Tanks-100 years of Armoured warfare

Feel free to discuss anything and everything to do with tanking here!

Postby 43rdRecceReg » Sat Dec 09, 2017 8:19 pm

Richard (Silver surfer) recently mentioned the Tank Book published by the Tank Museum; and it's a worthy and weighty tome indeed :thumbup: 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.jpeg
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. ;)
User avatar
43rdRecceReg
Captain
 
Posts: 4260
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 11:38 am
Location: North West Highlands, Scotland

Postby 43rdRecceReg » Mon Dec 11, 2017 10:17 pm

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 :haha: Tank Museum)
Mk IV tank blue print.jpeg
Mk IV tank blueprint 1.5 ins to 12 ins.
User avatar
43rdRecceReg
Captain
 
Posts: 4260
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 11:38 am
Location: North West Highlands, Scotland

Postby 43rdRecceReg » Mon Dec 11, 2017 10:35 pm

..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 chart 76mm.jpeg
Anti-tank penetration 76mm gun at 1600 yds

Anti-tank penetration chart 17 pdr.jpeg
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.... ;)
User avatar
43rdRecceReg
Captain
 
Posts: 4260
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 11:38 am
Location: North West Highlands, Scotland

Postby c.rainford73 » Mon Dec 11, 2017 11:18 pm

Roy thank you for sharing this so very cool to see how lethal that 17pdr really was.
User avatar
c.rainford73
Major
 
Posts: 5549
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2016 7:34 pm
Location: Connecticut USA

Postby jarndice » Mon Dec 11, 2017 11:45 pm

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.
User avatar
jarndice
Major
 
Posts: 5625
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:27 am
Location: the mountains of hertfordshire

Postby 43rdRecceReg » Mon Dec 11, 2017 11:56 pm

jarndice wrote: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. :)
User avatar
43rdRecceReg
Captain
 
Posts: 4260
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 11:38 am
Location: North West Highlands, Scotland

Postby Ad Lav » Tue Dec 12, 2017 7:45 am

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?
User avatar
Ad Lav
Lieutenant
 
Posts: 3582
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 4:44 pm
Location: Kent

Postby silversurfer1947 » Tue Dec 12, 2017 8:52 am

The Germans armour piercing round had a tungsten core, but was used sparingly as there was a shortage of tungsten.
User avatar
silversurfer1947
2nd Lieutenant
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2015 10:54 pm
Location: Bristol, UK

Postby RobW » Tue Dec 12, 2017 12:06 pm

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.

RobW
Warrant Officer 2nd Class
 
Posts: 1064
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2014 2:55 pm
Location: Sheffield

Postby 43rdRecceReg » Wed Dec 13, 2017 1:08 am

RobW wrote: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;.... :D 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. :thumbup:
As the title suggests, it spans 100 years, and for this reason it feels selective. :think:
User avatar
43rdRecceReg
Captain
 
Posts: 4260
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 11:38 am
Location: North West Highlands, Scotland

Postby RobW » Wed Dec 13, 2017 8:36 am

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

RobW
Warrant Officer 2nd Class
 
Posts: 1064
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2014 2:55 pm
Location: Sheffield

Postby B_Man » Wed Dec 13, 2017 10:21 am

jarndice wrote: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.
User avatar
B_Man
Corporal
 
Posts: 310
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 1:23 pm
Location: Yass, NSW, Australia

Postby Raminator » Wed Dec 13, 2017 10:46 am

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.
User avatar
Raminator
Staff Sergeant
 
Posts: 933
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2015 9:57 am
Location: Newcastle, Australia

Postby 43rdRecceReg » Wed Dec 13, 2017 10:31 pm

Raminator wrote: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 :lolno: :haha:
User avatar
43rdRecceReg
Captain
 
Posts: 4260
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 11:38 am
Location: North West Highlands, Scotland


Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: easy8 and 6 guests