Tanks-100 years of Armoured warfare

[43rdRecceReg]

Richard (Silver surfer) recently mentioned the Tank Book published by the Tank Museum; and it's a worthy and weighty tome indeed I didn't see a mention of the other large coffee table crusher they have out at the same time; 'Tanks: 100 years of Armoured Warfare' (below)

Tanks by the Tank Museum

What this book lacks in text, it makes up for in illustrations. But what really persuaded me it was worth the hefty price tag of £26, is that it is stuffed with pull out posters, photos and drawings. One in particular caught my eye:
it's a scale blue print of a MK IV tank (1.5 inches to the foot..giving a ratio around 1:8). It struck me that it would be perfect as a template for a scratch build. It's highly detailed, even down to rivet and bolt sizes used.
Maybe this book has cropped up here before in threads, if so, I didn't catch any references to it after a cursory scan. Seemed worth a mention, anyway. It might make a good Christmas present, if you can persuade someone to buy it.
It's on Amazon, or you can probably order from the Museum itself, I guess.
I was given it as a belated birthday present, and that took the sting out of the price somewhat.

[43rdRecceReg]

Here's the MK IV tank blue print, just to give a hint at what other wee treasures lie in wait. (and no..I'm not in the pay of the Tank Museum)

Mk IV tank blueprint 1.5 ins to 12 ins.

[43rdRecceReg]

..and here's a fascination little slide out chart (works a bit like a wee cardboard slide rule...)
It show the respective penetration capabilities of the Sherman 76mm gun and the 17pounder. Here the chart is set at 1600 years, and several shorter ranges are given, with anticipated damage caused.
Here's the 76mm at 1600yds (APCBC/M62 rounds)

Anti-tank penetration 76mm gun at 1600 yds

Anti-tank penetration 17Pdr at 1600 yds

It's quite apparent how much more of a bang you got with your bucks using the 17Pdr....

[c.rainford73]

Roy thank you for sharing this so very cool to see how lethal that 17pdr really was.

[jarndice]

It does make it even harder to understand why the American Army were not interested in a relatively easy conversion of an M4 into the "Firefly" and instead waited for their own tank destroyer to be produced..
Shaun.

[43rdRecceReg]

It does make it even harder to understand why the American Army were not interested in a relatively easy conversion of an M4 and instead waited for their own tank destroyer to be produced..
Shaun.

My thoughts as well, Shaun. Then when the 76mm finally did come along Eisenhower was bitterly disappointed with the results. Ah well, the past is there to be learned from. That said, these days the PC Brigade (not part of any army I know), are busily attempting to rewrite it to support their new liberalism. C'est la Vie. C'est la Guerre

Anyway, the book is full of little treasures like this....I may discover a few more.

[Ad Lav]

The 76mm was really only any good with an HVAP round. Same as the firefly exceeded expectations with an APCR.

Didn't the Germans use a special AP round sometimes too?

[silversurfer1947]

The Germans armour piercing round had a tungsten core, but was used sparingly as there was a shortage of tungsten.

[RobW]

Given the western allied tank armour the AP rounds may have been overkill anyway!

Are there any decent images of the funnies? Not doubting the quality of the book but I'm finding several specific books to be more useful than the general books.

[43rdRecceReg]

Given the western allied tank armour the AP rounds may have been overkill anyway!

Are there any decent images of the funnies? Not doubting the quality of the book but I'm finding several specific books to be more useful than the general books.

If your interest is in a specific tank or theatre of operations, then a dedicated history is more likely to be satisfying, I'd say. I have, for example, individual tank appraisals in the Vanguard series on the Firefly, the Cromwell, and others.
This book fulfils another need: it's an overall account of the (often unique) contents of the Tank Museum archives. But includes reproductions of wartime pamphlets that have a clear novelty value for the military enthusiast, or the WW2
history buff. Examples include: 'Armored (sic) vehicle recognition'; the 'Tigerfibel' (that cropped up in a thread here.. ); the 'Panzerfaust Pamphlet'; the 'Ammunition booklet'., and so on. They're all quality reproductions.
If by 'funnies' you don't mean 'the screaming abdabs', or WW2 seaside postcards with leery red-nosed gentlemen;.... then.. the book does cover tanks like the Type 97 Chi-Ha, The Whippet, and the 'Big Wheel Tsar Tank'., etc. Though not, it has to be said, in any great detail. It's just a very attractive coffee table book with novelty features, and things you could frame or put on the wall, such as the Renault FT diagrams, or the Mk IV blueprint..etc.
As the title suggests, it spans 100 years, and for this reason it feels selective.

[RobW]

Thanks, I may leave for now as it'll give me too many (more) ideas for builds....

[B_Man]

It does make it even harder to understand why the American Army were not interested in a relatively easy conversion of an M4 into the "Firefly" and instead waited for their own tank destroyer to be produced..
Shaun.

I don't think the Firefly was all sunshine and lollipops. There is a very good episode of The Chieftains Hatch on YouTube where he demonstrates just how cramped it was inside a Firefly turret and how awkward it was to crew and maintain. It was very good against other tanks but not very good at all the other things tanks are used for. The amour was no better than a regular Sherman and it was a bit slower so the Americans probably decided they were better off sticking with existing tank destroyers.

[Raminator]

If the US Army were so unhappy with the 76 mm Sherman's ergonomics that they delayed its introduction for nearly two years to redevelop it into something usable by the crew, it's no wonder they rejected Firefly outright. Not to mention the additional logistical strain of a new ammunition type (manufactured by another country!) that the 17 pdr would have necessitated.

[43rdRecceReg]

If the US Army were so unhappy with the 76 mm Sherman's ergonomics that they delayed its introduction for nearly two years to redevelop it into something usable by the crew, it's no wonder they rejected Firefly outright. Not to mention the additional logistical strain of a new ammunition type (manufactured by another country!) that the 17 pdr would have necessitated.

The research and field trials had been done, Dan, by British Boffins from 1942 onwards. The Americans were privy to that body of work, as they were to our Radar, and Jet Engine technology..but economics aside, I think they just didn't want a British gun in an American tank. As for limited space, I believe it was better to be a person of diminished stature, or a contortionist, as much in 76mm equipped turrets, as it was in the Firefly. On the face of it, though..cramped or not, it was probably better to be huddles up, and able to knock out a Tiger, than to end up medium rare