Panther vs. Pershing - And other tank-rambling...

I agree 100%. Let's not forget - I think - the Maybach was still the most powerful tank engine of the war (flame suit on). I think it was great in the Panther, just fine in the Tiger I, and "adequate" for the Tiger 2. I don't know how reliable the engines themselves were, in the Panthers and Tigers, I don't mean minor breakdowns but proper engine failure like putting a rod through the block, requiring engine replacement. Do you have any stats on this?

.




Mollusc, not well up on it myself but if you look at Bovys Maybach and see the mirror polished rods and how small the engine bay actually is you can see that his motor is compeltly overstretched and practically hand made. Reliability is only one factor of over development, its the manufacturung overhead of trying to build a donk that going to last more than 10 minutes before it throws a rod. Get into all kind development holes like moveing them blocks back to cast iron cos the alloy ones kept cracking. Its fine if your building one off racing motors but no good if you want to mass produce low maintainance lugging motors that by their nature are abused.

I think the Panther was a real stretch for the mayback we should have had new engine prob based upon a detuned aero engine, but that would have prob required some cross service co-operation. The tigers where just way out, I think they (the engineers) new it too.

Kev

 

Well spotted.
Perhaps an unusually large gap between sprocket and roadwheel too?
'Super Pershing' doesn't fit. Perhaps someone just thought it was a handy place to store a spare idler .

I do hope this isn't going to cost me Hunnicutt's Pershing book eventually...

Nothing too exotic fellas. That is merely a postwar development. A small compensating idler wheel, which was torsion bar sprung, was fitted just ahead of the drive sprockets. Its purpose was to maintain track tension.
Also note the prominent exhaust mufflers mounted on the rear fenders. The M26 exhaust protruded from the rear armour plate.
Therefore this is not a M26. It is an Korean era M46.

 

I voted for the PzKwpf V Panther, which as a medium tank was an excellent vehicle if a little mechanically fragile and temperamental (such as at Kursk), which was mostly due to the production constraints, such as lack of machine tools, placed on war-time German industry. However, the design was very good with good, clean lines and very effective armour and armament. The M26 Pershing, to the best of my knowledge, only saw quite limited action on the Western Front in Europe during the Second World War. This adds to this contributor's difficulties in making any direct comparison of the M26 Pershing with war-time German, or Soviet, hardware.

 

Mollusc, not well up on it myself but if you look at Bovys Maybach and see the mirror polished rods and how small the engine bay actually is you can see that his motor is compeltly overstretched and practically hand made.

I'm becoming sure that a de-tuned aero engine would have served the purpose well, but I don't see how the "small" engine bay determines that the motor is completely over-stretched. The engine bay would have been designed for the motor.... that the motor was compact for a 23-odd-litre unit determines the size of the engine bay. Weren't all tank engines hand-made = hand-assembled, this was the 1940's. A few hours labour in polishing rods is tiny compared to the investment in hours in building a 700bhp engine isn't it? From the British evaluation I understand a failing was oil starvation to one or two cylinders, I don't know a lot about engines but I don't think polishing of rods had any bearing (no pun intended!) on this. As I understand it, peening and polishing the rods would stress-relieve and prolong life.

BTW I used to have a Tiger I (HL210) con-rod and piston...bought off ebay from some chap in Poland.

 

A poll for top tank?

That's like choosing top politician by pistol duel!

'Ang on a minute....

 

I vboted for the Pershing , even though I really do like the Panther and would be "more at home" with her.

The speed , gun and reliability must have put her up as a serious challange to the Panther - production and servicing must have been an easier job as well - in terms of the total package the Pershing would probably *IMHO) be the better of the two.



Taken at Brussels Army Museum a few years back.

 

I vboted for the Pershing , even though I really do like the Panther and would be "more at home" with her.

The speed , gun and reliability must have put her up as a serious challange to the Panther - production and servicing must have been an easier job as well - in terms of the total package the Pershing would probably *IMHO) be the better of the two.



Taken at Brussels Army Museum a few years back.
I voted Panther. The M26 Pershing is ugly.

 

Fascinating arguement and as I don't know the first thing about the Pershing - and limited knowledge of the Panther apart from it's 19 foot long barrelled special 75 pointing in my direction a few times - all I would say is that I am more than thankful that I did my fighting in the Churchill Mk1V and would have given - anything - for a 17 pounder alas the main priority was for Aircraft not tank guns - very few 17 pounders were available in Italy - certainly not in Tanks !

Cheers

 

VP -
you got that right - the Churchill was most of all reliable - I never lost a track and only broke down once in more than two years - and that was an electrical fault deep in the bowels - fortunately not in action - with the 17 pounder we would have held our own Tank to Tank - even with the 6 pounder we were ahead of the 75mm Sherman.....we could climb anything - ask Gerry about Longstop - or the Agile and Sufferins...

Cheers

 

I watched a 'Tanks' today which was about the Churchill-They all spoke favourable about it apart from the gun as you have already said and the size of the turret on the early models.

 

Tom , without wishing to seem OTT.
Huge respect to you as a tanker.

 

Adam,

Was the ring diameter of the Churchill limited by the spacing between the tracks, or did they just design like that thinking that it would never need a larger weapon, since the early models had that hull mounted howitzer? Was the early thinking along the lines of that of the US leadership; that it would not be fighting other tanks, but rather be providing close support for attacking infantry?

As I have said before, IMHO the Churchill is one of the ugliest tanks built*, but since beauty has nothing the do with functionality, it certainly is a forgiveable "sin". After all, if it brings you home, who cares what people think of it's appearance.

*It is, however, easily surpassed by early Stuart models, some Italian modellos and that dreadful Matilda I.

 

James -
Thank you very much - my respect goes to those who did not survive as they were , in the main young, carefree and invariably always laughing no matter the circumstance at the time - for example my Troop leader - Graham Frank Field Douse R.I.P. who lies in Coriano Ridge Cemetery and whose Parents added this to his headstone - "In very proud memory" which I share.

he kept us in fits of laughter when we had a few hours to spare with recounting the tales of when he was up at Oxford and he and a few friends would come down to the Dorchester for a party - they usually ended up lying in the rain filled gutters of Park Lane having been thown out for being " too raucous"....

he would have been the kind of leader that we needed badly since that war ended

Cheers

 

Slipdigit -
you write like a man who was brought up to think that all the chrome and flowing lines of the '57 Dodge was the ultimate of great design -just kidding....

That the turret ring of the Churchill was too small for the 17 pounder and a Tank much wider to accomodate it was nearly in production at the end of the war - it had nothing to do with the thinking of the American leadership of those days which was hardly world class but rather the thinking of the originators of Tank warfare the British - Swinton - Fuller - Hobart and Liddell- Hart - who wrote the books that the German Gauderien - Manston and others studied and came up with the initial "Blitzkreig".

It was they who came up with the concept of the assault on the weakest point of the enemy line to be followed by the breaktrhough and pursuit by other lighter tanks
or as the Germans would have it -" Schwerpunkt und aufrollen "

Consequently the Valentine - Matilda and Churchill assault Tanks were born and were followed by the Covenanter - Crusader - Cromwell- and finally Comet as the pursuit element. after the war the " Battle Tanks in Battle groups" became popular with the advent of the Conquerer - Chieftain - Challenger 1 and now Challenger 11 - which is rated very highly.

This WW2 concept is enshrined in the RAC badge of the central Mailed fist and the four arrows making their right and left hooks in the pursuit....

Cheers

 

Thanks Adam, for your good response.

You're up mightly late, or is it early? Time changes here tonight, which I hate. I can't remember if you are 5 hours ahead now, or 6. I'm not going to worry about you talking or not to me. You can't really tell if I am uttering something toward you or not, as I have the unintelligable accent (to you anyway) so prevalent in this part of the country. Daunt make cowm ove' are and aupn a cain whup aice on yuh. Hit'll be baid fur ya. I'll translate in another post if you need me to.

Tom,
I do like the '57 Chevy Bel Air, though it is far from being my favorite. I'm not much of a fan of the Chrysler Corp. offerings. Automotive aesthetics mirror that of the tanks, it is in the eye of the beholder.

 

That the turret ring of the Churchill was too small for the 17 pounder and a Tank much wider to accomodate it was nearly in production at the end of the war - it had nothing to do with the thinking of the American leadership of those days which was hardly world class but rather the thinking of the originators of Tank warfare the British - Swinton - Fuller - Hobart and Liddell- Hart - who wrote the books that the German Gauderien - Manston and others studied and came up with the initial "Blitzkreig".

It was they who came up with the concept of the assault on the weakest point of the enemy line to be followed by the breaktrhough and pursuit by other lighter tanks
or as the Germans would have it -" Schwerpunkt und aufrollen "

Consequently the Valentine - Matilda and Churchill assault Tanks were born and were followed by the Covenanter - Crusader - Cromwell- and finally Comet as the pursuit element. after the war the " Battle Tanks in Battle groups" became popular with the advent of the Conquerer - Chieftain - Challenger 1 and now Challenger 11 - which is rated very highly.

This WW2 concept is enshrined in the RAC badge of the central Mailed fist and the four arrows making their right and left hooks in the pursuit....

Cheers

Yes.

At the time Churchill was 'laid down' the ability to eventually mount a 6 pdr was considered perfectly adequate (pretty racy even!) & the 'sponsonless' layout proved the ultimate arbiter of how large a ring could be fitted.
In tanks where sponsons overhang the tracks there's more scope for mounting space so yes, as you say Jeff, it's essentially the tracks being where they were that disallowed the possibility of the larger turret needed for a larger gun.

Even if you widen the body to make more space you then end up in further trouble as the tracks becoming further apart forces the length of the vehicle to be extended in order to retain the same turning ability & stresses on the tracks & other running gear... On something already as big as the Churchill that's about time to start from scratch - So they did with the quite similar Black Prince, but as that was born at about the same time as Centurion it fell to the more advanced approach of that vehicle.

As to the doctrinal perception of tanks and it's influence on design... It's probably far too late to get into that mind-meltingly complex business. About every possible 'tank theory' was allowed some credence at some point in the war by the Staff, Manufacturers, & politicians. It took a long while for any unified view to emerge of what was required with the debate at all levels going right up to war's end. Even what was requested from ground level could vary greatly depending on the circumstances a given unit had encountered with their tanks. As late as Normandy units serving in the same division or even brigade could have essentially different combat doctrines, despite whatever the staff was trying to enforce at the time.
Churchill's initial creation suffered somewhat at a rather high point in the ongoing controversies about armour's eventual role & arrangement, there were an uncommon number of early 'bugs' because of this and other factors.

So, after trying to make something out of all this too-much-for-my-humble-technical-knowledge information , may I ask if this particular design fault on the Churchill, and in fact, a lot of the WW2 era British tanks, was due to the existence of the "I" tank concept?

By the way, I do like Winston´s son, and the teenage Stuarts, too.