bruhntasaur
-
Posts
11 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by bruhntasaur
-
-
Here's a link that explodes-convincingly- the myth of the T-34/76 as a revolutionary, war winning tank. The 34/85 was a significant upgrade but even that vehicle is overrated. Long, but worth the read.
http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.com/2012/07/wwii-myths-t-34-best-tank-of-war.html
Conclusion:
The T-34 is the victim of Soviet and German wartime propaganda. The Russians had every reason to build it up as the best tank of WWII. The Germans also overstated its performance in order to explain their defeats.
If the T-34 was as good as propaganda made it out to be then it should have led to great Soviet victories in 1941-42. Instead what we see in that period is the poor performance of Soviet armored formations. In 1943-45 the T-34 was becoming outdated as the Germans used updated versions of the Pz IV and Stug III equipped with the powerful Kwk 40 75mm gun and of course they introduced the Tiger and Panther.
The ‘best tank of WWII’ suffered horrific losses against those tanks and even the updated version T-34/85 could not bridge the gap.
Once again, when you're talking about whether a tank is influential or not, it's the design that matters, not the actual battlefield usage.
The exact combination of protection, mobility and firepower was unheard of in 1940 and it's successful overall design, despite its weaknesses, showed the way in which all the subsequent tank designs had to go.
-
Oh yeah, T-44 anyone? There were 700-800 produced by the end of the war already. I'd love to see that thing.
-
The above sources support very well, that no adequate Soviet guns for the high accuracy German guns existed.
Everything indicates they needed a 122 mm monster gun, because they were not capable to produce an equivalent to the German (or the British 17 pdr.) high velocity guns.
When they noticed their 85 mm version was not strong enough, why didn't they increase muzzle velocity like everyone else? Smaller calibres are easier to handle than bigger ones.
The answer to me is obvious: they somehow lacked the technology to produce high velocity flat trajectory guns (I could imagine their production facilities did not have precise enough tools and machinery).
If you cannot achieve the 1000 - 1100 m/s that would be sufficient, then increasing the calibre remains the only solution.
One must not forget, that from 1945 on the Cold War started and the Communist propaganda was not interested to discuss any inferiority in technology compared to defeated Germany and the Western powers.
In 1945 a posing in technological achievements had begun. So one should not be surprised to find no explicit studies mentioning the inferiority of Soviet muzzle velocity and the incapability to increase it. I guess under the Communist's Gulag system I would have praised the capabillity of the 122 mm rockthrower, when it hit a tank @2000 m by accident, too.
Jaaa, Sowjetische Untermensch! Keine gutte guns arbeiten!!1!
On a more serious note, the things people say 70 years after...
Please, stop making a fool of yourself.
Have a nice and a very productive german superior muzzle velocity day.
-
So you have never heard different sounds in game for weapons?
wow, just wow. re-read please.
-
Hmmm... it's been a while since I got into the math of this stuff, but IIRC air resistance and gravity have more of a drop effect on a heavier round than a lighter one.
Regardless, I don't know that the KwK40 is more accurate at that range with all other factors being equal. And if you look at the two misses, they were actually quite close. It's a lot harder to hit a horizontal surface accurately than a vertical one. If Elvis' soldier was instead a tank I think Bil would have hit it.
The real drawback is the long reload time.
Steve
Oh hi Steve.
Actually gravity affects all objects equally. It doesn't really matter whether an object is heavier or lighter, it will start accelerating downwards at a constant acceleration of 9.81 m/s^2. So any two rounds in the world are equal when it comes to that. What does matter actually is shell speed, weight, width-to-length ratio and general frontal surface of the shell.
Obviously, more speed=more energy. But in the respect I was discussing right now, it also means shorter time required to hit a certain target. If a shell's V0=~500 m/s it would've dropped much more than a shell travelling at 800m/s would've while trying to hit the same target simply because the gravity would've had more time to accelerate it downwards on its way to the target. Therefore misjudging distance with a slower shell would cost you more dearly than with a faster one.
But in this regard, both shells are pretty much equal, so it would basically come down to who's got a better gunner.
2)The heavier the shell, the more energy it has and, subsequently, the more air has to "work" at slowing it down. So heavier shells retain their energy (or speed) better, all else being equal (which gives a clear advantage to the 122mm shells, it being some ~3.6 times heavier). But that same shell has larger external dimensions, meaning air friction would be higher. Now, I'm not gonna go into aerodynamic properties here; let's just consider them both equal, scaled-up versions of one another, for the sake of the argument. I'll just use basic frontal area in here, for the sake of simplicity.
So, quick calculations give 8.121x10^6 J of muzzle energy for the 122, and only 2.122x10^6 J for the 75 (which is around 4x less). Well, let's just see how much power each shell has compared to its frontal area (and, therefore, in this simplified overview - the air resistance). It sums up to around 695 J per square mm for the 122 and 480 J per square mm for the 75. Since air friction per square milimeter of frontal area should be similar, this would indicate that air resistance affects the 75 more than the 122.
vukashin88,Why would the ISU-122 be more prone to missing its first shot than the Hetzer? The ISU-122 is firing at a tiny target in both height and width, whereas the Hetzer is firing at a huge target. The ISU-122 is in an unforgiving situation when it comes to range estimation. A small miscalculation will either short the round or put it well over. Same thing in terms of traverse. The Hetzer is so low and so narrow that aiming at it has to be precise. By contrast, the Hetzer has a lot more wiggle room, in that it can fire over a broader range of elevation and traverse, than the ISU-122 can, and still get a hit.
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1164&context=usarmyresearch
Judging from what I understood of the CT-18 sight description, I suspect the German sight, with its strich markings, would be much quicker at ranging and do so more accurately. Way back in my PE days, I got to use the virtual equivalent of this sight system and found it highly effective. In any event, I have every confidence all needed data for the German end are on hand and highly understood.
Regards,
John Kettler
That's a valid argument, John. What i actually meant is that, when directly compared, the A-19 could have an advantage in the ballistic accuracy, disregarding the 'soft' factors, e.g. crew training and the optics.
-
ISU has a good chance of missing first shot, then its liable to find itself victim of a real pummeling while slowly reloading. The alternative to attacking it is waiting for it to come to you and probably putting a big 122mm HE shell into the middle of your defenses.
Considering 122mm APC rounds have a V0=805 m/s, while KwK 40 has a comparable (if slightly lower) V0=790 m/s, why would the A-19 be more prone to missing the first shot? For the sake of the argument, lets consider the crew training to be the same. 122mm shell would better retain it's KE over long distances due to its higher weight, therefore meaning having less drop over longer distances.
-
Not sure about what ammo types the Hetzers and Panther have?
If we're talking about armor piercing rounds, it's APCBC PzGr 39's almost exclusively; Tungsten shortages forced the Germans to stop production of all the PzGr 40 types already during '43, while keeping any meaningful supplies only for Pak 36 and Pak 40 guns. By 1944, all the APCR round stocks would've been expended already.
-
All right lads, I've done a quick calculation of line of sight thickness of the said 60mm upper hull plate set at 80 degrees from vertical - 60mm/cos80deg = 345,526 mm.
Now, this is only line of sight thickness, but still considering the angle of impact of most projectiles I don't think that any wartime AP projectile would 'bite' the armor inclined to that degree, thus leading to imminent ricochet.
At least not counting rounds of extreme caliber who just *might* overwhelm the 60 mm plate and dive in a bit without ricocheting.
By the way, hi all!
-
Ahh, my first post! Hi all! Been a really long time lurker (since 2006 at least)! Own all the CM games (except the expansion modules for SF) an yaddaly yaddaly what not...
Anyway:
You know this is a good idea. I would like this too. I also miss being able to enlarge units in cmx1.I don't think that's possible. The whole point of CMx2 is getting rid of the abstractions. If units were to change sizes, that would automatically mean they would also, for example, become larger targets for the game mechanics at the same time. That's because units are no longer just abstracted points on maps with 3D models being only their representation (UI) to the player, but actual models are used in calculations.
So, basically, what you see is what you get. It's the same thing with trees, as mentioned before.
Regards
Armata soon to be in service.
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
Too bad no one seemed to notice your link!
Guys, I urge you to see the vid behind that link, the whole turret is presented in exquisite detail over there.