Previous edition here.
Q: How was the Sherman compared to the T-34 by the red army? Did they perhaps like them any better? Worse?
A: The Sherman was seen as a good tank, with a very nice gun. Tankers lamented the flat side armour and tall profile, but enjoyed the quality of the interior finish and comfortable seats. Tank infantry like Shermans too, since they shook a lot less in motion. Hooking up their belts to a Sherman, they could remain still enough to shoot more or less accurately at a distance of 100-150 meters, just enough to either suppress or drive off Panzerfaust soldiers hiding in ruins.
Q: Do you have any info about Germans capturing Soviet tanks, and how they modified those?
A: Overlord wrote an article about it a while ago: http://overlord-wot.blogspot.ca/2012/11/wot-on-pzkpfw-34-747r.html
There are also photos of KV-2s with commander cupolas and at least one KV-1 with a 75 mm gun.
A: Metal tracks and spurs were pretty standard modifications of Lend-Lease vehicles, since American rubberized tracks performed poorly in the winter. As for downgraded stuff, both Britain and the US kept the Soviet representatives well informed of the latest and greatest in development. I have a document that mentions an "American 90 mm AA gun on a Sherman chassis, used as an AT gun" that they should look into before the M36 was even adopted by the US army. Britain was even friendlier, freely trading intelligence with the USSR. If you have a book on the Pz 38(t), there will almost certainly be a photo of a tank with the turret number 543. That tank was given to Britain by the Soviets.
Q: Did anyone else ever want to build the T-34? They were superior to, at least, the M3.
A: A front transmission, of course, will be shot more. In game this is bad, but in real life, a shell getting stuck in the transmission might save the crew's life. Depending on the design, it might be easier to get to. A transmission in the back means you need less shafts and whatnot running through the tank itself, and there is more room inside the crew compartment. I am sure that the mechanical engineers will be able to debate this a lot better than I can.
Q: What tanks are candidates for Soviet high tier lights?
A: There's the PT-76, but it's pretty slow, and its gun is not very impressive. Despite being a post-war tank, it can, maybe, be a slower T-34 with worse matchmaking.
Object 101 is a little better. Still a 76 mm gun, but it can move at 50 kph. Not very much is known about this tank, since only two prototypes were built, and both failed trials.
Then, there's Object 906. It has a much more impressive speed (75 kph), and either an 85 mm D-58 gun or 90 mm D-62 gun. Its armour is pretty thin, up to 30 mm, and the gun is rifled, so it fits in with the era. I don't have penetration data on the gun, so it's hard to judge what tier it would be.
Object 685 also had a rifled gun, 100 mm in caliber. The gun was equipped with an autoloader and a stabilizer. The armour was not steel, but titanium. At 70 kph, it would also make a pretty impressive light tank. Object 934 has similar parameters.
Q: Do you have any information on the IS-5?
A: The IS-5 was an IS tank with a 100 mm gun. It had a vertical stabilizer, a loading assist mechanism, and was, according to Svirin, the most accurate on the move, fastest firing, and highest penetrating heavy tank of its time. However, the D-25T had more than enough penetration do deal with anything the Germans had, and its HE capability was much higher, so the project was cancelled.
A: The IS-5 was an IS tank with a 100 mm gun. It had a vertical stabilizer, a loading assist mechanism, and was, according to Svirin, the most accurate on the move, fastest firing, and highest penetrating heavy tank of its time. However, the D-25T had more than enough penetration do deal with anything the Germans had, and its HE capability was much higher, so the project was cancelled.
In game, it can be approximated by the IS with the 100 mm gun, but through the magic of Russian Bias, the penetration, rate of fire, and accuracy on the move, the three things that made the project at all special, are not present.
Q: Is the ISU-130 fake, or was there ever such a vehicle planned?
A: It was very much real. I wrote about it before, here.
A: It was very much real. I wrote about it before, here.
A: Yes. There was also a plan to equip it with the BL-9, but I guess Wargaming didn't want to make it too OP.
A: The S-34-II was similar to the D-25T, but with some differences. The most noticeable one was the lack of a muzzle brake, increasing concealment of the tank and making it safer for infantry riders. The gun also had a mechanical rammer to speed up loading, and a bore evacuator, to prevent gases from entering the turret after firing. The gun was originally designed for the IS-2, but the changes to the turret were deemed too large, and it was postponed until the IS-4. However, the gun lost to the D-25T once again, since the D-25T was judged sufficient for a current generation heavy tank, and the S-43-II was insufficient for the next generation.
The S-34 was a 100 mm gun, the same as the IS-5 had. The S-34-I seems to not have very much written about it, aside from that it's either 85 mm or 100 mm (sources vary, but they might be confusing the S-34 and S-34-I).
A: The SU-14 was developed in 1933. It consisted of a chassis based on the T-28 and T-35, and a 203 mm howitzer in an open mount. The only crew member protected by armour was the driver. The SU-14-1 was developed in 1935. It had a superior chassis, and a better driver compartment layout. Otherwise, it was largely the same. The SU-14-Br2 was the SU-14-1 with a Br-2 gun instead of the B-4 howitzer, built in 1936. This gun had a higher rate of fire, and more range. The SPG, in preparation for the Winter War, gained a closed fighting compartment in 1940, and the index SU-14-Br2. The other prototype SU-14 also gained armour, had its gun replaced with a B-30 gun, and was named SU-14-2.
That's it for this week! Keep sending those questions to tankarchives@gmail.com.
http://alternathistory.org.ua/files/110809_IS-5_maket.jpg
ReplyDeleteI am going to guess this vehicle which is called the IS-5 is really just an IS-6 that has been misidentified.
Also about the Soviet High Tier Lights. I believe we discussed a light proposal that featured 90 mm of frontal armor. It was more of a wet tanker dream than a actual project but I saw it as a viable higher tier light for the Soviets.
Yup, that's not an IS-5, the road wheels are different, and there is a muzzle brake, which was absent from the D-10T and S-34.
DeleteAs for the light tank, SerB said he's not putting in Soviet paper due to how many tanks were made in metal, so that's why I left it out.
I liked the Light Tank for two reasons. One is that it seemed to be a successor to the T-50 and T-50-2 and would be a good vehicle to follow them instead of the MT-25 or a PT-76ish vehicle. The second reason would be the hilarious butthurt about how a Soviet light tank has more armor than the Tiger or the Panther.
DeleteBy the way, can you send me the text of that translation? I appear to have misplaced it.
DeleteBut there is a Russian IS-5 wiki page:
Deletehttp://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%98%D0%A1-5
Google Translate:
"It is noteworthy that the designation of EC-5 may wear another Soviet tank - " Object 248 ", but it is, in essence, only the IS-2 with recycled tower."
Oh man, that auto translator. The Object 248 (flipped turret layout) was the IS-5. The other one (regular turret layout) was the IS-4*. Incidentally, it had nothing to do with either the "fourth IS" (with a 107 mm gun) or the IS-4 (Object 701, 122 mm gun).
DeleteIsn't naming things fun?
Advantages of a front transmission:
ReplyDelete1) Added frontal protection.
You may get a mobility kill, but the crew may survive.
2) It's easier to "pull" than "push", and a front-drive tank "pulls".
3) Turret drive:
If you have a shaft going forward to the transmission already, you can branch off the drive shaft and run a hydraulic turret drive. Most rear-drive tanks ran an electric turret drive that wasn't as reliable.
4) Ease of maintenance.
If your whole powerpack is in the rear, you have to remove both components to work on one of the components. If you have the engine at the rear and the drive at the front, you don't have to remove both components to wrench on one.
1) true, but this wasnt that important yet in WW2, this idea grew especialy with the merkava series afaik, thus much after ww2.
Delete2)could you explain this one a little more please? because i have doubts about this one since all track links are connected together anyway. thus every design "pull's" anyway.
3)ok true, this is a nice option, altough by no means it is imposible to do this with a rear drive transmission. And i dont believe engineers would choose one layout over another alone for this little thingy.
4)weird, most people insist on saying having all of this combined in one powerpack is easier for maintenance. And from my vieuwpoint (mechanic in the army) i recon the powerpack is should be more practical for fast swaps in the field.
Both rear and front drive tanks pull the track in order to achieve motion.
DeleteDamn, beaten. And yes, crazytony is correct, modern designs have unified power packs, and nothing I have read on the T-34 suggested you had to remove both components to repair one.
Delete@crazytony and 3:
DeleteIt was quite good reason for Germans they didn't have to much copper for electric propulsion for turrets.
Considering the pulling/pushing thing:
DeleteIf I remember correctly, having the drive wheel in the back puts more stress on the part of the track which touches the ground.
So that part has doubled stress.
If the drive wheel is in the front, it puts more stress on the upper part of the track.
That leads to less wear and prolongs the tracks life.
I hope you can understand what I try to say.
After war It was thought one powerpack is better. U can fast change whole drive compartment and be sure that tank will now work, instead checking all modules separately.
ReplyDeleteAs a former Leopard ARV driver, and currently student in mechanical engineering, I reckon I could sheed some light on the front/rear transmission dilemma.
ReplyDeleteFront transmission
Advantages:
1. Protection.
Another object for shells to plow trough before reaching the crew, the most important part of any tank, by far.
2. Steering.
It's easier to make an efficent and very precise steering system when the transmission is right up there with the driver, rather than steering input having to go trough rods, connections and levers, troughout the whole tank.
Of course, I can vouch for this not being a problem anymore in modern tanks, but this was 70 years ago, technology and production methods has moved forewards since then.
This was also a point that was especially important for German tanks, where the crew often traversed the whole tank to get at least partial aim, because of slow turret traverse or fixed casemate designs.(Stug/TD's).
3. Turret drive. Since you're going to run a drive-shaft trough the tank anyway, might as well use it as a reliable way of traversing the turret when hooked up with hydraulics. This was at the time more reliable than an electric drive, and removed the fire hazard of running a separate hydraulic drive from the engine compartment to a motor by the turret ring, as it was placed down in the center of the tank, out of harms way.
4. Easier to maintain. Nowadays, we don't do repairs as much as replacement. We can just use a huge-ass ARV to lift the whole powerpack out of the back and chuck in a new one in under 15 mins(Leo 2), but back then such lifting equipment wasn't always available and not nearly as fast and good.
A lot of repairs were done on both transmission and engine while they were still in the tank, and separating them made them much more easily accessible. The transmission block on the Sherman especially is a brilliant piece of design. Just unscrew it and drag out the whole front. Easy to replace, faster to send them back out into the field.
Disadvantages:
1. Vulnerability of drivetrain.
Of course, putting the transmission up front makes it much more susceptible to damage, be it by enemy fire or terrain hazards.
If you hit a rock and knock off a tensioner, you can just chuck on a new one, get the track back up and drive off. If you do that with a front mounted tranny, you're going to wreck the drive sprocket, possible bend the drive axle and cause damage to the transmission itself. Now that isn't easy or cheap to fix.(Exception, Sherman and others where you can take out and replace the whole front.)
2. Packaging.
Sending the driveshaft trough the tank forces you to raise the turret basket just a little bit, giving the tank a taller profile. This, combined with the radial engine the Sherman was designed for was what made it such a tall, akward vehicle.
3. Wargaming.
WG is going to make your tank catch fire if anyone even looks funny at your lower glacis...
Might have forgotten something, I'm sure you lot will tell me if I have.:P
Any chance of getting set on fire in real-life, when shot at lower glacis (and presumably hitting transmission)?
DeleteOtherwise, +1.
"It's easier to make an efficent and very precise steering system when the transmission is right up there with the driver, rather than steering input having to go trough rods, connections and levers, troughout the whole tank."
DeleteThis was good point. In Finland we had some captured T-34 tanks. Drivers used sledge hammers to change gears. Rear mounted gearbox was very stiff to use so mobility and accleration were very bad.
It is possible, transmission oil can brew up if the right conditions are meet as far as temperature and oxygen supply goes.
DeleteHowever, there's so few records of this actually happening that I think we can safely call it a non-issue. The main fire hazards are always first and foremost the aummunition, the propellant, followed by the engine and fuel tanks.
So the germans didn't see it as a danger, and it seems the allies didn't either. All documents and diagrams I've seen on how to best engage the larger German tanks such as the Tiger and Panther don't pick out the lower glacis, but rather areas like the turret ring, drivers viewport, ammo storage and of course the tracks.
Example:http://i.imgur.com/3OZLTh9.jpg
Hydraulic turret drive is quite dangerous all by itself. Not only being flammable, but it gets hot when used and then it takes only to puncture fluid line when hit and you get nasty burns.
DeleteI like the idea of T-34 with 17 pounder so much.
ReplyDeleteI'd play that as a tier 6/7 premium honestly.
Chances are against it coming anytime soon(or at all), however you could get your mits on the Firefly fairly soon to satisfy your 17 lbr needs.
DeleteI actually think the SU-152 *should* have the BL-9S, with stats comparable to the ISU. Great damage/pene, average DPM/accuracy, subpar RoF/aim time. Much more balanced than the current gun, which roflstomps certain targets with its trollish DPM but fails against armoured tanks because of poor pene/aim time/accuracy and being mounted on a sluggish punching bag. And it would also alleviate the ISU stock tank syndrome. -Platypusbill
ReplyDeleteI think both regular Soviet tier 7s are outclassed by the SU-122-44.
DeleteYeah, putting the BL-9S on the SU-152 will lead to people actually using that gun.
DeleteQ: In WoT we have the 122mm guns A-19S and D-25S on the SU-152, was there a plan to equip it with these guns in reality?
ReplyDeleteA: Yes. There was also a plan to equip it with the BL-9, but I guess Wargaming didn't want to make it too OP.
Too OP is Type 59 (tier 8).
Type 59 is not OP. It's the tanker who uses a tank in the right way who let's you think it's OP.
DeleteI have a question - about the Soviet ball tanks - recently there was a joke "line" during the April 1st event, consisting of these, but I know they have some real background. Were they actually ever seriously considered (or even designed or prototypes made), or was it just a "pipe dream" like the German Ratte?
ReplyDeleteThey were considered, I don't know how seriously. No (Soviet) prototypes that I am aware of. I have an article about them ready, but when it gets published is up to the will of the people: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1u_BFy3x8r_O19bcmcWdpoN1kq6EyBs62CtngPiI4qK4/viewform
DeleteHere you go:
Deletehttp://img5.imageshack.us/img5/1814/0617dbc31a4fd0orig.jpg
(From Pasholok's LJ)
Your article pool made me remember one thing.
DeleteDon't really remember where but somewhere I heard or read about T-34s ramming Tiger tanks front to front as they couldn't penetrate them but could take out of battle this way. Not really sure if they could get that close or whatever, but if you can make an article about something such then maybe you know.
I don't have anything on a specific ram like that, except for a vague allusion to it happening.
Delete"Q: How was the Sherman compared to the T-34 by the red army? Did they perhaps like them any better? Worse?
ReplyDeleteA: The Sherman was seen as a good tank, with a very nice gun. Tankers lamented the flat side armour and tall profile, but enjoyed the quality of the interior finish and comfortable seats. Tank infantry like Shermans too, since they shook a lot less in motion. Hooking up their belts to a Sherman, they could remain still enough to shoot more or less accurately at a distance of 100-150 meters, just enough to either suppress or drive off Panzerfaust soldiers hiding in ruins."
So, American tanks DO have a higher comfort rating! :D
the IS-5 was a real tank, there was a prototype also called IS-5 which was an IS-2 with a 100mm gun, but there is a design concept right here i found pictures of. i have it in an old forum post.
ReplyDeletehttp://forum.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/158305-found-pics-of-the-is-5/
The first photo is captioned "IS tank with the D-30 gun and electromechanical transmission", so an IS-6. The second one is the same tank, from a different angle.
Delete