more, it's a rather balanced report looking mostly at ergonomics & human use of systems. Hard to comment so harshly when you've only read a page, isn't it?

Hilarious?
Why?

Edit: (Sorry MK, didn't notice you were still online.)

~A

 

I don't know I think that whole page is quite amusing. A tank is no friggin cathedral. The browpad is interfering with the headset (WOW). The rubber is to hard. He can't reach the pedals properly. It sounds like they put an 180cm+ guy into that tank. Something that's rarely done nowadays.

I know crew comfort can be crucial for combat success, but if the whole report is written in this manner then it's a whole less valuable IMO. That's why I asked you if the whole report is online somewhere.

Edit: Thank you Von Poop, I'll have a search.

 

I was waiting to slap down any nit picking criticism by pointing out it was a Motion Study (i.e confined to the human aspect of working in the tank) but it confirmed the entirely seperate Technical Report findings (below)on the Hydraulics.

Hand traverse was easy for all speeds.
Powered traverse on 'low' was the best for ease of tracking at all speeds but had a very wide neutral zone.
On 'high' speeds appeared a little irregular and it was unsuitable for speeds of 5mph or lower. At 10 mph correction by the hand traverse was necessary.

Power traverse control-lack of definite neutral position and awkward range of movement

It was not even the same 2 tanks being commented upon-so they must have been unlucky and found 2 dud Tigers!

Oh wait here is the retort:

There you go a claim an ergonomics study is no good because it makes remarks about crew comfort!
The funny thing I only included it because it was another report on another Tiger that confirmed a problem with the hydraulics. I was not too bothered about poor Hans and his head comfort!

 

It looks like the one in Fletcher is the whole section relating to Tiger.

You have to be careful laughing at these chaps, they're coldly objective specialists, the same that churned out Centurion - It is a very specific report, looking in detail at 'efficiency', which perhaps underlines just how thorough the overall assessment was.
There was plenty of other paperwork churned out on the more technical details of Tiger.

(Argh! - cross-posted again, serve me right for wandering off .)

 

Oh, I never said anything of that sort. That's what you want to read. If there is not ONE single positive point in a report or study, then I get a little suspicious. That's all. And that's why I wanted to read the whole thing. Thank you.

Whatever. I simply asked for a source. And you were getting ready to slap me down. You may have some issues hunting overzealous "fanboys". Beware that the hunter may start to resemble his prey, when he is hunting it for to long.

Ja ja poor Hans. Q.E.D.

 

It is. But I wasn't harsh I think, not as hard as m kenny is on poor Hans at least.

And that's why I asked for a source. And you delivered. So thank you for that.

 

The Tiger tank evaluated in the shown British report (Tiger 131 of the 504th S.Pz.Abt) is the one which was ”knocked out” by a round to the turret ring in Tunisia, jamming the turret and knocking both buffers out of alignment etc etc.. Considering that the force of the impact was enough to cause said damage it more than likely also knocked the hydraulic traverse system out of calibration, explaining the British findings.

As for the later second report it only comes to one similar conclusion compared to the first one, that there is a lack of definite neutral position with the foot pedals, that’s it. Accurate powered traverse was quite possible as explained.

And the lack of a definite neutral position can for one be very easily explained as one caused by either excessive wear or improper maintenance, and the second Tiger captured was definitely not a factory fresh one. But had the British been experienced in maintaining the tank they could’ve recalibrated the system and regained the definite neutral position present on proper functioning units. Unfortunately they didn’t have any experience with the tank however and therefore didn’t know how to maintain it.

In truth the first report is really nothing but a demonstration of British aversion rather than an accurate assessment of the characteristics of the vehicle. Something any man who’ve ever physically sat inside a Tiger and other tanks of the period will notice straight away. German tanks feel like luxury cars inside compared to tanks such as the Sherman & T-34, and I’m not overreacting here at all. I really think people should touch & step inside the machines/weapons they like to discuss as it will give them a whole lot more understanding as to how they worked and what environment they presented to the men who operated them, compared to reading about them in a book ever will.

And as already mentioned, according to all who used it operationally back in the day, and the few lucky ones who operate restored ones today, the hydraulic powered traverse system in the German tanks was an excellent piece of engineering, being extremely accurate and easy to use. And I’ve seen the system up close first hand, I’ve touched it, and it was demonstrated to me (amongst many others) first hand as-well. And the operator had nothing but praise for the system, explaining how it was definitely superior to the systems used in tanks such as the Sherman, Pz.IV & T.34, which was the reason it was copied for use in the M26 Pershing later in the war.

 

That’s quite simply not true Gardner, not by a long shot. So what is your source for that claim?

In truth the Germans were well ahead when it came to technology within hydraulically operated machinery for the entirety of the war, as demonstrated in their major use of it. And it worked great in their aircraft by all accounts.

Take the KommandoGerät automatic engine & propeller management control unit used in German fighter aircraft such as the FW190 for example. It was a hydraulically operated mechanical computer, and the Allies had nothing compared to it at all.

Allied pilots had to yank and pull levers working the prop and engine, so as not to burn up a crank bearing by over speeding the prop. The auto function on the CSP simply did not take into account all the environmental factors. It adjusted based off a manifold pressure relationship. The Kommandogerät on the other hand, took into account everything from spark advance to fuel delivery. It did it according to the actual altitude and airspeed as measured by barometric sensors. It was not a "recipe" calculator. Inputs did not happen according to a preset table but rather changed based on real world conditions to optimum performance considering multiple factors. These settings were calibrated at sea level and checked according to a chart by the pilot before takeoff. An engineering marvel for its time, one that was copied and used in most aircraft after the war.

Also you might wanna look into other German aircraft designs such as the Bf-109, Me262, Do335, Me410, He177 etc etc.. many of which featured state of the art hydraulic systems.

 

entertaining read

 

Messerschmitt Me 262 Arrow to the Future Walter J Boyne
Monogram Close Up vols 23, 24, 17, 6 and 7 among others, various authors
Wings of the Luftwaffe Eric Brown, Cptn RN.
Design Analysis of the Me 262 Aviation Magazine, John Foster ed., reprint
Design Analysis of the Focke Wulf Fw 190 op. cit.
Warplanes of the Third Reich William Green

That should do. Every one of those cites hydraulics problems. Insufficent tank sizes, low pressures, slow operation, poor response, inoperability, and a plethora of other problems generally related to poorly manufactured components, poorly or rushed designs, inadequite testing, inadequite materials or, other issues.

It generally isn't a design issue but rather a manufacturing one. The Germans simply could not maintain a high standard when they couldn't get the right materials, right fluids, had to rely on questionable labor often using machinery in less than adequite condition and conditions.
If your systems leak, have insufficent reserves, if valves leak by, if lines or couplings leak, if cylinders are not tight, all sorts of things like that can conspire to make a hydraulic system not work efficently. The Germans had plenty of those problems on their equipment right from the factory in many cases. For example, the Germans cannot hard chrome and polish hydraulic cylinders. They don't have the chrome to waste on that. So, the best they can do is put a good finish on the low carbon steel they are using for the actuator rod itself. That is a really poor substitute.

 

Gardner, prototype issues don't count.

Furthermore every nation encountered issues with hydraulic systems for their aircraft, including the US.

Also it wasn't until 1945 that the Germans couldn't hard chrome all their hydraulic actuator rods anymore (amongst other parts in need of this), which isn't suprising as the Germans pretty much lacked proper amounts of every material they needed by then. Anyway the turret traverse system didn't use any actuator rods, so no need for chrome there, thus a poor point Gardner.

 

Proeliator wrote:

Where did you come up with the Pershing copying it's hydraulic traverse system from the German's? I've never read this before, in fact I dug out my books on the Pershings development and can find no mention of this.

 

USMCPrice, the system is the same so I didn't come up with anything.

Does your book illustrate the system as-well as discuss it in detail? If so, compare it to that used in the Panther & Tiger.

The guy pointed it out to me, and seeing as he restores these beasts I'm inclined to believe him.

 

Looking at the photographs of the US system in Hunnicut (Pershing and Patton) for the M 26 and 46 there is nothing in common with the German system. The US system has a single hydraulic motor that feeds its output through a directional "joystick" that looks alot like the top of an aircraft control stick. This feeds to a gear drive directly attached to the turret ring.
Speed of traverse is controlled by how hard the joy stick is pushed.