Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Best Commanders Tank - Europe 12/44-5/45

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by cbo View Post
    But then again, there is more to effectiveness than mere fragmentation effect. Fragments is good against personel and un-armoured targets, but if you want to deal with wooden and/or earth bunkers, you need to look at penetration against those types of targets. And here the 90mm is much better than the 75mm.

    As for the fragmentation effect, the 75mm produces more but ligther fragments. This means that at short range from the blast, the 75mm has an advantage but as you reach 50 meters, the two shells produces the same number of effective fragments, the 90mm items being slightly heavier.

    If you look at the ability of fragments to do damage to materiel, rather than people, one could look at the figures for fragment penetration of 3mm mild steel plate. Here things start to even out at 20 meters as the fatter 90mm fragments begins to compensate for the lower number of fragments.

    Source is "Terminal Ballistic Data Volume III" September 1945.



    I could probably look up the distance, but you really dont need to. 29mm + gap + 14mm will do very little to defeat a Panzerfaust round that would happily chew its way through 6mm + 28cm gap + 100mm steel armour, which is just one of the many combinations of spaced armour tested by the British. The space needed to be about 76cm to have an effect with this combination of plates.
    In case of the jerry can, you sometimes see references to HEAT being defeated by thin, flimsy items. There seems to be some mechanism with these, that caused the HEAT rounds to fail. Solid plate is a different matter.

    As for the 77mm HE, I assume they had the same available ammo as the 17-pdr:
    1. HE/T Mk 1
    2. HE/T Mk 2
    3. HE/HC/T Mk 1
    4. HE/Super/HC/T Mk 1
    5. HE/Super/HC/T Mk 2


    No. 1 and 2 on the list seems to be the standard HE shell available all through WWII. The difference between them is the fuze. Seems that they were found in a normal velocity version 885 m/s and a low velocity version 540 m/s. Not sure if the latter was available in WWII, but its seems like it.

    No. 3 is the High Capacity shell with HE filler. Not sure if that was available in WWII. This seems to have been available only as a low velocity version.

    No. 4 and 5 are High Capacity shells with even more HE filler. The difference is the fuze. Not sure if these were available in WWII. These seem to have been available only as a low velocity version.

    I dont have any data on the amount of HE filler, fragmentation etc. but more HE and reduced velocity would suggest a more capable round.
    HEAT rounds rely on a fairly precise focusing of the jet produced on the armor being attacked. Being set off by by something like a jerry can interrupts the spacing and disrupts the focus of the jet, rendering it far less than effective.
    Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Don Juan View Post
      Available here, old chap.
      Thanks old bean.

      Paul
      ‘Tis said his form is tiny, yet
      All human ills he can subdue,
      Or with a bauble or medal
      Can win mans heart for you;
      And many a blessing know to stew
      To make a megloamaniac bright;
      Give honour to the dainty Corse,
      The Pixie is a little shite.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
        Not too sure where you are going with this. Concerning the capabilities of the 77mm HE round I said this:Since I've stated that I have publicly considered my information on the 77mm to be suspect, and that you edited out that part , are you merely trying to win?
        You are truly paranoid - as I said before, it is not all about you

        As you did not provide any actual evidence or data, I just provided what I had. Because the point of these threads is - for me at least - learning.

        Comment


        • #64
          I read all the comments and figured that as a Commander in WW2, I would prefer the Comet as my main tank.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Don Juan View Post
            Available here, old chap.

            Thanks Don. By the way anything published by Lulu you are better off getting directly from them as they often have sales of 20-40% off list price of the book which is printed when you order it. Just google Lulu and get on their mailing list. I got these during their "black Friday" sale at 40% off!

            http://www.lulu.com/shop/nigel-askey...-22919158.html

            http://www.lulu.com/shop/yves-j-bell...-11020158.html

            And here is the Comet book:

            https://www.lulu.com/shop/search.ep?...+History&type=

            Regards,Kurt
            Theo mir ist die munition ausgegangen ich werde diesen ramman auf wiedersehen uns in walhalla

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by cbo View Post
              You are truly paranoid - as I said before, it is not all about you

              As you did not provide any actual evidence or data, I just provided what I had. Because the point of these threads is - for me at least - learning.
              Learning .

              A couple of points I can educate you with .

              One, as soon as you use personal attacks, you lose the argument. You used a personal attack, possibly/probably two. You really need to stop this.

              Second, if you edit someone else's post without stating so, you are seen to try to slant any opinion in your favour, thus losing it. It's also not good manners to do so without stating so. This is because it allows others, if they want, to go to the original post to see if what was responded to is relevant.
              How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
              Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Kurt Knispel View Post
                Thanks Don. By the way anything published by Lulu you are better off getting directly from them as they often have sales of 20-40% off list price of the book which is printed when you order it. Just google Lulu and get on their mailing list. I got these during their "black Friday" sale at 40% off!

                http://www.lulu.com/shop/nigel-askey...-22919158.html

                http://www.lulu.com/shop/yves-j-bell...-11020158.html

                And here is the Comet book:

                https://www.lulu.com/shop/search.ep?...+History&type=

                Regards,Kurt
                Thanks .
                How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                Comment


                • #68
                  Are all of the results in?
                  Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                    HEAT rounds rely on a fairly precise focusing of the jet produced on the armor being attacked. Being set off by by something like a jerry can interrupts the spacing and disrupts the focus of the jet, rendering it far less than effective.
                    Exactly why the British put jerry cans on the turret sides of their Comets.
                    How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                    Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                      Are all of the results in?
                      I left it open ended, but it appears the Sherman is the winner at this moment in time.
                      How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                      Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        This time I'll leave the Sherman, and choose the Comet. Probably some of the previous discussions about quantities and availabilities has influenced me, otherwise I would have gone with the Sherman's numbers. The Comet is a good solid tank, with better performance than those big lumbering monsters that may be useful in their niche but not for general (i.e., a commander's) purposes, and with very good reliability, on par with the Sherman. So the Comet it is.
                        Michele

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                          One, as soon as you use personal attacks, you lose the argument. You used a personal attack, possibly/probably two. You really need to stop this.
                          There has been no personal attack. Just a very thin skinned individual who cannot cope with a bit of happy banter

                          Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                          Second, if you edit someone else's post without stating so, you are seen to try to slant any opinion in your favour, thus losing it. It's also not good manners to do so without stating so. This is because it allows others, if they want, to go to the original post to see if what was responded to is relevant.
                          I always try to qoute only the relevant parts of the posts I respond to. It is just bad form to quote half a page to comment on a few lines. No one has complained before, not even you. It is only a problem now that you are having an episode. Once you have gotten over yourself, I am sure you can see the wisdom in my approach

                          I am of the opinion that facts and reasoning wins arguments - not style, spin, conjecture and gobblediguk. So you cannot loose an argument if you have facts and sound reasoning on you side, not even if you act like a complete prick. To think otherwise suggest that you still think like a 3rd grader in the schoolyard.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by cbo View Post
                            There has been no personal attack. Just a very thin skinned individual who cannot cope with a bit of happy banter


                            Personal insult and editing of my post to skew its tone and relevance is happy banter?
                            Originally posted by cbo View Post
                            I always try to qoute only the relevant parts of the posts I respond to. It is just bad form to quote half a page to comment on a few lines. No one has complained before, not even you. It is only a problem now that you are having an episode. Once you have gotten over yourself, I am sure you can see the wisdom in my approach

                            I am of the opinion that facts and reasoning wins arguments - not style, spin, conjecture and gobblediguk. So you cannot loose an argument if you have facts and sound reasoning on you side, not even if you act like a complete prick. To think otherwise suggest that you still think like a 3rd grader in the schoolyard.
                            Refering directly to the Harry Potter insult, about size of 'wands', you may wish to refer to actual WW2 reports on what was actually important in winning a tank combat.

                            Two of these reports are at Merriam Press :
                            http://www.merriam-press.com/asurvey...ugust1944.aspx
                            http://www.merriam-press.com/dataonw...gagements.aspx

                            It was found that the most important element in a tank fight was observation, and not armour nor firepower, which were actually relatively unimportant. The ranges a more powerful gun can kill the enemy is greater, but the results were the same for almost any tank in the same situation, regardless of type. This is because defensive tanks will simply let the enemy come into effective range before putting in a potential kill shot.

                            Concerning observation, the Churchill tank was equipped with probably the best commanders cupola of WW2. It was certainly good enough for the British to convert Shermans to be equipped with this type, and included a range finder as well as all round vision. Most elements were copied by the US with their next design, with the main exception in that the portal was wider.

                            What was found was that the tank that fired first at another normally won, which means being able to see the enemy first. It also means the defensive force was likely to fire first, since they are in prepared positions. This is why attackers tend to get struck on the hull sides, a large relatively thin area of armour, and defenders get struck on the turret front, as they are often hull down. The tank is an offensive weapon therefore likely to be struck on the hull sides. Churchills had the best side hull armour of any tank in WW2.

                            Of course, the two studies refer to W Europe, and different results were found in the East. Spotting ranges were normally greater, due to terrain, and both Soviets and Germans found that apart from the turret front, it was also the hull front that tended to get struck. In this case, more powerful guns are certainly more important. This is the one genius of Zaloga's book, breaking down WW2 by campaigns, and why it means that we can look at the best relevant tank for each.

                            Back to the Churchill for this poll, its firepower might not be as good as other tanks, but its ability to see the enemy was superior, which was actually more important. Further, much of this time period sees the troops fighting a hard slog, where for much of the time, the main allied tank, the Sherman, was road bound. This was especially true for the last armoured offensive in the West. OTOH, Churchill's could turn enemy positions, simply because they could cross bad ground. More importantly, Churchills' were as reliable as Shermans by 44, and even with the earlier, more mechanically fragile III's, they were able to travel 300km's in 2 days, and take out the only Tiger at Prokhorovka. The fact that Churchills also make the best combat engineer afv is simply icing on the cake.
                            How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                            Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                              (Post edited to remove non-commented material BW)

                              Back to the Churchill for this poll, its firepower might not be as good as other tanks, but its ability to see the enemy was superior, which was actually more important. Further, much of this time period sees the troops fighting a hard slog, where for much of the time, the main allied tank, the Sherman, was road bound. This was especially true for the last armoured offensive in the West. OTOH, Churchill's could turn enemy positions, simply because they could cross bad ground. More importantly, Churchills' were as reliable as Shermans by 44, and even with the earlier, more mechanically fragile III's, they were able to travel 300km's in 2 days, and take out the only Tiger at Prokhorovka. (bolded for emphasis) The fact that Churchills also make the best combat engineer afv is simply icing on the cake.
                              The Churchills did not take out the only Tiger at Prokhorovka. They may have inflicted the only Tiger casualty there; a statement which is considerably less ambiguous. The main allied tank of this period was the T-34/85 and neither it nor the M4 Sherman were road-bound. However, their main advances were by road, frequently by-passing areas of resistance. Why roads? Because the supply trucks needed them. As for best combat engineer afv, there were so few of these produced by any of the combatants that you are expressing an opinion not a fact.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by broderickwells View Post
                                The Churchills did not take out the only Tiger at Prokhorovka. They may have inflicted the only Tiger casualty there; a statement which is considerably less ambiguous.
                                Would you accept that 2 Churchill tanks had to attack 4 Tiger 1's and 5 Panzer IV's in a defensive position, and knocked out 1 Tiger and destroyed 1 Panzer IV .
                                Originally posted by broderickwells View Post
                                The main allied tank of this period was the T-34/85 and neither it nor the M4 Sherman were road-bound. However, their main advances were by road, frequently by-passing areas of resistance. Why roads? Because the supply trucks needed them.
                                The best Sherman was not as road bound as the previous versions, although Shermans were considered more road bound than their German counterparts (as per the infamous White's report). Supply is by road, combat is cross country.
                                Originally posted by broderickwells View Post
                                As for best combat engineer afv, there were so few of these produced by any of the combatants that you are expressing an opinion not a fact.
                                There were more Churchill AVRE's than Tiger II's produced. There were also Sherman conversions such as DD, flails and bridging tanks. Valentines were also converted, and plenty of ARV/Bergepanzer types were produced as well, eg:

                                Ram ARV
                                Se-Ri (Type 97 Chi-Ha)
                                Bergepanzer III
                                Bergepanzer IV
                                Bergepanther
                                Bergetiger
                                Bergepanzer 38t
                                Bergepanzer T-34
                                Cavalier ARV
                                Churchill ARV
                                Crusader ARV
                                Centaur Arv
                                Cromwell ARV
                                Grant ARV
                                Sherman ARV
                                M31 TRV
                                M32 TRV
                                T-34-T
                                VT-34
                                How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                                Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X