inside a king tiger tank -1 reply

  • 1
  • 2

Please wait...

stiner

I follow teh Moo!

50 XP

9th January 2005

0 Uploads

582 Posts

0 Threads

#1 13 years ago

inside a king tiger go to this link :D:beer::lol: http://unster.fotopic.net/




Admiral Donutz VIP Member

Wanna go Double Dutch?

735,271 XP

9th December 2003

0 Uploads

71,460 Posts

0 Threads

#2 13 years ago

Tiger II drivers position: http://forums.filefront.com/gallery/browseimages.php?c=220 I'm bad i know :lol: Nice photos though, googled it or? edit: I wonder why "my" Tiger II interior shots show a lot of red... either it is a different build or i mixed my photos up with my Tiger I interior shots? edit2: Aha the interior shots are of a sturmtiger :D




Dr.Fritz

Promiscuous Girl

50 XP

6th July 2005

0 Uploads

5,842 Posts

0 Threads

#3 13 years ago

You know, my grandpa was a Sherman tank driver, so kind of the same except with a way better tank.




Nostradamouse

The Arrogant French Prick

50 XP

5th December 2004

0 Uploads

4,501 Posts

0 Threads

#4 13 years ago

No I think he meant the hatch was like a swastika




lumpeh

FH Groupie

50 XP

25th September 2003

0 Uploads

1,174 Posts

0 Threads

#5 13 years ago

ooo a nice pinewood finish :p




emonkies

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

17th July 2003

0 Uploads

15,096 Posts

0 Threads

#6 13 years ago

I have come across data that the Germans did not paint the interiors of thier vehicles too often from the factories since it was felt the paint would catch fire if the armor was penetrated. I have seen numerous pics of early PzIII's and PzIV's with a red oxide lead based primer.

This is a hotly contested topic in the armor community as there are also numerous pics of white or light colored German AFV interiors so somebody painted some a light color inside. Its just not known if the crews did this or if they ever came from the factory like this.

Last I heard the topic is still being debated.




[BC] Tex Arcana

Smokey Smith kicked butt!

50 XP

1st June 2004

0 Uploads

401 Posts

0 Threads

#7 13 years ago
Anlushac11I have come across data that the Germans did not paint the interiors of thier vehicles too often from the factories since it was felt the paint would catch fire if the armor was penetrated. I have seen numerous pics of early PzIII's and PzIV's with a red oxide lead based primer. This is a hotly contested topic in the armor community as there are also numerous pics of white or light colored German AFV interiors so somebody painted some a light color inside. Its just not known if the crews did this or if they ever came from the factory like this. Last I heard the topic is still being debated.

Tankers in the British 8th Army (Africa) would immediately start to strip the paint from the inside of new Tanks. Every time the main-gun was fired, the paint-chips would fly everywhere; Getting into the eyes, nose, mouth etc. Sand was bad enough... I would assume that German Crews did it for exactly the same reason...




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#8 13 years ago
Dr.FritzYou know, my grandpa was a Sherman tank driver, so kind of the same except with a way better tank.

Why did the US even build that lame tank? It would seem to me that the US, makers of some of the finest guns ever would know to at least attach a good, long barrel so that we could at least reach out and punch someone.




striderx2048

DiCE/EA: Ambiguously Gay Duo

50 XP

16th May 2002

0 Uploads

2,073 Posts

0 Threads

#9 13 years ago

bad tanking doctrine




emonkies

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

17th July 2003

0 Uploads

15,096 Posts

0 Threads

#10 13 years ago
SGL1Why did the US even build that lame tank? It would seem to me that the US, makers of some of the finest guns ever would know to at least attach a good, long barrel so that we could at least reach out and punch someone.

The Sherman is a perfect example of why a main battle tank should not be built by a comittee. Especially by a bean counting cost conscious comittee.

Sherman was never intended to face enemy tanks. The Sherman was a infantry support vehicle and its 75mm gun was intended to provide fire support to take out bunkers, MG nests, etc. which it did fine.

Keep in mind that in 1942 when the Sherman entered service it was one of the best medium tanks at the time although a rather tall one. The problem was the M4 Sherman that arrived in Normandie in 1944 was almost no different than the M4 Shermans first used in North Africa in 1942.

In 1942 the PzIV F2 ws just entering service but by 1944 the Panther and Tiger II ausf B were in service. By 1944 the Soviets had fielded the T-34/85 and IS-1 to replace the T-34/76 and KV-1. By 1944 Britain had fielded the Cromwell and improved Churchill's. By 1944 the US was fielding the welded hull M4A3 which was almost identical in equipment, armor, and gun, as the early M4 and M4A1.

The Sherman was so tall because the US wanted a engine in the 450-500hp range and in that power range they had a large number of surplus Wright R-975 radial engines. The Radial engine had to stand up in the tank and a driveshaft ran from the motor to the front drive transmission and axles. The hull was raised so the turret basket would clear the driveshaft. The Sherman was originally designed with the radial engine in mind.

The US Army wanted a diesel engine to reduce fire hazards but the USN had control of all Military diesel engine production and would not give them up to the Army.

When the M4A3 entered service with its Ford GAA V-8 the driveshaft ran along the floor and that extra space was used to mount the wet stowage ammo bins on the floor and removed them from the suicidal location in the side hull sponsons.

A effort was made to design a much lower profile tank was inititated but eventually rejected as being too hard to maintain and the Army was unwilling to train personnel for its rear mounted electric drive system. This was the T23.

The T23 had the same VVS suspension as the Sherman but the hull was much much lower. The T23's turret in a slightly modified form and hull shape was used for the T26 project and became the M26 Pershing. The T23's turret design was adopted as the T23 76mm gun turret used on all 76mm gun armed Shermans in WW2.

US Army doctrine decided that the tank destroyers would fight other tanks therefore that is why the M10 got the old US Navy 3" anti aircraft gun mounted in a vehicle. It was not a bad weapon at all but the AP round designed for it was ineffective and was not designed with German face hardened armor in mind, The AP rounds shattered or lost their shape and deflected when they hit.




  • 1
  • 2