WesWorld

Quoted

Originally posted by Vukovlad
Persian Veles II, Iraqi border

Quoted

Originally posted by Vukovlad

Quoted

Originally posted by howard

Quoted

Originally posted by Vukovlad
Persian Veles II, Iraqi border
1. Bow machine gun is useless as it is set to far back. and carries the wrong kind of traverse mechanism,
2. Tracklaying mechanism is a sand grinder and a mud clogger./
3. Turret is set too far forward on hull making the tank a nose digger and bogger into soft ground.
4. Driver pistol port is a shoot me feature.
5. Commander's cupola is set too far back to either guide the tank, sightline targets, or to cover tank area security which is a primary, secondary and tertiary responsibilities for a tank commander.
6. Never mind the numerous shot traps I see.

H.

Lets look at a real project


I know that KMDB Morozov doent have your expertise but note the position of the Turret and cupola, this is the planned replacement for the obscure T-34

That was the design bureau.The actual abortion known as the T-34M (successor to the T-34/76) was REJECTED for the very type reasons I mentioned.



If you look at the 3/4 aspect, you can see why.

The successor to the T-34/76 was the T-34/85 which plonked an improved KV turret onto a T-34 hull.



The true successor to the T-34 series was this joker.



Aside from the obvious "shoot me in the mantlet and blow me up feature" that's been the bane of most Russian tanks since the T-44, you can see why that tank was better than the T-34M.
1. Better cupola placement.
2. Better sloping and one unit glacis..
3. Only one shot trap.
4. Turret is centrally balanced on the hull with no nose digger tendency.

The T-34M abortion was designed in 1940 before the Russians learned the "Kharkov Lesson".

H.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
Hull front plate machineguns are all of limited value, but in WWII tanks where the radio operator really needs to be a separate position from the driver, loader, gunner, and commander, it makes sense to give him a weapon to use.

The cupola/hatch at the back of the turret is quite common, see the well known Tiger and Panther for more examples.

Quoted

Originally posted by Vukovlad
Read up again bubba, the A-43 was stopped because of the little tiff the Soviets had with some neighbours, didnt want to upset people by re-tooling.

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
The T-43 was scrapped because it was less mobile than the T-34 due to its heavier armour. After Kursk the realisation that a larger gun, not heavier armour, was more urgently needed and that also contributed to its demise.

The T-43's Turret however was adapted to acomidate an 85mm gun and fitted to the T-34 hull.

Quoted

Originally posted by Vukovlad

Quoted

Originally posted by howard

Quoted

Originally posted by Vukovlad
Read up again bubba, the A-43 was stopped because of the little tiff the Soviets had with some neighbours, didnt want to upset people by re-tooling.

i already knew you were going to write that nonsense, Vuko. Why don't you do a little more reading about a clown name Grigory Kulik, the Leslie McNair of the Soviet Union?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigory_Kulik

http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforu…8234/page1.aspx

I would be careful how I throw around "Bubba", Ruben. There I am "Herald 1234".

I can teach you the Russian history and the technology, if you want me to.

Howard.

That Kulik was incompetent is hardly news but then the NKO and later GKO had final say . The A-43/T-34M was supposed to handle some of the problems perceived with the T-34 such as the Christie like suspension. Show me a serious source that claims the project was killed by nose dipping and shot traps and not just a link to where you are sprouting your nonsense. This probably better handled by PM from here.