Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Wiedzmin

Contributing Members
  • Content Count

    47
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Wiedzmin last won the day on March 18

Wiedzmin had the most liked content!

About Wiedzmin

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Wiedzmin

    StuG III Thread (and also other German vehicles I guess)

    this report give you source for it's claims. you can go to NARA and order research to get all blueprints from souce list. and ? Centurion mantlet have areas 300+mm which also serve as a gun cradle etc, but briths on their schemes show only 152mm as protective thickness soviet report stated that "mantlet-cradle" gives protection only from spall and bullets and says nothing about mantlet 115mm APFSDS resistant. report have sources, this sources are factory blueprints of M60A1 tank, such as: Turret Thickness Ispection Points dwg. 10911647(M60A1) Hull Thickness Ispection Points dwg. 10905702 (M60A1) etc if you want to argue with factory blueprints, well.... good luck to you
  2. Wiedzmin

    StuG III Thread (and also other German vehicles I guess)

    people don't understand their own measures and physics typical situation for all gamers mantlet get thicker only where it have "claw" for gun trunnion, the rest (and most of) the area simple 110-118mm of casted low hadness steel with holes for MG and optic. gun barrel etc. omitting the fact that getting hit into the area of the trunnions will lead to jamming of the whole mantlet. but who cares... if you take this "research" as basis about "115mm ineffective" you must also take that article says about mantlet - "antispall/bullet armour" instead of choosing the facts that are more convenient for you
  3. Wiedzmin

    StuG III Thread (and also other German vehicles I guess)

    well, not much, 490 for 12mm plates only to protect from 14.5 and 20mm(and all plates for light AFV used +- same HHS) 370-410 for main plates more or less the same for soviet BTK-1 HHS used on T-80 and other new soviet tank, T-55/62 used 42SM steel with 290-310HB IIRC, US M1 also used HHS etc btw it's funny there are some report about quality of US/UK and FRG plates for APFSDS test, XM735E2 penetrates 150/60 of UK/US plates from 3.4km, and FRG 150/60 only from 500 meters, and one of main reasons - hardness of plates(noted that the germans apparently use plates that more closely represent soviet tanks), it will be interesting to find some day real test of any APDS/APFSDS on any real tank... it's also very importatn what your tank can do after hit, for example Centurion Mk.2 mantlet after hits with 6Pdr will be jammed, after this brits reinforced trunnion pin and now mantlet gets jammed only afted 17 Pdr AP, after that they made resilient mantlet on Mk.8, and for example if 88mm APCBC(real test) hits turret of Centurion on ricochet , some vision block craks, sight etc. T-55 firing BR412B at T-54 can put out of action it without any penetrations, etc there is a very interesting part of non-penetrative tests on tank - force impact on equipment but such reports are almost never found
  4. Wiedzmin

    StuG III Thread (and also other German vehicles I guess)

    I posted protection levels for this turret earlier, it can withstand some 100mm ap (haven't seen test with 100mm but they tested 90mm)from 1km in +-5 degree arc
  5. Wiedzmin

    StuG III Thread (and also other German vehicles I guess)

    (30+35)65mm/65 degree HZB 301 370-410HB and up to 490 for 12mm plates,roof HZB20 260-300HB
  6. Wiedzmin

    StuG III Thread (and also other German vehicles I guess)

    1A3 turret armor btw
  7. Wiedzmin

    StuG III Thread (and also other German vehicles I guess)

    i guess brits made some wrong calculations(frontal stucture 7 plates for example. not 6) because german report(from which they take this drawings) gives scheme that Yuri posted. ofcourse there can be some variants, but it(drawings) look like same in german source report
  8. Wiedzmin

    StuG III Thread (and also other German vehicles I guess)

    and its armour. posted by Yuri Pasholok
  9. Wiedzmin

    StuG III Thread (and also other German vehicles I guess)

    i mostly interested in reports, because they rarely contain a personalized opinion, only facts, without reports there is no any interest in my "reasonable to assume", or your, or anybody else, with all due respect M4 Sherman much lighter than Panther, but in Swedish test IIRC was worse cross country than Panther, that's why I want to see reports, and not some logical conclusions it's not a matter of faith, for example in the offensive movement and the column, the unit moves with the speed that is set by its weakest(or lets says with speed of fuel supply and technicians) yes Chieftain unreliable, but after all, there are no complete reports on all the technical "features" of Leo1 (as i have mentioned the problems with tires at max speed, for example) but this problem decrease so called "good mobility" to same level as other western tank, no ? and moving in mixed column(with IFV, APC, and other) will decrease even worse. so you have tank with great speed, without stabilisation(until 1972?) and main method of firing will be firing from short stops/halt ? and in this situation you will have problems with swinging ? in whole tank design yes. saw this on FB page of museum IIRC, unfortunately they didn't post the report itself, is there an opportunity to contact them? i interested in full reports in all conditions, so as to be as impartial as possible it would be very strange if the country producing its own tanks would decide to kill its own production
  10. Wiedzmin

    StuG III Thread (and also other German vehicles I guess)

    average techical speed of Leo1, M60A1, Chieftain squad/platoon cross-country ? average techical speed of Leo1, M60A1, Chieftain squad/platoon cross-country in battle formation during offensive ? same values during winter in snow-covered field ? fuel consumption for each squad ? each squad real speed at which it can hit targets on the move at distance 2km and 1km away with a probability not lower than 60% ? i know that Chieftain engine is unrelible, read some reports, but i don't see any reports on Leo1 with real data. maybe you have 1966 report about Leo-1 test in Salisbury plain, Aldershot and Long Valley IIRC ? and ? during 1966 test IIRC brits noted the tendency of L1 to swing when moving at high speed over rough terrain, movement on roads with maximum speed was possible only within half an hour due to the risk of overheating rubber bondage of roadwheels at a speed of 50 km / h, overheating occurred an hour later, and to continue the movement it was required to drop the speed to 40 km / h
  11. Wiedzmin

    StuG III Thread (and also other German vehicles I guess)

    well, lets make it simple 1 squad Chieftan 1 squad Leo1 1 squad M60A1 how fast each squad can make a march cross-country at 300km ? 500km ? I'm not trying to argue with you or with somebody. all this "armour protects only from rain and wind, but mobility!111" looks also like but what we have at the moment ? british "pro-Chieftain"(i understand the fact that all nations have theirs idiotic "national pride") report(about real test) and what report from german side about Leo1 vs any western tank ?
  12. Wiedzmin

    StuG III Thread (and also other German vehicles I guess)

    Book gives name of exercise, you can try find report, it's not "pro-chieftain" it's usual trials , real tank mobility have nothing to "max.speed" and all of that "max" values, so in real life there is no great advantage of Leo1 mobility over any western tank in cross-country, if i remember correctly this is one of many tests show that's is nothing "special" in Leo1 mobility.
  13. at least on M4A4 tested by brits it was bronze, and seems to be bronze on some restored tanks AT.100 Ballistic test of hull and turret of general Sherman tank (courtesy of Fu_Manchu) btw maybe you know exact thickness of bow MG shield ?
×