"Eunometic" wrote in message
om...


Oh, wait. They did. Oops.

They experienced the coldest winter in over 100 years after a
succesion of the mildest.


Which is irrelevant when considering the ability
of the vehicles concerned to deal with mud.



However the German technique of interleaving large diameter wheels
produced lower peak ground pressure despite heavier mean ground
pressure than other nations MBTs so they did not suffer in terms of
mobility.

When you have a much higher overall pressure, a lower peak pressure
isn't going to help.

I'm afraid it very much does. Peak ground pressure is a key
characteristic of track performance. The German tracks were very good
at this. (they were vulnerable to packing with mud and freezing if
not cleaned out)


That doesnt sound like a good thing


Especially when that mean ground pressure can be
*twice* that of lighter tanks, or similar tanks with wider tracks.

As I recollect it was not quite that big a difference: maybe 30%. The
T34 was champion of all tanks.


30% was more than enough.


and very high fuel consumption (a King Tiger in mud became a
landmark). Add in the very high maintenance problems, and you had
a really tough, sorta-mobile fortress.

The German tanks were still faster than most British tanks.

For shorter distances, due to (once again) higher fuel consumption.
High speed doesn't help if you end up parked waiting for the fuel
trucks. With the lousy German fuel situation by 1945, higher
consumption was the *last* thing they needed.

The Germans were massively outnumbered.

Which was at least partly a result of their design decisions

In that situation quality is
usually your only hope. In addition tanks like the Panther and Tiger
1 were needed to cope with tanks such as the T34 series that shocked
the Germans and the smaller number of super heavy soviet tanks already
in evidence then.


Trouble is the Soviets could turn out a T-34 in 30% of
the man hours required for a Tiger

The German tanks had better optics and electric rather than manual
turret traverse as well.


Indeed, these factors made production more complex of course

A sherman would have been roast chicken to the Soviet armour despite
its relibility since it only approximated the Pzkfw IV. In fact the
shermans absurd shape was a result of it having been designed for a
horizontal radial engine: itself a signe of neglecting engine
development.


In fact the Sherman was 1942 design that was more than a
match for PzKfw III and IV it was designed to counter
and its engine was reliable and efficient.

AFAIK see the air superiority spared the allies lighter armour from
having to deal with the German armour.


That and the tank destroyers with 90mm and 17 pounder
anti-tank guns


The 620 hp Maybach V12 was being improved to over 800hp by the
addition of fuel injection. In reality the russians had the best
engines: diesels with low fuel consumption that did not brew up so
easily as the German and Allied tanks.

Higher reliability with simpler and lower-performing engines gave them a
much more effective force than they would have been able to field.
Really neat tanks that don't work will generally lose to "good" tanks
that run under most conditions and are easier to fix.

Most of the problems the German tanks had related to either teething
problems that would be overcome, teething problems in manufacture and
often simply inferior materials due to quality and shortages. The use
of rubber running wheels as on the Sherman was I believe impossible
due to the Germans rubber shortages.

I don't know how mobile the Sherman was compared to a Tiger or Panther
in rougth tersin. A Panther was no slouch at 35 mph (faster than a
Sherman) and even the tiger could manage 25 mph.

Consider the Soviet Army appraisal of the Sherman (with high pressure
76mm gun) in comparison to the T-34/76

Quote
To the head of the 2nd Department of the main Intelligence
Department of the Red Army
Major-General Khlopov

Evaluation of the T-34, KV-1 and Sherman M4A3 Tanks
at Aberdeen Proving Grounds

General Comments
From the American point of view our tanks are slow

snip

Armament, the F-34 gun is very good, it is a simple very reliable and
easy to service.Its weakness is that the muzzle velocity is significantly
INFERIOR to the American 76mm gun

snip

9) Despite the advantages of the use of diesel, the good contours of
our tanks, thick armour and relaible armaments, the succesful design
of the tracks etc., Russian tanks are significantly inferior to American
tanks in their simplicity of driving, manoeuvarability, firepower, speed
and reliability.
/Quote

The T34 with good
speed and but a massive power to weight ratio was very difficult to
deal with.

Its power to weight ratio wasnt that superior , the T-34 had
a power to weight ratio of around 16 hp/ton from a 420 hp engine
The Sherman had a 400hp engine and a power to weight ratio
of 13 hp/ton

Acceleration is more key than top speed and a good crew
will use it to avoid exposing themsleves. Basically the Germans
calculated that they would need to develop gas turbines for their
tanks as no gasoline engine could do the job especialy on the octane
rating of fuel they had available to them.


Horsefeathers, the T-34 used diesel engines which will run
on very poor quality fuel

The ****ty fuel situation was because Speer cut back expansion of the
syn fuel industry and its underground dispersal since the war was
supposed to be over in 2 years and thus it would be a waste to invest
in it rather than more pointy things.

This is just silly, Speer didnt become Minister of War production
until after the death of Fritz Todt in Febuary 1942. He was
responsible for finally putting the economy of the Reich on a
war footing, more than 2 years later than was necessary.

Keith