Peasant

1 hour ago, Belesarius said:

Seriously? Low effort posting much?  Wanna be a bit more specific with your question, with actual sentence structure so we know what the fuck you are talking about.

 

My mistake. I forget to write frontal.

2 hours ago, Collimatrix said:

 

What are you even asking?  All modern tanks have limited protection on the sides compared to the front.  It's a simple function of geometry and weight.

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.

54 minutes ago, Lord_James said:

Let’s try to be a little nicer and/or forgiving.

 

But if peasant could make the question clearer, that would be welcome. 

Thanks for kindness

Light tanks now obsolete? Or countries appear incapable of making one?

Why limited aspect protection (turret)?

Main cannon?

Armor protection?

Any internet links for articles on the Object 907, T-22cp?

Other V hulled tanks?

4 hours ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

 

In the WT version, does the driver have to take periodic vomit breaks due to motion sickness?

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.

Forum post*

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.

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?

2 hours ago, Belesarius said:

What is the purpose of a tank? What is it primarily designed for?  oO

 

Japan seems to have neglected the tank part of light tank in their pursuit of padding X stat.

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?

If I was to ask about Hetzer* but that's more invested than I was imagining.

12 hours ago, Meplat said:

And the Hetzer was an ergonomic nightmare. 

I've been in one, they are fucking ridiculous.

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.

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.

3 minutes ago, Meplat said:

Already done on a larger scale.

The downsides are - "Your traverse and elevation is absurdly limited". (Unless you want a Churchill GC)

You are forcing yourself into a defensive stance. (Tanks with DP guns, like the M4 medium are better on the advance than the defense, in that they are allowed more gun mobility).

 

Casemate "tanks" are for the most part acts of desperate compromise.  You are either trying to save money, or work with what you have.

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?

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?

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

I see.

It is a fair arrangement

Thank you for the information posted. It was useful.

1 minute ago, Sturgeon said:

 

You should squawk at @Collimatrix about that. He's the one who likes making retards hit themselves.

Yes I am a retard and love to hit myself.

1 minute ago, Bronezhilet said:

It's almost like admins can do admin stuff.

I can ask can't I?

Just now, Collimatrix said:

Why is Peasant yelling at himself?

He borrowed my account

He knows my email and passcode too?

Just now, Sturgeon said:

 

It'd be nice if you weren't wrong about fucking everything, yet here we are.

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

1 minute ago, Peasant said:

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.

It would be nice if you didn't use my account when you posted your joke.

2 minutes ago, Bronezhilet said:

https://www.amazon.com/Capital-Ships-Imperial-Japanese-1868-1945-ebook/dp/B00R85ORKO/

 

Turns out that the Musashi's 28 knots top speed was in shallow water.

 

Whoopsy daisy, there goes @Peasant's argument.

I only read off internet articles in the past, and believe them. I thought they make sense, but I have to reconsider.

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.

4 minutes ago, A. T. Mahan said:

@Peasant did you copy the reading list?

Yes