Pascal

Soviet accounts of war in a M4 Sherman and also translated, that's very rare.

On 2/4/2019 at 7:40 PM, Sturgeon said:

 

The forum etiquette is listed there in Open. We've told everyone what we want to see in a poster. You've got fourteen posts, none of them contain documents or sources. All you've done is argue with well-established members and sent in one spurious report, which is a serious pet peeve of mine. I would recommend not doing that.

 

If all that sounds onerous to you, then yeah, maybe this forum isn't a good fit.

On 2/4/2019 at 7:49 PM, Donward said:

 

Relevant 

 

 

Yo, that's about Moldova, not the forum.

3 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

 

That was sarcasm. You have 13 posts, I have no idea who you are. At least you probably do read Russian and aren't just using Google Translate, since your IP traces to Moldova. But I still believe Ensign over you.

Born and lived in Belarus, moved to Georgia and then back, some stuff to do in Moldova, pretty good internet here, home is better of course, hope to never come here again though.

5 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

You vs. Ensign, hm, that's tough. Who to believe?

So he looked at the tables an said that i looked at the 15 deviation, while clearly on the table at the right shows production optics on mosins getting a 14,6 at 100.'

While also not mentioning that the mauser wasn't even zeroed.

7 hours ago, EnsignExpendable said:

 

You're looking at the wrong column. 15 is the deviation of the group, which is something you can just adjust your sight for. Also these are tests of a scoped rifle, whereas the numbers I gave were for iron sights. If you want to compare dispersion obtained with a scope, let's do that.

 

100% group size in cm with scope:

Range	Mosin	Mauser
100	9.3-10.4	9.4
300	23.1-25.2	33.3
600	52.3	61.0

 

As you can see, the Mauser does better in exactly one test: 100 meters against a chest target. In literally every single other scenario, the Mosin performs better.

Nice that you don't mention that the mauser in that test wasn't even zeroed in, especially the scope.Always showing documents am i right?

"выверку не обеспечивает"

"После заводской подгонки немецкого прицела на винтовке никаких поправок в прицел в горизонтальной плоскости вводить нельзя".

7 hours ago, EnsignExpendable said:

 

You're looking at the wrong column. 15 is the deviation of the group.

No i am not looking at the wrong column, actually you somehow missed the stuff on the right considering the tables on the left are for prototype optics.

The tables at the right are for production optics for mosins and as you can see it's 14,6 (sorry that i rounded that to 15 like you rounded it up for the mauser "sniper" from 9,5 to 10) all right.

4 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

I love how Pascal is brand spanking new here and literally every post I've seen from him has been retarded.

Considering this latest post was about Ensign looking at the wrong column, the left table is for prototype optics not ones in production and even not realizing it, said that i was looking at the deviation group not at the radius, but he somehow didn't see the 14,6 (which i rounded to 15) on the tables at the right which represent the production scope on mosins.Plus no mention that the mauser in the test he posted wasn't zeroed.I will reserve the "retarded" for someone else.

3 hours ago, Toxn said:

So, naive question: are these sorts of tests done with the weapon strapped to a bench, or by a prone shooter or something? Because a 9cm group size at 100m is well in the range of human ability with a modern scoped mauser when shooting from a bench.

When the Garand,G41(w),SVT-40 was tested it was from a sitting position on a shooting bench, we can guess that these ones were too.

3 hours ago, EnsignExpendable said:

RE: Mosins. Mosins are a whole group of rifles, and any specific one is going to be different. If you're shooting a 1942 production gun, it's not going to be as nice as a 1944 production gun, for instance, and a 1944 one won't measure up to an actual sniper Mosin (not the drilled and tapped standard ones that are sold as "snipers" for three times the cost). 

 

RE: shitty Mausers. Soviet trials of a sniper Mauser showed a dispersion of 10 cm at 100 meters. In your imperialist measurements that's 4 MOA, give or take, which isn't what I would call amazing for a sniper rifle. I don't have comparable trials for a Mosin, unfortunatelyю

If Mausers are shitty what are those Mosins:

A whooping 15 for 100 meters.

On 1/5/2019 at 5:34 AM, Wiedzmin said:

you will be greatly disappointed by persons and decisions behind all of these "great" war machines

Soviet tanks? Seem to work fine and will keep chugging. Planes, ships and the myriad of other vehicles too are doing fine.Did i miss some context?

23 minutes ago, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

If we wanted to talk overrated ships, the Armored Deck Carriers the Brits made were overrated. They were also nearly useless without American Airplanes. 

Might be a little harsh, but a lot of stuff wouldn't have worked without the Americans as a whole, not only planes.

Just now, Sturgeon said:

 

Ask @EnsignExpendable. And I'm speaking from personal experience actually shooting the weapons in question, here.

I know where to find all related to the tests, i just wanted to hear/read something i didn't see before.

28 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

I wrote it. As I said.

Sorry and thanks.

2 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

 

Copying my response to this same question on the dicksword:

 

 

Who wrote this? Radford?

Considering quality got worse in war for practically every rifle that's a strange statement as whole.Was there any WW2 Soviet tests of rifles even looked at?

Got more of the same on Mosins?

8 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

I mean I think if you are talking exclusively the context of /k/ then the nugget is kind of overrated - and of course anyone can find some idiot who claims their Mosin is a "sniper" rifle and super accurate.

Though, to be honest, Mosins are a bit more accurate than the rifles they faced, but that's mostly because Mausers are total trashpiles. Now, if we want to talk about overrated WWII bolt actions, there's an excellent place to start!

How come?

On 8/1/2018 at 11:25 AM, Amalynn said:

 

Definitely an overrated one, here (exemplary of the Mosin as a family of weapons, not the M44 specifically).

 

Not necessarily a bad weapon, it did it's job. But an overrated one, nonetheless.

PTRD-41 or an PTRS-41 is waaayy more overrated.A Mosin is a rifle like the rest, never heard of it being overrated.

3 hours ago, SH_MM said:

No. The comparison between 115/125 mm HE and 120 mm HESH however seems to be focused on tests against composite armor and/or the ability to tear apart welding seams/break internal equipment (i.e. the strength of the shock caused by the detonation). Tests of the HESH mechanism against monolithic steel armor were also conducted.

Yes i read the test that's why i thought it was a joke, maybe he forgot to add, for example against composite armor at the end like this:

"the armour penetrating action of 120 mm HESH is more or less the same as that of 125 mm HE against composite armor."

On 10/27/2017 at 8:34 PM, EnsignExpendable said:

Andrei (who doesn't post here anymore for some reason) has the good shit http://btvt.info/1inservice/chieftain/vop_chieftain_hesh.htm

 

TL;DR (also for you Western heathens): the armour penetrating action of 120 mm HESH is more or less the same as that of 125 mm HE.

Armour penetrating action more or less the same? Is this joke?