Jeeps_Guns_Tanks
-
Posts
4,219 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
29
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Jeeps_Guns_Tanks
-
-
12 minutes ago, Beer said:
According to soviet test report (posted above) the practical rate of fire for Panther was 6-8 per minute.
20 rpm for Panther is IMHO nonsense and absolutely impossible to achieve (you really can't do this every 3 seconds). Have you seen the round, the space around the breech and where the rounds are stored? 20 rpm is practical rate of fire for tiny 37 mm or 2pdr gun where you can load by one hand.
15 rpm for 75 mm is great (it was for sure less in practical situations).
Yeah, I bet the only way they did it is in the early days when they just piled lose ammo into the turret basket... and then only until that ammo and ready racks were gone. Maybe when the whole crew was feeding the gun when they were acting as an artillery battery.
This was what was so amusing about SH-MM complaining about the Shermans HUGE ACKWARD rounds. I mean LOL.
-
29 minutes ago, holoween said:
15rpm isnt exactly great in comparison when the french report has this to say about panther rof A rate of fire of 20 rounds per minute is only permitted in exceptional cases when circumstances so dictate.
15 RPM is amazing, when the gun and recoil mechanism can do it all day long if it has too. Lets take a look at what the report says.
QuoteDuring rapid rate of fire it is not uncommon to be forced to break off firing when the recoil of the gun has reached its permissible limit (cease fire).
A rate of fire of 20 rounds per minute is only permitted in exceptional cases when circumstances so dictate.These refer to a limitation in the gun of the Panther. The recoil mechanism required time to recuperate from the forces of repeatedly firing the gun. After a few rounds, the gun needed a period of cease-fire. This is not uncommon for high-velocity cannons.
We know why you just didn't quote the passage now don't we.
20 rounds permitted only under exceptional cases, and limited by the recoil mechanism. The M3 gun is also capable of 20RPM on stand, without having to worry about the recoil mechanism failing. Still, this is very impressive for the Panther, and everyone was impressed with the gun, it was the rest of the tank that was a hot Nazi mess.
If you think a Panther fired 20 rounds per minute on a regular basis, you might be a wehraboo.
-
On 2/4/2021 at 12:14 PM, SH_MM said:
The positions of (some) crew members are cramped? Well, this was a WW2 tank for fuck's sake. Pretty much all of them were cramped. The Panzerkampfwagen III and IV were more cramped, the M3 Lee/Grant, the Firefly variant of the M4 Sherman, etc. Every tank in WW2 was cramped if you apply modern ergonomic standards... even the Sherman. The Sherman however was also an incredible tall target. The gun wasn't awkward to load from a modern perspective, but by WW2 standards the huge size of the shells was uncommon and akward. I don't remember exactly if it was the Firefly or the Pershing, but in one of these tanks the loader had to rotate the round taken from the ready rack in both axis in order to load the gun. That was awkward.
I bring this back up In the spirit of not letting bullshit history spread.
Are you trying to paint the Sherman 75 tanks as hard to load? The early versions could put out 15 rounds a minute with a good loader. The rounds for the 75mm M3 gun were not considered overly large, and they were not overly heavy. Also, if you're not sure of something, maybe you shouldn't try and use it to make some weird point.
http://www.theshermantank.com/wp-content/uploads/M3-gun-data-image.png
-
4 hours ago, SH_MM said:
So somehow it is okay to complain about initial design/components issues of tanks you don't like and bash them all you want, but not to hold other tanks up to the same standard. Okay
I brought the objections to the A57 up again, because I was asked to... but next time I will simply make only an original statement and not provide any further clarification or replies when asked again.
You are the one who went on a rant about how you don't like people having tank comparison discussions. And now you're whining about not being able to compare tanks bits?
Maybe try sticking to topics you actually know about instead of spewing out a long confusing rant about people discussion things on a discussion forum.
-
7 minutes ago, SH_MM said:
It is an interessting vehicle concept, but I'm not so sure on the COTS/MOTS parts. Valhalla Turrets hasn't much experience and the selected turret (unmanned, but with a channel for the soldiers to observe/operate over the hatch) has AFAIK not yet been made. However at the current stage LuWa has only been ordered as a technology demonstrator, so hopefully any immaturities will be detected and fixed before it enters service.
As far as I am aware, the requirement for the LuWa is/was that at least one signle vehicle has to fit into the CH-53G, there was/is no requirement to transport two at the same time (with the CH-53G).
Well, what's the point of a 25 mm or 30 mm gun, when you have a 27 mm one already? The Bundeswehr doesn't have any gun in the 25 x 137 mm and 30 x 113 mm calibers, but the 27 x 145 mm caliber in various applications (Tornado, Typhoon, MLG-27); there is a supply chain and there are ammo stocks for it. The 30 x 173 mm Mauser MK 30 would likely be too powerful/heavy for such a light-weight platform.
I also wasn't able to find the old article on the Soviet trials of the M4A4; not sure if it was deleted or I am simply mis-remembering things. As far as I am aware, Pasholok's articles are usually not based on the actual Soviet archives, but rather on Western sources such as the British sources mentioned by you. E.g. he cites the US National Archives Records Administration and R. P. Hunnicutt's book on the Sherman.
The A57 engine was rejected by the the Canadians (as option for the Ram tank), the US Army and the Soviets, which makes me really question the British data and methodology. When the A57 was first tested in the United States on Aberdeen Proving Ground, it performed well, but upon closer inspection it became apparent that it had overheated and damaged seals and bearings:
From "The Ordnance Department: Planning Muniitons for War" of the Office of the Chief of Military History, Department of the Army's 1955 series "United States Army in World War II".
The later 400 hours trials also held at Aberdeen Proving Ground are not really a valid representation of actual performance, at least according to Peter Samsonov, these tanks were essentially given unlimited maintenance and spare parts for everything that was not directly the engine, while the test conditions were mild.
You keep bringing up objections to the A57 based on the early engine, there were only 1300 or so made without the single water pump. Once the Water pump and Generator issues were solved, it was very reliable. It also kind of weird your going on about an engine no one liked, because it was a stop gap, and just looking at it looked like it would be unreliable. That doesn't change the fact until the GAA V8 had all its bugs worked out, the A57 was more reliable in service than the 6046 and R975.
@EnsignExpendable can clear up this claim of documentation from his site that talks about A57 problems, when the Soviets only ever got the multi water pump version to test.
-
Yeah, not wanting to compare tanks in a thread and forum for discussing tanks seems legit. Did someone shit in someone's cheerios? Or is this because when you compare tanks, it hurts the feelings of the wehraboo?
On 2/4/2021 at 9:16 AM, Lord_James said:
“I felt a great disturbance in the force; as if millions of @Jeeps_Guns_Tanks cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced”.Yeah, @DIADES this seems like a great argument, "the Sherman was not a developmental success, because I'm ignorant of it being the basis for the T20 series." The T20 series basically being a Sherman, with its main flaw, the foreword mounted drivetrain being fixed. You would then also have to ignore all the technology developed on the Sherman that was used and improved on in later tanks. Yeah, not a very good argument.
The Sherman only having one turret hatch is a flaw, and it took a little to long for the fix to reach the troops. Crew Casualties figures show it wasn't a huge problem though, since the Commanders hatch had a HUGE opening, and two men could stand in it.
2 men 1 hatch.
http://www.theshermantank.com/wp-content/uploads/14AD_M4Sherman_Silz.jpg
2 men 1 hatch small loaders hatch edition.
http://www.theshermantank.com/wp-content/uploads/M4A1DT_ANZ44.jpg
2 men 1 hatch, Anzio edition, with inflatable!
I too would like to see any Data on the M4A4 not being reliable in service, since the data we have show it was pretty much the most reliable version. I think the Soviets rejected it based on one of the early versions without all the engine fixes. They were well liked in service with the British.
And a final note. Who ever said the Army didn't think the R975 radial was a flaw? Like, if you look at the T20 series, it was never considered for those tanks. It was used because that's what they had when they started working on the M3 Medium. If you look into it, the R975 was not a great engine for tanks, and took a whole redesign to get it to run past 500 hours if I recall right.
-
So it does not cover US Aero Engines, so it's just comparing the hand built junk?
-
1 hour ago, hobbes154 said:
A few years late, but have to say this was a great OP I wish I'd stumbled on sooner (plus a pretty epic flamewar). Fascinating for those of us who don't work on or aspire to design aircraft but want to understand the choices designers made. Hope it is not too late to add something to the conversation.
1. Some more fighters with outer wing fuel tanks:-
(some) Corsairs
Just a note on the Corsair wing tanks. They did not work well. They had a tendency to leak at the fold point. The pilots did not like them, even though they came with C/O2 purging system. The wing tanks were only found on the -1 and -1A birds. When they -1D went into production, they were eliminated, since it could carry up to three drop tanks. You would think instead of dropping them, they would have fixed the leaking problems, and given the the Corsair some extra range!
-
(some) Corsairs
-
Looks like a good Carrier, since it looks like a Nimitz! What's the projected displacement?
-
-
9 hours ago, Toxn said:
Huh. I decided to try a bit of ground forces arcade, and it's also been fun. Not even better game-wise, but at least I don't wish screaming death on the developers.
I think the higher overall speeds (which balances the speed meta from RB at bit) and lack of choice in aircraft options (which removes the german go-to of dropping a satan on your head) makes things a bit better. Also, the implementation of spotting mechanics (however shoddy) helps to remove the issue of people dropping settings to see through foliage. So you're not constantly getting nailed by invisible enemies.
Again, ground RB is like an anti-game at the moment. Change literally anything and it inexplicably becomes better.
They changed the view system in Arcade? Not being able to sneak around is the worst aspect of Arcade.
-
2 hours ago, Lord_James said:
I had an idea like that: a game where you could modify WWII vehicles in a cross-out kind of way, and bring those in, like a Sherman with a KV-2 gun and other such nonsense. Of course, I can never do anything about it, because I am inept at such things, but I think it would be fun to chop and mod vehicles like that.
Pz.2c is the most OP vehicle (per tier) in the game, absolutely crushes reserve and low BR tanks. Only thing that can make them run is the T-50 at top BR.Whole German tree seems like easy mode when you play them. Yet German players still whine about them.
In a recent battle, I was in a M4A2 76W tank, and had taken shelter inside a building to avoid air power, and once he was right outside, I drove through the all and shot him in the side. It made all the shit games for a week worth it lol.
http://www.theshermantank.com/wp-content/uploads/shot-2020.11.29-14.56.40-1600x900.jpg
http://www.theshermantank.com/wp-content/uploads/shot-2020.11.29-14.56.57-1600x900.jpg
http://www.theshermantank.com/wp-content/uploads/shot-2020.11.29-14.58.29-1600x900.jpg
http://www.theshermantank.com/wp-content/uploads/shot-2020.11.29-14.58.38-1600x900.jpg
http://www.theshermantank.com/wp-content/uploads/shot-2020.11.29-14.58.40-1600x900.jpg
-
1 hour ago, Toxn said:
For me it's up and down the line, although the lower tiers are better. It becomes nigh unplayable around tier 6, but even tier 2 has plenty of 50mm pumas and the like run by lvl 100 players who seem to see effortlessly through smoke and cover and repair damaged components in seconds.
Agreed that the game is very obviously designed for folk with disposeable income and hours a day to put in. And also that it's very pretty.
I have some amazing screen shots too, lol!
Yeah, I take special pleasure of hunting down the asshole wheeled German scouts and killing them. The one that kills me is the Wirblewind, I shouldn't have to fear a fucking AA gun from the front in my Pershing!
-
1 hour ago, Toxn said:
I'm honestly not qualified to say.
I think part of it is that WT, like a lot of FtP games, caters heavily to folk who can either put 6 hours a day in, or pay for premium. I think you'll find that those folks get plenty of fun out, and can rack up huge kill counts etc. Which is fine - I'm used to this dynamic whenever I play anything multiplayer just because I'm not 20 and don't have hours a day to put into them.
But somehow they go above and beyond this baseline level of feeling like a pinata for whales, and manage to inject frustration into every part of the experience.
That's how I feel any time I play anything above 6.3 RGB. I still enjoy 3.7 the most, and I couldn't play the game non-premium, it's already to much work to get to anything high end. I think part of it is the stupid crew skill mechanic. If you don't drop money on it getting crews skilled up takes forever, and does make a difference. A really big one in airplanes.
Still, its better than WOT. It's also very pretty if you have a good system. My only goal other to just mess around was to get all the odd ball Shermans, and I'm almost to the M36B1, in the Italian Tree. That just leaves the stupid oddball Sherman in the Chinese Tree, I'm not sure I'll bother with. I think the game is designed around a player who plays 20 to 50 games a day.
I'd post some fun beauty shots but posting images on this forum is broken right now...
-
They almost look like little tank cakes!
-
1 hour ago, Lord_James said:
I crash less when playing the big fleet ships, which is great, and it’s easier to progress through the fleet. I’m already at type 1936 mob, and almost have the fletcher since the update dropped
I have the premium Fletcher, and the destroyer right before it. Seems like Fleet is rarely busy though, when is a good time to play it?
The big ships sure are pretty though
http://www.theshermantank.com/wp-content/uploads/shot-2020.11.22-16.55.23.jpg
-
Really enjoying the new War Thunder Patch. DLSS support they added works with my video card so the game looks great and runs a little better. The new effects are cool. I like the new Forrestal Carrier in the game! They also made it so the Garage shows the vehicle selected, and then two other vehicles from the preset in the background. The weather changes in the Garage too.
-
I owned a 78, and it was the worst vehicle I ever owned...
-
12 hours ago, Toxn said:
So I bought the DLCs when they came out on sale recently, and I'm now happy to report that I'm regularly running two Archers and a Marauder in my lance. No Warhawks yet, though, and I'm miffed that no Hatchetmen have showed up yet for salvage despite being available.
COIL weapons, which were supposed to fix the fast-but-useless mech issue, have also proved to be underwhelming, although running a Firestarter that could rear attack for 100dmg + 6MGs was fun for the early game
Nice, now I'm tempted!
-
16 hours ago, Toxn said:
So I've been playing the recent Battletech game a bit, and I have thoughts.
Background: I've played quite a bit of Megamech (no tabletop, sadly - not enough folk doing tabletop games in general around here) and generally go for no-mech builds because fuck your giant robots.
The game disappoints me by having a 4-mech lance limit, so lights are even more useless than normal. This is made even worse by every scenario involving you being outnumbered. So no mass tactics or manoeuvre tactics for you, mechwarrior. So you're all but doomed to having big, heavy, slow, armour-based builds if you don't like the idea of just scraping your pilots out of the cockpit between missions and shoving new recruits in.
Besides the intricacies of weapon damage spreads, heat outputs, the stability damage mechanics, initiative et al (which are mostly interesting to tabletop nerds who feel like the game doesn't play how they remember it), there are also a few technical niggles. Sometimes an enemy mech will move next to a small rock and become inexplicably impossible to melee attack. Sometimes the mandatory ingame 'cinematic' camera will position itself so that you can only see waving bushes. Sometimes the game crawls to a halt when a big object like your dropship gets loaded in (an instance of Unity Engine syndrome).
All that said, smashing giant robots together never ceases to be fun, and I've been enjoying what amounts to the sad adult version of that.
I give the game a Stock Shadowhawk/10, being that it's not terrible (and can get fun if you fiddle with it a bit), but does not blow the world away with how great it is (optimised Kintaro) or provide some fun twist that makes the formula sparkle in a new setting (Disco built of Grasshopper).
PS: I should mention my lack of bona fides again here, because my current go-to team composition is legendarily awful:
- Banshee for my main, which is a one-trick pony fitted out with arm augments and as much armour as it can take.
- Victor, for lack of any better mechs. Running a mix of AC10 and SRM.
- Dragon, again for lack of anything better right now. Also going in for SRMs
- Disco-variant Grasshopper, running hot but lethal if you can move in behind someone.
Other than that I keep a couple of Griffins on standby for jumpy-shooty-backstabby things, a melee-optimised Shadowhawk, a single Centurion (to my endless shame I had to sell the one other one I managed to piece together due to going broke), an LRM-boat Trebuchet (which is not optimal, but oh well), a disco-variant Vindicator and, of course, and Urbie (sans small laser because the fuck are you going into CC with an Urbanmech?).
Did they ever put the Classic Mechs like Archer, Warhawk and Marauder in?
They were all in the original boxed games and I think the first PC game, but at some point licensing issues happened if I recall right.
-
4 hours ago, Must Be Spoon Fed said:
I don't need to boast or to pretend how knowledgeable I'm people, when they hear of that I do or read what I wrote, they are usually impressed with me.
Well, why didn't you do that here?
-
On 9/19/2020 at 8:22 AM, Get-To-Langer said:
If you look closely, there's Crusader or Cromwell tracks on the Firefly VC's turret. Since this is a CDN unit, I suppose it's possible they are CDP tracks too (from Sextons).
Lol Good eye!
-
10 hours ago, Toxn said:
Oh I will laugh and laugh when someone finally gets around to testing a historically accurate mongol bow and longbow side by side, only to have the former just blow away the latter in terms of penetration...
Is that like the AK versus AR debate in the gun world?
-
Does the sap have to get deep inside you to kill or can skin contact get you?
StuG III Thread (and also other German vehicles I guess)
in Mechanized Warfare
Posted
I think there is a good chance of it being a typo, but the final drives were a problem. The final drives being an issue are even documented in the boo Bible, Panther Tank the Quest for Combat Supremacy by Jentz documents the horrible operational rate of this tank from start to finish.
The idea that having a supply chain, that keeps spare parts available for a tank, means that tank isn't actually reliable is really bad argument. You can't punish a Nation in an argument for knowing about logistics, and designing tanks to be easily maintained and repairable by the soldier. Not saying it was you who made this argument, @heretic88 but it was spewed somewhere in this thread. The items Shermans needed to stay running were things like, sparkplugs, fuel filters, road wheels, or bearings for them from wear and tear from those long road marches across Europe! Basically the little things everyone knows wear out, the big mechanical bits like the Tranny, Differential and Final drivers under normal use just don't wear out that fast. Most restored shermans, even one used as a demo bulldozer, that smashed down a HUGE neighborhood in Oakland California in the 50s, require no restoration work other than some external bolt replacements and a good paint job. Trying to paint the Sherman as un reliable is a fucking travesty to history.