Each nations best possible tank for 1941?

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
MarkN
Member
Posts: 2625
Joined: 12 Jan 2015, 14:34
Location: On the continent

Re: Each nations best possible tank for 1941?

#16

Post by MarkN » 24 Oct 2017, 13:57

Rob Stuart wrote: This is mostly true, but some armies could perhaps have done better if they had got their doctrine right. I am thinking here of any army which thought it was okay to have a one- or two-man turret, so that the commander of the tank had to help operate the gun rather than focusing on commanding the tank.
Rob Stuart wrote: The Matilda II (aka the A12) and the KV-1 also had three-man turrets with a dedicated commander.

The original T-34 had a two-man turret, with the commander also acting as gunner, but the Russians recognized that this was an error and the T-34-85 had a three-man turret with a dedicated commander.

Meeko987 could just as easily have asked about 1940 or 1942, so ...
Hmmmm!

The British cruiser and infantry tanks of 1941 all had 3-man turrets. They started 1942 the same but as the year dragged on, the Crusader cruiser tanks and the Valentine infantry tanks switched to 2-man turreted. Why?

If you know the correct answer, you also know that this switch could (should) have been implemented in 1941.

So what is it you were saying about doctrine and getting it right?

Hoist40
Member
Posts: 215
Joined: 30 Oct 2009, 17:59

Re: Each nations best possible tank for 1941?

#17

Post by Hoist40 » 24 Oct 2017, 15:03

The Sherman might have had a lower better shaped hull.

There had been interest before the war in developing a gear box in the M2 light which would take the input from the radial engine and drop it down to the bottom of the tank and then run the drive shaft along the bottom to the front gear box. This would have allowed the hull and turret of the M2 to be lower. This system could have been applied to other tanks such as the Sherman

However they did not have the $50,000 (If I remember correctly) to develop it and it was not until the later M18 tank destroyer that this was put into service. So the Sherman could have looked like a larger heavier M18


maltesefalcon
Member
Posts: 2047
Joined: 03 Sep 2003, 19:15
Location: Canada

Re: Each nations best possible tank for 1941?

#18

Post by maltesefalcon » 25 Oct 2017, 01:26

Just my opinion but a radial engine is a poor configuation for a tank. Besides the size, it makes maintenance more difficult.

Hoist40
Member
Posts: 215
Joined: 30 Oct 2009, 17:59

Re: Each nations best possible tank for 1941?

#19

Post by Hoist40 » 25 Oct 2017, 03:09

maltesefalcon wrote:Just my opinion but a radial engine is a poor configuation for a tank. Besides the size, it makes maintenance more difficult.
But its all the US had in quantity prior to the war.

The Ford V8 was not available until after the US joined the war. The same with the other engines used

You can't mass produce Sherman's unless you use whatever engines will work

User avatar
yantaylor
Member
Posts: 1086
Joined: 20 Mar 2011, 15:53
Location: Cheshire
Contact:

Re: Each nations best possible tank for 1941?

#20

Post by yantaylor » 25 Oct 2017, 11:58

The Germans made good use of the Skoda LT.Vz.38, but by 1941 this tank was past its sell by date, but it had a good chassis, I know that the German army utilized this chassis with various types of AFV,.
So was there ever an idea to adopt a plan similar to what the Americans wanted to do with their M24 light tank chassis and assemble whole units with this AFV all used for a different role?

I could imagine each panzer grenadier regiment having heavy company which had these components;

Anti-tank platoon: Hetzers
Anti-aircraft platoon: Flakpanzer 38(t)
Infantry gun platoon: Grille sIG-33

Yan.

User avatar
Markus Becker
Member
Posts: 641
Joined: 27 Apr 2005, 18:09
Location: Germany

Re: Each nations best possible tank for 1941?

#21

Post by Markus Becker » 25 Oct 2017, 19:26

Best possible early war tank for the UK would be the equivalent of a Valentine III. Such a tank could have been available in 1940 if the war department had accepted Vickers proposal in 1938 but insisted on a 3-men turret. Nothing spectacular but way better than having to make do with 2-men turrets until late 1941.

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 3546
Joined: 02 Feb 2006, 01:23
Location: Arizona

Re: Each nations best possible tank for 1941?

#22

Post by T. A. Gardner » 25 Oct 2017, 21:36

Hoist40 wrote:The Sherman might have had a lower better shaped hull.

There had been interest before the war in developing a gear box in the M2 light which would take the input from the radial engine and drop it down to the bottom of the tank and then run the drive shaft along the bottom to the front gear box. This would have allowed the hull and turret of the M2 to be lower. This system could have been applied to other tanks such as the Sherman

However they did not have the $50,000 (If I remember correctly) to develop it and it was not until the later M18 tank destroyer that this was put into service. So the Sherman could have looked like a larger heavier M18
That could have been done, or an electric drive adopted. You end up with the T23 tank.

Image

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 6350
Joined: 01 Jan 2016, 22:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: Each nations best possible tank for 1941?

#23

Post by Richard Anderson » 25 Oct 2017, 21:59

T. A. Gardner wrote:That could have been done, or an electric drive adopted. You end up with the T23 tank.
You say that like its a good thing... :lol:
Richard C. Anderson Jr.

American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 3546
Joined: 02 Feb 2006, 01:23
Location: Arizona

Re: Each nations best possible tank for 1941?

#24

Post by T. A. Gardner » 26 Oct 2017, 00:15

Richard Anderson wrote:
T. A. Gardner wrote:That could have been done, or an electric drive adopted. You end up with the T23 tank.
You say that like its a good thing... :lol:
Well, they did it with battleships... and tanks are sort of land battleships... :P

User avatar
Sheldrake
Member
Posts: 3726
Joined: 28 Apr 2013, 18:14
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Each nations best possible tank for 1941?

#25

Post by Sheldrake » 26 Oct 2017, 10:34

The debate about two versus three man turrets misses a key point about tanks.

The decisive factor is for tanks to be able to work together as a team. The light German armour of 1940-41 was able to deal with much heavily armed and armoured British and French tanks in 1940 and Soviet in 1941 because they had good radio communications with other tanks and units with complementary weapon systems such as infantry, and anti tank, field and AA artillery.

The turret crew of a two do 50% more work than one of three, and for command vehicles at least, the priority should be to fight the platoon or company rather than as an individual tank.

What was the best radio capability that tanks could have in 1941?

User avatar
Markus Becker
Member
Posts: 641
Joined: 27 Apr 2005, 18:09
Location: Germany

Re: Each nations best possible tank for 1941?

#26

Post by Markus Becker » 26 Oct 2017, 11:47

T. A. Gardner wrote:
Richard Anderson wrote:
T. A. Gardner wrote:That could have been done, or an electric drive adopted. You end up with the T23 tank.
You say that like its a good thing... :lol:
Well, they did it with battleships... and tanks are sort of land battleships... :P
http://www.mediafire.com/conv/9acc12558 ... ?size_id=4

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2625
Joined: 12 Jan 2015, 14:34
Location: On the continent

Re: Each nations best possible tank for 1941?

#27

Post by MarkN » 26 Oct 2017, 15:45

Sheldrake wrote:The debate about two versus three man turrets misses a key point about tanks.

The decisive factor is for tanks to be able to work together as a team. The light German armour of 1940-41 was able to deal with much heavily armed and armoured British and French tanks in 1940 and Soviet in 1941 because they had good radio communications with other tanks and units with complementary weapon systems such as infantry, and anti tank, field and AA artillery.

The turret crew of a two do 50% more work than one of three, and for command vehicles at least, the priority should be to fight the platoon or company rather than as an individual tank.
This argument points towards a DS answer of a 4-man turret for troop/squadron/regiment commanders and 2i/c. Not so? Or, take the route of what the Germans did and have specialist command tanks. Now there's a thought!

Rommel first gained his reputation in France in 1940. His 7th Panzer Division hardly had any 3-man turrets. His main striking power was a tank designed with a 1-man turret that the Germans had adapted two 2-man useage. Other than a handful of Panzer IV, the vast majority of his tanks had 2-man turrets (Pz.I, Pz.II and Pz.38). How did his division fare against the supposedly doctrinally "right" 3-man turreted tanks of his foes?

But you are quite correct in pointing out the obsession with whether 3-man turrets was the correct design philosophy or not provides not one iota of help in understanding how tanks and tank formations fared during actual combat. The British turned their 3-man turreted Crusaders and Valentines into 2-man turrented tanks during 1942 because it was more important to have the greater hitting power of the 6-pdr than the then obsolete 2-pdr. Success on the battlefield was more important than adhering to "right" design philosophies.

User avatar
yantaylor
Member
Posts: 1086
Joined: 20 Mar 2011, 15:53
Location: Cheshire
Contact:

Re: Each nations best possible tank for 1941?

#28

Post by yantaylor » 26 Oct 2017, 16:10

Do you think that the Germans place too much emphasis on command tanks? Nearly every mark of panzer has a command variant, which is fine when you have the numbers to do so, but just looking at the Panther tank, now when this tank was developed the German's were really feeling the effects of fighting a war on two fronts. The Panther was going to be the new main battle tank, but this was never achieved and Mk IVs were still being used up to the last days of the war.
So if we look at the Panther variants, which were built when Germany needed Panthers, we come up with this;

Pz Bef Wg: 329
Pz Beob Wg: 41
Jadgpanther: 392
Berg Panther: 347
Total: 1,109

Now I know that the Jagdpanther was a great tank destroyer, but so was the Panther and the other tank destroyers, like the Pz IV/70.
I just think that in 1944, the German army could have done with another 1000 panthers.

Yan.

User avatar
Sheldrake
Member
Posts: 3726
Joined: 28 Apr 2013, 18:14
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Each nations best possible tank for 1941?

#29

Post by Sheldrake » 26 Oct 2017, 17:47

MarkN wrote:
Sheldrake wrote:The debate about two versus three man turrets misses a key point about tanks.

The decisive factor is for tanks to be able to work together as a team. The light German armour of 1940-41 was able to deal with much heavily armed and armoured British and French tanks in 1940 and Soviet in 1941 because they had good radio communications with other tanks and units with complementary weapon systems such as infantry, and anti tank, field and AA artillery.

The turret crew of a two do 50% more work than one of three, and for command vehicles at least, the priority should be to fight the platoon or company rather than as an individual tank.
This argument points towards a DS answer of a 4-man turret for troop/squadron/regiment commanders and 2i/c. Not so? Or, take the route of what the Germans did and have specialist command tanks. Now there's a thought!

Rommel first gained his reputation in France in 1940. His 7th Panzer Division hardly had any 3-man turrets. His main striking power was a tank designed with a 1-man turret that the Germans had adapted two 2-man useage. Other than a handful of Panzer IV, the vast majority of his tanks had 2-man turrets (Pz.I, Pz.II and Pz.38). How did his division fare against the supposedly doctrinally "right" 3-man turreted tanks of his foes?
The Germans had better radios and were trained to use them
The British Mk II infantry tanks may have had three man turrets, but they had not practiced radio communications. This was a BEF wide - if not Allied wide problem as wireless practice was limited by shortages of equipment and an exaggerated fear of loss of security. on 21st May, the day that Rommel met British tanks at Arras, British wireless communications was almost entirely absent. Period. Wireless was not used effectively within the tank battalions, nor between them and the infantry or artillery nor with the liaison vehicles left with those organisations.

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2625
Joined: 12 Jan 2015, 14:34
Location: On the continent

Re: Each nations best possible tank for 1941?

#30

Post by MarkN » 26 Oct 2017, 18:07

Sheldrake wrote: The Germans had better radios and were trained to use them
The British Mk II infantry tanks may have had three man turrets, but they had not practiced radio communications. This was a BEF wide - if not Allied wide problem as wireless practice was limited by shortages of equipment and an exaggerated fear of loss of security. on 21st May, the day that Rommel met British tanks at Arras, British wireless communications was almost entirely absent. Period. Wireless was not used effectively within the tank battalions, nor between them and the infantry or artillery nor with the liaison vehicles left with those organisations.
And yet it was the British who had developed the concept of r/t comms being a force multiplier in (armoured) warfare during the 1930s and flowing from that built their fighting 'doctrine' around the assumption that every tank had 2-way comms.

The Germans, liked the idea but only got as far as giving 2-way radios down to troop leader. The 3 or 4 tanks below him could only receive his messages and could not respond except with flags and other similar signals.

British armoured doctrine, as written up in FSR Vol II and Vol III, 1935 and various training pamphlets etc was very sound. Not far off exactly what von Kleist and co did in 1940. The problem was the application of that doctrine when it actually mattered. Not using the r/t for security concerns is a prime example of that. Surrender success now on the battlefield to avoid a possible reverse later!

Post Reply

Return to “What if”