Jump to content
Please support this forum by joining the SH Patreon ×
Sturgeon's House

Beer

Contributing Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,394

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    26

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Beer

  1. Beer
    NKR makeshift MLRS made of a Krug TEL.
  2. Beer
    Yesterday night two Tochka missiles with cluster warhead hit an oil smuggling site near Jarabulus at the Turkish borders. The fire has been burning till now. It's second such strike in last couple of month. There are reports about several killed and at least two dozens of wounded. The attack is here. One Tochka booster in a sureal photo.
  3. Beer
    But... but, but it's name contains "south", so it must be in south or?
  4. Beer
    Two more of the interesting aircraft prototypes of the time. First one is Avia B-158, light bomber/recon aircraft. This plane flew for the first time in November 1937. It was full-metal plane with water-cooled locally produced Hispano-Suiza 12Ydrs engines (850 Hp max.) and Hispano-Hamilton variable-pitch 3-blade propellers. The top speed of the prototype was 435 km/h but the serialy produced planes shall have been faster (460 km/h was expected) because the surfaces of the prototype, especially rivets were not finished in production standard. The undercarriage was retractable. What was particularly interesting is the W-shape wings. The range of the recon variant was 1850 km, the bomber only 1000 km. The plane had 3-men crew in the bomber variant - pilot, observer/bomber/front gunner, dorsal gunner and 4-men crew in the recon version with additional belly gunner (each gunner had only a single 7,92 mm MG). The bomber could carry 1000 km of bombs. The bomb bay had 6 section for max. 500 kg and hardpoints under the fuselage could carry one 500 kg or two 200 kg bombs (500 kg bombs were not fielded by Czechoslovak airfoce by September 1938 but if I'm not mistaken Luftwaffe didn't have them as well at that time). The prototype was being tested and tested up to the occupation. After that it was again tested by Luftwaffe and likely scrapped. As you could see before there was a plane with better performance available for the same task, the Aero A-300 and if there was more time the one which would go into production would be most likely the Aero one. In fact I don't think that the B-158 was even better enough than the already produced B-71 (license copy of Tupolev SB-2) to start its production. The second one is Praga E-51, scout/recon plane. Somewhat similarly looking to Fokker G-1 this plane wasn't a fighter but basically an equivalent of the Fw-189. The fuselage was made of steel tubes with plywood cover, the eliptical (!) wings were mostly wooden. The engines were the biggest curiosity I guess because they were local air-colled V12 Walter Sagitta with max. power 560 Hp. The air cooling for such engine was problematic and the prototype often flew without aerodynamic covers on them. The propellers were 3-blade variable pitch Hispano ones. The plane had 3-men crew - pilot, observer/radio operator/bomber and rear gunner. The observer had movable photocamera which was able to take three partially overlapping photos at once to enhance his effectivness. The could also carry one 200 kg heavy bomb (semi-externally) or six smaller bombs up to 50 kg heavy (externally). There were only two 7,92 mm guns, one fixed in the left winf and one for the rear gunner. An option was considered to add second fixed MG to the right wing or/and 20 mm Oerlikon gun in a gunpod. The plane had a fix undercarriage with which it could reach 380 km/h (cruise speed was 330 km/h). The ceilling was 7000 meters and the range was 900 km. There was an option considered with a removable additional internal fuel tank which could enhance the range to some 1200-1300 km. The plane flew for the first time already in May 1936 but it was far from a serial one, in that time it had a gun turret and somewhat different fuselage shape. There were big problems with vibrations of the horizontal stabilizer, cooling of the engines etc. During the redesign the turret was removed, the fuselage and the tail wheel got diferent shapes. The rebuilt plane flew for the first time only in February 1939 (the work slowed down a lot after Münich when it was clear that there will be no government order). After the occupation the plane was tested also by Luftwaffe and probably scraped.
  5. Beer
    OK, with this you can seriously fuck off. Your beloved fuckers murdered millions of innocent people and I'm sure I'm not the only one on this forum whose ancestors fought the Nazi scum and eventually died on the battlefield. Go fuck yourself.
  6. Beer
    Sorry but that is fantasy and wishful thinking on your side and a clear misunderstanding how AFV development process is complicated and what needs to be done between the drawing board and the serial production. I'm sorry but if you don't understand how utterly useless is to over and over bring these dream projects into the discussion, I have nothing more to add to the subject. You can keep living in your fantasy land. Seriously, WTF? Those heavier vehicles were an unreliable nearly useless mass of steels which failed miserably and you somehow expect that if you take some of their parts and put them in new vehicles everything will somehow start to work well? E-series except E-100 had rear transmission a thing completely new for the Germans, yet you somehow consider it a carry-over of the previous designs. There was no decision about suspension done with three existing options, one completely new and one never used for such heavy vehicle. The engine was all new direct-injection optionally turbocharged, never tried before. The hydraulic gearbox was all new never tested. Nothing is known about the turrets and armamament. All what circles about them on the internet is nothing more than made-up theories. Regarding E-series of tanks you shall read this: https://warspot.net/13-e-50-and-e-75-a-story-of-failed-unification War is not a football and is never ever won by score. In the end it's irrelevant if you kill one or million enemies when you loose. Wars are not fought to make impression on future generations of teenagers. War is won by the side which best achieves its strategical objectives. Everything else is secondary. T-54 prototype says hello to German paper tanks, March 1945.
  7. Beer
    I'm sorry but building a prototype (or in this case just a turretless demonstrator) is something very different than to develop vehicle suitable for production. The Schmalturm on the picture was not an integral Panther II feature but a separate later development considered for various vehicles but it also never got anywhere - not even to the final specification. In the end Panther II was replaced by another, this time pure-paper project E-50 before there was even an attempt to start Panther II production done. No prototype testing was done, no trials, not even any final design specification was done and nothing was ordered. Using such projects for comparison with anything actually fielded is completely useless and on the level of pure fantasy. There were dozens of demonstrators and prototypes made in all countries and comparing them to anything is simply pointless because what matters in reality is not paper stats but real service record. Besides that there is very good reason to expect that a new lale war German armor design would end in a failure because that was the general trend in vehicles which were getting to the production towards the end of the war.
  8. Beer
    If you read more Soviet reports you would know what hard terrain means.
  9. Beer
    Everyone can draw a nice thing on the paper. Considering how other German projects ended we can quite safely say that Panther II would end being something completely different than what it was on the paper. Paper projects are paper projects. Good for WoT but completely irrelevant for reality. You'd better not even start with arguments based on such stuff.
  10. Beer
    How about to read that report. So it broke down 3x over 220 km without even going into hard terrain.
  11. Beer
    Panther was havier than Pershing yet you insisted on comparing Pershing (medium tank per army designation) with heavies and compared Panther with 15 tons lighter medium vehicles. Hence my reaction and by the way you can't omit operational and strategical mobility which was afwful with Panther, definitely not on the level of medium tanks. It was you who claimed that the layout of Pershing was of "dubious redundancy". It is not and Panther layout of vision devices was worse. Simple as that. There is no need to write a wall of text about it. Upgraded how? Panther had zero modernisation potential. The chassis could not carry any more load because it was already grossly overweight. The armour could not be made thicker, the gun could not be made larger. The turret ring was small. The final drive could not be fixed in the existing vehicle. It had all to do with the design. Yes, the decision was made in 1943 and it shows how wrong the decision making process was. Normally you don't put into production something which is overweight before the production even starts because issues are invitable and you can't upgrade it in the future. Pz.IV grew in weight by 19% between Ausf.D and H. Pz.III grew by 18% betwen Ausf.E and Ausf.N. Sherman variants grew up to 27%. T-34 variants grew by 19%. Panther grew by 0 kg in two years because it was overweight from the start. It was a vehicle with no modernization potential already when it first went off the production line and it had all to do with the design. It says that Soviets undersood that logistics and serviceability wins wars while weapons are only tools for doing that. Something the Germans clearly never understood (some did but weren't able to change the course of things). Feel free to show more destroyed Pershings.
  12. Beer
    Panther was roughly 3 tons heavier than Pershing. It's really strange when you compare Panther with medium tanks and Pershing with heavies when Pershing is lighter than Panther which itself is 10-20 tons heavier than other medium tanks of the war. By the way in our post war army Panther had a designation "Heavy tank T-42/75 N" and was garaged (not actively used) in a heavy tank regiment. Do you suggest that Panther's no observation device for the gunner is better? In Panther the gunner with his extremely narrow field of view located half a meter bellow the commander's cupolla had zero situation awarness and all he could do is to rotate the turret to the azimuth position given by the commander using that crazy gauge. In Pershing the gunner could see every time when the commander could see, while in Panther the gunner was completely blind when the tank was behind the berm or something. That's not some dubious redundancy but IMHO much more practical solution than in Panther. This must be the biggest joke of this forum ever. The result of that skill of the designers were vehicles which had around 1/3 larger armoured volume and had a weight of a class above their counterparts made by other countries. 13 tons lighter than Panther, much smaller, faster, yet better armoured T-44 was roughly one year newer than Panther. It was officially addopted by RA on 23rd November 1944 but there were 3 brigades equipped with T-44 already since 15th September 1944. There were around 1000 T-44 fielded by May 1945. The fact that it wasn't used in combat doesn't make it a post-war vehicle. It was just easier for the service and logistics to stick with the T-34/85 in the actual combat units (which also tells you that T-34/85 was considered good enough to deal with the Germans). It's somewhat weird to criticise Pershing armor layout when there were actually only two penetrations of Pershing in the WW2 (with one tank written off). Sure small number of vehicles was used but only two were penetrated (one by direct KwK-36 hit into the gunner's sights and the other by PaK-43 hit to the lower front plate) hence why saying that its armor was insufficient is unfounded.
  13. Beer
    OK, is it 2A46M-5 or 2A82M?
  14. Beer
    Are you able to recognize which gun is finally installed on those vehicles?
  15. Beer
    By the way wasn't the reason why no real US heavy tank made it in mass production in WW2 mainly in the maximum lifting capacity of cranes used in seaports? I believe I heard that somewhere.
  16. Beer
    1976 comparative trials of T-80, T-72, T-64A and T-62 in primary archive sources. https://www.tankarchives.ca/2021/03/the-ussrs-hungriest-tank.html
  17. Beer
    Alleged footage of the Al Asad strike.
  18. Beer
    Belgian military ordered nearly 900 new AWD trucks which will have DAF logo but in fact they have Tatra chassis and around 350 of them will have Tatra armoured cabins as well. Non-armoured cabins will be DAF (the same as already used on standard Tatra Phoenix) and the engines will be Paccar/DAF. Gearbox probably Allison. The final assembly site is not mentioned but it will be likely Tatra. https://www.armadninoviny.cz/vozidla-tatra-pro-belgii.html
  19. Beer
    The interesting thing is that it allegedly crashed on TFSA-controlled territory...
  20. Beer
    That's company of Mr. Šercl based in Northern Bohemia, he built the engines for LT vz.35, LT vz.38 and AH-IV-Sv of Lešany muzeum as well, also Hetzer engine for Flying Herritage (he did more Hetzers). He has also a technical muzeum. You can find tons of photos from various restoration here.
  21. Beer
    Some historical lulz... you can add Czechoslovak LT vz.34, LT vz.38 aka Pz.38(t), Panzerjäger 38(t) Hetzer, Marder III, ST vz.39 aka V-8-H, AH-IV tankettes and plenty of other TNH-based vehicles among Kharkov inventions because ČKD (BMM) chief designer Alexei Surin was born in a village near Kharkov. It's time to finally find out that actually all tanks originate in Kharkov Surin was a Tsarist and White-Russian officer who emigrated to newborn Czechoslovakia and he was smart enough not to be arrested by Soviet Smerch in May 1945 like Czechoslovak and well known White-Russian general Sergei Wojciechowski (Vojcechovský) who died in Gulag in 1951 (with Beneš's Czechoslovak post-war government not giving a shit about his whereabouts). He was investigated for collaboration with Nazis though but cleared whe it was prooven he actively sabotaged the work. He was heavily involved in the new domestic MBT program and when it was canceled he was working on establishing T-34/85 production in Czechoslovakia.
  22. Beer
    This thing deserves to be in this thread.
  23. Beer
    You just contradicted your previous statement. The whole point was that Luftwafe inflated numbers just like everyone else. You claimed it didn't, I showed you a proof they did. Simple as that. Anyway this is off topic which has nothing to do with German AFV.
  24. Beer
    That rigorous system doesnť hold water when you study particular engagements. I give one example because that is very well known to me. 29th August 1944 an air battle over Czechoslovak territory along the today's Czech/Slovak border. Take into account that this battle took place over German-controlled territory, all wreckage was quickly found and nearly all Allied pilots who survived on parachutes were captured (several were hidden by locals until Red army came). The real losses are 100% documented from archives, from found wreckage etc. and all names of shot down crews are known. Luftwaffe pilots were awarded 19 Abschuss, 7 Herausschuss and 1 eingültige Vernichtung. The real losses were 9 B-17 shot down, 1 B-24 crashed for technical reasons (outisde of the battle area), 4 B-17 heavily damaged and 2 B-17 lightly damaged. No P-51 was shot down. German losses were 9 Bf-109 and 4 Fw-190 (4 Bf-109 due to broken engine, all the rest but one shot down by P-51). The US awards are not known to me unfortunately. So the Germans were awarded more than double the actual kills while they must have known that the number is way too high.
  25. Beer
    Indonesia bought a licence to locally produce RM-70 Vampire with Excalibur (after importing RM-70 Vampires and support vehicles since 2016). Vampire is a modernised variant of the original RM-70 on a new chassis. As everyboy knows RM-70 is basically an armoured Grad with two salvos instead of one carried by the launcher. https://www.armadninoviny.cz/spolecnost-excalibur-army-podepsala-dohodu-o-vyrobe-raketometu-na-podvozcich-tatra-v-indonesii.html?fbclid=IwAR1fbEski1ez8NS6e5f0QZP6CMOzjLdhYpzt7oSIGgJETOxB86I-ZnH8Mb8
×
×
  • Create New...