Quality of T34/B sights.

[Jeff Duquette]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>ASL Squadleader: Indeed, it could be read that way. What is the inverted image range finder and the converging image rangefinder?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Converging image range finder is probably a coincidence type range finder. In the German Army this would be an EM type device...like Em.R.1m or Em.R.1.5m etc. You will often see photos of German Flak crews with one fellow standing to the side with what looks like a bazooka turned sideways that he is looking into. That’s an EM coincidence type range finder. Quite popular with Nashorn crews apparently.

See the email I just sent you. It explains it better than I can.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>gunnergoz said: I've got a copy but can't get back to you for a couple of days...I'll get you the name of the source, though, be patient.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for the help gunnergoz…you’re a scholar and a gentlemen.

[Tero]

>No...

>-40F is -40C right? Yes right, as in

>correct. You should also cite a formula.

>

>You are being the funny man poking the good

>fun at the silly americans, no?

>Well, actually you arent.

I've done my share of inch to mm conversions so I know the difficulties involved.

Boy, you Americans ARE sensitive. :cool:

>Get your numbers right next time funnyman.

Lets try a little riddle: 0ºC is how many º F ?

[Slapdragon]

273.15 degrees.

Seriously, I can imagine how hard it is to convert tools from one measure and another. My wife has not been able to figure out English systems in three years so I had to start using metric (but I had it school, english units are not taught in Brazillian schools). Now I am always converting things in my head for her, and my brain will sometimes just white out. It happens when I speak portuguese also. Last week I was speaking to her mother, and she began to laugh at me. I had accidently swicthed to spanish AND had left some portuguese words in, ( I told her it was 90 dgrees out). That is why I find it interesting to read someone who is Finnish and someone who is Russian communicating in English on the list then both having to deal with a US and our odd measurement system (actually, the brits gave it to us).

[Tero]

>273.15 degrees.

That is the Celsius figure for the absolute freezing point (0º Kelvin), right ? If you mean -273,15º

>Seriously, I can imagine how hard it is to

>convert tools from one measure and

>another.

We use an American/British system installed by the French which uses mixed sets of nuts and bolts. We have to have two separate sets of tools and you always have the wrong set at hand...

>That is why I find it interesting to read

>someone who is Finnish and someone who is

>Russian communicating in English on the

>list then both having to deal with a US and

>our odd measurement system (actually, the

>brits gave it to us).

50cal = 12,7mm, 6prd = 57mm..... you just have to learn them by heart...

[rexford]

If I might be allowed the liberty of short summaries, based on a preponderance of anecdotal, experience based and scientific documentation:

1. 2 second rule as "xtreme range" is not clearly defined as to intent, since hits have obviously occurred beyond that range with bracketing. Does 2 seconds mean no hits possible on first or following tries, or less than 5% first shot accuracy? Xtreme range does not seem useful as a rule of thumb unless it is tied to something else.

2. Fair accuracy is possible beyond 2 second flight time with bracketing, range finders and outside observers directing fire, along with defensive use of range cards (landmark use or stakes in the ground with known ranges to each).

3. If hit system assumes adequate gun sight visibility, then non-German accuracy might be due for decreases under conditions where sights are not as adequate:

A. decreased light (early morning and early evening, overcast, fog that limits sight range or blocks out the sun, etc.)

B. longer ranges where spotting tracers or fall of shot may be difficult and is needed to improve accuracy of follow-up shots

C. spotting camouflaged vehicles and dug-in guns (maybe), where clarity and distinction between colors and objects is important.

D. longer ranges where clarity is needed to aim at center of target in order to gain maximum hits on target, as opposed to fuzzy images that may result in aim at bottom, top or side edge of target.

Working this into a system varies from straightforward to somewhat complex (range for reduced light during early morning or evening may change with hour, 500m at sunrise, 1000m 30 minutes later, etc).

The first step is to define the conditions where sighting systems may be less than adequate, then one can start assessing how much of a difference may result, whether impact is worth the work and how should the darn thing be addressed if it is deemed to be worthwhile.

The above approach recognizes some of the limits of Allied and Russian sights and uses German optics as the "adequate" basis. A T34 can still hit at 1500m with a decent crew and a clearly defined target, but at 2500m with an overcast or prior to sunrise with a full moon, Tigers might see targets or follow-up shots that Shermans and IS-II's cannot.

This is an attempt to summarize the previous discussions and is certainly not the last word on the subject.

[Spook]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

273.15 degrees.

Seriously, I can imagine how hard it is to convert tools from one measure and another. My wife has not been able to figure out English systems in three years so I had to start using metric (but I had it school, english units are not taught in Brazillian schools). Now I am always converting things in my head for her, and my brain will sometimes just white out. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's quite understandable, Slap, considering the English system of measurements doesn't allowing "shifting around" or conversion as easily as for metric.

By example, "mass" & "weight" are easily scrambled around between the English & metric systems. In the English system alone, are we talking about pounds, pounds-mass, or slugs? Because force is not the same as mass.

In a gym, I will always see a barbell weight listed at 45 pounds to also be 20.4 kg (mass), which is true only at sea level. A proper weight-to-weight conversion in that case give 200.2 Newtons in metric.

My own wife, who hails from the Philippines, has had to deal with the same thing. In the Philippines, it was all metric, even with gas purchases priced on a per-liter basis. (The Philippines did seem to take up left-side driver's seating from the USA, though.)

[ASL Veteran]

Here is some stuff from “Panzertruppen Vol 1”

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> After taking Orel, on 22 October 1941 the commander of the 4. Panzer Division, Freiherr von Langermann, wrote the following report on fighting heavy Russian tanks:

(snip)

Our 5cm KwK tank guns can achieve penetrations only on vulnerable locations under very special favorable conditions at very close ranges under 50 meters. Our Panzers are already knocked out at a range of several hundred meters. Many times our Panzers were split open or the complete commander’s cupola of the PzKpfw III and IV flew off from one frontal hit. This is proof that the armor is insufficient, the mounting for the commander’s cupola on our Panzers in deficient, and the accuracy and penetration ability of the Russian 7.62 cm tank guns are high.

(snip)

Combating the Russian tanks with the 8.8 cm Flak or the 10 cm guns can never by themselves be sufficient. Both guns are ponderous in comparison to the fast tanks and in most cases are already spotted, taken under fire and destroyed as they try to get into firing position. (tiny snip) In addition these big as barn door, unarmored guns present much too large and easily acquired targets.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here is another report about the T34 from “Panzertruppen Vol 1”

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> On 17 May 1942, Panzer Regiment 203 submitted the following report on their experience in fighting against Russian tanks with the German PzKpfw III and IV:

The superiority of the Russian tanks is a result of the more effective weapon, better armor protection, and vastly better cross country mobility due to their wider tracks, stronger engine, and higher ground clearance.

However, the Russian tanks are inferior due to the limitations on vision and in general the lower skill in which they are employed. Sometimes the training of the Russian crews was inadequate. This was noticable in the way they drove in combat and in their rate of fire.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And another report

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> On 26 May 1942 the General der Schnellen Truppen beim Oberkommando des Heeres distributed the following instructions to units on the Eastern Front for ‘Combating the Russian T34 Tank with our Panzers’:

(sniperoo)

Russian Tank Tactics – In defense and covering a retreat, the T34 with the turret at six oclock is often dug in on a commanding height along a road or on the edge of woods or villages. Then after surprisingly opening fire from ambush, the T34 can be driven out of the concealed position still under cover.

In correctly recognizing his technical superiority in weapons, the T34 already opens fire on German Panzers at ranges from 1200 to 1800 meters. Because the T34 is faster than the German Panzers, he can choose the range for a firefight.

(snip)

Our Panzer Tactics –

(snip)

When encountering numerically superior enemy tanks (T34 and KW), success has always resulted when our Panzer unit builds a fire front and overwhelms the enemy with fire. Even when no penetrations can be achieved, the enemy, impressed by the accuracy and rate of fire of the German Panzers, almost always breaks off the action.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Anyway, just some tidbits that I found interesting. Regarding range cards, I wonder if there would be a way to incorporate a sort of … TRP for AT Guns and tanks in defense. A spot where the first shot accuracy of said gun or tank would be much higher because it would know the range to that point. Naturally each TRP would have to be assigned to an individual gun or tank, and if the gun or tank changes location the TRP would be lost. Is something like that doable? Is doable even a word?

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Spook:

It's quite understandable, Slap, considering the English system of measurements doesn't allowing "shifting around" or conversion as easily as for metric.

By example, "mass" & "weight" are easily scrambled around between the English & metric systems. In the English system alone, are we talking about pounds, pounds-mass, or slugs? Because force is not the same as mass.

In a gym, I will always see a barbell weight listed at 45 pounds to also be 20.4 kg (mass), which is true only at sea level. A proper weight-to-weight conversion in that case give 200.2 Newtons in metric.

My own wife, who hails from the Philippines, has had to deal with the same thing. In the Philippines, it was all metric, even with gas purchases priced on a per-liter basis. (The Philippines did seem to take up left-side driver's seating from the USA, though.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course, it does not when I tell her to put 27 liters in the car, forgetting that no gas station in town uses metrics. Cooking is way worse -- I cannot even convert cups and teaspoons into metric without looking at my chart in the kitchen. So I bought metric and englich unit measures and just use one for US recipes, and one for the Brazillian recipes I have to cook.

My Phillipino n neighbor is interesting because he speaks three languages in the house with his kids, Tagalog, English, and Spanish.

[Username]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero:

>Lets try a little riddle: 0ºC is how many º F ? 273.15 degrees.

That is the Celsius figure for the absolute freezing point (0º Kelvin), right ? If you mean -273,15º

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its 32 degrees F. Its no riddle. Its a plug into the equation.

By the way, Kelvin is usually NOT expressed in degrees Kelvin. Its XXX Kelvin.

I also believe your statement, whether its meant to be factual or another goofy joke, is incorrect.

Americans might be touchy but maybe you can enlighten us to as to the great mathemeticians from your country?

Lewis

[Username]

"When encountering numerically superior enemy tanks (T34 and KW), success has always resulted when our Panzer unit builds a fire front and overwhelms the enemy with fire. Even when no penetrations can be achieved, the enemy, impressed by the accuracy and rate of fire of the German Panzers, almost always breaks off the action."

I wish this could be brought into the game. Misses and deflected shots could have an effect on suppressing and "breaking" AFV's crews. If nothing else, forcing them to back up and hamper their accuracy.

Lewis

[Jeff Duquette]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>ASL Said: Regarding range cards, I wonder if there would be a way to incorporate a sort of … TRP for AT Guns and tanks in defense.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Seems like one solution. Perhaps using the ambush marker, although I have never been able to set an ambush beyond about 300 or 400 meters from the target unit\vehicle to ambush point. Seems like hvy weapons and tank ambushes should be able to be set ambushes at more extended ranges than that, but than I don’t really know what the original game design assumptions were.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>>273.15 degrees.

That is the Celsius figure for the absolute freezing point (0º Kelvin), right? If you mean -273,15º <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh my.

Now Tero…don’t gloat too much on the -273 thing, you were after all out to lunch on the tiff with Username.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Terro said: -40F is -8C. Right<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

…or did you intend that as a joke. Algebra is after all an enigma to some folks.

[Username]

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>273.15 degrees.

That is the Celsius figure for the absolute freezing point (0º Kelvin), right? If you mean -273,15º

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh my.

Now Tero…don’t gloat too much on the -273 thing, you were after all out to lunch on the tiff with Username.

But hes out to lunch with that statement also.

[Jeff Duquette]

This is from “T34, Russian Armor” by Douglas Orgill. Just got it cheap from ebay. Good write up on T34 turret ergonomics and optics. Douglas Orgill commanded a tank troop in Italy during the war. His insights based upon Real WorldTM experiences are rather interesting to pick through.

Bare in mind this rather lengthy quote tends to focus on the negatives of the T34. The T34 did have a huge power to weight ratio. In addition it’s designers had very advanced insights into protection (for the time) ala the heavily sloping glacis and side armor. The 76.2mm main gun was also quite powerful for 40 – 42 relative to other country’s MBT’s. In addition its later war nemesis – the Tiger, and still later the Panther – were both notorious for there mechanical unreliability.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The turret guns were sighted either by means of a periscope dial sight, or by a cranked telescopic sight mounted at the side of the gun. The periscope sight had a moveable top prism, and illuminated moving graticules. The man at the gun could deflect the cross-wires of the sights on to the target by adjusting a knob on the eyepiece, while he put on the appropriate range by a knob underneath. Three ranges were provided on this periscope: up to 1,000 metres for the machine-gun; 3,600 metres for armour-piercing shot, and 2,100 for high explosive. A rubber eye guard and brow pad were provided to protect the gunner from the lurching of the tank, but they were not efficient light excluders, and it is clear that sighting either of the turret guns by means of the periscope must have been a fairly chastening experience.

However, the more accurate method of laying the gun was by the alternative telescope sight. This was a straight-tube, moving eyepiece telescope, giving a magnification of x 2.5, and a field of view of just over 14 degrees. Like the periscope, it had an illuminated graticule with a hand-adjusted knob controlling three range scales, though these offered more scope than was available on the periscope. They showed up to 5,000 metres for high explosive, and 1,400 for the machine-gun. The telescope, however, shared a serious disadvantage with the periscope: its rubber eye guard was not good at keeping out light, which must have hampered quick laying of the gun.

Each turret gun could be fired by hand or foot. For foot firing, the gunner sat with his toes resting on two sprung pedals mounted on either side of a pillar bolted to the gun mounting. - the 76.2mm. pedal on the left and the machine-gun on the right. On the other side of the turret, the loader could also fire the machine-gun If necessary by a hand-trigger on the gun, while there was also a hand-trigger on the main 76.2mm armament for the gunner-commander. This latter hand-trigger was Important, for the commander of the T-34 was a very overworked man. Since the driver had a very restricted field of view - and that directly to his front - the commander, using his throat microphone, had to direct him rather more precisely than in some Western tanks where the driver could see more. In addition, of course, the commander was entirely responsible for seeing that the rounds he fired from either of his guns hit the target.

Thus, gabbling his orders to the driver to get the tank positioned properly, shouting to the loader the kind of ammunition he had decided to fire, ducking down to the telescope to lay the gun, working out the range and opening fire - and then shrugging himself well clear of the 76.2mm as it smashed back for the full fourteen inches of Its recoil - he had little time to see what any other tank was doing. Yet if he was troop commander, with three or more tanks under him, he could only tell his subordinates of his intentions by waving coloured flags, since wireless was not provided at lower command levels in Russian tank formations. Thus, by using the hand-trigger instead of the foot-button, he could at least keep himself in the upper part of the turret for longer at a time.

The commander was further hampered by two minor but troublesome design faults in the turret itself. First, the large access hatch on the turret roof hinged forward directly in front of his face, revealing his head and shoulders to flank sniper fire which killed many tank commanders - and also forcing him to peer round its bulk to see what was happening in front.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Username]

Didnt some 76mm T34 have a different arangement so that the commander was the commander/loader and the gunner was, well, the gunner? This would seem a better crew layout than what is described above. The commander could spot targets and load what he felt would deal with them and let the gunner do the rst? the commander would then be free to look out for/give platoon orders?

[ASL Veteran]

Okay, I think I've typed out enough official reports for today, but here are some others:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Panzer tactics employed to combat the Russian armored spearheads during this period are also revealed in the following report sent by General von Machensen, commander of the 1. Panzer Armee to General Guderian on 21 March 1943:

While assigned to the 1.Panzer Armee, the 11. Panzer Division reported comparatively very high tank kills, which initiated the thought that this division had exploited a lesson that was not generally known. I therefore asked the division commander, Generalleutnant Balck, to write the report that I have enclosed. Even though it does not contain secret methods, it is still full of new insights. In addition, Generalleutnant Balck verbally explained:

1 Well trained, older Panzer crews are the decisive factor for success. Their experience, in addition to their calmness and self assuredness gained through previous successes, is the basis for all of the great achievements. Young replacement crews sent to the unit must first be trained. It is preferable to start off with fewer Panzers than to set out with young crews who lack combat experience.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It goes on to describe other points, and the whole written report is included. It is more a description of tactics than optics.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Dissatisfied with how the Tigers had been tactically employed by the units to which they were attached, General der Panzertruppe Breith, commander of the III Panzer Korps, issued the following directive on 21 July 1943:

Based on experience in the recent battles, I issue the following instructions for the cooperation of Tigers with other weapons:

1 As a result of its high performance weapon and strong armor, the Tiger should be used primarily against enemy tanks and anti tank weapons and secondarily – and then only as a complete exception – against infantry targets. As experience has shown, its weapons allow the Tiger to fight enemy tanks at ranges of 2000 meters and longer, which has especially worked on the morale of the opponent. As a result of the strong armor, it is possible to close to short range with the enemy tanks without being seriously damaged from hits. Still, the Tiger should attempt to start engaging enemy tanks at ranges over 1000 meters<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Another part of Major Lueder’s report of 16 December 1942 that I cited earlier includes this little tidbit about the range at which Tiger’s should engage enemy tanks

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Tigers may not open fire too early against enemy tanks, in order to keep retreating enemy tanks within the effective range of our weapons as long as possible.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So one problem with the Tiger was that if they opened fire too early, the enemy tanks would run away! So I wouldn’t necessarily take those range recommendations as an indication of the Tiger’s inability to engage targets beyond 2000 meters.

Okay, I am now going to finish up with some Panther D stuff:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Having visited the front on 10 July 1943, the General Inspekteur der Panzertruppen, General Guderian, sent copies of his analysis in the following report sent on 17 July to General Zeitzler, Chef des Stabes/OKH:

(gargantusnip)

An attachment to the report contained detailed remarks on the adequacy of components as experienced on Panthers in action:

Main Gun: The accuracy and penetrating ability are good. As of 10 July, 140 enemy tanks had been shot up. The average range was 1500 to 2000 meters. Also, one T34 tank was destroyed at a range of 3000 meters. After the third shot, the commander’s vision was hindered by burned propellant fumes causing the eyes to tear. The Sehstab (observation periscope) was still not available!

(sniperoo)

Turret: It is difficult to operate the hatch for the commander’s cupola when the Panther is standing on a slope or when the Panther is on fire. :eek: Hatches for the driver and radio operator have jammed so that evacuation was not possible.

In general the brackets for the gunsight have held up. In only one case was it reported that the bracket was bent. A wiper for the front optics is absolutely necessary, since it takes too long to retract the gunsight during combat.

(snip)

Mechanical Deficiencies in the Chassis: Most mechanical failures were defective fuel pumps. Fuel collected on the floor due to fuel pump leaks, resulting in the total write off of three Panthers due to fires. When on a steep side slope, the Panther easily catches on fire.

(snip)

The new hatch design caused problems, especially for the driver and radio operator. When hit, the hatch cover jams and can’t be opened. If the Panther was to catch on fire, in many cases the driver and radio operator couldn’t evacuate. :eek: In action crews don’t close the hatches, and accept the loss of protection so they can still quickly evacuate in a fire occurs.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I just included the parts about the fires cause I thought it was interesting and since I was there I might as well include it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> In the March issue of ‘Notizen fuer Panzertruppen’ (Notes for the Panzer Troops), the Generalinspekteur der Panzertruppen, General Guderian, included the following combat report from an unidentified Panther Abteilung (which may have been the I Abteilung/Panzer Regiment 1):

The last operation of the Abteilung, during which 30 Panthers were continuously in action for six consecutive days, confirmed the excellent performance of the PzKpfw V. A very great deal can be done with a well trained crew, careful maintenance and tactically correct employment. During these six days, the battalion destroyed 89 tanks and assault guns, 150 guns, etc.

In spite of massed enemy defenses there were only six ‘total write offs’ due to enemy fire. The following lessons were learned from these operations:

The great range of the gun must be exploited under all circumstances. Fire can be opened at a range of 2000 meters. Almost all the targets destroyed (heavy weapons and tanks) were engaged at ranges from 1500 to 2000 meters. Ammunition expenditure was relatively low. Every fourth or fifth round was a hit, even with high explosive rounds.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okay, I think that’s going to wrap up the official reports for now. There are reports that indicate that the Pz IV fights mostly at a range between 1000 and 1600 meters. Pretty much the only tanks that fight at ranges above 2000 meters is the Tiger and the Panther. I think the Tiger gets an edge because the crew is good quality, and they have the confidence that their armor cannot be penetrated so they stay calm under combat conditions. T34 crewmen when facing Tigers are probably soiling their pants – which would tend to reduce accuracy.

[Jeff Duquette]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Lewis Said: Didnt some 76mm T34 have a different arangement so that the commander was the commander/loader and the gunner was, well, the gunner? This would seem a better crew layout than what is described above. The commander could spot targets and load what he felt would deal with them and let the gunner do the rst? the commander would then be free to look out for/give platoon orders?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I dug around through the sources I have here at the house and couldn’t find a reference indicating a 3 man turret arrangement for the T34/76. Models A – F all have 4 man crews. Driver, Assistant Driver, loader and TC (or whatever the Russian titles were). I think the 3-man turret arrangement was an improvement that came along with the larger T34/85 turret. Maybe someone else can verify? Try checking the T34-43 model…if there was a 3 man turret that probably would have been the beast that got it.

The hexagonal cast turret of 42 and 43 seems to have been a new geometry employed to limit potential for shot trap occurring into the turret ring area of the 39-41 turret. In addition it was seemingly adopted as a method of keeping German infantry from stuffing T-mine42’s under the overhang of the old 39-41 model turret. Last but not least it was apparently easier to produce.

I am guessing that Douglas Orgill’s insights are based up crawling\picking over the T34/76 given to England by the Soviets in 1942 (and now at Bovington along with a KV-1 also given to England at the same time). Some sort of lend-lease agreement thing. The Bovington T34 had the older 39-41 turret.

Considering the year of the initial design late 1930’ish a two man turret arrangement wasn’t perceived as a real detriment. Many of those ol’ Frenchie Panzers only had one man turrets. So the TC had to simultaneously act as loader/gunner/ and sheep herder for the rest of the crew.

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Username:

Didnt some 76mm T34 have a different arangement so that the commander was the commander/loader and the gunner was, well, the gunner? This would seem a better crew layout than what is described above. The commander could spot targets and load what he felt would deal with them and let the gunner do the rst? the commander would then be free to look out for/give platoon orders?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Typical crew arrangement on te T-34-76 was :

TC/gunner

Loader

Driver/mechanic

Radio operator/MG gunner

Do to crew shortages in 1941 & 1942 T-34's often operated with only 3 man crews with the Radio/MG operator position being eliminated.

Regards, John Waters

[ 06-25-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette:

[QB]

I think the 3-man turret arrangement was an improvement that came along with the larger T34/85 turret. Maybe someone else can verify? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The 3 man turret was part of the T-43 design, the T-43 was designed to be compatible with most of the T-34-76 parts as well as featuring a new 3 man turret, heavier armor, & a new suspension.

The T-34-76 turret was to small for the new 85mm gun. With the T-43 project canceled due to a change in priorities, Ie, gun over armor

a new design, obiekt 135 was contracted.

Obiekt 135 succesfully adopted the T-43 turret to the T-34 hull which saved time on designing a new turret as had been originaly undertaken & armed it wth the new 85mm D-5 gun. Obiekt 135 was then renamed T-34-85.

Regards, John Waters

[ 06-25-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[Tero]

>Its 32 degrees F. Its no riddle. Its a

>plug into the equation.

Yes. And 0ºF is -17,7777777777777ºC

These conversions are SUCH fun

You get in all kinds of jams if you forget to mention if it is -60F (-51,1111C) or -60C (-76F). Not to mention the other measurements.

>By the way, Kelvin is usually NOT expressed

>in degrees Kelvin. Its XXX Kelvin.

Sorry about that. ALT+0186 is just so convenient way to write the degree sing.

>I also believe your statement, whether its

>meant to be factual or another goofy joke,

>is incorrect.

About the US MG-42 clone ? That is I'm afraid a cold fact. Look it up.

>Americans might be touchy but maybe you can

>enlighten us to as to the great

>mathemeticians from your country?

Well now.... How many great American mathematicians have been or are actually American ?

This subject is not worth the piss that it would take to hold the pissing contest so lets reserve that for some other, more worthy subject.

[ 06-25-2001: Message edited by: tero ]

[Tero]

>Now Tero…don’t gloat too much on the -273

>thing,

It was, I think, a honest typo but I could not let that one slide. Too juicy...

>you were after all out to lunch on

>the tiff with Username.

And what a good lunch it was. I take my steak rare, mad cow disease or not. :cool:

>Terro said: -40F is -8C. Right

Who the hell is Terro ?

>…or did you intend that as a joke. Algebra

>is after all an enigma to some folks.

It was meant as a joke. These things have little to do with algebra and all to do with your frame of reference.

When you are metric and use Celsius scale it is damned hard to follow and remember what is being referred to if you juts read "speed limit 30" (which is VERY slow in kmh) and "temperatures falling down to the low 20's" (nice and warm in C).

When I was driving in the UK a few years ago it was hard to talk to people when they asked about the gas mileage of our rental. They expected miles per gallon and I am used to giving it as liter per 100 kilometers.

[Jeff Duquette]

Thanks John

[Username]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette:

[QB]

I dug around through the sources I have here at the house and couldn’t find a reference indicating a 3 man turret arrangement for the T34/76. Models A – F all have 4 man crews. Driver, Assistant Driver, loader and TC (or whatever the Russian titles were). I think the 3-man turret arrangement was an improvement that came along with the larger T34/85 turret. Maybe someone else can verify? Try checking the T34-43 model…if there was a 3 man turret that probably would have been the beast that got it.

The hexagonal cast turret of 42 and 43 seems to have been a new geometry employed to limit potential for shot trap occurring into the turret ring area of the 39-41 turret. In addition it was seemingly adopted as a method of keeping German infantry from stuffing T-mine42’s under the overhang of the old 39-41 model turret. Last but not least it was apparently easier to produce.

I am guessing that Douglas Orgill’s insights are based up crawling\picking over the T34/76 given to England by the Soviets in 1942 (and now at Bovington along with a KV-1 also given to England at the same time). Some sort of lend-lease agreement thing. The Bovington T34 had the older 39-41 turret.

.[/er/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What I meant is that there were different 4 man layouts in T34 with 76mm guns. In one layout, the TC was also the gunner and in another he was the loader and there was a dedicated gunner. Quite different.

There was an interest in 3 man T34 with 76 BTW. The russians had bought PIII before the war and were very impressed with the layout. For whatever reason, it was not persued.

I have read that the TC only had intercom with only the driver. This makes the radio operator's job kind of hard I think. Would he lean over and tell the driver to tell the TC that it was time to pull back? How did the radio op get out of a T34? Did he have to use the drivers hatch?

Lewis

[Jeff Duquette]

I don’t know. That could be. Turret layout and crew functions is kind of interesting topic in and of itself.

Typical turret layout for US tanks is gunner and TC on the right side of the turret, and loader on the left.

German WWII Panzers were sort ass backwards with the TC and gunner on the left and the loader on the right. Seemingly making it awkward for a right handed loader to do his job. I think the Bundeshwehr now uses the more conventional (at least I think its more conventional) format of loader on the left and TC and gunner positions on right. Somebody told me they switched over to this Americanized turret layout for the Leopard after their experiences with the M47…post war.

Anyway I digress. I can’t think of how the T34 turret is laid out off the top of my head…try checking the AFV Interiors web site. They might have a T34/76 spread. A TC loader and separate gunner turret crew arrangement would imply the TC and gunner were on separate sides of the turret. That may be the case with the T34/76. Also check into how the fire controls and gunner sights were laid out. It may have been that the T34/76 only had turret and fire controls at the TC position. The following is from out of my shorts but if the TC hatch on the hexagonal turrets is on the same side as the gun sight than the TC was probably the gunner. The T34/76 turret was supposed to have been quite cramped so it may have been hard to shoehorn a gunner into the turret on the same side of the turret as the TC. Now if the TC position is on the opposite side of the turret as the gun sight than your probably right about the TC\loader and gunner arrangement.

Modern MBT’s all have turret control available at the gunner’s position and the TC’s over-ride controls. So the TC can basically act as the gunner if he has to. In addition the stereo-scopic range finders for the M48 and M60 were at the TC position. I dunno how the laser range-finder is laid out in the A3 or M1A1, i.e. weather lasing is done by the TC or gunner…or maybe they both have the capability to lase.

[Jeff Duquette]

Exceptions to the above rule for US tank crew layout was the M3 Grant\Lee in which the TC was on the left side of the vehicle…right side being taken up by the 75mm sponsoon mount. It also looks like the M3 Stuart had the TC on the left gunner on right. Although the M5 Stuart looks like it was switched to TC on right and gunner on left. Wonder what was up with that?

In addition I was looking at the crew layout for both the M3 and M5 Stuart and it looks like the crew arrangement is similar to what you were describing for the T34/76…ie TC, gunner, driver and co-driver. I am assuming the gunner didn’t load for himself, which seems to imply the TC acted as the loader? Can someone else confirm?

[PzKpfw 1]

Dunno I have never read of any T-34-76 crew variation other then, then the TC/Gunner on the left side of the turret, the loader on the right, side of the turret, the driver/mechanic in the left front hull, & the radio/MG operator right front hull.

As to how the Radio/MG gunner escaped the tank, he had an escape hatch under his feet.

Regards, John Waters

[ 06-26-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]