Finest and Most Influential Tanks of WWII

I provided links for anyone to go and check for themselves and make their own mind up.
What is clear to me is that some of the sights most definately did not have a brow pad. A brow pad is not the same thing and the padding around the binocular sights.
You have a position and you defend it in the face of clear evidence that it was not always the case.

Custer would be proud of you!

 

Hmmm. Perhaps you shouldn't bring it up again.

 

Proeliator- Perhaps you could help me here as we've been going on about the site padding for a bit and I'm not sure how many different versions you have shown. To your knowledge is it correct that there was a time when the gunsight was padded on the eyepiece only and then padded on the brow? Further, have tihe sights always been dual eyepieces or were there singles.

I personally would not consider padded eyepieces to be sufficiently padded for use in a tank gunsight. My understanding of rifle scopes is that the padding of a snipers scope is to limit light hindering the shooter on the eyepiece, not for protecting the shooter's eye or ridges from the scope. No well trained shooter needs a padded eyescope for his protection.

 

Eye and brow padding was always std., but some pictures of captured vehicles might show sights without the brow pad, it was however fitted as std. from the factory.

The first Panthers were equipped with bincolular sights (dual), later versions shifted to a slightly wider lense monocular (single) sight. It was the same story with Tiger Ausf.B which also started out with a binocular sight but ended up with a wider lense monocular one.

See illustration here:

Well I can tell you that this is what is used on modern tanks today, as-well as often a forehead resting pad, something you'll find the late Tiger Ausf.B's also being equipped with.

That depends on the eye relief of the scope and wether or not the sniper wants to keep looking down the scope after the shot, there being many different types of eye padding for rifle scopes available.

 

Clear evidence? By all means tell me how a single picture of a sight without a brow pad is clear evidence of brow padding not being standard?? The brow pad could've been removed for all we know. Fact is brow & eye padding came as std. from the factory, hence why you see it fitted in the far majority of pictures.

Also I've seen the wooden boxes which Leitz put their sights in for transport to the Panther assembly, with the small paper manual inside listing all the parts inside the box, where both eye & brow pad listed as standard.

 

Only if they had brow pads.....

 

So were there large differences between British gunsights,turret traverse etc.If so,what were the differences?.Were British tanks(late war)on par with German and American armour in most of these technical details?.Cheers,Lee.
I understand Churchill tanks had regenerative steering,what is this exactly?.

 

Just like the US, the British relied on straight-through sights for their tank guns, meaning the sights followed the the gun up and down, making sighting more difficult for the gunner. The British later on started introducing selectable magnification sights, these however lacked the clarity and FOV of the German sights, and they still werent articulated. As for turret traverse, the British were rather unique in being the only Allied country fielding a variable speed electrical traverse system installed in their Churchill tank (and later the Comet). Problem was that it wasn't very precise or easy to use however, and being powered by a generator connected to the engine it relied entirely on engine speed, engine speed with the clutch released that is. This meant that if the clutch was depressed for too long, the traverse system would lose power altogether. The systems control unit was a handle with a release trigger which was rotated to what'ever side you wanted the turret to turn. For the turret to stop turning again the handle had to be put back into central position. Problem was however that the release trigger had to be pressed the whole time, if you released it too soon the turrets braking mechanism would be lost and this would result in a overrun.

This is in no way my area of expertise but as I understand it a regenerative steering mechanism is bascically one that doesn't reduce automotive power whilst turning.

 

That may be the businessdictionary defintion but it is not a commonly used one or indeed widely accepted one from my experiance. Furthermore I fail to see how being a tank mechanic would be more significant as to his professionalism in the field than what he has done.

 

Please point out exactly where I did so.

Intersting characterization of the thread and rather off base from my view point. The system being hydraulic is a fact and I don't remember anyone contesting it yet you seem to be claiming people contested all the facts. One of the areas that was contested was the accuracy and speed with which hydraulic systems could be used. One of our members has had extensive experiance in the field and brought up valid points which you simply denied. It should be also noted that just because something is in an original crew or techincal manual doesn't mean it's a fact. Indeed for various reasons these manuals are often off a bit.

 

The mechanic reference was in regard to supporting background experience, not saying that a tank mechanic would be a superior analyst on WWII armored warfare. The mechanic would however have practical experience with the military, field operations and also be a subject matter expert on recovery operations, tactics there of, and the anatomy of the tank itself (understanding the vernacular of the armor branch certainly helps also). Having that type of background experience lends itself well when delving into the larger arena of armored warfare, intimately knowing in depth certain aspects of one area shines a bit of light into others that would otherwise be pitch black to the amateur or academic novice.

btw- My definition of professional is actually more exclusive than the business version, I prefer Samuel Huntington's version from "The Soldier and the State" (required reading for me some time ago). So the business version seemed a decent middle ground.

 

Good point about the manual in this case (maybe). If the technical information was in the original Pantherfibel for the D model, then it would have been incorrect in the later models that had a governor on the engine set at 2600 rpm to avoid over-reving the engine (over heating). However, that may been put out in the monthly technical publication Nachrichtenblatt der Panzertruppen. Perhaps this info is somewhere in Jentz work on the Panther?

 

Proeliator - I want to thank you for posting those pics. More great stuff. I'm just wondering about an earlier statement you made about the sights and their padding. Your post #135 says:
"And as for the sights once more, they were padded both for the eye and the forehead on all versions, as can be seen on all interior pictures of the Panther's turret, yet another example of Zaloga's ignorance on the Panther tank."
Of course my question is how is it you are now posting pictures of single eyepiece sights, later model versions, which you are telling us were padded only on the eyepiece. I ask for two reasons, first you have made it quite clear you know tank gun sights and there is no questioning what you know or what you post, yet here is a conflict of fact. Second, wouldn't you agree that comparatively speaking a single gunsight with a little padding, if you can call it that, around the eyepiece is far less safe/comfortable for the user and could very easily be what Zaloga refers to when he talks of the Panther's sight in Panther vs Sherman?

 

And who might that be? Care to point it out? I only remember a certain someone comparing hydraulic cylinder machinery with hydraulic motors, in which case he was terribly wrong.

So you're seriously claiming that the manuals don't describe how the system works? This is becoming stranger and stranger...

Now again, please let me stress the fact that I've actually seen the system in full operation, and I've even talked to the guy who operated it. He described the system as very precise with great feel, and uniquely useful for fine laying of the gun.

Furthermore I provided detailed cut away schematics of the entire hydraulics system, describing the function of each part. Again however, the same few certain people did nothing but deny it. And now for some odd reason you continue their tradition by claiming they were right when infact the only thing they ever did was cling to a single phrase by Zaloga who didn't know squat of what he was talking about.

 

I never said that the monocular sights were padded only on the eye piece JBark, infact I said the exact opposite, that eye & brow padding came as standard. So there is no conflict of fact anywhere.

And as for Zaloga, he was quite simply just speculating when he wrote about the sights, for which he just ended up writing something false. and it wouldn't prove to be a first or last time he did this either.

 

This doesn't change how precise the system was however, only how fast the max traverse speed was. Regardless the gunner could always choose wether he wanted the gun to crawl along in traverse or to spin as fast as possible by simply letting pressure off or on his foot pedal controls.

This wasn't the case with the earlier lever operated system ofcourse, which was basically one speed with a high & low gear (so two speed infact), and like the Allied systems used only for coarse laying of the gun.

 

All this nitpicking over an authors credentials means little. I have known of Zaloga for over a decade and his research into US Armored Formations is second to none. He has managed to attract the displeasure of those who believe in the invincibility of a certain nations tanks because he has brought to light a good number of NARA Reports showing some of the vulnerabilities of the Panther.
Jentz is known as a man who will brook no interference from anyone he considers his inferior. These 'inferiors' seem to consist of everyone except Hilary Doyle. He has a reputation as something of a loudmouth. Dogmatic in his outlook and unable to accept any criticism. Nothing in that prevents his work being first rate but he has been shown to be in error a few times.
He can not be considered anything but partial in his chosen field.
I am at a loss how criticism of such tiny details attract such a reaction. The Tiger reports say there is play in the pedals and the roof caves in!
All Allied reports are dismissed as biased because of 3 sentences from a 1000.
Zaloga says no brow pad and photos show SOME do not have it -again the roof falls in.
What is it with those who want to believe every aspect of a German tank is without fault?

 

Difference is m kenny, that you brought up these reports and highlighted said sentences because you were trying to use them as some sort of proof that the German turret traverse system was a "bad design", completely ignoring all clear evidence pointing to the contrary. You quite simply lack the ability to be skeptical about anything written in a British report, eventhough reports such as those often were full of errors.

So this isn't about any roof caving in because of something written in a British report, it's about other people getting irritated at someone taking such reports as gospel whilst ignoring anything in clear conflict with them.

Fact is that the Panther & Tiger's variable speed hydraulic turret traverse system was a great and very advanced design for its time, being very precise and easy to use, and infact rather unique in its ability to be used for accurate final gun laying. This is backed up by those who used the system day & night during the war, as-well those who keep restored examples running today. The position of the gunners controls & sight are very logically layed out and easy to operate, not once being complained about by those who had to operate them daily.

 

No. I heard you banging on about it so I went and checked the 2 (two) reports. Both tested it and both made a comment that the system was not precise in that there was a delay between taking your foot off and the turret stopping. There was a slight delay and the control pedal was badly sited in relation to the gunners foot. That is it.
Not that it did not work
Not that it was useless.
Not that it was crap but simply that it had small imperfections.

Now you are going completely over the top by claiming the Chertsey reports are all full of errors!

I am sure you have not read any of these reports but I will play along.
Give me the errors you found in the Tiger report.
Give me the errors you found in the Panther report.

List them please.

 

Mike-The problem is the people speaking on behalf or the Tiger and the Panther, those that love Jentz and despise Zaloga, those that doubt any printed word which says these machines are not perfect are not required to state sources for what they know. They are not required to offer proof or citation or a link to verify anything they go on about. When I mentioned to Proeliator if he could offer proof of what his photos were of he quickly posted more pictures so we knew thatt hey were indeed pictures of something. Black6 will go on about how full of errors Zaloga (the amatuer) but will not offer one example or fact to counter what Zaloga might have been in error about. Zaloga is wrong about the turret rotation requiring coordination between gunner and driver unless you reword it and say exactly that. Mike, you have a mountain of information and any time you post you cite it...I'd love to see these guys do this once.