The Soviet Tank Thread: Transversely Mounted 1000hp Engines

[JDyer]

Spoiler

Found the T-72, 

"[Talking about snorkel] Driving underwater was a dangerous and nerve wracking operation for the crews, yet considered important because the Soviet Union has many rivers but few Bridges" 

 

No KGB in tank, only short men. 

"Once the turret hatch was closed the height inside was minimal, so that neither the commander nor gunner could stand upright. It is said that the Soviet Army deliberately chose shorter men for their tank crews. Could You fight in such a claustrophobic space?" 

 

Also Soviet State Arsenals best manufacturer, move aside UVZ. 

 

Was in Nicholas or the museum that started the "T-34s have weld gaps everywhere and are made to survive 6 months"

 

[Wiedzmin]

8 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

Closer look at BTR-80 firing ports from outside

70M

 

  

8 hours ago, JDyer said:

"T-34s have weld gaps everywhere and are made to survive 6 months"

http://www.tank-net.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=43380&page=13

 

from "with all due respect to Chieftain's work, is it real to correct old article ?"

[heretic88]

22 hours ago, Wiedzmin said:

try to fit in fully stowed(ammo, spare parts etc) Panzer IV(where gunner have 4 round on his legs etc) or III lol

Panzer III was very ergonomic, check video with Nicholas Moran. Panzer IV wasnt much different.
T-34/76 was absolute horror for its crew. Tank was designed with utter disregard of crew comfort. Driver's place is quite okay, until you start driving the thing. Everything you do needs huge amounts of physical force. Gearshifting is another thing. Yes, sometimes it indeed needs a hammer to do it. Not a myth, fact, talked about old tankists about this. Terribly exhausting to drive. Bow gunner's place is also OK, comfortable, but... well, chieftain's hatch video, he explains.  Turret is exceedingly cramped in 1940/41 variants, somewhat got better in 1942 but still very bad, since commander also had to fire the gun. Loader's place again extremely bad, horrible ammo placement, no turret basket and absolutely no headroom. With the T-34/85, things got significantly better for commander, and also the gunner's place was quite acceptable, but the rest remained just as bad as before. And finally, add to this the horrible, bumpy, jerky ride of the tank. And I personally have experience to compare it with another tanks, namely the T-55. I've driven a VT-55  many times, and also rode on a T-34. T-55, even with its quite stiff suspension is luxury car compared to T-34 where I felt every bump on the road! American report also stated that it greatly contributes to crew fatigue. And exactly these ergonomic problems were the cause of the low combat effectiveness of the T-34 in any wars it fought in.

[heretic88]

11 hours ago, JDyer said:

"Once the turret hatch was closed the height inside was minimal, so that neither the commander nor gunner could stand upright. It is said that the Soviet Army deliberately chose shorter men for their tank crews. Could You fight in such a claustrophobic space?" 

 

Looks like they never sat in their own T-72... It is quite comfortable actually. Especially the driver's seat. At least for me.

 

[Wiedzmin]

39 minutes ago, heretic88 said:

Panzer III was very ergonomic, check video with Nicholas Moran.

i researched III, IV, 34, VI and V much closer tnan that videos in empty tanks 

 

as for "very ergonomic panzer III" loader doesn't have turntable, and will dance around cardan shaft 

 

or "gunner position is not bad" with open side hatch, no commander in place lol, superb! 

 

driver and radiooperator don't have hatches 

 

and it has a 50mm little gun vs 76mm, well...

 

loader site, tank doesn't have MG which will reduce free space in turret...and again open hatches(vision block on hatch again will reduce free space)

39 minutes ago, heretic88 said:

T-34/76 was absolute horror for its crew. Tank was designed with utter disregard of crew comfort.

with 

this turret has some problems.

 

39 minutes ago, heretic88 said:

Everything you do needs huge amounts of physical force.

same level of force was needed on Sherman steering levers , 30-35 kg max for T34 and Sherman, as for gearshift on 4 speed gearbox it was fixed on 5 speed gearbox

and human memory never was and never be a good source.

 

39 minutes ago, heretic88 said:

since commander also had to fire the gun

it's not problem of a turret, but basic idea of that tank at the moment.

 

39 minutes ago, heretic88 said:

Loader's place again extremely bad, horrible ammo placement

horrible in what term ? or in comparison with what tank ? Panzer III with commander sitting on ammo bin ? or Panzer III rack in engine room ? or Panzer IV  gunner have ammo oh his foots ? maybe Comet where loader can't load gun without hurting himself ?

 

39 minutes ago, heretic88 said:

of the low combat effectiveness of the T-34 in any wars it fought in.

great conclusion

 

and again, all of that it's not in protection of "holly T-34", just hate tons of stupid old myths and new made by Chieftain sitting in empty tank and making conclusions out of nowhere.

[LoooSeR]

   BTR-80 of DPR troops with light protection of wheels.

[heretic88]

Yes, but for some reason I didnt encounter any reports about serious ergonomic problems with Panzer III/IV... Wonder why... Also, the chieftain's hatch video of the Panzer IV was filmed in a relatively empty, poorly restored tank  but on the other hand, Bovington's Panzer III is complete. Ammo is located in bins, and all bins are present. So Moran's conclusion is very valid. And as he pointed out, the ready rack is in quite convenient position. (btw, PzIII didnt have a single round in engine compartment...) In Pz.III the lack of rotating platform isnt a big problem, since the turret is manually traversed. In Pz. IV, again not a problem, since it had a platform. In the T-34, it is a real problem, since it didnt have platform, the loader had an uneven footing, and the power traverse was very fast, with big risk of injury. Correctly pointed out by Moran. You can also read this in a post war CIA report.

 

 

On 5/20/2020 at 1:27 PM, Wiedzmin said:

or "gunner position is not bad" with open side hatch, no commander in place lol, superb! 

Watch Pz.IV video. Closed hatch, "commander" (Hilary Doyle) present. No serious complaints.

 

 

On 5/20/2020 at 1:27 PM, Wiedzmin said:

and it has a 50mm little gun vs 76mm, well...

Bigger gun is worthless if the commander/gunner cant see a damn thing out of the tank. Which was a real and crippling design fault of the T-34/76. The often quoted case, when a german 37mm AT gun hit the tank more than 20 times perfectly illustrate this problem. And also other combat reports.

 

On 5/20/2020 at 1:27 PM, Wiedzmin said:

same level of force was needed on Sherman steering levers , 30-35 kg max for T34 and Sherman, as for gearshift on 4 speed gearbox it was fixed on 5 speed gearbox

Again, I didnt read complaints of Sherman crews about this... 5 speed gearbox wasnt common in WW2. The old 4 speed unit was still frequently installed in 34/85s, evidenced by the reports of polish units who received them in late 1944, by hungarian reports (we had lots of T-34s post war), and also by the CIA report of a captured korean tank. The new gearbox helped only to increase the speed of the tank (finally it had some real speed advantage over Pz IV and Stug III in combat conditions). It was still extremely hard to operate, and was still an immensely primitive design. Clutch is also extremely heavy. Together with the bad suspension, result = crew fatigue, low combat effectiveness.

 

Its not about creating new myths. T-34 was not a bad tank, but wasnt good either. An average. Far, far inferior to the Sherman, and also markedly inferior to Pz IV until /85. The sole reason: as I said, the utter disregard of ergonomy. Even the soviets were perfectly aware of this. IS-2 was already a huge improvement. T-54/55, even better. I have a very positive opinion about these tanks, when sitting in these it becomes totally obvious that designers learned a LOT from the problems of T-34. Nicholas Moran also had a very good opinion about gunner and loader positions. Commander's place is not that great though, and for him drivers place was also uncomfortable, although he is too tall to fit. For a smaller person, like me, driver's place is quite good. 

 

[Wiedzmin]

2 hours ago, heretic88 said:

I didnt encounter any reports about serious ergonomic problems with Panzer III/IV

did you encounter ANY reports on Panzer III/IV ?:) because i'm not, only that it have shitty optics before long barelled gun was installed(+ some other british test on tank)

 

2 hours ago, heretic88 said:

Bovington's Panzer III is complete

nope, there is no complete tanks.

 

2 hours ago, heretic88 said:

btw, PzIII didnt have a single round in engine compartment..

oh really ?

 

2 hours ago, heretic88 said:

In Pz.III the lack of rotating platform isnt a big problem, since the

since the Chieftain said it lol ? 

 

2 hours ago, heretic88 said:

the loader had an uneven footing,

he has seat, and doesn't need to dance around any shaft's, and no one is rotating turret during loading procedure, so if it's not a problem for shitty Pz3 ergonomic, it's not a problem and for T-34.

 

2 hours ago, heretic88 said:

Watch Pz.IV video

i don't need to watch video of empty Panzer IV, i know exactly how it look like when all ammo, spare, MG, MP is inside,but "famous youtubers and book writers" don't want to mentoin it somehow. 

 

2 hours ago, heretic88 said:

 5 speed gearbox wasnt common in WW2

started from 1942 IIRC, and your conclussion came from where ? if you maintain gerbox normaly, it woudn't be any problems, if you doesn't maintain it, well sledgehammer for genius.

 

2 hours ago, heretic88 said:

of polish units who received them in late 1944, by hungarian reports (we had lots of T-34s post war)

polish + hungarian T-34 units it's a 80% or RKKA tank fleet or what ? level of maintenance in this units ?

 

2 hours ago, heretic88 said:

Far, far inferior to the Sherman,

better optics(1943 report on Sherman in Italy), better or same REAL reability than almost any modification of M4(read reports on tankarchives) and ?

 

http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p4013coll8/id/3344/rec/206

 

Fire control.-(1) Because of the excessive dispersion which occurs with the M4 periscope, firing of tank guns is confined almost entirely to the artillery method of sensing and locating bursts and giving corrections in mils to the gunners. The average dispersion which occurs as a result of slack in the periscope holder and linkage extends 4 mils in both planes. This dispersion is so great that guns do not stay bore-sighted with the telescope after any operation. The modification consisting of a spring between the periscope holder and turret will be greatly welcomed. The officers who saw the M4A1 periscope liked it extremely, but all were emphatic in saying that only one reticle pattern should be used and that if these new periscopes are used the telescope mounted on the gun mount should have the same reticle.

 

(2) There is very little use of the coaxially mounted telescope; the dispersion which results from its use is even greater than that experienced with the M4 periscope. In addition, the optics of the M55 telescopes are unsatisfactory, resulting in unsatisfactory light-transmission characteristics. Furthermore, most gunners report that it is very difficult for them to get their heads into proper position for sighting through the coaxial telescope. When tanks are operating in combat, the crash helmet is always worn; in most cases, the steel helmet without liner is worn over the crash helmet.

 

(3) About 75 percent of the tanks in England are equipped both with azimuth indicators and with the M9 range quadrant. Less than half of the tanks in Italy are equipped with the azimuth indicator, and few have the M9 range quadrant. Both of these items are essential equipment in this theater

 

h. Ammunition stowage.-Except for the ready rounds in the turret, the ammunition stowage is unsatisfactory and should be improved. Experience in Italy indicates that 2 rounds out of every 40 in the stowage bins will separate, creating a very serious fire hazard and making it difficult to remove the rest of the rounds from the stowage bin. When going into combat, the crew invariably puts a full complement of ammunition in the floor of the turret basket because they are anxious to carry a very large quantity of ammunition. Tank crews are very little concerned with protection of ammunition and consider accessibility and quantity of primary importance.

 

2 hours ago, heretic88 said:

T-34 was not a bad tank

it was bad tank, with many flaws as any other, but main problems often was it's crew and people who command operations, but all this old shitty myths about "bad soviet sights" etc only a myths...

 

 

[Beer]

UBIM engineering vehicle photos and basic characteristics

 

[heretic88]

On 5/22/2020 at 1:23 PM, Wiedzmin said:

nope, there is no complete tanks.

Comparing it with wartime photos, yes, it is complete.

 

On 5/22/2020 at 1:23 PM, Wiedzmin said:

he has seat, and doesn't need to dance around any shaft's, and no one is rotating turret during loading procedure, so if it's not a problem for shitty Pz3 ergonomic, it's not a problem and for T-34.

Yes, he has a seat, and it is removed in combat. T-34/85 has ammo in turret, yes thats easy to reach, but /76 has ammo only in hull, in difficult to reach positions, cannot be done seated. (btw, Pz.III loader also has seat, again removed in combat conditions). I wouldnt say that nobody rotates the turret during loading. Stress can do "interesting" things to people... Or inexperienced crew...

On 5/22/2020 at 1:23 PM, Wiedzmin said:

i don't need to watch video of empty Panzer IV, i know exactly how it look like when all ammo, spare, MG, MP is inside,but "famous youtubers and book writers" don't want to mentoin it somehow. 

Hilary Doyle is not just a "famous book writer", he is probably the greatest expert of ww2 german AFVs.

 

On 5/22/2020 at 1:23 PM, Wiedzmin said:

if you maintain gerbox normaly, it woudn't be any problems, if you doesn't maintain it, well sledgehammer for genius.

T-34 gearbox, no matter what type 4 or 5 gear, is an unbelievably primitive (and unreliable) piece of junk. Spur gear transmission, without synchronizers... Every shift results in metal fragments breaking off gear teeth, this comes with extreme wear, very short life and high probability of failure. Fragments can also jam in the internal components, thats where sledgehammer is required to shift.

 

On 5/22/2020 at 1:23 PM, Wiedzmin said:

better optics(1943 report on Sherman in Italy), better or same REAL reability than almost any modification of M4(read reports on tankarchives) and ?

Early shermans had poor optics, true. But it got significantly better soon, 76mm versions were among the best in the world, and crew visibility was THE best. As for reliability... I do not buy it that they were on the same level. 1941-42 versions of T-34 were among the least reliable tanks of WW2. They improved, yes, but even the T-34/85 wasnt reliable at all. It had two major problems, frequent transmission failures, and also engine failures caused by not having a functional air filter. Even the "multicyclone" filter was totally inadequate. This problem was only fixed post war, in 1955 with the introduction of the VTI-3 filters. The "reliable T-34" myth comes from these post war overhauled tanks, which were uncomparably better than those in ww2.

[JDyer]

Some Tank Archives links pertinent ot the discussion. 

Height available to crew for various vehicles

T-34/Su-85 engine life 10 hours less than M4A2  

5 speed Gearbox reportebly lasted 1700km

 

 

[Wiedzmin]

10 hours ago, JDyer said:

Some Tank Archives links pertinent ot the discussion. 

Height available to crew for various vehicles

T-34/Su-85 engine life 10 hours less than M4A2  

5 speed Gearbox reportebly lasted 1700km

 

 

https://earlesspierre.livejournal.com/275281.html

https://earlesspierre.livejournal.com/111253.html

 

and more.

 

 

[ZloyKrolik]

The Soviets were aware of the shortcomings of the T-34 and had plans to address them, then the Germans invaded. Described in the latest Archive Awareness: http://www.tankarchives.ca/2020/05/pre-war-potential.html

[heretic88]

19 hours ago, JDyer said:

Some Tank Archives links pertinent ot the discussion. 

Height available to crew for various vehicles

T-34/Su-85 engine life 10 hours less than M4A2  

5 speed Gearbox reportebly lasted 1700km

I have my reservations about anything from Tank Archives. Im not buying that the T34 had similar engine life as the Sherman. But lets not get into this. 

 

As for the gearbox. 1700km. About 200km longer than the notoriously problematic final drives of the Panther... great achievement... The supposedly "totally unreliable" Panther's drive components were designed for 5000km, and according to the french post war experience, indeed lasted for this amount, except of course the final drive. There is a report about a Bergepanther, with 4200km in the clock, with its original engine, transmission, and even final drive! (Panzer Tracts 16-1). Another report about a Panther, with 1878km, all original components except track... On the other hand, the T-34/85 in CIA report had only 741km in the odometer, but the gearbox was judged to be already failed, the wear was so severe thanks to clash shifting.

[JDyer]

I wouldn't be surprised if the T-34 from NK wasn't well maintained, that mileage is far below anything else I've seen so far. I'll try to find the report though and see what else they say. I wonder what was written about the T-34 sent to the US during the war. I'll check that report too. 

 

I posted the links because they provided primary sources. You can ignore what the authors say entirely if you like. 

 

I also don't mean to be taking a side, just want to provide more data and sources instead of conjecture and opinion.

[Pascal]

On 5/20/2020 at 4:27 AM, Wiedzmin said:

i researched III, IV, 34, VI and V much closer tnan that videos in empty tanks 

driver and radiooperator don't have hatches 

 

Those two sentences are contradicting one another.

I do hope you are not referring to the panzer III...

[Wiedzmin]

48 minutes ago, Pascal said:

I do hope you are not referring to the panzer III...

and ? if you referring to escape hatch on transmission roof plate, well, good luck to crew trying to escape from these hatches(especially when full radio set is in place) lol

 

  

18 hours ago, heretic88 said:

and according to the french post war experience

 

yeah, super reliable, stronk engineering skills 

[Beer]

18 hours ago, heretic88 said:

I have my reservations about anything from Tank Archives. Im not buying that the T34 had similar engine life as the Sherman. But lets not get into this. 

 

As for the gearbox. 1700km. About 200km longer than the notoriously problematic final drives of the Panther... great achievement... The supposedly "totally unreliable" Panther's drive components were designed for 5000km, and according to the french post war experience, indeed lasted for this amount, except of course the final drive. There is a report about a Bergepanther, with 4200km in the clock, with its original engine, transmission, and even final drive! (Panzer Tracts 16-1). Another report about a Panther, with 1878km, all original components except track... On the other hand, the T-34/85 in CIA report had only 741km in the odometer, but the gearbox was judged to be already failed, the wear was so severe thanks to clash shifting.

 

This article quotes a lot of books and reports about Panther and I dare to say that basically all content doesn't agree with you. Please take into account that maximum means something different than average and that one sample is worthless for any meaningful statistics. 

https://tankandafvnews.com/2015/02/08/from-the-editor-panther-reliability/

[Pascal]

5 hours ago, Beer said:

 

This article quotes a lot of books and reports about Panther and I dare to say that basically all content doesn't agree with you. Please take into account that maximum means something different than average and that one sample is worthless for any meaningful statistics. 

https://tankandafvnews.com/2015/02/08/from-the-editor-panther-reliability/

 

Statistics, well there is something:

 

Reliability of soviet tanks, including post ww2 tanks.

http://btvt.info/5library/vbtt_1979_03_garantija.htm

 

Some statistics regarding crew loss, T-34, 4 crew versions and Sherman, of course the latter has 5 crew members but even with that it has fewer crew losses.

https://rostislavddd.livejournal.com/365699.html

https://rostislavddd.livejournal.com/360075.html

https://rostislavddd.livejournal.com/359840.html

[Wiedzmin]

Strange article from AFV News Vol.35 No.2

 

and other strange from AFV News Vol.40 No.2

[Laviduce]

I read that the NP105A2 has the ability to penetrate 470 mm RHA at 1000 m. How was it not able to penetrate the glacis ? I thought the T-72A/M1 hulls had a KE resistance rating of around 400-420 mm RHAe not including weak zones. I would expect T-72B hulls to be this resistant but not T-72A/M1 hulls. Can someone explain this to me ?

[Wiedzmin]

14 minutes ago, Laviduce said:

I read that the NP105A2 has the ability to penetrate 470 mm RHA at 1000 m. How was it not able to penetrate the glacis ? I thought the T-72A/M1 hulls had a KE resistance rating of around 400-420 mm RHAe

numbers have nothing to real protection/penetration on complex structures capability, every APFSDS will work different against different structures and will give different "numbers" due to design features of each round, for example conqueror APDS often quted as "400+mm pen" but it can't penetrate T-72 with more ore less "same" numbers for protection level.

 

 that's why correct way of showing protection level for tank is indicate striking velocity for specific round at which tank will be penetrated/not penetrated.

 

as for article, it's strange, holes doesn't look like APFSDS hits IMHO

 

 

same tank

 

[Laviduce]

3 minutes ago, Wiedzmin said:

numbers have nothing to real protection/penetration on complex structures capability, every APFSDS will work different against different structures and will give different "numbers" due to design features of each round, for example conqueror APDS often quted as "400+mm pen" but it can't penetrate T-72 with more ore less "same" numbers for protection level.

 

 that's why correct way of showing protection level for tank is indicate striking velocity for specific round at which tank will be penetrated/not penetrated.

 

 

I was aware of that and did take into account. I was just surprised that the rated value against APFSDS threats and the given penetration value were off like that. Just like in the case of the Swedish tank trials I would expect to be given resistance figures or at least a certain range with a given margin of safety. 

[Wiedzmin]

4 minutes ago, Laviduce said:

I was aware of that and did take into account. I was just surprised that the rated value against APFSDS threats and the given penetration value were off like that. Just like in the case of the Swedish tank trials I would expect to be given resistance figures or at least a certain range with a given margin of safety. 

the problem is "470mm pen" could mean anything, for example 160mm/70 deg is almost 470, and 235/60 is 470, and so on, what kind of steel was used etc, so it's very hard to compare "some penetration numbers" with "some protection numbers" IMHO

[Laviduce]

3 minutes ago, Wiedzmin said:

the problem is "470mm pen" could mean anything, for example 160mm/70 deg is almost 470, and 235/60 is 470, and so on, what kind of steel was used etc, so it's very hard to compare "some penetration numbers" with "some protection numbers" IMHO

Yes, exactly. I might have jumped the gun by just looking at the numbers and not knowing anything about the testing conditions (e.g. range to target,etc.).