Too bad there's no one to buy them, you sell it so well

>>65606523
Actually, I'm pretty sure some museums and collectors would pay top dollar for one.

>>65606525
To 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 turret
Only my religious convictions are keeping me from telling you to kill yourself.
That aside, it was designed for the long 75, anon.

>>65606546
By all means, share where your information is from. I'll wait.

>>65606551
What 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?

>>65606558
Yeah, 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 war
it maximizes protection for the lowest weight

the 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 armor
but 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 meaningless
there was a 10-year period at most between the 70s and 80s where all-steel armor was the only option to use against long rods
and 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 war
Except 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 in
That's a very different topic, anon.

>>65606622
>the soviet frying pan is the ultimate evolution of the schamlturm design
Completely different concept.
>with the most possible protection from the forward 60 degree forward arc using only steel armor
You're confusing effectivess with efficiency. If you ignore the latter, you might as well build the Ratte.

File: video_preview_0000.jpg (15 KB, 500x281)

15 KB JPG

>>65606678

>tank
obsoleted 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 weight
the 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 arc

neither 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 rotation
the schmalturm does not have any specific advantage over either of them, except for being able to use welded plates

>>65606633
both 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

>>65606665
how 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 welded
Alright, negro. Sure.

>>65606682
You'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
>80s
the 70s with the yom kippur war and all that

>>65606684
>that it's weaker
for a 10% reduction in hardness, you get a more ballistically efficient shape
it 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 shit
it is a more efficient use of weight, because the aforementioned shape needs less armor for the same volume
this is the exact reason the soviets and the US M48 used this shape, it offered the most efficient ballistic protection
the 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

>>65606700
the yom kippur war was primarily fought using tanks in open ground
the israelis conclusion after facing down egyptian ATGMs was that they needed a better tank, not that tanks were obsolete

>>65606707
Yes, 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 efficien
they literally cared more about weight
the 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

File: 1681429073795303.jpg (143 KB, 1005x817)

143 KB JPG

>>65606768 >>65612907

The problems associated with nickel-free rolled steel go far beyond the imperfections found in cast steel.

>>65606722
>they literally cared more about weight
Let 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 else
We're talking about efficiency in WWII, anon.

>>65606742
Pretty retarded argument since
>what if the steel is bad
Cuts both ways and soviet armour, cast or not, was famous for these issues throughout the entire war.

>>65606764
a hemisphere provides the least surface area for a given volume, which means you need the least mass for a given amount of protection
this is the most perfectly efficient geometric shape to have for the purposes of protection

your 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 protection
the 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

>>65606775
Is that a yes or a no, anon?

>>65606516
the 88 mm would never have fit or worked
it was fine for the KwK 42 L/70

>>65606840
The 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?

>>65606516
It's ugly as fuck though. Would not buy.

>>65606516
Isn'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 lines
Idk 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?

>>65608060
yeah

>>65608167
Those are balls and they housed the rangefinder that required the extra breadth.

File: 1739546642590919.png (552 KB, 867x470)

552 KB PNG

>>65609923

>>65606684
I 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 returns
Could have just answered >>65606797 you know?

>>65609923
the argument is about geometric efficiency
a hemisphere has the best, if your goal is minimizing weight for a given level protection

>Could have just answered
the 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 WWII
You're an adorable little retard, but reading comprehension is not your strength, is it?
>red herring
Nah, 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 heavier
it 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 heavier
Are 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.

File: 20261027_044856.jpg (659 KB, 2301x3504)

659 KB JPG

>>65614315
>>65614669
It'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 Panther
OP'tard is the one making up scenarios

>>65614669
pretty 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

>>65614714
Since 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.
>>65614701
The 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.

>>65614701
ESL?
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.

>>65615185
the argument is about efficiency, which is obviously the purpose of the hemisphere which maximizes protection and minimizes weight
saying 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 herring
the argument is about the ideal geometric shape, which is a hemisphere
it provides more protection for less weight and offers no perpendicular angles for any enemy shot, which allows for even more efficient use of armor
any hypothetical question is irrelevant

>>65615209
>the argument is about efficiency
Efficiency 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 protection
It 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 herring
It 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 irrelevant
Ah, 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.

65606665
Shut the fuck up, ignorant zoomer tourist scum.

>>65606844
Yep. Tiger and Tiger II are cool but totally unnecessary and a massive waste of resources.

>>65619085
The Tiger I was actually pretty effective and efficient and more than made up for it's logistical cost on the battlefield.
The Tiger II not so much.
Granted, with the benefit if hindsight you could just build panthers from the start and add armor over the course of the war for more bang for your buck. But in the historical scenario Tigers are actually underrated nowadays, even if we half all the kill claims of Tiger companies for a more realistic result. I think MHV has a video on it with numbers.

>>65619164
No difference between I, II in terms of 'battlefield effectiveness'
60-ton tanks during WWII far more manufacturing logistical and transportation-hassle cost than any military deployment advantage

>muh video gamer video derp
Nobody cares retard.

>>65619176
Everything you wrote is retarded and wrong, he's not even a gamer and while he's a bit of a pussy, it's always nice to have more people who actually visit the archive and his other sources are publicly available.
You're just posting nonsense, anon.

A problem with German tanks weighing over 40 tons was that the capabilities of recovery vehicles had not been significantly upgraded since the time they were designed to handle Panzer III and Panzer IV.
It appears that transporters capable of recovering heavy tanks with damaged tracks or road wheels were produced only as prototypes.

>>65620652
They made do by using other tanks and tanks without turrets AFAIK.
"Bergetiger."

>>65620652
>>65620779
>recovery
Not just that; main problem was road and (too heavy for most) bridges transportation mobility. And the experiences on the eastern front with bogged Tigers / Ferdinands
Logistically they were a mistake, especially for a large army that relied so heavily on horses

>>65620983
>Ferdinands
Going by the people who actually used them, they were actually really popular and rarely had issues until they were put into the Italian mountains.
Contrary to popular opinion they didn't lose any to enemy infantry on the Eastern front either. Dr. Töppel has written(and talked) about it based on contemporary documents and the dozens of interviews he conducted with veterans.
Their negative reputation is a post-war invention by people who never touched one. For the soldiers that served in them it was basically treated as a guarantee of survival in battle.

>>65606516
Wrong. Rounded turrets are best and there's a reason that everyone went rounded after WW2 before APFSDS took over and you got shit with flatter turret angles like the Abrams and Leopard 2.

>>65621013
>copebabble
Dgaf about the combat record, my post was solely exclusively referring to and commenting on their transport mobility and in marginal soil conditions (of which there was a lot on the eastern front where Germany spent the bulk of its post-1940 ground war effort).
Heavy tanks were a logistical mistake by the Third Reich in balance of the amount of strategic-tactical command energy (navelgazing) and material resources sunk into them.

File: 215164742.jpg (177 KB, 800x629)

177 KB JPG

>>65621113 >>65621622 >>65621835

The Panther suffered from fragile gears, while the Ferdinand was plagued by low power output due to electrical conversion losses; neither seems well-suited for conversion into a recovery vehicle.
Furthermore, a tank with an axle destroyed by a landmine or through overloading could likely not have been recovered by towing alone.

>>65621108
>not have been recovered by towing alone
which gets back to the logic and logistics of pouring resources into 60+ ton battle tanks (on the variable-soil and extreme weather eastern front)

>>65609749
No I knew what those two bulges on the sides of the turret were. I mean the small rings. There looks like there's 6 each on the left and right side of the turret

File: hit distribution chart 1 small.jpg (188 KB, 1005x647)

188 KB JPG

>>65621835

>turret

>>65621108
Can we take a second to admire that truck?

Can you imagine being some french peasant whos primary tool is a horse or ox and who's only ever seen tiny citroens and then seeing that fucking truck in 1944?

>>65621067
>Dgaf about the combat record, my post was solely exclusively referring to and commenting on their transport mobility
One heavily influences the other, newfriend.
>in marginal soil conditions (of which there was a lot on the eastern front where Germany spent the bulk of its post-1940 ground war effort).
Clearly, they've had a lot less issues than you thought, based on their actual performance, (lack of) losses and veteran accounts.
>Heavy tanks were a logistical mistake by the Third Reich in balance of the amount of strategic-tactical command energy (navelgazing) and material resources sunk into them.
That's another conversation, but I think, even including opportunity cost and the like, the Tiger I paid for itself. Ferdinands were just a recycling project and did very well so they're not even in question if we're realistic about it.
>>65621108
When they didn't have a dedicated vehicle around (or a decapitated version of the vehicle in question), they usually just used several normal tanks. And stuck tanks were usually able to provide their own power as well.
I'm not saying you aren't making a point about recovery vehicles and that was an issue pointed out in reports and discussed at high levels too IIRC, however, you're not familiar with the ways they coped with the situation which was a lot less dire than you think.
>>65621597
Turrets look cool.

File: What German Tankmen Thoug(...).png (339 KB, 2518x1213)

339 KB PNG

>>65621849 >>65621904

>>65620652
>>65620983
>>65621013
>>65621067
>>65621835
Pic related

>>65621840
>no mention of zippos or eating the barbecued crews
always gets me

>>65621840
I don't doubt for a second that someone sitting behind 8" of armor steel and the biggest gun on the battlefield liked it, but crew preference doesn't really translate to operational usefulness.

>>65621835
Looks are not a function of firepower.

>>65621904
Most of the time was not actually spent in battle and having a vehicle that gets stuck in battle is not fun, so the ability to reliably move is actually very important for crew preference.
>>65621922
Morale is as important as firepower for any warfare.
Would you want to fight in a war if you'd have to look like a faggot to do it?

>>65622253
If it would give me a combat advantage, sure.

>>65622253
>Morale is as important as firepower for any warfare.
>Would you want to fight in a war if you'd have to look like a faggot to do it?
If your army's will to fight rests on how aesthetic their equipment is, then you will fail the first time it's tested anyway.

File: 001-02.jpg (97 KB, 986x519)

97 KB JPG

>>65622720 >>65622815

Anyone who has read the combat records of German heavy tank battalions will likely have come across several instances where even the tanks sent to recover a stuck vehicle were themselves lost.

>>65621904
>>65622253
Nobody would dispute that crews, themselves, of a Ferdinand loved and had confidence in the superweapon machine.
The deployment maintenance and ability to recover such vehicles (in addtion to the wartime resources required to accomplish those, and the deteriorating strategic war situation overall) is a totally different matter.

>>65622631
This.

File: Molymeme.jpg (72 KB, 598x792)

72 KB JPG

>>65623036

>>65622631
You keep making these passive aggressive posts, but despite your butthurt you're not even making any point. Even if we pretend it's not anedoctal, the same is true for literally every tank model and nobody in the thread is disputing the more difficult recovery of heavy tanks, it was a large source of the losses they suffered.
>>65622720
>had confidence in the superweapon machine.
You're difficult to take seriously when you post stuff like that, anon.
>The deployment maintenance and ability to recover such vehicles (in addtion to the wartime resources required to accomplish those, and the deteriorating strategic war situation overall) is a totally different matter.
Yeah, and the problems there are exaggerated thanks to Guderian tainting the post-war conversation about them.

>>65622815
>tainting
Nobody read or cares about Guderian. The actual end result of and combat / logistical / resource metrics of the war, not so much

>superweapon
= (You), the one claiming all the 60+ ton German tanks were weapons that saved the human race. Germany lost the ground war.
I used that word deliberately as bait and natch you snatched

>>65623036
>Nobody read or cares about Guderian.
Mainstream anglo historians mindlessly quote him to this day.
>combat / logistical / resource metrics of the war,
If they'd care about that and look them up in the archives, they wouldn't quote Guderian, since he contradicts them all the time.
>= (You), the one claiming all the 60+ ton German tanks were weapons that saved the human race.
See? That never happened. You're just a delusional freak.
>I used that word deliberately as bait
>admitting to trolling on /k/
Amazing, anon. Very smart.

File: On the Guderians and thei(...).png (399 KB, 2528x1203)

399 KB PNG

>>65624590
>>65623036
>Inb4 the foremost expert on Kursk is just lying about Guderian's modern reception because reasons, trust me bro

File: HV_N34BWcAE03VC.jpg (124 KB, 685x900)

124 KB JPG

>>65624618 >>65624650

>>65621922
>Looks are not a function of firepower.
>>65622270
>>65622286
Counterargument: German WWI flamethrower helmet

>>65624599
This is like modding or buying cosmetics in a first person perspective video game. You won't even see it. You are just masturbating. Pickelhaube was discontinued in frontal troop use for a reason.

>>65624618
You'll see it in the eyes of your enemies as they die screaming in the flames, anon.

File: ww2-wehrmacht-soldier-liv(...).jpg (190 KB, 866x1390)

190 KB JPG

>>65624629

>>65624623

File: b4sazp.jpg (73 KB, 1074x500)

73 KB JPG

>>65624627

File: 86.jpg (121 KB, 768x576)

121 KB JPG

>>65624599
Looks like they literally hired a stove maker to design and produce.