The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - September 7, 2008

Advertisement


Advertisement
New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Squad Battles: Winter War
2.Silent War
3.Manoeuvre
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

Online Giving

Utah SEO Firm

Xango

Smiley Gifts for Babies
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
Armor Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Tank design lesson: T-44
bravoss    11/5/2007 5:41:34 PM
How do you put thick armor and a powerful gun but make the light weight remain? I was looking at the specs of the T-44 tank, it had 120 mm sloped armor, but weighed only about 30 tons while the German Tiger had 110 mm armor but weighed about 60 tons ? How did they manage to do that ?
 
Quote    Reply
 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
Herald1234       11/5/2007 6:10:07 PM

How do you put thick armor and a powerful gun but make the light weight remain? I was looking at the specs of the T-44 tank, it had 120 mm sloped armor, but weighed only about 30 tons while the German Tiger had 110 mm armor but weighed about 60 tons ? How did they manage to do that ?
1. Get rid of the bow machine giunner.
2. Reduce ammunition stowage.
3. Reduce internal volume.
3. Turn the engine and transmission sideways and use a rear drive sprocket.
 4. Onlky armor the front 120 degree arc thickly to resist tank gun fire while settling for splinter protection from the sides and rear.

That is how you get a 33 tonne tank with a 12.0cm. glacis and mantlet. 

Herald
 
Quote    Reply

bravoss       11/5/2007 7:03:20 PM
I don't have alot of knowledge on this, especially compared to you but it seems to me that if T-44 was introduced earlier it might have a big impact, it was based on T-34 and was also easy to build and not too complex but was very superior to T-34 in armor and firepower but still had the T-34s mobility.

Herald you really have alot of knowledge on tanks, what books can you recommend me for buying ?
 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234       11/6/2007 3:06:52 AM
Some on American armor;
 
  1. Hunnicutt, R.P. Sherman: A History of the American Medium Tank. Navato, CA: Presidio Press, 1994.
    Reprinted with permission from Sherman, R.P. Hunnicutt ©1994, available from Presidio Press, 505B San Martin Drive, Suite 160, Navato, CA 94945.

     

  2. Chamberlain, Peter, and Chris Ellis. British and American Tanks of World War Two. Frome, England: Cassell & Co., 2000.

Anything by Hunnicutt

 
I find that the old Ballantine series of Books on WW II British, German, and American armor to be useful introductory material.. Find anything written by Ian Hogg as he's a world reknown expert on artillery of ALL types.
 
Herald
 
Quote    Reply

Jeff_F_F       11/6/2007 6:09:18 PM
My understanding is the side armor on the T54 was around 70mm, quite a bit better than splinter protection.
 
However, the engine was transverse which saves a lot of material by shortening the hull, and the engine was redesigned to be shorter, allowing a lower hull profile and nearly eleminating the superstructure, thus saving even more material. Also a very limited degree of gun depression was accepted since they intended the tanks as a primarily offensive weapon hence the ability to shoot from reverse slopes was seen as less important allowing a lower turret roof and again saving more material and hence weight.
 
The end result (for the T-54) was frontal armor thicker than the King Tiger, a 100mm gun with penetration roughly equivalent to the Panther's 75mmL70 but firing a larger HE shell, and a total weight significantly lighter than the Panther.
 
Quote    Reply

Jeff_F_F       11/6/2007 6:17:39 PM
...side armor on the hull may well have been minimal though.
 
Quote    Reply

00_Chem_AJB       11/6/2007 7:51:40 PM
Last I checked, side and rear armour on the T-54/55 was 80mm on the hull and turret sides while 60mm on the Turret and hull rear. While it is more than splinter protection a 30mm RADEN cannon can punch through it will little trouble.
Back to the T-44, I was under the impression that even if they got the design out quicker, they were still limited to the 85mm gun as the best armament for it. Either way I would of taken the design, much improved frontal armour as well as the elimination of the nasty stop gap found on the T-34/85 turret.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234    We are discussing the T-44.   11/7/2007 3:36:04 PM
link
 
 
 
That is data on the T-44. The armor package is a bit thicker than what would be possible for the US in the Grierson at the time because the Russians were willing to sacrifice gun depression, internal volume, and total ammunition load, to get a thicker hide, than we could put into the contemporary Grierson. The heavier Pershing was our answer. Frankly the Russians were ahead of the US in tank design at the time, though their line of development [and mania for a low silhouette]would ultimately result in a different type of MBT tank for different roles than what the US was designing.
 
Herald    
 
Quote    Reply

Jeff_F_F    http://afvdb.50megs.com/germany/pz5.html   11/7/2007 7:55:07 PM
My point was that the armor package was not the source of the decreased weight. No Allied post-war medium tank had heavier side armor and many had significantly lighter and most had somewhat lighter frontal armor, yet all were significantly heavier. In fact the T-44 compares favorably with the side armor of the Tiger and outclasses the Panther.
 
The Pershing had 76mm side armor and 100mm fascia & turret front, 110mm mantlet armor and weighed 42 tonnes.
 
I'm having some trouble finding good data on the Centurion but it looks like the A41 prototype with the 17 pounder had 76mm side armor on the turret and at least 127mm front turret armor. This site doesn't separate out the mantlet so I'm not sure... Mass is about 42.5 tons.
 
The Panther had similar armor on the front of the turret and mantlet, only 80mm (but very well sloped) fascia and a mere 45mm on the turret sides yet and weighed 45 tonnes.
 
The Tiger had 100mm front hull and front turret armor plus a mantlet up to 120mm thick, but the sides were 80cm. It massed 57 tonnes. 
 
The Soviets optimized their design for minimum size in all dimensions, supported by innovative engine layout and design, and accepted compromises in space for the crew and angle of depression of the main gun. The end ressult was a superb medium tank by most measures in all respects except crew ergonomics and ability to fire from defilade.
 
Quote    Reply

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2008StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy