SU-76c WIP 19-04-2023 by Fred Maillardet, on Flickr

Very compact. 

Quote from: Dizzyfugu on April 19, 2023, 06:41:19 AMVery compact. 

Indeed

Crew compliment..three and a half 

Looking very neat and quite plausible. 

Quote from: Wardukw-NZ on April 19, 2023, 12:14:30 PMCrew compliment..three and a half 

You could argue that it might be roomier than a Hetzer, having a bit more headspace

Oh its definitely got alot more space than a Hetzer by quite alot but when you consider the Stug IV which sits on a Panzer IV chassis youll be surprised that once all the gubbins goes in the room just seems to disappear.
Ive sat inside both a Leo 1 and 2   and man space is at a premium  even inside something that big .
Still has more space than a Hetzer tho for sure 

If you want space you better go on a ship. And even that can get tight at times. I've been in the U-505 at the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago and it is super tight. Some of the bunks had pipes right overhead so if you sat up too fast you could knock yourself out. And no tall people allowed!

Kerick mate theres no way in hell I'll ever set foot in a submarine..it's got anything to do with claustrophobia.cause I don't have that ..what I do have is the innate ability to hit my freaking head on anything slightly shorter than me and at 6'2 and in a sub ..that's a lot of things.   

Quote from: kerick on April 19, 2023, 07:06:27 PM

Quote from: kerick on April 19, 2023, 07:06:27 PMIf you want space you better go on a ship. And even that can get tight at times. I've been in the U-505 at the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago and it is super tight. Some of the bunks had pipes right overhead so if you sat up too fast you could knock yourself out. And no tall people allowed!

And no tall people allowed!

Dad was 6' and he always seemed to get the top bunk aboard ship. Reckoned that explained a lot 

Didn't the Russian's deliberately recruit/assign shorter guys to their tank crews so they could keep the profiles lower ? Or this that yet another urbane myth ?

Quote from: NARSES2 on April 19, 2023, 11:32:47 PM

Quote from: kerick on April 19, 2023, 07:06:27 PM

Quote from: kerick on April 19, 2023, 07:06:27 PMIf you want space you better go on a ship. And even that can get tight at times. I've been in the U-505 at the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago and it is super tight. Some of the bunks had pipes right overhead so if you sat up too fast you could knock yourself out. And no tall people allowed!

And no tall people allowed!

Dad was 6' and he always seemed to get the top bunk aboard ship. Reckoned that explained a lot 

Didn't the Russian's deliberately recruit/assign shorter guys to their tank crews so they could keep the profiles lower ? Or this that yet another urbane myth ?

I've read and heard the same thing about russian tank crews but what I think it that they made the profile low and then had to find short crews .

Quote from: Wardukw-NZ on April 20, 2023, 12:03:56 AMDidn't the Russian's deliberately recruit/assign shorter guys to their tank crews so they could keep the profiles lower ? Or this that yet another urbane myth ?

I've read and heard the same thing about russian tank crews but what I think it that they made the profile low and then had to find short crews .
[/quote]

Far more probable.

Soviet/Russian doctrine is that tanks are an offensive weapon to be used in the attack. They're designed to have the lowest possible profile while still remaining functional. Crew ergonomics is almost non-existent. Soviet/Russian AFV crews, especially tank crews, are specifically chosen to be within a very tight height & weight range. They can't be to too tall nor too short, but they can't be too fat/muscular either, or they have too much trouble getting into & out of the tank hatches, but they have to be fit enough to be able to perform field maintenance on the vehicle.

Western doctrine is that tanks are a multi-role vehicle & are, therefore, generally bigger & taller than their Soviet/Russian counterparts. This gives Western tanks a distinct set of advantages which, in general, Western militaries believe outweighs the few disadvantages. In particular it gives them almost their entire troop cohort to recruit into their tank units, rather than a small sub-set thereof.

Yeah that's what I thought Guy...makes more sense than to design a tank around a crew as very crew would have to be the exact same just to fit ..much easier to find crews of around the same size but at the end of the day it made no never mind as the russians low profile design proved I didn't work as far back to before the Six Day war.
There's been many many conflicts where we all seen russian armour reduced to scrap ..some of us first hand and the rest in pics...it's the same story no matter where they've been deployed.
Yet the russians don't seem to get the message..their ideas don't work ..they thought a low profile..big gun and their idea of heavy armour was the way to go but clearly not .
We can outgun them in any weather at more than 3 times the range of their guns..our armour is many times stronger and in the hands of experienced crews utterly deadly in a tank to tank fight .
There's a fight going on right now where many many russian armoured vehicles are being  made FUBAR ..I pretty sure the western powers are laughing their heads of at how easy it turns out it is to kill russian armour.
I guess they started to get that picture when the South Africans could destory a T55 with a 60mm gun ..that really starts to put russian armour into respective.

Considering the Thai army got rid of their T-55s IIRC because they got tired of welding the hulls back together again. Its a wonder any Russian tanks made it to the battlefield at all. I wonder how many tanks where the crew was running away from were so broken down they were just sitting ducks. Gotta hand it to the Ukraine troops to put these things back together and try to fight with them.