Jump to content
Sturgeon's House


Contributing Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Beer

  1. Of course but the principle is same. It doesn't matter that some parts can achieve longer service life. What matters is those which can't. You always have to design things to reach the requirements and I'm strongly convinced that Panther never fulfilled the reliability requirements even though I don't knowh them, hence why it is rightly considered not to be a mature vehicle. Of course the requirements may be unrealistic as well. In that case there is a need to find compromise and to find a way how to get a reliably working product shall be a priority over anything els
  2. @delete013: The following is off topic but it shall make you understand what reliability means on an example from today. Today the common projected failure rate in automotive is 5 sigma, i.e. 233 failures per 1 milllion parts during the service life (sometimes 4, sometimes 6 is required). If you turn it upside down, it means that projected service life is what 99,98% of all parts can withstand. In other words, if taken by today's automotive standards if just 2 Panthers of all produced broke down at 150 km the service life of the vehicle would be considered to be 150 km. It doesn't matter that
  3. Absolutely no. You are not a mechanical designer, right? Because this is complete and utter nonsense what you just said. Why do you make such statements about things you have absolutely no clue about? I'm a mechanical designer who spent all his professional life designing reliable things and my brain feels offended by reading stuff like this. Do you know what takes the most time and energy in designing things? To make them reliable. Everybody can design an unreliable shit but to make it working reliably is the core of the job.
  4. From a staunch Panther supporter this is somewhat funny statement.
  5. Official preview video of Dita including dry shot of the autoloader in action.
  6. 9K120 Ataka? Where is the launcher and the guidance antena? Isn't that just an error in text?
  7. You are argueing with Guderian on the internet in 2021. I doubt he hears you. Military History Visualized by the way dug out of archives that creating a T-34 was indeed a topic and one of things officially asked by Wehrmacht towards the industry in late 1941 but the whole idea was rejected. And it is a historical truth that wording "Absolute Überlegenheit" (Absolute superiority) was used in regards to T-34 and there was no request to copy KV. A proof that this is historically true You have to take into account that Wehrmacht used a lot of captured T-34 ti
  8. Beer

    UAV thread

    New Iranian UCAV looking similar to Reaper, it's larger than previous models.
  9. It was one of the biggest tank battles of the western front and the initial part of it happened in a fog and was therefore very messy (the foggy day was chosen by the German side to avoid airforce). In the period of 10 days the 5. Panzerarmee was literally obliterated in their failed offensive with US loosing just 25 Shermans and 7 Hellcats. The 5th Army had 11. Panzer Division, 111. and 113. Panzerbrigades both armed with Panthers. The whole 5. Panzerarmee had only 62 tanks and StuG operational after 10 days of fighting from the initial 262. The weird thing about this battle is t
  10. This is how good quality paper thin armor behaves. Anyway you are arguing against Guderian himself who complained about bad German steel quality already in 1941.
  11. I gave you reports in my post which clearly speak about German early tanks and specifically Pz.III as having brittle armor and producing a lot of spalling. If you just delete it from quote of my post it won't disappear from history. So again: Here you go with just a few photos of early Panzers with cracked armor
  12. This was done already for Altay and if I am not mistaken the ammo is on both sides of the driver in Altay.
  13. Dear God... You are in a wrong place if you want to use arguments like this. What horrendous losses?
  14. Come on, this is an irrelevant what if bullshit not worth of discussion.
  15. Tests of early German (and Czechoslovak) vehicles shown a lot of brittleness, spalling. For example: Source: http://www.tankarchives.ca/2014/05/german-steel-vs-soviet-steel.html This is easy to see on photos as well. You can find plenty of photos of early Panzers with cracked armor plates. Chemical, structure, hardness properties, heat treatment evaluation of Panther ausf.A, Tiger ausf.H, both built definitely prior 1944. Big variety in samples. Often two same armor plates from different sample vehicles on the opposite end of the results. Nearly all plat
  16. That's still irrelevant because the very basic thing about any plan is that it must be realistically possible.
  17. True that but these things actually worked and lead to a plethora of direct descentants in all armies after the war.
  18. No, war is not a video game. Close fighting happens and surprise surprise, in 1945 25-30% of allied tank looses came from Panzerfaust, i.e. weapon used at distances like 30 meters. Your idea of tanks only sniping each other from afar works somewhere in African desert and partially on Ukrainean plains but not in typical 44-45 Panther battlefield. Tank-to-tank encounters also often happend on close distance, especially when fighting in cities or countryside with short visibility (green fences, mountains, forests). Why do you think Panther got sideskirts? Because its vertical side armor was penet
  19. IMHO this is an interesting phenomenon. Due to the fact that there were quite many German weapons which indeed were a generation ahead of the opponents people tend to generalize to an entire German war industry seeing everything German as wonder weapons. We can agree that things like Me-262, Fritz-X, StG-44, Hs-293, V1, V2 and some others really were sort of ahead of the time but that doesn't mean everything German was.
  20. The big radars infront of the turret frontal armour are the first thing to be hit by whatever shoots on the tank. Even the turret rotation among bushes or in any tight environment can damage them because they move at very wide circle. Don't know if it can be solved in a different way with Leo II, but I feel like in a real combat environment they will be damaged or destroyed pretty quickly just like similarly placed IR searchlights usually were.
  21. A weak property doesn't count if everyone knows about it or what did you try to say? Really? Please note that both tanks have the same weight. Besides that nobody claims that M48 was the best tank of its time (not even the Americans) while there is pretty widespread opinion that Panther was some sort of wunderkampfwagen which was killing legions of T-34 and Shermans like flies.
  22. That sounds pretty crazy. I'm no aircraft designer but IMHO you need different shapes for subsonic and supersonic planes (not only for the wings). Im also not sure if trainers use relaxed aerodynamic stability as the fighters do. Every such module you change will move the center of gravity and hence change the stability. Such plane would probably need to be inherently unstable and only mimic the stable behavior if needed.
  23. I think you wrote about different vehicle than Panther. Panther was a huge overweight vehicle with subpar armor protection for its weight (it had rather good frontal armor but really weak side armor). Even the frontal armor wasn't that great because of the large cast gun mantlet - it's confirmed by post-Kursk Soviet tests that the mantlet, lower sides and turret sides were penetrable from close distance even by M1932 45 mm gun when HVAP round was used (tests from December 1943). The roof armor (both hull and turret) were worse than of T-34/85 and at least in theory could have been
  • Create New...