German tank designers made a serious mistake. They placed an engine at the back of a tank and transmission at the front of a tank. Tank designers of British, American and Japanese tanks did the same mistake. Such layout had some advantages, which were visible to anyone BUT there was a great drawback of such design. If a tank engine is placed at the back side and transmissions placed at the front side than from engine to transmission cardan shaft had to be thrown across. Cardan (propeller)shaft was installed inside a tank body. In principle, the majority of cars are designed in the same way. Engine is installed in one place and running wheels are placed in the other place. From an engine to the driving axle a cardan shaft is thrown across. It doesn’t occupy lots of space. Cardan shaft can be covered by housing. Seats are normally placed on the bottom of a car. Thus, a cardan shaft does not affect the height of a car. BUT in tank above a cardan shaft one had to place a floor of the rotating turret. Hence, the empty space between bottom of the tank body and a floor of the rotating turret was turned out (formed). Due to that unnecessary emptiness, a tank body height had to be increased by 30-50 centimeters, which led to bigger tank profile and higher tank vulnerability in a combat. Besides it, a tank body weight was increased. A tank body was made from armor steel. If one increases the height of the armored body that means that weight increase will be counted by hundreds kilograms if the armor is anti-bullet. If a tank had anti-shell armor than increase in useless weight will be counted by tons. But that’s not all. That was like a circle. In order to carry these additional and unnecessary armor, a more powerful and heavy engine was required. More powerful engine had a higher capacity, which had to be protected and covered by armor. Again that was leading to the weight increase. Because of increase of useless and unnecessary capacities and weight almost all tank combat parameters were brought down and reduced. Tanks were very slow, carried weak gun and weak armor.
Russian designers of BT-7, T-34, KV-1, JS-2 and JS-3 tanks installed an engine and transmission in one place, at the back of a tank. Such tank layout had some visible disadvantages BUT ONE GREAT ADVANTOGE. A cardan shaft was thrown away from a tank body. Tank turret could be lowered to the very bottom of the body. Because of that, a tank height, profile and combat vulnerability were drastically reduced. But the most important thing was that a tank weight was reduced. Less heavy tank required less powerful and lighter engine and required lesser capacity. Therefore some armor could be removed. Less powerful engine required less gasoline (diesel) and again a tank weight and capacity could be reduced. Excessive armor could be removed… Having understood these principles and rules, tank designers could take different routes: for instance, they could decide not to reduce an engine power and weight savings applied to strengthening of armor protection, gun or mobility parameters of a tank. AND HERE ONE SHOULD LOOK FOR AN ANSWER WHY RUSSIAN IS-3 (JOSEPH STALIN-3) TANK BEING CREATED ALMOST IN THE SAME TIME AS GERMAN TIGER-II COMPLETELY SUPERSEEDED TIGER-II BY ALL PARAMETERS: BY SPEED, MOBILITY, CROSS-COUNTRY MANEUVRABILITY, TWICE BY RANGE OF ACTION, BY ARMOR (IS-3 HAD A THICKER ARMOR OF BETTER QUALITY AND BETTER SHAPE), BY WEAPON (122-mm GUN ON IS-3 AGAINST 88-mm GUN ON TIGER-II). BESIDES IT IS-3 HAD A LOWER PROFILE AND WEIGTED BY 21 TONS LOWER COMPARED TO TIGER II. IS-3 COULD BE TRANSPORTED BY STANDARD RAILROAD CARS WHILE TIGER-II REQUIRED SPECIAL RAILROAD PLATFORMS AND CARS.
During the war the German designers adopted Russian experience and created Tiger (1942), Panther (1943) and Tiger-II (1944). These were the best foreign tanks of that time. They had three elements of the modern tank. Powerful long-barrel guns, anti-shell armor protection and wide tracks. BUT TANK LAYOUT WAS NOT RATIONAL. Engines were installed at the back and transmission was placed at the front of a tank body. THAT WAS A TECHNICAL LAGARDNESS. BESIDED IT, DURING THE WAR GERMANY FAILED TO CREATE A TANK DIESEL ENGINE AND GERMANY HAD TO FINISH THE WAR WITH THE GASOLINE ENGINES.
Enclosed is an opinion of German General Mellentin from his book “Tank Battles” in this regard.
“… I would like to dwell on the Russian tank forces, which entered the war having great advantage. They had a T-34 tank which superseded any German tank. One should not underestimate a heavy tank KV (Klim Voroshilov). Then Russian modernized T-34 and finally by 1944 created a heavy tank Joseph Stalin, which caused a lot of troubles to our Tigers. RUSSIAN TANK DESIGNERS DID THEIR BUSINESS VERY WELL. THEY FOCUSED ATTENTION AT THE MAIN THINGS: GUN POWER, ARMOR PROTECTION AND CROSSCOUNTRY ABILITY. DURING THE WAR RUSSIAN TANK SUSPENSION SYSTEM WAS MUCH BETTER COMPARED TO GERMAN ONE. … BY 1944 THE RUSSIAN TANK TROOPS BECAME THE MOST FORMIDDABLE WEAPON OF THE WORLD WAR II. CRUSHING DEFEAT OF THE HEER GROUP CENTER IN 1944 AND RAPID ADVANCEMENT OF MARSHAL ROTMISTROV FRON DNEPER TO VISLA CHARACHTERIZED A NEW STAGE IN THE HISTORY OF THE RED ARMY AND TURNED OUT TO BE A SERIOUS WARNING TO THE WEST. LATER DURING MASSIVE RUSSIAN OFFENSIVE OF JANUARY 1945 WE HAD TO OBSERVE RAPID AND DECISIVE ACTIONS OF RUSSIAN TANK FORCES. INCREADIBLE DEVELOPMENT OF THE RUSSIAN TANK FORCES DESERVES A VERY CAREFUL ATTENTION FROM THOSE WHO STUDY THE HISTORY AND EXPERIENCE OF THE WAR. NOBODY DOUBTS THAT RUSSIA COULD HAVE THEIR SEIDLITZ, MUERAT OR ROMMEL. IN 1941-1945 RUSSIANS, FOR SURE, HAD SUCH GREAT LEADERS AND COMMANDERS. However the matter is not in skilled leadership of some outstanding commanders. People the majority of whom were uneducated, having no training acted in a smart way and demonstrated amazing self control. Such transformation demanded exceptional management and outstanding planning and leadership. … Currently any realistic Europe defense plan have to take into account that Air and Tank Armies of the Soviet Union could rapidly rush on us with such a great rage and speed that all the World War II Blitzkrig operations will be darkened…”
(F.Melentin, “Tank Battles of 1941-1945”, 1957)
Best Regards from Russia,
Re. German Heavy Panzers
-
Christoph Awender
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 6761
- Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 18:22
- Location: Austria
- Contact:
This forums always made me laugh 
People post on here like chearleaders for their country's armed forces, or for the weapons they have the most respect for, and it always turns into an argument of "my guys are better than everyone elses!"
Everybody already recognizes the overall effectiveness of Soviet WW2 tank designs like the T-34, and JS series. Afterall, it doesnt matter how highly enginered or superbly armed your tanks are, like the King Tiger, if you cant build them in the thousands to have an actual impact on the war.
Should the war have gone on longer, advances in Soviet Tank design like the IS3 would have in turn been answered by the Germans in their future tank designs. This is exactly what happened earlier in the war when the Germans encountered the excellent T-34 and developed the superior Panther series in response. But this is pointless arguing about what "would of", or "could of" happened. What did happen is what matters, the IS3 was a highly influential POST WAR design, but never saw combat and never impacted the course of the war. I dont understand why people always compare the IS3 to tanks that actually "made it to the show" like the King Tiger.
Despite the inovation, effectiveness, and mass production capability of Soviet Tank designs, brave Soviet tank crews suffered appalling losses throughout the war, despite having vast numerical and logistical superiority, at the hands of the better trained crews of the German Panzerwaffe.
People post on here like chearleaders for their country's armed forces, or for the weapons they have the most respect for, and it always turns into an argument of "my guys are better than everyone elses!"Everybody already recognizes the overall effectiveness of Soviet WW2 tank designs like the T-34, and JS series. Afterall, it doesnt matter how highly enginered or superbly armed your tanks are, like the King Tiger, if you cant build them in the thousands to have an actual impact on the war.
Should the war have gone on longer, advances in Soviet Tank design like the IS3 would have in turn been answered by the Germans in their future tank designs. This is exactly what happened earlier in the war when the Germans encountered the excellent T-34 and developed the superior Panther series in response. But this is pointless arguing about what "would of", or "could of" happened. What did happen is what matters, the IS3 was a highly influential POST WAR design, but never saw combat and never impacted the course of the war. I dont understand why people always compare the IS3 to tanks that actually "made it to the show" like the King Tiger.
Despite the inovation, effectiveness, and mass production capability of Soviet Tank designs, brave Soviet tank crews suffered appalling losses throughout the war, despite having vast numerical and logistical superiority, at the hands of the better trained crews of the German Panzerwaffe.
-
Christian Ankerstjerne
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 14057
- Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 15:07
- Location: Denmark
- Contact:
Igorn
Your initial statement regarding the drive shaft asserts that the turret floor is placed directly on top of the tank floor, however in several German tanks, ammunition was stored below the turret floor, indicating that the resulting height was considered acceptable - if the height of the tank was a concern, then the ammunition storage under the turret floor could have been suspended.
Furthermore, you assume that the German designers didn't know that they could place the drive wheel at the rear, however the VK 30.01 D had its drive wheel mounted in teh rear, but this design was dropped in favour of a design with front wheel drive.
I don't see how a 30-50 cm. height increase can come about, though - no drive shafts on tanks are half a meter in diameter - to find drive shafts of that size, you'll have to look at medium-sized ships.
The rear wheel drive also has a disadvantage that you have neglected - cables or rods must be run from the front till the rear from the gearbox, which will also take up space. In addition, there will be a power loss, and thus changing gears will be harder (which was also the case in Russian tanks compared to German ones during the war). Today, this isn't a concern, because the gearbox can be placed in the rear, and be controlled via a computer.
This argument appears to be your sole reason for critisizing any tank not Russian, despite the fact that both solutions have advantages and disadvantages.
Regarding the Tiger II vs. JS-3, I would like to point out that
Your initial statement regarding the drive shaft asserts that the turret floor is placed directly on top of the tank floor, however in several German tanks, ammunition was stored below the turret floor, indicating that the resulting height was considered acceptable - if the height of the tank was a concern, then the ammunition storage under the turret floor could have been suspended.
Furthermore, you assume that the German designers didn't know that they could place the drive wheel at the rear, however the VK 30.01 D had its drive wheel mounted in teh rear, but this design was dropped in favour of a design with front wheel drive.
I don't see how a 30-50 cm. height increase can come about, though - no drive shafts on tanks are half a meter in diameter - to find drive shafts of that size, you'll have to look at medium-sized ships.
The rear wheel drive also has a disadvantage that you have neglected - cables or rods must be run from the front till the rear from the gearbox, which will also take up space. In addition, there will be a power loss, and thus changing gears will be harder (which was also the case in Russian tanks compared to German ones during the war). Today, this isn't a concern, because the gearbox can be placed in the rear, and be controlled via a computer.
This argument appears to be your sole reason for critisizing any tank not Russian, despite the fact that both solutions have advantages and disadvantages.
Regarding the Tiger II vs. JS-3, I would like to point out that
- the difference in automotive capabilities (speed, mobility, etc.) are not that great, and a comparison favours both tanks in different aspects,
- both tanks had great difficulty at penetrating each others frontal armour (the Tiger II glacis plate was inpenetratable to the 122 mm. D25), but each tanks side armour could be penetrated by the other at normal combat ranges,
- the 8,8 cm Kw.K.43 L/71 had better armour penetrating capabilities, and had a much higher rate of fire,
- the Tiger II could store much more ammunition and
- US tests after the war conducted on several tanks indicated that the Russian armour quality was very diverse, with some armour plates even being standard iron and not hardened at all
-
MAX_theHitMan
- Member
- Posts: 965
- Joined: 19 Apr 2004, 01:28
- Location: Planet*Portugal
Yes...I agree with you on that.weiss
This forums always made me laugh People post on here like chearleaders for their country's armed forces, or for the weapons they have the most respect for, and it always turns into an argument of "my guys are better than everyone elses!"
Everybody already recognizes the overall effectiveness of Soviet WW2 tank designs like the T-34, and JS series. Afterall, it doesnt matter how highly enginered or superbly armed your tanks are, like the King Tiger, if you cant build them in the thousands to have an actual impact on the war.
Should the war have gone on longer, advances in Soviet Tank design like the IS3 would have in turn been answered by the Germans in their future tank designs. This is exactly what happened earlier in the war when the Germans encountered the excellent T-34 and developed the superior Panther series in response. But this is pointless arguing about what "would of", or "could of" happened. What did happen is what matters, the IS3 was a highly influential POST WAR design, but never saw combat and never impacted the course of the war. I dont understand why people always compare the IS3 to tanks that actually "made it to the show" like the King Tiger.
What happened has already happened.History cannot be changed to everyone´s liking. I wish we could manipulate history just "a little bit"
Who was better or not has already been set in history for all time. No one can change that.
We can only dream of "what-if" and "could of have been".
Still, it was a good read what Igorn posted.
Thanks for your opinion and for sharing that info with us.
-
Christian W.
- Member
- Posts: 2494
- Joined: 10 Aug 2004, 19:26
- Location: Vantaa, Finland
There was one main problem with the JS-3...
It didnt work.
So before coming here and harping on about its greatness you should of studied its lack of operational history, massive attempts at fixing its mechanical issues and when and why it was finally given up as a complete flop.
Russian tanks all had one main advantage over contempory designers. They look great on paper.
Pity about the real world. Of course you could prove me wrong by listing successful combat usages of Russian tanks through out history but i'd prefer to read non-fictional tales. Untill then there kill/loss ratio speaks volumes.
I myself put the blame squarely on the fact tanks require human operators, meaning often over looked features like visibility, ease of use, crew comfort, communications are ignored by Russian designers. I blame todays oversight on computer game mentality where on paper stats are all that matters.
The enemy that sees you first, communicates that infomation to fellow crew members and supporting tanks then allows its crew to carry out its mission with minimum fuss (loading, turret rotation etc) and (optics) can engage you at long range has all the advantages. Which is why a pretty humble tank, the jagdpanzer III is the most successful AFV in history despite its modest "stats" when compared to the 'mighty' JS3.
It didnt work.
So before coming here and harping on about its greatness you should of studied its lack of operational history, massive attempts at fixing its mechanical issues and when and why it was finally given up as a complete flop.
Russian tanks all had one main advantage over contempory designers. They look great on paper.
Pity about the real world. Of course you could prove me wrong by listing successful combat usages of Russian tanks through out history but i'd prefer to read non-fictional tales. Untill then there kill/loss ratio speaks volumes.
I myself put the blame squarely on the fact tanks require human operators, meaning often over looked features like visibility, ease of use, crew comfort, communications are ignored by Russian designers. I blame todays oversight on computer game mentality where on paper stats are all that matters.
The enemy that sees you first, communicates that infomation to fellow crew members and supporting tanks then allows its crew to carry out its mission with minimum fuss (loading, turret rotation etc) and (optics) can engage you at long range has all the advantages. Which is why a pretty humble tank, the jagdpanzer III is the most successful AFV in history despite its modest "stats" when compared to the 'mighty' JS3.
-
Christian W.
- Member
- Posts: 2494
- Joined: 10 Aug 2004, 19:26
- Location: Vantaa, Finland
stug III did so much damage to the russian tanks that russian tanks were ordered not to engage in direct combat if possible.
And the StugIII's was the favorite among german troops, they used to have lets say 2 in battle and then 2 ready to replace when they had to go back to reload, or else it would damage morale of the troops.
ref. documentary on german armour.
And the StugIII's was the favorite among german troops, they used to have lets say 2 in battle and then 2 ready to replace when they had to go back to reload, or else it would damage morale of the troops.
ref. documentary on german armour.
