ZloyKrolik

OK, spread the love, make fun of Nazi failures in those forums as well.

17 hours ago, Collimatrix said:

 

Indeed.  Most of the early work on what would become the HK and CETME family of rifles was initially done in France by ex-Mauser employees.  They later moved to Spain, which they seem to have preferred for its relaxed economic protectionism, drier climate, and slightly fascist dictatorship.

Rifle talk should be in Ballistics or Infantry forums. 

17 hours ago, Lord_James said:

Also, I would point out that similar occurrences did happen in history (turret from one vehicle being used to upgrade another), namely the T23 turret on the Sherman, and (iirc) the T-34-85’s turret.

Wartime upgrades on vehicles in service from internal prototypes. Not the case here.

Talk about old school....

On 2/22/2021 at 12:28 PM, Atokara said:

Meanwhile half of NATO's members have a sizeable nuclear warhead stock which are less than "environmentally friendly" when used.

 3 out of 30 is not "half".

11 hours ago, heretic88 said:

 

Edit: "The cleaners were of such low efficiency and low dirt capacity that, in dusty operation, they should have been cleaned at least once each day and preferably several times if any appreciable engine protection were to be obtained." CIA report about the multicyclone filters

Just like the filters I used on M1A1. Not saying that T-34 filters were as good as the filters on the M1A1, but even modern filters need to be serviced daily under dusty conditions if you want your tank to work right.

22 hours ago, Donward said:

Man, the Panther fanbois are getting pounded. The last time the Panther has lost this bad against the Sherman was the Battle of Arracourt.

Burn!

4 hours ago, heretic88 said:

I do not think there is such a thing as "best tank of the war". Total BS. In certain situations "A" tank was the better, in another, "B" tank. And it could reverse with time passes. T-34 was a better tank in 1941 than a Panzer IV, but one year later it reversed. In 1944 T-34/85 again became better... The Königstiger was absolutely the best heavy tank when it came to tank to tank combat... yet it failed miserably when put into a role where the IS-2 excelled in... Context, context, context. 

So neither, the Panther, T-34 or Sherman was the best tank of the war. All had their strenghts and weaknesses.

I think Zaloga was on to something in Armored Champion: you have to take into account the period of the war and the difference in best tank for the actual crews and for the high command.

The horse is dead.

So they took the turret off the Bradley to put an unmanned one back on?

Dig that funky soundtrack.

The Tank Museum does the M48.

Too bad they showed an M60 cupola when talking about the M48.

Is that a license plate on the front? You wouldn't want to get pulled over by the Mexican Police, you know.

 Out with the "Gavin" in with AMPV. What would Sparky say?

Gotta show those cadets what the fun is in Armor branch.

Bob Semple lives!

4 hours ago, heretic88 said:

 

 

Soviet: Lets build lots of low quality trash, and be satisfied with them

 

I know the Soviets had a set doctrine and built vehicles to fit that doctrine. I wouldn't say they were low quality though.

What myths & misconceptions? 

Well it is a Universal Carrier.

Did they actually fire them that way, or are they just carrying them?

Sparky is on World of Tanks , I've run into him a couple of times. Just as pleasant there as well. I ended up blocking him in chat.

The Soviets were aware of the shortcomings of the T-34 and had plans to address them, then the Germans invaded. Described in the latest Archive Awareness: http://www.tankarchives.ca/2020/05/pre-war-potential.html

At least he had hearing protection.

7 hours ago, Zadlo said:

But Russians didn't use inches but lines.

OK. 76.2 mm is 30 lines,  so 122 mm is 48 lines.  Why did they decide on that particular caliber? Most nations had field artillery of around 3" (75/76.2 mm), but next up in size is around 4" or so (105 mm)  for medium artillery before they jump to around 6" for heavy artillery (150 mm/152/ 155).

17 hours ago, That_Baka said:

Because they had russian empire guns of same caliber. Same with 105mm howitzers .

But why did the Russians pick that particular caliber? I get that 76.2 mm is 3", but why 122 mm? Why not 127 mm which is 5".