An interesting article on American Tank development.

[Guest Pillar]

This is an article from "Armor" magazine about American Tank Development after WW2.

It's really interesting and I couldn't wait to share it with you guys.

http://147.238.100.101/dtdd/armormag/ja98/4cameron98.pdf

[109 Gustav]

Great article.

------------------

No one but the enemy will tell you what the enemy is going to do. No one but the enemy will ever teach you where you are weak. Only the enemy tells you where he is strong. And the rules of the game are what you can do to him and what you can stop him from doing to you. -Ender's Game

[Guest Pillar]

Great signature.

[Guest machineman]

Reading that over I kind of got the feeling the Americans ran into the exact same problems with their tank development after WWII that the Germans ran into during the war, and for many of the same reasons. Underpowered, unreliable, short ranged uber tanks rushed into production in a frantic attempt to counter the Russian hordes, emphasis on long range gunnery through rangefinders and fire control systems "a critical consideration for an army expecting to enter the field outnumbered".

The Bundeswehr must have gotten a bit of a kick out of the whole situation.

[Guest Pillar]

Yep, technology and gadgets over common sense

Anyone have a similar article on the Soviet side of things during that period? That would make for a very interesting comparison.

[Guest machineman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pillar:

Yep, technology and gadgets over common sense

Anyone have a similar article on the Soviet side of things during that period? That would make for a very interesting comparison.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think it's more that 'super tanks' are tougher to build then it appears, especially in a hurry.

I just read through 'Threat: Inside the Soviet Military Machine' and according to it the Soviets were having plenty of troubles of their own with tank development during the same time frame.

"...the hawkish scholars William F. Scott and Harriet F. Scott characterize Soviet weapons as being 'rugged, well constructed, and capable of doing the task assigned.'

The men of the Fort Hood Opfors unit were unimpressed with this view. 'It's very cramped inside,' the captain in charge pointed out. 'They use a manual transmission which is very hard to drive, very tedious for the driver. In fact, the driver is issued with sledgehammers to get the gears into gear'. One sergeant asked me 'If Soviet tanks are so well designed, how is it to take out the engine you have to remove the turret, and that takes half a day?'"

[Guest Pillar]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In fact, the driver is issued with sledgehammers to get the gears into gear'. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL!!! That's pretty bad.

Generally, I've found that Soviet design (in just about any wake) is centralized on utility, 'bang for buck', and with minimal concern for the operators.

[Guest Pillar]

Here is something for us science lovers.

Perhaps the future of American tank development:

http://147.238.100.101/dtdd/armormag/ja97/4fcs97.pdf

Enjoy.

[dNorwood]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pillar:

Great signature.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

From an equally great story..

[Guest Pillar]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

The Soviets received approxi-mately

1,200 light and 5,000 me-dium

tanks from the USA during

World War II. The first tanks

shipped to the Soviet Union in

1941-42 were the M3A1 General

Lee and the M3A5 General Grant,

equipped with gasoline-powered

engines. Stalin complained openly

to Roosevelt about these early

American tanks in his personal cor-respondence,

writing, “...U.S. tanks

catch fire very easily when hit from

behind or from the side...” The

Americans responded by ceasing

delivery of gasoline-powered tanks

and sending instead the M4A2.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Boy, what a surprise Stalin was about to get. Was this a cruel joke?