Pascal

6 hours ago, Beer said:

 

That makes no sense to me. All reports I have seen gave variable rotation times depending on the engine speed for Tiger, Königstiger and Panther. The engine speed was controlled by the driver and nothing else. 

 

As far as I understand the hydraulic system was used only to avoid using scarce copper needed for the electric system. 

Yes it's variable and the gunner uses whatever RPM he has while the tank is on the move, i guess the gunner only controls the RPM trough the driver only while the tank is stationary.

On 4/18/2020 at 3:36 PM, Beer said:

 

First is highly non-recommended engine speed, the second is allowed maximum engine speed, i.e. first is very very emergency case which can brake the engine, the second is ideal case. None of that is possible without being stacionary and without perfect cooperation between the crew members, in other words in the real world it was most likely unachievable in most of the situations.  

 

 

So i looked in the report on King tiger, regarding the turret, because it had a similar system and there's nothing reported about the system being crew intensive, it's even recommended to use the hydraulic turret system on the move because of it's overall comfort without even including the controlling handles.

The whole system is a bit bigger then equivalent hydraulic system specially designed for tanks, the one in King tiger is from machining equipment and that means complex, as a downside is mentioned the engine being off means no hydraulic turret control, other observation being the gunner and loader having both manual turret controls, probably meaning only in rotation not elevation.

9 hours ago, That_Baka said:

May i see captured  KT KWK43 dispersion table?

https://litl-bro.livejournal.com/1700.html

There are more docs in that list, the King tiger is under the "Tiger B" name, the .pdf links do not work, download in the original format .djvu and just convert them into pdf with an online djvu to pdf converter, works like a charm.

1 hour ago, heretic88 said:

Soviet testing of the KT was a joke. But aside that, the 122mm guns were indeed very accurate, and the quality of soviet sights was quite good, almost reaching the german level. 

In what sense a joke?

The point on accuracy was that it was equal in the original qoute, which it isn't.

Quote

The next is accuracy. According to this indicator, the A-19 and D-25T were equal to the German 88-mm gun Pak 43 L/71 and its tank version. Therefore, theories of inaccurate "logs launcher" are just the fruits of the sick imagination of their authors.

On 4/18/2020 at 11:53 AM, heretic88 said:

German tanks had only one problem with visibility: lack of unity periscope for gunner. And this isnt even a target detection issue, but a target hand off difficulty. Even the french report on the Panther noted the near perfect visibility from the TC's cupola.

The gunners sights on Panther(2,5x-5x) and King tigers(3x-6x) had optics with variable magnification, using least magnification had a very wide view angle. This can be also put to the comparison. The Panther gunner also had a two-dial turret position indicator, that may also have helped.

Another interesting thing is the "blindspot" from up to down and how other AFV had their way with it, like in the first image with a side view of a Panther.

The accuracy myth is one interesting too, soviets captured a random King tiger and tested it, the R100 is a lot tighter.

11 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

ROF of 88 mm gun inside of the tank IIRC was around 4-5 rounds, which is not that much far from 2.5-3 rounds with D-25T.

   ISU-122 is TD, as a gun for it was chosen for being better AT weapon in the first place, compared to 152 mm ML-20. So comparison with Jagdpanther is valid, it is not apples and oranges.

The captured King tiger in that test was shooting at targets around a test field(aimed), are there IS-2,ISU-122,SU-152 in the same kind of environment tested for fire rate(aimed)? The stowed ammunition is important too.

20 hours ago, Beer said:

Also the bad situation awareness of the Panther and Königstiger is true and combined with relatively thin side armor, sponsons full of ammo (Panther especially) and very slow turret traverse these tanks were indeed very vulnerable from side attacks. Due to the nature of the late war they however often fought from prepared defence positions where it was not such a big issue. Their offensive record is pretty bad nevertheless (also due to low availability, reliability issues and terrible strategic mobility). 

The King tiger tested above, in gear 2 at 2000RPM made a 360 in 20sec(gear 1 in 40sec), gear 2 at 1000RPM in 43sec(gear 1 minute 26 sec), gear 2/1 at 500RPM 1 min 15-20sec.

How other tanks are doing regarding their turret rotation speed?

Raytheon Ramps Up Range On TOW Missile.

Man what a good system, it keeps on giving.

Some HD videos regarding the killing of that Suburban.

On 3/5/2020 at 11:38 PM, Insomnium95 said:

http://imgur.com/gallery/nG68BT2 Does anyone have any pics of that Abrams variant that had two RWS displayed at AUSA 2007? I found only one from a bad angle. 

There's probably more kinds of stations for the loader.

4 hours ago, heretic88 said:

I found these numbers for DM43: 

Penetration @ 1000 mtrs: 32 mm at 90 degr, 24 mm at 60 degr, 8 mm at 30degr.

BMP-1 hull resisted this frontally. 

 

Source: (I dont know how reliable it is)

https://www.wk2ammo.com/showthread.php?3203-20x139-shells-for-the-HS-820-(Oerlikon-KAD)-amp-Rh-202-gun

I used those numbers a lot of time, never had problems in forums where people knew their stuff with those numbers.

Those meaning that DM63 will penetrate at @ 1000 meters ~70mm at 90 degr.

Be care-full though warthunder's specialists with numbers straight from the main user the Bundeswehr! Will not let you pass!

17 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

 

So at what distance did they shot at 100 m or 2000 m?

6 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

in big wars - tanks will have realistic chances to be knocked out/damaged before reaching service life limitations.

Tanks(planes too) do have the tendencies to be near the end or reaching half of it service life when a big war starts, you kind need that long service life not interrupting activities before the big war starts.

15 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

Hydromechanical transmission doesn't give much of a difference in the end of the day. 

A hydromechanical trasmission increases by 1.5-2.0 times, the reliability and durability/service life of powerpacks and that's for the '60.

ARMOURED AIRCRAFT CARRIERS IN WORLD WAR II

RN Subs

11 hours ago, That_Baka said:

Uhh sources? Because all i can find is BTVT which quotes 3km.

From Otvaga.

55 minutes ago, That_Baka said:

I think thats because ID range can interpreted vaguely.  And offcourse there is the question of the claimed performance like with MILAN maximum perforation in british tests .

Nothing vaguely, recognition range for a tank target in narrow field view is 2,6-2,8 km for Nocturne.

5 hours ago, That_Baka said:

Interestingly Nocturne designers claimed identification range is 4km while Agava is 2km.And thats 90'es and T-80U refurbishment rather more lucrative Leader-2005 programm.

That's unbelievable.

On 10/23/2019 at 9:37 PM, AssaultPlazma said:

 

Got any links to the HMWHS? Is that what's taking up all the space? 

HMWHS actually helps save space by having less crew, from some 160 people to 16 people with HMWHS.

The deck is also big because of the role these carriers will have, carrier strike + helicopter carrier.

It has a lot minor details for helicopter operations like that of two towers, five to ten helicopters at once ready for operation on deck, hangars for Chinooks without folding blades, lifts that can accommodate two Chinooks simultaneously with unfolded blades, space for the troops which will be transported by helicopter.

It also has four PTBs.

A beefed-up helicopter carrier with a taste for Sea Control+.

45 minutes ago, AssaultPlazma said:

Why do the Queen Elizabeth class carriers carry so few aircraft relative to their size? 

I think that's because of the Highly Mechanised Weapon Handling System (HMWHS) on it, supposed to increase the number of sorties with lesser aircraft.

Plus probably there will be an increase in the number of aircraft.

I am just happy that they got like double the number of aircraft over their older carriers.

Too bad HMS Ocean was sold, a dedicated helicopter carrier is a must.

4 hours ago, N-L-M said:

2. The US Army for some reason still has a lot of towed howitzers in service, which I'm sure you'd agree need to be replaced with some kind of SP system cause as they are theyd get creamed in any real kind of war. Unfortunately the budget is not infinite (SAD!), and therefore replacing them all with M1299s is less than doable in any reasonable time scale. And replacing them is a much more pressing concern than firing on the move from a tracked platform.

Towed artillery is the stuff for real kind of war.

3 hours ago, heretic88 said:

Nothing wrong with wheeled artillery. As long the vehicle is not a normal truck. Sadly there are few examples, like Archer, G6 and Dana. Compared to ordinary truck mounted systems, they have far superior offroad mobility, the chassis is specialized to carry heavier loads, so protection can be also higher.

Replacing trucks with cannons for Archer, G6 and Dana is like replacing the AT4 with SMAW.

On 8/17/2019 at 7:45 AM, heretic88 said:

Was this posted before? Anyway. Contains a few interesting facts. According to the driver of Saumur tank musum's Panther, the engine is actually quite accessible and easy to maintain. Then he tells of course about the steering system, which is - no surprise - problematic. Later the curator of the museum also tells about it, and he mentions the constant need to check the steering system, and the frequent adjustings required. Maybe this was the real reason behind the low service life of the final drives? Drivers without enough experience or training, so they didnt perform the checks and adjustments, which led to early final drive failures? The drive train wasnt perfect of course, but there is evidence that with experienced drivers, the final drives lasted far, far more than the mythical "150km" (actually I believe it is a typo in the original french report! 1500km should be the real value).

 

Nice video, there's also a comment from the man itself, The Chieftain:

"It may be worth noting that some modern tanks do still use a compressed air bore exacuation system... look at Leclerc."

Iran has world’s ‘fastest-growing church,’ despite no buildings - and it's mostly led by women.

4 hours ago, 2805662 said:

Not nearly as exciting as the real thing, but some interesting details nonetheless:

 

Ouch, someone dropped that model on the floor.

Metallurgical and Ballistic Investigation of Fifty Captured German Helmets

Fifty is a good number for testing.

13 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

   Shia ninjas

 

  Hide contents

 

 

That's one interesting way to cosplay.

20 hours ago, Beer said:

This temporary coallition of the mighty US capitalists and the poor Kurdish Marxists is a great curiosity for all the historians to come. 

Not a historian by trade, but still no curiosity here.

One name.

Obama.