Tank Gun Depression just for Gamers?  

Imagine "In world of tanks" This post is made by the war thunder gang

From what I interpreted from this, is that the gun depression adds to not only versatility in fire and positioning, but can also aid concealment and camouflage.

Sacrifices have been made. 🫡

I'm pretty sure he must have stunt doubles and/or clones at this point xD

I wonder how many of those shirts he has for this.

@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualizedWhat is the sacrificial cost of teleportation?

@@llllib hopefully he isn't being beamed by Snotty. He might end up with his head on backwards.

A thermal sleeve might cure early symptoms.

lol

I'm just glad we are finally able to talk openly of these issues without fear of stigma or shame. Makes me hopeful one day we can finally acknowledge that other elephant in the room. Ejectile dysfunction.

@@gregbradshaw8679 👌👌

I've always though that 10 degrees is big ingame but irl 10 degrees doesn't seem that big only about 1/9th of a 90 angle, is this really a massive difference irl?

They also benefitted from its better elevation and the soviet tanks lack of depression....On anything but flat terrain, Russian tanks were in trouble.

@@brokeandtired being on the defense mattered more I think. The Israelis captured T-54s and T-62s and pressed them into service as the Tiran, to good effect. So clearly the tank wasn't the issue, but how it was used

reverse slope hull down positions benefited IDF

@@jameshodgson3656 A well trained crew will use the advantages of their equipment. Disadvantages will be avoided as much as possible.

true. as a tank commander whether in defense or offense u always use terrain for fire management and only after most target has been destroyed from a ridge line sniping, only then u go on the offense. BTW the Tiran 6 where not that good. they where mainly used as second line tanks. the spear of the IDF where the Shot Ka'al centurions and M60s and 48 (the use of the Pattons where only due to an embargo by the UK).

They ARE smaller targets when firing from prepared positions. They have a harder time finding natural terrain to go proper hull down like Western MBTs though

​@@TheNicestPig Fair enough. And while WoT is a fun, silly game, it does a pretty good job of conveying the reality that even terrain that looks flat and featureless on a map has a lot of exploitable quirks if you know what you're looking for. I've always thought that it would be fun to have one map that is truly a flat tabletop, with no features at all.

@@jxmbusab Go away, Karl.

@@mark37f Karl? Do you mean von Clausewitz? Marx? The Murderous Llama?

@@jxmbusabFrom what I read online, WoT multiplies terrain elevation by a factor of 7. It is true that tanks with poor gun depression struggle in areas with high differences in terrain height. The crucial thing everyone is missing is that Soviet and Russian vehicles were designed to fight in the steppe, which is extremely flat. Have you heard of a single instance of Ukrainian or Russian tank commanders complaining about the gun depression of their tanks in the war in Ukraine? I haven’t. It only really becomes an issue when tanks are thrown into places they were never designed to operate in, those being urban areas with high rises or hilly /mountainous terrain. This happens either because of incompetence (ie, Grozny) or when the tanks are exported to nations which have to fight in unfavorable terrain (ie, Syria vs Israel). You could call poor gun depression a flaw, but by the same token you’d have to call the massive turrets (and associated weight increase) of Western MBTs a flaw as well. Both are opposite ends of an engineering design choice. The Soviet engineers who created the T-55 to T-90 tanks could have chosen to make them larger and with better gun depression, but they chose a low profile turret instead. This was not the wrong choice, like some people make it out to be, but the optimal choice to fit their tanks to the terrain they would primarily be fighting in and to work well with Soviet logistics (bridges and trains). When a Soviet-era tank goes hull down in the steppe, the exposed turret height is only about 1.5m, roughly half that of Western MBTs. That has come to matter less today with the existence of modern optics and computer targeting, but when these tanks were made between the 40’s and early 80’s, they were hard to hit and very well armored targets. Saying that that a design choice made 40 years ago was wrong based on the existence of modern fire control systems and ammo is backwards. The T-72 wasn’t meant to still be the USSR’s (now Russia’s) main tank in 2023. As time went on and technology evolved, Russian engineers have also made alternative design decisions which produced the T-14, a vehicle radically different and more suitable to the modern warfare environment and Soviet designed tanks. Its gun depression is comparable to that of Western tanks.

But you do!

If you don't have gun depression, you will have gunner depression. Is that what you want?

cheer it up

I'm guessing the train of thought is something like "well, arcade tank games generally feature tank on tank combat at unrealistically short ranges. At longer - more realistic - ranges you'd have to elevate your gun more to get the shells on target, so gun depression will at least be not quite as important". Me personaly, I simply don't know how much of a diference the longer engagement ranges make.

They’re stupid period and don’t know what they’re talking about so they need to use a logical fallacy

I'd assume it's because they never heard about gun depression before playing tank games, and assumed it was an unrealistic part of the game rather than a detail too low level for most historians to know or care about.

@@Bird_Dog00 Well the APFSDS rounds have a pretty flat ballistic arc. Effectively out to about 1,500m and more the rounds travel flat. Anyway "Waste of Time" and "War Chunder" have absolutely minimal linkages to reality. 500m is nothing for a tank engagement. Its driven by the game's map design limitations, not reality.

@@whya2ndaccount And one of those games is a national security risk

That and not being seen.

I'll go with propaganda

I don't think putting the entire earth between you and the opponent will ever not be tactically sound. To quote a beautiful bastard: "I love digging and displacing just enough raw earth to fit an adult male in standard kit. It is my favorite task. If someone paid me to do nothing except dig fighting holes I would do it. I do not even want to kill the enemy. The joy come from doing it from my fighting hole. While he gurgles to death from his blood in confusion with several hundred small splinters of NATO standard ammunition dispersed throughout him it is not my enemy perishing and the safety thereafter that gives me satisfaction. First of all, I was safe in the first place, since I should be killing my enemy from a properly dug Marine fighting hole. Second of all, I do not get joy from the death of my fellow man. I only receive joy from the proper use of my properly dug fighting hole. My enemy will perish without me ever being in danger only because of my fighting hole. I love it and only it, and it is the only thing I ever will."

@@jeebusk vatnik?

@@MarvinWestmaas he meant that thing that is used from times of ancient Egypt to nowadays. Though he's wrong, propaganda is government tool, not military tool.

I guess it was still better than the M113/MT-LB at supporting the advance?

@@benlewis4241 The Pbv-302 was superior at supporting the advance because of the gun (20mm autocannon vs. very inaccurate 73mm), because the commander wasn't blind when the gunner was going his job (on the BMP-1, the commander sits behind the driver with the vision from his three minimal vision blocks are partially blocked by the hull, the drivers visions blocks and the turret, & if the commander opens his hatch to actually see anything, the gunner can't turn the turret.) and because the combination of very limited elevation & depression, combined with the vehicle having a strong tendency to swing forward & backwards on the move, made it hard to bring the gun on target. To provide fire support it was (in the terrain we were training) almost as bad as the MT-LB, but the MT-LB offered more space for the infantry and their equipment, had higher mobility & was incredibly reliable & easy to maintain. So while (in our peacetime training in the terrain we trained in) the BMP-1 was a horrible ICV and a decent APC, the MT-LB was a great APC, the Pbv-302 was a good APC & a acceptable ICV, & the CV9040 was a great ICV & a acceptable APC. My conclusion was that the best way to use the BMP-1 (in the terrain we operated in) would be to put the commander in the gunners seat (that way the commander would be able to observe, while the gunner would only be marginally more useless) & have the gunner take the gunners seat if the commander dismounted. For a upgrade, I would suggest eighter a OWS and gain a bit of internal volume or replacing the existing turret, with a one man turret with a autocannon, with the commander in the turret, & the gunner operating the turret from the existing commanders seat behind the driver.

@@oloflarsson7629 I guess if you fitted a lighter weapon you could raise the headroom in the fighting compartment too- did they try to restrict the size of men in the BMP units? Could you use the ATGM (Actually not sure if the Swedish ones had them) and the gun at the same time? Did you ever use the swimming capability? I think the Grom 73mm never really worked out although with the after-mentioned terrible sights it might not have had a far shake, maybe a gun mortar would have worked better? Do you think that Sweden made the right decision to buy them?

@@benlewis4241 The Swedish army barelly started to use the BMP-1, before those units were dispanded, but in my unit (a mixed training company for a officers school) the shortest soldiers tended to be sent to the BMP-1 platoon and the tallest to the CV9040's. Despite that, they were only able to get 6 soldiers into the rifle sections in the BMP-1. As for the missiles we never used them in Sweden. The missiles and 73mm autoloader was removed before the line units got them. The missiles (AT-3) most likely because they were deemed ineffective and the autoloaded because it posed a danger to the gunner.

@@oloflarsson7629 Ouch, that is some downgrade, at that point it would be tempting just to pull the turret off and fit a ring mount HMG for better situational awareness. How err... comfortable was it for the 6 men in the back? Could you actually use the firing ports on the move? The slow rate of fire of Iraqi BMP's (which I think a lot were ex-swedish?) in Mosul makes a lot more sense now. I guess the idea of having a bunch of conscripts having to get their fingers reattached put the Swedes off the autoloader.

I was in IBOLC last year, we didn't dig fighting positions at the halt or dig fighting positions at patrol bases, but there was a whole week dedicated to defensive operations where soldiers got dug in in their patrol base. We DID spend quite a bit of time attacking bunkers and trenches.

Outside of boot camp and MCT I only had to use my E-tool once during my time in the Corps. Granted I was a Reservist and in the Air Wing at that, but I only used it once. It was during a night hump and our CO (good guy really) wanted us to set up our shelter halves while practicing noise and light discipline. But, since most of hadn't touched a shelter half in years, all attempts at noise and light discipline when out the window. We turned on flashlights to be able to actually see what we were doing, and we used our E-tools as improvised hammers to hammer the tent stake into the ground, making a nice racket in the process.

@@Riceball01 Had basic training 2021, If you have nothing else to do dig deeper, pretty much is still in order.

When does the poor sod get some well earned sleep to recharge his batteries and prevent fatigue?

@@markfryer9880 Not much sleeping is done during a 24hr defense, you rest when you are pulling security, out on LP/OP, it's a bit like Ranger School in that regard.

I think the discussion on whether the Russians care for their soldiers has been answered in the Ukraine, and the answer is a positive no they don't. They are still using human wave attacks and criminals to boot.

@@williamreymond2669 This is from my conscript days in the Finnish Defence Forces a few years ago, but pulling this sort of defense was also the norm. I was an NCO, so I was making the duty lists for each night and day for my squad, and in week-long exercises, I'd say each individual got 4 hours of sleep each night if everything went according to plan in the platoon. Although if lacking in manpower due to various reasons, it could be bad. There WAS a 5-day exercise where I equally divided the watch duties as usual. I only got 11 hours of sleep during the whole exercise, and 6 of those were during the last night, and only because I was supposed to drive the next day. Well, I almost fell asleep in the wheel and in hindsight that was reckless.

@@Jumpulaaa In my Ranger School class I did two back to back 72 hour patrols with no sleep at all and five hours of statutory sleep time in between because we were conducting an airborne insertion into the next patrol - five hours on the concrete floor of an aircraft hanger.

And for the tank with worse depression, that means exposing the lower glacis and parts of the bottom as they need to actually go past the top of the ridge.

It's a tradeoff between offensive and defensive. On the offensive it pays to have a smaller tank that is smaller to hit, that will mean sacrificing depression but if you're on the offensive that's not a major sacrifice since you'd rarely get any use out of it. On the defensive being able to better exploit hull down positions and reverse slope positions is paramount because those are the best defensive fighting positions, at the same time having a larger tank makes it more comfortable and thus gives the crew more endurance which is also important on the defensive since you might be sitting there for a while. Making your tank larger is of course still a sacrifice since it is easier to hit theoretically but it's one that is off-set by mostly fighting from positions where most of the tank isn't visible anyways.

@@hedgehog3180 You can argue that defensively, gun depression may also matter less. You have the time and means to better pick a suitable position as a defender or even engineer one if need be. There are always pros and cons to both so it's not going to be as simple as offence versus defence.

Happy to help!

At 1.87m ive never had issues with the 2a6 space. During winter exercises ive literally got my sleeping bag and slept on the gunners position rather than leaving the tank. An abrams might be more roomy but i dont really see much need for it.

The like to like ratio of this reaction and those praising the M1 show this channel's audience consist mainly of 'Murican's /I think, not actually having any experience in either except in wot

@@MarvinWestmaas I have had the experience of briefly sitting in both in quick succession... And I mostly preffered the leopard, if my commander was short... Otherwise you get very intimate with his knees as a gunner

Gun depression: When your KwK 37 L/24 equipped tank meets T34/85 for the first time.

Gun depression: when you realise MBTs have never achieved or surpassed the 128mm caliber of jagdtiger, sturer emil, maus....😢 i hope they make the new panther tank

@@slopedarmor 140mm leclerc t4 "terminateur", 152mm mbt-70, 142mm amx30 acra (ok this one doesn't count). Yeah no mbt ever...

@@tigerbesteverything +Doesn't Rheinmetall already have a functional 130mm prototype in the works that is intended to be the replacement in the future for the 120mm guns most NATO tanks have?

@@johnmcpudding857 normally it's the ascalon gun that will be chosen. the rh one is for the leopard 3, not the mgcs. And the ascalon offers better performance from what i know.

Yes, one of the Periscope Film WWII training films makes this very point.

I mean ofcourse, in all out war as a mechanized brigade, your biggest weakness is a bomb dropped on you - your frontal armor is not going to stop penetration from above, which quite often would become the down fall of allied tanks - I think this is the only era where allied armor was in a disadvantage against tanks Germany produced such a the Tigers.

When it comes to weight-protection ratio, that's a good thing. You want to keep the protected volume as small as possible. More volume means more external surface area that needs to be armored, either increasing weight at the same protection level or decreasing protection level at the same weight.

@@jonny2954 thats why soviet vehicles are better armored than NATO tanks

@@barbarapitenthusiast7103 No, they have comparable level of protection but at a lower weight.

@@jonny2954 depends on the model. T80U were far better armored than anything at the Time but were stil 10+ tons lighter and used less metal, same goes for most soviet vehicles

@@barbarapitenthusiast7103 T-80U was not far better armored than anything at the time.

My guess would be the benefit of being able to reload without having to expose the commander/crew to chemical threats. Sure you can have a remote controlled weapon, but what about reloading it?

so, because you didn't need the room, you were far less comfortable the 99.99% of the time where you were just being in a tank, not changing into gear. German engineering.

@@Evirthewarrior What kind of comment is that even? No, it just ment that there was less requirement for a larger turret. Im sure the german engineers knew what they were doing, they were probably a lot smarter than you.

Does overpressure help against radiation? It would keep particles out, so in a way yes. I suppose the tank armor should protect against radiation. Anyone with expertise on radiation?

@@philippe2715 It all depends upon the source and where it is. The tank's armour (particularly frontal) should help keep the worst of it outside the tank.

And if you're hit, you're slimed.

In Steel Beasts gun depression is also crucial for hull down position, which is basically the most common and preferred tactics to gain an advantage over more numerous enemy tanks.

Idk why they did that, 190cm tall guy can easily perform in any position in leopard

Gunner probably should've communicated that a little better, honestly Call out tank, then say if there's a depression issue. Communication is an importance in vehicles.

Thank you! Panzer is not planned as hard cover just as paperback.

"Flat" is not the same as "short". And the MBT70 was not as short "as possible" if it was intended for up-to-95th-percentile-in-height crewmen. But, yes, a suspension to allow "ducking" was intended, iirc.

@@gandydancer9710 flat is the same as short since we are talking about how tall it is overall. And they made it as flat as possible considering the other factors like crew and gun depression. I specifically mentioned the different approach compared to soviet tanks. Please read the whole note before you comment.

The MBT-70 also lead into the development of the Leopard 2; it was a joint project before it was canceled because the two armies disagreed on some compromises that had to be made to make the tank work.

@@calandryll3284 I read your entire comment the first time and, no, "flat" is NOT the same as "short", full stop. And my observation about it NOT being as short "as possible" remains unaddressed despite your pretense of having done so.

Hydropneumatic Suspension also frees up a considerable amount of space within the hull, enabling the the shull to be lower. The Abrams' has torsion bar suspension which takes up a small amount of volume along the bottom of the hull, needing a taller hull.

It can be a wild ride at times but the topics unearthed can be real gold! Mark from Melbourne Australia

Camo nets too. Had a company commander that insisted we carry our camo nets on our vehicles prepped to set up. If they're prepped you can get it up in 10-30 minutes depending upon vehicle, weather, etc. If you're looking for the spreader bars in the connex it's going to take a minute :) I wonder how effective they'd be vs. drones that can loiter and zoom in on something suspicious.

Originally it was due to Korean War expectations of massed human wave attacks. The idea was that if you had a horde of infantry charging you with satchel charges while getting cover fire from light machine guns, the only position able to fight back would be the commander's, but if he had to pop open the hatch and expose himself to do so, he'd most likely die. Putting him behind armor was just common sense Later it was decided this was also a good solution for the NBC battlefield. Firing ports were meant to allow the infantry to fight back while the vehicle extracted itself from sticky situations. They're actually detrimental in any NBC situation as there is no way to properly seal them unless you go to crazy solutions like the Bradley port-firing weapon.

The Soviets…didn’t really give a shit about quality of the vehicle and never did, equipment quality or usability never existed in soviet/Russian engineering, I suppose because ‘assume everyone is a mobilized conscript who can’t read, who knows Russians are bad at quality, it’s only internet nerds who be like ‘large amounts of good enough!’, as shown in Ukraine it’s not

"On the subject of drones, one wonders just about some kind of jamming of their signals to controllers". Making the jammers targets for a nice HARM missile.

It's OK, come have a seat at the bar with those of us who still had to polish our boots.

Best guess is that a descent set of thermal imagers can see a drone at a similar distance that it could get a fix on the tank. Binoculars would probably be a different story though. But there is a lot of sky to look at & there isn't much out there right now purpose built for killing those sorts of 'scouting' drones. For the time being, the advantage goes to the drones. 2 or 3 years from now might be a very different story.

@@dgthe3 Science fiction solution: Travel within a bubble of anti-drone drones to provide drone cover. Then you don't have to rely on binoculars. I'm sure someone is working on this... it's of a piece with drone escort "pals" for fighters, etc.

Okay?

Are you saying that the USAAF restricted ball turret training to candidates 5'6" or shorter? Link? The Soviets of course DID recruit tank crews from the shorter percentiles of the available pool of candidates. And I do recall of upper limits on the height of British tank crew much more recently, though the affected individual might have exceeded the 95th percentile that Chieftain mentions as a US design criteria (he was, iirc, 6'7"... but in the event got to drive tanks anyway, somehow).

@@gandydancer9710 Yes that is what I was saying.

😵‍💫

Finally someone using the correct meaning of political correctness instead of using it to mean "woke" or some other buzzword like that

Chieftain's idea that the Russians sentenced 10x as many men than the Germans because they had 10 times as many troops is way, way off.

Indeed.