Jump to content


Question for the_Chieftain, Pike Noses


  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

Dirizon #1 Posted Sep 14 2017 - 04:52

    Major

  • Players
  • 25890 battles
  • 3,324
  • [BASE_] BASE_
  • Member since:
    06-05-2011

i have been wondering for a long time now, as to why frontal hull pike noses have disappeared entirely. They just represent such an effective idea in tank design, providing extra armour despite allowing for actually thinner armour used. For example, an lS3s 11Omm vs Jag Tiger weighed down by 15Omm. Especially since immediate war end and post war designs like lS3, lS5, lS8, and lS7 existed.

 

lt just makes so much sense. A) post war designs commonly and trended towards omitting radio operators and hull bow machine gunners. This idea further promotes a pike nose armour layout and drivers position, and saving some space B) central driver position and acutely declining armour plates allow for clearer driver vision, and more view of terrain types ahead. C) Big welding technology gains postwar allow for producing pike noses easier. D) as mentioned earlier, the application of incredibly angled armour for deflecting incoming AT fire, with less armour thickness actually required saving weight for other things

 

lS7 was a purely prototypic tank built for satisfying Russian engineer curiosities vs high powered German AT armaments deployed late war, l get that. But T1Os were definitely made in number and exported. I also understand heavy tanks fell into disuse and out of favour for versatile MBTs, but why didn't MBTs then incorporate it? Why did the design just fizz out in the Cold War?



PrimarchRogalDorn #2 Posted Sep 14 2017 - 05:06

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 25 battles
  • 650
  • Member since:
    01-03-2017
I'd imagine the benefits of a pike nose were seen as less worth it due to the drawbacks of it

ket101 #3 Posted Sep 14 2017 - 05:19

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 18360 battles
  • 8,651
  • [N-O-M] N-O-M
  • Member since:
    01-10-2011
Pike noses are more expensive than a single piece or armour across the front.  Extra work, extra metal, extra weight.  And with developments in composite armour, not worthwhile.

Dirizon #4 Posted Sep 14 2017 - 05:38

    Major

  • Players
  • 25890 battles
  • 3,324
  • [BASE_] BASE_
  • Member since:
    06-05-2011

View PostPrimarchRogalDorn, on Sep 13 2017 - 23:36, said:

I'd imagine the benefits of a pike nose were seen as less worth it due to the drawbacks of it

 

View Postket101, on Sep 13 2017 - 23:49, said:

Pike noses are more expensive than a single piece or armour across the front.  Extra work, extra metal, extra weight.  And with developments in composite armour, not worthwhile.

 

l don't see drawbacks. Extra metal offset by thinner armour thickness used. Improvements in casting, welding, refineries, metallurgy offset costs required.

versus vastly improved driver layout visibility and armour benefit. To which saves tanks themselves and repair costs/lost time, an important constructed machine and resources, and saves lives, something invaluable . 

Drawbacks such as ammo racking and angling which flattens your pikenose and exposes a weakness is a WoT concept, and tactically of very little consequence and use. It is purely in-game nonsense. Flat plate tanks still stow ammo just as a pike nose tank, under the turret, beside drivers, underneath compartments, you name it. Tank drivers aren't told to 'angle' their tank and expose running gear and tracks, to hope for a side armour ricochet or some stupid game mechanic.



VooDooKobra #5 Posted Sep 14 2017 - 05:50

    Major

  • Players
  • 6465 battles
  • 2,353
  • [1-185] 1-185
  • Member since:
    04-23-2011
never thought of that, good question man 

HowitzerBlitzer #6 Posted Sep 14 2017 - 05:58

    Major

  • Players
  • 14057 battles
  • 7,367
  • Member since:
    06-16-2013

Well, looking at how armour isn't that useful against today's munitions, why bother with a more complex design?

 

Also, I don't think a pike nose is the most structurally sound shape for a metal box.



saru_richard #7 Posted Sep 14 2017 - 06:21

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 19774 battles
  • 2,072
  • [H-H] H-H
  • Member since:
    08-19-2015
basically if you ask me its most probably due to the introduction of modern APFSDS and HESH/HEAT rounds not to mention anti tank rockets that cause the pike nose to die out

ArtofTanks #8 Posted Sep 14 2017 - 06:25

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 12446 battles
  • 445
  • Member since:
    09-10-2014
wikipedia sloped armor:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sloped_armour

Shortcult #9 Posted Sep 14 2017 - 06:53

    Major

  • Players
  • 30157 battles
  • 3,904
  • Member since:
    08-21-2012

It was explained to me, and I'll proly get this wrong somehow, that pike and rounded nose vehicles were more effective when facing an enemy head on but that the reality of a battle field seldom had your vehicle facing head on the gun that was firing at you, more often a gun was firing at you from an oblique.  Flat (although angled) noses meant only the gun you were facing had a 'flat' surface while all the off angle shots presented a thicker armor package.

 

It was presented to me in a larger discussion of mobile armor combat and the reality of the source of incoming rounds.



ket101 #10 Posted Sep 14 2017 - 07:31

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 18360 battles
  • 8,651
  • [N-O-M] N-O-M
  • Member since:
    01-10-2011

View PostDirizon, on Sep 14 2017 - 14:38, said:

 

 

l don't see drawbacks. Extra metal offset by thinner armour thickness used. Improvements in casting, welding, refineries, metallurgy offset costs required.

versus vastly improved driver layout visibility and armour benefit. To which saves tanks themselves and repair costs/lost time, an important constructed machine and resources, and saves lives, something invaluable . 

Drawbacks such as ammo racking and angling which flattens your pikenose and exposes a weakness is a WoT concept, and tactically of very little consequence and use. It is purely in-game nonsense. Flat plate tanks still stow ammo just as a pike nose tank, under the turret, beside drivers, underneath compartments, you name it. Tank drivers aren't told to 'angle' their tank and expose running gear and tracks, to hope for a side armour ricochet or some stupid game mechanic.

 

You may not see drawbacks, but it's obvious that designers and manufacturers did.  It's an added complication to construction, an additional set of welds, and several additional plates.  It didn't necessarily promote good hull strength either.  The IS-3 was known to be a "hangar queen", ie, a vehicle that spent a lot of time in maintenance.  It had a tendency to shake itself apart after a few shots.  The pike nose construction may have had something to do with that.  And when armour piercing technology overtook the ability of "simple" steel armour to prevent penetrations, the additional complexity and possible unreliability of the design made it not worthwhile.  And as for your points of things being a "WoT concept", I can tell you that ammo racking is definitely not a game concept.  The method of stowage can make a huge difference to the chances of detonation.  Wittmann's Tiger blew it's turret off when the ammunition detonated after a fire reached the ammo.  There wasn't any necessity to bury the crew afterwards.  And angling is a real thing too, the relative thickness of armour has a real effect on AP rounds, and it's possible that the weaknesses of a pike nose on an angle were deemed to be not worthwhile as well, especially with the increasing tendency towards mobility rather than simple advances.

KaiserWilhelmShatner #11 Posted Sep 14 2017 - 08:24

    Major

  • Players
  • 12965 battles
  • 3,814
  • [GUNS1] GUNS1
  • Member since:
    03-03-2012
I imagine with modern composite armor that it would make implementation of the composite difficult and might even create weak spots were the armor joins together at the point.

The_Chieftain #12 Posted Sep 14 2017 - 17:39

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 9720 battles
  • 9,497
  • [WGA-A] WGA-A
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

The pike does represent something of an ideal. You get good benefits when the opposition happens to be to your direct front. On the other hand, when angled, things get worse as the relative thickness decreases. If you can make a tank with a thick enough block of frontal armour, though, then you get acceptable protection from the direct front, and even better protection when being engaged from an angle.

 

The welding problem has also already been mentioned. Not mentioned are the volumetric properties. If you look at the footprint of the tank, x many meters by y many meters, how much of that is usable space for fuel, ammo, fire extinguishers, air bottles, or whatever else you want in the tank? There are large 'blocks' of unused space outside the point of the nose.



ianizor1000 #13 Posted Sep 14 2017 - 19:29

    Captain

  • Players
  • 9291 battles
  • 1,371
  • [T_K_O] T_K_O
  • Member since:
    09-18-2013

View PostDirizon, on Sep 13 2017 - 21:52, said:

i have been wondering for a long time now, as to why frontal hull pike noses have disappeared entirely. They just represent such an effective idea in tank design, providing extra armour despite allowing for actually thinner armour used. For example, an lS3s 11Omm vs Jag Tiger weighed down by 15Omm. Especially since immediate war end and post war designs like lS3, lS5, lS8, and lS7 existed.

 

lt just makes so much sense. A) post war designs commonly and trended towards omitting radio operators and hull bow machine gunners. This idea further promotes a pike nose armour layout and drivers position, and saving some space B) central driver position and acutely declining armour plates allow for clearer driver vision, and more view of terrain types ahead. C) Big welding technology gains postwar allow for producing pike noses easier. D) as mentioned earlier, the application of incredibly angled armour for deflecting incoming AT fire, with less armour thickness actually required saving weight for other things

 

lS7 was a purely prototypic tank built for satisfying Russian engineer curiosities vs high powered German AT armaments deployed late war, l get that. But T1Os were definitely made in number and exported. I also understand heavy tanks fell into disuse and out of favour for versatile MBTs, but why didn't MBTs then incorporate it? Why did the design just fizz out in the Cold War?

 

​Consider that 60% of tanks shooting other tanks didn't happen at the front of the tank. When you're shooting at an angle that's not directly face to face a pike nose is a disadvantage,

IndygoEEI #14 Posted Sep 14 2017 - 19:35

    Major

  • Players
  • 47880 battles
  • 4,802
  • [GUNS6] GUNS6
  • Member since:
    01-06-2012

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Sep 14 2017 - 11:39, said:

The pike does represent something of an ideal. You get good benefits when the opposition happens to be to your direct front. On the other hand, when angled, things get worse as the relative thickness decreases. If you can make a tank with a thick enough block of frontal armour, though, then you get acceptable protection from the direct front, and even better protection when being engaged from an angle.

 

The welding problem has also already been mentioned. Not mentioned are the volumetric properties. If you look at the footprint of the tank, x many meters by y many meters, how much of that is usable space for fuel, ammo, fire extinguishers, air bottles, or whatever else you want in the tank? There are large 'blocks' of unused space outside the point of the nose.

 

Even though it was never built, how does this apply to the AMX 40?  It seems to be too good

sometimes to be true...



Dirizon #15 Posted Sep 15 2017 - 01:59

    Major

  • Players
  • 25890 battles
  • 3,324
  • [BASE_] BASE_
  • Member since:
    06-05-2011

Here seems to be an issue  of angles decreasing armour effectiveness of he pike nose.

Yes, in-game. Yes, theoretically. But practically? Up for debate, l'll explain

 

you see, although a KV tank maybe virtually a 75mm box, substantially high for even late war, the problem lies in the suspension, not the chassis hull. Running gear, idlers, rollers, rubber and steel plated tracks, gear teeth, struts-- these things are N0T the 75mm thick side armour. This is an in-game fallacy, concocted by game mechanics for use in drivers skills and tactics. A panzer lll with the L42 5cm, though incapable of spalling or penetrating the KV, will mess up the KV totally with a mobility kill if the tank angled and showed its side, even a AT team manning a puny PaK 3.7cm Would  do the same considering its RoF. And we all know how vulnerable immobile tanks get and the stories of crew abandonment. Heck, l believe even an L39 2Omm automatic cannon is capable of doing substantial suspension damage to just about any WWll design. Don't angle, unless you want your tracks shot off. When facing an opponent directly, your greatest surface area of strongest armour is shown, while running gear is limited basically two track rubber mat sections, and their behind wheels, which are a small target. 

 

Now about lS3 when caught off guard angled, and the near side armour face has its angle flattened and more vulnerable  A) enemy gunners are simply going to shoot the side anyway. You got a 6O-9Omm hull, and above mentioned suspension to shoot at rather than the 11Omm still strong even if flattened in angle front hull.....B) shooting at front, still poses the risk of missing intended target, and striking the turret or opposing cheek of front hull, causing an impossibly angled hull and a definite ricochet.

 

lasty, l'd like to address the idea concerning volume and limitations of space. I missed that, and it is a worthy concern. Unfortunately, although yes, volume is very much an issue and pike nose takes up more volume in relation, you can plainly see, to accommodate crew , ammo, fire suppression, room, gear, equipment....you can see the pike nose is built outside the suspension limitations. Tanks like 11O, obj 26O, 252Y -- you clearly see in side cross section, the pike nose protrudes forward unlike single played flat plate tank hulls. This creates an offset balance, providing more storage for the storage consumed by the more volume needed for th pikes construction.

 

The feedback appreciated. I also forgot, 268 was also a design like his, with actual constructed vehicles. 



ket101 #16 Posted Sep 15 2017 - 03:06

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 18360 battles
  • 8,651
  • [N-O-M] N-O-M
  • Member since:
    01-10-2011

View PostIndygoEEI, on Sep 15 2017 - 04:35, said:

 

Even though it was never built, how does this apply to the AMX 40?  It seems to be too good

sometimes to be true...

 

AMX 40 is a cast hull, not welded.

 

View PostDirizon, on Sep 15 2017 - 10:59, said:

Here seems to be an issue  of angles decreasing armour effectiveness of he pike nose.

Yes, in-game. Yes, theoretically. But practically? Up for debate, l'll explain

 

you see, although a KV tank maybe virtually a 75mm box, substantially high for even late war, the problem lies in the suspension, not the chassis hull. Running gear, idlers, rollers, rubber and steel plated tracks, gear teeth, struts-- these things are N0T the 75mm thick side armour. This is an in-game fallacy, concocted by game mechanics for use in drivers skills and tactics. A panzer lll with the L42 5cm, though incapable of spalling or penetrating the KV, will mess up the KV totally with a mobility kill if the tank angled and showed its side, even a AT team manning a puny PaK 3.7cm Would  do the same considering its RoF. And we all know how vulnerable immobile tanks get and the stories of crew abandonment. Heck, l believe even an L39 2Omm automatic cannon is capable of doing substantial suspension damage to just about any WWll design. Don't angle, unless you want your tracks shot off. When facing an opponent directly, your greatest surface area of strongest armour is shown, while running gear is limited basically two track rubber mat sections, and their behind wheels, which are a small target. 

 

Now about lS3 when caught off guard angled, and the near side armour face has its angle flattened and more vulnerable  A) enemy gunners are simply going to shoot the side anyway. You got a 6O-9Omm hull, and above mentioned suspension to shoot at rather than the 11Omm still strong even if flattened in angle front hull.....B) shooting at front, still poses the risk of missing intended target, and striking the turret or opposing cheek of front hull, causing an impossibly angled hull and a definite ricochet.

 

lasty, l'd like to address the idea concerning volume and limitations of space. I missed that, and it is a worthy concern. Unfortunately, although yes, volume is very much an issue and pike nose takes up more volume in relation, you can plainly see, to accommodate crew , ammo, fire suppression, room, gear, equipment....you can see the pike nose is built outside the suspension limitations. Tanks like 11O, obj 26O, 252Y -- you clearly see in side cross section, the pike nose protrudes forward unlike single played flat plate tank hulls. This creates an offset balance, providing more storage for the storage consumed by the more volume needed for th pikes construction.

 

The feedback appreciated. I also forgot, 268 was also a design like his, with actual constructed vehicles. 

 

Tracks weren't usually aimed at, unless there was nothing else.  The Japanese had to do that with Australian Matildas, which is why Australian Matildas were fitted with additional armour on the front of the tracks.  With tanks like the Russians, though, the suspension is torsion bars, and they lie right at the bottom of the hull.  They are actually pretty hard to aim at, and it's possible to miss the tank completely when aiming that low.  Aiming at road wheels doesn't necessarily stop a tank either.  Aiming for the tracks themselves from the side is near impossible, since they are basically flat and in some cases also bouncing around quite a bit, and in fact the easiest aspect to aim at the tracks is from the front or the rear, where they provide the greatest profile.  In this case, it's your impressions of the game that are leading you astray, since tracking a vehicle with a gun isn't really that easy to do deliberately.  Tracking usually happens with mines or other high explosive delivery systems, not with armour piercing rounds.

Dirizon #17 Posted Sep 15 2017 - 03:38

    Major

  • Players
  • 25890 battles
  • 3,324
  • [BASE_] BASE_
  • Member since:
    06-05-2011

View Postket101, on Sep 14 2017 - 21:36, said:

 

AMX 40 is a cast hull, not welded.

 

 

Tracks weren't usually aimed at, unless there was nothing else.  The Japanese had to do that with Australian Matildas, which is why Australian Matildas were fitted with additional armour on the front of the tracks.  With tanks like the Russians, though, the suspension is torsion bars, and they lie right at the bottom of the hull.  They are actually pretty hard to aim at, and it's possible to miss the tank completely when aiming that low.  Aiming at road wheels doesn't necessarily stop a tank either.  Aiming for the tracks themselves from the side is near impossible, since they are basically flat and in some cases also bouncing around quite a bit, and in fact the easiest aspect to aim at the tracks is from the front or the rear, where they provide the greatest profile.  In this case, it's your impressions of the game that are leading you astray, since tracking a vehicle with a gun isn't really that easy to do deliberately.  Tracking usually happens with mines or other high explosive delivery systems, not with armour piercing rounds.

 

tracks are aimed at all the time. Half early KV kills started with mobility tracking kills. Vehicles were either knocked out after by infantry teams, knocked out by catching up directed Field artillery or Wheeled AT guns, singled out by aircraft , avoided, or abandoned because of uneasy crew

PaK 3.7 was incapable of even piercing a T34, but crews quickly found other uses for the small and light gun, with lots of present ammo, and easy ability to hide it. It was very dangerous to SU76, T6O-7Os, and could attack suspensions. Even at 5OOm a standard AP would have devastating kinetic energy and penetration, to slice through rubber, steel sheaths, and mild steel wheels of any tanks. Though not an immediate or definite mobility kill by wheels, it definitely leads to it with grinding, and severing the track and damaging wheel teeth are. This is what the adopted tactic was, against KV2s, as the manual crank turret rotation left it extremely vulnerable and unable to deal with infantry teams. 

From there, German infantry reported success continuing to disable them through exterior damage causing radio/firepower, vision block kills, and further damaging suspension. Weapons included PaK 38 5cm guns, SG 8O & 12Omm mortars, 9O-17Omm spigot engineering mortars, and even demo charges. Uneasy spalling hits by PaK38 couldn't quite penetrate KVs still, and tungsten not yet issued, but these welting and bulging impacts would drive crew to abandonment. 

Immobile tanks presented juicy and easy JU87 and fighter-bomber FW19O targets, especially considering airborne supremacy early war. JU87 trumpeting largely caused crew abandonment itself. 

SFH howitzers at battery level , 1O.5s, could easily be drawn nearby, though km away still, and shell them to submission or cause crew abandonment, no different than Soviet 12.2 or 15.2 howitzers causing equipment and mobility and crew shock vehicular kills. Same goes for infantry SiG33 teams and Bison mobile artillery, with their 15.2s. Remember, Germany early war still had significant horse drawn and multi-leer, and Sdkfz half track resources for fast relocation and positioning, as well as efficient radio network.

Immobile tanks are also easy prey for the few PZlVs that were around that had first installed L43s 7.5s, or captured Czech PanzerJagaer 47 TDs , or Early PZll marder conversions, which could penetrate KV tanks. 



ket101 #18 Posted Sep 15 2017 - 06:01

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 18360 battles
  • 8,651
  • [N-O-M] N-O-M
  • Member since:
    01-10-2011

If tracks are all you have a hope of damaging, then tracks are what you aim at.  SU-76 and the light tanks were what the 37mm was designed for, and they almost certainly didn't waste time with tracking shots on them, not when aiming for the engine side of the vehicle could deliver more positive results.  KV-2's were a very different beast, and even aiming for the tracks wasn't guaranteed to stop them, which is why they tended to return to base with hundreds of strike marks on the armour.  Their crews called them "Dreadnaughts" for a reason during the battle for Moscow.  High explosive delivery systems, such as bombs from aircraft and large calibre howitzers certainly could cause damage to the vehicle and it's tracks, as I noted previously, and calling artillery barrages on advancing tanks was common, if not actually firing over open sights at them.  The sIG 33 was 150mm, around 6 inch, so plenty of HE power there.  You're forgetting the use of the 88 as well. 

 

Doesn't change what I said, tracks are not the primary target in a head on confrontation between two tanks, or a tank and a field gun, which is where the pike nose has its use.

 



Dirizon #19 Posted Sep 15 2017 - 13:47

    Major

  • Players
  • 25890 battles
  • 3,324
  • [BASE_] BASE_
  • Member since:
    06-05-2011

But tracks were a primary target for the KV, in 41'

SiG and howitzers were actually lighter than cruciform 8.8, and not under squabbles in possession with Luftwaffe. A lot easier to field and move



Worland #20 Posted Sep 15 2017 - 16:28

    Major

  • Players
  • 16506 battles
  • 4,076
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012
If I remember correctly, we were told back in the day the old pike nose fell out of favor because it proved useless against the late/post war, high velocity guns. The faster the projectile goes, the less likely it will ricochet. A Tiger's 88mm AP around 2400fps would likely bounce off the angled armor of the pike nose. But the same projectile fired at 3300fps would bite into, and penetrate. HEAT didn't seem to care much about the pike either.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users