Talk:Shot trap

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

---

Shot traps → Shot trap — Article naming convention is to use the singular name (Hohum ^@) 22:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No discussion before reversion

I am posting here because of a request from the Milhist page.

Please stop this revert war now. There is not a single word on this page discussing the issue and working towards a resolution. There is not a single tank that had a convex mantlet that didn't have this issue. There is also much to be discussed in attempts to solve the issue besides the lip angles of the mantlet! Neither Hunnicutt nor Zaloga, while well respected is above making mistakes! Also, might I suggest BuOrd has reports issued that can further enlighten this issue. There was also an attempt to us a mantlet called a (and excuse me here I am working from a memory over a decade old) smallturm or circular manlet over the barrel on some German tanks of WW2. The Panther V in This book, although a Pen and Sword book, list this exact problem in the Pather V.

Combat: Guderian's Problem Child By Bob Carruthers

This Master's thesis goes into it in more detail: https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1517&context=masters

Only two authors have attempted to tell the M26’s full story: Richard Hunnicutt and Steven Zaloga. Both Hunnicutt and Zaloga have conducted extensive research and produced the most detailed analysis to date. Hunnicutt’s Pershing: A History of the Medium Tank T20 Series (1996), a 238-page bolt-by-bolt study, is without argument the defining work on the M26. Zaloga’s works serve as a good supplement to Hunnicutt’s perspective. Zaloga tells the story in Osprey’s New Vanguard Series M26/M46 Pershing Tank. He then takes his study a step further in Osprey’s Duel Series and conducts a fascinating comparison between the M26 and both the ... In the tank world, Hunnicutt and Zaloga’s works are the monoliths against which all others are compared, and, rightly so; however, both historians never include footnotes, making follow-up study a nightmare. Zaloga does give further reading lists, whereas Hunnicutt lists his sources at the end of his work but gives no detailed location information. This omission and the others above suggest that there is still room for an exhaustive study of this important armored fighting vehicle (AFV). This thesis only scratches the surface on the total sources available. Moreover, fresh sets of eyes on the same archival materials will undoubtedly create exciting new and important arguments. To a very limited degree, that took place with this work. This thesis offers a narrative-friendly perspective that includes personal accounts and uses new sources wherever possible. It attempts to linger where Zaloga and Hunnicutt have summarized, particularly with combat accounts of the M26 and in the telling of the controversially slow fielding of the Pershing.

Physics plays no favorites. There is a reason that there is not a single modern tank with a convex mantlet. You can not armor a tank well in all positions and still have the tank move. There remains a lot of work to be done on this stub and revert wars are not going to change that. Regards Tirronan (talk) 18:58, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

The issue is not with Hunnicutt, he is a well respected source. The issue is with the obvious and bizarre removal of content (explanatory images) when adding a small amount sourced to Hunnicutt. (Hohum ^@) 23:19, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

OK, and how does anyone know that when you two were not on the talk page? I'd suggest putting in a section on a proposed revision and then you both can work it out to an acceptable morph. Tirronan (talk) 01:51, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Because it seemed so obvious. My mistake. (Hohum ^@) 17:47, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Example images, rewording.

Hunnicutt source says this about the Pershing shot trap.

The third production T26E5, serial number 10009, during tests at Fort Knox. The gun mount cover has been removed and the massive gun shield is exposed. Note an almost square edge has replaced the curved lower part of the standard shield. This was an attempt to minimize the shot trap caused by the lower edge of the shield in much the same way as the Germans modified the late production Panther G.[1]

It seems only the single T26E5 prototype had the chin, not any other Pershings.

I have also added images of the Tiger and Panther changes. There doesn't seem to be a T26E5 image on commons to use.

Is there a source for the KV shot trap?(Hohum ^@)

Deals only with turrets

There are plenty of other examples of shot traps on older types of tanks. Could this not be illustrated and discussed further? Flanker235 (talk) 15:31, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Do you have some reliable sources to use for this? (Hohum ^@) 00:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)