Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Wiedzmin

Contributing Members
  • Content Count

    325
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    15

Everything posted by Wiedzmin

  1. it's very old report from DTIC "Review of Soviet Ordnance Metallurgy"
  2. i understand what it is i talking about this
  3. btw is this a turret backplate(welded over casted base) stiсking out from "cosmetic armour" damage ? or just weld seams of cosmetic armour itself ?
  4. geometry is such a b&tch lol...
  5. Sherman is not one model A2 right ? and T-34 is not only early war period 76mm version, so it's comparsion of all what is out there, as for M4A2 lifespan for it was 300 hours by factory IIRC, during trials M4A2 76mm in USSR right engine dead after 949km due to hard road conditions, second engine 2126 km and needed light repairs, suspension start to break after 1339 km, as for average lifespan of M4A2 from early 75mm version to late war 76mm never saw any good reports, maybe you have some ?
  6. Centurion with some addon plates(spaced steel, not very thick) could stop L23A1 point blank for example, it's not about "wow that's can penetrate over 9000mm at distance over 9km", but about specific round design, alloy, weaknesses etc. but again - strange articles and holes on real tank - no any details on distances etc - the presence of indirect confirmation of the problem with penetration by the Austrian docs
  7. numbers have nothing to real protection/penetration on complex structures capability, every APFSDS will work different against different structures and will give different "numbers" due to design features of each round, for example conqueror APDS often quted as "400+mm pen" but it can't penetrate T-72 with more ore less "same" numbers for protection level. that's why correct way of showing protection level for tank is indicate striking velocity for specific round at which tank will be penetrated/not penetrated. as for article, it's strange, holes doesn't look like APFSDS hits IMHO same tank
  8. did you encounter ANY reports on Panzer III/IV ?:) because i'm not, only that it have shitty optics before long barelled gun was installed(+ some other british test on tank) nope, there is no complete tanks. oh really ? since the Chieftain said it lol ? he has seat, and doesn't need to dance around any shaft's, and no one is rotating turret during loading procedure, so if it's not a problem for shitty Pz3 ergonomic, it's not a problem and for T-34. i don't need to watch video of empty Panzer IV, i know exactly how it look like when all ammo, spare, MG, MP is inside,but "famous youtubers and book writers" don't want to mentoin it somehow. started from 1942 IIRC, and your conclussion came from where ? if you maintain gerbox normaly, it woudn't be any problems, if you doesn't maintain it, well sledgehammer for genius. polish + hungarian T-34 units it's a 80% or RKKA tank fleet or what ? level of maintenance in this units ? better optics(1943 report on Sherman in Italy), better or same REAL reability than almost any modification of M4(read reports on tankarchives) and ? http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p4013coll8/id/3344/rec/206 Fire control.-(1) Because of the excessive dispersion which occurs with the M4 periscope, firing of tank guns is confined almost entirely to the artillery method of sensing and locating bursts and giving corrections in mils to the gunners. The average dispersion which occurs as a result of slack in the periscope holder and linkage extends 4 mils in both planes. This dispersion is so great that guns do not stay bore-sighted with the telescope after any operation. The modification consisting of a spring between the periscope holder and turret will be greatly welcomed. The officers who saw the M4A1 periscope liked it extremely, but all were emphatic in saying that only one reticle pattern should be used and that if these new periscopes are used the telescope mounted on the gun mount should have the same reticle. (2) There is very little use of the coaxially mounted telescope; the dispersion which results from its use is even greater than that experienced with the M4 periscope. In addition, the optics of the M55 telescopes are unsatisfactory, resulting in unsatisfactory light-transmission characteristics. Furthermore, most gunners report that it is very difficult for them to get their heads into proper position for sighting through the coaxial telescope. When tanks are operating in combat, the crash helmet is always worn; in most cases, the steel helmet without liner is worn over the crash helmet. (3) About 75 percent of the tanks in England are equipped both with azimuth indicators and with the M9 range quadrant. Less than half of the tanks in Italy are equipped with the azimuth indicator, and few have the M9 range quadrant. Both of these items are essential equipment in this theater h. Ammunition stowage.-Except for the ready rounds in the turret, the ammunition stowage is unsatisfactory and should be improved. Experience in Italy indicates that 2 rounds out of every 40 in the stowage bins will separate, creating a very serious fire hazard and making it difficult to remove the rest of the rounds from the stowage bin. When going into combat, the crew invariably puts a full complement of ammunition in the floor of the turret basket because they are anxious to carry a very large quantity of ammunition. Tank crews are very little concerned with protection of ammunition and consider accessibility and quantity of primary importance. it was bad tank, with many flaws as any other, but main problems often was it's crew and people who command operations, but all this old shitty myths about "bad soviet sights" etc only a myths...
  9. yes it's seen on photo, near to bended area it's get thicker, but this area is track tension system IIRC, so it could be very tricky
  10. i researched III, IV, 34, VI and V much closer tnan that videos in empty tanks as for "very ergonomic panzer III" loader doesn't have turntable, and will dance around cardan shaft or "gunner position is not bad" with open side hatch, no commander in place lol, superb! driver and radiooperator don't have hatches and it has a 50mm little gun vs 76mm, well... loader site, tank doesn't have MG which will reduce free space in turret...and again open hatches(vision block on hatch again will reduce free space) with this turret has some problems. same level of force was needed on Sherman steering levers , 30-35 kg max for T34 and Sherman, as for gearshift on 4 speed gearbox it was fixed on 5 speed gearbox and human memory never was and never be a good source. it's not problem of a turret, but basic idea of that tank at the moment. horrible in what term ? or in comparison with what tank ? Panzer III with commander sitting on ammo bin ? or Panzer III rack in engine room ? or Panzer IV gunner have ammo oh his foots ? maybe Comet where loader can't load gun without hurting himself ? great conclusion and again, all of that it's not in protection of "holly T-34", just hate tons of stupid old myths and new made by Chieftain sitting in empty tank and making conclusions out of nowhere.
×
×
  • Create New...