Finest and Most Influential Tanks of WWII

Happy to see this unlocked. Unsure why it ever was. There are at least two sides to every story and conversation never was too heated. I'm sure the jaded guys here have seen this all before but I enjoyed the back and forth. Interesting to see how the sides present their case and argue for it. I learned a little on how to present/defend an argument and a lot on the sighting system of the Panther. Good work men.

 

Looking at the turret shots back in this thread it seems like a tough spot to put a camera since the shot of the gunner is in front of his face, but I was thinking cameras weren't so small back then. Just did a quick search and saw their size. I was thinking those shots might have been staged as the shots outside the tanks were.

I'll concede that the gunner could wear his headphones in that model but I have respect for Zaloga and don't share your views of him. In reviewing General White's report for Eisenhower Americans testing the Panther found low buttoned up visibility and slow turret rotation speed. Do you contend that they are flat out wrong? As for our earlier discussion about turret rotation the traverse has to be handicapped by getting its power from the engine. This is the essence of a PTO and it is not a small drain on the engines power. You misunderstood my point; I'm trying to say that the gunner will notice the power difference.

 

Zaloga simply says (page 33/34) the gunners earphone was so close to the breech that he had to remove it when sighting the gun.
This is noted in a wartime ergonomics study done at Chertsy. It is a minor point and I wonder what all the fuss is about. Anyway here are the pics. Make your own mind up.

 

The fuss was about ergonomics. I'm wondering if different models didn't have more/less room. Good shots Mike, certainly looks too tight there (flipping back and forth.)

 

It isn't too tight at all, there is plenty of room for the headphones when sighting, no problem what'so'ever (as illustrated in the training film as-well). You can also see that on the colour photos, where the sight's mounting arm is also correctly mounted to the turret roof bracket, unlike on the black & white British photos where the sight also lacks the forehead padding. Seems the Brits screwed up the assembly after they had examined the sight, incorrectly positioning the sight mounting arm to the turret roof bracket as-well as forgetting the forehead padding. Not really what you'd call part of a thurough a test.

 

How so? You have to be specific, you can't just claim "it looks like".

You use a wider lense.

It was the same on all the tanks, no difference.

Cameras back then could be made very small. They were simply placed inside the tank and left running.

Well like I said, the room for the gunner was the same on all models.

As for Zaloga, he claimed there was no padding for the gunner when it has clearly been removed in the British photos, as-well as completely screwing up how the turret traverse system worked. In short I'd be careful taking his written words seriously if I were you.

As always be careful taking tests of captured enemy material too seriously, they are often riddled with mistakes. The test operators weren't used to the mechanics of the equipment they were testing, and the condition of the material wasn't always representative of the condition a fully functional field operating example would be in; there possibly being damage to fluid lines causing leaks etc etc...

Also keep in mind that the early Panther's were equipped with a slow one speed turret traverse system (high & low gear, so two speed infact) controlled via a hand lever to the gunners right, whilst later models featured the variable speed traverse system controlled via pressure sensitive foot pedals. So it depends on what model was tested as-well.

As for the gunner noticing the power difference, all he will notice is a drop in maximum traverse speed if he's engaged in the high gear and he's giving the system full pedal. If he had set the system to be independant on engine speed, requiring only that the engine was running on idle, he wouldn't notice anything at all as the maximum speed would then remain constant. But in either case it didn't matter, cause he could always precisely regulate the speed of traverse by simply applying or letting off pressure on the foot pedals. (Unlike on the lever operated versions)

 

All the B/W photos I posted (and I do not see any others) are wartime GERMAN ones. They are their layout photos and have nothing at all to do with the British tests.
If it is being said that it has been assembled incorrectly then the fault lies with the builders.
The colour photos are post war museum examples


I took some grabs from the 'training film' and the quality is so poor it is impossible to make out anything of value.




It all depends on the gun elevation. If it is high then the breech is below the gunners ear. I presume it is the breech moving up and down that would foul the right earpiece and not that it is always in contact.
Anyway until the relevant section from the report is posted it is all idle speculation. I have not got it so I leave it for the viewer to make his own mind up. It is a shame if someone is sitting on this report and refusing to settle the issue.

I say don't know that because you have not read the report. You are commenting on extracts used by Zaloga.
If you have it then post the entire gunner section or post extracts, specificaly the entire paragraph about the headset and the gun breech.
If you decline or are unable to post this information then say if you have seen the report.

 

Rather a sweeping statement.
How about examples of these errors in the many Chertsey reports done on captured German tanks.
How many reports have you read, other than the TII one I gave you or the extracts posted here on the 2 Tiger I tests?
How many errors have you found?
Can you list the more obvious errors so we can share in your disdain?
I for one would love to know how we are being misled.
Note I am after actual 'mistakes' rather than your opinion they are mistakes

 

"Small" is a relative term. Got any references?

This seems a bit incongrous coming from someone who has frequently sited an individual demonstrating a reconstructed vehicle as a refference.

 

You went out of your way to point out what the gunner would do in combat situations, request increased RPM's. This design feature adds a step for him while engaging a target and a system dependent on engine power will not get full power if the engine is otherwise taxed. Plain and simple. It's how PTO works. Zaloga points it out as a less than ideal feature and I see his point.

 

Wrong. Take a peak at the video again, you can see the gunners shadow fall upon the breech to his right. If you can't see this you need glasses.

It doesn't matter where the breech is, there is always room for the headphones as the video proves, and as I've been trying to tell you countless times by now as someone who's actually sat in said position.

This is not a matter of making up ones own mind, either there was room or there wasn't, we'ere not trying to make an opinion of a book here, these are real life machines (you need to leave the living room to figure that one out ofcourse). I don't know why you have such a hard time grasping this.

 

Ive just watched the footage and at all times the Gunner and Commander are wearing headphones, Even in the top still it is very clear espesially as you can make out the wire on his right side .

One of my jobs is to look at CCTV footage for the police and that is a definat conviction

 

Combat situations? No emergency situations, as in *there is someone directly behind us 50 yards away*. Under normal combat situations you wouldn't need to worry about the maximum turret traverse speed at all, because you'd hardly ever need it.

It doesn't add a step for the gunner as he would hardly ever find himself in a situation where he would need the engine running at high revs for max traverse speed, normally all he needed was it running on idle. Furthermore tanks of the period stopped to fire, and as such if there was an emergency where maximum 24 deg/sec traverse was needed, it wouldn't be a problem as the tank would be standing still and the driver could just floor the gas pedal. But this could even be done with the tank turning at the same time, as the driver could leave his 1st gear engaged, in which he could easily rev up to maximum and keep the tank moving.

 

So your saying max turret traverse speed is a very minor player in overall combat effectiveness?

 

Have you never see 8mm handheld film cameras from the 30's & 40's? They come in various sizes but most often they are smaller than the size of your head.

Reconstructed? Try with restored instead, in which all parts are working as they should.

 

I'm saying that you'd hardly ever need to swing the turret around at 24 deg/sec in normal combat situations. In the very rare situation where you do it is as simple as *enemy 6 o'clock, point blank* and the driver will rev up whilst the gunner will flip the lever into high gear and floor his foot pedal to swing the turret around at maximum speed.

 

It helps to know what you are looking for.
Did you see the gun elevate or depress in the film?
All Zaloga says is that the right earpiece would foul the breech whilst sighting. This is a minor point and means very little in the scheme of things. Someone has taken upon himself to invent all sorts of silly scenarios to explain everything as a great Allied plot to deliberately disparage the Germans. So much so that he now is an expert on German film cameras and confined space filming. It really is not worth the candle.

The photos are there so instead of running round in circles for another 10 pages let us leave it until someone posts the actual report. It is obvious now that the comlainant has never has sight of it.



As an aside here is an attack on Zaloga from some years back. The complainant in this case believed that the T34/85 entered service in 1943 and fought at Kursk (in reality it entered service in 1944) Because no one believed his mad thesis he wrote this:



Last year I discovered a significant error made by a large group of
historians regarding the introduction date of the T34/85 tank during WWII
(The Great Patriotic War). Letters
were written to some of the more famous authors to illustrate the mistakes
but non of them agreed that they had made any error. It was not very long
before all of them declined to respond to my increasingly difficult
questions. After that, I contacted an American journal on the subject and
was invited by their editor to rewrite the letters in article form and
submit it for publication. The article which wound up being critical of
Mr. Steven Zaloga was written and submitted to my peers (not really my
peers since I am not faculty) for review. One of my reviewers was a
Professor of Engineering (PhD Mechanical Engineering) , another was a
Professor of the History of Science (PhD History), and the last was a
Professor of History (PhD History). The reviewers agreed to my points but
the journal declined to publish the article because their referee did not
approve. The referee was Steven Zaloga.


Since then another nine PhD level advisors have helped me with the article.
One advisor, who is a published historian, has pointed out that Mr.
Zaloga's revision appears to be pro-fascist. The revised introduction date
places the introduction date in early 1944 instead of late '42/early '43.
This means that Soviet tank designs lagged behind German ones for most of
the war. This agrees with Hitler's statement that the Slavic people were
racially inferior. These 'inferior' beings could not possibly design
better weapons. The fascist undertone is obvious now that she has
explained it to me but I would never have figured it out for myself. The
revisions 'correct' Marshall Zhukov and Sir Basil Liddell Hart without the
least concern for their reputations. Unfortunately it is the revisions
that need 'correcting'. They are based on an incorrect choice for the
KV-85 prototype. When the correct prototype is chosen it is obvious that
the T34/85 was at Kursk just as Marshall Zhukov had implied in his memoirs.
This makes Slavic people just as smart, if not smarter than, the
Germans.


My advisors have now recommended that I now do two things:


1. Contact a Soviet military historian with expertise in ground warfare
during WWII. They would need to read English since I cannot read or write
Russian.
Can you think of anyone?


2. Contact an English Language journal on the subject that is not English
or American. Have you ever heard of such a journal?


Thank you in advance for your assistance.


Sincerely yours,
M****y ******ak, SP (Slavic Person )
Network Administrator
Department of Computing Science
C******* University



So here we have someone saying Zaloga has a downer of the Germans and the man above calls him a Fascist!

 

So they fix all the faulty parts when they 'restore' it?
If they found a faulty hydraulic pedal they would fix it rather than leave it 'as is'?

Care to add to your claim the German Panther maufacturer fitted the brow pad the wrong way round or do you hope everyone just forgets you said it?

 

The gun does not elevate or depress in the footage

I am not taking sides with any one just saying what I saw

 

I know that. That is why I said the footage was of no use.