I LOVE this TANK Thread

I'm just finishing up a 3-D computer model of a WWII Soviet SU-100 tank (pictured below), and wondered why some tanks were designed without a turret. Was it just to save on production cost, or was it done to make the hull stronger?

Isn't that really a tank destroyer? I think they're technically considered self-propelled mobile artillery, not tanks.

I'm not sure what their technical designation is, but the SU-100 was built on the chasis of the T-34 tank. The question remains, why build them this way? Doesn't it make them vulnerable to attacks from the flanks?

SU-100 is a tank destroyer.

From wiki:


The use of a fixed or casemate superstructure in place of the rotating turret found on normal tanks (except for almost all American WW II designs) confers both strengths and weaknesses upon the tank destroyer. Dispensing with the turret makes tank destroyers significantly cheaper, faster and easier to manufacture than tanks. Tank destroyers can also be fitted with larger superstructures, allowing accommodation of a bigger cannon than could be mounted in a turreted tank on the same chassis, and increasing the vehicle's internal volume, allowing for increased ammunition stowage and crew comfort.[1] Eliminating the turret also allows the vehicle to carry thicker armor than would otherwise be the case.
But

I guess the point is that it's not a main battle tank, and isn't used the same way. It was treated like an artillery piece, and not intended for fighting infantry. In effect, it's a howitzer with an engine and some armor, not a tank with a missing turret. I suspect that the turret was seen as an unnecessary (and expensive) complication.

But I'm not an expert by any stretch, and I'm interested to hear from those who know more than I do about it.

I love this quote from wiki :


(the SU-100) was quite capable of defeating any German tank in service, for which Soviet soldiers gave it the obscene nickname "Pizdets vsemu" ("Fucking end to anything")

More room for fly chicks.




.

Think artillery with tracks for mobility, not tank.

The SU-100 was relatively rare in WW2, so it was generally only used in situations where the Soviets expected to encounter German tanks. However, the Germans utilized tank destoyers extensively and usually as direct replacements for tanks.

Not artillery. It was a tank that was specially designed for killing other tanks.

much lower profile also, makes it easier to conceal.

mainly used as a cheaper defensive unit.

Much like the Ural, then.

The file photos I used for reference reveal that fit & finish on Soviet tanks was incredibly bad - almost as if they'd been built out of mud.

Nice.


Nice models, BTW. What are you going to use them for?

That's not really correct. There is very little elevation available on a tank buster. An artillery piece would lob shells into the kill zone. These were made to be placed behind berms and destroy tanks that would come into their kill zone.

I know jack shit about armor (hate it actually) but i do watch the history channel.....well until the snowpocalypse kills the power that is.

It's just a hobby of mine. I've always loved WWII tanks and aircraft. I built hundreds of scale models of them as a kid. With professional 3-D software like Solidworks 2010, I can make much more detailed full scale representations:





Eventually I plan to creat photo-realistic renderings using Modo 501 (once I figure out how to use the software).

Please post a pic once you have it done.

I will if I ever figure out how to use the damned program.

Have a look here to see what Modo 501 is capable of:

http://www.luxology.com/modo/tour/rendering.aspx