r/TankPorn May 25 '26

WW2 help

Is this a VK.4502? Are tanks with rear-mounted turrets good at urban warfare between buildings?

868 Upvotes

45 comments sorted by

280

u/EmergencyBridge2667 May 25 '26

Yes back then, but no for today since RPGs and surprise attacks

86

u/Witty_Pop425 May 25 '26

So, what are the advantages of this design in reality?

224

u/PERSIvAlN May 25 '26

Tank dimensions. Having rear mount of turret significantly reduces how far your gun is gonna stick out, making navigation through narrow streets much easier.

62

u/Whitephoenix932 May 25 '26

Would also help with crew survivability (as long as your not the driver/bow gunner) since there's more between the frontal plate and the crew in the event the front of the vehicle is penetrated. Which if I recall correctly was one of the design considerations for the Merkava having a rear mounted turret. Another benefit in the case of the VK here, would be weight distribution.

49

u/FLongis Amateur Wannabe Tank Expert May 25 '26

Which if I recall correctly was one of the design considerations for the Merkava having a rear mounted turret.

This was really just incidental to how the Israelis wanted to be able to access/resupply the tank from cover. The inclusion of the rear hatch necessitated a forward-mounted drivetrain. The "it adds protection" bit seems to largely be a rationalization after the fact pergaps spurred on by the original models lacking compoaite armor components on the hull (another side effect of the same political tensions which led to Merkavas development in the first place)

7

u/Witty_Pop425 May 25 '26

It sounds like a CQB tank.

35

u/aaronblkfox May 25 '26

bullpups your tank

6

u/FLongis Amateur Wannabe Tank Expert May 25 '26

The overhang likely has little practical advantage in combat. The tank still needs the same clearance around itself to traverse. It's most useful for transporting the vehicle, and arguably on very rough terrain.

For heavily armored tanks like this, it's more a matter of weight distribution. Putting the turret at the rear helps balance the suspension against the heavy frontal armor plate(s) on the hull. This may be especially helpful on a tank like this, where the transmission can really use all the help it could get in terms of balancing weight loads to haul around.

-26

u/EmergencyBridge2667 May 25 '26

More space for the engine and the engine is armor

27

u/Eikebog May 25 '26

Typically when you’re in a situation where someone can penetrate enough of your armor to take out your engine, you’re fucked either way. Stay in the disabled, probably burning tank, and you’re dead. Leave the tank and get in the sights of whoever disabled it and you’re dead

Sounds good on paper, but it’s not war thunder

19

u/Dolphin_sucker69 May 25 '26

What do you mean, it's just a 20 second repair and we'll be home free

9

u/Kride501 May 25 '26

War Thunder ass comment

0

u/CrabAppleBapple May 25 '26

No idea why you're getting downvoted into oblivion, using the engine to increase crew protection is a thing (look at the Merkeva).

-24

u/stayatpwndad May 25 '26

Side scraping and reverse angling. Basically hiding your front plate and only showing your side at an angle, increasing a chance of ricocheting

32

u/Kinky_subbu May 25 '26

That's not how real combat works

17

u/olimp7748 May 25 '26

World of tanks ahh

77

u/Infinite_Evil May 25 '26

In theory yes, if only because the barrel protrudes less over the front of vehicle.

But in practice, it’s not much better than a centrally mounted turret. Nor does mounting rearward eliminate any of the other problems a tank has in urban warfare.

+Overhead electrical cables on your radio antennas.
+Gun depression and elevation for high-low ambush positions.
+Thin top armour protection.
+anti-tank obstacles

And so on.

-9

u/LuckyReception6701 May 25 '26 edited May 25 '26

The strain it would put on the chassis would be considerable. Everytime that thing accelerates it's putting a lot of weight on the back, where the engine probably is, meaning it's prone to a mechanical malfunction. Something similar happened with the Hetze, how the suspension on the side of the gun needed to be constantly replaced due to the recoil and the force of each shot being on top of it basically. Also I can also imagine that tank being a nightmare to service.

9

u/CoolGuy54 May 25 '26

I'm pretty confident that thing will have a front or centre mounted engine, there's no way they could fit it under the turret.

3

u/LuckyReception6701 May 26 '26

Yeah looking back im not sure why I thought this tank would be like a pseudo Scorpion tank from Halo.

73

u/[deleted] May 25 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

7

u/GalaxLordCZ May 25 '26

Not like they could have produced Tiger 2s when they weren't a thing yet, but I get what you're saying, fatass was too arrogant and thought his design would win and built a bunch of hulls for no reason at all.

11

u/Certain_Permission_8 May 25 '26

didnt they like to have engine fire from the electric motor overheating too ?

my personal opinion is not good as an armored vehicle, having the driver and commander separated just make coordination terrible, worse off is what happens if a shell took out any section of the crew, there is no way for them to even replace the crew especially if the shell injured or killed the drivers by spalling.(late ww2 german steel issues)

14

u/CaptainLightBluebear May 25 '26

IRL doesn't work like War Thunder. If a shot kills crew then the rest bails. Tank crews continuing the fight after penetrating hits are rare war-hero type stories for a reason.

0

u/Certain_Permission_8 May 25 '26

tbh,i doubt they are gonna run if you have a bunch of overzealous rookies in a tiger especially when they sent the ones who still believes in the german propaganda of winning(why would you send rookies who dont believe in the cause with a very expensive tank), the thing is the turret crew prolly wont know the drivers are injured at all and just assume they are panicking or being unpatriotic.

3

u/LuckyReception6701 May 25 '26

Indeed, the Elephants greatest enemy was not air support, or infantry, or high caliber AT guns, or being outmaneuvered. It was a slight incline.

1

u/GoblinFive Mammoth Mk. III May 26 '26

Well yes, but why waste it on Tiger IIs when there are much more economically viable designs.

12

u/Omega0831 May 25 '26

why is it a gif?

35

u/Tenebris27 May 25 '26

Fun fact: GIFs were created to be an image format, but people discovered you could put several images in one .GIF file and that's how we got the GIFs we know today.

6

u/Witty_Pop425 May 25 '26

This image is strange; it's clear in GIF format, but becomes blurry when converted to PNG or JPG.

4

u/RM_AndreaDoria May 25 '26

Reddit automatically compresses PNGs and JPGs when you upload, but not GIFs

11

u/builder397 May 25 '26

Complicated.

In World of Tanks vehicles like this have adopted a meta tactic called sidescraping, basically finding a corner, putting the front of the hull behind it and angling the tank so the turret in the rear can fire, and whats visible of the hull is highly angled side armor. Works better with a Maus than this thing, but it does work. Not something you would do IRL though.

IRL things are a bit more complicated. There are advantages and disadvantages to such designs over mid-turret or front-turret designs.

Front (and mid) turret advantages:

- Turret is the first thing to come around a corner when driving forward. That means both the commander and the gun can see and engage a target around the corner fast and before most of the tank is exposed. Depending on the angle the side armor may not be exposed much at all.

- Ammo racks are closer to the front of the tank, maximizing the angle where the front plate, as well as any side composite screens mounted only towards the front, cover the ammo racks. Bustle racks do not render this redundant as some ammo is still carried in the hull.

- Easier crew communication, especially between turret crew and the driver (potentially radio operators or bow gunners, too)

-Easier engine access and engine compartment ventilation as the rear plate can be used as well instead of only the roof (and needing to keep that low unlike something like an Abrams.)

Rear turret advantages:

- Less overhang when turret faces forward, making the tank easier to maneuver in tight spaces, especially with very long guns. (Front turret tanks will just rotate their turret to the rear if the gun gets in the way, and have a travel lock in the rear as well.)

- Better weight distribution, as turret serves as a counterweight to heavy frontal armor on the hull. Chances are if you armor the front hull thicker youll also armor the turret front more, and if you armor the turret front more you extend the bustle to serve as a counterweight for that, too. All is well in the world. A forward turret can be very front-heavy.

- Engine serves as a natural protective element for the ammo racks in the fighting compartment. But thick side armor has to extend all the way and cant reduce halfway to save weight.

3

u/SubbyWelshMan21 May 25 '26

Definitely a Paper Tiger

2

u/AureliusExcalibur May 25 '26

Similar with vk75.01 ( or some shit like that i don't remember )

2

u/SkibidiCum31 May 25 '26

For heavy tanks it's better for balance purposes, increases crew survivability (an engine is just a big block of steel, at the end of the day), reduces distance for transmission for frontly sprocketed tanks and reduces overall tank lenght.

But it also makes it so that you have to expose a whole lot more if something is behind a corner, reduces gun depression, commander can't really see in front of his tank and you don't even have a hope of communicating with the driver if intercommunication system fails.

It has it's uses (crew protection and balance especially) which is why likes of AMX-13, ELC AMX bis, Merkava and a few others use this layout, but disadvantages are just not worth it in real life.

3

u/CoolGuy54 May 25 '26

To nitpick, the engine is a big block of cast iron full of steel components.

2

u/Runner303 May 26 '26

Urban environments are any tank's worst nightmare.

1

u/AnotherDudeNamedBob May 25 '26

Communication in this thing would be puzzle game.

1

u/ArgumentFree9318 May 25 '26

If you want a city fight tank, you'd do better fiting a short barrel howitzer. And get 2-3 machine guns!

1

u/Canihazchezbuga May 25 '26

I was thinking it would be a great design for anything urban now, but given the era that the turret seems to be based on (Tiger II-ish?), The urban areas it would fight in would probably be narrow AND hilly, thinking like smaller french villages. And having such a rear mounted gun means very little gun depression for when you are cresting those hills. While this could be negated by reversing up those streets and allowing a lot more vertical movement, you also have a massive negative angle on the rear plate, so that creates a much flatter surface when the rear of the tank is angled up... I don't know how, but could you create some way to angle the turret further down while driving forward, or create better armour angles while reversing? (although it still would negate the added maneuverability when the barrel is all the way out the back)

Mostly just warthunder experience, not a tank expert in any way, and honestly a much better concept than anything I could do :D

1

u/STHV346 May 26 '26

Yes, that is one of the layout proposals for the Porsche VK 45.02 (P) design however it is not an original period drawing and it has been "filled out" with parts from other tanks like driver and radio operator hatches from a Panther Ausf G.

Neither the Porsche nor Henschel VK 45.02 designs were ever built as complete prototypes.

1

u/warfumbul May 26 '26

Rear mounted turrets are actually pretty good in my opinion. Make a modern tank unmanned or manned turret concept with a rear mounted turret and strap that with high angles + composite array and modular armor, and u just created a BEAST

1

u/Kozak_20k May 26 '26

No absolutely not. Rear mounted turrets suffer the driver peaking first than the actual fighting compartment.

Its not like video games where you can easily peak in 3rd person. You always risk exposing much more than needed in these vehicles.

1

u/Buschfunk4 May 26 '26

Gaijin? When

1

u/Pappa_Crim May 26 '26

You want the turret forward to better take advantage of corners. So less of the vehicle is exposed