Tank Layout

[Collimatrix]

Walter dug up these diagrams, I know not where from:

 

 

 

Very interesting, and you can see how much space the Soviet trick of turning the engine sideways saves.

[EnsignExpendable]

It's weird that it was used on the MS-1 and then never used until the T-44.

[Walter_Sobchak]

http://bookzz.org/book/729351/bae133

 

Kampfpanzer. Die Entwicklungen Der Nachkriegszeit by Rolf HIlmes.  I was only able to find PDF versions of the German edition.  English language editions exist, but used copies are 55 dollars and up.  Still, I might buy a copy.  It looks like it has all sorts of wonderful stuff in it.  Kinda like Technology of Tanks but shorter and with more diagrams.  

[Collimatrix]

It's weird that it was used on the MS-1 and then never used until the T-44.

 

I didn't know that about the MS-1.  And yes, that makes it even weirder.

[xthetenth]

Might it have been a thing where there's a compromise they made on the MS-1 because it was so small and then stopped making on later tanks because they felt they had more room, and only later returned to when tanks had grown to fill that size and they needed to optimize for volume to get good protection?

[Walter_Sobchak]

I bet there was not enough room in the T-34 to do a transverse mounted engine because of the interior hull space taken up by the Christie suspension.  

[T___A]

T-34M had a transverse engine.

[EnsignExpendable]

I bet there was not enough room in the T-34 to do a transverse mounted engine because of the interior hull space taken up by the Christie suspension.  

 

No, it wouldn't have fit either way, I don't think. The V-5 probably could have, even with the spring wells.

[LoooSeR]

One question that interest me - can you make turreted tank smaller and lighter than T-64, while crew heights limitations are same?

[T___A]

Put the crew in the hull.

[T___A]

The IS-7

[LoooSeR]

Put the crew in the hull.

It will increase hull size. T-14, AFAIK would have similar size to T-90MS, if not bigger.

[Collimatrix]

One question that interest me - can you make turreted tank smaller and lighter than T-64, while crew heights limitations are same?

 

T-64 doesn't have a reclining driver, IIRC.  You could make the tank shorter with a reclined driver, but hull length would increase.

 

If you put the driver in the turret you could make the hull have less height and less length, but the turret would be larger.

 

If you put the entire crew in the hull, the hull would get larger but the turret would be smaller.

 

If you ditched the carousel-style autoloader, you could sink the commander and gunner down to the floor, mostly below the turret ring, like in M60A2.  You'd have to devise a new autoloader though, and the turret would probably sprout a long bustle.

[LoooSeR]

Well, puting crew in hull and decreasing turret size have a lot of reasons behind. One of those reasons made Merkava 4 turret so big almost all around, even if it is pretty small from inside.

[Xlucine]

T-64 doesn't have a reclining driver, IIRC.  You could make the tank shorter with a reclined driver, but hull length would increase.

 

If you put the driver in the turret you could make the hull have less height and less length, but the turret would be larger.

 

If you put the entire crew in the hull, the hull would get larger but the turret would be smaller.

 

If you ditched the carousel-style autoloader, you could sink the commander and gunner down to the floor, mostly below the turret ring, like in M60A2.  You'd have to devise a new autoloader though, and the turret would probably sprout a long bustle.

 

Recline the driver and squash the hull, move all the ammo into a bustle mounted autoloader (and so drop the turret basket to the floor), voila. Shorter than T-64, and if you're sensible with the autoloader design it's safer too

[LoooSeR]

Recline the driver and squash the hull, move all the ammo into a bustle mounted autoloader (and so drop the turret basket to the floor), voila. Shorter than T-64, and if you're sensible with the autoloader design it's safer too

In that case you increase chances to hit autoloader, and turret in general, which will lead to overall higher number of damaged tanks during battles. 70% of hits, IIRC, during Israel conflicts were turret hits, and this is data for T-72 with its not so big turret. 

[Collimatrix]

Per Xlucine's proposal, the turret would be longer, but either narrower or lower from the front.  It would be harder to hit from the front, but easier to hit from the side.

 

Protecting the sides of the turret from hits from the front from, say, a 30 degree angle is not difficult; ERA is very good at this, and ERA is cheap and insanely effective considering that it is tiny and light.

 

Reclining driver's position would probably lengthen the hull, so you would get more side area exposed.

 

I don't think there's any way to shrink any measurement of a T-64/T-72 style tank without growing some other measurement, unless you accept a smaller gun/engine/armor, or unless technology allows you to miniaturize one of the components.

[LoooSeR]

Per Xlucine's proposal, the turret would be longer, but either narrower or lower from the front.  It would be harder to hit from the front, but easier to hit from the side.

 

Protecting the sides of the turret from hits from the front from, say, a 30 degree angle is not difficult; ERA is very good at this, and ERA is cheap and insanely effective considering that it is tiny and light.

 

Reclining driver's position would probably lengthen the hull, so you would get more side area exposed.

 

I don't think there's any way to shrink any measurement of a T-64/T-72 style tank without growing some other measurement, unless you accept a smaller gun/engine/armor, or unless technology allows you to miniaturize one of the components.

Automatization. Loader work was first to be automated, according to Soviet tank designers calculations next should be gunner work. IIRC they thought that driver and commander work is hardest to give to non-human systems to do as reliably as human can.

[Xlucine]

So not only did they strap a million machine guns to IS-7, they also wanted them to be fired by robots?

[Collimatrix]

Not just any robots.  Communist robots.

[LoooSeR]

Not just any robots.  Communist robots.

 

Anyway, I suspect that next crew member, who will find itself outside of tank is gunner. Not any time soon, but most likely it would be him.

 

About tank layout from Teledyne:

 

 

[Sturgeon]

The APT did eventually get mounted to the M1128 Mobile Gun System, so those bits about putting it on LAV-25s were no joke.

 

Or at the very least the Army didn't get the joke and thought GDLS was being serious and gave them a contract.

[LoooSeR]

Found a pictures of pages, where reasons were showed why 2 crew is better than 3 crew tank.

 

 

 

 

       Table 1 shows sequence of reducing number of crew. Loader, Gunner and Driver work could be automated, leaving only commander in tank.

 

       Table 2 shows number of primary and duplicating each crew member functions.

 

       Basically what is on those pages - automatisation should be based on how workload would be spread between 2 operators, and it point at need to increase speed of targets detection and making first shot. They also look at tank computer, how it will work with crew and integration of this copmuter with other tank systems. They also try to look at how to compensate lost crew member in attempt to decrease commander and driver workload by automatisation of some of commander's work, how on-board computer will present information to crew in easily understandable way and crew comfort.

[EnsignExpendable]

 

 

 

 

Oh man, a tank that doesn't require a suspension, engine, or tracks? What a savings!

[xthetenth]

Free M60s when you suck up to NATO, so yeah.