JonS Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 Unfortunately I cannot remember or find who said this and are somewhat loath to post it but it does seem appropriate. A good Commander knows strategy and Tactics. A great Commander knows logistics. Amateurs speak of tactics Professionals speak of logistics 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArgusEye Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 Thank you John Kettler, but what I'm actually looking for is the information that these people base the story on. I don't find in lessons learned documents that the Krauts were especially disappointed in the interleaved tanks. Everything in the inventory clogged and froze, interleaved or not. I conclude that either the interleaved suspensions are unduly singled out, or that I haven't found the pertinent documents yet. I was hoping someone would grog me the appropriate documents. Thus far I read several complaints about the Pz IV, but since it was the popular thing to hate in the Panzer corps, that might be unfair too. MikeyD, if the Ferdinand is a red herring, then what is a closer comparison to a non-interleaved tank of similar proportions? It is rather glib to just dismiss it. The spring system, the hybrid drive, the fuel type - these things do not explain why it wouldn't turn, and bogged easily. The track loading does. To call the E-series pies-in-the-sky designs is a bit optimistic. What little actual documentation survived does not show any technical choices being made beyond basic capability desires. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 Thus far I read several complaints about the Pz IV, but since it was the popular thing to hate in the Panzer corps, that might be unfair too. Do these complaints center on the road wheels or suspension specifically or just bogging in general? The Pz IV suffered from poor ground clearance. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 ArgusEye, Here's the source for the Panther woes. Spielberger, Walter (1993). The Panther & Its Variants. West Chester: Schiffer Publishing. ISBN 0-88740-397-2. Walter Spielberger is an expert on this stuff. Talking hands-on experience during the war. If I had my way, I'd own every book he ever wrote. http://www.librarything.com/author/spielbergerwalterj&all=1 Unfortunately, he died in 2005. Note his credentials. http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=70804 Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArgusEye Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 Thank you, John! I'll dig into it, as soon as I can get my hands on my collection. I should have that book somewhere. He is generally a good source, not quite primary, but close. I'll get back to this topic asap. I'm babysitting a machine at work at the moment. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted May 15, 2013 Author Share Posted May 15, 2013 I'm babysitting a machine at work at the moment. Yes, but is it an INTERLEAVED machine? And if not, why not? Is it faster that way? Or just cheaper to make? FWIW, what brought this up was the realization that the US Army has about 2,500 Abrams and does NOT want to upgrade all of them to the highest standard. Given the ability to spend a lot of money on chassis which stay in use for DECADES, I'm aware of the sensitivity towards maintenance costs, but also aware of the ability to tweak existing designs to an apex. I don't think the (modern) US Army has ever shied from extra maintenance cost if the design brings more capability. (Or, more profits to the contractor. I guess it depends on how you define "capability". Yes, that was a cheap shot, but how could I not take it?) The ability to put 1,500 hp to the track solves a LOT of problems. If that power were used more elegantly, could the tank gain better protection or armament? (The old triangle of weapon, protection, manueverability.) That's what got me thinking about the German tanks. Each allied army kept refining its last design. I really don't see much cross-pollination from one Ally to another, nor from their vanquished foe. (Sure, sloped armor and high velocity guns: but those were applied to current developments, not lifted and taken in toto.) The Germans saw an advantage in the interleaved system. I'm still curious how and why it disappeared and how a modern version would far vs. independent roadwheels. Mud, ice, and rocks between them: similar to the tales of woe inflicted upon the German dual rear-wheel trucks vs. the British single rear-wheel trucks in the desert. Why, then, are dual wheel the rule? More maintenance, hard to get to the inner wheel, etc., etc. Ken 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArgusEye Posted May 15, 2013 Share Posted May 15, 2013 Short answer: after the power problem is solved, other problems become dominant, none of which get solved by interleaving wheels. The smoothness of the ride is quite sufficient for human comfort, with hydraulic stabilization allowing firing on the move. Wide wheels roll on wide tracks. The track resistance is higher, but what limits the speed and maneuverability now is not the flatness of the track, but mainly its inertia. Interleaving would only fix problems that don't matter anymore. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freyberg Posted May 18, 2013 Share Posted May 18, 2013 http://www.veoh.com/watch/v6255435qMH9GNC9 Around minute 35 it shows Americans testing a captured Panther. There's a shot where they run it over log rollers at fairly high speed - the smoothness of the suspension is visibly impressive - though you guys have probably all seen stuff like that 100 times... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Splinty Posted May 19, 2013 Share Posted May 19, 2013 Can't speak much about the ride of a AFV with interleaved roadwheels, but I can tell you from experience that an Abrams rides like a Cadillac over all but the roughest terrain. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 Don't know whether the ones on this proposed AFV were interleaved or not, but the engineering analysis is insightful and the weapon concept analyzed wholly unknown previously to me. http://landcruiser.greyfalcon.us/landk3.html Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 Har har. Just tonight I actually had to disabuse a buddy of the notion that Nazis flew flying saucers in WWII. Really. 'Iron Sky' fans will be disappointed to learn that the film wasn't a documentary 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.