T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor

[Ideologue]

Did they ever manage to make an autoloader that worked?

The Russians operated a different way then we do.  If the US government purchased some tanks that would periodically tear off the arms of crew members we would consider it a failure.  The Russians would be fine with this, and consider it merely the price of doing business.  I don't consider the Russians incompetent, just differently competent.

An illustrative example:  An American and a Russian are both given one of those little toy sets were you hammer a specially shaped peg through a specially shaped hole.  The American looks around and finds a specific peg to fit a specific hole then hammers it in.  The Russian just grabs the nearest peg and hammers it into the nearest hole.  After enough hammering the peg does go through the hole.  Or at least most of it.  The Russian considers this an acceptable outcome.  The end result is the same, the peg goes through the hole.  The American simply uses finesse while the Russian relies on brute force.

But it raises the question, why do we have so much more brute force?

[Razgovory]

Their country fell apart back in 1991.

[Darth Wagtaros]

Their country fell apart back in 1991.

Just what they wanted you to think Comrade.

[MadImmortalMan]

Their country fell apart back in 1905.

FYP

[Admiral Yi]

Well, as far as I remember wasn't it the gun that was the problem, it was quite ok for its time and the Israelis did use the T-62 with its original 115mm main gun, it wasn't until later that they replaced the main gun the standard 105mm L7 gun. The Israelis simply considered the T-62 to a much less reliable Tank that the T-55, it was poorly build, a result of to much cost cutting in order to supply it as cheaply as possible to client stats...

The T-62 gun was outranged by quite a bit in the Yom Kippur war.  That's a problem.

[grumbler]

It wasn't the gasoline that burned often, it was the ammo that burned often.

True of all tanks with dry ammo storage.  The Sherman had a high profile, which made it easier to hit, especially in the sponsons above the tracks (which was used, against regs, to store amo).  This profile is what made the Sherman so vulnerable, not an increased tendency to burn.

[Razgovory]

It wasn't the gasoline that burned often, it was the ammo that burned often.

True of all tanks with dry ammo storage.  The Sherman had a high profile, which made it easier to hit, especially in the sponsons above the tracks (which was used, against regs, to store amo).  This profile is what made the Sherman so vulnerable, not an increased tendency to burn.

The Panther was only a few inches shorter then the Sherman.  Were all tanks of WWII dry stowage?

[Berkut]

I think I read somewhere that the Panther might have had slightly more armor than a Sherman.

[11B4V]

I think I read somewhere that the Panther might have had slightly more armor than a Sherman.

I think your correct and a better main gun....

[Neil]

Are both better than an M1, because a mysterious super warrior posting from his stealth tank tells us so?

[Mr.Penguin]

Well, as far as I remember wasn't it the gun that was the problem, it was quite ok for its time and the Israelis did use the T-62 with its original 115mm main gun, it wasn't until later that they replaced the main gun the standard 105mm L7 gun. The Israelis simply considered the T-62 to a much less reliable Tank that the T-55, it was poorly build, a result of to much cost cutting in order to supply it as cheaply as possible to client stats...

The T-62 gun was outranged by quite a bit in the Yom Kippur war.  That's a problem.

Yes, it's light BM-6 APFSDS round did limit it's effective range to around 1500m, on the other hand did it have better penetration than the standard 105mm APDS used at the time. It also had a very flat and fast trajectory, making it easy to hit with, within it's effective combat range...

Also it's APFSDS round was much less likely to ricochet of sloped front armor, than the standard Israeli 105mm APDS rounds at the time. Something that proved to be quite a problem for the Israeli's doing the Yom Kippur war, resulting in a redesign of their 105mm APDS round after the war... 

On the negative side, did the large crude fins on BM-6 APFSDS round make it very susceptible to side winds, also the use of the BM-6's large shell casings in the cramp interior of a T-62 turret did almost half the rate of fire, compared to the 105mm L7 gun...   

[grumbler]

The Panther was only a few inches shorter then the Sherman.  Were all tanks of WWII dry stowage?

More of the Panther's height was made up of relatively well-armored turret and not slab-sided hull.

As an aside, I discovered that the US 90mm gun used the same mantlet and mounting as the 76mm gun on the M-10 and M4 (76).  There was nothing whatever keeping the US from field-modding the M4/76 (particularly the Easy 8 version with the improved turret rotation capability) to an M4/90, other than the competition between the armor and tank destroyer bureaucracies in DC that caused the tank boys to turn their noses up at whatever the TD boys developed.  The M4/90 could have been fielded for D-Day.  Some were, in fact, produced as the M36B1 (but without the turret tops, as the TD boys couldn't abide turret tops).

[Razgovory]

That is interesting but not surprising.  The Shermans couldn't get better guns until someone dropped a bomb on Lesley McNair.  That guy was a disaster for the Army.  I never understood the TD doctrine.  I could for the Germans and Soviets, building a self-propelled gun without a turret was easier and cheaper. American ones did have a turret, so they couldn't be that much cheaper or easier to build.

[DGuller]

The Panther was only a few inches shorter then the Sherman.  Were all tanks of WWII dry stowage?

More of the Panther's height was made up of relatively well-armored turret and not slab-sided hull.

As an aside, I discovered that the US 90mm gun used the same mantlet and mounting as the 76mm gun on the M-10 and M4 (76).  There was nothing whatever keeping the US from field-modding the M4/76 (particularly the Easy 8 version with the improved turret rotation capability) to an M4/90, other than the competition between the armor and tank destroyer bureaucracies in DC that caused the tank boys to turn their noses up at whatever the TD boys developed.  The M4/90 could have been fielded for D-Day.  Some were, in fact, produced as the M36B1 (but without the turret tops, as the TD boys couldn't abide turret tops).

It could be that US didn't have enough experience saved up to upgrade the guns on their Shermans.

[grumbler]

That is interesting but not surprising.  The Shermans couldn't get better guns until someone dropped a bomb on Lesley McNair. 

I think those who argue that US bombers never really contributed to the war against Germany are forgetting the importance of their role in killing McNair.  General McNair was responsible for more US combat deaths than any German general.