Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

  • Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
    From: http://english.battlefield.ru/tanks/...s/19-js-2.html


    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.
    Yes Nick, I've already read this and taken it on board. I have no problem with the information as such. Issues with the quality of turret armour castings on the IS-2 have been established beyond doubt already; and acknowledged by myself.
    However, I don't see how this particular test - or anything else I've seen so far - makes any difference to my conclusions. Indeed, taken in sum with everything I have read or seen quoted, it forms part of the reason for my conclusions.
    I'm getting the feeling we've been "talking past each other" here.
    "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


    • Nick, you are essentially a troll. You fire off blanket statements and flat out untruths, then change your position when called or ignore the response. To your credit, you are an amusing troll that get some interesting discussion going, but a troll none the less

      Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
      1. You really need to read my posts more carefully. I did not say the gun was unimportant. I said it was relatively unimportant compared to observation. That's an important distinction.
      But it is a wrong statement, none the less. Firepower cannot be "relatively unimportant" in a tank unless you are talking about tanks that have about equal firepower. An advantage in obserservation is good to have, but if your gun cannot damage the enemy, then the point is moot. T-34s in 1941 had very poor observation while the Germans they were facing had very good observation. But it didn't really matter as the T-34s could knock out German tanks at will at up to 1600 meters while the Germans couldn't do anything about it.


      2. Other tanks did use the same cupola as the Churchill. Doesn't stop that cupola being the best. As for the Gunner only having his telescopic sight, you are wrong. The loader also had one as well.
      But it did not have a range finder as you said in your post #73: "
      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."

      As for the gun sights - I was speaking of the Panther gunner having only his telescopic sight. Suggesting that the Panther loader had a telescopic sight is, I assume, just more trolling.

      3. I did not say the Sherman was road bound. I said it was considered more road bound than its German counterparts by US troops.
      Read your post #73. It says directly: ". 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." You may have meant something else or you may have been trolling, but that is what you wrote.

      Further, when the Australians compared Shermans vs Churchills, they went Churchill after a 'jungle' test, due to superior tactical mobility. The A22 pulling the M4 out of a river probably helped in that judgement, as did superior levels of armour.

      I've sourced the reasons for my opinions, perhaps you might try the same .
      You forgot the source for you last statement re: Australian tests of the Churchill.......

      As for sourcing comments, I do that when I think it contributes to the discussion and preferably to sources where others can read the text on-line. Either by me quoting the text or the text being available on-line.

      You simply referring to a book is pointless, as we saw with your reference to Hunnicutts Pershing.

      Anyway, that is enough fun with this subject

      Comment


      • Originally posted by cbo View Post
        Nick, you are essentially a troll. You fire off blanket statements and flat out untruths, then change your position when called or ignore the response. To your credit, you are an amusing troll that get some interesting discussion going, but a troll none the less

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

        I do fire off blanket statements, that much is true. However, this is to denote what is normal and usual.
        If I ignore a response, it could be for several reasons. The primary one is that while I'm a bloke, I'm also a full time housewife and mum. Best job ever, and ACG is extremely second comparred to raising my kids.
        Originally posted by cbo View Post
        But it is a wrong statement, none the less. Firepower cannot be "relatively unimportant" in a tank unless you are talking about tanks that have about equal firepower. An advantage in obserservation is good to have, but if your gun cannot damage the enemy, then the point is moot. T-34s in 1941 had very poor observation while the Germans they were facing had very good observation. But it didn't really matter as the T-34s could knock out German tanks at will at up to 1600 meters while the Germans couldn't do anything about it.
        I've quoted you the sources that armour and weapons are relatively unimportant in tank fights in NW Europe. This is because war is not fair, and tank fights are not jousts, but generally ambushes. Terrain favours the defender, and if you had read both volumes I referenced, you would have reached the same conclusion as myself. The fact is that the main difference between German and W Ally tanks being destroyed is the range. The gun/armour on the German tanks was often superior, but this simply meant the tanks were destroyed at a closer range. Net result is the same. However, it is important to note we are talking about NW Europe here, because circumstances were different on the Eastern Front.
        Originally posted by cbo View Post
        But it did not have a range finder as you said in your post #73: "
        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."
        Basically copied from D Fletchers excellent 'The Universal Tank'.
        Originally posted by cbo View Post
        As for the gun sights - I was speaking of the Panther gunner having only his telescopic sight. Suggesting that the Panther loader had a telescopic sight is, I assume, just more trolling.
        Reread your post .
        Originally posted by cbo View Post
        Read your post #73. It says directly: ". 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." You may have meant something else or you may have been trolling, but that is what you wrote.
        I totally stand by that comment. WW2 was more WW1 than most think from the soldiers POV, especially infantry casualties.

        Originally posted by cbo View Post
        You forgot the source for you last statement re: Australian tests of the Churchill.......

        As for sourcing comments, I do that when I think it contributes to the discussion and preferably to sources where others can read the text on-line. Either by me quoting the text or the text being available on-line.
        Several books I can quote on Australia prefering Churchills to Shermans. However, you don't need to take my word on it, just look up how many Shermans were purchased by Australia.
        Originally posted by cbo View Post
        You simply referring to a book is pointless, as we saw with your reference to Hunnicutts Pershing.

        Anyway, that is enough fun with this subject

        Care to elaborate? I can also reference Pershing reliability in Korea if you are interested?

        The fact remains that I will change my opinion if decent information is provided to do so. History proves this (eg Sealion and Strategic Bombing threads). Many think I cave easily. I do cave easily when convinced by relevant material. You have simply failed to do so at the present. Don't let stop you from trying .
        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