Jarms

British Bug Reports

Little modeling bugs for Conqueror reported.

Spoiler

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 02/01/2019 at 19:20, Godman_82 said:

Little modeling bugs for Conqueror reported.

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

 

I think you have it backwards, in the left most drawing the two "A"s and two arrows show the location of the cutting plane, the lower right "SECTION 'A A'" drawing is the result showing the tank cut down the long axis revealing internal features like the cooling vents. If the left most drawing were a transverse section through the centreline of the turret ring and the hull side blisters as you seem to think it is, it would also show the sectioned turret too.

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, MaximumSomething said:

 

I think you have it backwards, in the left most drawing the two "A"s and two arrows show the location of the cutting plane, the lower right "SECTION 'A A'" drawing is the result showing the tank cut down the long axis revealing internal features like the cooling vents. If the left most drawing were a transverse section through the centreline of the turret ring and the hull side blisters as you seem to think it is, it would also show the sectioned turret too.

Turret is a separate entity and is not shown in hull tech drawings. 

  • Upvote 3
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MaximumSomething said:

 

I think you have it backwards, in the left most drawing the two "A"s and two arrows show the location of the cutting plane, the lower right "SECTION 'A A'" drawing is the result showing the tank cut down the long axis revealing internal features like the cooling vents. If the left most drawing were a transverse section through the centreline of the turret ring and the hull side blisters as you seem to think it is, it would also show the sectioned turret too.

I'm sure I got it right :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Godman_82 said:

I'm sure I got it right :)

 

Well the blisters exist, looks like turret ring would not fit without them, so Gaijin modelled that correctly:

Conqueror Mk I

 

And the proper interpretation of the drawings, half way down, figures 15 through 18:

https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/mechanical-engineering/2-007-design-and-manufacturing-i-spring-2009/related-resources/drawing_and_sketching/

 

1 hour ago, CrossEyedN00b said:

Turret is a separate entity and is not shown in hull tech drawings. 

You can see the turret in the drawings Godman_82 posted, right?

  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 1
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, MaximumSomething said:

Well the blisters exist, looks like turret ring would not fit without them, so Gaijin modelled that correctly:

I never said they don't exist, it's not the point. The point is that they are not a part of side armor plate, they are welded onto the plate (which is clearly visible on the picture You've posted). In game they are modeled as part of armor, which have nothing behind it, so it's easy to pen artificial weakspot.

If it would be part of side armor, it would be presented on the bottom left drawing, as any other armor details.

 

Also, there is 51 mm armor plate showed on this picture, which have to be some internal armor plate (probably between crew compartment and engine).

 

Otherwise, what do You think it is on the left drawing?

  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 02/01/2019 at 09:20, Godman_82 said:

Little modeling bugs for Conqueror reported.

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

Cool, thanks! I don't know if you have noticed and I doubt it would make a difference, but in this schemes there is additional floor plate mounted in the front of the tank that is 10mm thick and there is another 20mm thick plate under the back of the turret. These plates are not modeled in the game at all if my memory serves me well.

I pointed it out, because I have no idea how Gaijin could miss it while doing in game model, but yeah.

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Godman_82 said:

I never said they don't exist, it's not the point. The point is that they are not a part of side armor plate, they are welded onto the plate (which is clearly visible on the picture You've posted). In game they are modeled as part of armor, which have nothing behind it, so it's easy to pen artificial weakspot.

If it would be part of side armor, it would be presented on the bottom left drawing, as any other armor details.

 

Also, there is 51 mm armor plate showed on this picture, which have to be some internal armor plate (probably between crew compartment and engine).

 

Otherwise, what do You think it is on the left drawing?

 

It's not marked, so your guess it as good as mine. Going by other British armour diagrams, there is usually a cross sectional drawing though the driver's compartment, and through the engine bay. I'd hazard a guess driver's comp? Like the Centurion drawings here?

Drawings under the "Trials" section, usually section BB.

  • Upvote 1
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, MaximumSomething said:

 

It's not marked, so your guess it as good as mine. Going by other British armour diagrams, there is usually a cross sectional drawing though the driver's compartment, and through the engine bay. I'd hazard a guess driver's comp? Like the Centurion drawings here?

Drawings under the "Trials" section, usually section BB.

Hmm, every section is marked indeed. So that is rather an outside view than cross section. The horizontal line in the center matches the joint between UFP and LFP. It's just this 2 inch plate which is confusing, but maybe it is just side armor marked with little drawing error.

 

And seeing the direction of the AA view, it's definitely view from the front. Which also shows no bumps of the armor.

 

It's not the only one tank with this issue (others being T-54 for example), and I'm sure it is not armored like this.

Edited by Godman_82

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, FilipAleksanderS said:

Cool, thanks! I don't know if you have noticed and I doubt it would make a difference, but in this schemes there is additional floor plate mounted in the front of the tank that is 10mm thick and there is another 20mm thick plate under the back of the turret. These plates are not modeled in the game at all if my memory serves me well.

I pointed it out, because I have no idea how Gaijin could miss it while doing in game model, but yeah.

20 mm plate is not clearly explained in the picture, because there is no thickness given for the other parts in that area, so maybe it is just overall thickness in this place (and in game it is 20 mm).

 

Additional floor plates are missing indeed. That is only in the front, but would be some protection for diver and ammo from big explosions below the front of tank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, FilipAleksanderS said:

there is another 20mm thick plate under the back of the turret.

It looks like there's a void in the armour section above it, so that's either a hatch for loading or a welded plate. 

  • Upvote 1
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He you go, this is what I think is going on:

 

The first drawing, the Russian one, is mostly correct about the overall shaping on the hull armour. The transverse section drawing looks to go right through the turret and the blisters.

The Conqueror's turret ring probably requires more space than is available in the width of the hull and two curved plates are welded over the cutouts needed to fit the turret ring. The curved blister plates are the armour, there isn't anything "armoured" behind it.

 

I can't tell why the blister is missing on this one given it doesn't look that badly shot up, depends what the other side looks like I suppose, but it is missing and at the very least it shows a cut out in the hull side armour behind the blister on the left.

TNK20.jpg

 

  • Thanks 1
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like cutout for turret ring, but you can see turret ring not poking out, it is inside (You can see it).

 

Although tanks are always designed with LOS equal on entire silhouette, so I would need to see cut out blister to believe it's really 51 mm all around. 

 

Plus that place would not be really much of an issue, if not APHE damage model. If this place would be penetrated from slight angle, I would say the engine will be damaged. But with APHE magic it is just one shotting emergency button, like cupola. 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm as the turret ring is in 2 parts, here you would have the larger outer part poking on each side of the hull, and an inner part connected to the turret with a smaller diameter, kinda like the Comet, as it also has a turret ring larger than its hull, it is not visible as it is hidden by boxes on each side, a reason why Gaijin didn't model that "feature" as they most certainly weren't aware of it...

 

Spoiler

Albums&File=P1040680_Comet3_IOWMM_TLarku

 

I am not sure how this should be dealt with, maybe give a set value to the x ray module of the turret ring ? From the documents I have for various ww2 tanks, usually the combination of the inner and outer part of the turret ring is around 100/150mm thick.

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, FuryMkI said:

Hmm as the turret ring is in 2 parts, here you would have the larger outer part poking on each side of the hull, and an inner part connected to the turret with a smaller diameter, kinda like the Comet, as it also has a turret ring larger than its hull, it is not visible as it is hidden by boxes on each side, a reason why Gaijin didn't model that "feature" as they most certainly weren't aware of it...

 

  Reveal hidden contents

Albums&File=P1040680_Comet3_IOWMM_TLarku

 

I am not sure how this should be dealt with, maybe give a set value to the x ray module of the turret ring ? From the documents I have for various ww2 tanks, usually the combination of the inner and outer part of the turret ring is around 100/150mm thick.

On the picture seen above it is not clear what is inside, there is some ring (although it might be turret part of the ring - then that would mean that the hull ring was cut off along with blister.

 

And the hull ring should definitely be a part of the damage model, for any tank.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW with the swingfire report, I found http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C11162003

 

Does anyone know if the information in the file is already publically seen or does it need to be sorted/paid for? Given that its nearing 10 months since the swingfire missiles been bug reported as drastically under pen power yet nothing seems to have happened.

 

Is it a case of they needed more data, or did they just simply ignore/forget about it?

Edited by mitchverr12345
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, mitchverr12345 said:

BTW with the swingfire report, I found http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C11162003

 

Does anyone know if the information in the file is already publically seen or does it need to be sorted/paid for? Given that its nearing 10 months since the swingfire missiles been bug reported as drastically under pen power yet nothing seems to have happened.

 

Is it a case of they needed more data, or did they just simply ignore/forget about it?

Ignored or forgotten 

medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Fliegel said:

Some Conquerors seems to have a flat patch instead of the bump 

http://www.massimocorner.com/afv/Surviving_Conqueror.pdf
 

http://hmvf.co.uk/topic/32797-how-many-conqueror-tanks-are-running-in-the-uk/

Which makes me wonder what is the bump for?

Great find.

 

I have no idea why, but if I had to guess, I would say to prevent situation, where enemy will shoot HE shell into Conqueror's side, and the shell will explode right under the turret that would stick outside the hull. Explosion impact could lift a turret, possibly, or at least damage the turret ring. If HE would hit the bump, explosion force would most probably damage/destroy it, but the center of explosion would be on the side, nut below the turret.

 

Looking on some pictures I have the feeling that the bump might be actually placed onto the patch. It's clear that it is not the same material as the armor, looks lot more like a brass just painted with the same paint. Since it seems to be easily removable, it might be even a place for storing something.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish there was was pic with removed mantlet or something, to see what is behind. Back to the topic, this thing on the side is just badly modeled.

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still need someone to do the report on the Cromwell's turret thickness ever since mine got denied because a person on the Russian forum said "no u" with no sources. That allegedly counts for more than primary sources these days.

  • Upvote 3
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, TheFuzzieOne said:

Still need someone to do the report on the Cromwell's turret thickness ever since mine got denied because a person on the Russian forum said "no u" with no sources. That allegedly counts for more than primary sources these days.

 

Was there really no counter evidence put forward? I find that hard to believe, but if no-one else has done one already I'll make one, got at least 5 books stating it as 76 mm. I believe there was some Russian drawing of the turret front showing the inner plate as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.