It appears that sometimes Panzerwaffe members took matters into their own hands:
There are many photos of Axis vehicles where the crews have added track links etc as extra armour, it was not just an allied thing where crews desired more protection even if it is effectively only largely psychological.
I always find it interesting that the Panther had a reliability of 16% when it first went into combat (broke down 84% of the time), after 6 months it got up to a reliability of 36-37% (after a complete rebuild of all survivors). A further 6 months saw the reliability with a trained crew get to around 75% (so after a year in combat).
Unfortunately crews particularly drivers were not well trained by 1944, many being trained on obsolete equipment quite often it was also Holzgas or LPG powered. The drivers then supposed to be fully trained in units (which rarely had the time before the new drivers were needed in combat).
Compare that with the reliability of the Covenanter which was deemed too unreliable to be used in combat after its debut at a reliability rate of 40-50% so was only used for training (despite Britain’s desperate need for tanks), or the Crusader which had a reliability of 60-65% in its first combat (alot was due to poor maintenance and spares availability on initial transport and deployment) and went up to around 80% in the Mk III variant. More reliable than the Panther but was slated as being unreliable which the Panther fans seem to ignore so often.
The French army (which had longer Panther experience than any German unit) were scathing about many faults the Panther had which reduced its actual operational worth quite considerably.
A couple of Comet mentions, the best British tank in service during WW2, & as a tank, pure & simple - was better in chassis & gun than the Sherman or T34.
Again that Christie chassis - like the T34 - but with reliable tracks, & the RR petrol mill. Diesel is… rocket fuel, explosive…thats how it runs, compression ignition & not good when shock hit…boom…up she goes…not to mention the filthy smoke giving away your location…
Interesting that “Cuckoo” - British operated Panther, they regarded it highly…
The Tiger did serve as the model for current MBTs though, olAdolf got that one right...big, powerful, well protected, put the shits into the enemy..albeit -no tank is invulnerable..not even Abrams in Baghdad...though ask the crews what theyd prefer… Kelly`s Heroes got it right…but Panther gets my vote, cos, she just looks so hot…
Ah, couldnt really expect the French Armee to be complimentary about having to tool about in the same machines thatd been rubbing their noses in their own dirt, could you…
But Ill bet they would nt have prefered to be in a Sherman - if Stalin had ordered his tank armies across the Rhine…
Diesel is far less combustible than gasoline, that’s why everyone switched over to diesel after the war.
Everyone? ah, dont think so.
& Diesel as rocket fuel, provides high pressures/velocities, thats why all those T34s errupted so violently when their Diesel was struck with an 88mm kinetic shock…
From Sqd Ldr Bob Spurdles memoir 'The Blue Arena' P.194,[ in command of 80 Sqd, flying Tempests in late 44];
“A useless gesture! Op Sortie 528 - attacked five giant Tiger tanks discovered on railway flat-cars.
Our 20mm shells winked all over them & damaged paintwork.
However, we reported them in clear over our R/T & a Squadron of Typhoons were scrambled & rocketed them to destruction.”
Spurdle, again - strafing a tank;
" We started armed patrols to seek out ground targets & on 5th October I found, near Zwolle,a Panzer…
This was for me!
‘Railroad aircraft maintain angels 4. Black leader & Black 2 going down’.
My number 2 slid behind me & we dived.
1/2 a mile ahead was the stationary tank with its turret hatch open &, standing in front of it, hands on hips, one of the crew.
He just stood there, legs apart, arms akimbo, looking up at me.
He was blown away with the 1st few shells. One of the explosive projectiles must have entered the open hatch, setting off the the tank’s ammunition, because there were violent flashes from inside its turret. To our great surprise & delight a series of perfect smoke rings were ejected from the opening to rise & expand in the still air.
A crew member clambered out & my No 2 hacked him down.
Why had the 1st man just stood there? I think he was either arrogant to the point of idiocy or he deliberately committed suicide.
A strange thing. Soon the tank glowed dull red & we flew off seeking other prey."
Yeah the slow pokes were behind, but even they changed over.
Exploding T-34 is probably more to do with substantial amount of exposed ammo confined in such a small volume. Even the smallest amount of Spall inside could ignite stored ammo inside the turret area.
US Abrams -went to gas turbine - & burns avtur [jet-plane kerosene]…
If you need to learn how explosive Diesel can be, check out the ‘Oklahoma City’ blast,
&/or look at the - Diesel as rocket fuel - values listed in the ‘Operation Paperclip’ thread Nazi rocket science paper.
I don’t need to , I already know that Gasoline is more combustible than Diesel +45c and Kerosine +40-55c and Jet fuel +45-60c . Gasoline is - 65c.
UBC - its not about the flash off temp, its about energy density …the tank trade off is - range per gallon stored [Diesel wins] vs explosive risk/smoke telltale [Diesel loses].
They switched over because diesel is far more fuel efficient and offers a much higher torque ratio than gasoline does. Diesel engine technology was perfected after the war. And it is largely a myth that gasoline caused tanks to “brew up”. Far more often it was careless ammunition stowage…
Um, diesel is far less combustible than gas/petrol. The Oklahoma Murrah Federal Building was brought down not just by diesel, but diesel mixed with ammonium nitrate, in fact I think diesel was the junior partner in this bestial alliance of this insidious witches’ brew of ingredients. Please do not post such things lightly…
& WW2 topics are light? Oh the irony…
It is about the energy…Diesel has more than gasoline per cc…again, check out the Nazi research that shows the velocity attained by Diesel fuel [ faster explosions-more damage].
Incidentally, the M-1 Abrams series went to a gas turbine set up because turbo diesel technology wasn’t quite there yet in the early 1970’s for high end automotive performance. However, with the advent of construction machinery sourced advances, turbo-diesel technology now matches the performance of the gas turbine engine and last I saw, the U.S. military was studying the installation of some of the newer MTU turbo-diesel engines in the Abrams pending the withdrawal from Iraq…
Meaningless. Studies after the war conducted by both the U.S. and Britain concluded that the main problem for tankers after their machine was hit tended to be ammunition being hit, not fuel tanks. Fuel burned out only after the internal stowed ammunition explosions in most cases…
Diesel wasn`t there yet performance-wise…Hmmm…wonder how Greyhound buses kept their schedules then…ah, yes, they used 2-stroke Detroit-Diesels, just like the Diesel equipped Shermans did, in WW2.
Modern British tanks used Leyland 2T Diesels & Japanese tanks used Mitsubishi 2T Diesels, again on the grounds of energy density/ SFC-efficiency, which has always been better than a gas-turbine can manage…
& How many Diesel powered tank brew-ups did the US & British examine post-war? Not too many T34s I`m thinking, well not until Korea anyhow…
Interestingly enough, the US Navy used a high-performance British 2-stroke Diesel, the Napier Deltic - in its Vietnam war issue ‘Nasty’ class fast-patrol boats…
&’ witches brew…insidious alliance’…
Is maybe, - getting a little emotively carried away - in describing what most likely any corn farmer keeps in bulk…- but true, Diesel is potentially deadly…