jfb@ihlpm.att.com (Joseph F Baugher) (10/24/90)
From: jfb@ihlpm.att.com (Joseph F Baugher)
A poster recently asked about the dimensions (particularly the height) of
certain Soviet and American main battle tanks. Here's what I dug up:
T-54/55
length of hull: 21.16 feet
width: 10.7 feet
height to turret roof: 7.87 feet
T-62
length of hull: 21.75 feet
width: 10.8 feet
height to turret roof: 7.85 feet
T-64
length of hull: 21 feet
width (without skirts): 11.09 feet
height to turret roof: 7.54 feet
T-72
length of hull: 22.8 feet
width (without skirts): 11.8 feet
height to turret roof: 7.7 feet
M1A1
length of hull: 25.97 feet
width: 12.0 feet
height to turret roof: 9.46 feet
M60A3
length of hull: 22.78 feet
width: 11.9 feet
height to turret roof: 10.73 feet
The American tanks are significantly higher than their Soviet counterparts.
There are advantages and disadvantages in having a tank with a low profile.
A tank built low to the ground has a lower profile and is hence more difficult
to see and hit. However, this low profile often comes at the cost of having
a main armament with a significantly lower elevation and/or depression. In
addition, a tank that is built too low to the ground cannot see or fire over
even relatively low elevations when fighting in hilly country.
So, just as in everyday life, there are pluses and minuses in being tall.
Source: Jane's Main Battle Tanks, Christopher Foss, 1986
Joe Baugher ************************************
AT&T Bell Laboratories * "All these worlds are yours *
200 Park Plaza * except Europa. Attempt no *
Naperville, Illinois 60566-7050 * landing there." *
(708) 713 4548 ************************************
ihlpm!jfb
jfb200@cbnewsd.att.com
Who, me? Speak for AT&T? Surely you jest! welty@lewis.crd.ge.com (richard welty) (10/29/90)
From: welty@lewis.crd.ge.com (richard welty)
In article <1990Oct24.151639.16463@cbnews.att.com>, Joseph F Baugher writes:
*The American tanks are significantly higher than their Soviet counterparts.
*There are advantages and disadvantages in having a tank with a low profile.
.. good list omitted ...
reportedly, american tanks are more effective at working from
`hull down' positions as a result of their height; moreover,
the crews are much less cramped than in their soviet counterparts.
in an extended combat situation, we can presume that the more
cramped crews will decline in effectiveness more rapidly than
those with better working space.
richard
--
richard welty 518-387-6346, GE R&D, K1-5C39, Niskayuna, New York
welty@lewis.crd.ge.com ...!crdgw1!lewis.crd.ge.com!welty
``We're in a road movie to Berlin, can't drive out the way we drove in''
-- They Might Be GiantsDan.Daetwyler (Dan Daetwyler) (11/05/90)
From: p14.f7.n391.z8.fidonet.org!Dan.Daetwyler (Dan Daetwyler) RW> reportedly, american tanks are more effective at working from RW> `hull down' positions as a result of their height; moreover, RW> the crews are much less cramped than in their soviet counterparts. RW> in an extended combat situation, we can presume that the more RW> cramped crews will decline in effectiveness more rapidly than RW> those with better working space. I had my thought for the year, so I computed the ratio of length/ width area with height. Not too surprising results. The ratios were remarkably similar for both the US and Soviet tanks. Crew packing seems to be a function of the vehicle. Although the M48 was considerably bigger than the M4, IMHO it had less crew space. D Squared
major@uunet.UU.NET (Mike Schmitt) (11/07/90)
From: bcstec!shuksan!major@uunet.UU.NET (Mike Schmitt) In article <1990Oct29.034327.11628@cbnews.att.com>, welty@lewis.crd.ge.com (richard welty) writes: > > > From: welty@lewis.crd.ge.com (richard welty) > > reportedly, american tanks are more effective at working from > `hull down' positions as a result of their height; moreover, > the crews are much less cramped than in their soviet counterparts. > in an extended combat situation, we can presume that the more > cramped crews will decline in effectiveness more rapidly than > those with better working space. I've operated a Soviet T-55 and T-62 (as well as U.S. M60A3 and M1). Some observations: Soviet tanks achieve a lower height since their turrets are smaller and do not have the built in 'basket' as U.S. tanks have. Therefore, Soviet turrets sit on top of the turret ring - the turret rotates, the gun mechanisms, sighting devices, gunner stations and commanders station rotate with the turret - but the floor does not, neither does the tank sides. The driver, gunner, commander all sit on the left side - inline. The gunner and commander must consciously keep their feet on pedals, and left arm away from the side. When sitting/crouching in the commander's position - the gunner's head is right between my knees - and my knees on his shoulders. The breech block on Soviet tanks is HUGE! The loader is on the right side - (so should be left handed to load the gun) and must step lively when the turret/gun traverse (the floor doesn't traverse). It is extremely cramped. Driving the tank is exhausting. Unlike U.S. auto transmissions - Soviet T-55/T-62 transmissions were manual - plus with driving levers - so you let go of the right lever to shift (I found the tank then automatically begins to vere to the left). The driver also has to watch out for the gun tube (in U.S. tanks the gunner's head is just below the main tube). First, the soviet driver has two red lights in front of him - if the tube is traversed to his left - the left red light is on. In design - if the driver's hatch is open - it electronically deadens the turret (though the switch can be bypassed). If the driver's head is out of the hatch - the main gun traversing left will cleanly take the driver's head off. Driving the T-62 around Hohenfels became very fatiguing quickly. What impressed me was the onboard smoke generating system - the commander has a lever that throws diesel fuel into the exhaust system creating beautiful big clouds of sparkingly white smoke. The only problem is if the lever is held open for more than 3 minutes - the heat ignites the smoke creating beautiful big flames shooting out (first time I did this - I thought the whole tank was catching on fire!). The crew compartment is cramped - there are no creature comforts here. But, I am impressed by the simplicity and functionality. It does what it is designed to do - with crews trained to operate in that style. I wouldn't want to go on a long road march, though. Our Cav Sqdn tankers in M551 Sheridans thought the T-62 had more room. mike schmitt