Jump to content


Turret bustle overhang, turret size


  • Please log in to reply
26 replies to this topic

Anlushac11 #21 Posted Feb 07 2015 - 18:44

    Major

  • Players
  • 39238 battles
  • 2,359
  • Member since:
    05-25-2013

View PostDominatus, on Feb 07 2015 - 10:49, said:

Depends on what you mean by most. The current T-90s are welded, for example.

 

I know they have the cast round ones and I have seen pics of the Octagonal welded ones but I dont know how common the welded ones are, sometimes hard to tell under all that gear and ERA panels.

 

I would imagine with today metallurgical knowledge casting high quality armor would not be much of a problem for a good foundry.



Blackhorse_Six_ #22 Posted Feb 07 2015 - 18:56

    Major

  • Players
  • 53618 battles
  • 10,030
  • [HHT] HHT
  • Member since:
    03-19-2011

View PostAnlushac11, on Feb 07 2015 - 12:44, said:

I would imagine with today metallurgical knowledge casting high quality armor would not be much of a problem for a good foundry.

 

Rolled steel has greater density and more uniform grain structure per cubic inch.

 

Even with all the latest annealing and cooling tech, structure flaws still occur in castings.

 

This has always been the root of the quality vs quantity debate ...



SquareCanine #23 Posted Feb 07 2015 - 21:30

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 8018 battles
  • 668
  • [HBG] HBG
  • Member since:
    12-08-2013

I think some of it has to do with armor type as well.

 

Tanks like the M1 and Challenger are using composite ceramic armor that is made out of flat panels and typically does better when hit perpendicularly than at an angle, while the Russians still seem to be using ERA over conventional armor, where sloping is still advantageous. The rounding also gives you more surface area to mount ERA tiles to for the same dimension bounds.


Edited by SquareCanine, Feb 07 2015 - 21:31.


ToothDecay #24 Posted Feb 07 2015 - 21:38

    Major

  • Players
  • 26968 battles
  • 6,030
  • [NARC] NARC
  • Member since:
    06-29-2011
Soviet bowl-turret castings would be way cheaper to build.

Xlucine #25 Posted Feb 08 2015 - 18:47

    Major

  • Players
  • 7663 battles
  • 7,603
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    03-03-2011

The bustle sides are part of the frontal aspect, when viewed from the frontal 30 degree arc - this means you need really thick armour on the sides of western turrets (to resist frontal threats) as well as on the front. Soviet turrets, OTOH, with the sides sloping backwards, only need to protect against typical side threats with the armour on the turret side. Conversely, you need to find somewhere else to put all that stuff.

 

View PostDaripuff, on Feb 06 2015 - 23:31, said:

I think one of the big things about it is ammunition storage, and safety in an ammo rack cookoff. 

I'm willing to bet every single one of those huge bustles houses ALL the tank's ammo, and every single one of those is designed to vent an ammunition explosion safely above and away from the crew compartment.  Western tanks have historically given a LOT of consideration to crew survivability, especially in the case of losing a tank.

Soviets have historically not given a flying fart about crew, be it comfort or safety, and losing a tank is just as much a blow as losing a crew, so why compromise the low profile, well armored dome turret when there is plenty of ammo storage in the main hull?

 

Literally the only tank that fits that description is ukranian, and when that vehicle was designed ukraine was not very western.



LeuCeaMia #26 Posted Feb 10 2015 - 06:47

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 11553 battles
  • 624
  • Member since:
    03-18-2011

View PostXlucine, on Feb 09 2015 - 01:47, said:

The bustle sides are part of the frontal aspect, when viewed from the frontal 30 degree arc - this means you need really thick armour on the sides of western turrets (to resist frontal threats) as well as on the front. Soviet turrets, OTOH, with the sides sloping backwards, only need to protect against typical side threats with the armour on the turret side. Conversely, you need to find somewhere else to put all that stuff.

View PostDaripuff, on Feb 07 2015 - 07:31, said:

I think one of the big things about it is ammunition storage, and safety in an ammo rack cookoff. 

I'm willing to bet every single one of those huge bustles houses ALL the tank's ammo, and every single one of those is designed to vent an ammunition explosion safely above and away from the crew compartment.  Western tanks have historically given a LOT of consideration to crew survivability, especially in the case of losing a tank.

Soviets have historically not given a flying fart about crew, be it comfort or safety, and losing a tank is just as much a blow as losing a crew, so why compromise the low profile, well armored dome turret when there is plenty of ammo storage in the main hull?

 

Oh really now, then I wonder why they did this on the MBT-70, worst of both worlds. Hunnicutt only mentions blow-out panels for the XM-1; its also pretty obvious the MBT-70 doesn't have any once you compare their turret roofs. You're comparing designs, which are decades apart; the T-64/T-80 autoloader design has been in use since the early 60s. Ask yourself where did the M60 and Leopard 1 store their ammo?

Only the M1 Abrams can store a combat load solely in the bustle the Leopard 2 and Challenger 2 only hold a partial load up there.

Spoiler

How's this for "historically", ever wonder why the wet ammo rackShermans had an incredibly low brew up rate(10-15%) by WW2 standards (Jeez, I wonder why the Soviets avoided putting ammo in the sponsons).

Block Quote

The 1950's rebuild specifications included an order to convert the tanks to dry stowage. The "wet" part of "wet stowage" had been somewhat questionable from the start. Each 5 round 76mm ammunition rack had 3 sealed chambers that were filled with liquid. It was thought that if the ammo rack was penetrated, the liquid would be dispersed, and at least slow the progress of an ammunition fire in order to give the crew a few more seconds to escape. Above, several of the racks are shown in place. We've circled the filler plugs of the liquid containers, including the one for the 6 round ready rack mounted on the turret basket floor. Some of the men involved in the wet stowage program were not convinced of the worth of the liquid chambers, and requested additional comparative trials. They noted that relocating the ammo bins to better protected positions on the floor of the hull (as the British had requested in 1942) was the most effective part of the modification. They also mentioned that tankers wanted to carry as much ammo as possible, and the inclusion of the liquid chambers came at the expense of an additional 10 to 12 rounds. In any case, the rebuild specification directed that the ammo racks be drained, and the filler holes plugged.

Now recall how the T-34-76 stores its ammo.

 

 

Plus once the nukes started raining down who do you think is more likely to survive? the crew in the T-55 or the crew in the M48/Centurion.



Colddawg #27 Posted Feb 20 2015 - 00:49

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 45846 battles
  • 3,917
  • [ICON-] ICON-
  • Member since:
    07-12-2010
Doesn't it all have to do with ammo stowage?  Western tanks have ammo racks on the back of the turret while the Eastern tanks have them at the floor of the turret, correct?




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users