Finest and Most Influential Tanks of WWII

m kenny,

Once again you fail to note that the gun is level in the video, and that the gunners face is right beside the closest part of the breech. In the first couple of pictures you posted the gun isn't level, it is depressed or elevated.

This is the room that there is when the breech is level (like in the video):


And again the gunner wearing his headphones with the gun at level position and the breech right beside him (observe breech outline):

 

If you had ever ridden in a tank across country at speed you would know that it doesn't matter how soft the padding is or what the design is - if you try and keep your head on a sight you will hurt yourself, even on more modern tanks with better suspension. The inertia of a ~100kg human at ~35 mph compared to the strength of human facial features is not comparable.

 

You have serious reading comprehension issues m kenny, take a look again at what was said:

"If there is room when the gun is completely level and the breech is right beside the gunners face (same height), then what difference will it make that you elevate or depress the gun? Answer: Nothing, there will always be room for the headphones?"

You didn't even begin to challenge this fact with your pictures, as you show the gun either depressed or elevated away from the level position.

So I will repeat myself once again; If the gunner can wear his headphones sighting when the gun is level, then it doesn't matter if the gun is then either depressed or elevated, there will always be enough room.

 

Incidently I have been pressing my head against a sight whilst moving over rough terrain in a vehicle, one which definitely isn't as stable as a tank, and I came out quite ok.

Also 35 mph cross country in a WW2 tank? You're kidding me right? What I'm refering to as being 'on the move' is the hunting speed of the tank, around 10 to 15 km/h in the case of a prowling WW2 tank. Also you do know that there are things to hold on to inside a tank, right? Furthermore you are sitting down, and you're supposed to press your head against the padding to lock yourself into position, and thus you're not going to be withstanding anywhere near the enertia of your own body weight.

The gunner in the video doesn't seem to have any issues sighting whilst on the move either:
[video=youtube;xB_FDpT8et8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xB_FDpT8et8[/video]

 

In an ideal situation - all it needs is one bump

 

And imagine then how much worse it would be if the sight was moving as-well...

 

I know the situation well - never tried the Panther personally but the Centurion had similar sight set-up, whereas our recce vehicles didn't and you got beat up if you tried - it's true that the hand-holds and the general body position are the key to getting the eye to the sight in the quickest time possible - whatever the vehicle it wasn't about staying looking through the sight during a sprint - maybe the commanders sights to some extent, but that was more about getting the head far enough back from the padding to still be able to see something through the segment that was important without leaving teeth in it

 

Agreed Spartan, there's no disagreement there.

But WW2 tanks just didn't move cross country at 35 mph (56 km/h), not even in sprints, and most certainly not when enemy contact was expected. Infact most WW2 tanks were incapable of reaching this speed even on pavement. The maximum cross country speed of most WW2 tanks was around 30 km/h, whilst average cross country speed was around 15 to 20 km/h. Only a few tanks with unusually good suspension systems, such as the Panther infact, could top this. But even then, unless you were moving across even terrain, then you wouldn't operate the turret controls when the tank was sprinting, you'd be too busy holding on to something instead.

But if enemy contact was expected then tanks wouldn't just sprint headlong into them; they would advance at so called "hunting speed", which is a steady speed of around 10 to 15 km/h. At this speed the suspension of the tank was able to provide a comfortable ride and absorb any bumps that might appear (esp. the Panther's suspension whcih was quite exceptional in this regard), providing a stabile gun platform. On the hunt the gunner could safely operate his controls & sight without fear of bruising himself (providing the sight was articulated ofc.), as-well could the rest of the crew. During sprints over rough terrain the entire crew except for the driver were mostly forced to just hold on, and couldn't safely use their sights or operate their controls, and this goes for all tanks of the era.

That having been said, thanks to its' advanced dual torsion bar suspension system, the Panther featured absolutely unrivalled floatation & stability characteristics over rough terrain, as can be seen demonstrated in the below video as-well. It is no wonder that modern tanks today use the same type suspension system, at the expense of a bottom hull escape hatch:
[video=youtube;dp6Krm-hU24]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dp6Krm-hU24[/video]

 

This thread keeps getting better. Yes, the Devil is in the details. Makes for good reading.

 

I have to, with all that has been posted, go with the original claim that the gun and sight are very close. Too close. If the gunner does wear his headphones correctly I would hazard a guess that he is orienting his head "oddly" to allow for the gun. One of the above pics even shows the brow pad angles to the gunner's left, i.e., not perpendicular to the sight. Seems that this is too keep the gunners right headphone away from the gun but is not a "natural" position. Mkenny's photos cement this for me.

 

There is plenty of room for the headphones when sighting in all conditions. If there wasn't the designers would've simply relocated the sight abit more to the left. It was after-all pretty important that the gunner was in contact with the rest of the crew. To think that the designers would let such a serious and easily fixable problem persist is truly ridiculous. The problem quite simply didn't exist, the gunner could ofcourse comfortably wear his headphones when sighting.

 

It sounds like you believe the Panther was a perfect tank with absolutely no design faults. I can't agree with that.

 

I would ask this question about the Panther in particular: What original, unique or, design features of this tank were copied on other designs by other nations post war?

 

I didn't write that anywhere, so what'ever led you to that conclusion is beyond me. But for some odd reason you often seem to feel the need to twist something I wrote into statements that I've never made. This is despite that I've continuously been trying to help you better understand the various components of the tank, and all the thanks I get in return is to be called a liar. It doesn't get anymore disrespectful or rude in my book.

I've been posting facts about the Panther's gunsight, turret traverse mechanism and general ergonomics. I haven't addressed the Panther in its entirety. I made it clear that the tank (Panther) featured excellent sights, target acquisition & fire control systems, suspension and great interior ergonomics. Yet somehow you twist this into me claiming that the Panther was a perfect machine in every way and completely flawless??

 

I'll explain. You make the statement that the designers would not let the tank go to the field with such a serious flaw as a poorly placed gunsight. This would lead me to believe that you think the Panther went to the field with no serious flaws. I find this hard to understand since we know the Panther had a horrible baptism and was plagued with problems for some time after. I also know that evaluation by Allies of captured Panthers showed them not to fit the description you offer.

The disrespect and rudeness, as you call it, comes from being confronted by one that states "my sources are good, yours are not." The pictures show you are wrong and I feel you are wrong as about other point; your lack of understanding of the turret traverse shows you fall short there. Need I rehash?

 

I totally agree Lou, It's getting a little monotonous!

 

deja vu?

http://www.ww2f.com/armor-armored-fighting-vehicles/12664-top-10-tanks-war-18.html

 

Thanks for the deja view JT. Led to a good thread I'd not read.