Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

  • #91
    Congrats Nick on your DSA. Well deserved
    BoRG

    You may not be interested in War, but War is interested in You - Leon Trotski, June 1919.

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by Major Sennef View Post
      Congrats Nick on your DSA. Well deserved
      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


      • #93
        Originally posted by Gooner View Post
        Churchill Ark(s)?

        Same thing in Sherman tank form...

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
          One good point and one flawed one. Cat D9 is well after WW2, about a decade or so. I assume you mean a D7 or D8, although when concerning bulldozers, I know next to nothing about them.

          However, any tankdozer variant, ie a tank with an attached blade, will be less agile than a standard tank. This is most tanks don't have them as standard. Further, the turretless A27L will be a smaller (more difficult) target, and able to focus on what was required. It also uses an obsolete platform, thus a superior use of resources.
          My John Deere 410D backhoe has all of 56 hp (officially) and it will lift and move a cubic yard of material or dig a quarter yard of material with the "stinger." Heaven help the car or pick up that it gets "angry" with.

          But, the same is true of bulldozers. They trade speed and horsepower for torque. A good construction bulldozer has lots of traction and tons of torque to literally move mountains. That's what they're supposed to do.
          That's why combat tanks make so-so bulldozers. But, if you're going to build one, you want it to have some capacity to fight too. The bulldozer is secondary to being a tank. I can also tell you that a bulldozer tank is incredibly valuable to the unit its with.

          Mine's a older model. This is the current equivalent...

          https://www.deere.com/en_US/docs/con...ckhoes/410.pdf

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
            My John Deere 410D backhoe has all of 56 hp (officially) and it will lift and move a cubic yard of material or dig a quarter yard of material with the "stinger." Heaven help the car or pick up that it gets "angry" with.

            But, the same is true of bulldozers. They trade speed and horsepower for torque. A good construction bulldozer has lots of traction and tons of torque to literally move mountains. That's what they're supposed to do.
            That's why combat tanks make so-so bulldozers. But, if you're going to build one, you want it to have some capacity to fight too. The bulldozer is secondary to being a tank. I can also tell you that a bulldozer tank is incredibly valuable to the unit its with.

            Mine's a older model. This is the current equivalent...

            https://www.deere.com/en_US/docs/con...ckhoes/410.pdf
            So! you collect Tonka Toys?

            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


            • #96
              Originally posted by Dibble201Bty View Post
              So! you collect Tonka Toys?

              Paul
              Own



              Even customized it...

              Yea, that's right... REAL MEN own heavy construction machinery!

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                Same thing in Sherman tank form...

                Same thing except shorter

                For the wider gaps -



                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                  Own



                  Even customized it...

                  Yea, that's right... REAL MEN own heavy construction machinery!
                  Surely you mean for inadequate men who need a 'front'.... And who in their right mind would show evidence of drinking gaseous p**s water in a tin?

                  Paul
                  Last edited by Dibble201Bty; 12 Jan 17, 15:17.
                  ‘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


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by Gooner View Post
                    Same thing except shorter

                    For the wider gaps -



                    It's amazing just how good the Bailey was!

                    Paul
                    Last edited by Dibble201Bty; 12 Jan 17, 15:20.
                    ‘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


                    • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                      So long as the gap isn't wider than the bridge...
                      That is always the problem, isn't it? Looking at the stream and bridging equipment in the example, the problem of bank-to-bank access is not usually a big one for individuals or fully tracked vehicles. It is usually a problem for wheeled vehicles.

                      Basic rule of thumb: if a bridging vehicle is used, the water obstacle is not significant, if a bridging vehicle can't do it, then it is a significant obstacle.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by panther3485 View Post
                        In addition to this, I have some reservations about the conclusion regarding armour quality on IS-2 turrets or, for that matter, over the tank generally.
                        This is not to say that I disagree with Nick per se; because, IIRC based on some evidence of sampling the problem of over-hardening was indeed real.
                        Rather, it's that from my reading that the finished quality of the large armour castings on Soviet tanks during WW2 was very far from being consistent, even in the final year of the conflict.
                        IMO it's therefore reasonably likely that the range of variability included the outcomes of armour hardening processes.
                        For this reason, I'm extremely wary of "hard and fast" sweeping conclusions.
                        If I make sweeping statements, there is uaually a good reason for stating so, and I know you have access to the following .

                        In March 1944, firing tests were conducted with a 76.2 mm Gun ZiS-3 firing at an JS-2 tank from 500-600 metres. The tank's armour was penetrated from all sides of the tank. Whilst while most of the projectiles did not penetrate the armour completely, they created major splintering and fragmentation inside the turret. This explains the considerable losses of JS-85 and JS-122 tanks during the Winter-Spring of 1944.
                        http://english.battlefield.ru/tanks/...s/19-js-2.html
                        The existing cast armour is penetrated by 88mm ammunition...due to its low quality, eg low density and bubbles.

                        In reality, the IS-2 had several major shortcomings....splintering remained a problem for the IS-2's own armour. Tempering the armour to a very strong hardness proved too complex and costly to introduce, and the deficiency was allowed to remain.
                        ...post battle analysis again revealed that the IS-2's armour was vulnerable up to 1000m because of faulty casting.

                        https://www.amazon.co.uk/Russian-Tan...f+world+war+ii

                        While IS-2 armour looks good on paper, it had major flaws. Further, catastrophic explosions from panzerfaust hits on fuel cells was another real flaw with this tank.
                        How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                        Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                          If I make sweeping statements, there is uaually a good reason for stating so, and I know you have access to the following .


                          http://english.battlefield.ru/tanks/...s/19-js-2.html





                          https://www.amazon.co.uk/Russian-Tan...f+world+war+ii

                          While IS-2 armour looks good on paper, it had major flaws. Further, catastrophic explosions from panzerfaust hits on fuel cells was another real flaw with this tank.
                          My position, based on a combination of my own reading and everything I've seen offered here at ACG, begins with the fact that conditions for mass production of tanks in the Soviet Union were a world apart from those in countries such as the USA, Britain or even Germany for most of the war; and that as a result, much wider variations of quality, in terms of the types/degrees of problems found in WW2 Soviet tank armour across the board but especially with large turret castings, were the norm rather than the exception.

                          Even though certain common tendencies have indeed been identified (as you have referenced) and are perfectly valid, nevertheless my conclusion is that actual, practical quality would probably still have varied considerably from one tank to another; certainly between plants and to a significant extent also even within plants; much more so than for comparable product from any Western factory at that time.

                          Therefore IMO, the concept of taking a relative few examples as representative of the whole production of a series, while perfectly reasonable with regard to British, US or even German tank production, would be significantly less reliable with regard to WW2 Soviet production where IMHO, quality was much less consistent and more easily varied between really good and bloody terrible, with every shade of difference in between.

                          This is why I am strongly inclined to be much more cautious coming to hard-and-fast conclusions about Soviet armour quality; particularly castings; and I will reject sweeping conclusions that seem to suppose that said quality was consistently bad, or consistently good, or consistently anything in those kinds of terms.
                          I maintain that stance.
                          If we disagree, we disagree. However, I don't think too much should be made of the fact that we (apparently) derive somewhat differing conclusions from the same basic information.
                          Last edited by panther3485; 16 Jan 17, 04:04.
                          "England expects that every man will do his duty!" (English crew members had better get ready for a tough fight against the combined French and Spanish fleets because that's what England expects! However, Scotland, Wales and Ireland appear to expect nothing so the Scottish, Welsh and Irish crew members can relax below decks if they like!)

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by panther3485 View Post
                            My position, based on a combination of my own reading and everything I've seen offered here at ACG, begins with the fact that conditions for mass production of tanks in the Soviet Union were a world apart from those in countries such as the USA, Britain or even Germany for most of the war; and that as a result, much wider variations of quality, in terms of the types/degrees of problems found in WW2 Soviet tank armour across the board but especially with large turret castings, were the norm rather than the exception.

                            Even though certain common tendencies have indeed been identified (as you have referenced) and are perfectly valid, nevertheless my conclusion is that actual, practical quality would probably still have varied considerably from one tank to another; certainly between plants and to a significant extent also even within plants; much more so than for comparable product from any Western factory at that time.

                            Therefore IMO, the concept of taking a relative few examples as representative of the whole production of a series, while perfectly reasonable with regard to British, US or even German tank production, would be significantly less reliable with regard to WW2 Soviet production where IMHO, quality was much less consistent and more easily varied between really good and bloody terrible, with every shade of difference in between.

                            This is why I am strongly inclined to be much more cautious coming to hard-and-fast conclusions about Soviet armour quality; particularly castings; and I will reject sweeping conclusions that seem to suppose that said quality was consistently bad, or consistently good, or consistently anything in those kinds of terms.
                            I maintain that stance.
                            If we disagree, we disagree. However, I don't think too much should be made of the fact that we (apparently) derive somewhat differing conclusions from the same basic information.

                            While you have every right to be suspicious of sweeping statements, every decent source on the IS-2 tank I've read states there were issues with the IS-2 turret armour.

                            The IS-2 was a mixed bag in terms of ability. While its turret protection was of suspect quality, OTOH, the glacis appeared to be virtually proof against everything. In terms of mobility, it lacked agility, but was incredibly reliable, especially for a heavy. In terms of gunpower, it lacked rounds and had a slow rate of fire. However, a single hit would be usually all what was needed.

                            I quite like the IS-2, but when every source appears to state the same thing, I tend to believe it. However, 'every source' need not be correct, such as the A10 only having a maximum speed of 16mph .
                            How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                            Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post

                              While you have every right to be suspicious of sweeping statements, every decent source on the IS-2 tank I've read states there were issues with the IS-2 turret armour.
                              ... and I agree totally, based on what I've read too.
                              The difference, such as it may be, is in what we appear to make of it.
                              I would maintain that the range of practical detrimental effects that resulted from these issues - which in themselves, I believe, must have differed quite a lot by degree (and sometimes even by nature) from one case to another - would have varied very considerably, from relatively minimal in some cases and situations, all the way through to disastrous in other cases and situations.

                              Therefore, I do not find the effects of these issues to be so easily quantifiable.
                              IMO it's a can of worms, quite frankly. A bad can of worms, to be sure; but still very hard to measure, in terms of its effects from one case to another, with any real hope of consistency.
                              "England expects that every man will do his duty!" (English crew members had better get ready for a tough fight against the combined French and Spanish fleets because that's what England expects! However, Scotland, Wales and Ireland appear to expect nothing so the Scottish, Welsh and Irish crew members can relax below decks if they like!)

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by panther3485 View Post
                                ... and I agree totally, based on what I've read too.
                                The difference, such as it may be, is in what we appear to make of it.
                                I would maintain that the range of practical detrimental effects that resulted from these issues - which in themselves, I believe, must have differed quite a lot by degree (and sometimes even by nature) from one case to another - would have varied very considerably, from relatively minimal in some cases and situations, all the way through to disastrous in other cases and situations.

                                Therefore, I do not find the effects of these issues to be so easily quantifiable.
                                IMO it's a can of worms, quite frankly. A bad can of worms, to be sure; but still very hard to measure, in terms of its effects from one case to another, with any real hope of consistency.
                                From: http://english.battlefield.ru/tanks/...s/19-js-2.html
                                In March 1944, firing tests were conducted with a 76.2 mm Gun ZiS-3 firing at an JS-2 tank from 500-600 metres. The tank's armour was penetrated from all sides of the tank. Whilst while most of the projectiles did not penetrate the armour completely, they created major splintering and fragmentation inside the turret. This explains the considerable losses of JS-85 and JS-122 tanks during the Winter-Spring of 1944.
                                This is the linchpin of my belief in this IS-2 turret armour issue. It is the fact that the Soviets conducted a test to explain higher than expected losses among their heavies. Spalling was found to be the cause.

                                I happen to trust battlefield.ru website, and given that its opinion on the IS-2 is otherwise favourable, give credence to their statement. However, it would be useful to have the original source documentation of the test to back up what was stated.
                                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