Jump to content


Tank crew according to Russian engineers

Tank crew russian us german meme

  • Please log in to reply
62 replies to this topic

DutchBaron_ #1 Posted 28 May 2020 - 08:42 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 14355 battles
  • 213
  • [FDAD] FDAD
  • Member since:
    10-06-2016

Serously tho, most of those object tanks would have been an ergonomic hell for their crews...

 

Tank crew.PNG

 


 



azakow #2 Posted 28 May 2020 - 08:45 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 87282 battles
  • 5,367
  • Member since:
    05-23-2011

no news to me. vehicles were not made lasting, hence no comfort.

 


Edited by azakow, 28 May 2020 - 08:45 PM.


DaniulSims #3 Posted 28 May 2020 - 08:51 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 11471 battles
  • 1,021
  • [ELC3K] ELC3K
  • Member since:
    03-29-2014
The philosophy of Soviet tank design is a fascinating thing on its own.


And while I do genuinely believe in the above statement, I wanted to use it just to remind myself of this thread to see all the people who'll say "bAD Irl BuT Op iN WoT RaSHA bIaS"

Miepie #4 Posted 28 May 2020 - 09:09 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 6379 battles
  • 2,411
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    05-19-2018
Aw, I don't know... My dad's oldest brother got picked to do his military conscription in a tank specifically because of his small stature... And that's late 60's Netherlands we are talking about. :popcorn:

Unicorn_of_Steel #5 Posted 28 May 2020 - 09:09 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 20902 battles
  • 657
  • [R_D_A] R_D_A
  • Member since:
    12-29-2017
Ergonomics where not the first priority in Soviet tank design. In WW2 because the average tank and crew didn't last for more than 1 or 2 days combat so why bother. After WW2 the goal was to create the best armor protection combined with the smallest profile possible. They drafted the smallest guys for the tanks and those simply had to make it work. Ergonomics still where no priority. Question remains how effective a Soviet crew could operate their tank compared to the (a little bit) roomier Western opponents. 

Edited by Unicorn_of_Steel, 28 May 2020 - 09:13 PM.


Nishi_Kinuyo #6 Posted 28 May 2020 - 10:32 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 11230 battles
  • 7,556
  • [GUP] GUP
  • Member since:
    05-28-2011
Well, the Sherman Firefly wasn't very ergonomic either...

DaniulSims #7 Posted 28 May 2020 - 10:33 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 11471 battles
  • 1,021
  • [ELC3K] ELC3K
  • Member since:
    03-29-2014

View PostUnicorn_of_Steel, on 28 May 2020 - 10:09 PM, said:

Ergonomics where not the first priority in Soviet tank design. In WW2 because the average tank and crew didn't last for more than 1 or 2 days combat so why bother. After WW2 the goal was to create the best armor protection combined with the smallest profile possible. They drafted the smallest guys for the tanks and those simply had to make it work. Ergonomics still where no priority. Question remains how effective a Soviet crew could operate their tank compared to the (a little bit) roomier Western opponents. 

That's a good question, but having not ever sat in a tank by myself, it looks as if the Soviet philosophy was to give up crew comfort for better overall characteristics. Soviet tanks in the 60s were smaller, far better armoured, generally more mobile and similarly equipped to their western counterparts. To draw a comparison, it's as if you'd have a 5 skill crew in a tier 7 Vs a 75% crew in a tier IX. Yeah the crew won't be or feel as great, but when the tank itself is better, there isn't much to care about.



Bulldog_Drummond #8 Posted 28 May 2020 - 10:39 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 36205 battles
  • 12,202
  • [DRATT] DRATT
  • Member since:
    08-10-2014

View PostUnicorn_of_Steel, on 28 May 2020 - 08:09 PM, said:

Ergonomics where not the first priority in Soviet tank design. In WW2 because the average tank and crew didn't last for more than 1 or 2 days combat so why bother. After WW2 the goal was to create the best armor protection combined with the smallest profile possible. They drafted the smallest guys for the tanks and those simply had to make it work. Ergonomics still where no priority. Question remains how effective a Soviet crew could operate their tank compared to the (a little bit) roomier Western opponents. 

 

I think as a rule tankers, like jockeys, tended to be on the small size.

I remember arriving at Cairo airport in 1980 in my gap year and seeing all over the place soldiers in puttees who were about as tall as the rifles they were carrying.  They looked like a bunch of 5 year old kids wearing helmets.  Ideal fodder for manning the modern Soviet tanks that had been obliterated by the Israelis in various wars using antiquated designs like the Sherman

The main problem with Soviet designed tanks was that they were all rubbish


Edited by Bulldog_Drummond, 28 May 2020 - 10:42 PM.


Unicorn_of_Steel #9 Posted 29 May 2020 - 11:29 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 20902 battles
  • 657
  • [R_D_A] R_D_A
  • Member since:
    12-29-2017

View PostDaniulSims, on 28 May 2020 - 10:33 PM, said:

That's a good question, but having not ever sat in a tank by myself, it looks as if the Soviet philosophy was to give up crew comfort for better overall characteristics. Soviet tanks in the 60s were smaller, far better armoured, generally more mobile and similarly equipped to their western counterparts. To draw a comparison, it's as if you'd have a 5 skill crew in a tier 7 Vs a 75% crew in a tier IX. Yeah the crew won't be or feel as great, but when the tank itself is better, there isn't much to care about.

 

I haven't been in the army but in the 80'ies there was quite some literature regarding WW3 (still lurking in the shadows back then), written by high Nato commanders. They all agreed on 2 things: (1) the main threat still where sheer numbers and (2) in general Soviet material was regarded as being less developed in terms of guiding systems, electronics and such. One Nato tank should be capable of dealing with more simultanious threaths as a Soviet one, thus equalling out the difference in numbers. 

 

Since the expected lifetime of a tankdriver, after making contact with the enemy, was supposed to be far less then one minute it matters greatly if you are capable of engaging 5 instead of 2 tanks in that brief moment. 

 

Had to rephrase this part of my post. Seems like NATO still follows the German WW2 doctrine of high quality engineering while the Soviet solution was more aimed at 'good is good enough'. A nice example of the electronics  is how the pilot of a then modern Mig 29 provided input to his combat computer. On his helmet there was an infrared transmitor, literally from a tv remote control and on his cupola several receivers. The computer could follow where the pilot was looking and guide the weapons systems in that direction. IR systems do have blind spots though. NATO tried to develop other solutions to eliminate those blind spots but those systems required far more complicated electronics and where far more expensive. 

 

The ability to make the most of the tank was deemed in favor of Nato, due to better ergonomics and electronics. Mind you, comfort is not the same as ergonomics. The latter decide the effectiveness. 

 

Thus, following your comparison it might be more like a 5 skill crew in a tier 7 versus a 75% crew in a fully grinded out tier 8.


Edited by Unicorn_of_Steel, 30 May 2020 - 07:42 AM.


bnmm113 #10 Posted 29 May 2020 - 11:42 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 12744 battles
  • 388
  • [4K1LL] 4K1LL
  • Member since:
    07-13-2012

having been in both nato and former ussr tanks, you can immediatelly spot the difference...

but on important note, ussr tank crewmen werent meant to spend long time in a tank, as ussr strategy was more agressive, while nato  was keen on holding defence line rather than having a highly maneurable attacking force...

 

however, if i had to choose which side i would be on, if the war broke out in 70s-90s, i would pick ussr tanks, purely because of doctrine and survivability..



DaniulSims #11 Posted 29 May 2020 - 11:43 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 11471 battles
  • 1,021
  • [ELC3K] ELC3K
  • Member since:
    03-29-2014

View PostUnicorn_of_Steel, on 29 May 2020 - 12:29 PM, said:

 

I haven't been in the army but in the 80'ies there was quite some literature regarding WW3 (still lurking in the shadows back then), written by high Nato commanders. They all agreed on 2 things: (1) the main threat still where sheer numbers and (2) in general Soviet material was regarded as being less developed in terms of guiding systems, electronics and such. One Nato should be capable with dealing with more simultanious threaths as a Soviet one, thus equalling out the difference in numbers. 

 

The ability to make the most of the tank was deemed in favor of Nato, due to better ergonomics and electronics. Mind you, comfort is not the same as ergonomics. The latter decide the effectiveness. 

 

Thus, following your comparison it might be more like a 5 skill crew in a tier 7 versus a 75% crew in a stock tier 9.

I don't have expertise in tanks made after the 60s and early 70s, so I can't have a definite say, but as far as electronics go, electronics in AAA missiles and aviation I remember being deemed fairly equal between the two blocks before the collpase of the Curtain - which would suggest not really a difference of "capability", but a difference of philosophy between planes and tanks, with the former being slightly more expensive to produce and maintain and train for in order for it to be fully effective, something that would hamper the introduction of the same philosophy used in the army.

 

After all, a tank is a tank regardless of situation, and when a guy with an RPG-7 can annihilate an Abrams in the correct conditions, so will a T-55 when used properly (something which the modern ME users of older tanks have proven to be quite incapable at, fortunately), while a MiG-15 or even 17 has no chance against more modern avionic systems and technology.

 

Mind you, don't think I'm shilling for the USSR/Russia. I'd still prefer to man a NATO tank in 2020 (while I'd definitely take fighting in a T-64 or T-72 at the time of their introduction, over whatever version of the Leopard I, M60 and AMX-30 NATO deployed at the time), if I ever enlisted in the army and got assigned to tank duty. My below average height would make that rather likely.


Edited by DaniulSims, 29 May 2020 - 11:44 AM.


Kdingo #12 Posted 29 May 2020 - 11:46 AM

    General

  • Player
  • 33290 battles
  • 8,776
  • Member since:
    07-05-2011

View PostDutchBaron_, on 28 May 2020 - 08:42 PM, said:

Serously tho, most of those object tanks would have been an ergonomic hell for their crews...

 

Tank crew.PNG

 


 

 

Look at it like this, no one except for the driver needs legs, you can save a lot of room if you physically "adjust" the crew according to their position.

Soviet russia is the earliest adaptation of the adeptus mechanicus.


Edited by Kdingo, 29 May 2020 - 11:50 AM.


bnmm113 #13 Posted 29 May 2020 - 11:49 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 12744 battles
  • 388
  • [4K1LL] 4K1LL
  • Member since:
    07-13-2012

View PostUnicorn_of_Steel, on 29 May 2020 - 11:29 AM, said:

A nice example of the electronics  is how the pilot of a then modern Mig 29 provided input to his combat computer. On his helmet there was an infrared transmitor from a tv remote control and on his cupola several receivers. The computer roughly could follow where the pilot was looking and guide the weapons systems in that direction. In Nato fighters, there was a similar system but the entire cupola was a reciever so the computer always knew 100% exactly where the pilot was looking. The Soviet system worked and required less advanced electronics but it just wasn't as effective as the Nato variant. Thus, the response time to deal with a threat was longer. The Mig 29 was a very formidable package back then but still at a slight disadvantage.


how about su27? there was doctrine about what to use aircraft for...

the best interceptor of the era?



Unicorn_of_Steel #14 Posted 29 May 2020 - 11:51 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 20902 battles
  • 657
  • [R_D_A] R_D_A
  • Member since:
    12-29-2017
I hope more players with actual knowledge of real tanks join this thread, i find it very interesting to learn about the real differences and strenghts! 

Edited by Unicorn_of_Steel, 29 May 2020 - 11:51 AM.


bnmm113 #15 Posted 29 May 2020 - 11:52 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 12744 battles
  • 388
  • [4K1LL] 4K1LL
  • Member since:
    07-13-2012

View PostDaniulSims, on 29 May 2020 - 11:43 AM, said:

I don't have expertise in tanks made after the 60s and early 70s, so I can't have a definite say, but as far as electronics go, electronics in AAA missiles and aviation I remember being deemed fairly equal between the two blocks before the collpase of the Curtain - which would suggest not really a difference of "capability", but a difference of philosophy between planes and tanks, with the former being slightly more expensive to produce and maintain and train for in order for it to be fully effective, something that would hamper the introduction of the same philosophy used in the army.

 

After all, a tank is a tank regardless of situation, and when a guy with an RPG-7 can annihilate an Abrams in the correct conditions, so will a T-55 when used properly (something which the modern ME users of older tanks have proven to be quite incapable at, fortunately), while a MiG-15 or even 17 has no chance against more modern avionic systems and technology.

 

Mind you, don't think I'm shilling for the USSR/Russia. I'd still prefer to man a NATO tank in 2020 (while I'd definitely take fighting in a T-64 or T-72 at the time of their introduction, over whatever version of the Leopard I, M60 and AMX-30 NATO deployed at the time), if I ever enlisted in the army and got assigned to tank duty. My below average height would make that rather likely.

less developed doesnt mean less dangerous...

for sherman both 75 and 88 guns are most likely kill shots...

doesnt matter if you die from missle that hits your aircraft precisely or just hits it with a dumb algorithm....and both american and russian missles would hit, doesnt matter which one is more developed



DaniulSims #16 Posted 29 May 2020 - 11:54 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 11471 battles
  • 1,021
  • [ELC3K] ELC3K
  • Member since:
    03-29-2014

View Postbnmm113, on 29 May 2020 - 12:52 PM, said:

less developed doesnt mean less dangerous...

for sherman both 75 and 88 guns are most likely kill shots...

doesnt matter if you die from missle that hits your aircraft precisely or just hits it with a dumb algorithm....and both american and russian missles would hit, doesnt matter which one is more developed

Precisely what I said :P

 

EDIT: or meant. Not sure how my wording came across.


Edited by DaniulSims, 29 May 2020 - 11:54 AM.


Unicorn_of_Steel #17 Posted 29 May 2020 - 11:55 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 20902 battles
  • 657
  • [R_D_A] R_D_A
  • Member since:
    12-29-2017

View Postbnmm113, on 29 May 2020 - 11:49 AM, said:


how about su27? there was doctrine about what to use aircraft for...

the best interceptor of the era?

 

I don't know... I digested all the info i could get my hands on at that time but i was young then and it is an awfull long time ago... Remember only the for me most remarkable stuff. 


Edited by Unicorn_of_Steel, 29 May 2020 - 11:57 AM.


bnmm113 #18 Posted 29 May 2020 - 11:56 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 12744 battles
  • 388
  • [4K1LL] 4K1LL
  • Member since:
    07-13-2012

View PostUnicorn_of_Steel, on 29 May 2020 - 11:51 AM, said:

I hope more players with actual knowledge of real tanks join this thread, i find it very interesting to learn about the real differences and strenghts! 


was in t55, 54, 72... and a shitload of us/german etc designed tanks...

you cant be in a t55, for example for 8 hours, while you can be in a centurion (lets say)...

but battle likely wont last more than a couple hours.

pure combat the soviet tanks would win, of course depending on a lot of things, most battles, bot would likely loose the war, duer to other things.

 

it is very hard to compare tanks with completely different doctrine in mind.



Jauhesammutin #19 Posted 29 May 2020 - 12:21 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 24287 battles
  • 1,244
  • [KANKI] KANKI
  • Member since:
    11-05-2013

View PostDaniulSims, on 28 May 2020 - 07:51 PM, said:

The philosophy of Soviet tank design is a fascinating thing on its own.


And while I do genuinely believe in the above statement, I wanted to use it just to remind myself of this thread to see all the people who'll say "bAD Irl BuT Op iN WoT RaSHA bIaS"

I guess those players think that tanks fight IRL like they do in WoT. Tank vs tank only in "close" quarters.

 

Whereas in reality you have infantry, artillery and air force mashed up all together. All support the infantry and not the other way around.

I would guess it's quite rare for two tanks to meet head-on as if both are attacking. Usually the other one is defending and they will always have an advantage. 

If you are attacking you need more force. You don't really need the best ergonomics or electronic systems as your tanks are going to get destroyed anyways, that's the nature of attacking. On the other hand if you are defending you don't need them either as you are going to get the first shot off and then you can pull back to another position (of course you need a powerful enough gun to do damage). 

 

I guess the mentality is that (already pointed out before) Nato forces want to have "everlasting" tanks whereas the Soviets just wanted to have a lot of them.



qpranger #20 Posted 29 May 2020 - 12:28 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 38889 battles
  • 6,750
  • [HAMMY] HAMMY
  • Member since:
    12-25-2013

View PostDutchBaron_, on 28 May 2020 - 10:42 PM, said:

Serously tho, most of those object tanks would have been an ergonomic hell for their crews...

 

Tank crew.PNG

 


 

 

That is why my idea to genetically breed hamsters intelligent enough to drive a tank and shoot its cannon makes perfect sense.







Also tagged with Tank crew, russian, us, german, meme

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users