More Chieftain's Hatchiness

[wendist]

 

Utterly out of my hands and is done pursuant to the availability of the Minsk video team. They didn't tell me part 1 was coming out. ITCH is being downgraded in the priority list, they are going to trickle out. I am unsure that they will fund more after the current six remaining vehicles.

.... Patreon to the rescue?

 

My thought too. To hell with Wargaming, we will just have to start a TANK NET YouTube channel. Then we get to pick our own favorit tanks for Nick to climb all over.

[Manic Moran]

Nick, are you no longer with WoT?

 

I remain with WG, who has been a pretty good employer (with good health benefits!), which is why I am currently treading a little carefully with my independent operations and why I have not started a Patreon. Part of the reason for my move to Texas was to stay reasonably close to the relocated office. (I do a fair bit behind the scenes for my job which does not involve videos, history articles, etc) Don't go bombarding WG just yet, we have a couple of internal options to rejiggle assets/taskings/and so on to try to get things back on track.

[Chris Werb]

All. I would be very, very wary of saying or doing anything that could have any impact on Nick's business relationships and private life. If he announces a Patreon account, I'm sure we'll all subscribe right away - until then, it's up to him what he does, so tread carefully.

[shep854]

 

 

Nick, are you no longer with WoT?

I remain with WG, who has been a pretty good employer (with good health benefits!), which is why I am currently treading a little carefully with my independent operations and why I have not started a Patreon. Part of the reason for my move to Texas was to stay reasonably close to the relocated office. (I do a fair bit behind the scenes for my job which does not involve videos, history articles, etc) Don't go bombarding WG just yet, we have a couple of internal options to rejiggle assets/taskings/and so on to try to get things back on track.

Absolutely! Just asking.

[Wiedzmin]

with all due respect to Chieftain's work, is it real to correct old article ?

https://worldoftanks.com/en/news/chieftain/chieftains-hatch-devils-due/

 

 

The casting is incredibly rough and the joins in the armour have gaps big enough to put pens through Left rear hull of a T-34/76. Most of the gaps are filled with weld, but not all.

 

upper rear hull plate of T-34 and engine roof was bolted, not welded(there was small plate that welded to upper rear hull plate), so i think this photo not very well in role of "demonstator" of welding quality, as for "german superior" weld of Pz III and IV can't withstand any damage when tank hitted anything bigger than 20mm, and only thing that keeps upper hull supersctucture from separating from lower wanne is flange with bolts on front plate

or this for example.

 

I'm not trying to protect "holy" T-34, but "mythbusting" with creating new myth is a strange way to do the work properly imho

 

as for great/bad ergonomics

 

for example try to fit in Panzer 4 gunner site, with all ammunition in place(especially will be interesting to stick foot beneath ammo box trying to reach MG pedal ), or driver side with full ammo rack behind him, and radio + gearbox to right side, it's strange to watch talks about ergonomics in an empty tank, I understand that museum tanks often doesn't have "full pack" inside tanks, but maybe it worth mentioning when saying about ergonomics ?

 

about great/bad optics is there any real reports on optic quality ? for example US/British report gives transmission of light 39% and 26%(which is piece of junk sights if you want) for TMFD and PT47, but for german Tzf 5b british report gives 20%, and yes it have "better" field of view on paper, but report gives only half of that field as "good more or less" as for later Tzf 12A on panther there is a 40-50% so it's not far from early war soviet 39%, and M4 Sherman or any other mass produced tank never had better.

 

as for reliability for example 1943 reports on GM 6-71 gives average of 225 motor hours , 1942 for Wright was 180-200 hours Iirc, i understand how hard sometimes to find reports about trials. all i want to say ,you as a representative of "tank world massmedia" have a big responsibility for what you do, it will be great to see a better approach to mythbusting, whatever these myths might be. I'm not trying to offend anyone, or to start a «hollywar», just want to see better content and qualitative analysis of tanks constructions as well as their characteristics , i think many will agree with that

[Interlinked]

Nice to see that someone noticed that myth about the "gaps" as well. I posted a short rebuttal to this a few weeks ago on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/9xhsvf/t34_welds_myth_gaps_large_enough_to_fit_a_pen/

 

For the sake of illustrating what Wiedzmin meant:

 

There is a ledge welded to the hull side armour plate that the engine compartment roof (and the rear hull plate) gets bolted to. The roof is not welded to the rest of the hull. It is designed to be unbolted and removed for maintenance or replacement of parts.

 

 

​

 

In this photo, the ledge can be seen along the edge of the entire engine compartment.

 

Edited December 4, 2018 by Interlinked

[shep854]

with all due respect to Chieftain's work, is it real to correct old article ?

https://worldoftanks.com/en/news/chieftain/chieftains-hatch-devils-due/

 

 

The casting is incredibly rough and the joins in the armour have gaps big enough to put pens through Left rear hull of a T-34/76. Most of the gaps are filled with weld, but not all.

 

upper rear hull plate of T-34 and engine roof was bolted, not welded(there was small plate that welded to upper rear hull plate), so i think this photo not very well in role of "demonstator" of welding quality, as for "german superior" weld of Pz III and IV can't withstand any damage when tank hitted anything bigger than 20mm, and only thing that keeps upper hull supersctucture from separating from lower wanne is flange with bolts on front plate

or this for example.

 

I'm not trying to protect "holy" T-34, but "mythbusting" with creating new myth is a strange way to do the work properly imho

 

as for great/bad ergonomics

 

for example try to fit in Panzer 4 gunner site, with all ammunition in place(especially will be interesting to stick foot beneath ammo box trying to reach MG pedal ), or driver side with full ammo rack behind him, and radio + gearbox to right side, it's strange to watch talks about ergonomics in an empty tank, I understand that museum tanks often doesn't have "full pack" inside tanks, but maybe it worth mentioning when saying about ergonomics ?

 

about great/bad optics is there any real reports on optic quality ? for example US/British report gives transmission of light 39% and 26%(which is piece of junk sights if you want) for TMFD and PT47, but for german Tzf 5b british report gives 20%, and yes it have "better" field of view on paper, but report gives only half of that field as "good more or less" as for later Tzf 12A on panther there is a 40-50% so it's not far from early war soviet 39%, and M4 Sherman or any other mass produced tank never had better.

 

as for reliability for example 1943 reports on GM 6-71 gives average of 225 motor hours , 1942 for Wright was 180-200 hours Iirc, i understand how hard sometimes to find reports about trials. all i want to say ,you as a representative of "tank world massmedia" have a big responsibility for what you do, it will be great to see a better approach to mythbusting, whatever these myths might be. I'm not trying to offend anyone, or to start a «hollywar», just want to see better content and qualitative analysis of tanks constructions as well as their characteristics , i think many will agree with that

There's always new information coming to light, so we have to be flexible...

Regarding interior space, after ammo and fuel, there's also all the ancillary stuff and personal gear that somehow has to be crammed in...

[Manic Moran]

As I mentioned on Reddit, maybe you missed it, you're kindof missing the point of what I posted.

 

The welds on the front of the same vehicle are equally ugly.

 

Note how it comes up evenly enough until the last 8", then starts going a bit wonky before the entire thing falls short of where it should meet the suspension access port. Resulting in another gap.

Secondly, welded or not, there is no requirement that a bolted system have big gaps. Compare with a British vehicle of the same era. Quite simply, the Soviets were not concerned about fit and finish, but it was good enough for their purposes, which is exactly where I was going with the example

[Stefan Kotsch]

 

The welds on the front of the same vehicle are equally ugly.

 

Beauty is no size in the war. The T-34 had shortcomings. But, the lowering of the claims regarding the then realizable technology which presumably the only chance of the Soviet Union now and immediately to produce tanks as many as possible. The course of the war ultimately proves the expediency of the decision. And, legends are then something for the armchair heros of posterity.

Edited December 4, 2018 by Stefan Kotsch

[Manic Moran]

 

 

The welds on the front of the same vehicle are equally ugly.

 

Beauty is no size in the war. The T-34 had shortcomings. But, the lowering of the claims regarding the then realizable technology which presumably the only chance of the Soviet Union now and immediately to produce tanks as many as possible. The course of the war ultimately proves the expediency of the decision. And, legends are then something for the armchair heros of posterity.

Forgive me, I’m not actually sure what the argument is here. Near as I can tell, everyone is saying “it was ugly, but it worked well enough”. Is anyone arguing to the contrary? If not, what’s the major point of contention?

[DB]

In this case, it seems to be the association of the (first) photograph shown with the comment on cast quality. A better photograph (like the second one, perhaps?), in comparison with the standards of other tank manufacturers would have shown the difference. Of course, if one cherry-picks the comment on weld quality and decides that automatically means the author is saying "the welds are crap so the tank isn't fit for purpose", then there's nowhere for this to go.

 

Still, I learned something - that the tank isn't all-welded.

[Interlinked]

As I mentioned on Reddit, maybe you missed it, you're kindof missing the point of what I posted.

 

Note how it comes up evenly enough until the last 8", then starts going a bit wonky before the entire thing falls short of where it should meet the suspension access port. Resulting in another gap.

Secondly, welded or not, there is no requirement that a bolted system have big gaps. Compare with a British vehicle of the same era. Quite simply, the Soviets were not concerned about fit and finish, but it was good enough for their purposes, which is exactly where I was going with the example

 

I think there must be some kind of misunderstanding. Your point was very clear. The issue was that I saw that photo being used as proof of the welds on the T-34 leaving large gaps even though that part of the tank was not meant to be welded in the first place.

 

There may also be a misunderstanding on what the term "gap" means. The official American and British definition of what constitutes a "gap" in armour plates seems to be actual holes that allow things outside the tank to enter.

 

 

None of the gaps on the T-34 are actual gaps in this sense.

 

 

RE: the front of the same T-34-76

 

 

Once again, a "gap" exists but it does not affect the integrity of the armour and it certainly doesn't allow anything to enter the tank. At that intersection between the upper glacis plate, the hull roof and the upper hull side plate, all three plates are tightly welded to the Christie spring housing and the spring access hatch is bolted to the housing. The Christie spring access hatch is not supposed to be welded to the hull at all. Furthermore, there is no actual hole in the armour where splash from bullets can enter the tank. Not even water would be able to leak in through these "gaps". In the screengrab below you can see that all three plates of the hull are welded to the Christie spring housing in a continuous seam.

 

 

 

 

The seamless joint can be seen in this photo taken from inside a T-34 that was hauled up from the bottom of a lake where it lay since it collapsed through the frozen surface in December 13, 1942.

 

 

 

 

As for fit and finish, the Soviets did care about this. They only struck it from the priority list if it did not affect the vehicle beyond cosmetics. If possible, these inconsequential gaps that we are discussing would not normally exist as demonstrated in this photo, and this photo and this photo. And another thing that was brought up in your old article - they cared quite a lot about the endurance of their tanks. Warranty periods and MTBFs for T-34 components steadily rose during the war (excluding the period when the entire tank industry was basically relocated East). The fact that the track pin retention system was so unbelievably crude does not really reflect on how they viewed track lifespan requirements. Track lifespan requirements always went up. Even though the T-54 and T-62 tracks shared the same pin retention system as the T-34, the lifespan of the tracks was much higher nonetheless. They got rid of that system when the T-64, T-72 and T-80 came along, but the T-54 and T-62 were retrofitted with T-72 tracks and the T-55AM and T-62M + variants were all fitted as well, again demonstrating that lifespan improvements were constantly being pursued.

Edited December 4, 2018 by Interlinked

[Panzermann]

The fact that the track pin retention system was so unbelievably crude

 

 

I would call it KISS. It does the job just fine and T-34 are driving around battlefields to this day.

[Wiedzmin]

 

Note how it comes up evenly enough until the last 8", then starts going a bit wonky before the entire thing falls short of where it should meet the suspension access port. Resulting in another gap.

Secondly, welded or not, there is no requirement that a bolted system have big gaps. Compare with a British vehicle of the same era. Quite simply, the Soviets were not concerned about fit and finish, but it was good enough for their purposes, which is exactly where I was going with the example

Which brithish tank i need to compare if british tank become more or less fully welded only in the end of war ?

 

as for gaps i don't know what gaps Churchill have(maybe you have reports about any bolted british tank?) and how it was tested against bullet splash, and i haven't seen same test for T-34, but after 1 hit of 6pdr(iirc) in frontal plate Mk.3 the plate has shifted from it's normal position for example( there is a report about test firings against Churchill) so gaps will appear very quickly, even if they were not, but british tank have carcass/framework so, i don't know if there be any splashes even if plates have gaps.

about any bolted part, for rear it have flanges, so i don't know where you can get any splashes, for suspension acces port, all spings have guards, so is very unlikely that any splashes go there

 

as for finish/polish soviets simply doesn't have time to any of this, if you read various memories from factories there was a strong deficiency of everything sometimes there were not enough skilled workers, bearings, glass,AP shells(but what german tank can survive even HE from 76mm at 1941-1942 period anyway?) and other things

 

 

 

T-34 have many problems, cracking of plates during production etc, but as any other mass produced tank, there is no "best tank of WWII" there is a "best tank for each country that can be mass produced" or each country have equally bad tanks.

 

and again as emample. 1943 M4

 

http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p4013coll8/id/3344/rec/206

 

Fire control.-(1) Because of the excessive dispersion which occurs with the M4 periscope, firing of tank guns is confined almost entirely to the artillery method of sensing and locating bursts and giving corrections in mils to the gunners. The average dispersion which occurs as a result of slack in the periscope holder and linkage extends 4 mils in both planes. This dispersion is so great that guns do not stay bore-sighted with the telescope after any operation.

The modification consisting of a spring between the periscope holder and turret will be greatly welcomed. The officers who saw the M4A1 periscope liked it extremely, but all were emphatic in saying that only one reticle pattern should be used and that if these new periscopes are used the telescope mounted on the gun mount should have the same reticle.

(2) There is very little use of the coaxially mounted telescope; the dispersion which results from its use is even greater than that experienced with the M4 periscope. In addition, the optics of the M55 telescopes are unsatisfactory, resulting in unsatisfactory light-transmission characteristics. Furthermore, most gunners report that it is very difficult for them to get their heads into proper position for sighting through the coaxial telescope. When tanks are operating in combat, the crash helmet is always worn; in most cases, the steel helmet without liner is worn over the crash helmet.

(3) About 75 percent of the tanks in England are equipped both with azimuth indicators and with the M9 range quadrant. Less than half of the tanks in Italy are equipped with the azimuth indicator, and few have the M9 range quadrant. Both of these items are essential equipment in this theater

h. Ammunition stowage.-Except for the ready rounds in the turret, the ammunition stowage is unsatisfactory and should be improved. Experience in Italy indicates that 2 rounds out of every 40 in the stowage bins will separate, creating a very serious fire hazard and making it difficult to remove the rest of the rounds from the stowage bin. When going into combat, the crew invariably puts a full complement of ammunition in the floor of the turret basket because they are anxious to carry a very large quantity of ammunition. Tank crews are very little concerned with protection of ammunition and consider accessibility and quantity of primary importance.

[Wiedzmin]

The fact that the track pin retention system was so unbelievably crude

 

what so "crude" in this system ? tiger uses the same

 

 

 

Still, I learned something - that the tank isn't all-welded.

as any other tank

Edited December 5, 2018 by Wiedzmin

[sunday]

Heck, you are not going to weld the access hatches!

[Manic Moran]

 

The fact that the track pin retention system was so unbelievably crude

 

what so "crude" in this system ? tiger uses the same

 

 

 

Tiger uses a retaining clip. The above ramp is a failsafe if the retaining clip doesn't do its job or if the track starts to walk off. T-34's system (which continued on to at least some variants of T-62) has it as the primary track pin retention technique. The difference is that one system expects that the pins are going to impact the ramp, the other doesn't. Not exactly comparable.

[RETAC21]

Heck, you are not going to weld the access hatches!

 

Only after putting the crew inside.

[sunday]

 

Heck, you are not going to weld the access hatches!

 

Only after putting the crew inside.

 

 

You may have a point here - armored Strafbatalions. Hypothetical, of course,

Edited December 5, 2018 by sunday

[Interlinked]

 

 

 

 

Heck, you are not going to weld the access hatches!

Only after putting the crew inside.

You may have a point here - armored Strafbatalions. Hypothetical, of course,

Why even bother with hatches? Just put the crew inside before screwing on the turret.

[Adam_S]

 

 

 

Heck, you are not going to weld the access hatches!

Only after putting the crew inside.

You may have a point here - armored Strafbatalions. Hypothetical, of course,

Why even bother with hatches? Just put the crew inside before screwing on the turret.

 

 

That would certainly add an extra dimension to the "oh bugger, the tank is on fire" test.

[Panzermann]

 

 

 

 

Heck, you are not going to weld the access hatches!

Only after putting the crew inside.

You may have a point here - armored Strafbatalions. Hypothetical, of course,

Why even bother with hatches? Just put the crew inside before screwing on the turret.

 

 

That would certainly add an extra dimension to the "oh bugger, the tank is on fire" test.

 

 

If there is no turret floor, just lay on the bottom and kick off the turret with your feet.

[Wiedzmin]

Tiger uses a retaining clip. The above ramp is a failsafe if the retaining clip doesn't do its job or if the track starts to walk off. T-34's system (which continued on to at least some variants of T-62) has it as the primary track pin retention technique. The difference is that one system expects that the pins are going to impact the ramp, the other doesn't. Not exactly comparable.

T-34(early models and 1941 models) tracks uses retaining bolts/pins IIRC(you can see it on photos)

 

after simplification of production it came down to "crude method" in the end of production IIRC there was again some alterations in retaining mechanism,but i don't have much knowledge in T-34 history, it maybe not exactly comparable, but basic design of T-34 doesn't have any ramps, and use different track pin retention system

 

btw spring access port

Edited December 5, 2018 by Wiedzmin

[Wiedzmin]

about ergonomics etc...

[shep854]

about ergonomics etc...

Ergonomics? Was ist???