Jump to content

Tank Myths


Walter_Sobchak
 Share

Recommended Posts

40 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Are you talking heresy again?

Just my personal experiences :)  I've driven T-55 many times, and I didnt feel any discomfort at all. OK, maybe the difficulty of switching to 3rd gear sometimes, but that depends on the condition of the machine. Also check Nick Moran's video about T-55, and while the commander's place is indeed bad, the other places are much better, especially the gunners'. 

I sat in T-72 too, although only in an exhibition. It wasnt bad at all. Little bit cramped, but nothing horrible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WT's MBT-70 has lots of controversy.

 

> Some claim the 152mm gun could actually achieve it's listed APFSDS penetration

 

> Some claim the loader could feed the gun a missile every 5 seconds

 

Are these false?

 

 

I recall reading some material stating that because the 152mm did not have any indication of being able to fire the projectile, a ported 105mm sabot, at any greater power than the L7.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Peasant said:

WT's MBT-70 has lots of controversy.

 

> Some claim the 152mm gun could actually achieve it's listed APFSDS penetration

 

> Some claim the loader could feed the gun a missile every 5 seconds

 

Are these false?

 

 

I recall reading some material stating that because the 152mm did not have any indication of being able to fire the projectile, a ported 105mm sabot, at any greater power than the L7.

 

In the WT version, does the driver have to take periodic vomit breaks due to motion sickness?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

 

In the WT version, does the driver have to take periodic vomit breaks due to motion sickness?

No. In WT such considerations are not relevant.

 

Although there is a certain disdain for making the Soviet tech tree more historically accurate by not openly gimping their ammo selection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Peasant said:

WT's MBT-70 has lots of controversy.

 

> Some claim the 152mm gun could actually achieve it's listed APFSDS penetration

 

> Some claim the loader could feed the gun a missile every 5 seconds

 

Are these false?

 

 

I recall reading some material stating that because the 152mm did not have any indication of being able to fire the projectile, a ported 105mm sabot, at any greater power than the L7.

 

While I don't recall anything regarding the loading system for MBT-70 and its handling of Missiles (there were two autoloader designs, one from GM, one from Rheinmetall - the GM one worked better...), but the MBT-70 APFSDS is overperforming by a good deal in WT. That said, other changes to the game lineup have made this largely a moot point.

 

(It is amusing that the APFSDS penetrates so well, it makes the HEAT and Missiles basically redundant despite the APFSDS never being intended to be the main round issued and purely a short-range backup)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

is there any real report proving that german WW2 tank sights were better(which model) that any other ?

 

qqTBvdM9EiU.jpg

 

because early optics seems to be not very good, and later models with blooming of optical lenses was there only to resolve the problem with 20% light transmission(sights with flexible "head" have less transmission  ), but no because it was "super cool sights" 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a forum somewhere on which a collector showed the difference between different optics. Unfortunately, I cant find it anymore, it was long ago. But the result was the following. Best sight was the german one (I do not remember, but I think from a Pz.IV). Best picture clarity, sharpness, light transmission. Second was the soviet, which was just a little bit worse!  (from a T-34/85) Behind these two was the american (it was from an M4), but the quality gap was substantial. Final two was the british and french, I do not remember in which order, but both were trash category.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, EnsignExpendable said:

Unlikely, the Americans didn't have a sample of Soviet sights until 1943, at which point the Sherman was already very much a thing. Jeeps might correct me, but I don't think there was a radical redesign in sights after the rotor sight was replaced with a telescopic sight.

 

I probably should have corrected myself - the later Sherman gun sights were highly influenced by the T-34 Sights. The M70 (and it's variants) took in lessons from the T-34 Gun Sights. I know there was some comparison documents on that site, but I can't find them ATM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...
On 8/24/2016 at 9:57 PM, Bronezhilet said:

Spaced armour is hugely effective vs HEAT warheads.

 

It totally isn't and the higher stand-off caused by the spaced armour can actually cause the HEAT warhead to penetrate more than it would without the spaced armour.

3f055bc610.jpg

Wait a second, if space armor is not very effective against HEAT, then what is the point of space armor on PzKpfw IV and Leopard 2A5 onward ?
Pz-IVG-latrun-4.jpg

uDMoRye.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Ronny said:

PzKpfw IV and Leopard 2A5 onward

KE.

Specifically the skirts on Nazi tanks were there to counter the Soviet 14.5mm, and the meme wedges on the Leo are NERA reportedly mostly optimized for breaking LRPs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, N-L-M said:

KE.

Specifically the skirts on Nazi tanks were there to counter the Soviet 14.5mm, and the meme wedges on the Leo are NERA reportedly mostly optimized for breaking LRPs.

No kidding?

the skirt on Nazi tank is so so so thin??
also this is the first time i heard the shape on Leo is to break LRP. Do you have have some source? Not that i don't trust your expertise , i just need something so that when i people don't doubt my words when i repeat that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ronny said:

the skirt on Nazi tank is so so so thin??

The skirt destabilizes the AP round, which then tumbles and is stopped by base armor plates it would otherwise go through.

qNOwNaJ.jpg

Regarding the meme wedges, from the Swedish tank trials (the source is currently AWOL but theres a lot of snippets around and it appears to be 100% legit).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, N-L-M said:

The skirt destabilizes the AP round, which then tumbles and is stopped by base armor plates it would otherwise go through.

qNOwNaJ.jpg

Regarding the meme wedges, from the Swedish tank trials (the source is currently AWOL but theres a lot of snippets around and it appears to be 100% legit).

Good thing I immediately saved it when someone linked the full source: https://mega.nz/#!opMXQI4Y!FYsJor8vYic7ZdjiETtbPIna20PAOVhjPEML9MTmilU

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, EnsignExpendable said:

American research also founds that skirt armour that is 1/12th of the caliber of the shell can tear the armour piercing cap off on impact. German Schurtzen wasn't thick enough, but something like the spaced armour on a PzIII was.

yup 

 

8pTCIyB.jpg

 

even 1/4 an inch helped against the PIAT 

 

l3gm5ax4h6vz.jpg

 

There was another British test for "future" tanks with a few varying thickness up to 1 inch skirts and various hull sides and if I recall it made quite a difference. I imagine the M6 heavy for example with it's 1 inch skirt must have helped immensely in firing trials.

Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...