Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, delete013 said:

 

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.

Losing an entire generation will do that to you. Don't forget that the French suffered proportionately the same casualties as the Germans (2.9% of their total population, nearly all young men) and did so entirely on their own soil. And all so that they could come back to a depressed economy and a crumbling empire.

 

I think the big lesson here is "don't fight on your own soil", which explains a lot of their planning and conduct. The other big lesson being, of course, that if you are going to fight the Germans in France, for God's sake do it close to the border and defensively.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 198
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I'm sure that all the SH regulars will know this backwards and forwards, so this is more for the benefit of newer people, or people who stumble in via google, or people who want a quick link they can

It's rarely pointed out because it is an absolute load of bullshit, and most self respecting people have enough of a brain to not embarrass themselves in public by making such inherently absurd claims

6 minutes ago, Beer said:

 

Tend to disagree here. Up to the very last moment the military kept buying literally thousands of 2-men tanks for the infantry support eqipped with the same vintage gun as the FT-17 (R-35, H-35, H-38, FCM-36). That means that by may 1940 the military had close to 3000 2-men tanks with useless guns which were by large majority produced during late 30'. That's a looot of resources vasted. 

That's bureaucratic cost-saving for you: penny-wise but pound-foolish. They'd have been better off melting down all the old junk and scrapping Estienne's smart idea, but how do you sell that to the higher-ups?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

 

That's exactly what happened in all sectors. The French (for a time) absorbed the German small arms collective as well, and played around with adapting their late war designs. In the end, like the tanks, they didn't end up using any of the German ideas, partly because unlike the French tank sector, the French small arms developments were still quite technologically competitive.

And partly because Stg-44 is overrated, right?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Toxn said:

I think the big lesson here is "don't fight on your own soil", which explains a lot of their planning and conduct. 

 

Ironically in reality they conducted exactly opposite. By September 1938 there were 7 German divisions on the entire western front and by September 1939 it was 23 divisions. The French even without the British had gigantic numerical advantage but in 1938 they decided to do nothing and in 1939 they advanced 8 km into Germany and retreated... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Beer said:

 

Ironically in reality they conducted exactly opposite. By September 1938 there were 7 German divisions on the entire western front and by September 1939 it was 23 divisions. The French even without the British had gigantic numerical advantage but in 1938 they decided to do nothing and in 1939 they advanced 8 km into Germany and retreated... 

I'm not saying they were great at putting those lessons into practice...

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Toxn said:

And partly because Stg-44 is overrated, right?

 

They mostly played with the roller retarded blowback schema, which saw great success postwar.

Almost nobody bothered with the StG-44, in many ways it's the Panther of small arms (I would argue not as bad, though).

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Beer said:

FT was for sure the best tank of WW1 but by may 1940 there were still 1300 of them in French army service, of that roughly 530 in frontline units facing the German invasion...  


I was more referencing how lighter, faster, and more numerous tanks are, demonstrably, more effective than a couple “land ships”. But that only gets you so far: as stated previously, the outdated 37mm SA18s and one-man turrets were significant handicaps. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Toxn said:

And partly because Stg-44 is overrated, right?

 

7 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

 

They mostly played with the roller retarded blowback schema, which saw great success postwar.

Almost nobody bothered with the StG-44, in many ways it's the Panther of small arms (I would argue not as bad, though).



Indeed.  Most of the early work on what would become the HK and CETME family of rifles was initially done in France by ex-Mauser employees.  They later moved to Spain, which they seem to have preferred for its relaxed economic protectionism, drier climate, and slightly fascist dictatorship.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Collimatrix said:

 



Indeed.  Most of the early work on what would become the HK and CETME family of rifles was initially done in France by ex-Mauser employees.  They later moved to Spain, which they seem to have preferred for its relaxed economic protectionism, drier climate, and slightly fascist dictatorship.

 

Let's not forget their substantially superior sense of style.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Collimatrix said:

 



Indeed.  Most of the early work on what would become the HK and CETME family of rifles was initially done in France by ex-Mauser employees.  They later moved to Spain, which they seem to have preferred for its relaxed economic protectionism, drier climate, and slightly fascist dictatorship.

 

Rifle talk should be in Ballistics or Infantry forums. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

 

 

I think we try, people talking Nazi failures up are just so rare, at least around here.  I mean being a wehraboo is so 2012. 

What can one do when your tribe has hunted its prey to extinction...

 

Guess we should start farming 'em.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Soviet evaluation of Pershing in summer 1945 gives some light to the previously discussed terrain speed of Panther and Pershing. The result didn't favour Panther... 

http://www.tankarchives.ca/2018/03/pershing-heavy-by-necessity.html

 

This is the measured average speed in comparison with other tanks on the same terrain track. Pershing was the fastest of them in this test mainly thanks to its torque converter. 

 

T26E3 - 18,9 km/h

T-44 - 17,5 km/h

M4A4 - 16,5 km/h

Panther - 15,8 km/h

IS-3 - 14,6 km/h

 

Fuel consumption on the same track however showed that the torque converter made it also very thirsty, basically same as Panther. 

IS-3 - 373 l/100 km

T-44 - 378 l/100 km

M4A4 - 503 l/100 km

T26E3 - 585 l/ 100 km

Panther - 595 l/100 km

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Content

    • By Monochromelody
      IDF had kept about 100 Tiran-6/T-62s since 1973, and remain service until 1990s. 
       
      I wonder if there's any modification on Tiran-6, like changing the powerpack into 8V71T+XTG-411, adapting steering wheel. 
       
      I also heard that British ROF had produce a batch of 115mm barrel for IDF, while MECAR or NEXTER produced high-performance APFSDS for 115mm gun. Did IDF really use these barrels for original barrel replacement? 
       
      And about protection, did IDF put Blazer ERA on Tiran-6? Or they use more advanced APS like Trophy? 
       
      Thank you. 
    • By Sturgeon
      The LORD was with the men of Deseret. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had chariots of steel.
      —The Book of Latter Day Saints, Ch 8, vs. 3:10, circa 25th Century CE
       
      BULLETIN: ALL INDUSTRIAL-MECHANICAL CONCERNS
       
      SOLICITATION FOR ALL-TERRAIN BATTLE TANK
       
      The Provisional Government of the Lone Free State of Texas and The Great Plains issues the following solicitation for a new All-Terrain Battle Tank. The vehicle will be the main line ground combat asset of the Lone Free State Rangers, and the Texas Free State Patrol, and will replace the ageing G-12 Scout Truck, and fill the role of the cancelled G-42 Scout Truck. The All-Terrain Battle Tank (ATBT) will be required to counter the new Californian and Cascadian vehicles and weapons which our intelligence indicates are being used in the western coast of the continent. Please see the attached sheet for a full list of solicitation requirements.
       

       
      Submissions will be accepted in USC only.
       
       
      Supplementary Out of Canon Information:
       
       
      I.     Technology available:
      a.      Armor:
      The following armor materials are in full production and available for use. Use of a non-standard armor material requires permission from a judge.
      Structural materials:
                                                                    i.     RHA/CHA
      Basic steel armor, 360 BHN. The reference for all weapon penetration figures, good impact properties, fully weldable. Available in thicknesses up to 4 inches (RHA) 8 inches (CHA). 
      Density- 0.28 lb/in^3.
                                                                   ii.     Aluminum 5083
      More expensive to work with than RHA per weight, middling impact properties, low thermal limits. Excellent stiffness.
       Fully weldable. Available in thicknesses up to 4 inches.
      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 1 vs CE, 0.9 vs KE.
      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.33 vs CE, 0.3 vs KE.
      Density- 0.1 lb/in^3 (approx. 1/3 of steel).
      For structural integrity, the following guidelines are recommended:
      For heavy vehicles (30-40 tons), not less than 1 in RHA/1.75 in Aluminum base structure
      For medium-light vehicles (<25 tons), not less than 0.5 in RHA/1 in Aluminum base structure
      Intermediate values for intermediate vehicles may be chosen as seen fit.
      Non-structural passive materials:
                                                                  iii.     HHA
      Steel, approximately 500 BHN through-hardened. Approximately 1.5x as effective as RHA against KE and HEAT on a per-weight basis. Not weldable, middling shock properties. Available in thicknesses up to 1 inch.
      Density- 0.28 lb/in^3
                                                                  iv.     Fuel
      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 1.3 vs CE, 1 vs KE.
      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.14 vs CE, 0.1 vs KE.
      Density-0.03 lb/in^3.
                                                                v.     Assorted stowage/systems
      Mass efficiency vs RHA- 1 vs CE, 0.8 vs KE.
                                                               vi.     Spaced armor
      Requires a face of at least 1 inch LOS vs CE, and at least 0.75 caliber LOS vs fullbore AP KE.
      Reduces penetration by a factor of 1.1 vs CE or 1.05 vs KE for every 4 inchair gap.
      Spaced armor rules only apply after any standoff surplus to the requirements of a reactive cassette.
      Reactive armor materials:
                                                                  vii.     ERA
      A sandwich of 0.125in/0.125in/0.125in steel-explodium-steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
      Must be spaced at least 2 sandwich thicknesses away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 81% coverage (edge effects).
                                                                  viii.     NERA
      A sandwich of 0.25in steel/0.25in rubber/0.25in steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
      Must be spaced at least 1 sandwich thickness away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 95% coverage.
      The details of how to calculate armor effectiveness will be detailed in Appendix 1.
      b.      Firepower
                                                                    i.     Bofors 57mm (reference weapon) - 85,000 PSI PMax/70,000 PSI Peak Operating Pressure, high quality steel cases, recoil mechanisms and so on are at an equivalent level to that of the USA in the year 1960.
                                                                   ii.     No APFSDS currently in use, experimental weapons only - Spindle sabots or bourelleted sabots, see for example the Soviet BM-20 100mm APFSDS.
                                                                  iii.     Tungsten is available for tooling but not formable into long rod penetrators. It is available for penetrators up to 6 calibers L:D.
                                                                  iv.     Texan shaped charge technology - 4 CD penetration for high-pressure resistant HEAT, 5 CD for low pressure/ precision formed HEAT.
                                                                   v.     The subsidy-approved GPMG for the Lone Free State of Texas has the same form factor as the M240, but with switchable feed direction.. The standard HMG has the same form factor as the Kord, but with switchable feed direction.
      c.       Mobility
                                                                    i.     Engines tech level:
      1.      MB 838 (830 HP)
      2.      AVDS-1790-5A (908 HP)
      3.      Kharkov 5TD (600 HP)
      4.    Detroit Diesel 8V92 (400 HP)
      5.    Detroit Diesel 6V53 (200 HP)
                                                                   ii.     Power density should be based on the above engines. Dimensions are available online, pay attention to cooling of 1 and 3 (water cooled).
                                                                  iii.     Power output broadly scales with volume, as does weight. Trying to extract more power from the same size may come at the cost of reliability (and in the case of the 5TD, it isn’t all that reliable in the first place).
                                                                  iv.     There is nothing inherently wrong with opposed piston or 2-stroke engines if done right.
      d.      Electronics
                                                                    i.     LRFs- unavailable
                                                                   ii.     Thermals-unavailable
                                                                  iii.     I^2- Gen 2 maximum
                                                                  vi.     Texas cannot mass produce microprocessors or integrated circuits
                                                                 vii.    Really early transistors only (e.g., transistor radio)
                                                                viii.    While it is known states exist with more advanced computer technology, the import of such systems are barred by the east coast states who do not approve of their use by militaristic entities.
       
      Armor calculation appendix.
       
      SHEET 1 Armor defeat calculator 4in-54 1200 yd
       
      SHEET 2 Armor defeat calculator 4in-54 2000 yd
       
      SHEET 3 Armor defeat calculator 6in HEAT
       
      Range calculator
       
    • By Beer
      I haven't found an appropriate thread where to put some interesting rare stuff related to WW2 development, be it industrial one or makeshift field modifications. 
       
      Let's start with two things. The first one is a relatively recently found rarity from Swedish archives - a drawing of ČKD/BMM V8H-Sv tank. The drawing and a letter was found by WoT enthusiasts in Swedish archives in 2014 (the original announcement and the drawing source is here). The drawing is from a message dated 8th September 1941. One of the reasons why this drawing was not known before may be that the Czech archives were partially destroyed by floods in 2002. Anyway it is an export modification of the V-8-H tank accepted into Czechoslovak service as ST vz.39 but never produced due to the cancelation of all orders after Münich 1938 (for the same reason negotiations about licence production in Britain failed). Also later attempt to sell the tank to Romania failed due to BMM being fully busy with Wehrmacht priority orders. The negotiations with Sweden about licence production of V8H-Sv lasted till 1942, at least in May 1942 Swedish commission was present in Prague for negotiations. The tank differed compared to the base ST vz.39 in thicker armor with different front hull shape (armor 60 mm @ 30° on the hull front and also 60 mm on the turret; all sides were 40 mm thick). The tank was heavier (20 tons) and had the LT vz.38 style suspension with probably even larger wheels. The engine was still the same Praga NR V8 (240-250 Hp per source). The armament was unchanged with 47 mm Škoda A11 gun and two vz.37 HMG. The commander's cupola was of the simple small rotating type similar to those used on AH-IV-Sv tankettes. It is known that the Swedes officially asked to arm the tank with 75 mm gun, replace the engine with Volvo V12 and adding third HMG to the back of the turret. In the end the Swedes decided to prefer their own Strv/m42. 

      Source of the drawing
       
      The second is makeshift field modification found on Balkans. It appears Ustasha forces (and possibly some SS anti-partizan units) used several Italian M15/42 medium tanks with turrets from Pz.38(t). There are several photos of such hybrids but little more is known. On one photo it is possible to see Ustasha registration number U.O. 139.

      Few more photos of such hybrid.
       
      It appears that the source of all those photos to be found on the internet is this book, Armoured units of the Axis forces in southeastern Europe in WW2 by Dinko Predoevic. 
       
    • By SuperComrade
      I was recently looking at the Japanese wikipedia page for the Chi-Ha tank, and it had this section on the name of the tank:

       
       
      I have never heard of such nomenclature, and obviously I don't have access to such documents since I don't live in Japan. There is no reference for this part, so can anyone confirm that they actually did use "MTK" etc.?

×
×
  • Create New...