Jump to content


Detail Page: Gun Characteristics


  • Please log in to reply
45 replies to this topic

Kyphe #41 Posted Nov 28 2013 - 10:14

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 315 battles
  • 843
  • Member since:
    01-27-2012
Oh I have driven inside a T34, I was only 14 and it was still cramped as hell and brutal getting my arse remodeled by a broken floor ammo box, the panther has more internal space by far but as it has a turret ring which is a good thing btw perception of space can be distorted.
.
Torsion bar is far less intrusive than Christie, the only down side to TB is getting a broken bar out to replace it, the height of German and US tanks is due to the forward transmission and gears having to run the drive shaft through the tank unlike UK and RU tanks with rear transmissions behind the engine.
.
The British went to bogies on the centurion and dumped Christie as it was a nightmare on the maintenance crews and took up way too much space in the Cromwell and Comet, only the top most part of the vertical suspension springs is behind the angled side armor of the T34,
Posted Image
.
Lets face it, the Russians could have easily put 100 IS turrets with 100 122 guns on the KV1s hull to produce KV122 tanks far faster and cheaper than building 100 IS tanks, the only reason not to do it under wartime logic is that it was not fit for purpose, the Russians were fielding a huge mix of tanks from Shermans to Churchill, if it worked they used it, if it did not and it was easily available they still used it till they had something that did, but they did not use something that did not work if they did not have to and they did not retire things that worked just because they had something else that worked a bit better.
PS this is a second post, first is on prior page, just in case

Edited by Kyphe, Nov 28 2013 - 10:31.


Xlucine #42 Posted Nov 30 2013 - 02:00

    Major

  • Players
  • 7625 battles
  • 7,603
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    03-03-2011

View PostKyphe, on Nov 28 2013 - 08:49, said:

Now then the V2 was basically a modified version of the Hispano Suiza 12y aero engine! which the Russians got from the french by way of rigid airships and then went on to use them for both tank use with the BT 7M (BT8) and in some of their fighters, I got that from David Fletcher, you may have heard of him. Unlike the British meteor engine which was derived from the Merlin aero engine the V2 remained mostly aluminum which kept it light but made it very very noisy and prone to anything which messed with lubrication like dust it was also one of the few parts of the tank which could not be repaired in the field with a hammer a spanner and a welder. however aluminum does not rust in water like iron which is one reason engines pulled out of muddy river beds after 80 years can just start up and drive off.

I'll have to ask him about that next time I see him because I can't see any similarity - everything on it is different including the bore and stroke, and the fixed cylinder heads mentioned as a defining feature of the 12Y are absent on the V-2. The only similarity apparent to me is the general layout, which you'd expect considering they're both V-12's

Quote

Now can you say those figures you posted are from how long the tanks ran without incident or how long they ran before they could not move or be repaired by the crew and needed a repair truck or how long they were expected to run before a service?

I would expect them to be how long the tanks lasted between major overhauls, but I can't say for sure. I'll dig harder.

Quote

BT7s which were much lighter so having less ware and tear on the same engine also being a pre war design and pre war build with reasonably trained polish crew and is most likely of much higher build quality than the wartime tanks which were often built to last a single battle drove straight from the factory to the front lines with untrained crew and a very short life expectancy.

Stalingrad wasn't representative of the whole eastern front, you know. Also, those tanks were fighting the polish, and tank crew quality in russian tanks improved throughout the war other than when SHTF in 1941

Quote

T34 which are a totally over rated tank were being built so fast it was often more cost effective to destroy damaged or broken down tanks as new ones would be on the way anyway, which contributed to the figures for Russian destruction to German ratio.

factory rebuilds were incredibly common in russia to the point where they likely outnumbered new-built tanks by a large margin, I'm going to need a source for this. In the respectable sources I've seen german tanks are the ones renowned for getting abandoned

Quote

The panther did everything any other tank of the day could do, and it was cheaper to produce than a panzer 4 which was an excellent tank, its side armor was no more of a liability than the t34-85s or any UK or US tank but what they did not have was its ability to confront frontally not only any other tank but also most anti tank guns unlike any contemporary Russian tank.

The side armour on the T-34 was a hair thicker, which meant it could resist AT rifle fire. It's true sherman was as vulnerable to those AT rifles too, but the germans did not have comparable AT rifles in large service. Against AT guns frontal armour is almost useless because they're so easily camouflaged, so the T-34 with it's better gunners sights and far far superior HE round would be much better off. That the panther had less manpower-intensive finishing needed is no wonder, anyone could have seen that bevelling the edges of mantlets during wartime is a fools errand.

Quote

Virtually all post war tanks followed the same design philosophy of maximizing the frontal armor at the expense of side and rear as the panther, this includes the Russians who were just as influenced by the panther as the panther was by the t34.

80mm on the T-55, which is a major improvement on the panther

Quote

When I heard at bovington that the L70-75mm is considered the best all round tank gun of the war, being a brit i was a little taken aback, how dare they put my 17pdr in second place! but the energy of that gun was far greater, and its actual battlefield use against tanks was far greater too, the 17pdr fired many many times more HE than it ever fired AP APCBC or APDS, the anti tank crews and crews of the Achilles tank destroyers were complaining that they would ruin their barrels performing bunker busting and infantry support.

The 17pdr fired APDS very rarely in fact each gun only had a 4 or 5 shots of APDS, and lets be honest, It is not the rounds we are on about bu the gun!, if the rounds had been the same the 75mm with its superior energy longer barrel and shot speed would always perform better in both accuracy range and penetration. The laws of physics demand it!

Really the soviet 85mm was best - it had both an effective HE round to support infantry and good armour penetration, especially with the common APCR rounds the russians had. While the kwk42 may have produced more muzzle energy, it was hamstrung by the useless HE fill in the shells so the important metric to crews ("can the rounds I have go through that tank") suffered. Ignoring round performance is an exercise in futility, because no-one cared about equalising AP shot quality for the sake of a fair comparison of guns - the guns went to war with that round, so they should be judged upon the performance of it. While the APDS supply was limited, it was still far in excess of the APCR supply for german tanks, and the great use of 17-pdrs for HE shows how important a good HE shell is (especially against a force so lacking in armour as the germans)

Quote

And lets not forget that unlike the firefly the panther had a roomy purpose built turret for the gun.

:amazed: roomy? You haven't been in a panther turret, have you? The panther (and jagdtiger, as an aside) is really rather impressive for just how little internal volume is available to the crew out of such a large tank. Kind of like a reverse tardis.

Quote

The KV1S was not a success, it was not even a good idea! as it was basically a way to let the KV keep up with the T34 by removing the only advantage it had over the T34, the KV85 at least gave it a gun that gave it a reason to exist, but since the 34-85 could fulfill the same role and Russian experience with German firepower given that the most common German armored vehicle the stug and most of the German anti tank guns coming into service could take them out at any combat range in one shot convinced them that a high cost low armor tank like the KV1s hull was not a viable platform, it was phased out of service and any work after that fact was pure experiment in redundancy.

...Lets face it, the Russians could have easily put 100 IS turrets with 100 122 guns on the KV1s hull to produce KV122 tanks far faster and cheaper than building 100 IS tanks, the only reason not to do it under wartime logic is that it was not fit for purpose, the Russians were fielding a huge mix of tanks from Shermans to Churchill, if it worked they used it, if it did not and it was easily available they still used it till they had something that did, but they did not use something that did not work if they did not have to and they did not retire things that worked just because they had something else that worked a bit better.

Even the thinner side armour on the KV-1s was thicker than the side armour on T-34, and there were plenty of german AT guns that couldn't defeat it. German tanks were a rare occurrence both due to production inefficiencies and a plain lack of manhours. If any further work on the KV chassis was redundant, why was the IS series so successful? Also, how exactly would an IS be more expensive than the 1s? The hull is thicker, but the cost from that would be minor compared to the rest of the tank. The russians were rather picky in their LL shipments as documents posted on EE's blog prove, if a tank was not good then they simply did not ask for any more of it.

View PostKyphe, on Nov 28 2013 - 10:14, said:

Oh I have driven inside a T34, I was only 14 and it was still cramped as hell and brutal getting my arse remodeled by a broken floor ammo box, the panther has more internal space by far but as it has a turret ring which is a good thing btw perception of space can be distorted.
.
Torsion bar is far less intrusive than Christie, the only down side to TB is getting a broken bar out to replace it, the height of German and US tanks is due to the forward transmission and gears having to run the drive shaft through the tank unlike UK and RU tanks with rear transmissions behind the engine.
.
The British went to bogies on the centurion and dumped Christie as it was a nightmare on the maintenance crews and took up way too much space in the Cromwell and Comet, only the top most part of the vertical suspension springs is behind the angled side armor of the T34,
Spoiler                     

All tank with a rotating turret have a turret ring by necessity, this included the T-34. Torsion bar must run under the turret basket which means several inches of extra height, with all the volume inefficiencies that entails - a front transmission merely magnifies this flaw. The whole of the spring on the T-34 is behind the side armour, note the smooth unbroken side armour plate here:
Spoiler                     
there's a gap behind the suspension box under the sloped armour in the sponson IIRC

Kyphe #43 Posted Nov 30 2013 - 07:31

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 315 battles
  • 843
  • Member since:
    01-27-2012
Sorry turret basket not ring lol, T34 never had a turret basket inside the hull is what I meant, which is vital for good operation of the tank but reduces usable space inside the hull by quite a margin without a very well thought out fighting compartment.

And from what I have been told the Russian 85mm never matched either the L70 or the 17pdr in anti tank performance, It could take out panzer 4 and even tigers but so could a US 76mm, though it did have a nice HE shell that was far from the reason the Russians went to the trouble of fitting it, their 76mm was more than adequate for that roll.

Have no idea to its accuracy.

I was not the one making that judgment as to which gun was best, just passing the info on that at least in terms of western scholars on the subject the L70 is more often counted the best than not.

The reason making 100 KV1s into KV122 would be far cheaper than making 100 IS1 is due to the hulls already existing, all they needed was the turret and turret ring modification. far cheaper and quicker than building a whole new tank.

The IS series is based on the KV13 medium tank, a totally new design from the old KV1, the idea of the 13 was to have a universal tank able to do the jobs of both the T34 and Kv1 with comparable frontal armor of the KV1 which was far superior to the T34 but with the speed and maneuverability of the T34.

Unfortunately it was far to expensive an had to many man hours of build to replace the t34 as a workhorse, It would have been canceled but German guns were getting more powerful with much longer range that could slaughter Russian vehicles long before the Russians could get into firing range, the Russians needed a well armored heavy tank capable of mounting a large caliber gun. they took the armor design of the KV13 and made it bigger, and presto you get an IS1

Yes on a t34 there is technically side armor under the angled top plate. I say technically as most tanks are made out of armored steal all over but as a structure it is flat and thin and exactly Where German gun crews learned to shoot the t34 with the 3.7 cm Pak 36 for a kill while they hoped the mostly blind buttoned up T34 crew could not see them.

The pak36 was almost entirely replaced by the end of 1942 by the Pak 38 5cm which could kill even Kv1s at effective combat ranges. as soon as the KV1S was made people knew it was vulnerable and questioned its production.

The side armor on a KV1s hull is flat! totally flat, not with any angle like the T34, only the turret front and sides had any real chance of defeating the common German guns at the time it went into service,

The German issued masses more APCR than the brits issued APDS during the war, why do you think they ended up with a shortage of tungsten.

Oh and I was comparing the panther to the Sherman VC, how they loaded that 17pdr in combat I will never know

The_Chieftain #44 Posted Dec 31 2013 - 09:08

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 9526 battles
  • 9,456
  • [WGA-A] WGA-A
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011
I really think you should stop comparing 17pr SVDS, and instead use APCBC. I have a test report around here somewhere that the US basically gave up attempting to measure the accuracy of 17pr SVDS given that they couldn't get the thing to reliably hit the dispersion target at about 500m. That said, they were quite impressed with the APCBC round.

Spectre_of_Death #45 Posted Jan 20 2014 - 03:23

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 14019 battles
  • 29
  • [DDCO] DDCO
  • Member since:
    11-05-2013

I don't know who is right or wrong here, or if it is really more an academic comparison of too many variables to consider. However, the reading material was quite a fascinating and interesting read. I thank all of you for this information, even though I doubt it will help me much in the game.

GuinnesStout #46 Posted Mar 05 2014 - 00:33

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 10705 battles
  • 19
  • [-CSA-] -CSA-
  • Member since:
    02-10-2014

Very good articles here. Reminds me of the classes at Ft Knox...a lifetime ago. Well, 30 years anyway. Do Clans make this mandatory reading? If I was CO of a clan I would prepare a test on all subjects here. That's meant to be a hint. Wink...nod.

My thanks to Chieftain, who ever he/she is.






2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users