Jump to content
Sturgeon's House


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Peasant

  1. My mistake. I forget to write frontal. I mean frontal, yes, but even frontal arc, Chinese design seems unsuited! Armor array is designed in such a way that either the interior is awful or the weakness is exposed in the frontal 60* arc. I realize Russian design is only frontal 60*, NATO include the sides, but China does not. Frontal array is thick but does not cover wider aspect. Like Russian/Soviet & NATO. Thanks for kindness
  2. Light tanks now obsolete? Or countries appear incapable of making one?
  3. Why limited aspect protection (turret)? Main cannon? Armor protection?
  4. Any internet links for articles on the Object 907, T-22cp? Other V hulled tanks?
  5. No. In WT such considerations are not relevant. Although there is a certain disdain for making the Soviet tech tree more historically accurate by not openly gimping their ammo selection.
  6. WT's MBT-70 has lots of controversy. > Some claim the 152mm gun could actually achieve it's listed APFSDS penetration > Some claim the loader could feed the gun a missile every 5 seconds Are these false? I recall reading some material stating that because the 152mm did not have any indication of being able to fire the projectile, a ported 105mm sabot, at any greater power than the L7.
  7. Is German tank inferiority in France a myth, overblown, or real? Pz II, 38t, Pz I, (and heavier) Pz III, are more mobile (in terms of fuel range) than their French counterparts? Why does the Pz III get such a bad rep in wehraboo circles?
  8. Japan seems to have neglected the tank part of light tank in their pursuit of padding X stat.
  9. Didn't the Army raise a concern about it's armor, but eventually agreed (with the cavalry) that to keep the weight lower they would keep it as is? That's the story I heard anyway Aside from not stopping infantry rifles, it doesn't seem like a poor performing tank?
  10. If I was to ask about Hetzer* but that's more invested than I was imagining.
  11. The better question I think with the Hetzer, was if it was an intentional punishment inflicted upon it's crew for fighting in the war. Considering the designer did sabotage some of the first few models.
  12. I was thinking cheaper, easier to make, exceptionally low requirements for production, designed for fire support missions instead of anything else. Such as how the ASU-57 uses many civilian parts, such a light tank would re-use parts from past turreted light tanks, possibly just rob the hull outright, then fit in a great big infantry support gun.
  13. It isn't worth the greater firepower since the machine is no longer capable of firing from many positions a turreted tank would, and presents a larger? Profile when doing so? The smaller size and much reduced weight results in a poorly armored platform or less poorly armored & slow at once? Making it vulnerable to enemy gunfire and more of a target? But when engaging from prepared positions, it is little more than an expensive gun that happens to move and sort of protect itself?
  14. I see. I understand now Yak-3 is not especially fast 655 km/h? But has good energy retention, speed characteristics, and acceleration? If you talk about Japanese tanks most people think they cannot stop LMG's but for their time; they weren't too terrible? Like Chi Ha vs Pz II?
  15. I feel enamored with the possibility of fitting a fairly powerful gun onto a light tank, without making it an especially big light tank. But not in an open top tank destroyer configuration. Simply, designed around a casemate. For example, a Pz II with a widened hull structure, to support a 50 millimeter gun. In a manner similar to but not the same as the ASU-57, ASU-85; precluding the air drop requirement. Targeting the use of a fairly common gun, (for Soviets an F-34?) True you could not stabilize the gun, nor could you make it a long barreled gun, but it should be a fairly effective infantry support vehicle? It would not require significant expense (being small for an LT & conservative), it could not carry too large a gun in fear of it's inferiority in function, but it would significantly outgun it's counterparts. FCS would not be the greatest concern? Because it would operate to support infantry. A miniature StuG III
  16. I see. It is a fair arrangement Thank you for the information posted. It was useful.
  17. It is true that I have been wrong about most things I have yet posted. The using of my account by you is something that I would rather not happen
  18. It would be nice if you didn't use my account when you posted your joke.
  19. I only read off internet articles in the past, and believe them. I thought they make sense, but I have to reconsider.
  20. Wow guys, everything I say is wrong and low energy and sad, and I didn't realize that saying such idiotic nonsense would win me an invitation to a Brett Kavanaugh style frathouse rape party. I will try to do better in the future, and back up my statements with reasoned arguments from primary sources instead of making up on-the-fly ad-hoc nonsense and rationalizations. Also, I promise to throw away my Kancolle IJN Yamato fuck pillow. I guess... I've realized I need to grow up. I don't need that anymore.
  • Create New...