I'm definitly no scholar on the subject, but as I think a lot of us I like to model tanks and armored vehicles and appreciate lots of the designs that have come up over the decades. I assume a lot of us have a couple of favourite tanks/AFVs/APCs that we like for one reason or the other. I would find it kind of interesting to hear a bit from others what makes this or that tank special to them, whatever it is. The look, the impact it had, some cool ability or technical oddity, it's design philosophy or whatever.
I'll start with some I have on the top of my head (a bit german centric, I have to admit):
1. Fennek: a modern Bundeswehr reconnaissance vehicle. I just really like how it looks. Compact, very low profile, windows up front so the driver sees something, but still kind of armored, slender and efficient looking.
2. south african D6 Rhino: There are lots of other wheeled Artillery platforms around, but I think the driver compartment looks really cool. Also the general concept of a fast, long range wheeled artillery platform sounds quite interesting for the terrain it is intended for.
3. BRDM2: That's kind of an odd one I find hard to explain. I just think it looks neat (insert Marge Simpson meme here). It has this rustic Red army feel and looks pretty useful for it's intended role (I don't know how well they performed though)
4. Wiesel Tankette: here it is the general concept of the vehicle that was, in my opinion, just great. Don't think from the direction of "that is so much weaker than a real AFV" think from the perspective "This is so much better than letting them drive in a jeep". Air portable, light and small enough to cross any bridge and fit through narrow streets, forests, whatever, fast, well armored for something so small... what more can you wish for?
5. Scorpion/Kroton: a German and a polish minethrowing vehicle. Here I again I find the idea behind the vehicle pretty interesting. Fast laying of anti tank mines. The Kroton is the "more beautiful" tank in my opinion though.
6. Fuchs/Fox: A German transport tank, especially the Paramedic variant: I served as a paramedic, but unfortunatly could not drive in one of these beautis. Still from what I heard a great vehicle (and again a beauty I think). It can drive, it can swim, it gets you back to the hospital. What's not to love!
7. Panzer 2, Africa Korps: Just because it was my first ever plastic model kit. It has nothing specific I can point my finger at, it's just pure nostalgia for me.
8. Sherman: Here it is my "history" with it. When I first saw it I found it pretty ugly and wondered about the very high profile. Later I wondered why it was so "weak" compared to T34, Panthers and Tigers, but over the years, learning more and more about it I found the whole concept behind it was just... very well thought through. There were so many good ideas and obvious work put into it to make it transportable, perform good in the pacific, africa as well as europe, make it easy to produce and maintain. And it's success is prove enough. So looking back: a great tank, often underappreciated.
9. LVT(A)-4: All of the WWII amphibious landinv vehicles look awesome and were conceptually great ideas for the situation the US found themselves in. The LVT-4 has the beautiful M8 Scott turret on top of it. Love it. If I ever get around to it and space is no problem I want to build a beach landing diorame with an IG army using lots of converted LVTs.
@JWBS: also a very cool tank. I especially like the thought the designers put in it regarding their tactical doctrine. And that it has some distinct differences compared to the typical "western tank" like the motorblock in front. Would you share some words what makes the Merkava special for you? Looks? Technical stuff? History?
Yes, I just always really liked the look of this tank. I wanted to buy a historical kit for 40k, I was going to buy a 1:32 kit to convert for use in a Guard force as something smaller than a Baneblade but larger than a standard mainline tank. ofc there are many to choose from but I eventually chose the Merkava because it looked quite futuristic and that was the look I was going for. After buying the kit I did some reading on the Merkava and watched some YT vids and found that it was very well regarded around the world as a top quality piece of armour, very impressive and rated as the equal of more famous tanks like the Leopard, Abrams and Challenger.
Pyroalchi wrote: @ Lordofhats: I specifically mentioned it. But on that note: cast hull or wielded hull? What do you fancy more? I personally prefer the cast one.
Ah, I glazed right over it on your list. My bad.
To be honest I probably wouldn't know the difference between the hull types. I just know the Sherman deserves more respect than it gets Damn babies workhorse a whole dang war and all the memes are about Tigers! Shame. Damn shame
To the OP and first reply, plus any future repliers, a general request: please do not host these images via our gallery system, it is for wargaming images only. For future replies kindly use off-site hosting like the other have.
That out of the way, one tiny remark with regards to the Fennek; it is a joint-venture between Germany and the Netherlands, not a solely German venture. You're even showing the Dutch version as an example. Nagging aside, it's a cool scout car that patrols my regular routes every few weeks, always cool to see drive by in columns, forcing the other traffic to make way for them. Because, it may be a scout car, but it is not exactly small.
On my end, in no particular order..
The T-55.
It's an ugly, brutal piece of low-tech gak that pioneered a lot of stuff you still see in Russian armour today, did you know that on some track types they didn't even hammer the track pins in, instead they had a block welded on the inside of the hull that would strike the pins back into place if they popped out too much? Makes for an awful racket, but work like a charm. I am obsessed with it for some reason, probably partially because of a Dutch YouTuber restoring one (Type-69 II if we’re being anal) the Brits took as a trophy during the first Gulf War, used as a gate guardian / display piece in the open for about thirty years, then sold off to this guy who wants to fully restore that hunk of rust into running order again. And when they finally got the engine installed and running.. (clicking the video will take you directly to the good part )
Until then, I never was into early cold war armour really, but now? Can't get enough of this thing. I've been reading up on it over the last year, buying several Osprey books on the subject, as well as several model kits. Interesting to read it is the most produced tank ever, that it is a simple to use and operate vehicle (great for export and for when you maintain a conscript army), that it is the template for Soviet tank design and that it is still in use today either as an outdated piece of gak in a third world country, or retrofitted so much that it looks nothing like the original T-55A design, even going so far as installing an autoloader in some cases.
The Panther tank.
They were probably better off making more mark IV's in the long rung, but it’s a gorgeous tank in my eyes and again, that engine roar is amazing, one I had a fair few model kits of over time and two of these can be found in the Netherlands as static displays, one in the Overloon war museum, the other in the city of Breda, which is if sources are to be believed, the last existing model D version in the world.
The Churchill tank.
An ugly thing built for a completely different type of warfare, but I love it. A tank to good at traversing the impossible that it took routes the enemy had written off as impossible. Also a very versatile platform that saw a lot of use in different roles, including the AVRE's brutal mortar and the Crocodile flamethrower tank.
AMX-13.
A post-war light tank with an oscillating turret and a curious auto-loading system, video has some great footage of the AMX-13 in action, alongside another cool post-war French vehicle, the Panhard EBR.
@ BrookM: Thanks for the heads up and the step by step on the image-addition, I edited my first post with the images.
Regarding the Fennek: My bad, I did not know this. Of course it is a joint venture with the Netherlands. On that note: I don't know if the other "german" vehicles I mentioned (Fuchs, Skorpion, Wiesel) are domestic or also joint ventures. I just know that they were used by the Bundeswehr.
Back on topic: regarding the Wiesel I mentioned: One cool variant I also like it the Wiesel 2 Ozelot. Wiesel 2 is a bit bigger than the one linked above and the Ozelot has a FlaRak System on top. I again like the idea of a light, small, mobile and fast tankette, offering some tactical ability (in this case: anti air).
I also really like the turret on the new Puma APC. I have the impression the APC as a whole is either loved or hated, but the turret looks pretty awesome in my opinion.
Irbis IFV. Very nice, clean lines, multirole platform, one of the best looking vehicles around
T-14 Armata. Most modern tank around, again, nice clean lines, best crew protection on the planet. Fun fact - the turret is the small square shape in the middle, stuff around it is just thin panels designed to mount sensors and passive/active defences.
Starship - again, thin, minimalist, well protected turret, internal missile launcher, clean, nice shape - too bad USA ruined the look putting second turret on top of the first
The M50 Ontos.
Among other things it had a beehive round which could be set to give you a 105mm six barrelled shotgun tank, with so much backblast that it would knock holes in the walls of buildings behind it when fired.
It has a certain orkish 'more dakka' quality to it. And apparently they were playing with the idea of revolver-style autoloaders...
Pyroalchi wrote: @ Irbis: I did not know the starship. Looks pretty futuristic. Do you now if that second turret on top thing worked out?
See, the problem with Starship was that the best part of design (low, hard to notice/hit turret with only one crew member in it, rest sat in the hull) was ruined by pretty stupid decision to then weld huge, easy to notice machine gun turret directly on top of commander's cupola (you can even see it on pic above) that forced the commander to sit high up in dangerous position. If they replaced it with small, automated mg turret moved forward and changed gun for modern one, it would be excellent tank even today. As it is, the problems with missile system and compromised turret design above caused USA to shelf project and adopt MBT-70 instead (which then, funnily enough, also was shelved then cancelled because General Motors pocketed too much of the money spent on the development forcing Germans to quit the project).
It almost seems as if guns that can also fire missiles are cursed in the USA, literally every single tank with them had huge problems or was cancelled outright, while Russian designs use them pretty routinely for ~50 years now...
Right so am i am biased towards what my own country has, so nato stuff.
Leo 2a4
We realy have no need for MBTs, our countrys topography do not favor MBTs so there has not been any rush to get anything more modern then this, but the army wishes for a retrofit naturaly.
Spoiler:
CV90
Where the money did go into was the the CV90. The reason the cv90 was selected is that it suits the norwegian topography very well and it can traverse deep snow.
Norway has the currently moust modern version aka CV90 MKIIIb(allso known as CV9030N) Made on a modular template for norway, 5 different versions for 5 different roles was created: Standard, Command, Recon, Engineer(landmine removal) and Multirole. This is allso considered to be a big boost in Natos AFV lineup.
Spoiler:
Outside my country, the votes hangs towards ww2 and the american M26 Pershing. It just ticks all the visual boxes for a tank for me.
Hehehe, aside from the odd DAF YP-408 my country didn't produce much material itself, but then again, when you're neighbours with tank designers par excellence, who needs to?
We used to have a fleet of Leopards 2A6's, but we sold them pretty much because well, we don't really need MBT's right now and they're way too expensive to maintain, even if the factory is just next door so to speak. Right now we have a few 2A6's (from 445 to 18 today) on lease from Germany for joint-ops with them, we've instead taken in a lot of CV90's as well, to replace both our Leopards and our massive fleet of over 2000 YPR-765's (an improved M113 variant), the mainstay of the Dutch army for many years really. The YPR is not a flashy or exciting vehicle, but it was the first tracked vehicle I drove around in.
The army loved the YPR so much, they gave the finger to the Bradley and just stuck a turret with 25mm cannon onto the chassis instead.
We've also purchased a lot of Boxers (looking a lot like a more modern DAF YP-408 in many aspects), another German-Dutch venture, which is a neat armoured car with a modular rear compartment so that you can simply swap out the back instead of having dedicated vehicles for everything.
I got one more I recently found and love the concept of: the M3 Amphibie, which was developed in Germany as successor of the M2 Alligator and is also used in the UK, Singapoore and Taiwan as far as I know. It's kind of a ferry/bridgebuilding hybrid. This video explains it quite good (even if its german, put the images speak for themselves):
https://youtu.be/I8ib5LcY9Ig
I think the concept is pretty cool. Also I find it highlights something at least the cold war Bundeswehr was pretty careful with: amphibious capability. Quite a lot of their vehicles were either fully amphibic (Fuchs, Luchs) or could wade more or less deep (APC Wiesel 1.5m depth, Leopard 2 (1.2-2.2m)) or even drive under water with some preparation (Leopard 1 and 2, 4m). They also had a lot of bridgelaying vehicles and amphibious ferries and the like. I don't know enough about other countries motorpool to be sure if that is something unique or if everybody does it, but it was definitly a good idea for an army intended to fight (in the cold war) within germany with all its rivers, ponds and lakes.
BrookM wrote: Hehehe, aside from the odd DAF YP-408 my country didn't produce much material itself, but then again, when you're neighbours with tank designers par excellence, who needs to?
We used to have a fleet of Leopards 2A6's, but we sold them pretty much because well, we don't really need MBT's right now and they're way too expensive to maintain, even if the factory is just next door so to speak. Right now we have a few 2A6's (from 445 to 18 today) on lease from Germany for joint-ops with them, we've instead taken in a lot of CV90's as well, to replace both our Leopards and our massive fleet of over 2000 YPR-765's (an improved M113 variant), the mainstay of the Dutch army for many years really. The YPR is not a flashy or exciting vehicle, but it was the first tracked vehicle I drove around in.
The army loved the YPR so much, they gave the finger to the Bradley and just stuck a turret with 25mm cannon onto the chassis instead.
We've also purchased a lot of Boxers (looking a lot like a more modern DAF YP-408 in many aspects), another German-Dutch venture, which is a neat armoured car with a modular rear compartment so that you can simply swap out the back instead of having dedicated vehicles for everything.
I came here to vote for the M113 and all its variants. The M901 "Hammerhead" was one of my personal favorites. Multiple TOW missiles loaded in the turret.
Perhaps 3 native norwegian conversions would please the fans of " Historicly accurate odd tanks"
NM142 aka the norwegian version of the m901 hammerhead.
Difference lies in the turret design
Allso for the Chaffee fans, here is two again norwegian versions.
NM116
the primary points of fokus was swapping out the cadillac motor with a detroit diesel 6V-53T and a new cannon, a french D/921 90 mm low-pressure gun. The gyro stab had to go to make space for the bigger cannon.
And when you need a recovery vehicle for it but want to spend the absolute lowest amount of money, what do you do?, you convert a chaffee ofc.
NM130 bergepanzer
Crane capasity was 7.7 ton at 25 degrees and 2.2 ton above 25 degrees. It was never ment to lift the entire nm116, just components, sutch as turret and motor. It was a localy manufactored crane.
All these serious tanks are just too functional, what we need in here are displays of how fresh and new the idea of a Tank was, how ideas of what a Tank should be, and how a Tank would work were still to be threshed out.
A7V actually performed quite well in the very limited engagements it was in. And the Germans were building the truly monstrous Grosskampfwagon, the 2nd biggest tank ever actually produced. The armistice kinda ruined any further development prospects unfortunately.
Okay so the first can't really be anything else. The matilda mk 2, literally boasted 65mm on the rear plate. Its small and compact, not really well armed but damn its well armoured, a solid tank all round, literally. Been around these things in museums since I little. Look how tiny it is!
So the centurion, does stand up to its name, a cold war gladiator that did well against its contemporaries if ever there was one.
The earliest version, I love the first model that little blister with a 20mm, they were ike 90% to having a modern looking tank, and then...
The latest version, even if its more a prototype. Essentially the same thing under all that spaced armour.
Next up
Essentially the English designing the same thing, but in different times.
Churchills, those big heavy hill climbers.Here's one of the first mk3s deployed in Africa, in colour!
Its actually highly likely those holes in the side were punched by British 6 pounders.
Marder
Never thought it too remarkable until i saw one of these for the first time in a museum only last year. Really really made an impression, parked next to a T72, a centurion and 2 leopard 1s(an old Australian welded one and a Bundeswheir cast) and the cheiftan really just stood out.
And the Lynx it just seems to me the epithimy of a large armoured car. Amphibious, all terrain. really cool vehicle.
and lastly
becasue its a novel new(or MK1 female style, old) idea designed after tough experiences in urban warfare, yeah gun tanks and anti infantry, anti light and anti material tanks, really really interesting
A little disappointed we reached this far without mention of the Valentine.
Designed and built by Vickers-Armstrong in the thousands. Under powered with the early 2 pounder gun certainly, but the North Africa campaign would have been much more difficult without them. Strong, sturdy and above all, extremely reliable. Best of all was it's low profile, giving it a real edge where cover was limited. The eventual Mark IX was the best of the bunch.
I'm a fan of the Italian Fiat 2000 which sadly never saw use as it was still in production by 1918. I used it as the basis for my converted skorpius dunerider because it is just so comically weird.
Huge love of course for the Tank. It was just the 'tank'. And they are beautiful creatures. You cannot dislike them.
For more modern tanks I much prefer the aesthetic of the Challenger 1, nice sleek design.
Valentine would have been my next choice, but my list was already burgeoning Anyone here know that the Kiwis deployed them during the invasion of 3 islands in the Solomons?(Yeah its little known but the New Zealand army actually had a limited participation in the east pacific) They performed quite well.
Also, speaking of A7V - interestingly enough, its competitor in German army was vastly more advanced design, Sturmpanzerwagen Oberschlesien:
Too bad they went with badly armored, slow, too tall box requiring 25 crew instead of something with turret and 5 men crew that could actually move and fight with some competence. But I guess it was too simple and had not enough overengineering and material wastage
Well my guess is you're not going to be worried about wear to the gun or vehicle as there is a nuclear echange taking place, although something possibly more concerning for the crew would be the US developed Honest Abe mobile missile launcher, an unarmored heavy truck capable of launching a nuclear warhead not really far enough to clear the vehicle from the blast radius.
8. Sherman: Here it is my "history" with it. When I first saw it I found it pretty ugly and wondered about the very high profile. Later I wondered why it was so "weak" compared to T34, Panthers and Tigers, but over the years, learning more and more about it I found the whole concept behind it was just... very well thought through. There were so many good ideas and obvious work put into it to make it transportable, perform good in the pacific, africa as well as europe, make it easy to produce and maintain. And it's success is prove enough. So looking back: a great tank, often underappreciated.
The Sherman really does get some love now, with plenty of people extoling it's virtues, but I appreciate that you point out one of it's biggest attributes: utter flexibility. The Sherman was designed prior to the US even entering the war, and certainly before the late war monsters were deployed.
tanks like the Panther and Tiger existed for a very specific purpose: to engage and destroy enemy armor on the Russian steppes. (Yes, tigers fought in Africa and both fought in Italy and France, but they existed to destroy T-34s). the Sherman was a really innovative design that had a lot of flexibility baked into it, and was part of an overall doctrine that simply didn't rely on tanks to fight tanks. That doctrine may have been flawed (although it's notable that the Stug III G, the most produced German armored vehicle, was essentially a tank destroyer), but it's hard to find examples of major operations that swung on the Sherman underperforming.
the Sherman was also crazy reliable, and if the best quality is quantity, the best ability is availability. Patton's ability to swoop north to break the siege of Bastogne wasn't because the Shermans were the toughest tanks, but because they were relatively fast and reliable, and able to make that kind of march.
Honestly, the Sherman and T34 were quite similar in terms of their overall effectiveness. Cheap to produce, good enough gun, good enough armor, good enough mobility. Sherman was better in terms of ergonomics and reliability and speed, and slightly better frontal armor. T34's gun and all around armor was slightly better.
I’ve been watching quite a bit about WWII armour recently, and it to me the Sherman and T-34 boil down to the binary “do you have a tank?” Because if you do and the other guy doesn’t, you’ll most likely win. Whether your tank is theoretically better than the other guy’s tank is in the margins anyway due to other factors such as doctrine, crew training, etc., but also becomes a complete irrelevance when that theoretically better tank just isn’t there!. And through a combination of mass production, mobility and reliability, the allied tanks could be there a lot more.
Regarding "a good tank that's there is always better than a great tank that's absent": one of the reasons why I love amphibic capability in AFVs, bridgelayers and driving pontoon bridges like the mentioned M2 Alligator and M3 Amphibie.
a combination of mass production, mobility and reliability, the allied tanks could be there a lot more.
There is the key when it comes to the sherman
from 1942-1945 all variants of the sherman produced numbered 49,234 at $44,556–64,455 in 1945 dollars,
by comparison the german tanks (RM- in 1945 Reichmarks)
panzer IV 115,962 RM (with L/43 gun)
8,553
STUGG IIIG(the most effective tank killer in the german army during the war) 82,500 RM
8,423 ( of 10,086 of all variants)
Tiger 1 250,700 RM
1,347
Panther 143,912 RM
about 6,000
All those most common german tanks combined only equal 24,323 units so half the numbers at double or more the cost and that is not counting the massive number of russian tanks or the tanks the UK built as well. many german tanks especially the later war ones were pound for pound better tanks in terms of armor protection and gun performance VS a sherman, but there were always more shermans to get behind them.
Not a tank strictly speaking (but not all the AFVs mentioned in this thread thus far are) but I'd go with the Jagdpanther for sentimental reasons. When I was 7 I was taken to a hobby shop and got to pick out my first model kit to build. Seeing the box for a Jagdpanther I remembered being bewildered by how it looked, as if coming face to face with a Star-belly Sneetch. Building it was one of my fondest memories I had with my late father.
Have not seen a jagdpanther in the steel yet. (The local tank museum is expanding quite rapidly and they are aquiring one (and an ISU 152!)Maybe next year.
Saw a panther there, right beast of a thing.
Especially when you consider its got thick armour, an excellent gun, a good turn of speed, decent agility, really good ground pressure and a heap of torque. Really can see why the French adopted them after the war. Really was a good thing for the allies that Germanys limited industrial capacity was being crippled day and night by heavy bombing and that most of its good tank crews were being chewed up on the eastern front when this thing came out.
And that allied air superiority meant that supplies to the frontlines were effectively crippled and the Germans were forced to often abandon vehicles they could not supply with fuel or repair.
Hell you can say the same about the tiger 2. Say what you like about the issues they had(everything that is in early production, let alone rushed into production, has issues; the first cromwells to be tested were super unreliable, and this is a tank that would later drive 5000km without issue, let alone a full engine rebuild as was kinda expected of a tank driving a quarter of that distance.) A King Tiger could climb a hill a panzer 4 was not capable of because of ground pressure and torque it could cross mud a mk 4 would find itself trapped in. It gets a bad rapp these days for being big and impractical, I'm just kinda glad Germany was never in a position to have used them effectively.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The main issue i see in the US's devlopmemt of armour in WW2 was their unwillingness to upgrade their equipment and their complete willingness to take losses.
Most of the upgrades that went into later model shermans were literally put forwards in 1942 and 1943, when the sherman was by all rights an excellent medium tank. If they implented better suspension and wet ammo storage, and better armour on the sides at this point it could have stayed a decent medium tank, if the US decided to go to 76mm on some of their fleet(or all later production vehicles) before Dday, it would again stayed as a decent medium tank till the end of the war. Any other nation would have swiftly implemented these upgrades to all following production vehicles, and started to upgrade their current fleets. I would, when comparing Britain's war time mentality with that of the US take it back to WW1, through doing stupid stuff the British(also Germans, and Commonwealth) were shocked to lose hundreds of thousands of soldiers, and decided to minimise losses where they could in the future. The Soviets learnt this at the outset of operation Barbarossa very proactively developed their armoured vehicles and implemented upgeades really quite swiftly look no further than the E and S model KV1(E had a heap of extra armour bolted on, S had armour stripped off to make it faster(or in other words to reinvent the T34, it was not very sucsessful but they were trying something based on information coming from the field), the Red army was in a pretty intense furnace of armour evolution, quite the opposite situation to the US army. The Americans, coming late to the party in WW1 and seemingly never were forced into this insight, what is more they really did not take well to other nations trying to impart such lessons upon them.
Even in WW2 being accused of being an anglophile in America was a big insult. And actually listening to the hard won advice of the British army from its campaign in NAfrica and implementing changes was seemingly seen as politcally dangerously Anglophilic(which makes a bit of sense, the British did invade them the previous century(the war of 1812 and DID favour the Confedercy in the civil war). So inferior models stayed in production and that cost lives.
From what I read at times (but again, I'm no historian) a lot of "bad" tanks and also planes suffered a lot from political decisions or military leaders with wrong expectations.
It's no tank but one of the most extrem examples I heard of was the Heinkel 177. It was intended as a strategic horizontal bomber. But still fondly remembering the success of Stukas at the beginning of WWII the higher ups demanded it to be capable of dive bombing... a four engine heavy bomber that dive bombs... as you can imagine that basically killed it. I think it could have become a decent plane. No flying fortress but decent. But these wrong expectations prohibited that.
It's similar with the Tiger 1 that was often sold and used as if it was invincible while it definitly wasn't.
OldMate wrote: The main issue i see in the US's devlopmemt of armour in WW2 was their unwillingness to upgrade their equipment and their complete willingness to take losses.
It's more that America wins war by out-producing the enemy. This has been true since the American Civil War, the genesis of the modern Military-Industrial Complex that drives American government. In WW2, America kept the factories humming profitably, and they've never stopped, just gotten a lot smarter about how to protect revenue sources with things like the F-35 jobs program.
I’m a bit confused about “unwillingness to upgrade their equipment”. The US made incremental upgrades to existing equipment as well as developing entirely new vehicles.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I had to share this one, and couldnt think of anywhere more appropriate…
thank all appropriate thankfulness targets for the internet!
Some nice vehicles ! I particularly enjoyed the modern German ones, even if they don't use them o must admit they look really good. The Finnish one too has always been one of my favorites, it's just cute you know !
Here are the two newest french armored vehicles, the griffon APC (officially multi roles) and the reco and combat vehicle jaguar. They look...kinda weird but are the newest armored vehicles I know in a modern army, both packed with jammers, com tech, detectors, infra etc and the jaguar has missiles hidden in it ( only 2, actually).
And this lead me to search on the internet for the newest vehicles of different armies and thus I have to ask to the American guys here: how is it that the Stryker was the last vehicle implemented in the US army ? Like, the Bradley in 40 years old for example !
The Stryker is very much the same as a Griffon from what I could gather, in term of capabilities, communication or protection. There has only been like 10-15 years between the two so that's understandable.
But the French fighting vehicle, out Bradley I could say, the vbci, is only 15 years old too, and now the APC and the light fight vehicles got renewed too
Going to add some more to the roster.
A movie tank, technically it was armed with 3x functioning 6pdrs, and constructed to handle some pretty rough ground, so it actually had to be made like a tank to hold tegether, and not just be shaken apart in the Spanish desert. Its probably the spiritual father of the leman russ too. I mean look at its gun toting beastliness. You'd never want to go into battle in it, but they did a good job of making it look impressive!
The first ever serious wheeled IFV, the South African Ratel(Afrikaans for honey badger I think?) The South Africans made some pretty neat stuff
godardc wrote: thus I have to ask to the American guys here: how is it that the Stryker was the last vehicle implemented in the US army ? Like, the Bradley in 40 years old for example !
The Stryker is very much the same as a Griffon from what I could gather, in term of capabilities, communication or protection. There has only been like 10-15 years between the two so that's understandable.
But the French fighting vehicle, out Bradley I could say, the vbci, is only 15 years old too, and now the APC and the light fight vehicles got renewed too
The Bradleys today are a LOT different from the ones 40 years ago. Different electronics, different armor packages, different comms. Same with Abrams, and in the air the AH64s and UH60s (Apaches and Blackhawks). Our acquisition system is a pain, and knowing that bring a whole new platform on board is pretty difficult, any platform brought on board will always be able to be updated to newer tech/allow for new requirements. Cheaper and quicker to bring in an improvement than a new platform. Look how long F15s and F16s have been in the inventory. B52s? Yeah, it isn't just the army.
OldMate wrote: Going to add some more to the roster.
A movie tank, technically it was armed with 3x functioning 6pdrs, and constructed to handle some pretty rough ground, so it actually had to be made like a tank to hold tegether, and not just be shaken apart in the Spanish desert. Its probably the spiritual father of the leman russ too. I mean look at its gun toting beastliness. You'd never want to go into battle in it, but they did a good job of making it look impressive!
Honestly, it does look exactly like what some middle eastern dictator would do if he got a handful of old MKV tanks and fiddled around with them. Not bad for a fictional tank.
The puma is a large armoured car with no infantry capacity. The Ratel was intended as a transport. I am surprised it was the first in the early 1970s. I would of thought the Russian BRDM would have been first, but I see they were also an armoured recon vehicle.
Russian BTR-70 series was around in the early 70s. Its predecessor, the BTR-60 series was around in the late 50s. I think that is a little earlier than the Ratel.
OldMate wrote: The first ever serious wheeled IFV, the South African Ratel
Wouldn't that be WW2 era Sd Kfz 234 Puma, actually?
Thank you for giving me the oppotunity to put this up So the 8x8 Rooikat(Afrikaans for Red cat or Cascarvel(the red furred African equivalent of a Lynx) if I am not mistaken) is actually quite comparable to the puma, although doctrinally different, as well as performing recon(and basically being a wheeled tank)its quite well mine protected and a very long range vehicle that in the case that another state tried to invade South Africa, the idea was that it'd raid and threaten convoys that were limited to only a few highways across the vastness of the svelt, the first model was armed with a fast firing 76mm cannon, that would essentially annhilate anything you expect in a supply convoy pretty quick and sharp, and you could carry much more ammo than a much larger and more redudant cannon, "and what if they use MBTs for convoy protection?" Well that is ideal, you are limiting the enemy tank pressence on the front lines AND slowing their suppl lines down to a crawl, two victories in one and all the Rooikat crews have to do is put a brew on and wait till the enemy drop the stupid MBT escort idea. BRDM is a recon vehicle, I'd say more comparable to a Rooikat than a Ratel, the Ratel makes up the rosters of the South African military's mechanised infantry corp in the same way the BMP does in the Soviet/Russian mechanised infantry corp.
The BTR series like all other similar vehicles were designed as APCs rather than IFVs. Armoured personnel carrier vs infantry fighting vehicle.
Here we tread the interesting, thin and fuzzy line between an IFV and an APC. History affords context which is vital to understanding the difference, so what is accredited as the worlds first IFV was the BMP1(although it must be said the A7V could fall into this definition, literally carrying a section of storm troopers, with their own flamethrower(sounds like a fun idea inside an AFV!), in its boxyness (in case you were wondering what business any land vehicle has with a crew of 18, yeah half of them were able to be dismounts) and doctrinally at least the German halftracks of ww2 as of a memo from around early 1942 states infantry should remain in the halftracks and fire out of the back of them, so clearly the idea was evolving during the world wars but the halftrack was still relatively lightly armoured and armed), the BMP was revolutionary and changed how mechanised warfare was to be fought. Instead of your vehicle being a glorified battle taxi that was proof against shell fragments, was designed to afford mobility and protection for the infantry from being flayed alive by shrapnel from artillery bombardment when moving to the front line and armed generally with a machinegun or 2 for suppressing the enemy whilst infantry disembarked(at least in theory, of course they were pressed into fire support roles when tanks were not avaliable, or as gun trucks when the enemy lacked the firepower to tackle an armoured vehicle), now every specialised mechanised infantry section(generally considered more elite and heavier infantry than those kitted with APCs (at least in the Red army)) would have a form of light tank that they could fight from mounted (utilising top hatches over the infantry compartmemt, and/or firing ports along the side of the infantry compartment(although this idea has waned in favor in recent years in favor of putting more protection on the sides of the vehicle) or dismounted from with the vehicle being able to back them up should they encounter a strong point or such and the vehicle generally enjoying better protection than the APCs that were contemporary(at least on the frontal arc). That is the 1st generation anyway, the line is quite blurry nowdays, or even back then when the west started slapping light tank turrets onto APCs in response to the BMP, although they were never designed as actual IFVs and were an interm measure till their own purpose desinged IFVs could be produced.
A great example of definitely not an IFV but something possibly lost in translation is the BMPT terminator. Often mistranslated(IMHO anyway) as a heavy IFV. It does not fight with the infantry and it does not carry them therefore its not an IFV, it is a tank that was designed to fight alongside conventional MBTs to combat hostile infantry and light targets. Like a MK1 female in WW1. The BMPT also has 4 ATGMs because if you have what is essentially the investment of an MBT, you don't just want it defenselessly being picked apart by enemy MBTS.
Back to the Ratel
Clearly can be seen here the intention of the vehicle to be fought from both in a mounted and dismounted manner by the mechanised infantry and the design features for such(hatches along the top open in a manner to provide cover against incoming small arms fire to those frining from behind them, and you can see the cluster of firing ports just above the gentleman in the centre's helmet). The IFV concept is essentially the midway between a light tank and an APC, sometimes with a bit of gun truck mixed in.
The Ratel is in design and purpose comparable to its counterparts the BMP series, Bradley, Marder, Warrior etc. It carries troops and uses its cannon to give them fire support. Its just wheeled and has better mine protection. Because it is expected to drive very long distances, and there is mines everywhere in Africa apparently.
I might have been a bit hard to follow.
The ratel, honey badger is the ifv
The rooikat, red cat is the 8x8 armoured car.
But yeah an MBT that can carry infantry is a bit weird, but in the context of the 1982 war, makes a heap of sense, as the Iseralis were effectively using their tanks to medievac injured(and rather grisily, their dead, they had no intention of letting hostile militias mutilate their fallen)from active battle zones.
OldMate wrote: ...and there is mines everywhere in Africa apparently.
Yeah, in a way.
There have been a lot of brushfire wars, insurgencies, rebellions, and revolutions in Africa. And land mines are VERY cheap area denial weapons that last a long, long time once emplaced. Worse, they're easy to lose track of. You send a platoon of engineers out to lay some mines, those engineers get ambushed and wiped out... where did the mines wind up? The only people who know are now dead. Makes it difficult to go back and retrieve them once the conflict is over.
And even if you're trying to be good and clean up after yourself, it's easy to miss a couple in the process of clearing an area. Even modern mines designed to be remote detonated by radio as an easy means of clearing your own minefields, the radio can fail and leave the mine intact.
Of course, most of the forces involved in those aformentioned conflicts either lack the capability or the desire to clean up stray minefields. If they know mines are in an area, they might post signs to warn civilians. Or they might just note it on the map and move on.
So... yeah. There are mines pretty much all over Africa. It's a real problem not just for the military, but for civilians as well.
I'm very greatful that the mines that were placed at the inner German border in the cold war had a kind of "time defuse" and disarmed themselves after some years.
Pyroalchi wrote: I'm very greatful that the mines that were placed at the inner German border in the cold war had a kind of "time defuse" and disarmed themselves after some years.
The same thing happened with the land mines that were deployed by the Australian Army during the Vietnam war, the fields were designed to stop the Viet Cong's proliferation of weapons and supplies from the North into the province under Australian responsibility, unfortunately a massive minefield is a terrible idea and having badly motivated South Vietnamese troops looking over the minefield meant for the rest of the war it was a great source of explosives for the Viet Cong, anti-lift devices were installed under the mines(hand grenade booby traps) but this just meant the Viet Cong could get more explosives each time they dug a mine out once they got the knack, although these mines had a trigger mechanism made from cast iron, that in the tropical ground lasted around 7 months. Unfortuantley 'improved' versions of this particular model of mine were later employed in Cambodia (both by the Khemer Rouge and the Vietnamese army) where the cast iron trigger mechanism was replaced with plastic, making them seemingly dangerous till this day.
OldMate wrote: ...and there is mines everywhere in Africa apparently.
Yeah, in a way.
There have been a lot of brushfire wars, insurgencies, rebellions, and revolutions in Africa. And land mines are VERY cheap area denial weapons that last a long, long time once emplaced. Worse, they're easy to lose track of. You send a platoon of engineers out to lay some mines, those engineers get ambushed and wiped out... where did the mines wind up? The only people who know are now dead. Makes it difficult to go back and retrieve them once the conflict is over.
And even if you're trying to be good and clean up after yourself, it's easy to miss a couple in the process of clearing an area. Even modern mines designed to be remote detonated by radio as an easy means of clearing your own minefields, the radio can fail and leave the mine intact.
Of course, most of the forces involved in those aformentioned conflicts either lack the capability or the desire to clean up stray minefields. If they know mines are in an area, they might post signs to warn civilians. Or they might just note it on the map and move on.
So... yeah. There are mines pretty much all over Africa. It's a real problem not just for the military, but for civilians as well.
Another great danger with land mines is that the ground moves, so after a decade any minefield charts can be basically useless. Mines can slowly migrate into areas once thought safe.
yhea, minefield migration is a big problem. the falkland islands were heavily mined by the Argentinians during the 1982 war for them (mainly along beaches to deny them as landing sites), and it was only VERY recently (November 2021, to be exact), a full 40 years after the end of the war and after serious mine clearing efforts since 2009, that they have been confident enough to declare the place "mine free".
for most of the intervening time, a great number of beaches were off limits to humans, which ironically made them great wildlife preserves as people (and peoples dogs) couldn't go on them to disrupt the animals (who were mostly light enough to not set off vehicle mines. I say mostly because it would still happen on occasion, with results grisly enough i will not elaborate).
On the wheeled APC front, there were several designs in service in the NATO powers, notably the Uk's Saxon and Saracen wheeled APCs and the french VAB. the Saracen actually dates form the 50's, and 280 were exported to the south africans, who used a modified one for the Rooikat trails/development.
The Saxon is an early 80s design, and was intended for rapid "second wave" reinforcement units that would be rushed from the UK to Germany in case of war (just in time to replace the corpses of the BAOR, if things went well), since wheeled APCs are generally faster than tracked ones over good ground. The Saxon and Saracen were extensively used in Northern Ireland during the Troubles, and apprantly the Ukrainians bought a load back in the early 2010s (god knows what they made of them).
With Putin recognizing Donbass independence and deploying peacekeepers, it looks like we could be seeing that stuff in action sooner rather than later.
JohnHwangDD wrote: With Putin recognizing Donbass independence and deploying peacekeepers, it looks like we could be seeing that stuff in action sooner rather than later.
They may yet get me to try to come out of retirement...
off topic for here, but i don't think NATO will start ww3 over Ukraine. it will go with economic sanctions again to pressure Putin's backers to reign in their empire building, but stop short of actual fighting. at least as long as the russians stay in the "separatist" areas.
if they were willing to risk open war, they would have put troops into Ukraine directly, but they recognise that would be casus belli form Putin's point of view, and would directly provoke the war they dont want to fight, so its harsh words and economic sanctions for now.
xerxeskingofking wrote: off topic for here, but i don't think NATO will start ww3 over Ukraine. it will go with economic sanctions again to pressure Putin's backers to reign in their empire building, but stop short of actual fighting. at least as long as the russians stay in the "separatist" areas.
if they were willing to risk open war, they would have put troops into Ukraine directly, but they recognise that would be casus belli form Putin's point of view, and would directly provoke the war they dont want to fight, so its harsh words and economic sanctions for now.
Well sure! There wasn't a war when he invaded the Crimea in 2014. As long as Putin gets the territory he's after, he won't go to war. And the west won't do it to stop him.
On topic wheeled vehicles seem to make much more sense as the world becomes more developed.
@ wheeled vehicles: I think it depends a bit where the army in question expects to fight. If you think there will be lots of roads or you will have relatively "easy" terrain but range/fuel will be an issue wheeled vehicles seem to have some good arguments. I assume that is one reason why south africa developed a lot of them and why they also had some success in europe.
As mentioned during cold war the German army seemed to have placed quite some value into amphibious capability (Fuchs, Luchs) deep wading, tank snorkels (Leopard 1 and 2), bridgelayers, driving pontons/ferries... But since the 90s this seems to have gone "out of style", maybe because it is expected that these vehicles will mostly be deployed in regions where rivers are less of an issue
I meant it more in the direction: during cold war the west german army had really LOTS of bridgelayers, and driving ferries to get their tanks over rivers but ADDITIONALLY they kept an eye on making their tanks/AFVs capable to cross rivers even if the bridges are destroyed and no bridgelayer is in range. Of course it's risky to drive your tank through a river, but it gives quite a lot tactical flexibility on some battlefields if you can pull it off.
I mean they had 114 M2 Alligators (Ferry/Pontonbrigde on wheels), 102 Bridglayer M48 (out of commission nowadays), 105 Bridgelayer Biber and since 2018 32 Leguans.
the emphasis on rover crossing was partly a response to the expereinces of both the russains and the germans on the eastern front, i believe. A significant number of defence lines were based mainly on rivers and thus river crossings were a very common form of "set piece" battle that needed planning and prep for, and being able to attempt a "snap" crossing with zero prep or delays waiting for bridging units to catch up was seen as extremely valuable.
with the germans, i worked with a members of the Bundeswehr of them over the years, and the way they discribed the draw-down form cold war levels was not so much a change in doctrine per se, but mostly immidate need driven.
basically, they government was looking at what was being used in "serious" operations (like peacekeeping in the former yugoslavia, etc) and what was only getting used on exercise, and started trimming the latter capabilities as "unneeded". I know the germans air defence capability (ie SAMs/SPAAGs) was basically disbanded because of this, as they were operating under allied air supremacy and that wasnt going to change anytime soon, and its not unreasonable to suggest that bridging/river crossing capabilities tuned to fighting the Russians in the north German plain, were likewise downsized over decades of low intensity warfare with mostly intact infrastructure.
Wheeled APCS have had something of a renaissance in recent years with the MRAP and other protected mobility systems, but i will go into that when i have more time.
Speaking of minefields, these things have always been one of my favorites. Mine clearers in general just look evil, whether they are the plow or flail versions.
Two other odd ones from Germany (now I'll dive into experimental types that never saw the light of day, but are cool to mention):
VT1(Versuchsträger-1)
pretty crazy concept. Basically the idea was that german tanks would have to face a clear numerical superiority and that a tank would be very hard to adequatly hit if it does "tactical Wedelfahrt" => I don't know the translation, it comes down to driving at high speed and performing continuous erratic direction changes.
So they came up with a turretless tank with two (!) stabilized guns, heavy armor and lots of engine power. With autoloaders and computerized targeting. So while driving the gunner would lock in on a target and keep the firing button pressed. As soon as one of the two guns would be in the right direction (following another direction change) it would automatically fire (and hopefully hit).
As far as Wikipedia goes it was deemed that the concept could technically have been realized, but that the cons outweighted the pros. The main issue being that it was too unflexible, only really useful when engaging a numerical superiority of tanks outside of urban or forest terrain.
Another prototype tank that was developed by the arms producers without a certain order and never found buyers: the Begleitpanzer 57 (~Supporttank 57):
Basically take a marder IFV hull (relatively cheap, relatively easy to produce) and combine it with a turret with a Bofors 57-mm/L70-Mk.1 naval gun with autoloader (200 shots/minute at least in the naval version) + a TOW launcher. Here as far as I read the idea was, that this thing could engage all the soviet vehicles that were below MBT level (BMTs, BTRs, BRDMs etc.) so that the Leopards can deal with the heavier stuff. Also an interesting thought if a high rate of fire 57mm gun could have found it's use in overwhelming a MBT with active protection systems before killing it with a TOW. Who knows... might have worked.
I meant it more in the direction: during cold war the west german army had really LOTS of bridgelayers, and driving ferries to get their tanks over rivers but ADDITIONALLY they kept
With regards to the eastern front (western for us), then there was continuous combat action on a long front and there was little choice - if you didn’t ferry the tank, then good luck fighting without a tank with just a rifles. Maybe the military after the war was optimistic that after tactical nuclear strikes they would force the Oder and then the English Channel, in practice, I have not heard that river forcing was used somewhere in the 70 years after the war. Although if you look at Soviet BMP/BTR, it is ALL amphibious. I don’t know how well its swims with the army, but civilian MTLBs and BMPs just drown in bigger water. This is not a real boat, there are many holes with rubber bands that shrink and of course no one will look after condition. they pass well swamps and snow though
Most of the upgrades that went into later model shermans were literally put forwards in 1942 and 1943, when the sherman was by all rights an excellent medium tank. If they implented better suspension and wet ammo storage, and better armour on the sides at this point it could have stayed a decent medium tank, if the US decided to go to 76mm on some of their fleet(or all later production vehicles) before Dday, it would again stayed as a decent medium tank till the end of the war. Any other nation would have swiftly implemented these upgrades to all following production vehicles, and started to upgrade their current fleets. I would, when comparing Britain's war time mentality with that of the US take it back to WW1, through doing stupid stuff the British(also Germans, and Commonwealth) were shocked to lose hundreds of thousands of soldiers, and decided to minimise losses where they could in the future. The Soviets learnt this at the outset of operation Barbarossa very proactively developed their armoured vehicles and implemented upgeades really quite swiftly look no further than the E and S model KV1(E had a heap of extra armour bolted on, S had armour stripped off to make it faster(or in other words to reinvent the T34, it was not very sucsessful but they were trying something based on information coming from the field), the Red army was in a pretty intense furnace of armour evolution, quite the opposite situation to the US army. The Americans, coming late to the party in WW1 and seemingly never were forced into this insight, what is more they really did not take well to other nations trying to impart such lessons upon them.
Even in WW2 being accused of being an anglophile in America was a big insult. And actually listening to the hard won advice of the British army from its campaign in NAfrica and implementing changes was seemingly seen as politcally dangerously Anglophilic(which makes a bit of sense, the British did invade them the previous century(the war of 1812 and DID favour the Confedercy in the civil war). So inferior models stayed in production and that cost lives.
Going to have to disagree with this.
Not seeing where the Americans kept "inferior" vehicles.
* They continuously experimented with other vehicles. Those other vehicles didn't work or didn't meet the needs of the US in WW2.
* Batch upgrades to the M4 were made throughout the war. In comparison the Soviets didn't do anything until they absolutely had to with the T34 and KV1, both of which were inferior designs in terms of crew visibility and laying a weapon on a target in real time. Plus they were utter crap that broke down immediately.
* They had 76mms far earlier than were pushed out in ETO. They were not desired as the 75 had higher explosive fill and the 75 was good against most vehicles it came across in real life. Like the Soviet choice of the 122 for the IS instead of a 100mm, their primary opponents needed a thorough application of HE, and the gun was good enough against anything else. Even before that they had M10s with 3in guns.
*What they didn't do was constantly push out new crap because no one controlled the engineers or arms companies. While cool, there's no use for a Jagd panther, Jagd tiger, Tiger II, Elefant etc. etc. Thats just juicy contracts for companies.
You have some nerve calling the T34 inferior when it is the most revolutionary tank of WW2, maybe history. And the most successful. The one that truly wrote in stone what it is to be a tank, a perfect equilibrium of speed, protection, offensive and production. But the others points are totally valid, the US army didn't stop improving its tanks a single minute, with plenty of different ones (they started the war later and still managed to have a very different armored component at the end) and plenty of different patterns for the Sherman
Veldrain wrote: Speaking of minefields, these things have always been one of my favorites. Mine clearers in general just look evil, whether they are the plow or flail versions.
I've got an 'interesting' story about my wingman's plow tank and free range cattle on FT Hood.
Most of the upgrades that went into later model shermans were literally put forwards in 1942 and 1943, when the sherman was by all rights an excellent medium tank. If they implented better suspension and wet ammo storage, and better armour on the sides at this point it could have stayed a decent medium tank, if the US decided to go to 76mm on some of their fleet(or all later production vehicles) before Dday, it would again stayed as a decent medium tank till the end of the war. Any other nation would have swiftly implemented these upgrades to all following production vehicles, and started to upgrade their current fleets. I would, when comparing Britain's war time mentality with that of the US take it back to WW1, through doing stupid stuff the British(also Germans, and Commonwealth) were shocked to lose hundreds of thousands of soldiers, and decided to minimise losses where they could in the future. The Soviets learnt this at the outset of operation Barbarossa very proactively developed their armoured vehicles and implemented upgeades really quite swiftly look no further than the E and S model KV1(E had a heap of extra armour bolted on, S had armour stripped off to make it faster(or in other words to reinvent the T34, it was not very sucsessful but they were trying something based on information coming from the field), the Red army was in a pretty intense furnace of armour evolution, quite the opposite situation to the US army. The Americans, coming late to the party in WW1 and seemingly never were forced into this insight, what is more they really did not take well to other nations trying to impart such lessons upon them.
Even in WW2 being accused of being an anglophile in America was a big insult. And actually listening to the hard won advice of the British army from its campaign in NAfrica and implementing changes was seemingly seen as politcally dangerously Anglophilic(which makes a bit of sense, the British did invade them the previous century(the war of 1812 and DID favour the Confedercy in the civil war). So inferior models stayed in production and that cost lives.
Going to have to disagree with this.
Not seeing where the Americans kept "inferior" vehicles.
* They continuously experimented with other vehicles. Those other vehicles didn't work or didn't meet the needs of the US in WW2.
* Batch upgrades to the M4 were made throughout the war. In comparison the Soviets didn't do anything until they absolutely had to with the T34 and KV1, both of which were inferior designs in terms of crew visibility and laying a weapon on a target in real time. Plus they were utter crap that broke down immediately.
* They had 76mms far earlier than were pushed out in ETO. They were not desired as the 75 had higher explosive fill and the 75 was good against most vehicles it came across in real life. Like the Soviet choice of the 122 for the IS instead of a 100mm, their primary opponents needed a thorough application of HE, and the gun was good enough against anything else. Even before that they had M10s with 3in guns.
*What they didn't do was constantly push out new crap because no one controlled the engineers or arms companies. While cool, there's no use for a Jagd panther, Jagd tiger, Tiger II, Elefant etc. etc. Thats just juicy contracts for companies.
I'm going to have to agree to disagree
The fact that the Red Army literally fought 3/4 of the German army does not in my book make allied tanks better, it just meant they never had to be better. That of course goes for the British tanks that I love as well. Eastern front is a whole different ball game and both German and Soviet vehicles often could not count on support from elsewhere for their own reasons.
Everyone experimented with other vehicles, and plenty of them did not turn out to fit the needs of the military, some of them even yielded useful results(Like Australia's sentinel lending research that led to the firefly). But do you consider that many of the projects were ended becasue the current model, the Sherman, was seen as good enough for the job, and that this might have stymied the development process of things like the Perishing. US command was totally willing to take casualties.
As I said earlier, many of the upgrades such as wet ammo storage, better armour on the sides(which started as a breezy 50mm vertical plate) and more actually functional suspension(the horizontal spring as seen on the easy8) done throughout the war were first put forwards straight after their first deployments in North Africa. Batch upgrades might be all well and good, but if its not half the stuff you specifically asked for to begin with, its sorta missing the point. Many patterns were, with anything that undergoes such mass production, simplification of the manufacturing process or to suit different plants.
76 did not need to be a fleetwide upgrade. Also the British were keeping one eye ahead, unlike the Americans and actually developed and produced the firefly before DDay, becasue they expected to fight stronger enemy tanks, this is exactly what I am talking about in the American unwillingness to adapt to battlefield experience and wanting to minimalise casualties. Keep 2-3 tanks in a squadron with 75s obviously(Although given they gave the Jumbo, or was the easy 8 that was the assault tank? IDK a 76 and it was intended to engage fortification and AT positions I can't help but think the argument is disengenuious). The British even offered to let the Americans make the 17pounder under license in late 1942 when it first came out, like they did earlier with the 6pdr(which became the foremost medium AT gun in the US military during 1943). But aforementioned Anglophobia meant they decided their 76 was better, despite it really not being the case. British artillery expertise and US manufacturing capacity? Could you imagine, if prior to D-Day the allies had a few thousand fireflies and were manufacturing more?
The KV1 E(which was literally upgraded in 1941, when it very much maintained material surprise over the Germans) and a few months later KV1S which was rolled out in 1942 when the KV1 regular was still giving the Germans a heap of trouble, sure they might have been unreliable, but there is literally accounts of these tanks coming back to life(or more likely surviving crew coming back around) hours after being hit by 88mm flak cannons, things that were turning allied tanks into burning craters four years later. The IS heavy tanks are a direct descendant of the KV-1(KV-2 is a specialist variant, rather than a new model/replacement of the main line heavy tank). All of these upgrades were proactive, the Soviets always attempting to get the upper hand even when their tanks were 'decent enough.' The IS tanks were kitted with an 122mm gun for better HE performance, sure, but this went with a strategy of aggressive recon via T34s and T34 borne troops. If they encountered heavy fortifications IS tanks, which were part of Guards Breakthrough tank units were sent in, with their own brand of shock troops, to uh breakthrough. Huge gun is good against all targets, I agree, pity no-one told the Allies.
If they came up against enemy tanks, why'd you send in the breakthrough tanks, send more T34 85s or maybe some self propelled gun.
The soviets had a bit of a formula for it, they did a lot of the fighting.
The T34, it has a bad look for its losses, but honestly its hard to find a better medium tank during the war. Panther is where i'd start(which also gets an unfair rap these days as well). Why did so many of them get blown up? Because the Soviets were throwing them at 3/4 of the German Army, which itself was rapidly evolving to face the wall of soviet iron. And also because a chronic lack of communication equipment meant that crews and units were severely handicapped, such as the common means of the commander communicating with his vehicle's driver by kicking him/her in the shoulders or back. It also severely hampered their ability to commence combined arms warfare. So essentially where American and British troops could quickly and effectively call in artillery support and coordinate with their infantry, or call in tank destroyer units if they were nested with something they could not handle(in the case of the Americans and the British heavy tank units, or their squadron vehicles in fireflys or challengers in British tank units) Soviet tankers were effectively on their own. T34s were notoriously reliable, in the worst conditions in the war, with some of the least trained crews in the war, KVs were unreliable becasue they had the same engine and it was overburdened by the extra couple of tons of armour, but the T34 engine was phenomenally good, rough ready and reliable. It was the first powerful and reliable tank engine made during the war and it did not require really any development(asside from being made more simple for mass manufacture). So i'm not sure where you're pulling that from.
Well the elephant, everyone's favorite punching bag, 91 of them made, 90 of them deployed during the battle of the Kursk in 2 squadrons of 45, the largest tank battle of the entire war, is credited with destroying 320 enemy vehicles for the loss of just 13 of their own, (quoted as being an average 10:1 kill ratio, so I imagine some particular vehicles were getting a lot of kills becasue 320:1 translates to 1:24.66 kills each), most losses were due to enemy infantry action, as the elephants outstripped their own supporting infantry, as they advanced too quickly. I'd be signing that juicy contract for more of the things, maybe be put infantry telephones on them or some such. As shown in modern day Iraq(where they literally lost tanks to hand grenades being thrown into the hatches), Turkey or Yemen you can have a really good tank (Like an M1A2 Abrams or Leopard 2 A4) but if you have no infantry support you're a rolling pyre.
But this whole thing is completely off topic. Favorite is not necessarily great in the circumstances it was designed for, let alone found itself it.
M51 super sherman, prolly one of the more sucessful storys of how to retrofit a completely inferior and outdated tank into a (at the times) modern fighting machine.
I would strongly disagree with several of your points.
But do you consider that many of the projects were ended becasue the current model, the Sherman, was seen as good enough for the job, and that this might have stymied the development process of things like the Perishing. US command was totally willing to take casualties.
short answer, no. many projects were shelved because they offered either no or at best marginal improvments over the sherman, and the costs of implementation outweighed those benefits, considering the need to built, ship and support these new designs. the Perishing wasnt particularly "held back" by a US military that was stuck in the mud and preffered the existing shermans. The perishing was held back by its own flaws and the development timelines to remedy those flaws, and realistically couldnt have got into service much sooner than it did historically (at least not without having the reliability issues the early panthers had at Krusk). the US was indeed willing to take casualties, but it still wanted the best weapons it could.
76 did not need to be a fleetwide upgrade. Also the British were keeping one eye ahead, unlike the Americans and actually developed and produced the firefly before DDay, becasue they expected to fight stronger enemy tanks, this is exactly what I am talking about in the American unwillingness to adapt to battlefield experience and wanting to minimalise casualties
the 76mm was actually available and in Britain in time for D-day, but commanders, on the basis of their existing experience with german armour in north africa (where tigers were stopped by 75mm gun shermans) decided they wanted to keep the 75mm that was better against the soft targets that they spent 90% of the time fighting, as well as simplify logistics (always a critically important factor in american thinking).
he British even offered to let the Americans make the 17pounder under license in late 1942 when it first came out, like they did earlier with the 6pdr(which became the foremost medium AT gun in the US military during 1943). But aforementioned Anglophobia meant they decided their 76 was better, despite it really not being the case
not anglophobia, since as you mentioned they quite happily took the 6pdr as the 57mm (they looked at the 57mm as a tank gun, but felt it lost too much power over distance due to the lighter shell), as well as the merlin engines for the P-51. They tested the 17 pdr extensively (they tested a lot of foreign made equipment, adopted what they liked, stole good ideas if they saw them, etc), and decided against it. This was more a recognition that A) the 17pdr had its own problems, namely accuracy at range due to issues with the sabot rounds, and B) the americans had not one, but two new AT gun projects that were better suited for thier purposes, the 76mm that could be retro-fitted to existing tanks easily, and the 90mm which gave better performance than the 17pdr.
the americans put a great deal more emphasis on ergonomics than everyone else did, and basically felt the 17pndr stuffed into a sherman was too cramped. the gunner was forced to fight at a really awkward postion due to the location of the controls, the loader had very little room to move the large shells in, etc, etc. the brits were willing to accept these limits, and since they actaully put the firefly into the feild (unlike the 76mm shermans), the firefly got a reputation as a tank killer.
The T34, it has a bad look for its losses, but honestly its hard to find a better medium tank during the war. Panther is where i'd start(which also gets an unfair rap these days as well).
Id argue that the t-34, panther and the sherman all have "bad raps" form differently slanted fanbois, but they were likely the best tank for the country producing them, though the soviets did think quite highly of the shermans they got though lend lease, issuing them to the Guards units.
panther had a lot of problems relating to it being rushed into service, most of which were ironed out in due coruse, and a few that were endemic and stem form the fundamental design choices of the design (for example, the difficulty in changing transmissions). once they were sorted they had a solid tank that did well enough.
T-34 was always a "good enough, in large quantity" tank, and the early model t34-76s in particular had significant problems (2 man turrets, lack of radios, etc). the russains were forced by the dire straights of 1941-42 to emphaise production almost to the exclusion of all else, which delayed the introduction of improvements to the design.
the shermans great strengths were reliability and easy maintenance, which led to high serviceability rates, and that it was available in great quanties as well.
A short backtrack regarding why I like the last two tanks: I like the VT-1 for it's simple crazyness and how uncommon the setup was. Shows that the responsible engineers where not afraid to think outside the box.
Regarding the Begleitpanzer 57 I just think a fast firing 57mm could really be an asset, especially when it likely would be able to also do some light to medium anti air fire. Apart from that I also just really like light tanks and think even today they could have a role in assisting "real" MBTs. Especially when they can be produced much cheaper. You could most likely get the 57 turret out of the drawer, make it remote controlled, slap it on a GTK Boxer and immediatly have something useful.
It's also worth pointing that tank affecinados tend to think purely in World of Tanks terms (tank vs tank).
By 1944 the Western allies weren't fighting that many German tanks and the Japanese and Italians had few if any armored vehicles. Most of the time tanks would be spending their time supporting the infantry and fighting through dense terrain.
The 17pdr was a good gun but really only clearly better than the 75 and 76mm against heavy tanks, which were a small fraction of what allied tanks were doing. Most of the time they were shooting softer targets. The Sherman Firefly, while loved by tank nuts for having such a big gun, was a vehicle of middling performance in practice. I'm not sure we can credit the British that much for the idea of taking a British gun and slapping it on an American tank, a stop-gap measure they only needed because their own tank program was so very slow to produce results. And it's worth noting they didn't fit the 17 pdr in their eventual final product, the Cromwell. The Cromwell also got a 75mm gun because the British came to much the same conclusions as their American counterparts about what they needed in practice and what was easiest to spam hundreds of rounds down range.
It is worth pointing out that American ballistic tests were actually terribly flawed in methodology. They overestimated the viability of the 76mm while underestimating the use of the 17pdr, but I'd say the actual outcome of combat rendered this error inconsequential in real terms. People then and today tend to overestimate the performance and availability of German tanks. Famed Tiger Ace Michael Wittman was killed when a Sherman 75mm punctured his Tiger's armor. When you actually have 5 Shermans to shoot with, you really only need 1 to actually get through and that's only when those Shermans happen upon a German tank. Toward the end of the war American forces were firing HE rounds in the thousands monthly while going through only a fraction as much AP ammo.
The Sherman and the T34 are favorites for good reason. They were easily the two best tanks of the war in real terms and a lot more comparable in performance than most people realize.
Famed Tiger Ace Michael Wittman was killed when a Sherman 75mm punctured his Tiger's armor.
Yeah, but let's be honest about that one. it wasn't a head on fight. 3 different sections ambushed his unit from concealed positions as it crossed an open field. the kill shot came from behind and left.
Consider what happened to the 2/502nd heavy panzer battalion ace (an Italian) Alfredo Carpaneto who rose to fame facing off 13 T-343/85 with his single tiger killing 4 and forcing the rest to retreat then in a later action took out 8 of 13 T-24/85 in a head on fight (2 while immobilized stuck in a pond).
Also consider, tiger 231 during the battle of Kursk
I am not saying it was the best tank, it was overly expensive to build considering the wartime resource demands even though it outclassed most of its early contemporaries.
Tank battles were very situational especially in WWII.
Just to clarify some points
By 76 I mean the US 76 not the 17pdr(which I will only adress as such). The British did adopt the 17pdr as organic anti tank power within tank squadrons(running fireflys with cromwells or regular shermans) prior to Dday, and heavy tank units were basically partnered with mobile AT units(that good old Churchill Archillies synergy), the Americans would adopt the 76 in the Jumbo Sherman(and the easy 8, but more in a heavy assault role, but still armed with a 76, for some reason)) after the lessons learnt during the war in Normandy.
Anglophobia(or fear of being accused an Anglophile on the other hand) was a real political element in America during the war and it coloured many decisions. It was a weird atmosphere that decisions were made in, looking back it seems ridiculous but it seemed to be present.
The Americans adopted the 57 because their 37s were totally inadequate when they entered the war and it was a quick and convenient fix to the light AT problem(it was the same reason the British adopted the US 75mm too, their shells were essentially the same size, so the Americans could use the same equipment to make barrels and the British literally just had to re-bore 6pdr barrels up to 75mm). It was a no brainer, not really comparable to the bigger AT problem.
The 76 was in development and the Americans were loathe to drop it as it was essentially very different to the 17pdr. The 90(modeled off an obselete AA gun) was in the works later and for a very long time, and only became available in limited numbers by late 44, likewise with the perishing's development.
I do not have a problem with the sherman, its just that it could have been better. At the end of the day its the apes in the tank and not the steel shell that makes all the difference. A Canadian guy knocked out 6 panthers in a row with a regular 75 armed sherman. Tigers had a fearsome reputation, but as they were heavy tanks they were often given to the best crews, so its sort of intuative that they got that reputation. Saying that if you park one in plain sight of the enemy(as in an account from Tunisia, it was in a hull down position(firing position), but not turret down(ie completely obscured, as it should have been, as it was not firing or seemingly aware of a troop of churchills bumbling around in front of it)) the enemy will bring something up to destroy it(17pdr in that case).
I'd suggest for some light reading
'The Business of Tanks' By G. Macleod Ross-- In collaboration with Major General Sir Cambell Clark
If you can get your hands on it, I think my copy was published in 1976,
Also this handy document: Could not find an online access but it is a completely free download. Its the overview of a massive study on Allied tank losses during ww2 and was completed in the 50s, breaks everything down quite well.
https://payhip.com/b/DO4I
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pyroalchi wrote: A short backtrack regarding why I like the last two tanks: I like the VT-1 for it's simple crazyness and how uncommon the setup was. Shows that the responsible engineers where not afraid to think outside the box.
Regarding the Begleitpanzer 57 I just think a fast firing 57mm could really be an asset, especially when it likely would be able to also do some light to medium anti air fire. Apart from that I also just really like light tanks and think even today they could have a role in assisting "real" MBTs. Especially when they can be produced much cheaper. You could most likely get the 57 turret out of the drawer, make it remote controlled, slap it on a GTK Boxer and immediatly have something useful.
Very much outside the box! I love the idea of it screaming around firing, and engaging multiple targets, a wild wild machine.
Begleitpanzer 57, I agree, a 57mm cannon is going to cause hell to any unit that is not an MBT, and it might work to relieve the pressure from other components of the battlegroup. It might also unburdeon MBTs from having to provide fire support to infantry when engaging hardened positions etc. Considering the BMP 3 has a 100m cannon and 30mm cannon, I really think someting like a 57mm automatic cannon really treads the happy medium.
On a 57mm modern system; with the advent of modern active kill systems(chiefly the Iserali 'iron fist') being capable of intercepting APFDS projectiles I think something like a 57mm auto cannon should be able to quickly overwhelm and blow a system like this off an MBT, along with any additional armour modules. Leaving it open for an ATGM. So the TOW is a nice touch, and should counter any laser dazzlers etc.
aphyon wrote: Yeah, but let's be honest about that one. it wasn't a head on fight. 3 different sections ambushed his unit from concealed positions as it crossed an open field. the kill shot came from behind and left.
Only a moron looks for a fair fight in war
That it's not fair isn't really the point. If anything, it not being fair is the point. People in tank discussions tend to think like it's a video game and the biggest bullet does the most damage. Generally true but often far less significant than people think it is. When you outnumber your enemy, it doesn't matter that you need to fire more shells to achieve a knockout. You have the extra guns to shoot and in WWII one penetration was usually more than enough to set a tank on fire or set off its own ammo supply.
Anglophobia(or fear of being accused an Anglophile on the other hand) was a real political element in America during the war and it coloured many decisions.
It did, but I'm pretty well read on the ordinance department's procedures on tank procurement and I've never seen any sign that anglophobia played a role in the rejection of the 17pdr. The US rejected the weapon after tests showed it was insufficiently better than the 76mm. These tests were horribly flawed, something the ordinance department would try to cover up after the war, but its decisions were based on a completely different set of biases than anglophobia. I think you're giving this way more credit in this regard than it warrants. Mostly the OD was biased toward the 76mm because they had a lot of them and it was fairly easy and simple to make more. If anything they worried that adopting the 17pdr would make the higher-ups question their desire to build more 76mm vehicles and OD was already in an uphill battle trying to make the 76mm the standard.
The 76mm wasn't 'in development.' The 76mm was just a reproduction of the 3 Inch coastal gun which the US had gak tons of before the war started and had already repurposed into anti-tank weapons for guns and tank destroyers. We had hordes of ammo so it was a no brainer to just make a new version of an old gun that wasn't really any different than the old one. These weapons were extremely successful in North Africa and Italy and many failures were rightfully placed on doctrine and deployment problems. Rather than start making new vehicles and 17pdrs, the OD was obsessed with trying to get American heavy tanks off the ground and into production and these vehicles were slated to use the 76mm from the start and then upped to the 90m later and the 90mm had better performance against a range of targets than the 17pdr. Angophobia wasn't part of this equation so much as a more general self-interest and dispassion for a gun no one in the OD thought they needed.
If you can get your hands on it, I think my copy was published in 1976,
50 years is a long time to be behind on scholarship, especially tank scholarship which is a pretty active and enthusiastic field. Charles Baily's Faint Praise was published in 1983 and changed a lot about Ordnance Department history.
FrozenDwarf wrote: M51 super sherman, prolly one of the more sucessful storys of how to retrofit a completely inferior and outdated tank into a (at the times) modern fighting machine.
A fixer upper if ever there was one! They performed well, fought pretty much unmodified Syrian Panzer MkIVs and T34s.
The Argentinians did the same, but with former fireflys(they got a lot of British hardware in the 50s) rather than Jumbos, must have been pretty cozy in the turret, with a 105 breech to squeeze in with.
On the subject of WW2 tank retrofits, here's a pint sized one from Brazil.
If you can get your hands on it, I think my copy was published in 1976,
50 years is a long time to be behind on scholarship, especially tank scholarship which is a pretty active and enthusiastic field. Charles Baily's Faint Praise was published in 1983 and changed a lot about Ordnance Department history.
Well General MacLeod Ross, was essentially the British liaison within America and handled the British interests in the development of tanks in America. Also had a hand in designing the Mk2 Matilda. So as books on the matter go it is old, but its as close to a primary source, I mean it was literally written by the guys who were involved with armour and gun development at the time(and includes many private memorandums etc from the time) So yeah, its a oldin but a goodin. Would not have suggested it elsewise.
And the Ordnance Department wrote three histories on its wartime role and actions. All three of which are more notable for their deflections of blame than anything.
Just because a source is primary or was written by someone who was there doesn’t mean it should be taken at its word especially in light of contrary evidence. I think I remember Ross vaguely and I’m sure he encountered quite a bit of hostility, especially from old blood southerners. I’m also saying I think that hostility had less to do with the rejection of the 17pdr than the OD’s own internal policy goals for the 76mm and heavy tank production.
And I’m not saying its a bad book. Old doesn’t mean bad but it does mean it by defnition is not up-to-date and history has no gospels. I’ve read a lot of newer books on US tank development and while there’s lots of mention of anglophobia in them its not in the parts about the 17pdr (t-23 development on the other hand).
Grey Templar wrote: Yeah, take the Bureau of Ordinance's contemporary writings with a grain of salt. These are the same chuckleheads who made the Mk14 Torpedo.
the US Navy's "Bureau of Ordinance" and the US Army's "Ordinance Department" are two seperate organisations that furfill the same roles for thier respective branches. so its hardly fair to tar one for the failings of the other.
And, in defence of the indefensible pile of failure that was the Mk14, its worth pointing out the British and Germans also had significant issues with torpedoes in the early war, so its not just the Americans. the only reason the Japanese didnt have issues was they coughed up the money for the extensive testing needed to find and avoid those issues.
FrozenDwarf wrote: M51 super sherman, prolly one of the more sucessful storys of how to retrofit a completely inferior and outdated tank into a (at the times) modern fighting machine.
Damn babies workhorse a whole dang war and all the memes are about Tigers! Shame. Damn shame 
Because, it may be a scout car, but it is not exactly small.
The earliest version, I love the first model that little blister with a 20mm, they were ike 90% to having a modern looking tank, and then...
The latest version, even if its more a prototype. Essentially the same thing under all that spaced armour.
