Jump to content


Bigger turret, less room.


  • Please log in to reply
37 replies to this topic

SwampFoxmondo #21 Posted Nov 28 2016 - 00:34

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 14374 battles
  • 23
  • Member since:
    11-29-2013

View PostCaptianNemo_VA_, on Nov 27 2016 - 18:53, said:

 

1. There is no better armor package. The Anti-HEAT round armor package would have added a severe ammout of weight to the vehicle... and made a normal M4 weigh as much as an M4 Jumbo. Actually more tbh.
1. Chrysler did come up with a drawing for putting the 90mm gun in the standard M4 turret. But it would have sucked donkey balls. (Read The Expanse). Even adding on an M26 does not help things and greatly renders the performance of the M4 mobility wise rather poor.
3. Ridged gun mounts DO NOT WORK. They are fine for a few rounds but repeated use will cause severe side effects... Just ask the Germans with putting ridged guns on Panzer IIs IIIs and IVs...  Everything from mount cracking to transmission housing cracking after a few dozen rounds.

4. If you read the older hatch articles Chief does go into some of them in detail. Also everything I have seen says that the stabilizers could not correct for the movement of the tank fast enough when on the move. Even the M60 in 1971 could not go above about 7 mph and hit a sitting target while on the move... The gun could not be corrected fast enough.
5. Thats your idea of a Hot Rod? =/  There's an M3 with an 1000 hp engine derived from an airplane engine... Now that is a Hot Rod. Even then... you have fuel consumption and track/roadwheel wear to worry about not to mention the suspension can only handle so much speed.
9. They did the same for the RAM Tank.
10. Not exactly... In the field yes... In the Factory not so much... Unless your thinking about the side escape hatch. Which was quickly deleted.
11. Everything I have seen said that it sucked... and there was more then one system trialed.  I mean technically it did work but it was very bulky and prone to breaking down and fragile when hit.
12. It would disrupt production far too much and make the tank technically taller.
13. There are several hundred pages of track tests... Wider tracks also add weight...  http://i.imgur.com/fjqoXt4.jpg It also takes a lot of time to get through the testing process. Adding on Grousers was more common although the most common seen in Europe are 1-1/2 inch models.
14. Spikes only work if they are the correct length... too short or too long and it  can actually help the HEAT round. And then there is the need for different length to cover more then one type of round... And then lastly and most importantly there is the process of attaching it to the armor pol;ate... IE Welding... because the spikes are made of steel... and welded to the plate. They are absolutely not Plastic. And when somebody says Plastic Armor... in the 1940s... it means composite of some sort... not Plastic in terms of PVC.
15. Only good if it was spaced out more then 14 inches and made at least 10-12mm thick. Even then a Panzerfaust would make holes in the tank. And better still... Highly spaced wire netting works even better and is lighter still. But it also snags on everything and if its not taught enough it can actually help make the HEAT round work better...  Having seen the reports from 1943 and 44 in the testing department... Spaced armor would have been useless. To defeat the Panzerfaust there were plans to put spaced armor plates 30 inches from the outside of an Churchill Tanks Turret...  In order to make it completely immune.    

First off thank you for reading my post ( my soap-box). I would like to respectively disagree  with a few of your notes saying they wont work. As for the armor package...I've only found 1 or a hard to see 2nd picture of the CDA version...i work for the company and in trying to see if i can pull and documents from our archive....

The 2 hot rod  engines they referenced in actual  testing at the range. But due to the wars end coming they killed it...like most of the stuff i mentioned.....

 

I guess my point in the post was....why do they offer tanks by all these countries that either sucked and never went into production or some never make it off the drawing board....yet ones based on the sherman seem to get the "it was not built or practical due to xyz" treatment. 

I said the same thing with that plastic spike part also but it does mention plastic...i thought steel myself also.



CaptianNemo_VA_ #22 Posted Nov 28 2016 - 00:59

    Captain

  • Players
  • 293 battles
  • 1,721
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    04-27-2013
Are you thinking about HCR2 Anti-HEAT armor which is what I am talking about or something else.

1950 November a954865 Spaced Armor(1950)
www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a954865.pdf

1951 July 752613 Present Status of the Tank Armor Program and Proposed Program for Development of Armor to Defeat Heat and HEP Projectiles
www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/752613.pdf

Edited by CaptianNemo_VA_, Nov 28 2016 - 01:00.


SwampFoxmondo #23 Posted Nov 28 2016 - 01:33

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 14374 battles
  • 23
  • Member since:
    11-29-2013
They made a armor design but only built it in wood as a mockup

Zinegata #24 Posted Nov 28 2016 - 07:35

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 9548 battles
  • 5,380
  • Member since:
    07-27-2010

View PostSwampFoxmondo, on Nov 28 2016 - 07:33, said:

I guess my point in the post was....why do they offer tanks by all these countries that either sucked and never went into production or some never make it off the drawing board....yet ones based on the sherman seem to get the "it was not built or practical due to xyz" treatment. 

I said the same thing with that plastic spike part also but it does mention plastic...i thought steel myself also.

Again thank you for reading it

 

Because American Ordnance - and American quality control in general - was more strict. 

 

I mean this in all seriousness. The Second World War came at the time when America was the benchmark not only in terms of industrial output, but per-worker productivity. This meant that your American worker, on average, produced more than his Soviet or German counterparts.

 

The reason for this was because American industrial planning during this period was still the best in the world. Rather than having super-special workers, America was exceptionally productive because the factory managers of the period were very exacting during the testing phase to make sure that only good products were delivered to the end user. This is why bad designs tended to be weeded out before they got to the mass-production phase, whereas a lot of bad designs were able to slip through the German (due to bribes or nepotism), the Soviet (due to resource shortages), or British (due to naval-centric design thinking) factory systems. 

 

Note that the Chieftain actually made light that there was a huge number of vehicles sent to the army for testing - and yet we ended up with only a tiny handful being actually being approved for mass-production. And it wasn't a perfect process either - such as in the case of the M7 where the factory was completed even though the M7 itself was ultimately not approved to go into combat! 



The_Chieftain #25 Posted Nov 28 2016 - 22:12

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 9526 battles
  • 9,455
  • [WGA-A] WGA-A
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

View PostSwampFoxmondo, on Nov 27 2016 - 02:27, said:

Chieftain,

 It seems that most times i hear you talk about the shermans....it's usually about some issue they had or some poor performance note you found. I would like to know what you have found that is supportive of the sherman. I realize that you have loads of background information. So why haven't seen:

  1.  The C.D.A. armor package that they came up with that would have been better than the Jumbos
  2.  The yes 90mm gun...hey we see every other country's wet dream of a tank made to work yet this one is forbidden because it's not possible...some of these tanks in this game never made it off the drawing board. So why for one that tried it in prototype form, didn't it make it in this game
  3. Ridged gun mount. This would have freed up space for the crew to perform and was lighter than the recoil guns
  4. Gun stabilizers - they designed 2, 2 axis gun stabilizers (IBM and one ARMY ord.) this would have allowed for a very quick drive, turn, fire scenario. Instead we all get the standard stabilizer add-on module if we add it on. Thats [edited]since this tank had it already.
  5. The experimental A65 C.D.A. high output engine that made 650 hp with a special transmission that earned the reputation in testing at a Hot Rod. This was also only 500 lbs the engine. The engine also saw no wear after 400 miles of operation when it was torn down to review
  6.  GM also made one that was in the Same power class
  7. The improved Tranny system that reduced the weight of the tank by taking out 20 gallons of oil, made it more reliable, gave it a full speed reverse planetary gear and add 25+HP to the tanks.
  8. Up armored differentials and other vital components
  9. The fact that yes there were weak spots in the armor of the sherman but they also made changes on the fly to cover these gaps. Usually the fixes would be made in the sand-casts and changed while in production. 
  10. Applique armor would be added over soft spots in the factory or when they were in the theater of operation by the service depot.
  11. Air conditioning system for the tank...this would allow crews to operate at a higher level 
  12. Torsion bar to lower ground pressure to less than 10lb 
  13. Wider tracks
  14. Plastic armor spikes (yes thats right). To help defeat HE and HEAT shells
  15. Spaced armor on the turret

All these could be added to the game...hell like I said there are many tanks in this game that never got off the drawing board...these all were built in various ways.

  •  I would also like to know why the HE and HEAT charge on the 105mm is pretty much crap. They were not that bad and = or better to other countries...there are countless battles where i'm damaging tanks 7-10% at a time at nearly 50 meters.
  • You also make the Jumbo hull statistically correct but the game seems to play it differently. This hull plate was outstanding so when I have crap tanks damaging it with 2 shots in the front armor mid glac. by over 70% that says problem.
  • Lastly, on the note of Armor....American Tanks were exceptional in Armor Quality (metallurgy). Ideal composition and hardening characteristics. The armor was so pure that in a recent Sherman Rebuild special they had issues with the weld torch cutting instead of welding due to the purity of it. In the same respect KV's and IS and T-34's all had poor armor. Some so bad that it was known to leak in the rain when it left the factory due to the forge cooling/hardening process. They also had several examples of armor so hard that when a shell it, it would shatter like glass.  
    • The Russian metal quality was so bad in some cases, that even mud in the treads would break pins. Yet, in the game, hit them with shells and they shrug them off. 

The USA tanks had better room, repairability, reliability and quality than any other tanks....for some reason this just seems to be ignored by the GAME....WHY????? 

 

 

 

 

Now that we're back from vacation...

 

1). Unsure. Though we are kicking around adding a reinforced Sherman

2) We've been kicking on and off the M4 with the T26 turret. Even got as far as the garage icon being added to the game, as well as a 3D model being created. (SD, now, since removed). I'm sure it'll show up eventually. As to the real tank, well, it was decided that they couldn't get 90mm guns any faster than T26s anyway.

3) Offhand, I'm only familiar with two or three US attempts to fit a rigid mount. One was a 75mm mount on a T72, one was a 120mm on a T34, and if I recall, one of the Rheem oscillating designs may have used one. Suffice to say, the US wasn't satisfied with the result.

4) Well, I think you're talking about a gameplay thing, but yes, I've written a few articles about the real one.

5) Outside of the basic stats, and what appears in Sherman, we honestly haven't much information on the A65 to write about.

6) As above

7) As above

8) I haven't really found enough information to warrant writing an article on. We have some photos and base information, which may eventually find its way into the game, but for now, no need.

9)  After checking the collision model for the turret, the weak points are not modelled. So consider it to be equivalent to the bulged casting, I guess. I realise that there is a minor collision model/visual model failing there, hardly massively important. We decided not to incorporate the hull applique. It may show up in the future.

10) See above

11) Outside of the blower fans, air conditioning wasn't a thing in tanks, so there isn't much to write about. Indeed, as of when I was in Abrams and Bradley earlier in my career, it still wasn't a thing in tanks. We do have crew vents as a module you can buy in the game.

12) I have articles up about two torsion bar experiments, the M4A2E4, and the fitting of the German half-track suspension to an M24. They're old, you'll have to do a google search to find, I think.

13) Well, I will get around to paying some more attention to the wides M18 tracks, the duckbill grousers, and the E9 suspension, but for now, not a priority.

14) As above. I have the test reports, they just aren't particularly interesting to write about. I'm sure I'll get around to it as I run out of other materials.

15) I'm at something of a loss to think of any spaced armor on the turret that was fitted, at least officially. There was the 'plastic' armor, but its effectiveness is unknown to me.



shapeshifter #26 Posted Nov 29 2016 - 04:21

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 17861 battles
  • 2,862
  • Member since:
    09-11-2010
If your looking for tidbits on the improved "full" speed reverse transmission Chief those British AFV situation reports do have data on it at differing months.

Edited by shapeshifter, Nov 29 2016 - 04:22.


Long_Rod_Penetrator #27 Posted Nov 29 2016 - 19:36

    Private

  • -Players-
  • 5508 battles
  • 3
  • Member since:
    04-29-2016
This article is the perfect example of the need for systems engineers.

zloykrolik #28 Posted Nov 30 2016 - 04:29

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 29550 battles
  • 409
  • [RDTT2] RDTT2
  • Member since:
    05-05-2012

Nice avatar. 

 

C Co 1/70 AR in Wiesbaden FRG, 1983-84.


Edited by zloykrolik, Nov 30 2016 - 04:30.


SwampFoxmondo #29 Posted Nov 30 2016 - 23:13

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 14374 battles
  • 23
  • Member since:
    11-29-2013
Wow....thank you for the response Chieftain...I actually didnt think you would be one of the commenter's on my, for lack of a better term,soapboxing. Thank you for the detailed response.

I guess im just disappointed in the way the way WOT's sets the Sherman performance characteristics. Especially for the Jumbo. The final straw that started my research for shermans happened when there was in a single day of playing the Jumbo (14 games with it)....i got killed 4 times in 1 shot through the front. 4 times it was 2 shots in the front to kill it... and several other one shot kills from the side or back from 1/2 field or more....

All while doing 7-10% damage at 10 meters away with the 105mm to other tanks...there were 2 russian types I pushed through in a suicide rush to try ans prove a point by hitting the rears of them and still caused little to no damage. Same with the other guns.

Anyway thank you again for the response...i thought your presentation last year at Cantigney in IL was very well done also

zloykrolik #30 Posted Dec 01 2016 - 06:47

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 29550 battles
  • 409
  • [RDTT2] RDTT2
  • Member since:
    05-05-2012

View PostSwampFoxmondo, on Nov 30 2016 - 14:13, said:

Wow....thank you for the response Chieftain...I actually didnt think you would be one of the commenter's on my, for lack of a better term,soapboxing. Thank you for the detailed response.

I guess im just disappointed in the way the way WOT's sets the Sherman performance characteristics. Especially for the Jumbo. The final straw that started my research for shermans happened when there was in a single day of playing the Jumbo (14 games with it)....i got killed 4 times in 1 shot through the front. 4 times it was 2 shots in the front to kill it... and several other one shot kills from the side or back from 1/2 field or more....

All while doing 7-10% damage at 10 meters away with the 105mm to other tanks...there were 2 russian types I pushed through in a suicide rush to try ans prove a point by hitting the rears of them and still caused little to no damage. Same with the other guns.

Anyway thank you again for the response...i thought your presentation last year at Cantigney in IL was very well done also

 

Looks like you were playing it wrong. In a T6 match it can be a SOB to take out, T7 & T8 it is just meat unless you play it as a support tank, and the 105 derp is under powered at those tiers. 76 MM FTW.

SwampFoxmondo #31 Posted Dec 03 2016 - 02:23

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 14374 battles
  • 23
  • Member since:
    11-29-2013
I have 14 pages of detail for you Chieftian on the A65 chrysler engine for that sherman tank.  I got it with a little corporate help. Its pretty neat and shows the powerbands of the engine even. It was a bad [edited]engine man. Aluminum with added compression and boost it gets a little over 650 hp + big torque

shapeshifter #32 Posted Dec 03 2016 - 20:53

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 17861 battles
  • 2,862
  • Member since:
    09-11-2010

View PostSwampFoxmondo, on Dec 02 2016 - 20:23, said:

I have 14 pages of detail for you Chieftian on the A65 chrysler engine for that sherman tank. I got it with a little corporate help. Its pretty neat and shows the powerbands of the engine even. It was a bad [edited]engine man. Aluminum with added compression and boost it gets a little over 650 hp + big torque

 

Lots of work done on many engines, the R975 for example kept up past the end of the war.

 

Radial Engines -- New development

 

An Ordnance Committee minute states that recent studies have shown that a series of air-cooled radial engines of 5, 7, and 9 cylinder, single row, and 10, 14 and 18 cylinder twin-row engines, based on a minimum output of 50 BHP per cylinder, is feasible. It is further stated that such a series of engines, based on Continental R975-C4 engine components, using vertical fan drives and accessories, mounted perpendicular to the crank axis would, for a given range of horsepower, give a shorter power plant than is possible with any in-line design of comparable power. They also mention that additional compactness is achieved by coupling the engine directly to the power train, as a result of the vertical fan drive.

 

The use of the R975-C4 engine in a low silhouette vehicle, such as the T24E1 light tank can be accomplished by "Blistering" the top of the engine compartment with no sacrifice of gun depression.
In consequence, it has been decided to conduct a thorough engineering study of a series of engines as mentioned above and to subsequently build such engines as are recommended in the study. The programme would also include a study of the effect on the performance of these engines of the use of high octane fuel, and also, of solid fuel injection.

 

 

July 1945

 

Radial engines from R975-C4 components -- New development
A project with Continental Motors for a design study of a line of radial, air-cooled engines with 5, 7 and 9 single row cylinders, and 10, 14 and 18 twin row cylinders, has been set up. The project is based on a common cylinder, with a minimum output of 50 BHP, similar to the R975-C4 engine. The study for the twin  row 18 cylinder engine is 85% complete, and on completion, the other engines will be studied using this as a master engine, and incorporating as many common parts as possible.

 

R975-C4 engine -- Development of fuel injection system.
This project is intended to provide better performance, economy, and power output, and is being correlated with the injection programme for the Ford V-8 and V-12 engines. Installation drawings are complete, and fuel pumps and injectors only are awaited for installation.

 

How it turned out I have no idea as that's all I have.



Dominikthebyrd #33 Posted Dec 06 2016 - 05:46

    Private

  • -Players-
  • 32 battles
  • 1
  • Member since:
    02-22-2015
Can someone give me a slightly dumbed down explanation as to why the 75mm gun couldnt be mounted on the larger turret?

SwampFoxmondo #34 Posted Dec 08 2016 - 19:18

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 14374 battles
  • 23
  • Member since:
    11-29-2013
They really need an experimental sherman in this game that can have all these upgrades researched as a seperate tank....no not a premium..im tired of the bulk of new additions lately being premiums....

Plus have the tire stay the same since they put it in a group that it usually never engaged much in real life anyway

WulfeHound #35 Posted Dec 08 2016 - 19:41

    Major

  • Players
  • 12884 battles
  • 26,179
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    04-03-2011

View PostDominikthebyrd, on Dec 05 2016 - 23:46, said:

Can someone give me a slightly dumbed down explanation as to why the 75mm gun couldnt be mounted on the larger turret?

 

It could, but a lot of the things necessary for it to work couldn't.

The_Chieftain #36 Posted Dec 08 2016 - 23:56

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 9526 battles
  • 9,455
  • [WGA-A] WGA-A
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

View PostDominikthebyrd, on Dec 06 2016 - 04:46, said:

Can someone give me a slightly dumbed down explanation as to why the 75mm gun couldnt be mounted on the larger turret?

 

It's all the fiddly bits to the sides of the gun barrel. The sight, the coaxial machine gun, the recoil mechanism, elevation gear, and so on and so forth. Even if you can get the things to physically fit, you also have to be able to access them for maintenance, replacement of parts, and so on. With the entire gun 'shoved forward' into the narrow bit of the turret, there is less room around those components.



Zinegata #37 Posted Dec 09 2016 - 03:51

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 9548 battles
  • 5,380
  • Member since:
    07-27-2010

View PostDominikthebyrd, on Dec 06 2016 - 12:46, said:

Can someone give me a slightly dumbed down explanation as to why the 75mm gun couldnt be mounted on the larger turret?

 

At the risk of gross over-simplification, it's the equivalent of trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. The hole might be bigger in the new turret, but it just doesn't fit the square peg correctly.

t8z5h3 #38 Posted Dec 09 2016 - 21:25

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 32339 battles
  • 829
  • [DI-FI] DI-FI
  • Member since:
    04-23-2013

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Dec 08 2016 - 18:56, said:

 

It's all the fiddly bits to the sides of the gun barrel. The sight, the coaxial machine gun, the recoil mechanism, elevation gear, and so on and so forth. Even if you can get the things to physically fit, you also have to be able to access them for maintenance, replacement of parts, and so on. With the entire gun 'shoved forward' into the narrow bit of the turret, there is less room around those components.

but fingers don't matter do they?






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users