Tank Steering, East Vs. West

[Loopycrank]

So, if my sources do not lead me astray, almost every Western tank design since the M46 has used a double-differential steering unit with a hydromechanical steering drive, excepting some low-cost or expedient designs like the Type 61 and AMX-13, and British designs which stuck with triple differential steering until at least Chieftain. At the same time, every Soviet tank design since the IS series has used a two-stage epicyclic final drive to provide geared steering with auxiliary clutch-and-brake steering for tighter turns.

 

How much of a practical difference does this make? This video comparing the M60 to the T-62 mentions that the steering in the T-62 is very abrupt, and tended to throw the gunner off target. American testing of the T95, which had an essentially Soviet-style transmission, showed that the auxiliary clutch and brake steering didn't do well in the mud.

 

Has anyone here driven or otherwise compared tanks with both styles of steering?

[cbo]

So, if my sources do not lead me astray, almost every Western tank design since the M46 has used a double-differential steering unit with a hydromechanical steering drive, excepting some low-cost or expedient designs like the Type 61 and AMX-13, and British designs which stuck with triple differential steering until at least Chieftain. At the same time, every Soviet tank design since the IS series has used a two-stage epicyclic final drive to provide geared steering with auxiliary clutch-and-brake steering for tighter turns.

 

How much of a practical difference does this make? This video comparing the M60 to the T-62 mentions that the steering in the T-62 is very abrupt, and tended to throw the gunner off target. American testing of the T95, which had an essentially Soviet-style transmission, showed that the auxiliary clutch and brake steering didn't do well in the mud.

 

Has anyone here driven or otherwise compared tanks with both styles of steering?

Interesting - the Soviet system would be something like the Panther steering system from WWII just with two steering radii in each gear?

[Mikel2]

 

So, if my sources do not lead me astray, almost every Western tank design since the M46 has used a double-differential steering unit with a hydromechanical steering drive, excepting some low-cost or expedient designs like the Type 61 and AMX-13, and British designs which stuck with triple differential steering until at least Chieftain. At the same time, every Soviet tank design since the IS series has used a two-stage epicyclic final drive to provide geared steering with auxiliary clutch-and-brake steering for tighter turns.

 

How much of a practical difference does this make? This video comparing the M60 to the T-62 mentions that the steering in the T-62 is very abrupt, and tended to throw the gunner off target. American testing of the T95, which had an essentially Soviet-style transmission, showed that the auxiliary clutch and brake steering didn't do well in the mud.

 

Has anyone here driven or otherwise compared tanks with both styles of steering?

Interesting - the Soviet system would be something like the Panther steering system from WWII just with two steering radii in each gear?

 

 

I thought Panther had a single radius per gear (plus clutch) vs double radius for T1&2.

[Loopycrank]

 

So, if my sources do not lead me astray, almost every Western tank design since the M46 has used a double-differential steering unit with a hydromechanical steering drive, excepting some low-cost or expedient designs like the Type 61 and AMX-13, and British designs which stuck with triple differential steering until at least Chieftain. At the same time, every Soviet tank design since the IS series has used a two-stage epicyclic final drive to provide geared steering with auxiliary clutch-and-brake steering for tighter turns.

 

How much of a practical difference does this make? This video comparing the M60 to the T-62 mentions that the steering in the T-62 is very abrupt, and tended to throw the gunner off target. American testing of the T95, which had an essentially Soviet-style transmission, showed that the auxiliary clutch and brake steering didn't do well in the mud.

 

Has anyone here driven or otherwise compared tanks with both styles of steering?

Interesting - the Soviet system would be something like the Panther steering system from WWII just with two steering radii in each gear?

 

It's considerably more primitive than the panther... and also considerably more compact. As you can see:

 

 

The steering drive on a panther is pretty big.

 

If memory serves, in a panther there are two output shafts going into the steering unit. One is engine output before the gearbox, one is engine output after the gearbox. That's why a panther has one turn radius per gear ratio.

 

In a T-55, there's nothing so fancy. All the steering is done by the final drives, which have three available speeds; normal, reduced and neutral. For normal forward motion, they're in the "normal" gear. To turn left, the system downshifts the left final drive to the reduced gear ratio. To make a really sharp turn left, the left drive pops into neutral and the track brake activates so that all engine power goes to the right track.

 

So, absent the clutch-and-brake system for really sharp turns, a T-55 has one turn radius. That's not like a panther's one turn radius per gear ratio, that's one turn radius.

 

Also, neutral steering is impossible.

[thalb2000]

 

 

So, if my sources do not lead me astray, almost every Western tank design since the M46 has used a double-differential steering unit with a hydromechanical steering drive, excepting some low-cost or expedient designs like the Type 61 and AMX-13, and British designs which stuck with triple differential steering until at least Chieftain. At the same time, every Soviet tank design since the IS series has used a two-stage epicyclic final drive to provide geared steering with auxiliary clutch-and-brake steering for tighter turns.

 

How much of a practical difference does this make? This video comparing the M60 to the T-62 mentions that the steering in the T-62 is very abrupt, and tended to throw the gunner off target. American testing of the T95, which had an essentially Soviet-style transmission, showed that the auxiliary clutch and brake steering didn't do well in the mud.

 

Has anyone here driven or otherwise compared tanks with both styles of steering?

Interesting - the Soviet system would be something like the Panther steering system from WWII just with two steering radii in each gear?

 

It's considerably more primitive than the panther... and also considerably more compact. As you can see:

 

 

The steering drive on a panther is pretty big.

 

If memory serves, in a panther there are two output shafts going into the steering unit. One is engine output before the gearbox, one is engine output after the gearbox. That's why a panther has one turn radius per gear ratio.

 

In a T-55, there's nothing so fancy. All the steering is done by the final drives, which have three available speeds; normal, reduced and neutral. For normal forward motion, they're in the "normal" gear. To turn left, the system downshifts the left final drive to the reduced gear ratio. To make a really sharp turn left, the left drive pops into neutral and the track brake activates so that all engine power goes to the right track.

 

So, absent the clutch-and-brake system for really sharp turns, a T-55 has one turn radius. That's not like a panther's one turn radius per gear ratio, that's one turn radius.

 

Also, neutral steering is impossible.

 

Then again, most Soviet tanks up to then had no final drive at all, steering was done by differential clutch and brake. Moving from the T-34 to the T-54, tank drivers were happy to be able to shift gears without using a mallet, or needing an assistant driver and their collection of swearwords. So the T-44/54 was seen as a great improvement, although it would not have been if tankers had been familiar to the Panther previously.

[bojan]

...Moving from the T-34 to the T-54, tank drivers were happy to be able to shift gears without using a mallet...

 

 

In 1st and 2nd gear force to shift gears is practically identical on T-34-85 and Sherman - 35-45kg. On higher speeds it is easier on Sherman, but only by relatively small margins (less then 10%).

"Mallets to shift gear" originated with original T-34 and it's 4-speed transmission, which needed 60-80kg to shift gears.

Edited August 29, 2013 by bojan

[cbo]

 

 

Interesting - the Soviet system would be something like the Panther steering system from WWII just with two steering radii in each gear?

 

 

I thought Panther had a single radius per gear (plus clutch) vs double radius for T1&2.

 

 

Yes, it does - from Loopys description, I thought the T54 system was similar just with two radii instead of one. That was not the case. apparently.

 

Tiger I+II had two radii in each gear and no clutch/brake system.

[Sikkiyn]

 

...Moving from the T-34 to the T-54, tank drivers were happy to be able to shift gears without using a mallet...

 

 

In 1st and 2nd gear force to shift gears is practically identical on T-34-85 and Sherman - 35-45kg. On higher speeds it is easier on Sherman, but only by relatively small margins (less then 10%).

"Mallets to shift gear" originated with original T-34 and it's 4-speed transmission, which needed 60-80kg to shift gears.

 

 

Sure that wasn't the KV vs the T34 for mallet shift?

[bojan]

Sure that wasn't the KV vs the T34 for mallet shift?

 

 

 

 

IIRC it was ~same, about 60-80kg.

Compared to that T-54/55 is ~20kg, T-72 even less.

Edited August 30, 2013 by bojan

[Colin]

here is the T-72 (Littlefields) Drivers position

 

[thalb2000]

 

 

...Moving from the T-34 to the T-54, tank drivers were happy to be able to shift gears without using a mallet...

 

 

In 1st and 2nd gear force to shift gears is practically identical on T-34-85 and Sherman - 35-45kg. On higher speeds it is easier on Sherman, but only by relatively small margins (less then 10%).

"Mallets to shift gear" originated with original T-34 and it's 4-speed transmission, which needed 60-80kg to shift gears.

 

 

Sure that wasn't the KV vs the T34 for mallet shift?

 

AFAIK, the T-34 and KV-1 were very similar in many respect (F-34 76-mm gun, V-12 Diesel engine), so if one needed a mallet to change gears, extraordinary evidence would be required to show that the other one didn't.

[bojan]

IIRC Their transmission was totally different.

[thalb2000]

The biggest difference I could make out of their descriptions was that the T-34 had a Christie coil-spring suspension, whereas the KV already had torsion-bar suspension. Maybe you know more than I do, then please educate me.

[Sikkiyn]

From everything I have been able to locate, their transmissions and clutch designs were totally different. The T-34 wasn't that difficult where-as the KV-1 you had to beat with a mallet or stop to change a gear, (older caterpillar design)

There may be (and probably is) more out there that I haven't come across yet, but at the moment the above has been an across the board assessment.

http://www.allworldwars.com/T-34%20Tank%20Service%20Manual.html#3