Announcement

Collapse

New Site - PLEASE READ

Hello All,
My name is Ashley and I am the one that moved the forum to its new hosting location. This was done for security reasons and try to keep the forum from going down every other day. I understand that the new forum looks very different from the old one but I promise almost everything you had before you still have it might just be in a different place.

Items that are gone due to a limitation of the new hosting/ forum update:
- Awards
- Flags

As I was going thought your posts I was able to fix a lot fo the issues you were listing. Below is kind of a running list of issues an what is fixed and what I am still working on.

Items that I have fixed from your comments:
- Smilie are now working.
- Color/Theme changes
- Signature are now showing up. (Here is how to edit them https://screencast.com/t/OJHzzhiV1)
- Ranking is now showing up.
- Private messaging is now working.

Some issues I am still working on are:
- Missing items from the Calendar
- Like button the posts is giving an error.

One other note I have seen a lot is theme/color related items. I know this is important to all of you but at the moment the most important thing was getting you back a functioning forum with as many features I can get you back from before.

Theme/color is something we can change but it the moment I do not have the time and resources to fix all of the issue and design the site. I did do some theme updates yesterday but it is very time consuming. Please just be patient with the forum as we get it back to as close as I can to what you had before.

If anyone has any issues that they are running in to please let me know in the post below. Please give me as much detail as possible .
https://forums.armchairgeneral.com/forum/world-history-group-welcomes-you/armchair-general-magazine/5034776-new-site-please-read
See more
See less

Hate to ask: Were any of the W. Allied tanks good?

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
    Also agree completely - don't know where the petrol engine belief originated. I'm sure that even during WW2 itself trials were conducted on damaged tanks (42/43?) in the desert on abandoned AFV's and secure ammo stowage was found to be the key.
    Didn't the Germans on late model Panzer IV's remove the ammo bin covers and started suffering, so they quickly re-installed them.
    Winnie says
    ---------------------------------
    "He fell out of a Gestapo car, over a bridge, and onto a railway line. Then was run over by the Berlin Express.

    It was an Accident."
    Herr Flick.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Listy View Post
      Didn't the Germans on late model Panzer IV's remove the ammo bin covers and started suffering, so they quickly re-installed them.
      I'm sure you're right, although I didn't know they stopped using them for a while.
      How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
      Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Charles Markuss View Post
        However, the Easy 8 with all the bells and whistles is still the best Medium IMHO, until the Comet, a fantastic piece of kit, available September 1944 and not really used until too late (why?).

        To Charles - you are quite right of course, which is why you are a Sergeant Major and I'm a private - bottom class. Glad you have discounted specialist ammo as this only appears to be found in numbers on the wargames table, and not real life. Diesel M4's would work better in Russian winters, and the 17pdr is a much better armour penetrator. However, the Easy 8 with all the bells and whistles is still the best Medium IMHO, until the Comet, a fantastic piece of kit, available September 1944 and not really used until too late (why?).

        From my ASL article on the British army:

        "The introduction of the Comet was also delayed because the Challenger was given priority over it and because of prolonged arguments over the choice of main armament (contenders included the US 75mm (!), US 76mm, 17-pdr and, eventually, its 77mm variant), over whether the hull should be welded or not and about other “irritating changes to the specifications”. A similar fate befell the Centurion; the need for such a tank was acknowledged in the summer of 1942ii but thanks to a government ban on any new projects that would not be ready to enter service before 1944 no authority to proceed was given until July 1943, and the tank that could have been in service two years earlier finally appeared just after the war in Europe ended, delayed again over disputes concerning the main and secondary armament".
        Do you have the full article on the net?
        How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
        Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Charles Markuss View Post
          Yep. This also also why the USMC used them - a common enough fuel in the navy compared to gasoline, safer to store, less evaporation loss and more fuel economy compared to gasoline. Add to that the fact that the M4A2 was the fastest of all Shermans and had much more torque at low speeds than the gasoline types, and you have a winner.
          The Marines had some diesel craft in their inventory, but a more important factor was that they could acquire numbers of the M4A2 more quickly than the gasoline-engined tanks. When the Marines were testing their first Shermans in November 1942, the commander of the Tank Battalion School recommended accepting M4A3s, with M4A1s and M4A2s preferred as backups in that order. By December he had changed his mind and now preferred not to accept the M4A2 at all, making the preferred tanks the M4A3, M4A1, and M4A4. However, with the M4A1 and M4A3 going to the Army and the British, and the M4A4 going to the British as well as small numbers to the Army as training vehicles, those models would take longer for the Marines to get than the M4A2, which was only going to the Soviets at that point.

          The Marines also used a number of diesel-powered Stuarts, but this was due to expedience as well. The Army decided in March 1942 that its diesel-powered tanks would be kept in the US as training vehicles, which meant that there were a larger number of diesel Stuarts available for the Marines.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
            I'm sure you're right, although I didn't know they stopped using them for a while.
            To save metal and time.
            Winnie says
            ---------------------------------
            "He fell out of a Gestapo car, over a bridge, and onto a railway line. Then was run over by the Berlin Express.

            It was an Accident."
            Herr Flick.

            Comment


            • #66
              Makes sense from an economic point of view.
              How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
              Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

              Comment


              • #67
                ASL article

                Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                Do you have the full article on the net?
                Try the Multi Man Publishing website for the ASL game; they certainly said they'd put my end notes there, and as these were not numbered in the published version I would have thought they'd have to put the article on the net for it all to make sense.

                Alternatively, I can send you a copy as an attachment if you privately send me your email address. Bear in mind that I don't mind it being used, so long as the source is acknowledged.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Charles Markuss View Post
                  Try the Multi Man Publishing website for the ASL game; they certainly said they'd put my end notes there, and as these were not numbered in the published version I would have thought they'd have to put the article on the net for it all to make sense.

                  Alternatively, I can send you a copy as an attachment if you privately send me your email address. Bear in mind that I don't mind it being used, so long as the source is acknowledged.
                  Probably blind but couldn't find it there. Still I'm not the best on the net. If you could send me a copy that would be great. Oh, and I will not use any of your work without implicit acknowledgement.
                  How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                  Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                    Probably blind but couldn't find it there. Still I'm not the best on the net. If you could send me a copy that would be great. Oh, and I will not use any of your work without implicit acknowledgement.
                    Sorry, explicit acknowledgent!
                    How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                    Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Ammo fires

                      Originally posted by Listy View Post
                      Didn't the Germans on late model Panzer IV's remove the ammo bin covers and started suffering, so they quickly re-installed them.
                      King Tigers certainly had ammo removed from the turret because this often cause combustion, and as related elsewhere in the past by me, Tigers were sometimes KOd when HE rounds were fired into their sides to detonate ammo. There is a celebrated case of US light tanks (Chaffess I think) doing this.

                      In Normandy all nations tended to stuff extra ammo into tanks above authorised levels, and this brought inevitable consequences. One British unit that stuck to the regulations had very few ammo fires in their dry stowage Shermans.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Sherman

                        I also agree the Jumbo's crosscountry performance would be have inferior to that of any Churchill, since the trials as given in David Fletchers book Mr Churchills Tank give a slight edge to the mobility of a Churchill over the standard M4.

                        Here I think you refer to a Sherman with grousers. The ordinary version, let alone the Jumbo, would get very far in very muddy conditions without them. I have a copy of the report that David Fletcher cites, published in more detail in an old Tankette issue, and the non-grousered Sherman quickly got stuck whereas the Churchill went more or less anywhere the Panther did, though the latter had the edge. Add the fact that ther Churchill was more reliable and had the torque of a contemporary diesel and you can understand why it would appear where least expected on the battlefield.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Charles Markuss View Post
                          I also agree the Jumbo's crosscountry performance would be have inferior to that of any Churchill, since the trials as given in David Fletchers book Mr Churchills Tank give a slight edge to the mobility of a Churchill over the standard M4.

                          Here I think you refer to a Sherman with grousers. The ordinary version, let alone the Jumbo, would get very far in very muddy conditions without them. I have a copy of the report that David Fletcher cites, published in more detail in an old Tankette issue, and the non-grousered Sherman quickly got stuck whereas the Churchill went more or less anywhere the Panther did, though the latter had the edge. Add the fact that ther Churchill was more reliable and had the torque of a contemporary diesel and you can understand why it would appear where least expected on the battlefield.
                          I've always wondered about that? Horsepower verses torque. The Churchill has a pretty poor hp/ton ratio but can climb like a monkey compared to most other vehicles. I do not ever remember reading any figures for any AFV of ww2 for torque. Apart from climbing does it have any other use, and er what is it and how can a vehicle have low in one and high in the other?
                          Last edited by Nick the Noodle; 23 Sep 08, 17:41.
                          How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                          Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Churchill torque

                            Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                            I've always wondered about that? Horsepower verses torque. The Churchill has a pretty poor hp/ton ratio but can climb like a monkey compared to most other vehicles. I do not ever remember reading any figures for any AFV of ww2 for torque. Apart from climbing does it have any other use, and er what is it and how can a vehicle have low in one and high in the other?
                            The comment was made by Lt Col Gordon-Hall in a report 'Armoured Vehicles in the Mediterranean Theatre' for the School of Tank technology in 1946, obtained courtesy of the Tank Museum. Most Churchills had only 4 forward speeds in the gearbox, and due to the low power-weight ratio the tank was geared-down with only a 350 hp engine. Torque is essentially pulling power useful in muddy conditions (Reichswald) as well as for climbing (Tunisia) and depends on a number of things, including engine size and number of cylinders, compression ratio and so on. I have not seen torque figures given for these vehicles, but trust what G-H says in the report as it is very thorough on all aspects of allied and Axis tanks, including armour, traverse systems, tracks and so on.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Charles Markuss View Post
                              The comment was made by Lt Col Gordon-Hall in a report 'Armoured Vehicles in the Mediterranean Theatre' for the School of Tank technology in 1946, obtained courtesy of the Tank Museum. Most Churchills had only 4 forward speeds in the gearbox, and due to the low power-weight ratio the tank was geared-down with only a 350 hp engine. Torque is essentially pulling power useful in muddy conditions (Reichswald) as well as for climbing (Tunisia) and depends on a number of things, including engine size and number of cylinders, compression ratio and so on. I have not seen torque figures given for these vehicles, but trust what G-H says in the report as it is very thorough on all aspects of allied and Axis tanks, including armour, traverse systems, tracks and so on.
                              Ok, bear with me cause I'm thick.
                              Horsepower = (revs per minute × Torque) ÷ 5252. Even I can get stuff off the net. So, if you have a low horsepower engine you will want your rpm to be low to keep your torques high. Torque is turning force, which is great at low speeds, and counters inertia. Makes a vehicle better at accelerating and climbing. So by gearing down you get a better puller, but top end not so good (pardon my unintended double entendre). Top end can be really useful, as a fast powerful vehicle, say Hellcat or Comet at speed makes a hard target. Apart from its 89mm armour, it was its cross country performance that kept the Churchill in production. Was down-gearing done with any other tank at all? Could this have phased out the Churchill far earlier? Thinking about it, Cromwells and Comets could go at about 40 but were de-rated to 32mph. Would this effect their torques, and would their acceleration and cross country abilty (less hp, same rpm) mean a less agile vehicle?
                              Last edited by Nick the Noodle; 24 Sep 08, 14:22.
                              How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                              Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                One other thing to think about in regards to tank mobility is based directly on how much weight was placed on the tracks in terms of ground pressure per square inch. The lower the ground pressure the better the tank was at manuevering over rough terrain. I think, and this is pure speculation on my part, that as the Churchill has a lot of little boogy wheels then the ground pressure per wheel area was pretty low.

                                Also another innovation on the Sherman: Wet Storage and I'm not talking about the tea kettle and canteens.
                                Eagles may fly; but weasels aren't sucked into jet engines!

                                "I'm not expendable; I'm not stupid and I'm not going." - Kerr Avon, Blake's 7

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X