网帖翻译

1、the idea of what a tank was and what its for was very much still in the air.

当时，坦克是什么以及坦克的用途，在理念上还相当不明确呢。

Different countries took different lessons from the war before and made different decisions, everyone made mistakes. Even the most populwar ww2 tanks had flaws often quite extreme ones, especially in the early models.

不同的国家从过去的战争中吸取了不同的教训，于是就作出了不同的选择，而每个国家都犯过各种错误。连最热门的二战坦克都有缺陷，而且通常都是很极端的缺陷，特别是早期的型号。

Every decision is a tradeoff and designers valued different things, the very low profile and sloped armor of tanks like the t-34 made it incredibly cramped compromising the crews ability to operate at peak effectiveness and made rapid escapes from a damaged vehicle harder.
Bigger gun will be slower to load due to the heavier shell and the larger breach making the turret more cramped, heavier armor will make a vehicle slower etc etc.

每一个决定都是一次经过权衡的折衷，而且设计者看重的方面也是不同的，像T34这种非常低矮的车身以及非常倾斜的装甲会让内部空间变得极为局促，这会让乘员折损一部分发挥顶级作战效能的能力，也会让迅速逃离受损车辆变得更难。
尺寸更大的火炮装填也会更慢，因为炮弹会更重，而更大的缺口会让炮塔变得更拥挤，更重的装甲会让车辆变慢，诸如此类。

At the break of ww2 tank combat was in its infancy and nobody realy knew what would turn out to be the best decisions.

二战爆发的时候，坦克战刚刚问世不久，没有人真正清楚什么样的设计才会是最佳的选择。

As a sidenote the lee was very much a "fuck we need a tank right now" thing.

补充一下，M3李坦克是“火烧眉毛了都，我们急需一款坦克，而且现在就需要”这种心态的产物。
（回复）I agree, different nations all had different priorities for tank doctrine at the time. The lee was 100% a quick stopgap, and I think even the US new that. The sherman was a huge step forward for the US with its biggest flaw in my opinion being its height and relatively lacking armor. But even those two flaws have pros on the other hand, like speed and crew comfort respectively.
我同意，当时，不同的国家的坦克理论优先考虑的方面都是不同的。M3李完全就是个权宜之计，是在短时间内突击出来的，而且我觉得连美国自己都很清楚这一点。M4谢尔曼的出现，标志着美国向前迈进了一大步，在我看来它最大的缺陷就是高度，以及装甲相对薄弱。但就算存在这两大缺陷，它也是有优点的，比如速度和乘员舒适度。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处

American tank doctrine was also mainly based on infantry support, so you could even say that the extra size and height was to cover infantry behind (I have no idea if that was the case). But those are just a few reasons for the odd shapes and designs, there's probably a plethora of others.

美国的坦克理论也主要是以步兵支援为根基的，所以你甚至可以认为，额外追加的尺寸和高度是为了掩护后方的步兵（我不清楚是否真是如此）。但这些只是其古怪造型和设计背后的一部分原因，很可能还有很多别的原因。
（回复）To a large extent, Russian tank crews are still sexted on their ability to fit in a tank. I'm a little over 6'2, but I am too tall to sit in the drivers seat of a light armoured vehicle and close the hatch!
苏俄在选择坦克乘员时，很大程度上考察的是其身材和坦克相匹配的能力。我的身高只比六尺二寸（合188厘米）多一点，但还是太高了，是无法坐进轻型装甲车的驾驶座的，也会关不上舱盖！
（回复）yeah plus US really loved putting radial aircraft engines into tanks and they take up a lot of space vertically. So the hull has to be taller to accommodate.
是啊，而且美国是真的很喜欢把星形航空发动机安进坦克里，而且它们会在垂直方向上占据大量空间。所以车体必须设计得更高，才能容下它。

2、The benefit of the high profile is crew comfort and space to operate inside the tank. Which is probably hard to appreciate for those of us who never had to work in a tank. The Chieftain on Youtube has some great vids on this. He actually was a tanker and talks about the importance of space for the crew all the time in terms of combat effectiveness and endurance. I remember reading the thoughts of a Soviet tanker who crewed a Sherman, and he was also very complimentary about the space inside the tank for his crew (as well as the leather upholstery on the seats, lol).

外形高的好处就是乘员的舒适性，以及坦克内部较大的操作空间。这对我们这些从来没有在坦克内工作过的人来说，恐怕是很难理解的。油管的Chieftain就这个问题做过一系列很棒的视频。他其实是一名前坦克手，也一直都在谈论空间对乘员作战效能和耐受力的重要性。我记得我读到过一个在M4谢尔曼坦克上做过乘员的苏联坦克手的想法，他也高度评价了他的乘员享有的坦克内部空间，以及座椅上的皮垫子哈哈

I also think that late war Soviet and German tank (and TD) designs were of course taking cues from their experiences on the Eastern Front. The Eastern Front being the primary theater for armored warfare. I think in that situation they were much more likely to sacrifice crew comfort in exchange for lower profiles, as it was much more of a life or death proposition compared to the time period in which the Sherman was developed in the US.

我也认为，战争后期苏联坦克和德国坦克（以及坦克歼击车）的设计，毫无疑问汲取了东线的作战经验。东线成为了装甲战的主战场。我觉得在那样的境况下，他们更有可能牺牲成员舒适性换取更低矮的外形，因为和美国研发出谢尔曼坦克的那个时期相比，这个问题更加攸关生死。
（回复）I seem to remember reading somewhere that Soviet troops who used equipment from the western allies were generally surprised by the attention given to ergonomics.
我好像记得在哪里读到过，使用过西方盟军装备的苏联军队，普遍都会惊讶于西方对人体工程学的重视。
（回复）in the Eastern block they sexted boys below 170 cm height for tankers. The shorter, the better. Same for subs.
在苏东集团，他们会选身高不到170厘米的男孩当坦克手。越矮小越好。潜艇也是如此。
（回复）The Russian T-34 was developed before the war. So this design would not have been developed using experiences from the war itself.
苏俄的T34坦克是在战前研发的。所以这种设计在研发时是不会用到战争中的经验的。

3、Specifically the Lee and Sherman (not called that by the army) were tall and boxy because of the location of the transmission. The transmission location was what it was to make it easy to service, replacing a transmission on a sherman was an afternoon task.

特别是李和谢尔曼（陆军并不是这样称呼它们的），它们很高，而且还四四方方的，原因在于变速箱的位置。把变速箱安排在这个位置是为了方便检修，给一辆谢尔曼坦克换变速箱也就是一个下午的事。

Easier to fix = more available.

更容易修理就相当于拥有了更多的可用车辆。

More tank is much, much better than less tank. See outcome of every US v German armor battle of late period WWII. It didn’t take 5 Sherman’s to kill a panther it’s just that the US used five to one because they had them available.

数量上更多的坦克远好于更少。去看看二战晚期美国对阵德国的每一场装甲战的结果。击毁一辆豹式坦克是不需要动用五辆谢尔曼坦克的，只是美国直接用五辆去对付一辆，因为美国人有能力动用这么多的数量。

They weren’t any larger overall than Russian and German counterparts though. 30 tons is 30 tons.

但总的来看，美国坦克并不比苏联和德国坦克更大。30吨就是30吨。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处

4、Also, the M3 Lee was a conscious stopgap design that was quickly scribbled up just to get "something" out there that could mount a 75mm gun until they were ready with the M4 Sherman, which they ended up making a whole fuck ton of. As far as the Sherman's design goes, it was obviously designed to take the enemy head first, to which it's shape lended quite well (depending on the caliber of shot coming your way of course).

此外，M3李是一个刻意为之的权宜之计，只是为了在很短的时间内胡乱攒出一个能安装75毫米火炮的“差强人意的玩意儿”，一直到他们准备好推出M4谢尔曼，最后他们造出了海量的谢尔曼。就谢尔曼坦克的情况来看，它的设计初衷显然是先发歼敌，它的形状融合得相当好（当然了，这还要取决于射击口径）。

5、Doctrine, Experience and manufacturing limitations.

原因在于理论、经验和制造工艺的限制。

Germany and the Soviets had done a LOT of practical testing in the interwar years. Both sides were preparing for the "conflict to end all conflicts". But all sides had their weaknesses. The russian tanks had terrible turrets, but very capable hull configurations. British tanks were generally too slow or had too little armor. German tanks had (as a general rule) poor transmissions and overcomplicated designs. Everyone had too small guns (and too small turrets) to mount a gun that had both effective anti-tank rounds and effective anti-infantry rounds. Russian tanks (except the KV) also had incredibly cramped turrets, leading to a poor rate of fire. Until the T-34 developed its 85mm turret there was probably no tank in the field that didn't have some kind of crippling drawback in terms of transmission, tracks, turret, gun or armor.

德国和苏联在一战和二战间那段时间做了大量的实战测试。双方都在为这场“终结所有战争的战争”做准备。但所有各方都有自己的弱点。俄罗斯坦克的炮塔很烂，但却拥有非常出色的车体结构。英国坦克普遍速度太慢，或是装甲太薄。德国坦克（一般而言）的传动系统很烂，设计上也过于复杂。所有方的火炮都太小（炮塔也太小），无法安装既能发射有效的反坦克弹药又能发射有效的反步兵弹药的火炮。俄罗斯坦克（KV系列除外）的炮塔也难以置信的狭窄，这也导致了糟糕的射速。在T34研发出它的85毫米炮塔之前，战场上，在传动装置、履带、炮塔、火炮或装甲方面不存在某种会造成严重后果缺陷的坦克恐怕是不存在的。

The US steel industry had the capability of casting pretty large pieces of steel, in fact it was the most resource effective way of producing parts for the americans. Hence the bulbous shapes (because that's how you created strong cast steel armor). You can see the same stuff (but much rougher) on the T-34 turrets. Germany had no tradition of large cast steel pieces (preferring the more work intensive welding once bolting proved too heavy and unsafe). Soviets went "We don't need tanks that can last for 10, or even 3, years. We're going to get the most amount of tanks we can get right now" and decided to go with casting and welding that would have made american and german engineers cry tears of blood.

美国的钢铁工业有能力铸造相当大的钢块，事实上，这对美国人来说，是最有效利用资源的零件生产方式。因此，这种球状的形状（因为想要打造出强大的铸钢装甲，那就得做成球状的）。你在T34的炮塔上会发现同样的东西（只是粗糙得多）。德国没有铸造大型钢件的传统（一旦证明了用螺栓固定的方法超重且不安全，就更愿意采用工作强度更大的焊接法）。苏联人心说：“我们可不需要能撑10年的坦克，连能撑3年的都不需要。我们现在就要拿到尽可能最多的坦克”，于是就决定同时采用会让美国和德国的工程师流下血泪的铸造法和焊接法。

As for tank size and tallness? Well. That depends on what you want in your tank. Soviets went "Well. We have a lot of people who are between 5 and 5½ feet tall. Why make tanks for people who are 6 feet tall?" and even for someone 5 feet tall the T-34 is cramped. US wanted better rate of fire, so their tanks tend to have better working positions for loader and gunner. Which makes the tank bigger. Also, they weren't very experienced when it came to tank building. Every tank before the M4 Sherman was a fail-tank that went into mass production anyway because they didn't have anything better. In addition american tanks had a decent gun depression, and to push the barrel low the other end of the gun has to have room to go up, so that makes your tank taller. As far as ergonomics went the german tanks were probably the best, but this led to suboptimal armor-layout and other solutions that made the tank more technically complicated (harder to manufacture, harder to service).

而坦克的大小和高度要怎么说呢？好吧，这要取决于你希望你的坦克突出哪项优势。苏联人心说：“好吧。我们有很多身高在5到5.5英尺之间的人。那为什么要为那些高达6英尺的人制造坦克呢？”，就算是身高5英尺的人，T34也会很拥挤的。美国要的是更高的射速，所以他们的坦克往往会为装填手和炮手提供更理想的工位。而这就会让坦克变得更大。另外，他们在制造坦克方面也没有太多经验。M4谢尔曼之前的每一款坦克都是失败的坦克，却还是大规模生产了，因为他们拿不出更好的坦克了。此外，美国坦克的俯仰角还是很过硬的，为了把炮管放低，火炮的另一端必须有抬升的空间，这就会把坦克变高。而从人体工程学角度看，德国坦克可能是最好的，但这会导致了次优的装甲布局和次优的其他解决方案，也会让坦克在技术上变得更复杂（更难制造，也更难维修养护）。

6、The Germans and Russians had extensive cooperation in military research before WW2 as both countries were heavily isolated on the 1920. Under the Treaty of Rapallo the Germans operated factories inside the territory of the Soviet unx to develop, manufacture and test technology forbidden by Versailles.

德国和俄罗斯在二战前进行了广泛的武器研发合作，因为这两国在二十年代都被严重孤立了。根据《拉巴洛条约》，德国人会在苏联领土上运营工厂，以研发、制造和测试《凡尔赛条约》禁止的技术。
（译注：拉巴洛条约于1922年4月16日由德国魏玛政府与苏维埃俄国在意大利利古里亚大区拉巴洛签署，两国同意外交正常化并“友好合作，在经济上互惠互利”）

One of the results of such treaty was the Leichttraktor which Germany later imported under the disguise of farming equipment. Also during those years the Germans trained operatives in places such as Lipetsk together with Soviet officials.

该条约的其中一个成果就是Leichttraktor 轻坦（字面意思为“轻型拖拉机”），之后德国以农用设备为幌子进口了这种坦克。而且，在那些年里，德国人在利佩茨克等地和苏联官员一起训练了操作人员。

So in that regard it is normal that the armoured doctrines and tank designs of both countries where really similar.

有鉴于此，这两国的装甲理论和坦克设计真的很相似也是很正常的了。

The Americans on the other hand had little tank development until the 30's and they did so by themselves.

另一方面，美国的坦克研发在三十年代以前都没有什么进展，他们是靠自己设计出这些玩意儿的。

7、I am by no means an expert but I do know one think about what made shermans so tall. The US used mustang rotary engines for the sherman which forced the driveshaft to be up higher which is the reason it stands taller than most others.

我可不是什么专家，但我确实认识一个思考过谢尔曼坦克如此之高原因的人。美国给谢尔曼坦克配备的是野马战斗机（即P-51）用的旋转发动机，这样一来就不得不抬升传动轴，这也是为什么它比其他大部分坦克都要高。

I believe they did it because they already had a lot of mustang engines and were producing them faster than the planes so they "reused" the surplus for the sherman.

我觉得，他们这么干是因为他们手上已经有大量的野马发动机了，而且生产它们的速度超过了生产（这款）飞机的速度，所以他们就把这些富余的发动机“再利用”在了谢尔曼坦克上。

8、Germans had advanced welding techniques, Americans had the ability to cast large steel parts and even entire hulls and turrets. British had converted bicycle shops and tinsmiths. Russians had heavy industry. German designs were equal parts brilliant and stupid, russians were built for simple and disposable. US wanted tanks that could do anything, and still do.

德国人掌握了先进的焊接技术，美国人掌握了铸造大型钢件的能力，甚至连车体和炮塔都能整件铸造。英国人有改装自行车店和锡匠。俄罗斯人有重工业。德国人的设计有多绝妙就有多愚蠢，俄罗斯人的信条则是容易制造且用完即扔。美国人希望他们的坦克是什么都能做的万金油，直到今天都是这样。
（回复）And British tanks had such a lengthy development cycle (often due to conflicting demands by various sections of the British Army), they were typically near-obsolete before reaching the battlefield (with a few exceptions).
而且英国坦克的研发周期如此漫长（通常是因为英国陆军不同部门提出的要求是互相冲突的），通常这些坦克在抵达战场之前就已经快过时了（存在一些例外）。

9、I would add that ergonomics were actually a very high priority for the Germans as well. People often complain about the rather boxy designs of their earlier tanks, but these were conscious decisions made because they didn't want to sacrifice too much interior space (and thus room to operate) in order to provide additional sloping on the armour. To them at the time, it was not a worthwhile sacrifice.

我要补充的是，人体工程学其实是德国人非常优先考虑的事项。人们经常抱怨德国早期的坦克在设计上特别方正，但这些都是有意为之，因为他们不希望为了在装甲上实现额外的倾斜度而牺牲太多的内部空间，也不希望因此牺牲掉操作的空间。对当时的德国人来说，这样的牺牲并不值得。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处

10、US combat doctrine didn't recognize any critical need for an MBT designed to go head-to-head vs an enemy MBT and prevail. They figured there were many better ways of skinning that particular cat, via overwhelming logistical superiority (close air support, artillery support, infantry support). As a result, they designed their tanks to maximize their competitive advantages (massive production capacity via casting, a surplus of big powerful radial engines).

设计出一款能和敌方主战坦克一对一正面交锋并取胜的主战坦克，这种关键需求在美国的作战理论中是不被认可的。他们已经想通了，想要达到这个目的有很多更好的方法，利用压倒性的后勤优势（近距离空中支援、炮兵支援、步兵支援）就可以了。因此，他们设计出来的坦克，是要能最大限度发挥其竞争优势的（大规模铸造的能力，以及尺寸很大且能力强悍的星形发动机出现过剩）
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处

Soviet tank design couldn't rely on logistical superiority early on, so their tanks had to beat German armor in a battle of attrition.

早期的苏联坦克设计是无法倚靠后勤优势的，所以他们设计的坦克必须在一场消耗战中打败德国装甲部队。

11、Because they were using radial engines designed and used in airplanes. The large circumference of the cylinders would necessitate a higher hull profile.

因为他们当时使用的是星形发动机，这款发动机是为飞机设计也是使用在飞机上的。它汽缸的周长很长，这就使更高的车体成为必需了。

12、Americans couldnt make super heavy tanks like the Soviets and Germans could purely because any tank constructed would have to be lifted by crane to be shipped thousands of miles overseas by boat unlike the European behemoths that could be transported by rail.

美国人没法像苏联人和德国人那样制造超级重型坦克，这完全是因为造出来的任何一辆坦克都必须用起重机吊起装船，运往几千英里外的外国，欧洲人可就不是这种情况了，他们的钢铁巨兽可以通过铁路运输。
（回复）I've always thought it was due to weight because it had to be transported so far and across water.

I think had Germany been really serious about invading England they would have had smaller, lighter designs too.

我以前一直觉得原因在于重量，因为必须运往那么远的地方，而且只能走水路。
我觉得，要是德国真的想入侵英国，那他们在设计上也会倾向于更小、更轻。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处

13、The US settled on the "Toyota sedan" approach...where you produce as many as possible and cross your fingers. Germany took the "sports car" approach, where you give a chefs kiss to your masterpiece, making it awesome...but yet difficult to repair, and potentially quirky in function. Soviets took a "volvo" approach, focusing on persistence, as well as mass production.

美国选的是“丰田轿车”的制造方法…也即尽可能制造出更多，然后祈祷自己交好运。德国人采用了“跑车”的制造方法…也即打造出完美的杰作，让人们敬畏它…但却很难修理，而且运转时也可能会出现难以预料的情况。苏联人则采用了“沃尔沃”的制造方法，注重的是耐用性以及能大量生产。