Jump to content


Size of german tanks and "Historical accuracy"


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
110 replies to this topic

shapeshifter #41 Posted Jun 12 2012 - 00:31

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 17863 battles
  • 2,899
  • Member since:
    09-11-2010
wow that's a huge size problem.

WarStore #42 Posted Jun 12 2012 - 00:36

    Major

  • Players
  • 39528 battles
  • 13,516
  • Member since:
    01-31-2011

Gyarados, on Jun 11 2012 - 19:47, said:

Someone pointed this out recently with the IS-7 being way, way, way too short, and it actually needs to be around 40-50% larger. The German tanks are properly proportioned from what I could tell, but every other tank seems to be smaller than it should be.

You mean this?

http://media.moddb.c...-7_vs_E-100.jpg

Drive_Me_Closer #43 Posted Jun 12 2012 - 03:06

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 7300 battles
  • 639
  • Member since:
    04-09-2011
From my handy tanks of the world book, rounded to the nearest foot:

Sherman h/w/l: 11'/8'/20.5'
KV-1 8'/10'/20'
IS2 9'/10.5'/33'
T-10 (IS10) 8/12/23
T-54 8/11/21
T-62 8/11/22
Maus 12/11/31
Tiger II 10/12/24
Panther 10/11/22.5
M3 light 8/7/15
M3 lee 10/9/18.5
M22 6/7/13
Chaffee 8/10/18
M103 9.5/12/23

So clearly, most of the medium tanks have been shrunk to make them smaller then the heavies.  But only the IS line was reduced in height to match the T-54's height.  

Anyone care to do a line up along the houses on Campinova with the different heights so we can see how badly the IS line is shrunk?

AznTank7 #44 Posted Jun 12 2012 - 03:26

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 20706 battles
  • 460
  • Member since:
    08-09-2011

View PostGryphon_, on Jun 11 2012 - 19:01, said:

A WW2 tank in WW2 wasnt a great place to be. When I was a kid, someone who served in one in the Western Desert told me to never, ever, be a tankie in the army. Sound advice. I became an RAF pilot instead, which worked out to be a pretty good deal.

When you said that, I thought of several things:

1: Assuming you mean Africa (Libya-Egypt), Allied forces had to fight against German General Rommel. Rommel is legendary and many military leaders agree he kicked ass hard.

2: Given the range/accuracy of German guns, its understandable why its a bad idea to be a tanker.

3: Tigers/Panthers/King Tigers vs Shermans/Fireflies.....interesting

4: Thank you for serving. If you don't mind, what did you fly?

5: Not saying it was fun to drive a tank in WWII, but have the opportunity to be in such historical tanks in present times is amazing!

Gyarados #45 Posted Jun 12 2012 - 04:21

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 14368 battles
  • 11,504
  • Member since:
    07-09-2010

View PostWarStore, on Jun 12 2012 - 00:36, said:


Yup, that, my scale was a tad off, 50% larger would make it the same sizeish.

I does need to be larger in game though, the IS-7 seems to roughly sync up with the top of the hull of the E-100, but that's also perception bias at work, I haven't actually measured it.

Young_otter_91 #46 Posted Jun 12 2012 - 04:35

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 13604 battles
  • 568
  • [PONYS] PONYS
  • Member since:
    03-29-2011

View Postshdowhunt60, on Jun 09 2012 - 03:00, said:

Yes, Russian tanks were very small. What I have trouble understanding, is that the Sherman is very light for its apparent huge size, it weighs around 30 tons. Even the Jumbo with its huge armor upgrade isn't that heavy. So where does the KT get all its weight then?

From armor Tehehehe....shermans are ten cans compared to king tigers.

Mow_Mow #47 Posted Jun 13 2012 - 17:37

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 12058 battles
  • 14,881
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    10-25-2010

View PostGyarados, on Jun 12 2012 - 04:21, said:

Yup, that, my scale was a tad off, 50% larger would make it the same sizeish.

I does need to be larger in game though, the IS-7 seems to roughly sync up with the top of the hull of the E-100, but that's also perception bias at work, I haven't actually measured it.

You people are just imagining things.
Posted Image

Posted Image

LoooSeR78V #48 Posted Jun 13 2012 - 18:02

    Major

  • Players
  • 21 battles
  • 6,140
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    04-03-2011

View PostMow_Mow, on Jun 13 2012 - 17:37, said:

You people are just imagining things.
Spoiler                     
Notice that IS-7 turret roof is on same height, as E-100 gun in WoT AND in this pic from previous post
Spoiler                     
Size of IS-7 in comparison to E-100 seems to me correct.

Edited by LoooSeR78V, Jun 13 2012 - 18:04.


Mow_Mow #49 Posted Jun 13 2012 - 18:04

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 12058 battles
  • 14,881
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    10-25-2010
The picture of the E-100 in that drawing is using the Maus turret so I don't know if that comparison is viable. But if you compare hulls it looks pretty accurate to me.

WarStore #50 Posted Jun 13 2012 - 22:44

    Major

  • Players
  • 39528 battles
  • 13,516
  • Member since:
    01-31-2011
Lenght and width don't seem correct though.

It would be better using an E-100 w/ Maustürm mod.

Edit: Henschel and Mausturm mod
http://drongo-lab.ru/archives/26231

Edited by WarStore, Jun 13 2012 - 22:52.


Mow_Mow #51 Posted Jun 13 2012 - 22:59

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 12058 battles
  • 14,881
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    10-25-2010

View PostWarStore, on Jun 13 2012 - 22:44, said:

Lenght and width don't seem correct though.

That's because length is difficult to measure in garage shots due to the the angle you can rotate the camera - it's not a perfect side shot even if you rotate down as far as you can. You can compare garage-garage shots, but I think its difficult to compare a garage shot to a paper drawing.

Mow_Mow #52 Posted Jun 13 2012 - 23:02

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 12058 battles
  • 14,881
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    10-25-2010
Posted Image

The IS-7's tracks reach about halfway to the middle of the E-100's tracks both in the drawing and in the screenshot. The E-100 looks slightly longer than it should be compared to IS-7 about half of a roadwheel at most. It's difficult to tell due to the overhang of the E-100's rear and the angle of the garage shot.

Again, I think the perspective of the garage shot makes the E-100 look larger than it really is.

Edited by Mow_Mow, Jun 13 2012 - 23:03.


DrakenKnight #53 Posted Jun 14 2012 - 01:20

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 19812 battles
  • 100
  • Member since:
    04-20-2011

View PostWarStore, on Jun 13 2012 - 22:44, said:

Lenght and width don't seem correct though.

It would be better using an E-100 w/ Maustürm mod.

Edit: Henschel and Mausturm mod
http://drongo-lab.ru/archives/26231


is avaliable the camo for 7.3??  :Smile_smile:

Embiggener #54 Posted Jun 14 2012 - 20:25

    Major

  • Players
  • 14780 battles
  • 4,722
  • [RDSQ] RDSQ
  • Member since:
    05-01-2011
Shouldn't be too hard to make stuff the size it was then sort it out from there.  I'm OK driving ginormous tanks if that's what they were.

Gyarados #55 Posted Jun 14 2012 - 22:22

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 14368 battles
  • 11,504
  • Member since:
    07-09-2010

View PostMow_Mow, on Jun 13 2012 - 23:02, said:

Posted Image

The IS-7's tracks reach about halfway to the middle of the E-100's tracks both in the drawing and in the screenshot. The E-100 looks slightly longer than it should be compared to IS-7 about half of a roadwheel at most. It's difficult to tell due to the overhang of the E-100's rear and the angle of the garage shot.

Again, I think the perspective of the garage shot makes the E-100 look larger than it really is.

I would hope so, since the E-100 in the screenshot (the frontal shot), the IS-7 is too small in comparison with the drawings.

Mow_Mow #56 Posted Jun 14 2012 - 22:55

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 12058 battles
  • 14,881
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    10-25-2010

View PostGyarados, on Jun 14 2012 - 22:22, said:

I would hope so, since the E-100 in the screenshot (the frontal shot), the IS-7 is too small in comparison with the drawings.

I think its because the E-100 is "closer" to the camera in the garage shots (i didn't zoom in or out) so it looks larger due to perspective. But that's just a hunch, perhaps someone could take the two tanks out to Malinovka training battle and take screenshots?

Konigwolfen #57 Posted Jun 17 2012 - 03:13

    Captain

  • Players
  • 24830 battles
  • 1,290
  • [BFPA] BFPA
  • Member since:
    08-23-2011

View PostScruffee, on Jun 11 2012 - 04:43, said:

technically, if you look at the Jagtiger and the other TDs, in game the jagtiger is significantly taller than the others, but in real life the T95 was actually close to the same height as the Jagtiger and the ISU-152 (couldnt find measurements for the object) was only 1 Ft. shorter.

<<>Jagdtiger<>> (Henschel)
Height : 2.8-2.95m (Depending on variants they are either two inches different in height or the JT is shorter.)
I assume they're using the first Henschel model and not the late-period version which was the tallest...
<<>T95<>> (Prototype model)
Height : 2.84 m (9 ft 4 in) same or taller

<<>ISU-152<>> (First model)
Height : 2.48 m (8 ft 2 in) 1 foot 2 inches shorter

Object's hieght was 2240mm so mm to meter is 1/1000 2240 = 2.24 meters

<<>Object 704<>>
Height : 2.24m (7 ft 4 in) 2 feet 2 inches shorter

For comparison
<<>Tiger II<>>
Height : 3.09m (10 ft 2 inches)
<<>M4<>>
Height : 2.74 m (9 ft) same difference in height between JT and ISU-152 from the Tiger II, yet somehow is way too small in-game.

LoooSeR78V #58 Posted Jun 18 2012 - 12:08

    Major

  • Players
  • 21 battles
  • 6,140
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    04-03-2011

View PostKonigwolfen, on Jun 17 2012 - 03:13, said:

<<>Jagdtiger<>> (Henschel)
Height : 2.8-2.95m (Depending on variants they are either two inches different in height or the JT is shorter.)
I assume they're using the first Henschel model and not the late-period version which was the tallest...
<<>T95<>> (Prototype model)
Height : 2.84 m (9 ft 4 in) same or taller

<<>ISU-152<>> (First model)
Height : 2.48 m (8 ft 2 in) 1 foot 2 inches shorter

Object's hieght was 2240mm so mm to meter is 1/1000 2240 = 2.24 meters

<<>Object 704<>>
Height : 2.24m (7 ft 4 in) 2 feet 2 inches shorter

For comparison
<<>Tiger II<>>
Height : 3.09m (10 ft 2 inches)
<<>M4<>>
Height : 2.74 m (9 ft) same difference in height between JT and ISU-152 from the Tiger II, yet somehow is way too small in-game.
It should be noted - you can measure heights of tank with different methonds - taking in to account comander cupola, or measure height with roof MG, etc. So all those heights stats can't be used before we know - how it was measured.

Konigwolfen #59 Posted Jun 19 2012 - 12:43

    Captain

  • Players
  • 24830 battles
  • 1,290
  • [BFPA] BFPA
  • Member since:
    08-23-2011

View PostLoooSeR78V, on Jun 18 2012 - 12:08, said:

It should be noted - you can measure heights of tank with different methonds - taking in to account comander cupola, or measure height with roof MG, etc. So all those heights stats can't be used before we know - how it was measured.
You would never measure the an object's height from an item that isn't a part of the object. Optional parts are included in that (hatch mounted MG, command tank radio antenna,etc). It would be like measuring a man's height, but counting his 2 foot tall tophat with it. It makes no sense, also realize the Tiger II had two turrets, and multiple changes to the design, variance accounts for this.

Kristine #60 Posted Jun 19 2012 - 16:20

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 25170 battles
  • 1,452
  • Member since:
    07-19-2010
Maybe its just me, but is the VK3001 P ingame really that big in real life? I drove next to one using my Tiger H and notice the huge size difference.

The Vk3001P is alot wider and alot taller than the Tiger H and the same porsche turret used by the Tiger H is way bigger compared to the Tiger H itself.

Here's another size issue:   Tiger P is alot bigger than the Ferdinand even though they both use the exact same chassis.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users