Jump to content


Dzienniki developerów: Amerykańskie czołgi Yoh


  • Please log in to reply
68 replies to this topic

hugoo65 #41 Posted 17 September 2021 - 12:13 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 22360 battles
  • 9
  • [TN0R] TN0R
  • Member since:
    08-29-2016
W związku z precedensem STB-1 jestem zdania, że AE Phase 1 powinien otrzymać tę mechanikę.

_Bogdan_81 #42 Posted 17 September 2021 - 01:27 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 76089 battles
  • 48
  • [SOBPL] SOBPL
  • Member since:
    04-22-2012

Czy wie ktoś jak będzie wyglądała załoga? Znaczy ilu załogantów z jakimi funkcjami na poszczególnych poziomach? 

 

 

 

 



Revanche25 #43 Posted 17 September 2021 - 02:07 PM

    General

  • Clan Diplomat
  • 44641 battles
  • 9,262
  • [FNPRO] FNPRO
  • Member since:
    01-17-2013

View Post_Bogdan_81, on 17 September 2021 - 01:27 PM, said:

Czy wie ktoś jak będzie wyglądała załoga? Znaczy ilu załogantów z jakimi funkcjami na poszczególnych poziomach? 

Standard 4 osobowy.



Paythos #44 Posted 17 September 2021 - 02:15 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 72562 battles
  • 4,161
  • Member since:
    11-25-2012
Ale ta X wygląda na maks 3 członków załogi:P

SirBushman #45 Posted 17 September 2021 - 02:23 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 64063 battles
  • 8,580
  • [ROTTN] ROTTN
  • Member since:
    06-30-2013

W EVENa ledwo wchodziło dwóch kurdupli a w grze bez problemu mieści się trzech.

Dadzą radę.



Paythos #46 Posted 17 September 2021 - 02:41 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 72562 battles
  • 4,161
  • Member since:
    11-25-2012
O czwartym w 7TP itd, nie wspominając.. wychodzi, że w WG mają inna fizykę:trollface:

Revanche25 #47 Posted 19 September 2021 - 07:22 PM

    General

  • Clan Diplomat
  • 44641 battles
  • 9,262
  • [FNPRO] FNPRO
  • Member since:
    01-17-2013

View PostPaythos, on 17 September 2021 - 02:15 PM, said:

Ale ta X wygląda na maks 3 członków załogi:P

A ile osób wchodzi do Concept 1B? 4, ba M-VI-Y ma i tak powiększoną wieżę względem tego co ma M-V-Y. Zresztą zgodnie z założeniami  Yoh Company, załoga miała być taka sama jak w M48 czyli czteroosobowa. 



Hovding #48 Posted 19 September 2021 - 07:46 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 27906 battles
  • 1,204
  • [TEX] TEX
  • Member since:
    07-05-2011
Zrobię tę linię, choćby ze względu na wygląd. Mega mi się podobają!

Paythos #49 Posted 19 September 2021 - 07:48 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 72562 battles
  • 4,161
  • Member since:
    11-25-2012
Spoiler

A jesteś pewien, że tu możesz wcisnąć 3 ludzi do tej wieży?:P



Sullust #50 Posted 19 September 2021 - 09:03 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 45881 battles
  • 746
  • [KAM1] KAM1
  • Member since:
    04-16-2013

View PostPaythos, on 19 September 2021 - 08:48 PM, said:

Spoiler

A jesteś pewien, że tu możesz wcisnąć 3 ludzi do tej wieży?:P

Czwartego posadzą z tyłu na silniku, wielkie halo :trollface:



GpgotSwag #51 Posted 20 September 2021 - 11:09 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 37420 battles
  • 769
  • [LICHO] LICHO
  • Member since:
    03-08-2013

View PostPaythos, on 19 September 2021 - 07:48 PM, said:

Spoiler

A jesteś pewien, że tu możesz wcisnąć 3 ludzi do tej wieży?:P

Ładowniczy siedzi w kadłubie. Zostało to zaprezentowane na materiale wideo.



Paythos #52 Posted 20 September 2021 - 11:27 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 72562 battles
  • 4,161
  • Member since:
    11-25-2012

View PostGpgotSwag, on 20 September 2021 - 12:09 PM, said:

Ładowniczy siedzi w kadłubie. Zostało to zaprezentowane na materiale wideo.

 

Gdzie? W jakim? 

Nie powiesz mi, że on się jakoś przeciska przez to by załadować działo...

https://youtu.be/DGWet1rQcH0?t=176

 

:P

 


Edited by Paythos, 20 September 2021 - 11:34 AM.


Revanche25 #53 Posted 20 September 2021 - 03:20 PM

    General

  • Clan Diplomat
  • 44641 battles
  • 9,262
  • [FNPRO] FNPRO
  • Member since:
    01-17-2013

View PostPaythos, on 20 September 2021 - 11:27 AM, said:

 

Gdzie? W jakim? 

Nie powiesz mi, że on się jakoś przeciska przez to by załadować działo...

https://youtu.be/DGWet1rQcH0?t=176

 

:P

 

Ładowniczy miał siedzieć za kierowcą tyłem do kierunku jazdy, do ładowania "magazynka" tył wieży miał być opuszczany i miały się otwierać specjalne pokrywy w stropie kadłuba i spodzie wykuszu wieży, a do procesu ładowania miała służyć ładowarka łańcuchowa tyle w teorii Yoh Company. WG zrobi co będzie się im żywnie podobało, a przykładem czego jest zaklasyfikowanie pojazdów jako HT i upchanie tam 120 zamiast i 105, danie premce M-IV-Y silnika 850 KM gdzie pojazdy miały korzystać z silnika Continental AOSI-1195-5 675 KM, danie 177 mm pancerza gdzie miało być 125 mm.


Edited by Revanche25, 20 September 2021 - 03:21 PM.


Hovding #54 Posted 20 September 2021 - 06:11 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 27906 battles
  • 1,204
  • [TEX] TEX
  • Member since:
    07-05-2011
Był gdzieś, jakiś artykuł o tych czołgach? Albo w którejś książce może o nich było?

Paythos #55 Posted 20 September 2021 - 06:24 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 72562 battles
  • 4,161
  • Member since:
    11-25-2012

View PostRevanche25, on 20 September 2021 - 04:20 PM, said:

Ładowniczy miał siedzieć za kierowcą tyłem do kierunku jazdy, do ładowania "magazynka" tył wieży miał być opuszczany i miały się otwierać specjalne pokrywy w stropie kadłuba i spodzie wykuszu wieży, a do procesu ładowania miała służyć ładowarka łańcuchowa tyle w teorii Yoh Company.

Na pewno pan to dobrze zaprojektował?

Inżynier - YES



profes79 #56 Posted 20 September 2021 - 06:40 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 28340 battles
  • 12,760
  • [_CHS_] _CHS_
  • Member since:
    05-02-2012

View PostSirBushman, on 16 September 2021 - 11:29 AM, said:

Tym, że nie da się "historycznie" zbalansować tego tak, żeby był słabszy niż ruskie.

 

Poza tym już mamy MT jako HT - patrz szwedzkie, TD jako MT - patrz AMX CDC, blachę na boku jako pancerz warstwowy - patrz IS-3, itd. to czemu nie kolejne wymysły?

Pamiętaj - gdy trzeba coś znerfić, żeby najlepszy (moim zdaniem)  MT II WŚ (Panthera) nie było mocniejsze niż ruskie to względy historyczne a jak zbuffować ruskie to balans nawet w projektach odrzuconych przez samych Rosjan jako uniemożliwiające w praktyce działanie załogi (Obj. 907).

 

Krzaczku, ta dyskusja toczy sie od lat.

Pantera jest MT VII tieru. Historycznie walczyła z czołgami V-VI tieru (T-34 i T-34/85; Shermany w wersjach wszelakich) a z VII wotowską mierzyła się tylko przy okazji spotkań z IS-ami i niektórymi TD. Potencjalnie mogła mierzyć się z Cometami (które nie zdążyły wziąć udziału w walkach), Pershingiem ( z którym doszło do jednego udokumentowanego pojedynku w Kolonii) czy Challengerem. Wszystkie czołgi, na tle których Pantera plasowała się tak wysoko, w WoT sa przeważnie tier a czasami i dwa niżej. Jedyny pojazd VIII tier z jakim Pantera mogłą sie mierzyć to o ile kojarzę ISU-152 (mogę się mylić; jeżeli tak - poprawcie) - no i wspomniany Pershing.

 

Generalnie wszystkie wotowskie "bo ten czołg był historycznie lepszy" wynikają z dwóch rzeczy - rozstrzału tierowego który powoduje, że czasami w losowaniu trafia sie na czołgi o kilkanaście lat nowsze (patrz case Tygrysa II) i często albo projektowane do zwalczania danego czołgu (głównie niemieckiego) albo wręcz stanowiącego już wynik powojennego rozwoju broni pancernej; oraz niehistoryczności uzbrojenia - mało który czołg średnich i wysokich tierów występuje w konfiguracji historycznej jako topowej - wręcz przeciwnie; pojazdy są buffowane na różne sposoby, najczęściej poprzez dokładanie niewystępujących historycznie dział.

 

Gdyby - jak kiedyś - zorganizować historyczne starcie Shermanów czy T-34 w historycznych konfiguracjach z Panterą czy Tygrysem I (w historycznej konfiguracji) to efekty mogłyby być przezabawne - dla Niemców oczywiście; wątpię, czy kierujący czołgami alianckimi bawiliby się tak samo dobrze (może poza Brytyjczykami z ich 17pdr. działami).



Paythos #57 Posted 20 September 2021 - 06:53 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 72562 battles
  • 4,161
  • Member since:
    11-25-2012
Sherman z 76ką chce znać twoją pozycję... jego kumpel, Sherman 105 również:trollface:

profes79 #58 Posted 20 September 2021 - 07:17 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 28340 battles
  • 12,760
  • [_CHS_] _CHS_
  • Member since:
    05-02-2012

Sherman z 76 mm działem nadal we frontalnym pojedynku z Panterą był na straconej pozycji (chociaż nadal w pojedynkach ppanc miał lepsze szanse niż jego młodszy brat z 75mm działem). Sherman ze 105mm haubicą w ogóle nie był projektowany do walk z czołgami; miał stanowić mobilne wsparcie dla piechoty. Co najwyżej 17pdr z Firefly był w stanie przebić frontalny pancerz Pantery ale nadal z mniejszej odległości, niż Pantera dziurawiła Shermana. Co zresztą widać w statystykach wotowskich dział - 17pdr ma prawie tyle samo peny na AP co 76mm działo z E8 na APCR.

 

edit:

Właśnie wróciłem z Normandii i Bretanii, mogąc pooglądać nieco miejsc pojedynków pancernych. W większości przypadków straty niemieckie wynikały z nonszalancji - to co udawało się na froncie wschodnim nagle okazało się, że na Zachodzie nie działa bo i czołgiści przeciwnika lepiej wyszkoleni a i czołgi jakby z lepszymi działami :P Niemniej jednak generalnie zwykle niszczone w starciach pancernych czołgi niemieckie były niszczone z zasadzki, z bliskiej odległości, gdzie pancerz nie grał już takiej roli a i tak gdzie się dało starano się strzelać z boku a nie frontalnie.


Edited by profes79, 20 September 2021 - 07:20 PM.


Paythos #59 Posted 20 September 2021 - 07:49 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 72562 battles
  • 4,161
  • Member since:
    11-25-2012

Oj, Sherman 105 nieraz walił z burzaków do Panzerów wszelkiej maści i nie kończyło się to tak jak teraz w WoT:justwait:

Zresztą 76ka i tak była lepsza od 17funtówki

https://worldoftanks...-armour-part-1/

 

A efekt trafienia w bok wieży Pantery z burzaka 75 mm też nie był za fajny:trollface:


Edited by Paythos, 20 September 2021 - 07:51 PM.


Revanche25 #60 Posted 20 September 2021 - 08:10 PM

    General

  • Clan Diplomat
  • 44641 battles
  • 9,262
  • [FNPRO] FNPRO
  • Member since:
    01-17-2013

View PostHovding, on 20 September 2021 - 06:11 PM, said:

(...) w którejś książce może o nich było?

Abrams A History of the American Main Battle Tank  R. P. Hunnicutt.

View PostHovding, on 20 September 2021 - 06:11 PM, said:

Był gdzieś, jakiś artykuł o tych czołgach?

Był na głównej stronie WoTa na serwerze NA w 2013 r.

The Chieftain's Hatch: The Wonderful World of Yoh

 
 

If you were around some time ago, you may recall seeing that the planned US tech tree included some tanks labelled ‘Yoh’ around the higher tiers. They’ve since dropped off, but that’s not important right now.

The well-read will recognize that ‘Yoh’ referred to the H.L. Yoh company, which submitted a number of proposed tank designs to the Army. The problem being that the only known pictures and data which existed publicly were some brief mentions and very small artists impressions to be found in Hunnicutt’s “Abrams” such as the following:

Well, I like a challenge, so I went hunting. The first thing I did was to call the H.L. Yoh Company of Pennsylvania themselves, to see if they happened to have anything in the company archives. The first difficulty was in verifying that I had, indeed, reached the correct company.

You see, if you go to their website today, you find that they are a human resources provider.  They provide staffing for your company’s needs. Not very much in there about construction or production, let alone tanks. There is now a history section of the website (there wasn’t at the time), which does reference some engineering work way back in the 1940s through 60s, but without even that link, all I could do was pick up the ‘phone, dial the number, and start asking around.

Nobody seemed to know anything about the H.L. Yoh Company’s military past, though certainly nobody working there could tell me that they hadn’t had one either: Nobody had been around that long. They certainly didn’t have any knowledge of  any old tank designs sitting around the back shelves anywhere.

As a result, when I was in the Archives some time ago, I kept an eye out for anything which seemed to be Yoh-related.  Two items were found in the classified sections from the 1950s. One was a fairly benign (and hefty) document assessing the ergonomics of a certain SPG, the other I found to be far more interesting. An FOIA request saw the binder de-classified three days after I left the Archives. Suffice to say that on my next return, it was the first thing I scanned.

The Yoh company can be said to have been thinking ‘outside the box’ in certain aspects. In other aspects, it was still in the pre-war box. The following items are of design features they proposed for future vehicles. The foreword states as follows:

In presenting the following special features, we have concentrated on the vital elements of a medium tank’s function. Each of the ten features is capable of being further developed into a practical and efficient component. Most of the proposals may be readily adapted or modified to permit their incorporation into the present day tank.

Now, here's the odd thing. A number of the below proposals are described and even shown (small) in the Hunnicutt book. But in order to see the binder in the Archives, I had to have my security clearence verified and then be granted access to the classified reading room in the Archives where, of course, no reproduction equipment is authorised. Why they were still classified can probably only be put down to bureaucracy never declassifying them, but classified they still were. How did Hunnicutt get them printed? Of course, the man has been dead some years now, and I'm unlikely to ever find the answer.

We can start off with one of the more sensible proposals.

It says:

The new gun shield incorporates many desirable factors. The primary feature consists of the weight being concentrated aft of the trunnion, helping to balance the gun. The shield is composed of a light weight cored casting, to which the gun cradle is attached, permitting the gun to recoil. The sloped front provides excellent obliquity. The turret opening is completely sealed by the unique contour which maintains a minimum gap between the shield and turret.

OK, reasonable enough.

The second suggestion was an ammunition hoist, to help the loader grab those heavy rounds

Described thusly:

An ammunition grab has been developed in an effort to provide the simplest possible kind of assistance in lifting heavy shells. The grab is held in the loader's left hand, leaving his right hand free to guide and control the movement of the round. All controls for the hoist and grab are incorporated in the grab itself. Squeezing the latch, grips and locks the grab on the shell. Pressure is released by squeezing the trigger. The grab may also be used to replenish the ready racks. When not in use, the grab may be compactly stowed near the turret roof.

Although I’m OK with the concept for, say, larger artillery shells, I’m unsure that this is in any way faster than traditional manual loading of what seems in the image to be a 90mm round. The other concern I have is that the clamp be tight enough to prevent the round from slipping, but not so tight as to deform the shell casing and prevent it from being chambered.

Suggestion #3 is an armoured ready rack.

This method of stowing the "Ready" ammunition offers maximum safety to the crew. It eliminates the fire hazard thru which 90% of the tanks were lost in World War II. The device will prevent fragments from striking the ammunition. If a projectile does enter the rack, the resulting ammunition fire would be vented out of the tank, saving crew and equipment. In addition to the protection feature, the commander can select the proper round by remote control. The loader receives the round in a position that allows ease of handling.

The idea is sensible enough, and indeed, as a concept it bears a fairly reasonable similarity to the revolving ready rack/semi-autoloader currently in production on the Merkava IV tank. On the downside, it seems to take a lot of room inside the turret, I think the diagram understates things a bit. Also unsure if the hatch truly will be strong enough to divert an ammunition explosion up through the bottleneck chimney. Still, interesting example of thought.

A couple of autoloaders are suggestions 4 and 5.

The bustle autoloader is most sensible, and indeed bears a good resemblance to the cassette autoloaders found in modern tanks. The only difference seems to be a gravity feed to the conveyor belt.

This proposal indicates a method of loading the gun automatically. Eighteen rounds of 105-mm ammunition are stowed in the mechanism located in the "Bustle" of the turret. The commander presses a button indicating the desired type of ammunition. A tray then receives the round from the storage compartment and conveys it to the center of the gun. A pushing arm rams the round into the breech and waits above the breech for the gun to be fired. After recoil and shell ejection, the pusher reverses and discards the empty casing out of the tank, coming to rest in a position to receive the next round.

 As to the other option:

A revolving magazine houses the necessary rounds of 105-mm ammunition. By remote selection, the magazine indexes until the desired round is in line with the gun. A plunger, housing the firing mechanism, then moves the shell into the gun tube and locks to provide obturation. As the projectile moves forward when fired, it passes a port permitting gas pressure to unlock the breech plunger. Some of the remaining gas pressure forces the empty casing back into the magazine with the breech plunger behind it. The gun is then ready to receive the next round.

This also strikes me as being something likely to take a significant amount of room. The round revolver in the Styker MGS isn’t small.

Perhaps the most pressing problem is that it looks like the entire revolver is permanently affixed to the gun, thus adding to the gun’s overall weight (and difficulty in moving it), and of course, the amount of room it needs to move up and down. That may be something which can be fixed by adding a sliding block system, but we’re still looking at a lot of room. Unsure how gun recoil is supposed to be handled, it looks like a zero-recoil system.

Option #6 starts to get a little silly.

From a study made of the functions of each member of the crew, it was determined that the loader is best suited to man an auxiliary machine gun. This arrangement indicates that the gun will not interfere with the normal duties of the loader, due to the fact that it may be out of the way. When in use, the gun can traverse 120° and elevate 35 °, covering the left side of the tank. Protection from frontal attack is offered by the turret itself. This proposal permits freedom of gun movement, plus ample protection from bullet splash.

Shock absorbers positioning for #7, I’m not even sure required an assessment as various angles have been long tried.

 

Unsure if they specifically meant ‘Christie suspension’, or if it was just an early example of misusing the term to indicate individually sprung roadwheel arms. If the former, it’s pretty much redundant as Christie had been long discarded, and if the latter, events have shown that the horizontal shocks weren’t required.

 The Yoh engineers seemed to take some effort towards the concept of propulsion after a mine strike or other such damage to the track, so suggestion #8 was…

 

The "Track within a Track" is a method of applying power to the bogie wheels in an emergency. It is mounted between the rear three wheels and the main track, and is driven by the main drive sprocket. It is available at all times in the event the main track is thrown, damaged by a land mine or subjected to enemy fire. When the main track is lost it will be unnecessary for the crew to expose themselves while making repairs. Its additional weight is negligible. If it is the means of saving the crew and tank the cost would be insignificant.

I am somewhat amused by the assumption that when the track is broken that the various pieces of suspension etc will be flung clear and that the ‘inner’ track will simply allow movement without restriction. I can think of a lot of ways that the ‘full’ track could foul the system and require the dismounting of the crew before using the inner track. And if you’re going that far, may as well just short-track, though admittedly that’s more than a five minute job.

Still, the track-within-the-track idea was far more sensible than the alternate proposal.

This is all the entry had to say on the matter:

The walking device is an unconventional method for providing traction in an emergency. Each foot is powered from the same shaft as the main sprockets and may be driven independently in either direction. The device is engaged from within the tank when track damage occurs.

I like the way they describe it as ‘unconventional’. ‘Looney’ is more likely. Still, I have left my personal favourite for last.

 

The supposed benefits:

1. Engine in turret balances gun

2. Eliminates need for counterweight in bustle

3. Gun pointing forward in normal traveling position

4. Adequate turret space for crew

5. Allows shorter and lighter hull

6. Provides space for 60 rounds of ammunition

7. Greater fuel storage capacity

 So let’s see… you’re adding another ton or three of weight for the turret motors to worry about, and centre of gravity is going to be ungodly high.

But what really grabs my attention is the concept of the better part of a thousand horsepower being transmitted by way of an independently-rotating double-sided gear ring under the turret traverse gear ring. In addition to the sheer bizarreness of the idea, the other thing that I am curious about is the problem of the torque trying to push the turret in the other direction. There’s going to be some significant power loss compensating for that, methinks.

I’m all for creative thinking, but there’s probably a reason that the Army never requested the H. L. Yoh company to build anything.

The Chieftain is Wargaming America's resident tank guru. If you'd like to stay abreast of his comings and goings, feel free to "Like" The Chieftain on Facebook and follow The Chieftain on Twitter.

Po tem w 2016 r. pojawił się pierwszy filmik na YT o nich po rosyjsku

 

 

A kolejny pojawił się w 2020 r. po angielsku

 


Edited by Revanche25, 20 September 2021 - 08:12 PM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users