Thorn in the Tiger's side?

[sturmelon]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by dieseltaylor:

His guns may have been set up for a cone at 200 metres and use a centrally mounted MG to lead him onto target.

You seem to be basing your case on an awful lot of unproven assumptions. Let's take the above. Do you have any evidence that the MG would have the same ballistic properties as the cannon? If not, how much use would it be to range onto the target?

Michael </font>

[sturmelon]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Air to air combat is MUCH harder than air to ground. It is also much harder to hit a moving target in 3D space that is flying as fast, if not faster, than you. Not to mention the physics of aiming shots when not flying dead on at a target.

I think you may be forgetting something, Steve. The thing that makes aiming and shooting difficult is relative motion of the shooter to the target. The larger the closing or opening speed to the target, the harder it is to hold a bead. This is why most air to air training in most airforces never went beyond emphasizing getting into the target plane's six. In addition to that likely being in the target's blind spot, it is also the formation where the relative motion of the two is least. Of all the major air forces, I believe that US Navy Air Force was the only one that rigorously trained its pilots in deflection shooting. John Lundstrom in First Team goes into this at some length.

On the other hand, next to a head on attack with another airplane, the highest closing speed to a target will be to one on the ground. Not surprisingly, the scores of air to ground gunnery during training I recall reading about some years ago were pretty wretched, and this was by pilots who had already qualified in air to air and were firing at ground targets much bigger than a tank.

Motion in three dimensions, while not at all a negligible addition to the problem, has been somewhat overrated in this thread.

Michael </font>

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by sturmelon:

No the bottom drawing is showing the lack of armor across the space under the screen. Notice it DOES show horizontal armor to the left and right of this area.

Yes - a very small amount - and none at all in the middle - there is no indication of any armour at all in this section on any part of hte tank - how you can describe it as only applying to the transmission secion is beyond me - and yes I am quite used to reading engineering drawings.

However I shall quote you from the web page that this was taken from, and which you obviously have not bothered to read:

"The armored deck over the transmission compartment consisted of two armored plates over the main fuel tanks, a narrow transversal plate and a wire mesh screen. "

Having ANY area where a projectile can find its way into the interior of an enclosed AFV is a recipe for disaster. The transmission is not compartmented and fuel tanks, wiring, engine, etc can all be threatened.

Wrong again - it is compartmented, and if you'd followed the link I gave you earlier you'd have seen it - here's the picture:

The big hole in the middle is for a large fan -

Which looks like it's plenty solid enough to stand a couple of hits from small calibre rounds should any get that far.

As the 2nd sentence of the web page says:

"The hull was divided in the driver's compartment, fighting compartment, engine bay, and transmission housing"

The Russians were not stupid - they weer quite aware of the dangers of having open paths to engine components - if only from hand thrown weapons and flammable liquids such as, oh...molotov cocktails!!

Indeed AFAIK every nation knew of such dangers and protected their engine components against them - except the French on the Char 2B with that stupid radiator!

[JonS]

Originally posted by Mike:

Indeed AFAIK every nation knew of such dangers and protected their engine components against them - except the French on the Char 2B with that stupid radiator!

As it happens, that panel was reasonably well armoured. Basically ^ shaped louvres stacked on top of each other.

See the posts by David Lehmann here.

Also posts (and pic) by the same guy here. Previous page of that this thread talks abotu the hatch on the other side, which may have been conflated in popular perception with the grill on the other side.

[ August 11, 2005, 07:43 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[Guest Mike]

Yes - he says that the 23-28mm plates are essentuially the same as teh 55mm side armour, which seems...um....overly optimistic!!

OK - so even the French at least tried to protect the radiator.....although I remain unconvinced that it was not a weak spot!

[JonS]

Well, the horizontal path is through the two halves of one louvre is 65-79mm.

[sturmelon]

I have seen better drawings of the T-34.

And correct me if I am wrong but are there not a left and right fuel cell in the transmission area? Perhaps you need to read the thread link you provided? When I say compartmented, I mean that sub-system is compartmented by itself. It clearly is not.

At least you see there is a clear path for projectiles. Thats good. But you seem to think its OK they enter there. Not too good.

[ August 11, 2005, 08:22 PM: Message edited by: sturmelon ]

[JonS]

No doubt what so ever. Well spotted Andreas. You get the gold cookie for this one.

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by sturmelon:

I have seen better drawings of the T-34.

I'm happy for you to provide them if they're on hte web.

And correct me if I am wrong but are there not a left and right fuel cell in the transmission area?

Yes - I never said otherwise, and you yourself pointed out the flat plates covering them - so what?

Perhaps you need to read the thread link you provided? When I say compartmented, I mean that sub-system is compartmented by itself. It clearly is not.

You're grasing at staws now - here's what you ACTUALLY said:

The transmission is not compartmented and fuel tanks, wiring, engine, etc can all be threatened.

Clearly the Transmission IS compartmented from the engine, but yes there are components in the transmission compartment - so what - there are components in every compartment - there always will be - unless every compnent has it's own compartment.....??

At least you see there is a clear path for projectiles. Thats good. .

I see no such thing.

I said that SHOULD a projectile manage to strike the fan then it looks robust enough to take it.

I did not say that there was a clear path.

Just to make it perfectly clear to you - AFAIK the T34 tr5ansmission compartment is covered by 20mm armour, and ther is no clear path for any projectile to get into it.

Now I've provided drawings and pictures - you've provided what? Your opinion?

Please come back when you have some actual information!

But you seem to think its OK they enter there. Not too good.

You seem to be putting words into my mouth.

Please keep your comments to thinkgs you know somethign about - which is clearly not T34 armour arrangements!

[sturmelon]

Fans are very robust. Always. Yes. Probably make the projectiles fly right back out the way they come. Indeed.

Heres what a T34 powerpack and drivetrain look like.

[sturmelon]

Here's a T34 engine. That 'fanny' part sticks into the 'compartment' of the transmission. Anyone, with any experience working on real vehciles might snort a chuckle.

[sturmelon]

I ask the gentle reader to look at the top right of this picture and see, certainly, that there is a path to the 'fan'...

"The Scaup's hood is open for repairs. In the middle is the gearbox surrounded by track brakes and clutches. Yellow color marks the fuel tank and the blue thing is the engine air intake. The starter motor is the surprisingly small black box on top of the gearbox. The large, round black piece of machinery is the flywheel. "

{Reader should notice rear armor is removed!}

http://guns.connect.fi/gow/T34tank2.html

This pic below is looking back from the turret to the rear of the tank. that fan is attached to the flywheel of the engine fer chis' sake!

Sorry Mikey. Myth busted. Look at the pic

s.

Just for reference. The black you see in the rear of this tanks deck is actually a path for projectiles. Know it.

[ August 11, 2005, 09:16 PM: Message edited by: sturmelon ]

[sturmelon]

Its my studied opinion that any fighter bomber, that concentrated its MG/autocannon firepower into the rear of a T34, could effect a mobility kill or even a knock-out from engine fire/explosion (partially filled tanks).

That rear armor plate is a big bolt on. Subject to the same frailitys as any bolted on armor.

A 37mm armed stuka could do much worse.

[sturmelon]

I can see inside! See my feet?

[JonS]

I see a couple of armoured baffles.

I also see someone being banned. Again. Sooon.

[Michael Dorosh]

Ugh, was that Lewis smelling the place up? Good riddance.

[Battlefront.com]

Michael,

This is why most air to air training in most airforces never went beyond emphasizing getting into the target plane's six.

Uhm... like yeah... because it is bloody hard unless the other pilot is napping And that is my point... the only way you can "easily" shoot down another plane is to get on his six and stay on it. That is pretty damned tough compared to shooting up a T-34 sitting on a road in the middle of the Steppes.

So I for one reject the notion that "hitting stuff on the ground is inherently harder than air to air combat". Since we do know that air to air kills were very common, I fail to see how this could possibly be used to illustrate that kills from air to ground were uncommon due to pilot training/experience.

Steve

[Bigduke6]

I can contribute something to the discussion on the T-34 engine.

Basically, it is very robust IMO incredibly so. The thing will run on about half cylinders, it will run for quite a while in extra-hot and extra cold weather without the appropriate support system (cooling fan, sufficient engine warmth) functioning. It will run when half the mounts are loose. It will run with a 5 cm. layer of mud on much of the underside, and all over the drive shaft. I have seen it run without a hitch at 35 centigrade above and 40 degrees below, although of course in the latter case the lubricants and fuel started out frozen, and the drivers had to melt the liquids by building a fire under the engine. But it worked fine, none of the tubes or cables caught fire, and the sucker cranked right up.

I have seen a ten ton steel girder dropped on that engine from about a five meter height, with nothing more than 20 gauge steel protecting the engine, and the only thing that happened was that some fuel, electric, and glow plug lines got torn off. They got reattached before the mechanics started it, but they told me it probably would have started even without that repair. No way of telling if that's true, but that's what the guys supposedly knowing all about the engine said.

In my opinion, a 20mm or 37mm round would certainly have the potential of hurting that engine if it hit it, but to my mind there would be a greater chance the thing would keep running, maybe less efficiently, but on the other hand it might well even shrug off the hit. We are talking about the engine the Soviets considered the best tank motor they every built.

(All of which could lead me to one of my pet peeves about CM which argues the Soviets are screwed because AP pentrations to a T-34 engine absolutely were less catastrophic than AP penetrations to typical panzer engine - but I will spare you.)

Anyway, these impressions are all from my personal experience - once upon a time I worked with an oil company in west Siberia, and some of the heavy trucks used by the firm were military surplus MAZ-437s originally designed for hauling SCUD missiles. The engine in that vehicle is the same as the T-34, unchanged after a half century.

The big problems with the engine from what I could see was that it required a lot of maintenance and fiddling, plug distance settings, filter cleaning, lubricant checks and top-offs, that kind of thing. A hands-off driver will kill that engine in no time flat.

Also I remember the engine had a tendency to rip itself free from the truck transmissions, but that wasn't the engine's fault, it was just developing a lot more torque than the MAZ engineers had designed their trucks to resist - the trucks were heavy, but naturally weighed nothing like a combat-loaded T-34 (That, and our drivers thought they were Mario Andretti and were running the trucks a good deal faster than MAZ thought they ever would go!)

I would add that diesel fuel isn't nearly as explosive as petrol. I have no idea to what degree, but to me, intiutively at least, an explosive round puncturing one of the exterior fuel tanks on a T-34 would be far from guaranteeing a detonation, and even if there had been I am far from convinced an explosion like that would have hurt the tank - after all, it was designed to resist explosions.

But that's just me speculating, I am sure there is some one reading this that can tell us in detail exactly how explosive Soviet wartime diesel fuel was and was not.

Looking at the T-34 drawings, it seems to me the Soviets had that engine protected quite well. This is not to say the tank was invulnerable to air cannon attack, but rather that the tank - in itself not a huge target - really doesn't offer a whole lot of super vulnerable bits to an engine deck pentration. Those grates aren't that big, after all, and if the AP round gets through the deck armor, bully for it but it's lost a lot of its energy.

If a round actually managed to strike full square on the "cylinder" heads, then sure that would mess up the engine - I guess it would just freeze 2-3 cylinders, leaving the rest of the engine either to clunk on, or maybe grind itself to bits. But there's no way to aim for that specifically, and those things are relatively tiny: maybe half a meter by 15 cm. Also, obviously, a pilot can't see them.

If an AP round made it through the engine deck armor my guess is that it would lose a good deal of pentrating power, and if it hit that big aluminum block it might well do nothing. It might also get a kill, of course, but "frail" is absolutely the very last word I would use to describe a T-34 engine.

I'm not trying to say the T-34 engine was as tough against air-fired AP as say a TigerII front was to ground-fired AP. But assuming all you need to do to hurt that engine, is to get a German round somehow to just touch it, is very wrong. You're going to have to hit that engine with some serious violence in a vulnerable spot. Hit it with less force, not particularly squarely, or just in the block, and I bet the thing would do an Everyready bunny.

[Battlefront.com]

Oh yes... forgot to mention that Andreas gets a Gold Star on his forehead. No doubts about it, so sturmelon is no more. Good call

Steve

[A.E.B]

But JonS

Don't you know that Jabos used to attack T34s by diving vertically straight down so their bullets or cannon shells passed through the armoured baffles.

If that didn't KO the T34 the Jabo hitting it would!

Actually, the huge photo above proves a point: give the usually angle of attack a Jabo would have - between 30 to 45 degrees max - a shell impacting the engine deck would strike the baffles.

Note the slope on the edges of each baffle - designed to deflect just such bullets and shells away from the engine.

A Stuka armed with 37mms would be attacking at even a lower angle - 15 to 30 degrees - and is unlikely to even hit the baffles.

A lucky shot from the side (90 degree flat approach) may just be lucky enough to pass between the baffles and hit the fuel cells.

A.E.B

[Tagwyn]

Ruins of the Nazi 15th army were not left by self-destruction guys! My dad witnessed the mess himslef when in N. Europe. Much ado about nothing. We had "angels on our shoulders." Tag

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Oh yes... forgot to mention that Andreas gets a Gold Star on his forehead. No doubts about it, so sturmelon is no more. Good call

Steve

Hehe - I am so proud.

[A.E.B]

Originally posted by Andreas:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Oh yes... forgot to mention that Andreas gets a Gold Star on his forehead. No doubts about it, so sturmelon is no more. Good call

Steve

Hehe - I am so proud. </font>

[dieseltaylor]

I am disheartened that with all the resources available to you knowledgeable grogs about FB's and them being uselessish against tanks it is left to me to link you to film of a G in action. Tsk tsk

web page

I give the full linky also as you may need to join, it is instantaneous, to download the film. If anyone speaks German it would be handy. It is poor quality and late war by the look of things so we may not be looking at proper Rudel attack techniques. It does give the rate of fire beautifully though.

[dieseltaylor]

I cannot handle the posting width : new thread