Jump to content
Please support this forum by joining the SH Patreon ×
Sturgeon's House

delete013

Scrublord
  • Posts

    204
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by delete013

  1. Any penetration of crew compartment is armour failure, simple. Catching shrapnel between teeth is for the movies.
  2. Brits finally switching to Flecktarn?
  3. I think it was rather "why are we so helpless without strategic bombers and naval artillery?"
  4. Fine we have different understanding of the matter. I was brought to believe that such things matter by a number of observations, design principles of Leopard 2 and M1 Abrams, both late Cold war tanks. Rolf Hilmes in his Kampfpanzer describes in section 2.3 "Überlebensfähigkeitsbestimmende Elemente" the height of the vehicle as an important factor in the so called passive chance of getting hit (Trefferwahrscheinlichkeit). A number of projects in the 80ies in the US, USSR, Sweden and Germany attempted to explore the feasibility of external gun mounting, moving crew into the hull or very low hull or turret designs. Development of US heights. Explicitly lowered hull by tilting the driver's seat of an Abrams External cannon mount without a turret Nexter's design looks more similar to the boxy, tall vehicle of the Land Combat System from 2003. Hence, my remark. Upper square is the "superstructure". I assume it is there because the entire crew is in the hull. This clashes with the "deviantart" images. Lower square is my issue with suspension travel. At any serious obstacle those side plates will hit the floor. I assume it is Nexter's concept demonstration of digital battlefield, rather than detailed vehicle model.
  5. Contemporary "stealth" fighters aren't stealth. Anyways, can one use Blender for your contest?
  6. It took exactly one shot down F-117 to render entire fleet useless. ..besides, it was a joke.
  7. It's actually plastic mould. But because entire N.America will know the thickness, nobody will be shooting at it.
  8. I don't think I have energy to do it alone. But we can do in tandem, if you're up for it.
  9. ow low are those hull and turret? Isn't that because the primary aim of late cold war protection is not to get hit easily? The size grew purely due to size of spaced and composite armour, which is irrelevant if it gets hit sideways. If the future designs feature bulky turrets with small crew compartment, it is also okay. Why would T-90 have deliberately broad turret? Broader turret is afaik undesired but unavoidable, long bustle likewise.
  10. Low silhouette, sloped plates where possible, small or narrow cross-section of turrets. More or less how late cold war tanks were designed. Good, so it is the composite armour that needs space. Maybe it is not so tall, or at lest, the crew capsule is lower under the bulky armour. You might notice though that there is a flat window before the driver and there seems not much space for armour. It looks like driver's shot trap on a challenger 2. The hull itself is tall relative to vehicle width and there seems to be a superstructure that adds to the weight. All this are vulnerabilities that were attempted to be solved by tilting drivers chair back and lower the hull. Is that simply gone now? I think that part is my most credible observation. The hull is very low. The final drive housing extends almost all the way to the track. Where is suspension travel supposed to go? It looks more akin to Churchill's suspension. Sure, I merely asked why is it so. Maybe I don't know something.
  11. This is an entirely unsourced estimate: The last quote should be a clue to indicate that Germans didn't have 84 panthers and a lot of AFVs where Czech brigade was fighting. They likely had so few that no mobile reserve was able to be formed. Hence, no counter-attacks. Snipers were a typical German low asset delaying tactic. Fortifications were a mere delaying factor in German doctrine, which without an active reserve is basically a speedbump. The depth indicates that Germans had nothing mobile to counter an expected armoured attack. If you find German side of the story (Heinrici's opinion on the situation, for example), then you might get some credible facts out of this. British reports are Altschnee. They first drove a broken tank (slower than a Chuchill, had broken suspension and missing the third gear) and the post war production tests started with neutral steering, which is what German drivers were told explicitly to avoid. There was likely other weird things involved because Soviets could finish their turning radius tests with neutral steering! If Brits wanted to break the vehicle, then they easily succeeded. There is another important factor that I failed to point out before. 100km on a road and 100 km in combat are two entirely different categories. Since German tried hard to relocate with trains, then large fraction of driven kms were likely off-road.
  12. Sure, they did also damage, just not likely so much. The "projectile" category alone would be dubious but not if there is a separate category of hand held AT weapons! Not the most convincing AT asset. It is clear that tigers and perhaps those stugs had by far the best chances of destroying armour. From Strausberg, tigers had a nice view of the area. The type of tanks was made for such dueling. I read again. It seems pretty bulletproof analysis. Not 100%, for sure, but as high as the best ww2 records can give.
  13. Which one? I didn't! 503 admits to the loss. This is just another indicator that tigers were there. There weren't any other AT guns in the area beside 9 tigers and 5 stugs! They didn't inflict all the losses of Hgr. Weichsel, but lions share. With Stugs, they were the only AT cannon-equipped unit in the area. There was nobody else to do that job there. Soviets had several failed attacks, not just recce attempt. tankarchives is wrong here and critical mass provides overview based on combat reports. Because of tremendous concentration of forces were Sovietstl delayed only for a few days. One doesn't need three days to get from Grünow to Berlin. Soviets had 120 IS-2 before Strausberg! Plus T-34 and assault guns. Come on lads, I'm repeating myself.
  14. I never said everyone else lied. There is a good reason why I do not accept the available versions of Arracourt. The thesis you posted has a major flaw, it lacks cross checking and is based almost entirely on claims. It has nothing to do with actual US performance there. Maybe it was one of the best in war, who knows. No serious historian or military analyst takes German or any other claims at face value. You guys start the discussion with the conviction of German official sources being Nazi propaganda and proceed with proving it as if it was countering holocaust denial. Not a very sporty behaviour and certainly not in the spirit of military ethos.
×
×
  • Create New...