Jow Forums designs a WW2 tank

There is not enought room above the breech block to allow a -15° depression.

There is no space for the torsion bars under the engine.

Rear sprockets in an odd way.

>With these upgraded you never stood a chance

Taurus Pandter

Attached: tankis.png (800x482, 95K)

>move the ammo from the sponsons to the front hull
wait so you don't want the floor mounted ammo stowage and would rather have it right in front?

Attached: sherman wet stowage.jpg (711x480, 75K)

>How would you do it?
The tank is fine!

Attached: 1508778045389.jpg (2048x1536, 1.41M)

Mount it with either the 85mm or the 100mm cannon, and perfect

Attached: t44.jpg (1200x900, 255K)

but it did have the 85mm

I would design a Soviet equivelant of the M3 Lee. I call it the IS-2 Kutuzov or the coffin for all (your) brothers.

Chassis and hull derived from the IS-2, main guns are the 85mm S-53 in the hull and a 57mm ZiS-4M in a T-34-1943 model turret.

Attached: Coffin for all your brothers.jpg (1222x589, 109K)

armata s3
/thread

>WW2
>120mm main gun
You're basically just losing ammunition capacity for no reason if you use anything bigger than an 88mm gun at that point in history.

A Hetzer with a Panzer I's dual machine gun turret on top.

Attached: untitled.jpg (582x333, 23K)

I'd go with a StuG III E with 2cm autocannon/MG34 coax sponsons. It'd be good for infantry support.

Alternative answer: M7 Priest reconfigured for amphibious deployment and armed with a 250mm low velocity mortar. It would have multiple types of ammunition, ranging from HE to WP and even a cluster bomblet mixed (White Phos, High Explosive, Incendiary, time delayed explosive) round for widespread area denial. It'd help establish beachheads.

The floor racks were only possible because the turret was high. If I lower the turret, there's not enough space underneath for enough ammo, so I place it where the hull MG guy was, just like in the Centurion, T-44/54/55/62, Leopard 1, and so forth; the empty front area between the transmission and the ammo rack is fitted with a fuel tank to avoid wasting space. A ready rack similar to that of the Merkava 1/2 beneath the gun, perhaps with additional M-26/46/47/48 style vertical ready rack in front of the loader completes the main ammo stowage.
Wet stowage was discontinued when it was realized that the deciding factor wasn't the liquid jackets but the very low probability of getting hit by hiding the ammo away from probable penetrations.

If the thread's still alive in 10 hours or so I'll post a rough drawing.

good firepower, but your shiluette is pretty big now.

i gotchu

Existing tonk hull?

Attached: tank.png (625x532, 9K)

T-34-85 base concept/plans but with western build quality, proper fire control/sights, reinforced frontal armor, and actual ergonomics (including easy emergency egress in case of fire).

T34 concept was god-tier for it's time, to make it good you just need some actual effort to be put in it's implementation and construction - rather than going "oh shits nazi's are knocking on the kremlin's door, here this is good enough, we need 12 gorillions of these for yesterday, they'll be expendable along with their crews anyway"

This. But get rid of the flat-as-your-mums-tits driver port, replace with a periscope, increase front armour by 15mm. Make the turret mantlet a bit better, remove that autistic coax housing and increase the mantlet to 100mm. Try and get a hold of some Sherman V8 Engines instead of using 4 shitty tractor engines.

Attached: asdfasdeasdasdas.jpg (1264x724, 329K)

That engine was used on British Shermans and it was better than the earlier radials on the american Shermans. The coax gun is water cooled and it has to have that schlong cast cover. The drivers hatch could be thickened but it is a pretty smal target as is.
It's a super sherman of 1944, too bad it never caught on

>ammo in the front
Wew lad.
>APFSDS
WEW LAD.

I don't really see how the frontal transmission really helps with maintainability, remember, the front of the tank has the thickest armor, ergo you have to remove the most material and the material that has to be fitted on the strongest to get to it. The Sherman got around this with that whole bolt on front thingy front but as far as i see that is a huge workaround, you could just have it in the rear and have a few quite light, removable sheets of steel protecting it. Remember the Panther, and the horrible hassle it is to change that transmission, the ease of maintenance certainly isn't inherent in the design.

I mean honestly why not just go all the way and put it in the rear of the turret with blowout hatches and opening doors, certainly could be done with the tech of the time.

>still terrible panzer IV turret

Jagdpanzer chassis but lower the top casemate down so that it still provides some nice boxy angles and has space for a driver viewport and hull MG, but can fit a turret without having an autistic vertical profile.
70mm sloped armour across the front arc, 30mm to the sides. Keep the transmission housing jutting forward for ease of maintenance, give it a HVSS style suspension, and pick a good allied engine.
Depending on turret ring width and the specifics of their performance, either go with a T-34/85 or 76mm Sherman turret. Buff out the hull sides to accommodate for any potential turret ring overhang; give the commander a later German style cupola and both the gunner and loader a revolving periscope.

Holy fuck that profile height is atrocious

>If I lower the turret, there's not enough space underneath for enough ammo
tell that to the pershing

the sentinal did not use the chrysler multibank

Jesus, poor driver.

>western build quality
T-34s had the same planned obsolescence design of the sherman

>interwar chassis
>frankenstein hull/turret/engine

fuck off.

> same planned obsolescence design

word salad, get your world salad here

It had the 100mm too, except the one test fire it made broke the turret ring.

>Goes with the dick tank
>Removes the dick
fucking degenerate.

Attached: images.jpg (259x194, 7K)

>planned obsolescence design
There's a really fucking big difference between intentionally designing a tank with inferior qualities, and designing a tank with the ability to be easily upgraded as new technology becomes available. Both the Sherman and T-34 their issues, but their respective upgrades were completed because the vehicles were designed to be upgraded upon, not because they were so terrible that they needed the upgrades.

why not take that german t-34 ripoff, the one that would have worked had they not been retarded and turned it into the panther

Source? The LB-1 managed to be crammed onto a T-34 with minimal issues, why would the T-44 suddenly have the turret ring break?

I made another

Attached: tankis2.png (2000x1500, 518K)

It could fit but the turret ergonomics sucked even by Soviet standards. The solution was a new turret, which became the T-54.

>ammo in the front
Yes, the way it's stored on practically every postwar tank excluding the M1 and Merkava. Right behind the thickest armor on the vehicle, beneath the turret ring.
>APFSDS
by the late war the Brits had (slightly shitty) APDS, and fin stabilization was a known concept used on rockets. Also 3BM-9 is a pure steel rod without Tungsten on Uranium alloys, so it'd be much cheaper than HVAP or APDS if you could get it to work.
The thick armor helps maintainability as it grants the differential cover and final drive mounting rigidity. The bolt on/bolt off thing is one of the reasons I wanted to stay with it. Another is the fact that the Sherman had 4 different engines, and not having different transmission mountings for each is a big advantage. All differences are kept in the engine bay arrangement (and in the length of the hull and bogie spacing for the A57). All-up easily removable powerpacks were not yet a thing, I'll stick with the bolt-on for now.
Also, the transmission eats up penetrating shells and reduces casualties; this is statistically significant enough that the Israelis cite the Sherman's tranny as inspiration for the Merkava.
I'm not sure you could get the automatic door working properly, and the greatly increased moment of inertia isn't going to do good things to the traverse motors.
Of course if you can do it you should, ammo separation is a major safety advantage.
>tell that to the pershing
Which was needlessly tall and bulky. Look at the T-44/54 to see what the Pershing could have been like had the ammo been in the front hull with the MG deleted. Even increasing the head space of a T-54 10cm to improve livability and depression leaves it quite a bit shorter.
Same goes for the Abrams, though there the driver is reclined.

well apparently I don't even need to draw, Chrysler did most of the work for me.
Changes vs. the Chrysler drawing in pic:
>delete hull MG position, replace with ammo rack and fuel tank T-54 style
>Replace turret with historical 76mm Sherman turret
>Remove underfoot turret floor rack, lower turret even further
>Engine bay roof and transfer case modifiable for other engines, at price of 0 gun depression over rear arc, to allow fitment of tall engines like R975 and A57.
Additional design features:
>To conserve space, the hull area under the turret floor and to the sides of the crankshaft hold the batteries, .30 cal ammo boxes, and ration boxes.
>a drinking water tank is mounted hull front under the ammo rack to protect from mine blast.
>reduced caging on the turret basket to allow driver easier access
>escape hatch placed behind driver (as asst.driver is deleted)
>Internal fuel tanks fitted with self-sealing liners
Probably more stuff I'll think about later.

Attached: sherman-tank.jpg (691x273, 31K)

8 wheeled 88 mm cannon tank destroyer with paper thin armour and strong engine and zerg rush it

>ww2
>1000hp

Attached: fiwOxH711Eo.jpg (960x720, 150K)

Just this

Attached: centurion-mk1.jpg (893x478, 51K)

maybe even a 1200 HP

Attached: 89371_900.gif (798x900, 116K)

Why are Brit tanks so comfy?

Attached: 1393713191075.jpg (1386x1103, 141K)

>Hans, ve need ein vay to make zer Panther even less reliable und vaste more fuel!
>Hold mein bier Gunther, Ich have just ze thing!

twice the reliability issues double the fall

A T-44 with a powerpack (bundled engine and transmission) would probably represent the peak of WWII tech
rear engine+drive wheel, torsion bar suspension, heavily angled armor+low profile...

Attached: sample-04.jpg (1000x719, 212K)

How about no?

Panzer III suspension system is way better. Originally they intended to build IV with it, but they rushed it for reasons. Ironically they later did put the short 7.5cm in Panzer III.
You just need to make it larger to fit a proper turret, which needs to be more than a box with 50/30/30 and fit 7.5cm L/48.

Attached: Panzer IV sloped armor.png (920x680, 204K)

Russian tanks seem to have had the most logical layout, if not the best quality control or general refinement...

Attached: t-44-3.png (3946x1584, 303K)

Slap another roadwheel on to accommodate a larger engine compartment, build a frame that holds the engine and transmission together that can be lifted/slid out, and voila: best tank of WWII

Attached: t34_1.gif (1632x1146, 83K)

It was somehow less mobile than Panther and was too small for Panther gun.
Likely too cramped to fit the uberschmen inside of it too.

this kills the suspension

This

Attached: IMG_3988.jpg (1334x750, 186K)

well then we use Besa's or M1919's instead of this crappy ww1 vickers stuff.

>GT 101 gas turbine
>GT
I don't know a shit, but I can imagine GuPs drifting that 80km/h with eurobeat playing.

Attached: 1465328001688.png (1920x1080, 3.18M)

>GuPs drifting that 80km/h with eurobeat
>all that autism in one post

As intended.

Attached: chrisdie susbensions DDDd.png (1280x720, 919K)

>All-up easily removable powerpacks were not yet a thing
They were.

To the best of my knowledge the M-18 and M-24 were the first US vehicles fitted for fast powerplant removal (transmission through the front, engine through the rear). All previous designs were not fitted with sliding rails for the components and not fitted with quick-disconnect piping and wiring needed for the concept to work.

Remove main gun and replace with a flamethrower with armoured song to protect flamethrower.

Drive around a squirt hot sticky loads over everything.

that file name made me giggle so hard I realized I needed to visit the bathroom

You didn't like the high tech remote machine gun?

Start off from the T34-85, but build a new tank.

- although this would put up a big cooling hurdle for the engine designers, try and shorten the Kharkiv diesel powerplant by widening the bank angle and applying the W-engine / VR-engine bank concept.

- run the suspension in the floor to the front, place part of the diesel fuel in the front as well. Although this increases susceptibility to mines, in conjunction with the engine redesign, it frees up space in the back for the ammunition, since diesel fuel is more resistant to detonation than ammo.

- even though the front now has the suspension, the ammunition stowage shifts the weight balance to the back, so the front can have a few extra mm of armor

- delet hull MG and driver's hatch, all of the crew must now enter and exit through the back of the turret

- use torsion bars for the mid portion, but suppress the rocking tendency with suspension systems of a different design for other road wheels.

>- run the suspension
meant "run the drive shaft"

Tank designers could had done it at any point in time, they just chose not to.

>all of the crew must now enter and exit through the back of the turret
you are a cruel man

That looks like an autistic T44

>delete driver’s hatch
as a vehicle crewman, fuck that dude

The assumption is that the tank would be used in a frontal assault, not urban warfare, and would need to bounce shells from the front. In the event of penetration from the front, diesel doesn't explode as readily as gasoline or ammunition propellant, so there should be time for the crew to bail through a hatch in the back of the turret. Keep in mind I didn't add a turret basket to the T34-85 specifications.

Another thing: the driveline changes should drop the height requirement for the rear of the tank, consequently enabling the entire thing to be lowered a notch.

The desire was to improve protection in the frontal arc for the '43-45 battlefield while maintaining good handling and cross-country speed

Do not insult my prototypefu.

Attached: Tas.gif (788x478, 16K)

>that turret design
what's with the axis and shot traps?

I'm not sure that is correct, and therefore prefer to err to the side of caution. I'd rather have it take a little longer to remove the powerpack than not have a tank at all (say, if the R975 mount isn't adaptable to the GM 6064 or GAA, how much does that hold up production?)
Fact is it wasn't done before, which makes me cautious.

Not sure what you're talking about. No country was particularly hot stuff when it came to avoiding shot traps. Just look at the Sherman or T-34 mantlet. They were just as bad or even worse than the Germans.

Fact is, having the transmission up front does not impact detachability or modularity. In fact it more arguable that having the transmission in the rear would improve detachability or modularity. This is similar to claiming tanks couldn't possibly have big guns or thick armor before a certain date because it wasn't done at the time. Can you actually come up with a reason why having the transmission in the front will enable modularity and detachment above having it in the rear? You are just shooting in the wind and seeing what sticks. You might as well claim a frontal transmission can account for anything for all the relevance it has.

There you go.

Attached: der uberzrinyi.jpg (1600x1280, 236K)

Allied designs had exposed/underarmored features, but most of the Panzers had frontal armor schemes that would direct any ricochet into the vulnerable areas, effectively making cheap ricocheting ammunition more effective

The front must not overhang the forwardmost wheel or else the tank will get stuck in every wide trench and cannot climb up many sudden slopes.

------------
Ideal WW2 tank: T-44 with detail improvements, period.
One could begin with maximum 70 mm LOS line of sight armour thickness in the front and 30 mm all-round + 75 mm L/40 gun if one wants an early WW2 ideal tank. Then grow up to what the T-44 was + detail improvements.

Do any modern armor types work against ww2 shells? Spaced armor, or high hardness steel with rubber plates in between.

>detachability
I disagree, the front transmission can be detached/maintained/replaced without ever touching the engine. In a combined installation the engine practically has to be removed with the transmission, and only then can they be separated.
>modularity
Modularity is certainly affected, as the final drives and shit stay put regardless of engine size. A short R975 and long A57 can both use the same setup. With the transmission at the rear, you'd need a unique setup for each engine.
>big guns or thick armor
No, as it isn't merely a matter of scale. It's like saying I wouldn't count on autofrettaged tubes being available in the late 30s, as the tech was developed in the 30s and 40s.
>You are just shooting in the wind and seeing what sticks
No, I am postulating based on my knowledge of history and personal engineering experience.
>You might as well claim a frontal transmission can account for anything for all the relevance it has.
I do not understand what you are saying here.

T-34 is an edge case but the Sherman's shot trap most certainly did deflect into the roof.

In a combined installation the engine practically has to be removed with the transmission
Sounds more like a bonus.

>With the transmission at the rear, you'd need a unique setup for each engine.
This is true no matter where the transmission is. Each mark of the Sherman had different shapes and lengths.

You mean, the one that you have to go outside the vehicle to reload?

>not retarded Panther
This can't be an axis vehicle-there's no idiotic design decisions that prevent mass production or adaptations for roles it clearly won't serve well in!
The suspension and armor look normal...is the engine made of some super-rare alloy or in some bizarre configuration that only an autist would come up with? Does the gun fire flak shells because the high command got pumped up on speed and commanded that it double as AA? I refuse to believe they had any reasonable designs...

Anybody who's ever played a video game knows just where to shoot for big damage

Magyar autism. Instead of
>Let's create something very innovative, complex and unique because technology is what wins wars and the more new it is, the better it is
it was
>Let's try to create something out of fucking nothing, see how others around there do it and mold their ideas and our improvisational skills with the something we just conjured out of the aforementioned nothing and thus create something that works well enough and reliably enough and even if it doesn't work out, we'll get some experience at figuring it out

Hungarian tanks were decent. Low in firepower and somewhat overengineered, but surprisingly reliable and mobile. Also, sometime around 1943-44, the Hungarians started to figure out rocketry. At one point they fiddled around with the concept of strapping Nebelwerfer pods on an AT tank.

Attached: rocketzrinyi2.jpg (1316x665, 483K)

Attached: rocketzrinyi.jpg (632x455, 231K)

Also, early AT missiles with shaped charge warheads on a light tank in 1945.

Attached: rockettoldi.jpg (1280x1024, 756K)

And there was this. The "bastion" was to provide good visibility for the commander. Existing Turans were to be rearmed into these.

Attached: 43m turan.jpg (925x636, 120K)