Help support TMP


"American Ergonomics " Topic


11 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the WWII Discussion Message Board



499 hits since 16 Mar 2017
©1994-2017 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Tango01 Supporting Member of TMP16 Mar 2017 12:07 p.m. PST

"Ergonomics in tanks is an important factor, one that I touched on previously in some detail. It turns out that despite certain prevalent stereotypes, the ergonomics of various tank schools are more complicated than many people believe. Having already applied Soviet ergonomics standards to a German design, let us hop across the pond and see what the Americans thought about the topic.


Thankfully, this time, the Fort Knox Medical Research Laboratory report "Adequate Head Room in Tanks" provides us proper measurements, which makes my job a lot easier. The adequate head room for a sitting crewman, excluding the upper and lower 5% of men, is stated as 34" to 38.25", or 86-97 cm. The Soviet "dimensions of an average man" define the same measurement to be 90 cm (35.4"), which falls pretty well in the middle of that range. The American tank helmet adds a whole 1.5" to the height of a tanker by his crash helmet, a thickness that is found to be excessive. At the time of the study (November 27th, 1942), a thinner helmet was already being tested.


Let's see how well average people could fit into American tanks…"
Main page
link


Amicalement
Armand

RudyNelson16 Mar 2017 3:23 p.m. PST

Was not really an issue in WW2. Tall people were not assigned to armor. Due to the Depression health was not good in the USA. So over-weight was not an issue.

The report sounds like a typical attempt at job justification on the part of the author.

Personal logo Saber6 Supporting Member of TMP Fezian16 Mar 2017 8:54 p.m. PST

IIRC the M60 series was designed to fit 90% of the population and T55s were designed for 25%

Frederick Supporting Member of TMP17 Mar 2017 6:24 a.m. PST

The Russians did take shameless advantage of their conscript manpower pool – any short left-handed guy was highly likely to become a T-62 loader

rmaker17 Mar 2017 7:45 a.m. PST

Due to the Depression health was not good in the USA. So over-weight was not an issue.

Indeed, in 1944 my father had to spend a day gorging on milkshakes and bananas to make the minimum weight.

Thomas Thomas17 Mar 2017 11:36 a.m. PST

Something like a third of US conscripts failed the army physical – a legacy of a decade of hard times.

Now that was a crisis…unlike today.

TomT

Legion 417 Mar 2017 12:54 p.m. PST

IIRC, the numbers I heard. In the US, all those of military age today. 60-70% would not physically or mentally pass the requirements to be in the military.

Based on what I've seen, and I could be wrong, but those stats don't really surprise me … for better or worse.

badger2217 Mar 2017 6:12 p.m. PST

I was an army recruiter not so long ago and yes most of the US do not qualify

Legion 418 Mar 2017 11:07 a.m. PST

That was what I thought ! thumbs up

RudyNelson18 Mar 2017 3:53 p.m. PST

Sadly mental issues was not an issue in World war 2. I had 10 uncles fight in the war. Many were wounded or killed. I had one uncle who was wounded twice. His brother and brother in law both said at the time that he was slower than normal. His brother who lost the use of two legs and an arm, always said he shot himself. Not to get off the front lines but because he could never remember to clear the round in the chamber.
Anyway I met him later and he was what we would call mentally impaired today. So the standards from then to now has changed.

Legion 418 Mar 2017 4:12 p.m. PST

Certainly, just has during Vietnam to now.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.