WW2 Tanks.... A question....

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

As main armament and armor thickness increased, so too did the size of both the projectiles emerging from said barrels AND the proppelant casing (Or shell) while the interior, usable volume of space available to crew kind of stayed the same.

The Tiger II, from memory, carried about 85 rounds spread through the hull and aft turret spaces.

Of note was a practice to carry LESS rounds in the turret space into some engagements so as to prevent/minimise ammunition adding to the damage of turret arlmor breaches.

It was the increase in size of the main gun and its associated recoil which drove the increase in vehicle size and mass.

For example, a modern Abrams is actually a little bit bigger across its dimensions (Except maye height) and heavier than a WW II Tiger II.

[The Grand Nudger]

Semi-related aside, one of the big questions about tanks, right now, is whether or not they still have a use, or if they've gone the way of the battleships.

[Brian37]

FUCK, that many? I did not know that. I have seen the old cannon balls for the Civil War before and those things are pretty damned big. How the fuck did they fit all that in one tank?

They didn't always fit everything -in- the tanks.   Mull that business over, lol.  

I was just watching that documentary and two things hit me. One, not being an expert, and right before the narrator said it, I thought to myself, If I were aiming at an enemy tank, I would hit between the top, and the base, like punching someone in the neck, the space where it swivels.

Top, bottom, and rear, in general.  If you can rack the fuckers that's pretty much aces but modern tanks aren't so easy to hit like that.   It would mostly be a waste of time trying to hit them just so in the turret (for infantry, other tanks are sometimes going for it), and alot of the time the turret armor hangs down over the turret well anyway.  

But the other thing I was thinking what happens when you run out?  Stick your head out at that point, you are a sitting duck. It would seem to me infantry at least has the opportunity to hide behind a tree or ditch instead of sitting in a huge dead target.

You back out or slow your advance and get resupplied.  Yeah, though, infantry hiding at elevation is pretty much gg for armored vehicles.  That;s the main problem with them in urban environments.  IEDs and mines can strike from below, rpgs from above, AT rifles from the rear and side streets.

They didn't always fit them in the tank? Ok, still not my point. I am talking about max volume if they wanted to fit a max load in a particular model's hull. And of course it would be in the hull.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

For example, a modern Abrams is actually a little bit bigger across its dimensions (Except maye height) and heavier than a WW II Tiger II.

How does the ground pressure compare?

[The Grand Nudger]

@Brian
Going off of those stats for an m3 sherman form earlier, calling it 100 rounds, with a rof of 20rpm.....if you could get every shot off without the gun going down...you'd have about five minutes of fire, at which point you'd have slung something like 150 pounds of tnt downrange. Realistically, you're not going to maintain that rate of fire in combat. If the other guys saw somebody sounding off like that he'd be priority target no-1

[Brian37]

Maybe I need to rephrase, although "DAMN" for me, sums it up for any model of WW2 tank, but just like the Guinness Book Of Word Records, how many marbles/cigarettes can one fit in their mouth. I have an idea from what everyone posted so far, and all I can say is, "DAMN". It is a lot more than I thought.

[The Grand Nudger]

Heres a way to conceptualize it, Brian.  Think of a pringles can.  Now fill up your car with pringles cans.
(it's not -quite- right, but it's the first thing that jumped out at me)

[Brian37]

Heres a way to conceptualize it, Brian.  Think of a pringles can.  Now fill up your car with pringles cans.
(it's not -quite- right, but it's the first thing that jumped out at me)

So the ammo really isn't as big as I am thinking? It just seems so weird knowing how big those shells are.

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

For example, a modern Abrams is actually a little bit bigger across its dimensions (Except maye height) and heavier than a WW II Tiger II.

How does the ground pressure compare?

I think about the same? Pretty sure an Abrams track length and width are 'More' then on a comparable Tiger or Panther.

A modern Abrams also has a MUCH better horse-power to weight ratio.

Though, even with its weaker engine, a Panther or Tiger were no slouch at moving their mass through most terrain.

There's an excellent Youtube video made by the... Swedes(?) after the war putting a Sherman, a Churchill, a Panther and the Swedish (?) tank of the day through different terrain trials.

Can't remember its name and not in position to offer link sadly.

Yes, Armored Fighting Vehicles (And Tanks) still have a place on modern battle feilds. ( In my uneducated opinion. Reasons possibly to follow if aske/imd permitting)

[The Grand Nudger]

It could be bigger than a pringles can, but that's just a rough comparison with 75mm in mind.  Bigger rounds, less ammo in the hold.  

An isu (spg used as a tank destroyer from time to time) only carred 20 or so rounds....152mm. Think..a big ass pool filter.