Idealised WWII weapons

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
The things y'think about on a treadmill...

I'm continuing to thoroughly enjoy the 'Superior British weapons in WWII' thread. Inevitably, there's a lot of Top Trumpery going on - such as German tanks being superb on the firepower/armour front but crap on the mobility front by virtue of being underpowered, etc.

There's also been mention of might-have-beens, such as the Me-262 with the Gloster Meteor's engines, and the Westland Whirlwind fitted with Merlins instead of Peregrines.

So, what if you could pick the best bits of one and the best bits of another... what would you come up with? Would the Panther have been omnipotent with, say, the Meteor engine of the Centurion?

Unleash the gimp - sorry, geek...
 
B

bokkatankie

Guest
CC that will not work, bit like putting a jag engine in a ford. You can do it but without better brakes, suspension, drive train and on and on it will kill you.
 
B

bokkatankie

Guest
Ever tried matching suspension stresses and gun recoil, it took the Navy long enough. You canot just chuck a gun in a vehicle and expect it to work. Both have to be matched.
 

4(T)

LE
If you want a good "what if" read, I can recommend a book written by Tony Williams "the Foresight War".

www.amazon.co.uk/The-Foresight-War-Anthony-Williams/dp/0755201566

Tony and many other weapons experts have been for years debating "what ifs" in the Military Guns and Ammo forum, and his novelette is a kind of snapshot of many of the alternative weapons technology history ideas they came up with. Their basic premise is how contemporary WW2 technology could have been better utilised with hindsight (or the foresight in the novel scenario).
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
If you want a good "what if" read, I can recommend a book written by Tony Williams "the Foresight War".

www.amazon.co.uk/The-Foresight-War-Anthony-Williams/dp/0755201566

Tony and many other weapons experts have been for years debating "what ifs" in the Military Guns and Ammo forum, and his novelette is a kind of snapshot of many of the alternative weapons technology history ideas they came up with. Their basic premise is how contemporary WW2 technology could have been better utilised with hindsight (or the foresight in the novel scenario).

Thanks, I'll try and get hold of that.
 
Would the Panther have been omnipotent with, say, the Meteor engine of the Centurion?
Given that my sources say the Panther's Maybach was 90 hp more powerful than the Meteor I think that's a no. I'd suggest there were only two things wrong with the Panther, build quality due to slave labour and numbers.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Given that my sources say the Panther's Maybach was 90 hp more powerful than the Meteor I think that's a no. I'd suggest there were only two things wrong with the Panther, build quality due to slave labour and numbers.

And yet a Centurion was at least the same weight if not more; the original 40-ton requirement had hit 51 tons by the time the Mark III arrived, still with the Meteor.

It's not just horsepower.
 
And yet a Centurion was at least the same weight if not more; the original 40-ton requirement had hit 51 tons by the time the Mark III arrived, still with the Meteor.

It's not just horsepower.
Well from an engine it pretty much is, but the gearbox/engine combination makes a difference. Cent was also not that mobile, which goes to support a quote by one of the old and bold I know about speed and armour being subservient to firepower. Now if Cromwell has mounted the 75mmL70....
 
Given that my sources say the Panther's Maybach was 90 hp more powerful than the Meteor I think that's a no. I'd suggest there were only two things wrong with the Panther, build quality due to slave labour and numbers.

Well, it also had a transmission designed for a tank quite a bit lighter and that would strip itself if the driver wasn't careful. And the odd habit of the engine catching fire on occasion irrespective of anyone shooting at it.

I don't need mythical vehicles, I'd happily go for Comet instead of Cromwell for D-Day. Centurion coming into service early '45 with it's decent armour and 20 pounder.
 
And yet a Centurion was at least the same weight if not more; the original 40-ton requirement had hit 51 tons by the time the Mark III arrived, still with the Meteor.

It's not just horsepower.
Well from an engine it pretty much is, but the gearbox/engine combination makes a difference. Cent was also not that mobile, which goes to support a quote by one of the old and bold I know about speed and armour being subservient to firepower. Now if Cromwell has mounted the 75mmL70....
 

P2000

LE
This thread could run and run. Some naval thoughts-

A properly armoured HOOD.

Decent aircraft for British carriers - Sea Fury was excellent but too late.

Electrical systems on PRINCE OF WALES which didn't fail.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Well from an engine it pretty much is, but the gearbox/engine combination makes a difference. Cent was also not that mobile, which goes to support a quote by one of the old and bold I know about speed and armour being subservient to firepower. Now if Cromwell has mounted the 75mmL70....

Cromwell and Comet might've been quicker but contemporaneously it wasn't too slow - and faster than some of the infantry tanks. Interesting that you raise it as an issue with what's generally accepted to be the leading tank of its time.
 
Seems the Germans tended to over-elaborate and go for new and untried engineering wheezes. Speaking from memory, wasn't it the transmission on the Panther and certainly the Tiger that was the weak point? Not certain what beardyprof means by the Centurion not being mobile. It could turn on really rough ground without shedding a track. Potentially, it had a high speed but was governed down, possibly to improve fuel consumption, because it was a thirsty beast (hence that nightmare the monotrailer). Unlike the worshippers of the airfix rifle I don't claim the Centurion was the best thing ever, but it had a long and useful life and proved itself totally capable of upgrading. How many tanks can claim that?
 
The biggest weaknesses for German tanks were Hitler and the Panzer Committee. Hitler for wanting ever more armour and bigger guns (the original design for the Panther would have been far more mobile) and the Panzer Committee, who were for ever playing with new technology and engineering trinkets and were far more interested in what was good for their companies rather than what was need b the average German tanker, who just wanted a nice reliable tank.
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
This thread could run and run. Some naval thoughts-

A properly armoured HOOD.

Decent aircraft for British carriers - Sea Fury was excellent but too late.

Electrical systems on PRINCE OF WALES which didn't fail.
A carrier group to support the POW BG
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top