RC Tank Warfare community hobby forum

T-72 with snorkel and Commander's observation tube. Well, it looks a bit like a stretched conning tower It could prove tricky, I'd guess, if the crew below had been consuming lots of pickles and beans... or smoking 'loco weed'


I imagine a recce team will have worked out the maximum depth of the river, before the tank takes a dip

I think I saw a snorkle-equipped T-72 in Bovington, but I'm pretty sure it didn't have the Tower of Bable on top of it. Hobart was famous for his 'Funnies' (task specific adaptations) in WW2.
Now, It looks like his ghost is still at work in Russia. In any event, and surprisingly enough, it's not necessary to look very far to find a real jaw-dropper in the WoT

This topic grabbed my attention when I was looking for suitable reference pics on the TauchPanzer 111 (I've a Taigen TP 111 project waiting impatiently..) Somehow, I found myself diverted to pics of this Russian diving Tank, instead: the T-72 (Maybe it should be dubbed the 'U-72.... )
A few thoughts on the Tank:-
The mountings holding the Commander's observation tube to the turret, must have been incredibly strong. Water weighs around 1 ton for every cubic meter, and so that Commander's conning tube would have had to have withstood scary external forces, when cutting through the flow (especially if the river was flowing swiftly ).
It must have taken quite a while to fit the Commander's viewing tube, especially as it doesn't look as if the Tank could transport it in the prone position. (Support truck needed?) The snorkel for the engine could be put in place in 20 mins., apparently, and ready for action in two.
Did the crew have any form of escape breathing apparatus, of the type that used to be issued to submarine crews?
If the driver had a beef with the commander, he could always 'forget' the CO was perched up there, as the tank entered the trees beside the river.....
In a way, the Observation tube could be useful in a very hull-down position; but would have needed a tree-branch or bush disguise, or the CO would have been easy for a sniper to notch up.

This T-72A has the snorkel neatly stowed on the rear of the turret. I guess the snorkel has a telescopic action, when extending
Here's the T-72 with a snorkel, at Bovington. This version could cope with rivers that were 5mtrs deep (16'4')

interesting.
In the OP, the picture with the tank in the water doesn't show the rear snorkals. But the water doesn't hit the 3m mark. The later pic from Bovington has a smaller diameter snorkal.
I assume a couple of points from this:-
The tank has valves in the exhaust to prevent air/water ingress. Possibly capable to 3m water depth. The Bovington example is therefore capable to 3m depth but the driver has no visibility. Not clear if they can get the hatches open at this depth. This could be "standard kit" as its easily stowed.
To cross a deeper water the exhaust snorkals are required as the engine can't push the valves open against the water pressure. A taller air in snorkal is also required, so they fitted the larger diameter one so the commander can see where they are going and how bad the water is. The biger tube is also required as this is probably the escape route for the crew. The water pressure being to high to open any hatches at 5 m.
Obviously water depth is stated from the ground so the commanders hatch is about 2m above this. Hence it may be possible to open the commanders hatch with only 1m of water above it.
I assume this is a full NBC proofed vehicle so it is air tight for that reason and hense also has the submersible capability.

Vertigo wrote:interesting.
In the OP, the picture with the tank in the water doesn't show the rear snorkals. But the water doesn't hit the 3m mark. The later pic from Bovington has a smaller diameter snorkal.
I assume a couple of points from this:-
The tank has valves in the exhaust to prevent air/water ingress. Possibly capable to 3m water depth. The Bovington example is therefore capable to 3m depth but the driver has no visibility. Not clear if they can get the hatches open at this depth. This could be "standard kit" as its easily stowed.
To cross a deeper water the exhaust snorkals are required as the engine can't push the valves open against the water pressure. A taller air in snorkal is also required, so they fitted the larger diameter one so the commander can see where they are going and how bad the water is. The biger tube is also required as this is probably the escape route for the crew. The water pressure being to high to open any hatches at 5 m.
Obviously water depth is stated from the ground so the commanders hatch is about 2m above this. Hence it may be possible to open the commanders hatch with only 1m of water above it.
I assume this is a full NBC proofed vehicle so it is air tight for that reason and hense also has the submersible capability.

Thanks for the added details and thoughts. I guess the design changed numerous times through trial (and possibly fatal) error. The pic at the top shows the tank with twin tubes on the engine deck, in addition to the observation tube. I'd surmise that the engine deck tubes are for the air intake, and exhaust. The rolling resistance of the three pipes (above), with their impressive dimensions, really must have been considerable. They also look pretty unwieldy. No doubt the storage, and transport ,difficulties prompted revisions.
The T-72 A looks to have had a more refined compact system. There's a small periscope on the turret, but that wouldn't be any use when deep fording. I suppose a compass could be used. Guidance is given over the radio, apparently.

In the quest to find something a bit unusual for a project, I came across this Pz IV tank that had been converted to 'Tauchpanzer' configuration (Ducking/diving Panzer). A few were built, apparently.


and here's a custom built one undergoing immersion trials, in a tempting looking swimming pool Some observers thought a mistake had been made, in using a Panzer IV instead of the Pz 111.

..and here's a Pz 111 Tauchpanzer, destined for 'Operation Sealion'- an op. which turned out to be a figment of Hitler's fevered imagination.
This Tauchpanzer appears to have an umbilical cord type of Snorkel which, when unravelled, would have allowed the tank to travel underwater at a depth of 15 mtrs...
Yes, but in what direction? Without a compass or periscope, the tank could have been hopelessly lost. I'm also guessing that escape from a TP Pz 111 following engine, or track failure, would have been almost impossible.

I have the HL Tauchpanzer upper, and a StuG 111 upper hull as well. My plan is to use the Taigen Pz 111 alloy/ABS hull as the base, and alternate between the two upper hulls. That's two tanks for the price of one, effectively. Or, I should say- one tank and an assault gun cum tank-destroyer.
The HL Tauchpanzer upper comes with the later, and much shorter, 3.5-metre snorkel intended for fording rivers:

If I were to attempt the umbilical cord version, seen in the pic, I'm just wondering where I'd find scale flexible tubing to approximate 15 metres of snorkel?
Incidentally, The PZ 111's sitting on a lazy Susan I was given. It has a fantastic smooth and robust bearing under it. It was originally intended for cheese, so if you like your camembert served with a Pz 111, this is a great option.

I use an IKEA turntable. Have for years. Can’t work without it now !

With these so-called 'submersible tanks, I cannot understand how they would have waterproofed the turret joint to the hull? By it's very nature the turret is designed to turn, and with something as heavy as a turret, there is bound to be some movement vertically, no matter how good the bearings and seals. Short of having kamikaze crews I think these designs were absolute folly.

The floating Shermans were about the only design I can think of that represents a sensible means of getting a tank across water unaided by pontoon or buffalo type vehicle.

Alwyn

HERMAN BIX wrote:I use an IKEA turntable. Have for years. Can’t work without it now !

This one's brilliant, HB., the glass is also toughened in the event of some wee mishap
I have a Tamiya one, with 'bulldog'-style retaining clips built in. It's handy for holding individual components, but not nearly as much use during a daubing session. For me, the Cheddar Carousel win hands down
This is what my Tamiya one looks like (but the models aint from my stable...