Maus, E-100, and other super heavy tanks

[dy031101]

Just came across this rumour(?) of a Japanese Super-Heavy......

Like how I think of the Type 5 Chi-Ri, I think the secondary 37mm turrets are useless (unless they want to use that with canister shots......)...... but could the main turret have been re-used on a more sensible (for a super heavy) design, assuming the strategic material inventory of Japan wasn't that bad yet in 1944?

[royabulgaf]

With all those rivets, it looks like a contemporary of the Soviet T-35 heavy tank. 

[dy031101]

With all those rivets, it looks like a contemporary of the Soviet T-35 heavy tank.  

That's how Japanese tanks were, except later types were not as bad as early types.

[Doc Yo]

 I suspect the rivets are the artists interpretation of the design, based on its concepts and origins. There
is no solid evidence the thing was ever completed. A page from another site:

http://japan.greyfalcon.us/O.htm

[dy031101]

Posting the question here because I managed to see some flavours of IS heavy tanks from the subject......  

Line art and fan 3D model of the Apocalypse tank from Command & Conquer: Red Alert 2.

From the line art, one can see that the tank has two pairs of sprocket drives and two pairs of track sets.

What quality can possibly come out of this arrangement and/or under what kind of circumstances might this arrangement have become necessary?

(I'm genuinely seeking a second opinion: maybe the tank then cannot be disabled by only breaking one track set, but this is only my uneducated guess......)

[rickshaw]

That arrangement?  Not much.  It has disadvantages in that you have an overly complex drive train and increased maintenance for the crew (double the track maintenance for a start, double the track tensioning, etc).  I've never understood the fascination with twin guns on tanks, myself.   In a turret that size, it complicates loading arrangements and more than likely decreases the actual rate of fire, unless an autoloader is included.  The distance between the barrels also increases dispersion and complicates aiming.

This, on the otherhand:




Is the Swedish UDES-XX MBT trials vehicle which was articulated provided mobility advantages.  The two halves of the vehicle were both driven (independently) and were therefore able to push or pull the other when bogged/trapped by some obstacle.  By placing the ammunition in a completely separate vehicle (the rear one) the crew's safety is increased considerably.  Both halves of the vehicle were considerably lower (ignoring the gun) than a conventional MBT.   The 120mm gun was elevated which conferred advantages with hull down positions.   It did not though, reduce track or vehicle maintenance and with two engines increased it considerably.

The Swedes decided to utilise the turret on a conventional hull, and put it against one with a compact turret:


(yes, they are to scale)

They decided they preferred the compact, rather than elevated turret design and it became a serious contender for the replacement for the Strv-103 "S-tank" in the early 1980s.  A wooden mockup was constructed:



This was however beaten out by the Leopard 2 because of cost.  There were questions as well as about the actual use of a twin gun arrangement (120mm + 40mm).

This is though, straying from the original purpose of the thread.

[dy031101]

The two halves of the vehicle were both driven (independently) and were therefore able to push or pull the other when bogged/trapped by some obstacle.

With that in mind, I suppose that's what the game meant as well by saying "advanced all-terrain treads" (although the game tank is built on a single hull)......

As for the Apocalypse tank (which, IIRC, was said in the game to have an autoloader) having two guns...... well when going beyond mere visual awesomeness, I prefer a single BFG, too......

I'm not that informed with automotive technical details, but can both pairs of sprockets be driven by one engine like a four-wheel drive car/truck (no technical restrictions that were invoked in the WWI Era Armor thread)?

[rickshaw]

The two halves of the vehicle were both driven (independently) and were therefore able to push or pull the other when bogged/trapped by some obstacle.

With that in mind, I suppose that's what the game meant as well by saying "advanced all-terrain treads" (although the game tank is built on a single hull)......

As for the Apocalypse tank (which, IIRC, was said in the game to have an autoloader) having two guns...... well when going beyond mere visual awesomeness, I prefer a single BFG, too......

I'm not that informed with automotive technical details, but can both pairs of sprockets be driven by one engine like a four-wheel drive car/truck (no technical restrictions that were invoked in the WWI Era Armor thread)?

Yes they can.  If you use the same mechanical arrangement that a 4x4 does (ie drive to a transfer case which in turn drives to the axles) but it wouldn't confer the same advantage and more than likely would be overly complex for a tracked vehicle, consuming considerably more interior volume than a single drive vehicle.

In my "Remember Eureka!" thread the Commonwealth of Australasia designs its tanks to utilise electric drive - you can then put a motor on both sets of sprockets, you don't have the mechanical problems and by splitting the drive to each end of the track run you improve efficiency of the track (front sprocketed vehicles are BTW inherently less efficient than rear sprocketed  vehicles as the rear sprocket confers mechanical advantage on the track system by effectively "pulling" rather than attempted to "push" the track under the vehicle.  Having them at both ends ensures that the track has equal tension).   At the moment you can get 600 hp electric motors which fill a volume of about 1x.5x.6 metres.  A 1,000 hp motor is about 1.5x.7x1 metres.   Four of those would consume about the same volume as the vehicle's gearbox and drive train but without the problems of a drive train.  If you adopt right-hand turn reduction gear-boxes the motors can be parallel to the vehicle centreline, allowing a clear way at back or front of the vehicle (hence why I adopted a rear mounted fighting compartment - that would ease conversion to other sorts of AFVs such as SP guns).

Twin guns can be useful as the recent Russian SP gun shows:



But and it is definitely a very big but, this has yet to be proved to be anything more than a gimmicky way of increasing ROF.  A good mechanical autoloader will do that just as easily with a single tube without the complications of trying to absorb the recoil of twin guns.

However, as I've said, the big problem with twin guns on an MBT is dispersion.  They would be inherently less accurate than a single weapon.   Side by side would be worse than the over-under system above, as well.

[ysi_maniac]

That swedish monster is COOOOOL!

[dy031101]

According to this post, this is how the Char 2C bis looks like.

I wonder where they got all those info to detail the rare tanks.

[Mr.Creak]

According to this post, this is how the Char 2C bis looks like.
I wonder where they got all those info to detail the rare tanks.

Hard work!
There's at least one book dealing with the Char 2C (albeit in French).
And, for example, I have photos of the UDES XX-20 directly from the manufacturer after I wrote and asked...

But and it is definitely a very big but, this has yet to be proved to be anything more than a gimmicky way of increasing ROF.  A good mechanical autoloader will do that just as easily with a single tube without the complications of trying to absorb the recoil of twin guns.

Not a problem. AFAIK they use the recoil from one tube to load/ "cock" the other. Probably much like the Gast twin-barrel principle.

[dy031101]

Hard work!
There's at least one book dealing with the Char 2C (albeit in French).
And, for example, I have photos of the UDES XX-20 directly from the manufacturer after I wrote and asked...

Fair enough. 

[sagallacci]

regarding twin guns. As a total whiff, I'd come up with a twin hull transporter for the German 12cm twin flak. Though not exactly a proper tank, it would carry the gun mount  between two hulls side-by-side. The unit could be broken down into three RR loads.
Twin guns for tank-on-tank combat would only make sense, sort of, for a second shot to make up for the first missing, due to ranging error or some such. But more accurate guns and ammo and fast reloading would make that largely unnessisary.

[Sauragnmon]

Or to ease strain on the loader in principle - Having the twin guns means he can load a little bit slower for a sustained barrage, and additionally a twin gun mounting allows a quick first two shots out of an ambush position or similar situation.

[Hobbes]

Posting the question here because I managed to see some flavours of IS heavy tanks from the subject......  

Line art and fan 3D model of the Apocalypse tank from Command & Conquer: Red Alert 2.

From the line art, one can see that the tank has two pairs of sprocket drives and two pairs of track sets.

What quality can possibly come out of this arrangement and/or under what kind of circumstances might this arrangement have become necessary?

This arrangement lowers the ground pressure without making the individual tracks very wide. I don't know if there are practical limits to track width, I'm guessing that turning becomes more difficult if the track is too wide.