Jump to content


design fails on tanks


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
56 replies to this topic

Roebuck34 #1 Posted 18 April 2012 - 12:36 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 21658 battles
  • 365
  • [SAT] SAT
  • Member since:
    09-02-2011
so i saw the löwe commander hatch is in the middle of the turret poor commander every time the cannon recoils no more lowerbody...

then we got the french tanks with thier turrets 1 hit in them and they would be jammed...

so what have you noticed what wouldent have worked in real life?

PanzyBattalion #2 Posted 18 April 2012 - 11:26 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 10888 battles
  • 619
  • Member since:
    10-18-2011
IS-3 looks like every time it would fire its gun it would flip upwards onto its roof, that turret is set so far forwards.

Roebuck34 #3 Posted 18 April 2012 - 11:14 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 21658 battles
  • 365
  • [SAT] SAT
  • Member since:
    09-02-2011
yay derpyhooves did talk on my thread  :o

why did some one neg rep this  :mellow:

Catarraz #4 Posted 19 April 2012 - 07:54 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 13287 battles
  • 928
  • Member since:
    05-05-2011
The Ferdinand/Tiger P side hull design always seemed like a fail to me, since it goes lower than the drive sprockets it must create a lot of atrittion and track resistance when going up hill...

Roebuck34 #5 Posted 19 April 2012 - 08:03 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 21658 battles
  • 365
  • [SAT] SAT
  • Member since:
    09-02-2011

View PostUMM, on 19 April 2012 - 07:54 PM, said:

The Ferdinand/Tiger P side hull design always seemed like a fail to me, since it goes lower than the drive sprockets it must create a lot of atrittion and track resistance when going up hill...
the tiger p and ferdi is driving by electric tracks so they go as fast up as down as on normal ground so this isent really an design fualt

Catarraz #6 Posted 19 April 2012 - 08:58 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 13287 battles
  • 928
  • Member since:
    05-05-2011

View PostRoebuck34, on 19 April 2012 - 08:03 PM, said:

the tiger p and ferdi is driving by electric tracks so they go as fast up as down as on normal ground so this isent really an design fualt

You didn't quite get it... (then again, I couldn't explain it very well myself)
This is what happens to a Panther's tracks when it goes up a hill:

Posted Image

But how could that happen with a Ferdinand or a Tiger P? It must surely create some resistance...

Posted Image

BattleMetalChris #7 Posted 20 April 2012 - 05:07 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 9224 battles
  • 7,685
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    05-18-2011
You can see the Ferdi has a little rounded thingy on the underside of the side-hull to help the track slide past:

Posted Image

Although this just proves your point that it does touch. Presumably they decided that hill-climbing was going to be so rare it was worth the extra protection afforded by lowering the side-hull.


EDIT: And the Tiger P looks like it had a couple of little wheels to help the track move past:

Posted Image

KomissarBojanchev #8 Posted 20 April 2012 - 06:33 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 6573 battles
  • 94
  • Member since:
    11-28-2011
Any tank that doesnt have sloped armor anywhere is in some way a design fail.

deamy #9 Posted 21 April 2012 - 12:46 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 10731 battles
  • 1,913
  • Member since:
    12-22-2010
Hardly need to mention the M3 Lee

H4RT_of_STEAL #10 Posted 21 April 2012 - 04:40 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 39569 battles
  • 1,376
  • [G__G] G__G
  • Member since:
    03-25-2011
all turrets with with a rounded front are somewhat fail because bounces on the lower part of turret will result in a ricochet into the tanks upper hull.

that would be: tiger 2 (porsche turret) , well porsche turret in general on other tanks, ealry panther turrets without the lower"block"-thing,
almost all russian ww2 production tank up until the t54 early turret, even the pershing, and standard patton.

a flaw well liked by many designers it seems^^
and yet ingame it doesnt happen...i guess russian tansk would have to many weakspots then :Smile-hiding:

theta0123 #11 Posted 21 April 2012 - 09:12 AM

    Brigadier

  • Beta Tester
  • 5614 battles
  • 4,477
  • [FHA] FHA
  • Member since:
    07-08-2010

View Postdeamy, on 21 April 2012 - 12:46 AM, said:

Hardly need to mention the M3 Lee
the M3 lee was a stopgap tank

When it was deployed, it could destroy any german tank at any range while they couldnt penetrate the front armour of Grant (North africa proved this)

M3 grants dueled with flak 88's and won often, because of the high commander secondary turret. Grants often parked themself behind dunes, in wich the commander could peek over the dune to spot enemy entrenched guns, in wich it could direct indirect fire from the 75mm gun

At the time, the 75mm M3 gun was the most powerfull dual purpose tankgun in the world. It penetrated any german tank at that time, and its HE firepower was very powerfull

The problem with the M3 lee/grant was well, its high silouhette. But the british drove these tanks carefully and this helped reduce casualties in the end. The problem with M3 was that it was quickly outdated in 1943 when the Tiger/PZIV Ausf H came to action. Its chassis was used for thousands of other vehicles.

So calling the M3 a failed design? I think you can better think twice over this

Aqarius #12 Posted 21 April 2012 - 05:02 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 11182 battles
  • 2,507
  • Member since:
    03-11-2011

View PostNebukadnezarII, on 21 April 2012 - 04:40 AM, said:

and yet ingame it doesnt happen...i guess russian tansk would have to many weakspots then :Smile-hiding:

Believe it or not, it does happen: http://i44.tinypic.com/k3qfkp.jpg
One shot, two marks (he turned his turret by the time i took a screen).

deamy #13 Posted 22 April 2012 - 01:21 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 10731 battles
  • 1,913
  • Member since:
    12-22-2010

View Posttheta0123, on 21 April 2012 - 09:12 AM, said:

...

Just because it happened to be better than the M2 and somewhat successful in the desert doesn't mean it was a good tank. Any truck-mounted gun could had done long range duels with indirect fire.

Imagine it in Normandy instead, and try to pretend it would be successful.

It was phased out mid-war for a reason. Wiki (yes I know, but still) says:

due to design flaws (high silhouette, archaic sponson mounting of the main gun, below average off-road performance) it was not satisfactory and was withdrawn from front line duty as soon as the M4 Sherman became available in large numbers.

Also, it couldn't fire from an hull-down position as the gun was mounted low in the hull.

In the USSR it was apparently called "coffin for seven brothers", and that's where the T-34 (of which 80%+ were lost) was considered a winner...


So maybe you should rethink?

Jukelo #14 Posted 22 April 2012 - 01:26 PM

    Colonel

  • Beta Tester
  • 26487 battles
  • 3,608
  • Member since:
    08-13-2010

View PostAqarius, on 21 April 2012 - 05:02 PM, said:

Believe it or not, it does happen: http://i44.tinypic.com/k3qfkp.jpg
One shot, two marks (he turned his turret by the time i took a screen).

Also happens with T32.

Roebuck34 #15 Posted 23 April 2012 - 08:47 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 21658 battles
  • 365
  • [SAT] SAT
  • Member since:
    09-02-2011

View PostKomissarBojanchev, on 20 April 2012 - 06:33 PM, said:

Any tank that doesnt have sloped armor anywhere is in some way a design fail.
yes the ferdinand was an fail the tiger was an fail the STUG was an fail the pz4 was an fail...

cough not like the russian T-34 was tottal shit cough

Aqarius #16 Posted 23 April 2012 - 09:04 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 11182 battles
  • 2,507
  • Member since:
    03-11-2011

View PostRoebuck34, on 23 April 2012 - 08:47 PM, said:

yes the ferdinand was an fail the tiger was an fail the STUG was an fail the pz4 was an fail...

cough not like the russian T-34 was tottal shit cough

Tiger was undoubtedly a fail. Ferdinand was an attempt to salvage an already failed design, StuG had sloped armour, and yes, in certain ways, even the Pz4 was a flawed design. For instance, it didn't have that much sloped armour.


Also, I'd like to see you back up the "T-34 is shit".

Catarraz #17 Posted 23 April 2012 - 10:56 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 13287 battles
  • 928
  • Member since:
    05-05-2011

View PostAqarius, on 23 April 2012 - 09:04 PM, said:

Tiger was undoubtedly a fail. Ferdinand was an attempt to salvage an already failed design, StuG had sloped armour, and yes, in certain ways, even the Pz4 was a flawed design. For instance, it didn't have that much sloped armour.


Also, I'd like to see you back up the "T-34 is shit".

I do not think the Tiger in it's design essence is a total fail, if the only thing to back up the theory that the Tiger was a fail is that it was expensive and didnt have sloped armour...
Infact, I think for it's time the Tiger was an engineering WIN, since we're talking about the heaviest, best protected and armed vehicle of it's time which nonetheless had miraculous agility and cross-country ability for it's weight, even superior to that of the Sherman, thanks to wide tracks and innovative interleaved wheels suspension system and excellent maybach engine...
But yes, its drawbacks were that it was too expensive and time/resource consuming...

as for the T-34, it's only innovative design features were sloped armour, a major breakthrough, and wide tracks for less ground pressure --> better cross-country capabilities. Other than this, they say the ergonomics of early T-34s were rather poor (as with jut about every other soviet tank in existance), it's two man turrets were a design flaw, and it's engine was reliable, yes, but apparently was very noisy, and according to some, the PzIII was even faster and more reliable than the T-34 (Go PzIII!).

Here's a very interesting site about the "T-34 Myth". Very good read. I advise it:

Roebuck34 #18 Posted 24 April 2012 - 01:36 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 21658 battles
  • 365
  • [SAT] SAT
  • Member since:
    09-02-2011

View PostUMM, on 23 April 2012 - 10:56 PM, said:

I do not think the Tiger in it's design essence is a total fail, if the only thing to back up the theory that the Tiger was a fail is that it was expensive and didnt have sloped armour...
Infact, I think for it's time the Tiger was an engineering WIN, since we're talking about the heaviest, best protected and armed vehicle of it's time which nonetheless had miraculous agility and cross-country ability for it's weight, even superior to that of the Sherman, thanks to wide tracks and innovative interleaved wheels suspension system and excellent maybach engine...
But yes, its drawbacks were that it was too expensive and time/resource consuming...

as for the T-34, it's only innovative design features were sloped armour, a major breakthrough, and wide tracks for less ground pressure --> better cross-country capabilities. Other than this, they say the ergonomics of early T-34s were rather poor (as with jut about every other soviet tank in existance), it's two man turrets were a design flaw, and it's engine was reliable, yes, but apparently was very noisy, and according to some, the PzIII was even faster and more reliable than the T-34 (Go PzIII!).

Here's a very interesting site about the "T-34 Myth". Very good read. I advise it:
i agree and wish i had an +1  but im all out

Aqarius #19 Posted 24 April 2012 - 01:59 AM

    Major

  • Player
  • 11182 battles
  • 2,507
  • Member since:
    03-11-2011
That's paper stats. In reality,it was a maintenance and logistical nightmare.
The interleaved wheels were often packed with mud, would drag or get frozen and stuck, and anything that went wrong meant you'd have to disassemble the whole thing. They later stopped interleaving them, but it only helped so much. (An interesting thing to note: the point of the system was to cram more wheels under a small chassis, because more weight=more wheels. When the British encountered the problem, they just used smaller wheels and called it a day http://forum.worldof..._teethhappy.gif). It was too heavy for most bridges (a point in making the Pz4 was it had to be under 25t because a lot of German countryside bridges were not very robust). It had a decent speed for it's weight, but you constantly had to nanny the engine, so rivaling Shermans is out of the question.
The main problem with Tiger 1 was that they tried to save a design by bolting 20t of extra armour, and everything else suffered for it. It broke down constantly.There is no way to overstate this. The complexity of the design often meant you couldn't fix it on the field, and the weight meant you often had to abandon the tank (you need a Tiger to tow a Tiger, but you risk frying his engine too). All the breakdowns also dragged down it's average speed, and with the low operational range it was a questionable tactical asset. Being the heaviest is a drawback, not a bonus, and "best protected and armed" arguably lasted less than 10 months, when the IS-2 entered production.

The Barbarossa page is just killstats. In fact, if you asked me, it draws the attention to just how effective AT guns were in fighting tanks (If you want to stop tanks, the smart money is building AT guns, not more tanks). Also, it's worth to note that Barbarossa contains 25% of Red Army tank losses of the entire war.  During 1940, The KV and T-34 were without a doubt the best tanks in the world. Soviet losses in Barbarossa are not a show of technical failure, but a testament to the chaos the Soviets were in, and the skill and training of German crews. Another problem was a lot of Soviet tanks didn't even have radios in them (Not by design, though. They just didn't have enough radios). This was fixed when the reds got their act together.

Also a thing to note: During the early war, the KV was all the Tiger was in early '43 and more. Near Raseiniai, a single KV-2 stopped the entire 6th armored for a full day. It was literally bulletproof, so the Soviets clearly had the capabilities to make a tracked bunker. But when they decided to improve upon it, they didn't build a KV-3 (bigger armour, bigger gun), they reworked it into KV-1s, making it lighter and faster. Apparently, the Soviets understood Guderian better that people working with him http://forum.worldof...Smile_smile.gif

H4RT_of_STEAL #20 Posted 24 April 2012 - 10:16 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 39569 battles
  • 1,376
  • [G__G] G__G
  • Member since:
    03-25-2011
When the British encountered the problem, they just used smaller wheels and called it a day http://forum.worldof..._teethhappy.gif

called it a day was something they brits are good at even today... like the early l85 rifle that ate your clothes...

yes the "schachtellaufwerk" was very complex but it also gave very good ride comfort.
it also lowered the groundpressure wich was badly needed considering the tigers/tigerII weight...
overall the germans had very good solutions to problems but they themself caused others.
but as history shows, as long as complexity also increases effectivness, it might be worth it.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users