m4a3 sherman and some others

[Angus]

Yes, and do some more of that jig-jag on a 45-60 tonne tank and you're also moving DOWN.
Being de-tracked is basically a very bad thing. That's all.

[Die Hard]

You underestimate the power of these vehicles, and you overestimate how far you'd need to turn to face the enemy. Unless the enemy is driving in circles around you it wouldn't be a problem. The Swedish S-Tank for instance had to turn the whole vehicle to aim the gun, and they never complained about digging themselves down in the process: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fARGfVA7Mm8


Also, while one minute to traverse the turret 360 degrees sounds like a lot, it isn't that slow when you see it; you'd have to be real close in an M4 to out run it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ki3imFOc0So

[Angus]

Have you ever seen a stuck tank? Or a tank having trouble getting through loose ground? Modern bulldozers run rings around WW2 tanks. That's all there is to it.
Turn a bulldozer in a tight constant circle and you will dig in a loose ground. You can even do this with a normal tractor. And on a tank, once the clearance is gone, you're flat on the belly, and VERY stuck. You will not be able to access the broken track either.
Want to kill a detracked tank? Approach from the side of the intact track  preferably from 2 sides.
I had some living with both M4's, M-3's and LVT's in sand BTW. I was baffled how far away they were from a CAT
The LVT had some spirit though.

[Die Hard]

Well, I used to drive an M113 back in the 1970s, but what do I know... Farm boy here has all the answers. 

[Angus]

I guess you ripped the track off one side and kept driving....for the test...
Anyway, the M113 is light and reasonably powered for the weight. It has a lot better performance than the LVT, which in turn will get to places that will bog down all the heavy tanks of WW2.
Since you mentioned the "S-tank", that one is an ambush speciality and by the way, digs itself down. Just like you can do with some roughness on an excavator or a bulldozer.
Now, for turret traverse and trouble, as well as some serious driving, - no overlapping wheels though, look here and have fun
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGyNzXUOdGg&feature=PlayList&p=974265F29C998FB3&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=54

[Die Hard]

No, I won't. I'm through trying to talk sense into you.

[E25280]

You underestimate the power of these vehicles, and you overestimate how far you'd need to turn to face the enemy. Unless the enemy is driving in circles around you it wouldn't be a problem. The Swedish S-Tank for instance had to turn the whole vehicle to aim the gun, and they never complained about digging themselves down in the process: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fARGfVA7Mm8

Let me get this straight -- You are saying that Angus's statement that a tank without its track will dig itself down in soft earth is false by showing how a lighter tank with it's tracks in place performs?   

[Angus]

No, I won't. I'm through trying to talk sense into you.

You cannot make me see any sense in a detracked tank in battle having anything but big trouble, and not being very *cough* mobile. Nor can you make me see any sense in turning the tank on one track adding up for a slow traverse of turret, and giving an unlimited chance of facing the frontal armour at all times to an attack.

Pity you won't see the video from the link. I did look at the S-Tank, but I'd seen it before. There is another one about the S-Tank which has something in common with the link I posted, which actually does touch a fine part of the "normal" Sherman (not the Firefly), - one Sherman merit that shines under some cirkumstances.
Maybe others will look and figure out....

[Die Hard]

Let me get this straight -- You are saying that Angus's statement that a tank without its track will dig itself down in soft earth is false by showing how a lighter tank with it's tracks in place performs?   

I'm saying that Angus' statement is loaded, and thus pointless, in that unless the tank is completely alone on the battlefield it will never have to make complete circles or repeatedly turn back and forth to face the enemy. Depending on how firm/loose the ground is any tank with one good track would be able to change facing multiple times. Also, while tractors and bulldozers don't have flat undersides, tanks do; even when tanks get stuck and cannot move they are often still able to turn in place (albeit slowly).

[Angus]

Excavators pretty much do. If you end down on the underside you're quite stuck by the way. You can do so by messing about in a soft ground too much,  -without needing to have a disabled track. They are, btw, normally somewhat lighter than a WW2 heavy, and with wider tracks.
For the excavator there is a rescue though. . . .
Now the tank does not have to be completely alone on the field. Neither does it have to be in advance. And the only thing you know, if you get hit in the tracks and disabled that way is that you are already in range. So, quite bad really.

[Die Hard]

Being in range so that a track can be damaged is not the same as being in range so that your armor can be penetrated. A well aimed (or lucky) shot from a T-34 or M4(75) can damage the track of a Tiger at beyond 2,000 yards. However they would still have to drive a mile closer to have a realistic chance of killing the Tiger.

[Angus]

Now that is true. For a Tiger. But not for every tank.

[Die Hard]

We have been talking about the Tiger for the last two pages. And the same is true for every German tank on the western front in 1944, even the Pz IV; the Pz IV and Panther would also be more dependent on getting their front armor to face the enemy than the Tiger.

[Angus]

Exactly. And killing them with one or no track is much easier than killing them with both.
The Panther would really have to guard it's sides.
BTW, didn't the Panther have a good ROF, somewhat better than Tiger?

[GtoRA2]

Exactly. And killing them with one or no track is much easier than killing them with both.
The Panther would really have to guard it's sides.
BTW, didn't the Panther have a good ROF, somewhat better than Tiger?

From my reading, my impression is in most cases when a tank loses mobility in combat the crew bails and leaves the vehicle behind. Were Tiger crews more prone to stay with their imobile tank because it was well protected?


I really doubt that's the case with the Panther and its thin side Armor, since a large percent of the loses in Normandy were due to the crews abandoning their Panther, I would think lost tracks would be the number one cause of that but the book didnt go into detail of what an abandoned tank meant.