Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > War and Military History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

War and Military History War and Military History Forum - Warfare, Tactics, and Military Technology over the centuries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old April 12th, 2018, 07:23 AM   #721
Academician
 
Joined: Jan 2018
From: Canada
Posts: 93

Quote:
Originally Posted by redcoat View Post
While iron wasn't a major problem some of the alloys mixed with steel to make amour plate were, shortages of these lead to German armour becoming more "brittle", and occasionally fracturing when struck by even a none penetrating hit.
Correct. By 1944, Germany had to deal with shortages of alloying materials like manganese, nickel, and molybdenum. This interfered with their ability to manufacture high quality armored plates.

''Although Panther production continued to increase until July 1944, it began to suffer from the consequences of the Allied bombing program and the fortunes of war, losing access to metal alloys critical in steel production. In February 1944, the Wehrmacht lost control of the Soviet manganese mines at Nikopol and Krivoy Rog in Ukraine. Access to molybdenum was cut off by Allied bomber attacks on the Knaben mine in Norway as well the end of supplies from Finland and Japan.'' -Panther vs Sherman: Battle of the Bulge 1944, by Steven J. Zaloga

This forced the Germans to use a different heat treating method for the plates. Something that would enable them to skimp on alloying elements. In theory, the armor would have almost the same ductility as what they'd been making before. But the reality was different. The interrupted quench method was new and finicky, and many of the factorys didn't have experience in using it.

As it turned out, they weren't always able to temper the plates properly, and they came out of the vat more brittle than they were supposed to. This wasn't a universal problem: Some factorys were able to use interrupted quench effectively, and others were not. As a result, about 15-20% of German tanks from 1944 onward rolled out of the factory with defective armored plates. Quality control was effectively thrown out of the window as they rushed to churn out as many armored fighting vehicles as humanly possible.
PlasmaTorch is offline  
Remove Ads
Old April 12th, 2018, 08:01 AM   #722

NikiRandom's Avatar
Citizen
 
Joined: Apr 2018
From: Midlands, UK
Posts: 22

I'm reminded reading this thread, of an episode of Tank Overhaul. I forget which German tank they were renovating, but they claimed to have found several instances of apparent sabotage which they thought could only have happened during the original construction.

Given that a lot of enforced labour was used in German manufacturing plants, I wonder how much this contributed to mechanical unreliability in the field?
NikiRandom is offline  
Old April 16th, 2018, 02:56 AM   #723

SPERRO's Avatar
Ex Cold War Warrior
 
Joined: Mar 2011
From: North East England
Posts: 3,463

Quote:
Originally Posted by NikiRandom View Post
I'm reminded reading this thread, of an episode of Tank Overhaul. I forget which German tank they were renovating, but they claimed to have found several instances of apparent sabotage which they thought could only have happened during the original construction.

Given that a lot of enforced labour was used in German manufacturing plants, I wonder how much this contributed to mechanical unreliability in the field?
A substantial amount, no doubt.
SPERRO is offline  
Old April 16th, 2018, 05:30 AM   #724
Lecturer
 
Joined: Jul 2016
From: england
Posts: 303

Quote:
Originally Posted by SPERRO View Post
A substantial amount, no doubt.
Factory checks were very thorough. Then the Army inspected them to reject what they considered faults. I doubt sabotage was a major problem. I believe the 'sabotage' was found in a single Panther and was cigarette butts.
The main problem was with final drives and that was a crippling design fault with the Tiger, Panther and late Pz IV.
mkenny is offline  
Old April 16th, 2018, 06:14 AM   #725

sparky's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2017
From: Sydney
Posts: 2,078
Blog Entries: 1

.
the most excellent Gewehr 43 semi-automatic rifle was made with parts made at the Neuengamme and Buchenwald concentration camp .
there were numerous instant of faulty manufacturing linked with deliberate sabotage

the word come from the French word for clog , "sabot "
disgruntled workers would drop those pretty solid wooden shoe into machines to slow down the production
sparky is offline  
Old April 16th, 2018, 03:29 PM   #726
Academician
 
Joined: Jan 2018
From: Canada
Posts: 93

Quote:
Originally Posted by mkenny View Post
Factory checks were very thorough. Then the Army inspected them to reject what they considered faults. I doubt sabotage was a major problem. I believe the 'sabotage' was found in a single Panther and was cigarette butts.

The main problem was with final drives and that was a crippling design fault with the Tiger, Panther and late Pz IV.
I'm aware of problems with the Panthers final drives, but not with the Tiger or Panzer IV. Do you have a source on that? Because from what I understand, the Panthers reliability problems stemmed largely from its convoluted design process. It was originally built to be a 35 ton vehicle, but numerous factors (including an large, clunky transmission that increased the tanks height) led to it being overweight. To make things worse, Adolf Hitler also ordered its armor thickness to be increased. By the time prototypes were ready, they tipped the scales at 45 tons.

The final drives were not built for a vehicle of this weight, however, and the gears would often strip when put under great strain. MAN asked for additional time to redesign the final drives, but their request was turned down by Waffenprufamt. They were told to put the Panther into production immediately. The army needed the new tanks ASAP, and Waffenprufamt didn't care about reliability problems. Their excuse was that while straight tooth gears were less durable, they placed less demands on the machining industry than double spur gears (thus enabling more final drive to be produced at lower cost).
PlasmaTorch is offline  
Old April 17th, 2018, 02:11 AM   #727
Lecturer
 
Joined: Jul 2016
From: england
Posts: 303

Spielberger. Panther & Its Variants page 257

Date 23 January 1945.


Meeting of the Panzer Commision


there continues to be serious complaints regarding final drive breakdowns in all vehicle types...................General Thomale explained that in such circumstances an orderly utilisation of tanks is simply impossible...........

Prior to the 1945 eastern offensive there have been 500 defective drives on the Pz IV, from the Panther 370 and from the Tiger roughly 100............the troops lose their confidence and in some situations abandon the whole vehicle just because of this problem




970 from a front total of 2108 tanks of all types on the Eastern Front in Dec 1944
mkenny is offline  
Old April 17th, 2018, 07:20 AM   #728

Zbigniew's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Dec 2017
From: Poland
Posts: 268

I have another small question: did tanks periscopes have any wiper? I saw on some TV program, that in Challenger tank it was something like wiper (but not very effective in the fight against mud, as tankmen said). OK, but during World War II...? Especially, when I see German tanks, I have the impression that driver couldn't observe the road in a different way, he used only this small thick "window" or periscope in the front armour. What if was the rainy day?

Last edited by Zbigniew; April 17th, 2018 at 07:29 AM.
Zbigniew is offline  
Old April 17th, 2018, 01:39 PM   #729

redcoat's Avatar
Hiding behind the sofa
 
Joined: Nov 2010
From: Stockport Cheshire UK
Posts: 7,185

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zbigniew View Post
I have another small question: did tanks periscopes have any wiper? I saw on some TV program, that in Challenger tank it was something like wiper (but not very effective in the fight against mud, as tankmen said). OK, but during World War II...? Especially, when I see German tanks, I have the impression that driver couldn't observe the road in a different way, he used only this small thick "window" or periscope in the front armour. What if was the rainy day?
On most tanks if it wasn't under fire they would stick their head out of the hatch( on the Panther they had a weird set up where you sat on a box behind the normal seat and operated the controls with a set of extension bars), if it was under fire you made do with the vision you got through the visor.
This was why even if you didn't have a weapon that would penetrate a tank, firing at it was always a good idea, it forced the crew to 'button up' and greatly reduced the crews ability to see targets and threats.
redcoat is offline  
Old April 17th, 2018, 01:48 PM   #730

sparky's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2017
From: Sydney
Posts: 2,078
Blog Entries: 1

.
Tank periscope are solid block of glass which can be removed in an instant from their mount
for cleaning or changing if they are damaged , all tanks have several spares
sparky is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > War and Military History

Tags
overrated, tank, tiger



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Tortuga Tank: A Rather Strange tank (armored vehicle) Bernard Montgomery War and Military History 8 April 26th, 2013 08:58 PM
Repair of a Tiger Tank 1944 world-x War and Military History 1 September 8th, 2009 01:32 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.