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

heretic88

Contributing Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    458

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

 Content Type 

Everything posted by heretic88

  1. heretic88
    It is true. The early Panther D was definitely horrible, probably one of the most unreliable tanks of the war. But it is a big error to apply the problems of the D to the later A and G models. Lots of problems were fixed, especially in the engine & associated components.
  2. heretic88
    Yes, the post war T-34,especially those that were manufactured by Poland and Czechslovakia were different beasts compared to WW2 soviet production. These were built in far higher quality standards, and were generally far more reliable. Also featured improved components. This was the experience in hungarian army. The book T-34 Mythical Weapon also says the same. Exactly. That was an excellent and reliable filter, introduced in the 50s that finally solved the problem of severe dust wear.
  3. heretic88
    That was to show the double standards and hipocrisy. One vehicle that had reliability problems, but generally performed well in combat is an utter piece of trash, one of the worst tanks ever. The other vehicle that also had just as many reliability problems, generally performed badly in combat, is a good piece of equipment... Of course, for some people, the first vehicle is a black sheep, and the second is a "holy cow" or something like that...
  4. heretic88
    Then check the CIA report. The captured T-34/85 uses the later multicyclone filter, and it had an incredibly low efficiency. The earlier oil bath filters didnt work at all, no matter if it was oiled or not. The problem was solved in 1955 with the introduction of the excellent VTI-3 filters 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
  5. heretic88
    Lost? Its not me who is clinging to a single source...
  6. heretic88
    Yes, after the war! And in 1945, the T-34, even the /85 was already obsolete. There is a good book about this. In fact the best about the T-34. Robert Michulec, Miroslaw Zientarzewski - T-34 Mythical Weapon. Yes, its not a pleasant read for T-34 fanboys. But history doesnt care for fanboys. Engine life was around 150 hours. "Great" achievement... Very "reliable" engine... poor build quality, non functioning air filters, etc... Of course it got better by 1944, but this problem was truly fixed only after the war. Engine was also prone to overheating thanks to poorly designed and made cooling system. And then the "magnificent" gearbox. For which you sometimes need a sledgehammer to shift gears. Not a myth, a fact, confirmed by hungarian tankists too. Check the CIA report about the captured T-34/85. It had 741km in the clock. The gearbox was already in very bad condition, all thanks to its incredibly primitive design. Americans judged it "already failed". I talked to old tankists who served on T-34s, and they weren really enthusiastic about it. Reliability was a definite problem. The french report about the problems with turret traverse on slopes also applied to the T-34/85. Wonder why... Maybe because whole eastern europe was under soviet influence? German stuff, especially heavy weapons didnt fit in that military structure. So they had to go. Also dont forget that spare parts werent manufactured anymore. I really like the argument that "The T-34 and Sherman were used until the '90s and lots of stuff were based on them, but the german stuff were technological dead ends..." Yes. Germany lost the war... And then they didnt really had an army for ten years. And when they finally reorganized, they already found themselves in either NATO or WP. So germans on either side had to adapt. There was no place of further development of ww2 designs.
  7. heretic88
    One source is not a source. Just sayin'... And yes, quite funny that the Panther is a shitty, useless piece of junk, while the T-34, which was just as unreliable (even more so until 1942...) was a fine tank... Love double standards!
  8. heretic88
    T-55 combat weight: 36 tons VT-55: 35 tons BTS-4: 34-34.4 tons.
  9. heretic88
    Well, you have a single source that states this "150km". No other source is backing it. On the other hand, we have: 1, this report about a Bergepanther (btw, isnt it curious that the main complaint is the engine and the recovery equipment? nothing about the final drive!) 2, a report about Jagdpanthers covering 4-500 kilometers with the reinforced final drive. Regular tanks didnt get it. Why? Probably because they didnt need it that much. 3, a report in Thomas Anderson's book (Panther): "Many kilometres without a breakdown is the hallmark of a good driver and commander. In that respect, the battalion mentions PzKpfw V Chassis No. 154338, Engine No. 8322046 reading 1,878km, driver Obergrefeiter Gablewski, 4.Kp/PzRgt 2. The vehicle is still completely operational. With exception of track, all other items are still in very good condition. Engine oil consumption has been 10ltr per100km. The tank is still running with its original engine and transmission." To clear the misunderstanding: Do I say that the final drive wasnt problematic? No. Do I say that the Panther was a reliable tank? No. Do I say that creating new myths is bad for historical knowledge? Yes! That was my whole point. And a single source is nothing more than a myth, until other data is backing it.
  10. heretic88
    No idea about the G, but it is 44.8 tons for a D, and 43 tons for Bergepanther. 1800kg hardly matters. On the other hand, towing other tanks greatly stresses the whole transmission system.
  11. heretic88
    There is Panzer Tracts 16 and Panzer Tracts 16-1. The latter focuses on the Bergepanther exclusively. Page 72, right at the top of "Experience Reports" section.
  12. heretic88
    @Sturgeon, okay, I get what are you saying, but then how would you explain the final drives of a Bergepanther that lasted for at least 4200km? And again, this isnt from a low quality book, it is from Jentz & Doyle. 4200 = 28x150... Even the best of the best Panther drivers would be unable to achieve this On the other hand... 4200= 2.8x1500. This is far more reasonable.
  13. heretic88
    Basically, another nail in the coffin of the "150km final drive" myth. The french report is valid and good, but it is totally clear for me that who typed it, made a mistake. Humans arent perfect, and mistakes occur. Such typos can appear anywhere, I actually met one in a soviet AFV manual too. But eventually, the correct (and in my opinion quite realistic) 1500km value can still be considered BAD and does NOT dispel the fact that the final drives were indeed the weakest point of the Panther.
  14. heretic88
    Its a joke... even the domestic variant is very, very far from being complete, and they offer it for export...
  15. heretic88
    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.
  16. heretic88
    Which was the case with all of their equipment. The hatch of the Panzer III, IV, or even the cold war Leopard 1 is just as "tiny"... Strangely, it isnt a problem for these! So is the position in a T-55/62 (even more actually). Yet these are satisfactory... The T-34/85 has only one more periscope, an MK4 for the gunner. But on the other hand, its commander has worse visibility. The Cromwell has one more periscope for the gunner, but absolutely pathetic visibility for commander. The truly excellent visibility from the LATE Shermans were an exception, rather than a rule amongst WW2 tanks. You mean two hatches for turret crew? Isnt this the same for most other ww2 tanks? Didnt read any complaints about that. It isnt the tank's fault that N.Moran isnt trained in its operation. This I agree. Driving is easy (just check what Saumur's tank driver says), and the driver's place is well designed. In fact, the Panter is easier to drive than the Sherman. (not to talk about the T-34...) The transmission needs no special treatment, it was a reliable component. It is the final drive that requires careful driving. As I mentioned above, the transmission is reliable.On the other hand, working on the steering gear and final drives require removing the transmission, so it is a valid point. Overexaggeration. It was far less of a problem in RL than people who like to bash the Panther tend to believe. The Maybach V12s that power the Panther are bulky beasts and remarkably tall (nearly 1.2m). Not bigger than the V2 that powered the T-34. The height was caused by the air filters above it. (btw, strangely, the huge radial engine isnt a negative anymore for the Sherman...) So, after all, the Panther wasnt perfect, it had its own share of problems. Just like any other tank in WW2. The T-34 had just as many (if not more) problems, but it isnt bashed for these. Or the british tanks... People who think that the Panther was the best tank of ww2 are obviously wrong. But so are who think that the Panther was a miserable, heavy, unreliable, overengineered beast.
  17. heretic88
    Its quite sad that it became such a popular trend to bash the Panther. It wasnt a bad tank at all. Recently, more myths were created than in the past half decade. Like the infamous "final drive that lasted for 150 kilometers". Not a single source supports it. On the other hand there is a report of a Bergepanther, (Panzer Tracts 16-1, Jentz & Doyle) with 4200 kilometers in its clock, and with original final drives! Am I saying that the french assessment is useless, contains lies? No, not at all. In my opinion, the 150km is simply a typo. Should be 1500km. Other sources indicate that this is close to the truth. But dont get me wrong, 1500km is still BAD. Of course, the Panther had other problems, like being overengineered, costly and time consuming to build, requiring careful maintenance and skilled drivers. In tactical combat it had one design flaw that affected performance, is the lack of unity periscope for gunner. But still, it had many positives, and generally, performed well in combat. Also, lots of people forget about a very, very important fact, when they talk about the "total unreliability" of the Panther: Sabotage. For example, during the restoration of Littlefield's Panther, it was discovered that the fuel or cooling lines (not remember which) were stuffed with cigarette butts and other junk. And it was a quite common thing. No wonder that things didnt work as expected... And frequently, when people bash the Panther, they forget that many other tanks suffered from similar, or even more serious problems. Like the mythical T-34, that is commonly believed to be the best tank of the war. It had its own share of serious defects: very low build quality (but not post ww2), debilitating reliability problems (extremely crude and bad transmission, no functioning air filters, bad cooling system). Its christie suspension is atrociously bad, provided a very rough ride (that I personally experienced. A T-55 is a luxury car compared to it), and took up lots of internal space. And finally, it was an ergonomic nightmare (85mm variants less so for commander and gunner), that greatly affected its performance in combat.
  18. heretic88
    Over the years, more and more modifications appear on these T-80Us. The army doesnt make the job easier for a scale model builder I really want to build an 1/35 T-80 in korean colors, it looks incredibly good. A little bit back to T-80 reliability. If there is a lack of spare parts, why not produce them locally? I highly doubt it would be a challenge for such an advanced industry.
  19. heretic88
    Steel beasts armor and penetration values are totally nonsense. Sometimes it turns to utter ridiculous levels, like 270-350mm KE protection for Leopard-1 turret (not bad for those paper thin plates! )
  20. heretic88
    Yep, this is a crazy good vehicle! I read about it a while ago in an article, if I remember well, it said only a few were built. These are very very useful vehicles. It has one disadvantage, it needs a trailer to quickly transport it to the site, but this is countered by its speed and maneuverability offroad. SPOT-55 proved its capabilities many times. In my opinion, it is much better to transform old and obsolete tanks to such vehicles than to scrap them. ARVs, and even bridgelayers are also especially useful in civilian roles. A private firm here in hungary also operates some ex military vehicles, among them a quite exotic one, a BAT-M. It is actually the last of its kind here in working condition. Back then in 2014, it was waiting its fate of scrapping, when someone from the firm noticed it on a scrapyard. They bought the vehicle and totally restored it.
  21. heretic88
    Sheremetevo airport received a brand new ARV, which is actually the civilian version of the BREM-80U. Very nice!
  22. heretic88
    In my opinion: 2A72 has significantly less dispersion compared to BTR-82. It is especially noticeable when firing 2-3 round bursts. In case of the BTR, first round lands near the target, but the second is usually wildly off.
  23. heretic88
    Yes, that would be awesome! Also I heard some gossip that the T-80 was rated better ergonomically than the K1, being a bit roomier inside. Would be good to know about this too.
  24. heretic88
    Excellent pictures! Do you have any information about how korean soldiers like the T-80U? I read opinions that they really like these tanks, others say that the T-80 is an unreliable piece of junk... But sadly, these are barely more than gossip. What do you think, which is closer to the truth?
  25. heretic88
    And more expensive. The whole point of the Sentilel is that its a small, relatively cheap radar. That means that one NASAMS division can have multiple Sentilel radars, so the loss of one or two will not significantly reduce the effectiveness of the system. Also, having multiple radars doesnt mean that all are operating at the same time. One radar transmitting, while other radars waiting or moving to new locations. Again good for survivability, and makes the enemy's job harder. I read 25 kilometers somewhere. So basically the same as IRIS-T. I dont think it is important. Finland mounted the launchers on their own Sisu E13 heavy trucks, which are just as good. Maybe its a bit slower on roads, but thats not a big deal. Sadly it isnt known on what platforms we will use for NASAMS, but I think the most probable will be the locally produced Rába trucks. (similar to MAN HX) Not really offroad vehicles, but will be okay I think. (I'd rather put the launchers on Kraz-260, still serving here). Anyway, NASAMS can be mounted on any platform, its a good thing.
×
×
  • Create New...