Jump to content

Entwicklungserie


10 minutes ago, KorEEnium said:

That's funny because most of the US tanks after the war were all just as tall if not even taller than Tiger II.


Or maybe then it was the hull that was lower, since the turret was smaller so it was a smaller target anyway? I can't remember where I'd read it, it was in conjunction with the way Germans used both torsion bars and a transmission shaft that went all the way from one end to the other of the tank, both of which increased the height of the hull.

  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Chupambrico said:


Or maybe then it was the hull that was lower, since the turret was smaller so it was a smaller target anyway? I can't remember where I'd read it, it was in conjunction with the way Germans used both torsion bars and a transmission shaft that went all the way from one end to the other of the tank, both of which increased the height of the hull.

Torsion bar suspension does increase hull height but not much on a single torsion bar suspension. For example single torsion bar suspension on Tiger II increases hull height by 100mm. Now dual torsion bar suspension on Panther is different story as it increases hull height up to 230mm but at the same time there was no other suspension type that offered ride quality anywhere near as good back then.

Drive shaft does increase the height of the vehicle unless the fighting compartment in the turret is made lower which is nothing unusual.

 

Anyway torsion bar suspension and drive shaft don't mean you can't make low profile tank. For example Panzer III which had both and was still far lower profile than most other tanks. In fact without the commanders cupola, Panzer III has lower profile than T-34 1940 (height - 2405mm). Height from ground to the turret roof on Panzer III is 2160mm.

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎/‎12‎/‎2018 at 9:35 AM, builder396 said:

Another issue I see in not keeping the basic Tiger II turret design is the fact that the entire rear bulge serves as a good counterweight, which is necessary to even allow the Kwk 43 to be mounted this far forward (the further forward the gun mount is the less the opposite end of the turret ring is in the way), and quite frankly, that much space really shouldnt go to waste and if you can have a big ready rack there, then why the xxxx not? 
And thats also a point where the Panthers Schmalturm design really falls short, especially if you put the Kwk 43 in. The gun mount is almost above the turret ring, so even with a shorter breech and cartridge it would make loading the gun similarly painful as on a Sherman Firefly, but also there is no significant overhang in the rear of the turret to act as a counterweight, nevermind the complete lack of a ready rack. It would probably be possible to still make the turret and have conditions in there that are at least workable, but the crews would pretty much hate the designer. If it were up to me personally I would probably ditch the Schmalturm per se and make a kind of shortened Tiger II turrets for Panther or E-50 in order to mount the Kwk 43. 

This ^ I agree wholeheartedly. 

Only thing is that we do know that a schmalturm-esque turret of some kind (based on Panther F/II) was intended for E 50. If you think about it, the "Schmalturm" design basically is a "chopped-off" Tiger II turret. Looking at it from the front, the similarities are more obvious. Maybe they would've switched turrets during design, but from what we have, we do know they were to start with a schmalturm, so I think that ought to be what is used for such a vehicle in-game. Odds are, trials with a schmalturm would show the same problems you described, and the design would be changed, but that's speculation on my part. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the record, the dropping of turret ammo racks was due to the experience learnt from the first use of the Tiger 2 by 501st s.Pz.Abt against 53th Guards tank bridge where T-34-85s and IS-2s roughly handled the unit of tanks leading to the loss of 13 Tiger 2s over the course of 3 days. This was encoded by the Panzerfibel(if i recall).

  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On ‎1‎/‎16‎/‎2018 at 8:52 AM, LordMoistBlaster said:

For the record, the dropping of turret ammo racks was due to the experience learnt from the first use of the Tiger 2 by 501st s.Pz.Abt against 53th Guards tank bridge where T-34-85s and IS-2s roughly handled the unit of tanks leading to the loss of 13 Tiger 2s over the course of 3 days. This was encoded by the Panzerfibel(if i recall).

Correct. The particular incident that lead to this was an ambush achieved by a grouping of T-34-85s, which were able to get off several flank shots. I believe an initial 3 tigers were lost due to turret rack detonations, which is why the racks were removed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
15 hours ago, Nell_Lucifer said:

So would the E75 and E50 use the GT101? Or would they still keep the HL 234?

i doubt that... at least the E75 would use it, not the E50, the E50 will fast ennough with HL234...

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7.2.2018 at 10:59 PM, Nell_Lucifer said:

So would the E75 and E50 use the GT101? Or would they still keep the HL 234?

Early gas turbines were not ready to be used in tanks simply because they had high fuel consumption and were very unreliable. Also Heer was strickly against using unreliable engines on production vehicles like the famous HL 230. So no GT101, GT 103 etc.

 

When it comes to HL 234 then the production version was most likely going to be HL 295 with 800-850 hp and with no supercharger or some further developed engine.

Edited by KorEEnium
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Quax_der_Pilot said:

All this Drawings are not older than 20 Years. Its coming from the "Nast-Sonderfahrzeuge" Website.

 

I might have missed them, but I haven't seen any of those type in this thread.

  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


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

All this Drawings are not older than 20 Years. Its coming from the "Nast-Sonderfahrzeuge" Website.

Which ones are you talking about?

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 years later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...