More Chieftain's Hatchiness

[Interlinked]

I was just re-watching Chieftain's videos on the Conqueror and I didn't catch any mention of the turret ring diameter. Does anyone know how large it is? I suspect that it is around the same as the M103's turret ring, but I haven't been able to find any concrete figures so far.

 

EDIT:

 

Nevermind, I found it. It's 80 inches.

Edited December 31, 2018 by Interlinked

[DKTanker]

I was just re-watching Chieftain's videos on the Conqueror and I didn't catch any mention of the turret ring diameter. Does anyone know how large it is? I suspect that it is around the same as the M103's turret ring, but I haven't been able to find any concrete figures so far.

What I find interesting is that as big a tank as was the M103, the turret ring was the same size as the M48, M60, and M1. 85 inches.

[Mr King]

 

I was just re-watching Chieftain's videos on the Conqueror and I didn't catch any mention of the turret ring diameter. Does anyone know how large it is? I suspect that it is around the same as the M103's turret ring, but I haven't been able to find any concrete figures so far.

What I find interesting is that as big a tank as was the M103, the turret ring was the same size as the M48, M60, and M1. 85 inches.

 

 

Is that mainly form following function because of rail transport constraints?

[Interlinked]

 

I was just re-watching Chieftain's videos on the Conqueror and I didn't catch any mention of the turret ring diameter. Does anyone know how large it is? I suspect that it is around the same as the M103's turret ring, but I haven't been able to find any concrete figures so far.

What I find interesting is that as big a tank as was the M103, the turret ring was the same size as the M48, M60, and M1. 85 inches.

 

 

It's because the hull does not have sponsons and does not use extended platforms to mount a larger turret ring à la the T-54. Because of this, the turret ring diameter is close to the width of the hull and it's possible to estimate it by subtracting the track width and side armour thickness from the overall width of the tank (over the tracks) and rounding down by a few centimeters to account for the space taken up by the ball bearing races themselves.

[JasonJ]

@19:58

Battle of Kunlun Pass

Battle(s) of Changsha

[Rick]

I find the videos interesting, but please; get rid of that rancid, screeching, miserable noise pretending to be music in the background!

Edited December 31, 2018 by Rick

[Markus Becker]

@19:58

Battle of Kunlun Pass

http://marvelcinematicuniverse.wikia.com/wiki/K%27un-Lun

[Mikel2]

I find the videos interesting, but please; get rid of that rancid, screeching, miserable noise pretending to be music in the background!

At least make the music less intrusive. In some of the videos it is far too loud compared to the speech.

[Coldsteel]

 

 

I was just re-watching Chieftain's videos on the Conqueror and I didn't catch any mention of the turret ring diameter. Does anyone know how large it is? I suspect that it is around the same as the M103's turret ring, but I haven't been able to find any concrete figures so far.

What I find interesting is that as big a tank as was the M103, the turret ring was the same size as the M48, M60, and M1. 85 inches.

 

 

It's because the hull does not have sponsons and does not use extended platforms to mount a larger turret ring à la the T-54. Because of this, the turret ring diameter is close to the width of the hull and it's possible to estimate it by subtracting the track width and side armour thickness from the overall width of the tank (over the tracks) and rounding down by a few centimeters to account for the space taken up by the ball bearing races themselves.

 

 

The elliptical or semi-elliptical hulled tanks pretty much have to have some sort of turret ring extension, M48:

http://www.military-vehicle-photos.com/picture/number4860.asp

 

M60

https://tankandafvnews.com/2016/10/08/photo-of-the-day-m60-cast-hull-at-factory/

 

and it looks to me like the M1 turret ring extends past the hull box too

https://www.cnet.com/pictures/building-the-u-s-armys-m1a2-abrams-tank-pictures/17/

Edited January 1, 2019 by Coldsteel

[Rick]

Ex-sailor question, but why do/did Soviet hatches open forward and other countries hatches open aft?

[Panzermann]

I find the videos interesting, but please; get rid of that rancid, screeching, miserable noise pretending to be music in the background!

 

I don't mind it for cards inserted or in the title or end credits and such. But all the time playing in the background when manic or anyone else talks is really annoying and makes it sometimes hard to understand what is being said. which has been a criticism for a long time of the world of tanks videos. Under nearly every video this is mentiuoned, but someone at wargaming must like it this way.

[Interlinked]

 

 

 

I was just re-watching Chieftain's videos on the Conqueror and I didn't catch any mention of the turret ring diameter. Does anyone know how large it is? I suspect that it is around the same as the M103's turret ring, but I haven't been able to find any concrete figures so far.

What I find interesting is that as big a tank as was the M103, the turret ring was the same size as the M48, M60, and M1. 85 inches.

 

 

It's because the hull does not have sponsons and does not use extended platforms to mount a larger turret ring à la the T-54. Because of this, the turret ring diameter is close to the width of the hull and it's possible to estimate it by subtracting the track width and side armour thickness from the overall width of the tank (over the tracks) and rounding down by a few centimeters to account for the space taken up by the ball bearing races themselves.

 

 

The elliptical or semi-elliptical hulled tanks pretty much have to have some sort of turret ring extension, M48:

 

http://www.military-vehicle-photos.com/picture/number4860.asp

 

M60

 

https://tankandafvnews.com/2016/10/08/photo-of-the-day-m60-cast-hull-at-factory/

 

and it looks to me like the M1 turret ring extends past the hull box too

 

https://www.cnet.com/pictures/building-the-u-s-armys-m1a2-abrams-tank-pictures/17/

 

 

The M1 uses extensions for the turret ring, but I don't think those raised bumps really count for the M48 and M60. I think that what you see there is just the raised armoured collars that protect the turret ring. The turret ring design is like this:

 

[Interlinked]

Ex-sailor question, but why do/did Soviet hatches open forward and other countries hatches open aft?

 

I would say that it was designed to provide frontal protection for anyone peeking out of the hatch and for anyone evacuating the tank under gunfire, but frankly speaking, I haven't actually seen a written explanation for this particular feature in any Russian book on tank design (that I know of) and the memoirs of tank design bureau chiefs don't really mention it.

[JasonJ]

 

@19:58

Battle of Kunlun Pass

http://marvelcinematicuniverse.wikia.com/wiki/K%27un-Lun

 

 

@2:15

"Details" about a sort of "negotiated settlement" said to be found in the mentioned countdown to PH article does not mention the November 26th Hull Note. Of course being a webpage for gamer's, too many details might make the game less fun to play by risking arguing on the game's official forums, even if it has lots of specific quotes and what not.

Edited January 1, 2019 by JasonJ

[Coldsteel]

 

 

 

 

I was just re-watching Chieftain's videos on the Conqueror and I didn't catch any mention of the turret ring diameter. Does anyone know how large it is? I suspect that it is around the same as the M103's turret ring, but I haven't been able to find any concrete figures so far.

What I find interesting is that as big a tank as was the M103, the turret ring was the same size as the M48, M60, and M1. 85 inches.

 

 

It's because the hull does not have sponsons and does not use extended platforms to mount a larger turret ring à la the T-54. Because of this, the turret ring diameter is close to the width of the hull and it's possible to estimate it by subtracting the track width and side armour thickness from the overall width of the tank (over the tracks) and rounding down by a few centimeters to account for the space taken up by the ball bearing races themselves.

 

 

The elliptical or semi-elliptical hulled tanks pretty much have to have some sort of turret ring extension, M48:

 

http://www.military-vehicle-photos.com/picture/number4860.asp

 

M60

 

https://tankandafvnews.com/2016/10/08/photo-of-the-day-m60-cast-hull-at-factory/

 

and it looks to me like the M1 turret ring extends past the hull box too

 

https://www.cnet.com/pictures/building-the-u-s-armys-m1a2-abrams-tank-pictures/17/

 

 

The M1 uses extensions for the turret ring, but I don't think those raised bumps really count for the M48 and M60. I think that what you see there is just the raised armoured collars that protect the turret ring. The turret ring design is like this:

 

m48 m60a1 turret ring.png

 

 

Well if we take just the M60, figures pulled from the internet so usual caveats apply, but the track centres are 115" apart, tracks 28" wide so there is no more than 87" between the tracks leaving exactly 1" per side to fit all of the ball bearing raceways, side armour, and allow for the clearance you would want between the tracks and hull. I can't quickly find anything on the M60, but WWII designs seem to need around 3" radius for the turret ring bearing, and the M60's side armour is around 3" max again. Alternatively a small portion of the M60 turret ring and the hull structure to support and protect it overhangs tracks a little bit.

[Interlinked]

I suppose you're right since the turret ring ball bearing race is bolted to the armoured collar. Still, the radius of the turret ring does not exceed the internal width of the tank (as far as I know). On many tanks with turret ring extensions, the diameter of the turret ring exceeds the width of the hull such that it extends over the tracks which is certainly not the case here.

Edited January 1, 2019 by Interlinked

[DKTanker]

 

The M1 uses extensions for the turret ring, but I don't think those raised bumps really count for the M48 and M60. I think that what you see there is just the raised armoured collars that protect the turret ring. The turret ring design is like this:

 

m48 m60a1 turret ring.png

 

Gee, I don't know. 10 years on the M60s, I'm pretty sure I noticed the turret ring extending beyond the hull armor, I know it encroached into the sponson boxes above the track. But you probably know best.

[JWB]

[Interlinked]

 

 

The M1 uses extensions for the turret ring, but I don't think those raised bumps really count for the M48 and M60. I think that what you see there is just the raised armoured collars that protect the turret ring. The turret ring design is like this:

 

m48 m60a1 turret ring.png

 

Gee, I don't know. 10 years on the M60s, I'm pretty sure I noticed the turret ring extending beyond the hull armor, I know it encroached into the sponson boxes above the track. But you probably know best.

 

 

Not sure why you'd be hostile over something as trivial as this since I never attacked you personally nor am I insisting that I'm right, but I do have to point out that the track centers are, in fact, 115" wide and the tracks are 28" wide as Coldsteel pointed out. How would an 85" turret ring encroach above the tracks?

[DKTanker]

 

Not sure why you'd be hostile over something as trivial as this since I never attacked you personally nor am I insisting that I'm right, but I do have to point out that the track centers are, in fact, 115" wide and the tracks are 28" wide as Coldsteel pointed out. How would an 85" turret ring encroach above the tracks?

 

You've latched yourself onto a proposition and refuse to entertain any information that refutes that proposition. As you are so sure of your thesis I bow to your intellect and that's why I said you know best. That wasn't an attack, that was a concession. Still, you need to read exactly what I wrote:

 

I know it encroached into the sponson boxes above the track.

The sponson boxes are above the track, that is irrefutable, and the turret ring does encroach into those sponson boxes. Again, irrefutable. You don't have to believe me, look at the photo of post #393.

If you have the time I want you to explore this idea. The given diameter of a turret ring is the inside diameter of the ring, but because turret rings have their own width, the outside diameter of the turret ring can exceed the inner dimension by quite a bit.

[Interlinked]

 

 

 

Not sure why you'd be hostile over something as trivial as this since I never attacked you personally nor am I insisting that I'm right, but I do have to point out that the track centers are, in fact, 115" wide and the tracks are 28" wide as Coldsteel pointed out. How would an 85" turret ring encroach above the tracks?

 

You've latched yourself onto a proposition and refuse to entertain any information that refutes that proposition. As you are so sure of your thesis I bow to your intellect and that's why I said you know best. That wasn't an attack, that was a concession. Still, you need to read exactly what I wrote:

 

I know it encroached into the sponson boxes above the track.

The sponson boxes are above the track, that is irrefutable, and the turret ring does encroach into those sponson boxes. Again, irrefutable. You don't have to believe me, look at the photo of post #393.

If you have the time I want you to explore this idea. The given diameter of a turret ring is the inside diameter of the ring, but because turret rings have their own width, the outside diameter of the turret ring can exceed the inner dimension by quite a bit.

I'm pretty sure that I mentioned the ball bearing races in my first reply to you, and I don't see how I'm "refusing to entertain any information that refutes that proposition" by conceding to Coldsteel that he was right that the armoured collars are turret ring extensions. In my mind, that's something similar to entertaining information that refutes a proposition.

[Colin]

 

Ex-sailor question, but why do/did Soviet hatches open forward and other countries hatches open aft?

 

I would say that it was designed to provide frontal protection for anyone peeking out of the hatch and for anyone evacuating the tank under gunfire, but frankly speaking, I haven't actually seen a written explanation for this particular feature in any Russian book on tank design (that I know of) and the memoirs of tank design bureau chiefs don't really mention it.

 

It goes back a long way to the interwar tanks, likley it's done, because "that is how it is done". Odd things creep into designs because "it's always done that way" despite the real reason not being as valid as before. In this case the validity is still there so no desire to consider new ways.

[shep854]

 

 

Ex-sailor question, but why do/did Soviet hatches open forward and other countries hatches open aft?

 

I would say that it was designed to provide frontal protection for anyone peeking out of the hatch and for anyone evacuating the tank under gunfire, but frankly speaking, I haven't actually seen a written explanation for this particular feature in any Russian book on tank design (that I know of) and the memoirs of tank design bureau chiefs don't really mention it.

It goes back a long way to the interwar tanks, likley it's done, because "that is how it is done". Odd things creep into designs because "it's always done that way" despite the real reason not being as valid as before. In this case the validity is still there so no desire to consider new ways.

Also, if it works, why change?

[JWB]

 

 

Ex-sailor question, but why do/did Soviet hatches open forward and other countries hatches open aft?

 

I would say that it was designed to provide frontal protection for anyone peeking out of the hatch and for anyone evacuating the tank under gunfire, but frankly speaking, I haven't actually seen a written explanation for this particular feature in any Russian book on tank design (that I know of) and the memoirs of tank design bureau chiefs don't really mention it.

 

It goes back a long way to the interwar tanks, likley it's done, because "that is how it is done". Odd things creep into designs because "it's always done that way" despite the real reason not being as valid as before. In this case the validity is still there so no desire to consider new ways.

 

I have never seen any document on that either. I believe it has to do with doctrine. Soviet/Russian uses op-maneuver where large formations of AFVs roll toward the enemy at maximum speed. That high rate of advance causes two reactions

1) The defending enemy has lesser amounts of time to set MGs and/or snipers to fire at the exposed crew members. Rear protection isn't needed.

2) The advancing force has lesser amounts time to suppress defending enemy fires. More frontal protection is needed for exposed crews.

[TonyE]

More Hatch!