tanks during the second world war

conservativecave.com ^ | June 2, 2009 | franksolich

[NVDave]

(d) re: tracks. If you sit down and look at a Cat dozer or other tracked vehicle pushing through the dirt, it will become obvious why their wear out.

Lemme find you a pic:

http://www.afrikakorps.org/_photos/Sherman/VVSSEarlyTopRoller.jpg

Those are from a German tank, but the issues are the same today on Cat construction equipment, tanks, you name it.

From your comments, you’re looking at the outer part of the track mechanism. You’re looking at those nice, big chunks of steel and wondering “Jeez — how can those wear out so quickly?”

You’re looking at the wrong place. Look at that picture and see those little “nubs” that keep the track centered on the bogey wheels? Those little wheels that transfer the weight of the machine down onto the track pads?

Put some dirt, some sand, some rocks down in that place - between the bogeys and the back of the track face. Now run that around a few hundred thousands of times in highly abrasive ground, with small rocks, gravel, you name it.

And what happens? The track starts to slop from side-to-side on the bogey. Pretty soon, the track will jump off the bogeys and you’re officially screwed.

Go look at ads for used farm & construction equipment - look for ads on tracked equipment. It will tell you what percentage wear there is on the “undercarriage” — they’re talking about all that mechanical stuff INSIDE the track orbit. When you have to repair all that, it is a) expensive and b) time consuming. And there’s no way around it - sooner or later, you will need to do it on any machine that isn’t on pavement.

Now, in farm and construction equipment, the undercarriage will last years and years. You might have to re-work the undercarriage after 5 to 15 years of hard use on a farm/construction machine. You might have to rework the undercarriage of a tank in a year - the difference is that the tank is moving right along at 45MPH, and the construction equipment can’t make it to 15MPH, and they rarely, really, really rarely move that fast in day-to-day use.

Tanks live a rough life, even if they’re never in battle.

[tet68]

The increasing size of tanks also limited their movement,as many bridges would not support their weight.

[NVDave]

To quote Joe Stalin:

“Quantity has a quality all its own.”

[jalisco555]

To quote Joe Stalin: “Quantity has a quality all its own.”

Yes, I've used that expression myself. Although the Russians were terribly wasteful of manpower which, contrary to popular belief, was not inexhaustible.

[C19fan]

(c) One gets the impression the Allies did in fact have some heavy tanks, comparable with the German Panthers and Tigers, but not a whole lot of them; some, but not many. What were such equivalent tanks? Did they demand a vastly different training and skill to use, as compared with Shermans, or only a little bit different?

The Soviets had the KV and JS (Josef Stalin) heavy tanks but as these were more expensive to produce the Soviets favored the T-34. The British had the Churchill tank but it was very slow and served more as an infantry support tank. The Americans developed the Pershing but it entered too late in the war to make a difference.

[ozzymandus]

“Most effective tank ever built”?? So why aren’t the still making them? The T-34 was superior to any tank in the field in the first 2 years of the Eastern Front, and was improved with a larger turret and 85mm gun in 1943. The secret of the T-34’s success was mass production, as was the Sherman’s. The Russians produced at least 50,000 T-34s (nobody knows for sure)while the Germans built less than 2,000 Tigers (all types) 5000+ Panthers and something like 30,000 of all other types, mostly MK IV, of which the later models were roughly equal to the Sherman and T34. Add that to 40,000+ Shermans, plus all other Russian, US, and British production, and you can see the sheer numbers the Germans faced.

[TalonDJ]

Reminds me of the (probably apocryphal) story of how NASA spent millions developing a pen that could write in zero gravity while the Russians just used pencils.

False urban legend. The pen was developed with private funds (not that much) and then sold to NASA when pencils proved to be bad in space (floating lead gets into stuff).

[Hoplite]

I recommend the book "Death Traps", by Belton Y. Cooper to anyone interested in the subject.

All you ever wanted to know about the M4 Sherman, and then some.

[jalisco555]

False urban legend. The pen was developed with private funds (not that much) and then sold to NASA when pencils proved to be bad in space (floating lead gets into stuff).

As I said, apocryphal. Meant to demonstrate the perils of over-engineering and the value of simplicity.

[Welcome2thejungle]

Very true. There are trade offs with tank design. Hitler was always fascinated with super weapons. The Germans traditionally preferred quality over quantity. The Tiger was truly a super weapon in WWII. The question was whether or not it was very practical considering the resources and engineering needed to produce them not to mention the vast quantities of precious fuel they consumed.

[Tijeras_Slim]

“Quantity has its own quality”- Lenin

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Pins and bushings.

[TalonDJ]

It is important to remember that for the most part tanks were not built to fight other tanks. That is what ‘tank destroyers’ were for. Tanks themselves were a multi purpose weapon to go against troops, trucks, trenchs, bunkers, everything. The fact that one model of tank was slightly better than another in a straight dual was not enough reason to scrap the weaker one and try again.

[ArrogantBustard]

As I said, apocryphal. Meant to demonstrate the perils of over-engineering and the value of simplicity.

Since the story is false, it doesn't demonstrate the perils you cite ... in fact, the real story demonstrates the opposite. The Russians had been using grease pencils (not the graphite kind). When they had the opportunity, they also bought "space pens", as they were cleaner and more durable than the grease pencils, and not much more expensive than other pens. The real story show that given the opportunity, even the notoriously low-tech Soviets would prefer the more effective, more technologically advanced solution.

[jalisco555]

Geez, sorry I brought it up guys.

[wbarmy]

The biggest problem with the T-34 was what caused it to be on the losing side for the Middle Eastern armies. Soviet tactical doctrine was to button up the tank totally during combat and use the “windows” to look out of. This was incredibly uncomfortable and view obstructing. The Israelis used less capable tanks but the tank officer would stand up from the cupola to view the terrain and direct fire. The Israelis lost a lot of tank officers but killed a lot of T-34’s.

[TalonDJ]

(d) Why did tank tracks, formidable-looking things, last only 2,500 miles, or in the case of German tanks, 500 miles? To this professional civilian, such tracks look virtually indestructible, good for a trip to the moon and back.

The weak point is where they are pinned together. There is tons of force in shear on them and it is constantly changing as they drive other stuff. Eventually they hit a rock just so and all the forces on it break something. Moving parts are always a weak point. These moving parts have a tank constantly driving over them and the force of a tank's engine constantly pulling at them... while driving over rocks, bricks and rubble.

(e) If the Soviet-made T-34 was the "best" tank of the war, why wasn't it adapted by the Allies, too--and remember, apparently the T-34 was American-designed in the first place.

It is a lot harder than most non-engineers thing to reverse engineer something. There is a lot that goes into a mechanical design. Even if you had the blueprints handed to you there might be little things that will get you. Perhaps the driveshaft installer needs to put it in with a certain twist or the wrist, or a bearing has to have a little ground off one side to fit. Lots of things to learn the hard way as the first dozen, of hundred you build have 'teething' issues. And why do that when you can just do a few improvements to a tank you already know how to mass produce. And that is what they did. There were many many revisions and 'tweaks' to the Sherman and its variants. And we had better designs getting kicked around. There are just a lot of trade offs to consider. The main thing was that we already had a design that worked and was in mass production. That is Mass production with a capitol M. The Germans never came close to matching our production.

[nathanbedford]

Hello?

“Most effective tank ever built”?? So why aren’t the still making them?

I make the point that the T. 34 tank was effective because it was mass produced and you repeat the point after having taken issue with me. You might as well ask me why they are not still manufacturing the DC-3.

It does not do much good to have a perfect tank if you can produce only one example. I said that the T.-34 was arguably most effective tank ever built because the Russians were able to build enough of them to dominate the theater. One of the characteristics in judging a tank or any weapon system for that matter is whether the damn thing can be produced. The Germans also produced the jet but could not get enough into the air to make a difference. Was the jet better than the Spitfire? Certainly not.

A weapon system, much like historic hecharacters, should be judged within the context of its time.

The T. 34 among other tanks was even used by the North Vietnamese and their final push. So the tank did have longevity. Sort of like a DC-3.

[Little Pig]

I’ll take a swing at d) and f):

Tank treads wear out because tanks are freaking heavy, and move quite fast. That’s a lot of moving parts that have to tolerate an extremely harsh environment (weight, friction, torsion, mud, dust, sand) with no lubrication. The plates don’t necessarily wear out all that fast, but the parts holding the track together would wear insanely fast. However, there is also some wear to the plates, and since the tank relies on the textured surface of the plates for traction, wear has a direct effect on the performance.

for f): A current light tank in the US inventory might be the 551 Sheridan, which is air-droppable (barely). A Bradley would tear up a Sheridan, but the Sheridan is half-decent against some opponents.

[ArrogantBustard]

It’s the internet. ;’}

Say something not-quite-right, everybody and his brother jumps all over you.