Jump to content


Historical question: V-Shaped hulls.


  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

cro001 #1 Posted 12 December 2018 - 04:59 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 30916 battles
  • 2,488
  • [GX] GX
  • Member since:
    10-21-2012

Hi,

I'm not some expert on armor and stuff, I do enjoy things like Chieftains hatch and what have you. So, I looked video about IS-7, and the thing is - while it has that characteristic curve on side armor, it has nowhere near V-shaped hull like Object 257/Object 907/T-22 MT. So I'm wondering, if any tank actually see remotely similar design proposed, or is it totally out of the question? From my superficial point of view, that design is way too flawed if even possible to make. Does anyone have any info, or is Object 257 with its V-shaped hull something from another world?

Thanks.


Edited by cro001, 12 December 2018 - 05:00 PM.


Homer_J #2 Posted 12 December 2018 - 05:07 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 30176 battles
  • 32,317
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

One which springs to mind which they parade around Tankfest every year is the South African Buffalo

 

Although that design is for slightly different reasons.


Edited by Homer_J, 12 December 2018 - 05:08 PM.


cro001 #3 Posted 12 December 2018 - 05:27 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 30916 battles
  • 2,488
  • [GX] GX
  • Member since:
    10-21-2012

View PostHomer_J, on 12 December 2018 - 05:07 PM, said:

One which springs to mind which they parade around Tankfest every year is the South African Buffalo

 

Although that design is for slightly different reasons.

 

Oh, so it does make some sense. Reasons are not relevant for me, as at 1st look the design doesn't offer anything but headache for designer/operator, at least in tanks where you have to cramp stuff inside the hull.

Homer_J #4 Posted 12 December 2018 - 05:44 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 30176 battles
  • 32,317
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

View Postcro001, on 12 December 2018 - 04:27 PM, said:

 

Oh, so it does make some sense. Reasons are not relevant for me, as at 1st look the design doesn't offer anything but headache for designer/operator, at least in tanks where you have to cramp stuff inside the hull.

 

From what I've seen of the inside of Russian tanks the designers weren't worried about cramping.

cro001 #5 Posted 12 December 2018 - 06:08 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 30916 battles
  • 2,488
  • [GX] GX
  • Member since:
    10-21-2012

View PostHomer_J, on 12 December 2018 - 05:44 PM, said:

From what I've seen of the inside of Russian tanks the designers weren't worried about cramping.

 

One thing is to be cramped inside, the other is not even being able to cramp stuff.

For example, IIRC IS-3 was already deemed cramped a lot:

Spoiler

It's a very crude example, without actual stuff inside, but one can see how much room you eliminate by cutting out that part. Like,  how do you fit engine? at 45 degree angle? :D



Homer_J #6 Posted 12 December 2018 - 06:10 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 30176 battles
  • 32,317
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

View Postcro001, on 12 December 2018 - 05:08 PM, said:

 

how do you fit engine? at 45 degree angle? :D

A lot of car manufacturers do in order to keep a low bonnet.



SiliconSidewinder #7 Posted 12 December 2018 - 08:20 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 28045 battles
  • 5,344
  • Member since:
    09-16-2012

the shape looks cool on paper but building a tank like that just doesn't work out in reality.

 

for example: what do you think is the most vulnerable spot on a tank?

 

any real tanker will tell you: it's the tracks, because you can't really protect them, they are easily damaged and unlike what you have in the game, fixing them under fighting conditions isn't a thing.

So the V shaped hull, that's expensive to build and costs you volume in the one area on the tank that's pretty safe from enemy fire (close to the earth), makes your tracks more vulnerable at the same time.

 

offcourse you can offsett the lost volume by building the tank higher but then you have to add armor, because you are bigger, which again makes you heavier and more expensive...

 

 

 

 



Panocek #8 Posted 12 December 2018 - 09:03 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 29060 battles
  • 12,153
  • Member since:
    05-24-2011

View Postcro001, on 12 December 2018 - 07:08 PM, said:

 

One thing is to be cramped inside, the other is not even being able to cramp stuff.

For example, IIRC IS-3 was already deemed cramped a lot:

Spoiler

It's a very crude example, without actual stuff inside, but one can see how much room you eliminate by cutting out that part. Like,  how do you fit engine? at 45 degree angle? :D

 

Number of, if not most tank engines were in V configuration, mounted longitudinally and then bulge for transmission in the rear makes V shaped hull probable enough. Torsion bars or whatever suspension used would be exposed and at best covered with not that thick plating, further not helping durability.

 

M48 Fatton had more of an egg shape than all out V shaped hull as compromise



cro001 #9 Posted 12 December 2018 - 09:26 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 30916 battles
  • 2,488
  • [GX] GX
  • Member since:
    10-21-2012

View PostSiliconSidewinder, on 12 December 2018 - 08:20 PM, said:

the shape looks cool on paper but building a tank like that just doesn't work out in reality.

 

for example: what do you think is the most vulnerable spot on a tank?

any real tanker will tell you: it's the tracks, because you can't really protect them, they are easily damaged and unlike what you have in the game, fixing them under fighting conditions isn't a thing.

So the V shaped hull, that's expensive to build and costs you volume in the one area on the tank that's pretty safe from enemy fire (close to the earth), makes your tracks more vulnerable at the same time.

offcourse you can offsett the lost volume by building the tank higher but then you have to add armor, because you are bigger, which again makes you heavier and more expensive...

 

That is why asked in 1st place. That, and also someone spewed [edited]that IS-7 had V-shaped hull. While I can see designer entertaining the idea, I was curios to see if anyone was mad enough to build one. To my untrained eye it seemed so unnecessary to make hull that way but I figured that I'm not tank designer nor expert so I asked.

 

Homer pointed out some other designs, but those are mostly personnel carriers. They are interesting, along with tiers filled with water to absorb the mine blast/energy from beneath and so on.

 

View PostPanocek, on 12 December 2018 - 09:03 PM, said:

Number of, if not most tank engines were in V configuration, mounted longitudinally and then bulge for transmission in the rear makes V shaped hull probable enough. Torsion bars or whatever suspension used would be exposed and at best covered with not that thick plating, further not helping durability.

 

M48 Fatton had more of an egg shape than all out V shaped hull as compromise

 

Didn't US do a lot of egg shaped/rounded armor because they casted a bunch of their armor? Although I never though about advantages of doing tanks like that either.

jabster #10 Posted 12 December 2018 - 09:53 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12614 battles
  • 24,522
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View Postcro001, on 12 December 2018 - 08:26 PM, said:

 

That is why asked in 1st place. That, and also someone spewed [edited]that IS-7 had V-shaped hull. While I can see designer entertaining the idea, I was curios to see if anyone was mad enough to build one. To my untrained eye it seemed so unnecessary to make hull that way but I figured that I'm not tank designer nor expert so I asked.

 

Homer pointed out some other designs, but those are mostly personnel carriers. They are interesting, along with tiers filled with water to absorb the mine blast/energy from beneath and so on.

 

 

Didn't US do a lot of egg shaped/rounded armor because they casted a bunch of their armor? Although I never though about advantages of doing tanks like that either.

 

I believe the idea behind that armour is it means a round can get less ‘purchase’ against that type of shape and it’s one that Russia has followed until recently. Western MTB’s don’t have that idea as the type of armour they use has to be flat plates.



SiliconSidewinder #11 Posted 12 December 2018 - 10:32 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 28045 battles
  • 5,344
  • Member since:
    09-16-2012

well there was also the different kinds of doctrins that came into play.

 

the soviet Idea for the third worldwar was to fight it offensively pushing deep into hostile territory before the nato powers could unify their forces and secure their supply lines accross the atlantic.

So soviet tanks had to be cheap, we are talking about small, massproduced tanks here and they had to be resillient against incoming fire on the advance.

which again calls for some kind of shape that gives them a chance at living through a attack, while at the same time gaining as little weight as possible. 

 

nato tanks on the other hand evolved around the concept of defense, fighting from defensive positions againt numericaly vastly superior forces.

So fighting from ridglines was one of the key features they were supposed to be good at.

=> gundepression and hard turrets where a thing.

 



Panocek #12 Posted 13 December 2018 - 12:39 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 29060 battles
  • 12,153
  • Member since:
    05-24-2011

View Postcro001, on 12 December 2018 - 10:26 PM, said:

 

That is why asked in 1st place. That, and also someone spewed [edited]that IS-7 had V-shaped hull. While I can see designer entertaining the idea, I was curios to see if anyone was mad enough to build one. To my untrained eye it seemed so unnecessary to make hull that way but I figured that I'm not tank designer nor expert so I asked.

 

Homer pointed out some other designs, but those are mostly personnel carriers. They are interesting, along with tiers filled with water to absorb the mine blast/energy from beneath and so on.

 

 

Didn't US do a lot of egg shaped/rounded armor because they casted a bunch of their armor? Although I never though about advantages of doing tanks like that either.

 

 

Cast Shermans certainly didn't have rounded bottom. I guess US recognized value of V shaped hull when it comes to mine protection, but didn't want to sacrifice internal volume as much so they wen't with egg shape.

 

And cast vs welded is matter of available technology. US apparently had factories capable of casting entire hulls and turrets, Russians cast turret pieces then welded them together.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users