Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

delete013

Scrublord
  • Content Count

    94
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About delete013

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

141 profile views
  1. So what is the important factor here? I assume it is the question whether the recoil affects accuracy. Or whether ealignment is needed? I guess if sights are independent from the barrel and wobble doesn't disturb the shot the bounce doesn't matter until the reload is finished.
  2. Bloody hell, what a find. Need more visuals from their glorious fight. Vietnam still uses T-54-1! Cannot say if more valuable for its combat effect or museum relevance.
  3. It is still quite untypical of the French to behave so timidly. They won ww1 but apparently lost the battle of the will, because Napoleon was precisely the opposite.
  4. It was indeed meant to climb trenches in a fashion of 1918. It seems that climbing was still quite useful for infantry support in ww2. Churchills made it much easier for the British to evercome the hills around Tunis. Germans felt safe on the peaks and the British simply drove up to them including to the 754th Grenadier Regiment HQ, bagging the officers. Navigating heavy terrain widens the maneuver space and the tactical solutions available. Lowlands are not everywhere. But as the rest already mentioned, the small turret ring dictated the size of a weapon in the turret and Churchill's end
  5. These designs seem to stray from the usual good practices of tank building. Bulky, tall and with little space for suspension. Armour on the "cannon" seems equal to that of a c2(IFV?). How is that justified?
  6. If they managed the automated ammunition loading this combination of tanks and ATGM carrier looks the most evolved concepts I've seen, especially comapred to the peacmeal concepts of the West of the time (1991 ?). Oscillating turret with crew separated from the ammo pretty much solves two of the most recurring design issues I have with soviet tanks. Makes FCS look quite silly.
×
×
  • Create New...