Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!bu.edu!att!cbnews!cbnews!military From: thos@softway.sw.oz.au (Thomas Cohen) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Rail/Coil guns Summary: Electric Tank Message-ID: <1990Dec17.052014.267@cbnews.att.com> Date: 17 Dec 90 05:20:14 GMT References: <1990Dec7.012346.2212@cbnews.att.com> <1990Dec15.014458.16688@cbnews.att.com> Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker) Organization: Softway Pty Ltd, Sydney, Australia Lines: 34 Approved: military@att.att.com From: thos@softway.sw.oz.au (Thomas Cohen) In article <1990Dec15.014458.16688@cbnews.att.com> mes90@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Sykes ME) writes: > [ about electric powered 'boost' systems for tanks ] then Bill says, >[mod.note: Not quite the first... the Porsche prototype for the Tiger >tank used petro-electric drive (and this proved highly unreliable at >that time, but should not reflect on its potential today), as did >the later Maus. - Bill ] Not to forget the Ferdinand or Elefant, the tank destroyer with the 88mm A/T gun mounted. It too used the petro-electric drive and in a tie in with another thread, was first used at Kursk and had a great deal of trouble with Russian infantry coming around behind it and 'brewing it up'. Later they mounted some machine guns around the back, but on first appearance, they were undefended round there. As I recall, the drivetrain was complex, the machine unreliable and slow. [mod.note: For the record, I didn't forget; the Elefants were built on the hulls of the Porsche Tigers, and thus retained their drive trains. Also, the story on the machinegun isn't quite right. Initially, the Elefant had no machineguns, which made it very vulnerable to infantry; after Kursk, a ball-mount MG was added on the right front of the driver's plate (i.e., co-driver's position). None was mounted in the rear. - Bill ] -- thos cohen |Softway Pty Ltd |ACSnet: thos@softway.oz |UUCP: ...!uunet!softway.oz!thos |Internet: thos@softway.oz.au