Com-Central.net

clausb · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Jan 25, 2006 Posts: 146

- bsmart

I'm gpoing to disagree with you here. "Quantity has a quality all it's own"

Within a class of weapons the ability to deploy enough items so that it is effective is important. The Sherman/T34 v Panther is a very good example of this. While neither one can match the Panther one on one they were able to compete because both could be produced in volume and deployed and supported so that they were always available in useful quantities while Panthers were never available in enough quantity to keep the units up to strength

The question is whether the qantity factor reflects qualities of the vehicle (ease of manufacture) or the production system building it. I'd guess that the US tank plants could build Panthers at about the same rate as they could build Shermans and vice-versa.

cbo

bsmart · Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 12:51 pm Post subject: Re: M113 #1?????

- clausb

The question is whether the qantity factor reflects qualities of the vehicle (ease of manufacture) or the production system building it. I'd guess that the US tank plants could build Panthers at about the same rate as they could build Shermans and vice-versa.

cbo

I'm not sure about that. From what I've read there were many parts of the panther that were desiigned to be 'massaged' into place. Also much of it was assembed as piecework.

The Sherman during it's development was worked over by automotive production engineers to tweak it for high volume series production. Everything from parts standardization to having a well developed 'Change Order' system for introducing changes to the production line had been well developed by the high volume production system used by the American automobile industry.

The big difference between the American and the European tank production was that The Americans decided that 35 ton tanks could be built on a true assembly line like passenger cars instead of by heavy engineering firms that were used to building locomotives and other heavy equipment.

It would have been interesting to see what a 'production engineered Panther' would have looked like after the American assembly line specialists had gotten done with it. It would also be interesting to see what a Panther fitted with some of the advanced features of the Sherman would have been (Like the constant speed hydraulic turret drive) but it would have been a much different beast that the standard Panther

clausb · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Jan 25, 2006 Posts: 146

- bsmart

I'm not sure about that. From what I've read there were many parts of the panther that were desiigned to be 'massaged' into place. Also much of it was assembed as piecework.

The Sherman during it's development was worked over by automotive production engineers to tweak it for high volume series production. Everything from parts standardization to having a well developed 'Change Order' system for introducing changes to the production line had been well developed by the high volume production system used by the American automobile industry.

The big difference between the American and the European tank production was that The Americans decided that 35 ton tanks could be built on a true assembly line like passenger cars instead of by heavy engineering firms that were used to building locomotives and other heavy equipment.

You could be right about the design not being as fit for massproduction as the Sherman, but it seems that it was a good deal better than for earlier German tanks (which may not say much Smile

)

I think the bottom line is that the number and types of parts that goes into a WWII tank of a given size are about the same. It needs an engine, transmission, armoured hull etc. What really governs output is access to rawmaterials, machinery, manpower etc. And here Germany was lagging behind the US. Add to that the fact that US plants, transport, etc. wasn'Ã¸t bombed every other day. In the bigger picture, improving the design for production may make some gain, but it cannot do much to change the basic production system and its flaws.

It would have been interesting to see what a 'production engineered Panther' would have looked like after the American assembly line specialists had gotten done with it. It would also be interesting to see what a Panther fitted with some of the advanced features of the Sherman would have been (Like the constant speed hydraulic turret drive) but it would have been a much different beast that the standard Panther

I think one problem would be that the Germans did not have the materials needed to make some of the features of the Sherman. The Sherman turret traverse, for example, used an electric motor for power and that togetherwith the required wiring might not have fitted well with Germanys precarious raw material situation. The mechanical-hydraulic system used in the Panther and Tiger used only steel.

cbo

SHAWN · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Jan 31, 2006 Posts: 484

hello roy,
it may not seem like much, but much respect to you and doug for serving on/in the track. thank you. my dads war photos dont paint a nice combat picture of the track. i think there must be alot of comparisons of the M4 in WW2 to the M113 in Nam.
when i called it a frig, i mean cause it was made by FMC (Food Machinery Corp., they made refrigators){M2/M3 also made by FMC}. i work in an aluminum fab shop and i wouldnt place AL between myself and bullets no how (unless it is moved by pratt & whitney).
it justed seems that good praise and all, that the, say "bad" qualities as told by my dad, by roy, by doug, others combat vets, hang heavy over that track thus hindering it being that close to the top of the list. you had to sandbag the interior, you woudnt ride inside (let alone fight from inside it-- ifv??), you wouldnt hang your limps inside or outside of the thing, you pretty much just rode on top... (please, please forgive me, but this doesnt make me feel confident in this thing). all of the pics dad has from nam that show damaged tracks, it isnt like they were lost in a european armored conflict. (they were lost to some of the best light infantry the world has seen).
we took AL plate out to the range, it dont stop .308, .223, unless you stack it up pretty thick... we spaced it (hell, that made it worse). it melts much more so than steel...

the M2/M3 is AL with steel plates hanging all over it...
arent the improved armor upgrades for the current M113 basically along the same lines?

Roy_A_Lingle · Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 10:37 pm Post subject: Re: M113 #1?????

Hi Shawn! Hi Folks!

The following post is done in the spirt of showing those who may not know there is more to the story.
Before I started hanging out here, I have a VERY bad impression of the Sherman tank during it's use in NWE. Thanks to others who have pointed out facts I didn't think about before, I now feel that tank was the right vehicle, for the right time, and POSSIBLE the best that could be fielded at that time.

- SHAWN

my dads war photos dont paint a nice combat picture of the track.

How's this Shawn for a bad picture? All four of us survived hitting a large land mine. I think my right gunner died later of pneumonia in a hospital on Oklinawa. My right gunner/Platoon Leader was returned to the field after a check up and an overnight stay at the 93rd Evac Hospital, my driver returned to the field after a month of light duty. I returned to duty after three months of light duty.

There is more to the story than bad pictures. What counts (to me anyway) is the number of people who survived after their AFV has been hit by something. In the case of my first ACAV, most of that damage happiened AFTER we were able to get out of and off of it.

Look at a picture of an Iraqi T72 that has been burned out (like my 1st ACAV) with it's turret blown off. One has to ask, was the crew able to get out after the first hit and before the secondary fire set off the remaining main gun ammo? Both pictures show you a burn out and total destoryed AFV. However they do not tell the story of the crew. It's the crew that counts, not the vehicle and how well it does or does not survive a hit.

- SHAWN

when i called it a frig, i mean cause it was made by FMC (Food Machinery Corp., they made refrigators){M2/M3 also made by FMC}. i work in an aluminum fab shop and i wouldnt place AL between myself and bullets no how (unless it is moved by pratt & whitney).

Don't forget, FMC also made the LVTP7/AAV7. I have never heard the armored vehicle department of FMC call "Frig" before.
Anyway, I am sure that the AFV plant was not the same one that made refrigators.

- SHAWN

it justed seems that good praise and all, that the, say "bad" qualities as told by my dad, by roy, by doug, others combat vets, hang heavy over that track thus hindering it being that close to the top of the list.

Name something, anything that is prefect.

- SHAWN

you had to sandbag the interior,

Not very crew did that. You could if you wanted to but there was no unit SOP requiring it. Nether one of my two ACAVs where sandbaged. In the case of the first one, sandbags would NOT have helped due to the size of the mine. That is just like the Sherman crews of WWII who put sandbags on the outside of their tanks just because they thought and hoped it MIGHT help. I for one didn't care for the idea of dirt being driven into my skin by an explosion.

- SHAWN

you woudnt ride inside (let alone fight from inside it-- ifv??)

The driver rode inside. Sure some units modified the driving controls so the driver could set on top of his hatch and above the armor. During my 18 months with the Army, I never saw a M113 modified like that.

As for fighting inside, the M60 gunner's had to get inside to fire their guns.

The difference is what the vehicle is doing.
If moving, the main threat was land mines under the vehicle. (Name a IFV/APC that IS prof against landmines) Therefore the best protection was riding on top the vehicle with both the bottom armor and the top armor between you and that landmine. It's a good thing the M113 had a top that had room for the M60 gunners to ride on top.

When contact was made, the vehicles stopped, ending the threat of land mines. The M60 gunner's then dropped inside the hull to take cover behind the side armor to operate their weapons. The driver of my second AFV came up with an SOP. When he saw a 50 cal ammo fly over the front of the hull, he came up out of his compartment and started firing his M16 to the front of the vehcile. When he saw the lid of a 50 cal ammo can fly over the front of the vehicle, he dropped back down inside. What was that all about? I was reloading the M2. The crew firing weapons while inside the vehicle? Sounds like an IFV to me.

- SHAWN

you wouldnt hang your limps inside or outside of the thing, you pretty much just rode on top...

When the main threat is landmine under a vehicle, you don't hang limps off the side of ANY, let me say that again ANY, AFV. That is not a problem with the vehicle or it's armor, it a problem with the blast wave moving up the side of the AFV that set it off.

- SHAWN

(please, please forgive me, but this doesnt make me feel confident in this thing).

Having never been there, no problem. As one who has had an ACAV blown apart under me, I for one, think very highly of the M113 and the FMC plant that build them.

- SHAWN

all of the pics dad has from nam that show damaged tracks, it isnt like they were lost in a european armored conflict. (they were lost to some of the best light infantry the world has seen).

It was a very good vehicle for the time and the threat is faced. It was used many times to do things it was never build to do. One example, used as a recovery vehicle to tow combat loaded Sheridans, estimated weight 25 tons, using a trailier hitch mounted in an aluminum ramp that was only rated at 7.5 tons for towing. Towed a number of Sheridans, never broke the hitch or the ramp it was mounted in.

- SHAWN

we took AL plate out to the range, it dont stop .308, .223, unless you stack it up pretty thick... we spaced it (hell, that made it worse).

Was that aluminum plate from refrigerators? Or was it 5083 aluminum alloy rolled armored plate?

Get yourself a M113 and shoot at it with your .308 and .223. I think you will find it will stop those rounds because the protection level it was designed for is a bit higher that those rounds.

- SHAWN

it melts much more so than steel...

True. So what?
No body is going to stay inside a burning AFV if it is at all possble to get out. The melting happiens long after the crew is out or dead, so it's doesn't matter one way or the other. This is just another one of those 'IT'S BAD' claims that has no merit in the real world of crew survival.

- SHAWN

the M2/M3 is AL with steel plates hanging all over it...
arent the improved armor upgrades for the current M113 basically along the same lines

Yes, the Bradleys and the M113s (the few that are being used) have been upgraded with steel armor.

You are however forgetting the threats that the original designs were layed out for, the threats in Vietnam that most M113s faced, and the current threats the vehicles face today. They are not the same and upgrades that help protect the crews against the current types of threat have been added.

Shawn, you feel the M113 is not a good vehicle. OK what would you suggest the U.S. Army have used during Vietnam in place of the M113? Keep in mind that the Army had no plans to use the M113 in Vietnam to start with.

Maybe the Army could have used the USMC's LVTP5s. That was about the only other Infantry carrier in the inventory at that time and they were made out of steel and not aluminum armor. Asks Older Top, I am sure he can tell a bunch of good and possible even more bad stories about those steel boxes.

Again, I say, I might not rate it as the best IFV/APC ever, but it would be very close.

Sgt, Scouts Out!

Com-Central.net

Select Language

Login

`±`Recent Visitors

`±`User Info-big

Com-Central.net

Select Language

Login

±Recent Visitors

±User Info-big

`±`Recent Visitors

`±`User Info-big