Jump to content


Why so much gun elevation?


  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

Wintermute_1 #1 Posted 17 October 2017 - 09:54 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 44227 battles
  • 1,581
  • Member since:
    11-25-2013

Are the gun depression / elevation stats for tanks more or less correct, ie. do tanks in reality get much more gun elevation than depression? and if so why?

 

In the WoT game gun depression is way more useful than elevation as a rule, surely the ability to peak over ridges and slope armour was more important than being able to point you gun at the sky in real life battles too. Ok depression is limited by the front of the tank but most tanks have the capacity for way more depression than they actually possess.

 

My only idea is that tanks needed elevation in urban areas to target upper floors of buildings etc over short distances but I really don't have a clue what the reason is. I'm sure someone on here will know.

 

 



Userext #2 Posted 17 October 2017 - 09:59 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 16259 battles
  • 897
  • Member since:
    06-12-2011

View PostWintermute_1, on 17 October 2017 - 09:54 PM, said:

Are the gun depression / elevation stats for tanks more or less correct, ie. do tanks in reality get much more gun elevation than depression? and if so why?

 

In the WoT game gun depression is way more useful than elevation as a rule, surely the ability to peak over ridges and slope armour was more important than being able to point you gun at the sky in real life battles too. Ok depression is limited by the front of the tank but most tanks have the capacity for way more depression than they actually possess.

 

My only idea is that tanks needed elevation in urban areas to target upper floors of buildings etc over short distances but I really don't have a clue what the reason is. I'm sure someone on here will know.

 

 

 

range...

at 45 degree you'll most likely get the most distance your gun can reach.

This is why in real life gun elevation mattered more than depression.



Enforcer1975 #3 Posted 17 October 2017 - 10:06 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 20760 battles
  • 10,865
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    05-04-2014
https://www.quora.co...anks-not-higher

BravelyRanAway #4 Posted 17 October 2017 - 10:10 PM

    General

  • Beta Tester
  • 22601 battles
  • 9,365
  • [H_I_T] H_I_T
  • Member since:
    12-29-2010

View PostWintermute_1, on 17 October 2017 - 08:54 PM, said:

Are the gun depression / elevation stats for tanks more or less correct, ie. do tanks in reality get much more gun elevation than depression? and if so why?

 

The big metal thingy with the tracks under the turret thingy kinda stopped the gun thingy from pointing lower kinda thingy.



Wintermute_1 #5 Posted 17 October 2017 - 10:11 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 44227 battles
  • 1,581
  • Member since:
    11-25-2013

View PostUserext, on 17 October 2017 - 09:59 PM, said:

 

range...

at 45 degree you'll most likely get the most distance your gun can reach.

This is why in real life gun elevation mattered more than depression.

 

​So when you are targeting a tank on the edge of your view range the gun is supposedly at somewhere near 45 degrees ? That's not shown in WoT graphical representation, for aesthetic reasons?  

 



Wintermute_1 #6 Posted 17 October 2017 - 10:12 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 44227 battles
  • 1,581
  • Member since:
    11-25-2013

View PostBravelyRanAway, on 17 October 2017 - 10:10 PM, said:

The big metal thingy with the tracks under the turret thingy kinda stopped the gun thingy from pointing lower kinda thingy.

 

​Addressed that in the OP. It wasn't a long OP.......

Enforcer1975 #7 Posted 17 October 2017 - 10:13 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 20760 battles
  • 10,865
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    05-04-2014

View PostBravelyRanAway, on 17 October 2017 - 10:10 PM, said:

The big metal thingy with the tracks under the turret thingy kinda stopped the gun thingy from pointing lower kinda thingy.

 

Just cut a hole in the bottom like they did with certain tank on the top.

Like this one...see? It's so easy....

 



qpranger #8 Posted 17 October 2017 - 10:14 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 32524 battles
  • 5,061
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-25-2013
OP, I want to make a funny analogy with the male reproductive organ but I can't think of anything.

BravelyRanAway #9 Posted 17 October 2017 - 10:15 PM

    General

  • Beta Tester
  • 22601 battles
  • 9,365
  • [H_I_T] H_I_T
  • Member since:
    12-29-2010

View PostWintermute_1, on 17 October 2017 - 09:12 PM, said:

 

​Addressed that in the OP. It wasn't a long OP.......

 

When your trying to keep a low profile with the height of the turret......it reduces the room for the breech to move up inside the turret.

Enforcer1975 #10 Posted 17 October 2017 - 10:16 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 20760 battles
  • 10,865
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    05-04-2014

View PostWintermute_1, on 17 October 2017 - 10:11 PM, said:

 

​So when you are targeting a tank on the edge of your view range the gun is supposedly at somewhere near 45 degrees ? That's not shown in WoT graphical representation, for aesthetic reasons?

 

 

45° is like outside line of fire engagement....if you actually thought it through you wouldn't have opened a thread.

Take this picture as an example what i mean. If you shot an anti tank shell at that angle ( gun elevation plus a reverse slope to get those 45° ) it would probably fly 10km or more.


Edited by Enforcer1975, 17 October 2017 - 10:24 PM.


Wintermute_1 #11 Posted 17 October 2017 - 10:17 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 44227 battles
  • 1,581
  • Member since:
    11-25-2013

View Postqpranger, on 17 October 2017 - 10:14 PM, said:

OP, I want to make a funny analogy with the male reproductive organ but I can't think of anything.

 

​I'm not surprised, the older you get the harder it is to get it up... ... .

Mimos_A #12 Posted 17 October 2017 - 10:36 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 24232 battles
  • 1,998
  • [QSF-L] QSF-L
  • Member since:
    05-30-2015
If you don't want your tank to stick up massively every time you poke over a hill or are in a hull down position you can't have much space above the gun. You want to expose of little of your tank as possible while shooting the enemy, so you mount the gun pretty high up. Underneath the gun there's more space without making concessions like getting shot without being able to shoot back. And on some tanks it's also used to be able to (indirect) fire over long range.

Edited by Mimos_A, 17 October 2017 - 10:36 PM.


AvengerOrion #13 Posted 17 October 2017 - 10:38 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 26005 battles
  • 1,104
  • Member since:
    12-21-2013

View PostWintermute_1, on 17 October 2017 - 10:11 PM, said:

 

​So when you are targeting a tank on the edge of your view range the gun is supposedly at somewhere near 45 degrees ? That's not shown in WoT graphical representation, for aesthetic reasons?  

 

 

To be honest, the WoT render range is only  564 meter and the biggest map size outside 30 vs 30 is 1200m x 1200m.

In real life circumstances that is really close with some tankguns in this game being designed for 2-2,5km engagements and artillery guns were made for 10-15km.

Thus in WoT there simply is no need for tankguns pointing up so far (bar artillery trying to fire over objects/landscape).


Edited by AvengerOrion, 17 October 2017 - 10:41 PM.


Mimos_A #14 Posted 17 October 2017 - 10:43 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 24232 battles
  • 1,998
  • [QSF-L] QSF-L
  • Member since:
    05-30-2015

View PostEnforcer1975, on 17 October 2017 - 10:16 PM, said:

 

45° is like outside line of fire engagement....if you actually thought it through you wouldn't have opened a thread.

Take this picture as an example what i mean. If you shot an anti tank shell at that angle ( gun elevation plus a reverse slope to get those 45° ) it would probably fly 10km or more.

 

If I recall correctly at least some American TD's were designed to in theory be able to lob HE shells at enemy positions from indirect line of fire. And I think there were some other tanks which dabbled with this idea on paper.

HeidenSieker #15 Posted 17 October 2017 - 10:52 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 10046 battles
  • 4,651
  • Member since:
    03-26-2016

View PostMimos_A, on 17 October 2017 - 10:43 PM, said:

If I recall correctly at least some American TD's were designed to in theory be able to lob HE shells at enemy positions from indirect line of fire. And I think there were some other tanks which dabbled with this idea on paper.

 

IRL, anything can do this.

Mimos_A #16 Posted 17 October 2017 - 11:00 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 24232 battles
  • 1,998
  • [QSF-L] QSF-L
  • Member since:
    05-30-2015

View PostHeidenSieker, on 17 October 2017 - 10:52 PM, said:

 

IRL, anything can do this.

 

Can of course, whether it's practical is another thing.

 

What I meant is that for most tanks this was not something that was deemed useful and would be taken into account in the design or in crew training, but there were some where it was.


Edited by Mimos_A, 17 October 2017 - 11:17 PM.


Tidal_Force #17 Posted 17 October 2017 - 11:03 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 16192 battles
  • 6,839
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    08-29-2012

AT guns rely on kinetic energy to penetrate armour. Indirect fire by definition limits kinetic energy to shell's terminal velocity, furthermore, air drag means that falling shell does not reach same velocities it had on ascent. As such, guns relying on kinetic penetrators are not useful with more than probably 20 degrees of elevation. More than that is only useful on howitzers, gun-howitzers (hybrid of direct fire gun and howitzer, capable of both modes of operation, somewhat problematic due to differences in technical requirements). Another problem with indirect fire is limited accuracy - without guidance system you are unlikely to hit a tank with indirect fire.

 

For most tanks, even it it was technically possible to increase elevation, there's little reason to. It's much better to mount gun lower and lower the profile (higher elevation requires more room between gun mount and floor for breech and recoil mechanisms) instead. Hulldown, after all is NOT game-only manoeuvre. Unlike most manoeuvres in game, this one comes from real tank warfare, and in fact is so ubiquitous that it dictates tank design principles.

 

EDIT: Ooops. And now I see I answered question posed somewhere in between, why don't they have more elevation, instead of initial question.

 

However, parts of my answer still apply: in case of depression the limiting factor is roof - breech and recoil mechanisms have to fit in inside turret (unless you are making open-topped vehicle, of course, but tanks are not open topped). While elevation is useful for increasing range, as I said above, there's little point to increasing it too much. I would hazard a guess that elevation is more influenced by how much space between gun and floor other technical concerns left than anything else. Quick googling yielded this source, which claims that Abrams SPFSDS can reach range of 70 km, while their effective range - range at which they can predictably hit and disable tank is is considered merely 3km:

 

Block Quote

 The "effective" range is listed as 3000 meters (limited mainly by group size) but one round killing hits have been obtained at close to 6000 meters and reported accuracy is sub minute of angle.  The extreme range of the M829A2 is close to 70 miles when fired at 55 degrees elevation. The depleted uranium "dart"  uses its 4 million plus foot pound of energy to literally burn its way through armor. The thermal flux at the point of impact is estimated at 1 million degrees. The DU is pyrophoric, that is, self incendiary, and will ignite anything within the target as well as producing a lethal barrage of fragments from its penetration. 

 

Emphasis mine.


Edited by Tidal_Force, 17 October 2017 - 11:48 PM.


Slyspy #18 Posted 18 October 2017 - 12:41 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 14202 battles
  • 16,706
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-07-2011

View PostWintermute_1, on 17 October 2017 - 09:54 PM, said:

In the WoT game gun depression is way more useful than elevation as a rule, surely the ability to peak over ridges and slope armour was more important than being able to point you gun at the sky in real life battles too. Ok depression is limited by the front of the tank but most tanks have the capacity for way more depression than they actually possess.

 

 

 

 

Point the gun up and the safe end sinks into the tank while the dangerous end can shoot stuff further away. Depress the gun and eventually either the turret roof gets in the way of the safe end or the hull gets in the way of the dangerous end. IRL tank combat tends to be at range so the former is rather important. 



mrmoff10 #19 Posted 18 October 2017 - 12:52 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 3808 battles
  • 104
  • Member since:
    10-25-2014

View Postqpranger, on 17 October 2017 - 10:14 PM, said:

OP, I want to make a funny analogy with the male reproductive organ but I can't think of anything.

 

you mean like having somewhere to hang your coat?

CoDiGGo #20 Posted 18 October 2017 - 02:32 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 14997 battles
  • 570
  • [NEUR0] NEUR0
  • Member since:
    05-10-2015

Example: mythical T34  -3/+30 degree

 

http://russian-tanks.com/t-34-tank.php

 

 

1. A tank is for direct fire and purpose is to move from A to B in the frontline during a battle. For static fire there are way cheaper weapons

2. You design a tank (2ww) as the smallest armored turretet vehicle that could carry a desired gun. There is some free space inside the tank to give elevation to the gun, but every grade of extra depression makes turret taller, heavier

 

 

 


Edited by CoDiGGo, 18 October 2017 - 03:05 AM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users