The ten best machines and ten best Small-arms of WW2

Notatall, Christian, not so flawed. Their (the constructors that preferred front drive) problem was precisely, that they were by the very limits of possibile weights had to settle on higher silhouettes defended by thinner armor vs. “rear people”. With Tiger 2 they first stopped very high up, not to mention the hilarious Maus thingest. Also, the “cables” to steer gearbox etc. took infinitely less space than did the main axle, or what it´s called (I´m sorry, I know the problem only from my Grandfather, who comanded and rode in BTs and T-34s and later trained young crews both in USSR and Israel, and told me about the considerations. He never mentioned the funny idea of hammers being used to “whack a gear”. He often got young tractor drives from the kolkhoses to get trained as drivers and they were very quick to learn driving the t-34s.).
Both KV-1 and –2 fought in Winter War but there were more KV-2s with 152mm howitzer to destroy pillboxes and similar obstacles. The order to produce KV-1 was signed already in September 1939.

 

No Izaak, but with a good gearbox a 500 hp engine can easely pull as much as 1000 hp engine with a bad gearbox. A good gearbox handles all the Power from the engine and pulls the tank forward without failure, while a bad one breaks when trying to pull the tank forward.

The problem for the Tiger Ausf.B was that its Gearbox couldnt handle all the weight it had to pull, while the engine easely could, so the gearbox would simply break down if strained/pushed to hard. (no "engine failure", just the gearbox)

The Gearbox is very essential for making a tank move effectively.

Also "HP" isnt really worth mentioning when talking about an Engine's pulling-power, as its the "Torque" wich matters in this case.

KBO

 

Thanks, KBO,

I couldn´t help smiling when I´ve read :
“A good gearbox handles all the Power from the engine and pulls the tank forward without failure, while a bad one breaks when trying to pull the tank forward.” But I agree 100%. It works about the same with backward movement, I guess, doesn´t it?

Soviet tanks did suffer many breakdowns. So did the German. I remember reading Guderian´s account of his charge towards Austrian border in 1938. Wasn´t it about 50% of his tanks that broke down? I also remember an account of a Soviet trial of their first experimental amphibious tanks in 1930s. A group of these (I believe it were T-37s) had to go several hundreds kms, half of which through a stormy lake of Ilmen). All of them reached the starting point.

Wihout going in greater details of the subject matter, is there anybody reading this, including you, KBO, who disagrees that torque is in some, even if remote, way dependent on the number of Hp a particular motor can produce?
As for the assertion about 500hp being sometimes more than 1000hp, I surrender. It must be higher mathematics, which I know next to nothing about.

 

Tanks are slow moving and heavy. As such high revs and horsepower which generate top speed is not that important.

My mechanics is limited and rusty but my impression is that torque is a product of the gearing and it's torqe that is needed to start things moving. 1st gear has lots of torque to overcome friction and start you off.

Putting a lot of revs through a bad gearbox which has to shift a hevay weight will cause gearbox failure, which I assume is what most tanks were prone to.

I wonder is reports seperated gearbox and engine failure or if it was classed as the same.

FNG

 

Thank you.
But isn´t that so, that in (most of) descriptions of tanks they use Hp/ton as an indicator of a tank´s ability to move? Of course, most of the time tanks move slowly and don´t use all their hps. But it can happen that speed is really essential and it can happen that a tank just can´t climb a hill because of too low Hp/t. An actual breakdown of a component is quite another problem. T-34/76 in it´s 1941 version had panzer plates of mostly 45mm, turret- 45-52mm. With 500hp and 26 tons of weight it gave ca. 19 Hp/t and max. speed 55 km/h. PzIV Ausf.F from the same year had 300hp (13,5 hp/t) and top speed 42 km/h, with the puny cannon and, non-sloping plates of 50mm and the funny 30mm of steel on (non-sloping) turret. So, if you do an equation, you hit almost perfectly (19*42/55=14,5), meaning the gear boxes were comparable or had no influence on max. speed, and, I suppose ability to climb and acceleration.
Btw, are there anybody who shares Christian´s belief that non-sloping armor is, all other things being equal, is just as good as sloping? I was surprised by this opinion. Also, by the opinion of sorry, I don´t remember whom that front wheel drive has minimal influence on height and weight of the tank.
I don´t remember who wrote that PzIV was a medium tank. I´ve just found data on the original PzIVs – they weighed 17,3 t, which, using US classification (the simplest, I think) means – a light tank. Which means, that the German constructors had to put more and more gadgets onto an originally light construction, making it a pseudo-medium one. Their triumph, I think, was, that they were able to, against all odds, to keep the weight under 26 t and top speed at 38 km/h till the end. That is a real feat of top-class engineering.

 

About HP and torque:
Basicly, engine HP is torque x revs. This says that without torque, there is no HP. But HP is more meaningful indication about engine's capabilities. Still it is not HP that makes tanks, cars etc run, it is torque coming from transmission to tracks or tyres.

An example: We have 2 different engines with same max torque, say 100Nm. First engine gets this at 2000 rpm, second at 4000 rpm. And because HP is torque x revs, latter has twice the HP.
Now we put these engines to some kind of vehicle, lets say lawnmover 8)
Now we want that this lawnmover with steroids to backtyre rpm something like 500 rpm.
With first engine, at max torque rpm, torque at backtyres is (2000rpm/500rpm) x 100Nm = 400 Nm.
With second engine, at max torque rpm, torque at backtyres is (4000rpm/500rpm) x 100Nm = 800 Nm.
Guess which one goes like hell and which one like HELL! ?

 

About sloping armour vs non-sloping armour.
With sloping armour, AP-shell must penetrate relatively more that armour than when hitting non-sloped armour.
But as it has been pointed out, you dont need that large plates of armour when using non-sloped armour and with given weight, you can make that non-sloped armour thicker.

An example: We need to armour a frontal part of armoured vehicle. This part is 0.5m high and 2m wide. We choose to use 10cm thick non-sloped armour. After brief calculation (0.5m*2m*0.1m*8000kg/m^3) we find that this armour plate weight is 800kg. Now, can we do better with 45 degrees sloped armour weighting the same? After a bit longer calculation (not going to duplicate it here) we find that this plate is 7.07cm thick (comparing to that 10cm with non-sloped armour).

And how much armour must an AP-shell must penetrate when hitting this plate? We assume that AP-shell is travelling horizontally and shot is coming from directly forward to this plate. Therefore hit angle will be 0 (or 90 degrees, depenging where you calculate it) with non-sloped armour and 45 with sloped. Shell must pass 10cm armour when dealing with non-sloped armourplate and 7.07cm/sin45 = 10cm armour when dealing with sloped armour. Therefore, in this little example, it doesn't matter if armour is sloped or not.
But there is one more advantage with sloped armour. A shell hitting 45 degrees sloped armour is more likely to ricochet than shell hitting non-sloped armour.

 

Izaak
The US classification doesn't matter - even if the Pz.Kpfw.IV had originally weighed only ten grams, it wouldstill have been a medium tank. The Germans classified it as a medium tank, and therefore it was a medium tank. The official designations must be use solely, otherwise there will be infinite chaos.

Christian

 

Christian
They also split their tanks from the original divisions in 3 times more divisions before Barbarossa and called them again panzer divisions. They were, as you see, very elastic. And, whatever classifications THEY used, we are free to use another one we consider better.
I like the American classification because it´s logical and takes into consideration classes of bridges: this bridge can carry light tanks, and that one – heavy – i.e. over 60 tons. And, whatever the German designation, the original construction of Pz4 weighed 17 tons and T-34 – 26 tons (due to thicker armor and much longer barrel, as well as stronger engine). So, the Pz4 was a relatively light carcass to start with, whatever classification we use. But, no doubt, as time went by, it became a magnificent (medium) killer machine, also considering the quality of production and the professionalism (and spirits) of the crews.

Notmi, your explanations have been most informative (to me, anyways). That was the ricochetting that I was thinking about all the time, saying that sloped – better. But there is also a minus of sloping: less space inside. But also a plus, which I dare mention here: It covers also (partly) from above, which a vertical plate doesn´t.

 

The problem is, that if we do not follow the official designations, then there can be no discussion, since we can't understand each other.

It won't make much sense to very many if we discuss how many Emchas fought on the western front, but it will make sense it we discuss how many M4s fought on the western front.

Christian

 

So let it be. Medium ! But I still think, it´s better to use a single system of designation than many official ones or just use designations of models. In case of tanks, there were not that many.
What is Emchas????

 

There has been some discussion on this forum about weight classes but we always end up with the conclusion that every country used its own system and that we have to judge their tanks by their standards. Thus the Panther is a Medium tank, not a heavy one, and the PzIV is medium, instead of light. Thus, also, the Chaffee is a light tank in spite of the fact that by early war standards it must have been medium.

Emcha is the Russian nickname for the M4 Sherman.

 

Yes Sir !
I didn´t know that about Emcha. Strange. Anyways, they were not very popular with the crews, AFAIK. And Stalin should have asked USA to stop deliveries, but for other reasons. AFAIK.

 

I thought Russians liked Shermans a lot because their comfortability.

 

They certainly liked them better than their T-34's !

KBO

 

I have just seen my Father. He quickly identified the Emcha of yours. It was pronounced more like “Yemkha”, meaning “ The M”. The T-34 they called “Tritsat´chetvyorka”, meaning “The 34”. Yes, they were more comfortable, but they began appearing only in 1943, more in 1944. Crews did like its comforts, but compared with T-34 and T-34/85, which began appearing early in 1944, it was considered an easy target due to its height and straight angles (compared with T-34 and JS). Soviet 85mm gun was also better. Soviet tanks were also simpler and easier to repair. Somehow, people felt more secure in Soviet tanks (it could also be due to the triumphalist propaganda about invincibility of Soviet tanks?) Also, people remebered bad experiences with “General Stuart”. I think, when your life is at stake, you prefer the more secureto the more comfortable. Simple gradation of human needs. Anyway, all in all there were 4000 of them against almost 16000 T34/76 produced in 1943 alone. In 1944 - 3500 T34/76 plus 10 500 T34/85, plus all the other types, so there is not much to talk about.

 

KBO, do you have any references (other than American) saying, that the Soviet crews liked "Yemkhas" more than "their" T-34s? I am really interested. Although it is a subjective thing, at war you have to have GOOD reasons to like some weapon more than the other. And you generalize, as if there have been some opinion polls conducted among RKKAs tank crews. You can be sure, that the last thing Stalin was interested in, was what the soldiers liked more. What I am saying are some private experiences of my Grandfather.

 

There seems to have been a book published by a Soviet tank commander which praised the Sherman (the late, 76mm version) to high heavens. I'll ask around and see if I can find a title.

 

I will be much obliged, thank you.

 

smalls arms in no order would have to be

Stg 44- it was ahead of its time
M1 Garand-probally the best infantry rifle of the war
Enfield Mk4(t)-1 of the best sniper rifles of all time
Colt 1911A1-like the most commonly used semi pistol of all time
MG42- basis of all future GPMG
Browning .50-hasnt changed
Panzerschrek-just a brilliant anti tank weapon
Thompson M1A1- good weapon used up till vietnam

most of my choices have been proven good in their long service in many countries and the case is with them is if it aint broken dnt fix it