John Kettler Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 Found this thread while searching for T-34 sighting arrangement data. Has some great British Western Desert AFV reliability numbers, some Panzer stuff, and even Russian AFV reliability numbers. http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/ubb/Forum4/HTML/000044.html Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigDog944 Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 Could you imagine being one of the guys having to ride a T-34 with the amount of oil it must have been burning, based on the last article? That would be the many hells of war, I think. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted March 30, 2006 Author Share Posted March 30, 2006 BigDog944, In the early part of the war, T-34s used to go into battle with a spare transmission strapped to the engine deck, too. Imagine the fun! Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 Very interesting indeed. So breaking down in battle could be quite possible even if it was not "bogging" : ) And as for units turning up with complete complements - as so many gamers think necessary - that too would be abnormal. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 Lest we think only the Russians were disorganised/disrupted by failing tanks this question at the Dupuy Institute: Is there any kind of "official" report on the Panther that addresses the fact no spare parts - or spare part production for that matter - had been provided? If there is, who is named as responsible? Also, is there any kind of speculation as to what the impact of having gaskets etc. on hand might have had on Panther serviceability? So for the battle at Kursk the Panthers had no spare parts and some were captured in the Russian advance in the following month as they still had not been repaired. More "bogging" effects. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Folbec Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Originally posted by dieseltaylor: So for the battle at Kursk the Panthers had no spare parts and some were captured in the Russian advance in the following month as they still had not been repaired. More "bogging" effects. More generally I remember reading that panthers built in different factories were often not compatible. Present time collectors now often have to retool parts when they try to repair a wreck with canibalized parts. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 "Sherman M4A4: 518-642 miles" I'm very surprised the M4A4 engine life was so low, especially since that seems to be the Brit's preferred firefly chassis. Well. it is a multibank engine (5 truck engines tied together?) which I guess might imply one or another of those 5 engines would always require some sort of work. I was surprised to read in a book on U.S. halftracks how German halftrack engines were so much less powerful than the U.S. engine. Score one for the U.S.! Of course the U.S. halftack engine got heroically poor gas mileage - maybe 2 miles per gallon? Maybe less? 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.