Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Best WW2 Commanders Tank - Part 1

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
    True, but until we do, all we can state is the the A10 and the first Shermans used by the British, the II, had really similar bhp, and there is not one issue with the power on the Sherman I have read.
    The US Army was dissatisfied with the R-975's power level in the medium tank M3, at least. According to Green, Thomson, and Roots: "With the 30-ton M3 the engine problem became acute as tests of the pilot tank at Aberdeen Proving Ground uncovered serious deficiencies of the R-975...Available space was insufficient for the engine itself, for proper cooling, and for ready access to accessories. Excessive oil consumption, carburetor air temperatures, and the like, substantially lowered power output and resulted in poor performance. 'The engine as presently installed,' reported Aberdeen, 'is definitely underpowered. Improvements to this installation have increased the horsepower available but the H.P./Wt. ratio is still too low to give completely satisfactory performance.' Reports from maneuvers in the southeastern United States similarly indicated that the engine was unsatisfactory as to performance and life. Officers of the Proof Department at Aberdeen recommended 'that additional consideration be given to other power plants with a view to increasing the H.P./Wt. ratio as well as improving the accessibility.'"

    From the field, United States vs. German Equipment has a SGT McGinnis and crew relating, "Our tanks could stand a few improvements, such as wider tracks for maneuverability and flotation. A larger engine with a greater amount of horsepower. The Ford engine is a good improvement over the Continental engine."

    Maintenance sergeant TSGT William Shaning opined, "Our old M4 and M4A1 with the radial type motor did not have enough power, was too slow in low gears to give maneuverability, not dependable, and now we are receiving rebuilt Continental engines that sometimes will only run a few hours without causing trouble."

    Driver T5 John Sadlak: "At Celles, the radial engine did not prove successful. The object was to take high ground. To get to the high ground necessitated traveling over some hilly ground. The radial engine could not keep up with the Ford engine, therefore, the attack was not successful due to lack of power in the tanks with radial engines."

    Comment


    • Originally posted by DogDodger View Post
      The US Army was dissatisfied with the R-975's power level in the medium tank M3, at least. According to Green, Thomson, and Roots: "With the 30-ton M3 the engine problem became acute as tests of the pilot tank at Aberdeen Proving Ground uncovered serious deficiencies of the R-975...Available space was insufficient for the engine itself, for proper cooling, and for ready access to accessories. Excessive oil consumption, carburetor air temperatures, and the like, substantially lowered power output and resulted in poor performance. 'The engine as presently installed,' reported Aberdeen, 'is definitely underpowered. Improvements to this installation have increased the horsepower available but the H.P./Wt. ratio is still too low to give completely satisfactory performance.' Reports from maneuvers in the southeastern United States similarly indicated that the engine was unsatisfactory as to performance and life. Officers of the Proof Department at Aberdeen recommended 'that additional consideration be given to other power plants with a view to increasing the H.P./Wt. ratio as well as improving the accessibility.'"

      From the field, United States vs. German Equipment has a SGT McGinnis and crew relating, "Our tanks could stand a few improvements, such as wider tracks for maneuverability and flotation. A larger engine with a greater amount of horsepower. The Ford engine is a good improvement over the Continental engine."

      Maintenance sergeant TSGT William Shaning opined, "Our old M4 and M4A1 with the radial type motor did not have enough power, was too slow in low gears to give maneuverability, not dependable, and now we are receiving rebuilt Continental engines that sometimes will only run a few hours without causing trouble."

      Driver T5 John Sadlak: "At Celles, the radial engine did not prove successful. The object was to take high ground. To get to the high ground necessitated traveling over some hilly ground. The radial engine could not keep up with the Ford engine, therefore, the attack was not successful due to lack of power in the tanks with radial engines."
      That is true, but we are talking about a 1940 tech tank vs a 1944 one, say the difference between a mainstream Pz II during the Battle of France, and either a IVH or Panther G during the Battle of Normandy. We are looking at two completely different levels of technology.

      There was certainly no real issue with either the tankers or commanders with the bhp/ton ratio of the Sherman II, used by the Brits, or almost any other factor in 1942. The original Sherman was so good in general compared with British tanks, that the rare superior elements of similar comparative CW afv's were usually cosmetic.

      The Sherman II's, with their extremely similar bhp/ton to the A10, were easily the best tank in use anywhere on their first arrival at the 2nd Battle of El Alamein.

      Two years is a long time in war.
      How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
      Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

      Comment


      • From a commander's perspective, one would think salient factors would be ease of production for replacement of tanks for sustaining unit strengths, availability of replacement parts and ease forward repair for operational readiness, and ease in training crews for fighting proficiency.
        Leadership is the ability to rise above conventional wisdom.

        Comment

        Latest Topics

        Collapse

        Working...
        X