IronDuke_slith
Posts: 1595
Joined: 6/30/2002 From: Manchester, UK Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: .50Kerry quote:
ORIGINAL: hueglin Referring to the Leopard I - "It is a well constructed tank, fast, easily handled and with a good radius of action. It is a little disappointing that it does not represent anything like the advance on current models that the Panther did when it came into service." Ever ponder whether a design philosophy that led to a defeat but was replaced by adhereing to the concepts the war winning power used being catergorized as a "disappointment" would be laughed at by the people who embraced the Leo over the pituitary disorder evolution? The "triad" of sensible tank designs of world war 2 is the Pz IV, Sherman, and T-34 series. The Germans never achieved the gains they did with the 3/4 punch with any of the Kitties. Now one can argue, ja ja different era of the war and possibly have a case but the fact of the matter is that armor design is a triangle between lethality, durability, and mobility. The tanks above all excelled and had near ranges on having a near "balance" of the three. Time passed by the heavy and light tanks but the "Medium's grandchildren" the MBTs soldier on for now. The German war effort would have been better served improving their mediums...not seeing the Maus in the mists so to speak. I thought the Panther was marginally quicker than the Sherman so would include that in this list since it could also out kill and out last any of them with sloped armour and the uber 75. If by "design philosophy" you mean too over engineered for an economy like the German one, I would agree. If it means anything else, I probably wouldn't, I think the Panther was pound for pound the outstanding Tank of the war. Once the teething troubles were ironed out, I don't see too much wrong with the design philosophy save the German economy couldn't make enough of them. Re the Sherman and the absence of American uber AFVs, I think it is more complicated than just blaming McNair and the Infantry Branch. The Cavalry branch showed little appetite either (they were still debating whether to reintroduce the sabre in 1938) and the armor branch as it evolved didn't really require an uber MBT to meet its doctrinal requirements. Patton never wanted the M26 despite being America's foremost Tanker. The fact is (IMHO) America never stood a chance of having better tanks because there was not enough pressure for them until Shermans regularly started getting holes in them in Normandy. It was not just a TD "Mafia" but a general lack of pressure. The Sherman suited because it was simple and straightforward (a good weapon for a Civilian Army) and easily transportable in large numbers (suiting american doctrine and geo-strategic position.) Fairly quick and maneuvrable, it also suited deep operations which is how chaffee and his successors envisaged Armor's (sic) role. Regards, IronDuke EDIT: I think the MAUS thing is also overused. You can argue it was a tactical dead end and a waste of development and resources, but without it, if the war had continued on for longer, how would the Germans have stopped the T95?
< Message edited by IronDuke -- 1/18/2007 4:19:40 AM >
_____________________________
|