I have thought about this for quite a while and I think i can definitively say that for WWII (so before projectile speed made angled armor meaningless), the Schmalturm is the geometrically ideal shape for a tank turret.Literally the most efficient you can be while still fitting a gun inside.
Too bad there's no one to buy them, you sell it so well
>>65606523Actually, I'm pretty sure some museums and collectors would pay top dollar for one.
>>65606525To be realistic, on paper it's a great turret, but it's a very bad turret for an 88mm. I read the tank encyclopedia article on that turret, you had almost zero room to do anything in it and the depression/elevation were both not ideal
>>65606540>I read the tank encyclopedia article on that turretOnly my religious convictions are keeping me from telling you to kill yourself.That aside, it was designed for the long 75, anon.
>>65606546By all means, share where your information is from. I'll wait.
>>65606551What information? That the Schmalturm turret meant to replace the one with the shot trap on panthers was made for the 75?Or that you're being a nigger who is extrapolating based on the e-series which regularly has the schmalturm bolted on in drawings but has no proof of any such plans in any documents since the turret wasn't included?
>>65606558Yeah, where are you getting your turret information from? Why so aggressive, expert anon?
>>65606560>Yeah, where are you getting your turret information from?Years of study, books and good historians.>Why so aggressive, expert anon?Tank encyclopedia is the WWII equivalent of the 40k wiki, if that tells you anything.
>>65606516>Literally the most efficient you can be while still fitting a gun inside.the most efficient shape is a hemisphere, as both the soviets and US eventually settled on in the early cold warit maximizes protection for the lowest weightthe soviet frying pan is the ultimate evolution of the schamlturm design, with the most possible protection from the forward 60 degree forward arc using only steel armorbut if optimizing for gun handling, then the optimal shape is an elongated one instead, with a large bustle to balance the weight of the gun, which is why the M60 and M1 tanks have them>before projectile speed made angled armor meaninglessthere was a 10-year period at most between the 70s and 80s where all-steel armor was the only option to use against long rodsand even then, modern tanks do use internal angling, it only appears slab-sided due to the external armor, but the composite arrays inside have angling built in
>>65606622>the most efficient shape is a hemisphere, as both the soviets and US eventually settled on in the early cold warExcept for cast armor being structurally notably weaker even for American tanks when the US had the best casting technology at the time, of course.
>>65606622>it only appears slab-sided due to the external armor, but the composite arrays inside have angling built inThat's a very different topic, anon.
>>65606622>the soviet frying pan is the ultimate evolution of the schamlturm designCompletely different concept.>with the most possible protection from the forward 60 degree forward arc using only steel armorYou're confusing effectivess with efficiency. If you ignore the latter, you might as well build the Ratte.
>tankobsoleted by wire guided technology in the 80s, but boomers wont let it die.
>>65606652>You're confusing effectivess with efficiency.the purpose of the frying pan shape was literally efficiency, it has the best protection and the lowest weight if you are optimizing for ballistic protection, then the frying pan shape is the best one>You're confusing effectivess with efficiency.it is efficiency, specifically it is optimized for the most armor and the least weightthe US needlenose reduces overall armor efficiency, it has less overall protection, but maximizes smooth and precise turret rotation and exceeds the frying pan shape in a very narrow frontal arcneither shape is the schamlturm, but both are more efficient at a given task, the frying pan for general protection and weight and the needlenose for forward protection and turret rotationthe schmalturm does not have any specific advantage over either of them, except for being able to use welded plates>>65606633both the US and soviets used casting until the very end of all-steel turrets because the mass savings from a highly-efficient shape offset the reductions in steel hardness, which was down to only about 10% less hardness by the cold war anyways
>>65606665how does a wire-guided missile take ground in the 80s?
I am concerned about hits to the front-side areas from angles where the sloping effect fails to take hold.
>>65606671>it's really efficient if we ignore that it's weaker, heavy as shit and can't be weldedAlright, negro. Sure.
>>65606682You'd have to shoot straight at the angle and from above for that to be the case. The sides aren't just angled horizontally but also vertically.
>>65606678>80sthe 70s with the yom kippur war and all that
>>65606684>that it's weakerfor a 10% reduction in hardness, you get a more ballistically efficient shapeit was decided by both the US and USSR that the extra armor from the weight savings and better angling offset the reduction in hardness from casting> heavy as shitit is a more efficient use of weight, because the aforementioned shape needs less armor for the same volumethis is the exact reason the soviets and the US M48 used this shape, it offered the most efficient ballistic protectionthe US still kept using cast armor, they just decided to optimize for frontal protection and gun handling rather than pure protection, deciding that a reduction in 60degree arc protection was a good tradeoff for smoother gun handling and better 30-degree protection
>>65606700the yom kippur war was primarily fought using tanks in open groundthe israelis conclusion after facing down egyptian ATGMs was that they needed a better tank, not that tanks were obsolete
>>65606707Yes, anon, when you care less about weight you can be less efficient. Glad you figured that out.We're talking about WWII though and there the deal you're proposing just isn't worth it unless you're doing a heavy tank or optimize your industry around casting to the point of accepting the worse performance.
>>65606713>when you care less about weight you can be less efficienthey literally cared more about weightthe entire purpose of a hemisphere was the weight reduction, because the weight savings could better be invested in more armor that offsets the reduction in casting ineffficiency>We're talking about WWII though if we are talking purely about geometry and nothing else, then either a hemisphere for pure protection or an elongated hemisphere for frontal protection
The problems associated with nickel-free rolled steel go far beyond the imperfections found in cast steel.
>>65606722>they literally cared more about weightLet me put it like this:Would you install a frying pan on a light scout tank in WWII?>if we are talking purely about geometry and nothing elseWe're talking about efficiency in WWII, anon.
>>65606742Pretty retarded argument since>what if the steel is badCuts both ways and soviet armour, cast or not, was famous for these issues throughout the entire war.
>>65606764a hemisphere provides the least surface area for a given volume, which means you need the least mass for a given amount of protectionthis is the most perfectly efficient geometric shape to have for the purposes of protectionyour argument that it would be too heavy is the opposite of the purpose of the shape, which is to maximize weight reductions for given amount of protectionthe increased ballistic efficiency more than cancels out the softer armor, especially once you factor in more efficient plate thickness, because the thickness of the armor is more easily controlle
>>65606775Is that a yes or a no, anon?
>>65606516the 88 mm would never have fit or workedit was fine for the KwK 42 L/70
>>65606840The 75 was perfectly fine throughout the entirety of WWII.If you're gonna make up scenarios about guns that were never intended for it, why not go all the way and just increase the size?
>>65606516It's ugly as fuck though. Would not buy.
>>65606516Isn't it just a welded bowl-type turret? Yes, efficient.
>>65606566>Years of study, books and good historians.Yeah, I like what the youtube algorithm gives me too. Which is what that means, if you really can't give more detailed sources, you're no better than the guy referring to a tank encyclopedia.
>>65607783>sleek>angled>confident 120mm front>elegant linesIdk I think it's neat
What was with add the little rings around the side of the turret?Were they going to mount spaced armour around it like the old Panzer 4 turrets?
>>65608060yeah
>>65608167Those are balls and they housed the rangefinder that required the extra breadth.
>>65606684I love it when a faggot gets absolutely raped by several paragraphs, but only responds to one or two points because that's all he think he can handle/counter-attack.
>>65609848>the raped male returnsCould have just answered >>65606797 you know?
>>65609923the argument is about geometric efficiencya hemisphere has the best, if your goal is minimizing weight for a given level protection>Could have just answeredthe question is a red herring that has no bearing on the premise that a hemisphere has the best ballistic protection of any shape
>>65606742>Hits burnt out wreck of a Panther tank, fucking up it's heat treatment>Lol look it shatters! Almost as if it has been fucked up from an ammo cookoff!
>>65610167>the argument is about>>65606764>We're talking about efficiency in WWII, anon>>65606516>for WWIIYou're an adorable little retard, but reading comprehension is not your strength, is it?>red herringNah, this entire thread has been about a specific time and situation. The Russian frying pan requires a minimum space/weight that makes it unfeasible and impossible to scale for tanks that can't handle both. The space inside quickly becomes too limited if you scale it down, meaning it'll always be heavy as shit, a terrible choice for almost all WWII tanks, require a lot of energy, pose a huge target and more. Meanwhile the Schmalturm is a tiny target, very weight efficient and could be put on any WWII tank, including all the early ones, by simply scaling the size down, as the ratio of weight/protection to usable internal volume is just better.You were just too enamored with feeling smart on /k/ to take a single second to consider whether the basic factoid you throw out has the significance you think it has here.That was pointed out repeatedly in less laborious terms, but you never understood it because you're too much of a one-step-thinker to handle the topic.Sorry, buddy, but you're not intelligent enough to participate here.That's why the answer here >>65606764>Would you install a frying pan on a light scout tank in WWII?Is no, among other reasons.
>>65614306>meaning it'll always be heavy as shit,except it would be lighter for a given amount of protection, so it would not be heavierit would provide better protection than the hexagon shape of the schmalturm
>>65614315>except it would be lighter for a given amount of protection, so it would not be heavierAre you trolling or do you still not understand the limitations of the design?Due to its shape, it needs a significant minimum size to be feasible. The IS3 turret was huge and still barely able to be operated. So yes, it would be heavy.Part of that is from the big gun, of course, but most of it is simply because the shape doesn't create a lot of practically usable inner volume for human beings.The Schmalturm on the other hand does which is why you could scale it down contrary to the frying pan.Before I explain this a third time to you, just look up the interior of the tanks in question and then imagine needing to work in either shape.If you lack the imagination for that, literally just draw a midsection of both shapes and put little stickmen in it. Then see which one you can shrink more without requiring dwarfs for their operation.Did you think nobody thought of that shape except in the specific scenarios where it made the cut?Think, anon. Everybody involved in these programs was smarter than you, give them some credit.
>>65614315>>65614669It's exaggerated, but maybe this will help you understand the concept of dead space in a turret.Sure, you can fill it with all kinds of things useful in a tank, but you can't fillit with a human being that operates a tank.If you reduce the size of the frying pan, you run into issues very quickly.
>>65606844>75 was perfectly fine, 'make up scenarios'checked, did (You) *read* the post replied to?Three other AFVs—Nashorn, Jagdpanther, Tiger II (add in Elefant)—mounted the Pak/KwK 43, there was zero need to have it on the PantherOP'tard is the one making up scenarios
>>65614669pretty sure you are the one trolling and cant understand that a hemispherical shape has the lowest mass for a given amount of armor while also having the best shot deflection angles this makes it the literal most efficient shape for protection when weight is a concern
>>65614714Since the fact that the turret actually has to be used as well, usable internal volume is what matters and this has never been just about deflection but actual usage was pointed out to you like 4 times now I'll assume you're just pretending to be retarded. And potentially a coward, since you were so afraid of a simple question.>>65614701The scenario (WWII) is in the OP. The tank it was used on in Berlin and designed for was a Panther with a 75. Saying the 88mm would not have fit is completely retarded because the turret could have just been enlarged for that and wasn't intended for it.That's like saying the long 75 wouldn't have fit in a Panzer II turret. You're not making any point, anon.You're not making any sense either. What exactly were you trying to express here?I don't mean that as insult, but are you autistic? I know a guy who is and he constantly skips a lot of steps while talking as well. You clearly wanted to point out something, but you left out so many steps before that/context that what you say has no informative value. It's just an isolated factoid and when that was pointed out to you you skipped around again leading us to yet another nonsensical reply.I'm sure it makes sense in your mind, but you gotta give some context for why what you said is relevant. People can't read your mind, anon.
>>65614701ESL?Nobody said the Panther used the 88. Anon threw in the 88 would not have fit in the turret made for the Panther. But if the turret were made for the 88 and not the Panther it would have just been larger.
>>65615185the argument is about efficiency, which is obviously the purpose of the hemisphere which maximizes protection and minimizes weightsaying it would be too heavy is what is retarded because the turret would actually be lighter for a given amount of protection>since you were so afraid of a simple question.its a red herringthe argument is about the ideal geometric shape, which is a hemisphereit provides more protection for less weight and offers no perpendicular angles for any enemy shot, which allows for even more efficient use of armorany hypothetical question is irrelevant
>>65615209>the argument is about efficiencyEfficiency in the context of WWII which puts real world constraints and design limits on the form chosen. Fifth time this was pointed out to you. Nobody except you ever pretended this is just about geometry absent of real world concerns.>saying it would be too heavy is what is retarded because the turret would actually be lighter for a given amount of protectionIt would be too heavy if you'd make it big enough to operate in for most WWII tanks. This has also been pointed out to you before. It's why you wouldn't put it on a small scout tank for example.You are autistic, aren't you?>its a red herringIt isn't, it was an example to help you learn something you have been trying to do your best to ignore. You ran from it because you'd rather be wrong and cowardly than honest and admit you didn't consider the premise pointed out in the OP and half a dozen times since.>any hypothetical question is irrelevantAh, it's the "I can't engage in hypotheticals in arguments because I did eat breakfast this morning" type of person. I suppose brown heritage would explain both that and the inability to form coherent arguments.You're looping like an African because you can't realize the premise you're working off is flawed.What's an ESL third worlder doing on /k/ discussing tanks? Seems like a weird hobby to get invested in if you can't visualize the insides of them.You're just repeating your nonsense at this point and since you're obviously too prideful or stupid to recognize that you misread the OP and thought this is about geometry alone, I'll let you have the last word.It seems like that's really important to you.
65606665Shut the fuck up, ignorant zoomer tourist scum.
