Tanks-why the square shape of early Tanks? (1 Viewer)

[TomB]

Have just viewed JB post on the Valentine Tank (the muddy and the pristine ) and looking at the sort of stepped shaped front of the Valentine I wondered why early tanks were all box shaped until the advent of the T34 and angled armour ...... Mant years ago I remember seeing a Churchill or Cromwell used as a target for anti tank weapons.....their flat front puzzled me...why ?....because Tin Hats are rounded for a reason...if a bullet or shrapnel strike's the hat at a certain angle it will be deflected...... okay...it does not always work that way.....but the theory was there.......long before tanks were thought of (okay...early sword and sandal days...it would have been easier to make square helmets,,,but some-one thought round was good)....so why did not some-one try a bit of round in the early WW2 tanks ?,,,,,,,The Sherman had a sort of round ..angled front...so some-one thought about it ....some of you Tankies may have some knowledge of early tank design and the "Square is Best" approach......maybe a curved ..lower front would have deflected an incoming round ...up...into the turret...I dont know......maybe some-one does......cheers TomB

 

[Martin Tabony]

I always thought it was just down to the technology of the time. Rolled steel plates as opposed to cast steel etc. Rolled steel was plentyful in the U.K. at the time of the first tanks and there were workers skilled in it's use. Cast hulls can be brittle and have impurities in them. remembering that such things as the Tay Bridge disaster was still within living memory of the first tanks, I'm sure there was a distrust of cast metals.
I think tanks just kept getting bigger and heavier until someone realised that if you angle the armour you increase the width but not the weight.
Now that we have the technology to see inside metals most modern MBTs have gone back to the boxy apearance!

Martin

 

[TomB]

I always thought it was just down to the technology of the time. Rolled steel plates as opposed to cast steel etc. Rolled steel was plentyful in the U.K. at the time of the first tanks and there were workers skilled in it's use. Cast hulls can be brittle and have impurities in them. remembering that such things as the Tay Bridge disaster was still within living memory of the first tanks, I'm sure there was a distrust of cast metals.
I think tanks just kept getting bigger and heavier until someone realised that if you angle the armour you increase the width but not the weight.
Now that we have the technology to see inside metals most modern MBTs have gone back to the boxy apearance!

Martin

I reckon thats covers it......answer to question......thanks....TomB

 

[DMNamiot]

Hi Guys,

That answer covers it in part but there were other factors involved in the early models namely the need to get something done quickly to try and settle things on the western front and restore maneuver to the battlefield. So by using steel plate that was available even if it ment the navy would be slower to produce some ships gave them the materials to adapt to Holt Tractors and eventually a new design, Mk IV, that was better suited to deal with the giant series of trenches in use on the western front. During the interwar period some of the better known tanks from the UK were designed as infantry support platforms that had super thick frontal armor to act as support when assaulting a line of fortifications/bunkers. If you are interested you can look for a couple of books on the development of tanks. A New Excaliber and Rude Mechanicals by AJ Smithers cover this era in depth and will certainly give you the answers you are looking for.

I hope this helps some as well.

Dave

 

[johnnybach]

Another recommended book might be this one Tom. Published back in 1975 - so won't include anything later than Chieftan - it covers almost everything up until then - and mercifully - gives loads of pictures, illustrations and cutaways - describing nicely how they were built and why.

It's widely available in the UK - and Amazon even have it (used) for as low as one penny (plus postage). It was my first book on the subject - and still the best for my money. Happy hunting - johnnybach

 

[TomB]

Another recommended book might be this one Tom. Published back in 1975 - so won't include anything later than Chieftan - it covers almost everything up until then - and mercifully - gives loads of pictures, illustrations and cutaways - describing nicely how they were built and why.

It's widely available in the UK - and Amazon even have it (used) for as low as one penny (plus postage). It was my first book on the subject - and still the best for my money. Happy hunting - johnnybach

Thanks for that..I will have a look around some of the second hand book shops.......Tom

 

[TomB]

Hi Guys,

That answer covers it in part but there were other factors involved in the early models namely the need to get something done quickly to try and settle things on the western front and restore maneuver to the battlefield. So by using steel plate that was available even if it ment the navy would be slower to produce some ships gave them the materials to adapt to Holt Tractors and eventually a new design, Mk IV, that was better suited to deal with the giant series of trenches in use on the western front. During the interwar period some of the better known tanks from the UK were designed as infantry support platforms that had super thick frontal armor to act as support when assaulting a line of fortifications/bunkers. If you are interested you can look for a couple of books on the development of tanks. A New Excaliber and Rude Mechanicals by AJ Smithers cover this era in depth and will certainly give you the answers you are looking for.

I hope this helps some as well.

Dave

Thank you.....I think the tank in the early days...as .. an infantry support weapon .... would have been better with a armoured bulldozer blade in front.... I dont think much thought was given to Tank verse's tank...(aircraft certainly went way beyond what was visualized as a purely a means of spying from the air) I dont think anyone had forseen the great tank battles to come...I am just puzzled why it took so long to get away. from the boxshape......a flat surface is beaut for blowing holes in....(as pointed out.....in a previous post..lack of knowledge of the properties of Iron/steel and skill in the steel industries had a lot to do with the square shape )...lack of component designers might also be the answer......thanks for the reply.....ToMB

 

[TomNT]

Just goes to show Tom that some Russian tank designer or engineer turned everything on it's head as far as tank design goes when he introduced the world to the T34 and it's sloping armour!

Tom

 

[TomB]

Just goes to show Tom that some Russian tank designer or engineer turned everything on it's head as far as tank design goes when he introduced the world to the T34 and it's sloping armour!

Tom

Hit the nail on the head there mate....cheers TomB

 

[fmethorst]

Another factor is interior space. Note how the T-34 turret evolved from highly sloped on the early models to much more vertical on later models. The early two man turret was a major deficiency in the design.

The T-34 is often looked at as a eureka moment in armor configuration but the concept wasn't new. German armored cars and halftracks employed the principle in their design as well. Sloping the armor increases the amount of steel the enemy round must penetrate without having to increase the thickness of the armor.

Frank

 

[TomB]

Another factor is interior space. Note how the T-34 turret evolved from highly sloped on the early models to much more vertical on later models. The early two man turret was a major deficiency in the design.

The T-34 is often looked at as a eureka moment in armor configuration but the concept wasn't new. German armored cars and halftracks employed the principle in their design as well. Sloping the armor increases the amount of steel the enemy round must penetrate without having to increase the thickness of the armor.

Frank

German armored cars,,,,,very good point.....I had noticed the sloped armor on the cars and other vehicles...but the penny did not clicked ,,,......it does make one wonder why the principle was not applied to the early German tanks ? maybe the tank/vehicle mobs did'nt share their idea's or the Tank mob reckon they knew everything and ignored the other mob......maybe just as well.....something to think about....TomB

 

[Mitch]

It was certainly a good idea in terms of the Tiger I. sloping armour did not stop German 75mm and 88mm guns savaging the Russian armoured units. If I had to be in a Tiger or a T-34 with so called revolutionary armour I would choose the square shaped tiger.

The idea was sound but, Russian manufacturing was not brilliant. Sloping armour was shown how effective it could be with things like the panther and Konigstigers.
Mitch

 

[DMNamiot]

Hi Guys,

Some of what has been bantered around here is acurate and some is a little off in regards to the T34. The T34 was a step in the evolution of the tank that was based upon the design sold to the Soviets by Mr Christie from the US in the early 1930s. The T34 is a direct decendent of the original BT/Christie series Tanks especially the BT-5 which was armed with the 76mm Gun. They also took the V2 diesel engine from the BT 8 along with many lessons learned from the combat actions in Spain, especially with regard to the thickness of the armor on the turret of the BT 5 (15mm) and hull (22mm), which found to be very inadequate, and incorporate them into what finally evolved as the T34.

Now on the issue of the shape of the original tanks they were limited by the technology of the day with regard to casting of steel. So the logical step was to make use of what was available in the rolled steel plate from navy stores used to make gun turrets etc. Which was basicly large square sheets of various thickness steel that were heat treated to various hardness levels and then riveted in place onto a frame. As was mentioned by Frank the plates are placed at angles to make the armor thicker without adding more weight. You also have to remember that these early tanks were designed to destroy bunkers and enemy trenches and they hadnt been designed for tank vs tank fights of the future. So there really wasnt a need for a lot of slope on the plating to deflect shot or sabot rounds. They were effective against small calibre MGs and field guns but they could only be made so big/heavy or they would not have been able to maneuver or bring maneuver back to the battle field. Thats partly why you see such a difference in the make up of the MK IV types and the Medium A or Whippet. The Mks were for supporting the infantry and the Whippets were designed for use as a Cavalry type of asset to be used to exploit the rupture of the line created by the Mks and the Infantry attacks. See the photos for some of the obvious differences in the WWI Tanks. I have some photos of the T34 someplace as well and will look for them. Hope that this answers some of the questions you have.

Dave

Dave

 

[johnnybach]

Dave - those clothes don't fit you. jb

 

[DMNamiot]

Hi Johnny,

I wish I was as thin as my number one son!{sm4}

Dave