Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

On 6/10/2016 at 7:26 AM, Collimatrix said:

Great find legiondude!

 

I'm actually pretty partial to the E-series suspension concept, as it appears to solve or at least ameliorate the big problem with interleaved/overlapping road wheels.

 

Dv3tczO.jpg

 

There are horizontal tubes filled with belleville washers pressing against a piston.  The piston is attached to the swing arm via that rack and pinion toothed mechanism.  This would probably work fine for the E-10 and E-25, but surely I am not the only one who thinks that those teeth would strip right the fuck off if E-50 or E-75 hit a bump.  Especially with late-war German metallurgy.

 

Anyway, to pull a bad road wheel you pull the bogie of two road wheels off.  Even if they're in fully overlapping configuration, you only need to tilt the bogie off diagonally to get it off the hull without disturbing the other road wheels.  This does mean that you have to take the road wheels off as pairs, and with their associated springs, but this is basically the same procedure for changing a road wheel on a tank with Horstmann suspension:

 

gMROQTX.png

 

And you'll see paeons to the centurion raving about how much easier it was to swap out busted centurion suspension units than it was to change out road wheels and torsion bars on the M48.

So is the E-50 suspension independently sprung? How does it compare to torsion bar suspension of Panther and Tiger II (smoothness and pitching issue)?

I am worried about its pressure on tracks since E-50 only has 6 wheels (3 pairs) per track while the Panther has 16 and Tiger II has 18 wheels.b0a5256b0d77b37c.jpg

I mean look at the wheels - they are so thin and few it makes me cringe.

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Thomas Zhang said:

So is the E-50 suspension independently sprung? How does it compare to torsion bar suspension of Panther and Tiger II (smoothness and pitching issue)?

I am worried about its pressure on tracks since E-50 only has 6 wheels (3 pairs) per track while the Panther has 16 and Tiger II has 18 wheels.b0a5256b0d77b37c.jpg

I mean look at the wheels - they are so thin and few it makes me cringe.

 

To quote Jentz and Doyle in Panzer Tracts No. 20-1:

Quote

 


The suspension was an entirely new design. The individual roadwheels were mounted in Schrittanordung (step arrangement). The crank arms for each pair of roadwheels acted through ratchets and wedge gear segments on a large parcel of Belleville springs contained in a housing with the shock absorbers. The E 50 had three suspension units  on each side, and the E 75 had four suspension units. The combat track for the E 50 was to be used as the transport track for the E 75.
 

 

 

It should be worth noting that this model above is probably not 100% to scale.  The road wheels on it do look noticeably thin, but that seems to me to be a result of the model designers.  They should be more similar, if not the same, as those found on the King Tiger.

King-Tiger-Wheels.jpg

 

 

World of Tanks' E-50 model has the suspension units modelled (and can be viewed here), so that should give an idea of what it would have looked like.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/23/2016 at 5:26 AM, Collimatrix said:

Forczyk mentioned in his T-34 vs panther book that there was some loon in the German armor development bureaucracy who was completely obsessed with torsion bars and interleaved road wheels, and would basically reject any design that didn't have them.  This is apparently why the DB panther design gained them later in development.  But it's not clear to me why this guy had so much say in tank design, and why everyone around him didn't point and laugh.

 

I know I am late here, but the loon wouldn't happen to be Ernst Kniepkamp would it? I know with the half-tracks and Panzer III he was directly the guy responsible for those elements - and the Tiger I work at Henschel was also his pet project of the time.

 

And wait, I have Forcyk's book.... and yep it is Kneipkamp. Head of all tank projects at the Wehrmacht, and had been the chief army engineer even before the Nazi takeover when it was the "Military Automotive Department". Even the tiny Kettenkrad has the interleaved wheels, and yep the patent on that is "E. Kneipkamp".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny that nowadays everybody likes to bash ww2 german stuff. Yes, interleaved road wheels had problems, but it wasnt that bad actually. What about the mythical Christie suspension? In my opinion that was far worse. Took lots of space inside and was a nightmare to repair, much worse than interleaved german suspension. Also the ride quality... I once had the opportunity to ride on a T-34, that thing has horrible,  I felt almost every bump on the road. Compared to it, the T-55 (that I drove lots) has a luxury car quality suspension.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know why you think it was a nightmare to repair, replacement of springs was something that could be done at company repair workshops without much difficulty. As for taking up room inside the vehicle, the British actually praised this solution because it did not increase the height of the tank or require skirts like their own tanks had. Although the British always had a pretty complicated relationship with suspensions.


Actually I wonder, there is nothing stopping one from making a tank with both interleaved road wheels and a Christie suspension...

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, EnsignExpendable said:

I don't know why you think it was a nightmare to repair, replacement of springs was something that could be done at company repair workshops without much difficulty. As for taking up room inside the vehicle, the British actually praised this solution because it did not increase the height of the tank or require skirts like their own tanks had. Although the British always had a pretty complicated relationship with suspensions.


Actually I wonder, there is nothing stopping one from making a tank with both interleaved road wheels and a Christie suspension...

 

If they could figure out a way to make a tank suspension out of Beleville washers, anything is possible.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, EnsignExpendable said:

I don't know why you think it was a nightmare to repair, replacement of springs was something that could be done at company repair workshops without much difficulty. As for taking up room inside the vehicle, the British actually praised this solution because it did not increase the height of the tank or require skirts like their own tanks had. Although the British always had a pretty complicated relationship with suspensions.

Yes, definitely not as time consuming (at least on T-34) as in the case of the Tiger or Panther, but still not an easy task, far harder than changing a bogie on a Sherman or on a Panzer IV, or changing a torsion bar on a tank without interleaved road wheels. Some springs are more or less trouble free, but some are nasty. In case of the british tanks, well, suspension repair is horror, surely worse than interleaved stuff (tracks off, wheels off, side armor plate off). Brits liked all kinds of weird stuff :D

So yes, you can bash the interleaved suspension, it indeed had problems. But it is unfair if you bash only that, when at the same time, there were other similarly less successful designs, like the Christie suspension. (in fact, you can still find some prototypes after the war with interleaved wheels, but absolutely nothing with Christie suspension)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Pascal said:

That "i felt almost every bump on the road" doesn't look like a Christie suspension problem, more like "not having any shock absorbers" problem.

Well, yes you can have shock absorbers with Christie suspension but that makes things more complicated, like on british tanks. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, heretic88 said:

Well, yes you can have shock absorbers with Christie suspension but that makes things more complicated, like on british tanks. 

Yeah i know about the british tanks, i just noted that the bumpy ride was on the fault of missing shock absorbers in a t-34 not the suspension.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Content

    • By SH_MM
      Found a few higher resolution photographs from the recent North Korean military parade. We didn't have a topic for BEST KOREAN armored fighting vehicles, so here it is.
       
      New main battle tank, Abrams-Armata clone based on Ch'ŏnma turret design (welded, box-shaped turret) and Sŏn'gun hull design (i.e. centerline driver's position). The bolts of the armor on the hull front is finally visible given the increased resolution. It might not be ERA given the lack of lines inbetween. Maybe is a NERA module akin to the MEXAS hull add-on armor for the Leopard 2A5?
       
      Other details include an APS with four radar panels (the side-mounted radar panels look a lot different - and a lot more real - than the ones mounted at the turret corners) and twelve countermeasures in four banks (two banks à three launchers each at the turret front, two banks à three launchers on the left and right side of the turret). Thermal imagers for gunner and commander, meteorological mast, two laser warning receivers, 115 mm smoothbore gun without thermal sleeve but with muzze reference system, 30 mm grenade launcher on the turret, six smoke grenade dischargers (three at each turret rear corner)
       


       
      IMO the layout of the roof-mounted ERA is really odd. Either the armor array covering the left turret cheek is significantly thinner than the armor on the right turret cheek or the roof-mounted ERA overlaps with the armor.
       


      The first ERA/armor element of the skirt is connected by hinges and can probably swivel to allow better access to the track. There is a cut-out in the slat armor for the engine exhaust. Also note the actual turret ring - very small diameter compared to the outer dimensions of the turret.
       
      Stryker MGS copy with D-30 field gun clone and mid engine:

      Note there are four crew hatches. Driver (on the left front of the vehicle), commander (on the right front of the vehicle, seat is placed a bit further back), gunner (left side of the gun's overhead mount, next to the gunner's sight) and unknown crew member (right side of gun's overhead mount with 30 mm automatic grenade launcher mounted at the hatch). The vehicle also has a thermal imager and laser rangefinder (gunner's sight is identical to the new tank), but no independent optic for the commander. It also has the same meteorological mast and laser warner receivers as the new MBT.
       
      What is the purpose of the fourth crew member? He cannot realistically load the gun...
       
      The vehicle has a small trim vane for swimming, the side armor is made of very thin spaced steel that is bend on multiple spots, so it clearly is not ceramic armor as fitted to the actual Stryker.

       
      The tank destroyer variant of the same Stryker MGS copy fitted with a Bulsae-3 ATGM launcher.
       

      Note that there is again a third hatch with 30 mm automatic grenade launcher behind the commander's position. Laser warning receivers and trime vane are again stand-out features. The sighting complex for the Bulsae-3 ATGMs is different with a large circular optic (fitted with cover) probably being a thermal imager and two smaller lenses visible on the very right (as seen from the vehicle's point of view) probably containing a day sight and parts of the guidance system.
       

      Non line-of-sight ATGM carrier based on the 6x6 local variant of the BTR, again fitted with laser warning receivers and a trim vane. There are only two hatches and two windows, but there is a three men crew inside.
       
       
      There are a lot more photos here, but most of them are infantry of missile system (MLRS' and ICBMs).
    • By Toxn
      So I got a request recently from {NAME REDACTED} as to whether we have a how-to guide or something for competitions. After a few moments of bitter, bitter laughter at the decade-plus of my life that I've spent cobbling together things that can maybe, sort-of, squint-your-eyes produce a facsimile of a realistic vehicle, I thought I'd share my process:
       
       
      Note: I was half-right - we definitely have supplementary info for aspiring pretend tank designers pinned to this very board.
       
      Finally, I'm inviting our forum grognards and past winners to share their process for folk that haven't been here since before the last ice age, so that all can benefit.
    • By Proyas
      Hi guys,
       
      Does anyone know of any military studies that analyzed the reload speeds for different tanks? The question occurred to me when I watched this video tour of the T-55's interior: 
       
      https://youtu.be/TEDhB9evPvw
       
      At the 10:00 mark, Mr. Moran demonstrates how the loader would put a shell into the tank's cannon, and the effects of the turret's small size and of the loader's awkward seating make it clear that the process would be slow. My question is: how slow? 
       
      Side question: Am I right to assume that storing the tank shells all over the inside of the turret like that is an inherent design flaw of the T-55 that makes it inferior in that regard to modern tanks? 
       
      Thanks in advance. 
    • By Collimatrix
      Sturgeon's House started with a community of people who played tank games.  At the time, most of us were playing World of Tanks, but I think there were a few Warthunder and even Steel Beasts players mixed in there too.  After nearly five years, we must be doing something right because we're still here, and because we've somehow picked up a number of members who work with, or have worked with tanks in real life.

      I know that @AssaultPlazma served as an Abrams loader, @Merc 321 and @Meplat have helped maintain and restore privately-owned armor, and @Xlucine has volunteered in a tank museum.  I'm sure I'm missing several more!

      So, what are your favorite personal tank stories?
×
×
  • Create New...