The Soviet Tank Thread: Transversely Mounted 1000hp Engines

[Belesarius]

[LoooSeR]

4 hours ago, Belesarius said:

This year, Kuweit team decided to go even futher and fed main gun with a bit of durt

[LoooSeR]

 

[LoooSeR]

Ural-6308 four-axle truck for the transportation of tanks

 

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

[LoooSeR]

 

[LoooSeR]

http://yuripasholok.livejournal.com/9193582.html

Quote

....the armored car "Buran", represented by the "Nizhny Novgorod Aviation Society". The authors themselves position it as an analogue of the "Tiger", but it is rather different machine.

 

 

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[LoooSeR]

 

 

KamAZ Vystrel in RG

[LoooSeR]

 

 

 

[LoooSeR]

Chaborz in RG

 

And Vystrel in Syria (APC variant)

[LoooSeR]

TB crews messing with T-72Bs engine air system

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

 

And looks like it is a popular mod.

 

[LoooSeR]

Tigr in use by Kongo police

[LoooSeR]

Typhoon-VDV

 

[Walter_Sobchak]

For those who like 1930's multi-turret tanks, be sure to check out this podcast of Francis Pulham, author of the new book Fallen Giants: The Combat Debut of the T-35A Tank.

 

 

[EnsignExpendable]

I'm pretty sure that every other Soviet multi-turreted tank enjoyed a longer fighting career than the T-35A.

[Walter_Sobchak]

2 minutes ago, EnsignExpendable said:

I'm pretty sure that every other Soviet multi-turreted tank enjoyed a longer fighting career than the T-35A.

As I understand it, Stalin personally ripped the extra turrets off all these tanks while screaming something about department stores.  Of course, I might have the story wrong.

[Collimatrix]

Has anyone done a general case study on the rise and fall of the multi-turreted tank concept?  It seems like one of those ideas that became fashionable in the 1930s, and slammed headlong into the cold, unyielding realities of combat during the early 1940s.

[Walter_Sobchak]

19 minutes ago, Collimatrix said:

Has anyone done a general case study on the rise and fall of the multi-turreted tank concept?  It seems like one of those ideas that became fashionable in the 1930s, and slammed headlong into the cold, unyielding realities of combat during the early 1940s.

I don't know if anyone has ever looked at it in great detail.  It seems like one of those things that everyone realized was just obviously a bad idea once the war started.  The US dropped the concept before the war even started, once they settled on the M2A4 light tank.  Oddly enough, it was the US cavalry with their "combat cars" that seemed to realize that multiple turrets were dumb, while the US infantry branch produced the earlier marks of M2 light tank with twin turrets.  The British of course were afflicted with the multiple turret idea early on, with their "independent" tank and the Vickers 6 ton.  They also seemed to think that it was a good idea to put little machine gun turrets on the front of some of their cruiser tanks.  The Russians had multiple examples of multi-turret designs.  The Axis seemed to resist the multi-turret trend a bit better, the Germans only dabbling with the concept on those silly Neubaufahrzeug designs, of which very few were built.  The Japanese might have had some multi-turret designs but honestly, who really cares?  The French Char 2C had multiple turrets, but that was only one of a whole list of problems with that design...

[EnsignExpendable]

I thought that it was the protruding drive shaft that drove the Americans to try out multiple turrets.

 

The Vickers Mk.E (and T-26 as a consequence) was designed to be a "trench sweeper", with the ability to drive on top of a trench, and shoot in both directions at the same time. That idea wasn't great (apparently zig-zag trenches are a thing, who knew), so the Vickers Mk.E Type B and single turreted T-26 evolved independently.

 

The T-28 was designed with those mini MG turrets for infantry support as well, same as similar British designs. The T-35 was basically a "T-28 plus". I assume that the use of 45 mm gun turrets was also connected with the fact that the armour piercing performance of the 76 mm gun was poor. The L-10 gun used on the heavy successors to the T-35 wasn't much better, only the L-11 provided sufficient penetration to make getting rid of the 45 mm gun feasible (which makes the coax 45 in the first KV look even more ridiculous).

[DogDodger]

Doctrinal issues may have had a larger effect on US choice than the propeller shaft. Like Walter said, the cavalry's combat car T5 was approved to test separate MG turrets in October 1933, and was shown at APG the next April along with the single-turret light tank T2, which was standardized as the M2A1 once they changed the suspension to the familiar volute spring from the original suspension that was related to that found on the Vickers Six-ton. The tests on the separate-turret T5 convinced the infantry to use this setup on the light tank M2A2, while the cavalry opted instead to put the single, two-machine gun turret from the combat car T4E1 on their T5E2, which was standardized as the combat car M1. The combat car M1 and the light tanks M2A1/M2A2 used essentially the same hull, so we see the infantry initially having a single-turret tank but changing to a separate-turret arrangement while the cavalry tested the separate-turret arrangement and chose the single turret instead, both with the propeller shaft coming through the fighting compartment.

 

Even as late as 1939, FM 100-5 Tentative Field Service Regulations, Operations echoed the immediate post-WW1 tank doctrine of having medium tanks disable antitank weapons while light tanks followed to defeat machine guns and otherwise assist the infantry advance. The combat cars were more for reconnaissance and typical cavalry missions, so may not have benefited enough from the complication of being able to simultaneously engage targets in different directions.

[LoooSeR]

Chaborz use Chechen magic to fly

[LoooSeR]

[LoooSeR]

Yesterday competition

 

[LoooSeR]

BTR-80 vs car

 

[LoooSeR]

More from Day of the VDV

 

[LoooSeR]

 

Spoiler