Hi guys,
I was sitting and looking at my shelves, suddenly i ve noticed that ther are lotta design difference between US afv's. Like:
M3 Lee is too high, M3a1 too low, M4 Sherman is normal and M4A1 higher than all, etc...
All i wanted to know how they designed these vehicles !? According what ?
I mean if they didnt wanna be a "high" target, ok, why m4a1 is higher than all !?
Or was it a matter of crew and/or space ?
I wonder if someone knows how these designs have been made ?
Thanks for your helps from now guys.
PS: Please don't make me read websites
Armor/AFV
For discussions on tanks, artillery, jeeps, etc.
For discussions on tanks, artillery, jeeps, etc.
Hosted by Darren Baker, Mario Matijasic
US AFV Design !?
M113
Istanbul, Turkey / Türkçe
Joined: March 02, 2003
KitMaker: 411 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Joined: March 02, 2003
KitMaker: 411 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Friday, April 04, 2003 - 12:11 AM UTC
BroAbrams
Washington, United States
Joined: October 02, 2002
KitMaker: 1,546 posts
Armorama: 1,081 posts
Joined: October 02, 2002
KitMaker: 1,546 posts
Armorama: 1,081 posts
Posted: Friday, April 04, 2003 - 12:20 AM UTC
I think the ones you have mentioned used the radial engine, which sat considerably higher than a conventional diesel engine when mounted vertically. The M-18 had it mounted horizontally and it sat fairly low.
Rob
Rob
Posted: Friday, April 04, 2003 - 12:27 AM UTC
I believe that the first series of sherman tanks were actually running on a motor from a bomber aircraft and that gave the tank such a high profile.
I believe that`s what they told on television so I don`t really know If I`m right.. it made some kind of sense to me
I believe that`s what they told on television so I don`t really know If I`m right.. it made some kind of sense to me
Jacques
Minnesota, United States
Joined: March 04, 2003
KitMaker: 4,630 posts
Armorama: 4,498 posts
Joined: March 04, 2003
KitMaker: 4,630 posts
Armorama: 4,498 posts
Posted: Friday, April 04, 2003 - 03:28 AM UTC
well, I know the initial M4's and M4A1's ran onthe Radial engine in the vertical postition, but I also believe there was some concern given to both crew comfort and ability to see...a commander in a higher turret could see better. I think there may have been considerations given to what US industry was ready to make, ie maybe they wer best suited to making the M4 in its present form rather than in a smaller design.
And for some reason, the US tank designers had not yet gotten into angled plate and curved ballistic surfaces for better turret/hull design. I always imagine "what if" the us had designed a tank like the JS-3 but with better mechanical performance and durability. oh well!
And for some reason, the US tank designers had not yet gotten into angled plate and curved ballistic surfaces for better turret/hull design. I always imagine "what if" the us had designed a tank like the JS-3 but with better mechanical performance and durability. oh well!
Sabot
Joined: December 18, 2001
KitMaker: 12,596 posts
Armorama: 9,071 posts
KitMaker: 12,596 posts
Armorama: 9,071 posts
Posted: Friday, April 04, 2003 - 07:23 AM UTC
They also rode high because the suspension system ran on external boogies. The Russians used Christie's suspension and it gave their vehicles a lower ride. We started using the torsion bar suspension later with the Chaffee and Hellcat and then the current configuration came in with the T26E3 Pershing.
M113
Istanbul, Turkey / Türkçe
Joined: March 02, 2003
KitMaker: 411 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Joined: March 02, 2003
KitMaker: 411 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Friday, April 04, 2003 - 09:43 AM UTC
Thank you all guys, for your comments