Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Here's a good question...

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

  • Janos
    replied
    Originally posted by Bravo Six View Post
    Ok.. every person that I've talked to said that if Germany built cheap-**** tanks or concentrated on making the panther (depending on who you talk to) they would have won.. but what if the Americans on the Russians built the behemoths the Germans made? would it have made any difference?
    Germany did build lesser AFVs -- assault guns and tank destroyers (e.g., the Hetzer). While the behemoths were unique, and thus make interesting press, they heavy tanks were never the staple of the German armored force.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Exorcist
    replied
    Okay, found it.

    The first Leopard came into service in the mid-60s. It's max. armor was 70mm, speed 65kph and had a 105mm L7. Just about what I thought, but that armor looks like a step backwards.

    Could you really call it the Panther of the 1960s?

    Leave a comment:


  • Legate
    replied
    Originally posted by LtCol View Post
    In the book "Tanks are mighty fine things" published by the Crystler Corporation in the late 1940s the size of US Tanks were discussed. The decision was made in 1940 to only make light and medium tanks (Stuarts, Shermans, Lee/Grants and the late in the war Pershing) because of the size limits of the railroad flatcars of the day.
    All US tanks would have to be transported by rail within the US. Two Stuarts and Lee/Grants to a flatcar...one Sherman or Pershing. Heavy tanks like the Panther or Tiger were simply out of the question.
    And not to mention ship space to ship them across the Atlantic. Losing a shipload of med. tanks to a U-Boat would be a lot less worrisome than losing a shipload of heavy tanks that are less easier and expensive to build.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Exorcist
    replied
    Whoops, my bad!
    The French tanks of post-WW2 look like they had more in common with the Tiger than the Panther!

    Yes, the Leo I could be seen as a development of the Panther, but a lot of years went by. I will look into this more.

    Leave a comment:


  • LtCol
    replied
    In the book "Tanks are mighty fine things" published by the Crystler Corporation in the late 1940s the size of US Tanks were discussed. The decision was made in 1940 to only make light and medium tanks (Stuarts, Shermans, Lee/Grants and the late in the war Pershing) because of the size limits of the railroad flatcars of the day.
    All US tanks would have to be transported by rail within the US. Two Stuarts and Lee/Grants to a flatcar...one Sherman or Pershing. Heavy tanks like the Panther or Tiger were simply out of the question.

    Leave a comment:


  • Carl Schwamberg
    replied
    I dont know enough about the French tank designs of th 1950s. The Leopard appears to be the logical application of experince from the Panthers design and service, the sucessor designs on the drafting boards of 1944-45, and resources available to the Bundswehr in the 1950s - early 1960s.

    The French starting point for post war tank design seems to have been with something called the ARL. They also mantained a battalion of Panther tanks for several years. Exactly where that led I cant say.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Exorcist
    replied
    Originally posted by Carl Schwamberg View Post
    Take a close look at the earliest post war design of the German Leopard...
    I will hunt around for that. Always seemed to be that the Leo I was French-influenced (average gun, good speed, poor armor).

    Leave a comment:


  • Carl Schwamberg
    replied
    Originally posted by Exorcist View Post
    ... . Sometimes I wonder where post-war development of the Panther would have lead.
    Take a close look at the earliest post war design of the German Leopard...

    Leave a comment:


  • Freightshaker
    replied
    Originally posted by Bravo Six View Post
    Ok.. every person that I've talked to said that if Germany built cheap-**** tanks or concentrated on making the panther (depending on who you talk to) they would have won.. but what if the Americans on the Russians built the behemoths the Germans made? would it have made any difference?
    If Germany had built cheaper tanks, they'd just have cheap tanks sitting without fuel.

    Logistics is what lost the war for Germany, that and lack of strategic aim.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chukka
    replied
    Originally posted by Exorcist View Post
    I think that the Panther was the right tank at the right time.

    It's not as if the Geramans had an inexhaustible supply of trained Panzer men... quite the opposite in fact. Sometimes I wonder where post-war development of the Panther would have lead.
    Too true about Personnel. Pierre Clostermann says something along the same lines when talking about pilots

    "Group could supply us with replacement aircraft readily enough but Tempest Pilots don't grow on every bush"

    Leave a comment:


  • strathnaver
    replied
    poor designed tanks UK Valentines,Matilda too lightly armed to do much good. Grant/Lee too high(made a good target for anti tank guns) & main armament in hull not turret
    On the plus side there came the Churchills UK & Shermans USA(used by everyone)

    Leave a comment:


  • The Exorcist
    replied
    I think that the Panther was the right tank at the right time.

    It's not as if the Geramans had an inexhaustible supply of trained Panzer men... quite the opposite in fact. Sometimes I wonder where post-war development of the Panther would have lead.

    Leave a comment:


  • Carl Schwamberg
    replied
    Originally posted by Bravo Six View Post
    Ok.. every person that I've talked to said that if Germany built cheap-**** tanks or concentrated on making the panther (depending on who you talk to) they would have won.. but what if the Americans on the Russians built the behemoths the Germans made? would it have made any difference?
    Yes the Allies could have done worse at designing tanks. The designs lingering from the 1930s are good examples of this. Soviet, US, and British leaders could have wasted a lot of resources on bad concepts. Prbablly the sort of leadership and thinking that would lead to truly crap tanks designs would lead to other errors as well. Again you can see some examples of this in the early years of the war. Fortunatly the Allied leaders caught a few clues and applied the painfull lessons learned.

    Leave a comment:


  • johnbryan
    replied
    Originally posted by Bravo Six View Post
    Ok.. every person that I've talked to said that if Germany built cheap-**** tanks or concentrated on making the panther (depending on who you talk to) they would have won.. but what if the Americans on the Russians built the behemoths the Germans made? would it have made any difference?
    Unless the Germans design and build a heavy duty transmission that will stand up to the every day wear and tear of battle and movement, the idea of building only the Panther will get them nowhere.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nick the Noodle
    replied
    Originally posted by Bravo Six View Post
    Ok.. every person that I've talked to said that if Germany built cheap-**** tanks or concentrated on making the panther (depending on who you talk to) they would have won.. but what if the Americans on the Russians built the behemoths the Germans made? would it have made any difference?
    Not really.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X