Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Peasant

Scrublord
  • Content Count

    70
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Peasant

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. My mistake. I forget to write frontal. I mean frontal, yes, but even frontal arc, Chinese design seems unsuited! Armor array is designed in such a way that either the interior is awful or the weakness is exposed in the frontal 60* arc. I realize Russian design is only frontal 60*, NATO include the sides, but China does not. Frontal array is thick but does not cover wider aspect. Like Russian/Soviet & NATO. Thanks for kindness
  2. Light tanks now obsolete? Or countries appear incapable of making one?
  3. Why limited aspect protection (turret)? Main cannon? Armor protection?
  4. Any internet links for articles on the Object 907, T-22cp? Other V hulled tanks?
  5. No. In WT such considerations are not relevant. Although there is a certain disdain for making the Soviet tech tree more historically accurate by not openly gimping their ammo selection.
  6. WT's MBT-70 has lots of controversy. > Some claim the 152mm gun could actually achieve it's listed APFSDS penetration > Some claim the loader could feed the gun a missile every 5 seconds Are these false? I recall reading some material stating that because the 152mm did not have any indication of being able to fire the projectile, a ported 105mm sabot, at any greater power than the L7.
  7. Is German tank inferiority in France a myth, overblown, or real? Pz II, 38t, Pz I, (and heavier) Pz III, are more mobile (in terms of fuel range) than their French counterparts? Why does the Pz III get such a bad rep in wehraboo circles?
  8. Japan seems to have neglected the tank part of light tank in their pursuit of padding X stat.
  9. Didn't the Army raise a concern about it's armor, but eventually agreed (with the cavalry) that to keep the weight lower they would keep it as is? That's the story I heard anyway Aside from not stopping infantry rifles, it doesn't seem like a poor performing tank?
  10. If I was to ask about Hetzer* but that's more invested than I was imagining.
  11. The better question I think with the Hetzer, was if it was an intentional punishment inflicted upon it's crew for fighting in the war. Considering the designer did sabotage some of the first few models.
  12. I was thinking cheaper, easier to make, exceptionally low requirements for production, designed for fire support missions instead of anything else. Such as how the ASU-57 uses many civilian parts, such a light tank would re-use parts from past turreted light tanks, possibly just rob the hull outright, then fit in a great big infantry support gun.
  13. It isn't worth the greater firepower since the machine is no longer capable of firing from many positions a turreted tank would, and presents a larger? Profile when doing so? The smaller size and much reduced weight results in a poorly armored platform or less poorly armored & slow at once? Making it vulnerable to enemy gunfire and more of a target? But when engaging from prepared positions, it is little more than an expensive gun that happens to move and sort of protect itself?
  14. I see. I understand now Yak-3 is not especially fast 655 km/h? But has good energy retention, speed characteristics, and acceleration? If you talk about Japanese tanks most people think they cannot stop LMG's but for their time; they weren't too terrible? Like Chi Ha vs Pz II?
×
×
  • Create New...