Adding to what Colli said: the information I could find on the PaK-36®* shows that it chucked a 1kg heavier projectile with an extra 40m/s of velocity. Plug all of this, along with the Soviet tests for the F-34, into a penetration calculator and DeMarre will give you a value at 100m of 101mm. You can also sanity-check the data by comparing it with the same calculated values for PaK 40/PzGr39 (103mm estimated) and then use the same test results to show that the model is correct (103mm measured). This means that, even if you assume the bigger cartridge, the values for PaK-36® should be more in the region of 100mm at 100m/90'. Which is, again, just another long-winded way of saying that the German methodology gives penetration results about 50% greater than the Soviet methodology. Which is, again, just a way of warning people to be careful before jerking off to the idea that the Germans had some sort of magic lock on AT guns.
Playing the same game using German methodology, by the way, shows the mighty F-34/Zis-3 penetrating 95mm at 500m/90'. Which means that Tigers getting ganked from the side using BR-350 at combat ranges is exactly in line with German expectations.
* Which actually seems to be the designation for the rechambered F-22 conversion only, but has seeped backwards to describe the guns as orginally captured/reworked.
Edit: this sort of thing is the reason I get so worked up about this. A handy penetration chart generator, well-designed and easy to use. And it uses the Soviet penetration figures for Soviet guns and the German figures for German ones. Which, if you play around a bit, would give you the impression that Tiger 1 simply could not be penetrated by T-34 at any distance (2 pounder, of course, has a good chance out to 200m). Which is ahistorical crap.
I ended up doing a data dive on the 2-pounder (specifically: why the hell every wargame ever gives it 80mm of penetration at the muzzle when it barely managed 50*) and ended up finding a wonderful tidbit in this compendium:
If we compare figures for the 76mm F-34/Zis-3 (pages 4, 10, 11, 16, 19, 20 and 23) and the Pak 36® (pages 5, 9, 12, 22, 24, 30, 32, 33 and 36), we find some interesting discrepencies:
These guns never seem to end up in the same table together, despite being essentially the same damn gun ballistics-wise. All of the figures for AP performance hover at 60-70mm at 500m/30' angle for the former and 90-110mm for the latter.
From the above, we may conclude only one thing: having a German touch your gun will up the penetration by 50%.
Auto bounce still applies past 70 degrees on 2x, and 50mm LOS at 70 still wouldn't mean shit against even tier 8 100mm guns, so it's moot. The Strv103 is trash because of the maps and the meta, not the armor.
Also some fucktard gave me shit about playing bot games.
Said "Spent more than half my life learning to shoot at people, is it cool with you if I spent the next half shooting at bots? Thanks. ".
No response. Not expecting one.
No kidding, WoT adding a co-op would have me in there like flies on shit. Otherwise?
Sorry I have problems with virtual murder and the sheer butthurt it fosters.
Just finished my paper so I will post a bit about infection treatment. First let's talk about sulfa drugs.
Sulfa drugs are compounds that produce sulfonamides. They were not antibiotics but antimicrobials since they inhibited further growth of microbes rather than killing them. The first sulfa drug was arsephenamine (Salvarsan), introduced in 1910 and was a pretty shitty drug with terrible adverse effects and were a pain to store and administer. Although it was a shitty drug, it was a good treatment to syphilis, dubbed the 'magic bullet' because it was toxic to certain microbes but not humans. It was the most used antimicrobial until the 1940s.
Sulfa drugs became famous due to Prontosil, discovered in 1932. It was widely known because it successfully and quickly treated Franklin Delano Roosevelt's son who had a bad case of strep throat infection. Although it had awful side effects such as vomitting and kidney damage, it became famous and grabbed world wide attention as it was synthetic, showing that synthetic drugs had huge potential and directly killed off phage therapy in the West as the former was much easier to administer and had rapid results.
How do sulfa drugs work? Sulfa drugs are either sulfonamides or are pro drugs that break down into sulfonamides. They work by the competitive inhibition of dihydropteroate synthetase (DHPS), responsible for folate synthesis, inhibiting DNA, RNA and protein synthesis. They are broad spectrum against both Gram positive and Gram negative bacteria and are generally used to cure minor infections, especially in the urinary tract. They are terrible for anyone with compromised immune systems because they are bacteriostatic instead of bactericidal.
Resistance is very common, with different mechanisms such as decreased membrane permeability, mutated enzymes for the synthesis of folate and increased PABA production to compete for the active sites that the inhibitor takes.
Next time, I will post about beta-lactam antibiotics, the most famous of which being penicillin.
His pick of Betsy DeVos as Secretary of Ed makes me want to throw up. I say this as a life long resident of West Michigan, the stomping ground of the DeVos family. Fuck them and their Amway pyramid scheme.
The Tiger I is completely fine at Tier 7, if not one of the best Tier 7s in the game. The Tiger II is very bland, and is getting powercreeped by the AMX M4 49 and the newly buffed Lowe
Apparently WG has scrapped the new overmatch mechanics.
"Based on your input from the 1st Common Test, we decided to cancel this feature.
Initially, we planned to revise the ricochet and overmatch mechanics for all vehicles. However, tests showed that it will cause increased ricochets on thinly armored tanks (the IS-3, IS-4, etc.) that used to be generally bad at angling. This disrupted gameplay overall (a lot more ricochets where chances of them used to be zero), which you reported to us during the Common Test. We analyzed your feedback and decided to stick to the old, time-proven mechanic for all vehicles including the tier VIII–X Swedish tank destroyers."
So, turns out that changing the armour mechanics for every tank just to help out 3 new ones had game breaking unintended consequences. Who knew?
The use of antibiotics on feed lots is problematic because it isn't used to cure any particular disease but rather to artificially cause weight gain in the animals before slaughter.
It is unethical on so many different levels.
I'm writing a paper right now on antibiotics. Might end up writing more on SH about it when I finish.
An antibiotic resistant bacteria survives against the antibiotic by having a slightly different mechanism of action in place of the old mechanism that is targeted by the antibiotic. This is highly problematic due to the low generational time of bacteria and plasmid nature of DNA transfer. Low generation time means that a large amount of bacteria will be quickly produced and increases the probably that a bacteria will survive and replicate with a mutation. Now to answer the question, since many antibiotics are biosynthesized, having antibiotic resistance does give them a small selective advantage against the other bacteria that do not have the resistance.
Disclaimer: Yeah naturally Japanese tanks arent a big focus here, so I usually ignore posting things of the matter here. But like the O-I article I posted here oh so long ago, this article comes with the results of some days spent in the archive reading and (continuing to do) translating pages of reports that havent been read in like, decades. So with that said, hope you enjoy. Still a matter I'm unfinished diving into.
---------
Type5 Ho-Ri : The Japanese Ferdinand
As of recently, I've gone through the Japanese National Archive files, looking through to find documents that relate to my studies. While I was there, I stumbled across something that caught my interest. Of said documents, the one of most importance was a file called "Military Secrets No.1". The reports were held by the Ministry of Defense, Army records section, Munitions Mobilization district. Contained in these files were a 3-page production chart of late war tracked vehicles of the Japanese army. Located within the chart I found a number besides the Type 5 Ho-Ri tank destroyer. A vehicle that until recently was only known to have made it to wooden mockup stages. In this lengthy article I will cover my findings on the tank project. Unfortunately visual representations of the tank are still being looked at. So I will use existing found sources for this.
National Institute for Defense Studies " Military secret No.1 "
In September of 1942, the Japanese Army Staff came to the realization that they had no choice but to design a series of tanks to compete with the arrival of the American Sherman tank. Three concepts were proposed by the Staff, each with their own gun selection; Kou (47mm), Otsu (57mm), and Hei (75mm). As combat data filtered back to Japanese high command, the model Kou concept would later merge with Otsu concept, becoming the basis for the design of the Type4 Chi-To. The Hei proposal would eventually lead to the development of the Type5 Chi-Ri.
Additional impetus for new development projects came from a change in the Weapons Administration Headquarters Research Policy in July 1943, a change which was made as a result of analyzing and examining the situation of the tank warfare between the German army and the Soviet Union. Through analysis of this data, the Army's tank doctrine shifted to an emphasis on developing tanks which prioritized the anti-armor mission instead of prioritizing infantry support with limited anti-tank capability. Upon the promulgation of this policy, the Japanese Army decided to develop a series of tank destroyers alongside the medium tanks being designed.
As a result, the Type5 Chi-Ri, Japan’s primary medium-tank project, would become the basis for a new anti-armor vehicle. This was a natural choice for IJA command; the Chi-Ri project was more mature. Additionally, it held the most advanced technology Japan produced at the time, technology which would become ubiquitous in the designs that would be made until Japan's defeat in 1945.
Testing model of Chi-Ri. Used to trial the series of cannons and turrets designed for the tank. In the photograph it is captured by US forces after the gun had been dismantled for further trials. By Japan's defeat in 1945, three models of Chi-Ri entered production.
The tank destroyer built upon the chassis of the Chi-Ri would eventually be called the Ho-Ri. Development of this vehicle began shortly after the development of the Chi-Ri, when it had been decided that the tank would use the coil spring suspension system that Japanese manufacturers were already familiar with. After this decision was made, the Army also began work on designing the tank destroyer’s superstructure and casemate. The first design the Army came up with mimicked the Chi-Ri chassis entirely, though the turret was replaced with a reinforced rear-mounted superstructure.
The Experimental 10cm Cannon
With the development of a new series of tank destroyers taking place, the Army decided to design and produce a new high capacity anti-tank gun to fit the role. On July 22 of 1943, the Army Military Customs Council began designing a 105mm caliber anti-tank gun. Once the design of the cannon had been completed, construction of the cannon took place around a steel shielding that was to be the Ho-Ri's superstructure plating. The trial placement was capable of traversing 10 degrees to the left and the right, elevating by 20 degrees, and depressing by 15. The gun weighed 4.7 tons, with a barrel length of 5.759 m.
During one of the first council meetings that took place on the 30th of June, however, the council gave Major Ota and Lieutenant Colonel Neima of the Army Weapons Administrative Division, the two chief engineers of the Experimental 10cm project, the task of achieving the requirement that the gun meet 200mm penetration at 600 meters distance and 1000m/s velocity. Naturally, the tank gun was not capable of this, and, instead, the Experimental 10cm had a muzzle velocity of 915m/s with AP (900m/s with HE), and achieved a performance of 150mm penetration at a distance of 1000 meters.
The 10cm Experimental Anti Tank gun relied on a system similar to the Type5 75mm Anti tank cannon in relying on an autoloading mechanism for the tank. This mechanism was known as a semi-automatic loading system, different to the ordinary "autoloader" you see in other vehicles. Unlike the typical autoloading system, the loading crew of the gun system placed the individual shells on the chamber, the system automatically ramming the shell into the breech and forwarding to operation. This gave the effect of automating half the loading routine, as the name suggests. The Experimental 10cm was put into service with the Ho-Ri in 1945. The technical name for the model to be used on the prospective production model was known as the Type5 10cm anti tank cannon.
The shell rammer used a horizontal chain closing type, and the automatic loading machine was attached to the back of the gun. It was used because loading ammunition of 123 cm total length and 30 kg weight was deemed too strenuous on a small Japanese physique. Various artillery parts had been diverted and referred to in order to shorten the time of development. The autoloading machine adopted the mechanism of the Type3 12 cm AA Gun for inspiration. The automatic loading mechanism was a continual source of problems, but was repeatedly refurbished to eliminate the drawbacks.
Photograph of the Experimental 10cm Anti tank cannon during trials. Note: The shielf and protector are used on Ho-Ri prototype. Gun was first tested separately and then placed in tank prototype.
Ho-Ri Designs
Originally, the Ho-Ri was to keep the secondary 37mm that had been mounted on the Chi-Ri design. The reason for this addition was due to the limited gun-traverse on casemate tank destroyers. Additionally, the primary cannon could only do so much for itself. Hence, to combat many anti tank threats which the Americans could have dedicated to the assault on Japan, the 37mm was seen as being an efficient method of providing additional firepower against infantry and combat vehicles. To this end, the 37mm gun offered a range of APHE and smoke shells. The 37mm was capable of an elevation of 20 degrees and depression of -15 degrees. The mount itself also offered a horizontal traverse of 20 degrees. The 37mm gun could also be used as a ranging device for the main cannon, however this most likely would not have been needed due to the high velocity of the main gun.
Outline of the Ho-Ri design I. Technically entered modified construction of one of the 3 Chi-Ri units.
The development of the Ho-Ri design was split into two concepts. One being a rear mounted superstructure on the Chi-Ri chassis with a central stationed engine, and the other having a centralized superstructure with a rear engine placement. The Ho-Ri engine selection was different from the traditional diesel that the Army had kept with for most of their tank production. Japan used a BMW designed gasoline V12 aircraft engine . The main reason for this change was due to industrial capacity of Japan reaching its peak, aircraft development was still a heavy priority and many assets were available for useage. The output of the tank was 550hp/1500rpm.
The Ho-Ri II’s design also enabled the option of adding a 20mm AA station on the rear hatch for additional protection. However, the likelihood of it being useful is up for debate. In addition, central placement of the superstructure enabled 60 rounds for the main cannon to be stored instead of the Ho-Ri I’s 40 rounds.
In terms of armour, both vehicles were to keep the Chi-Ri hull, hence the maximum frontal armour of these tanks was only 75mm. On the superstructure, however, armor thickness was increased to 100mm. By the time both designs, which had been developed in parallel, were presented to Army General Staff it was too late; the war was almost over, and the thickness of the armor was no longer sufficient against US armaments. Nevertheless, the design showed promise. Thus, while neither design was chosen for production, the Ho-Ri I was adopted as the main influence for the third revision of the tank. This third vehicle is commonly labeled as Ho-Ri III. Technically, however, none of the Ho-Ri vehicles were numerically designated.
Ho-Ri III wooden mockup.
Ho-Ri III took the basis of the Ho-Ri I, and revamped it to fit the needs of the military. The frontal plate of the tank was sloped at a 70 degree angle and increased to 120mm thickness. In this configuration, the tank was capable of withstanding most anti tank measures the Unites States could bring to the home islands of Japan. The designers of the tank built a wooden mockup form of the revision 3 design and presented it to the general staff, at an unknown date. The Ho-Ri kept its general composition the same as the prior designs, but this change was what the Army Staff ultimately decided to go with and schedule the Ho-Ri for prototype construction. The tank would have a crew total of 6; driver, gunner, two loaders, radio operator, and commander. The past designs made use of the 37mm that the Chi-Ri hull had present, however, with the chosen slope change on the Ho-Ri III, this was no longer present and a crew member spot was open. The 6th crew member was placed as the second loader to assist with the autoloading mechanism and provide shells for the primary loader.
The construction of the prototype was completed in 1944. The tank achieved a speed of 40kmh during the trials. The tests were seen as a success, resulting in the Army ordering 5 units of the tank. The tank was put in service as the Type5 Ho-Ri, as the production model started in 1945. However, by the time of the war's end, the series of tanks only made it to 50% completion. Only one operable prototype had been completed fully. Reports of the trial are still being processed at this time [11/15/16].
My research continues. I have been spending days now trying to go through everything and get the details of the tank out to the light. Once all the documents are collected together and organized, translated, and put back together I will write a follow up article to this.
You can view full post with all images on my blog post:
http://sensha-manual.blogspot.com/2016/11/type5-ho-ri-japanese-ferdinand.html
They would have sufficed against the M4 used in the Pacific. But they were only produced in a unit capacity of specifically 166. And in the end the US would have fielded enough recourses to easily remove the tank threat.
Only 280 tanks of new tech were committed by 1945.
SuperComrade reacted to Toxn in StuG III Thread (and also other German vehicles I guess)
SuperComrade got a reaction from Sturgeon in WoT v WT effort-thread
SuperComrade got a reaction from Belesarius in Post Election Thread: Democracy Dies In Darkness And You Can Help
SuperComrade got a reaction from T___A in Post Election Thread: Democracy Dies In Darkness And You Can Help
