Very Good Mid 60s M60 & M60A1 Documentary

[Ultradave]

2 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

 Kind regards I come here first to discuss the game and I am not a fan of the Cold War because it never took place. 

I am a fan of the Cold War because it never turned hot! 

Well, a bit warm at times, at least for me, but mostly not hot.

Dave

Edited December 5, 2021 by Ultradave

[chuckdyke]

4 hours ago, Ultradave said:

I am a fan of the Cold War because it never turned hot!

If there is a future expansion. I was hoping for early Cold War. "Operation Unthinkable" the liberation of Poland the Chech Republics. After all WW 2 was started because of the integrity of Poland. Force a corridor to Berlin 1948, the Hungarian uprising 1956, the Prague spring of 1967. The list goes on and on. Suez crisis, Cubans in Southern Africa the sky is the limit and it is all historical. But we all have an editor and can help ourselves. 

[Codreanu]

39 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

If there is a future expansion. I was hoping for early Cold War. "Operation Unthinkable" the liberation of Poland the Chech Republics. After all WW 2 was started because of the integrity of Poland. Force a corridor to Berlin 1948, the Hungarian uprising 1956, the Prague spring of 1967. The list goes on and on. Suez crisis, Cubans in Southern Africa the sky is the limit and it is all historical. But we all have an editor and can help ourselves. 

1948 might even work as a module for CW, we already have the 1945 Soviets and I'm guessing their doctrine and gear couldn't have changed very much in only a few years. All that would have to be added is a couple fun vehicles like the IS-3.

Edited December 6, 2021 by Codreanu

[chuckdyke]

5 minutes ago, Codreanu said:

1948 might even work as a module for CW,

You need to add probably improved munitions for the T34/85. I am not an expert but a 1948-1956 T34/85 would have probably been on par with the British 20 pounder or the US 90mm. Somebody could make a skin for the IS-2 to make it look like an IS-3. 

Edited December 6, 2021 by chuckdyke

[Codreanu]

1 minute ago, chuckdyke said:

You need to add probably improved munitions for the T34/85. I am not an expert but a 1956 T34/85 would have probably been on par with the British 20 pounder or the US 90mm. Somebody could make a skin for the IS-2 to make it look like an IS-3. 

Never heard of the T-34-85 getting improved rounds post war minus the presumably more widespread distribution of APCR. Wiki mentions smoke canisters on the obr. 1945 and an improved engine on the obr. 1946. Smoke canisters might already be modelled on the T-34-85 (latest) we have in game but they're just not usable, not sure, so any needed update to the model would be small to non-existent. I bet the Centurion mk. 3 with the 20 pdr would be an absolute monster, definitely outclassing the T-34-85 and being able to penetrate IS-2s with APDS.

[chuckdyke]

12 minutes ago, Codreanu said:

Never heard of the T-34-85 getting improved rounds post war minus the presumably more widespread distribution of APCR

Speculation but the gun had definitely the potential I quote the penetration of the related 85mm anti tank gun shooting APCBC shell. That could penetrate 195mm at a km. The postwar T34/85 would not have been far off and their performance would have been classified. Battle of Abu-Ageila (1967) the Egyptian had T34/85 and SU100 fighting more modern Centurions with the 105mm and Super Shermans and were outnumbered. The Israelis still lost 19 tanks vs 40 Egyptian AFV. I am interested how the T34/85 performed in that battle. 

[chuckdyke]

Sorry for getting off topic again in my previous posts. 

[Codreanu]

35 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

Speculation but the gun had definitely the potential I quote the penetration of the related 85mm anti tank gun shooting APCBC shell. That could penetrate 195mm at a km. The postwar T34/85 would not have been far off and their performance would have been classified. Battle of Abu-Ageila (1967) the Egyptian had T34/85 and SU100 fighting more modern Centurions with the 105mm and Super Shermans and were outnumbered. The Israelis still lost 19 tanks vs 40 Egyptian AFV. I am interested how the T34/85 performed in that battle. 

There's no way humanly possible an 85mm could penetrate 195mm at a km with APCBC, that's rivaling Tiger II levels of penetration. Best stats for it I can find is 195mm at point blank with armor sloped at 0 degrees using APCR, and most are less favorable than that. Ultimately it doesn't really matter because even with those super gun values it would not come close to the penetration of a 20 pdr using APDS. You're right that this is very off topic but I guess that's par for the course for these threads .

[chuckdyke]

10 minutes ago, Codreanu said:

There's no way humanly possible an 85mm could penetrate 195mm at a km with APCBC, that's rivaling Tiger II levels of penetration.

With all respect not sucking it out of my thumb, but how do we know what the Soviets did post war. That tank stayed in service for a long time. 

[MikeyD]

I recall reading the Russians used a more 'energetic' propellant for their rounds which gave higher MV than US guns but also made the tanks more prone to catastrophic explosions. Bailed Russian tankers lying next to their burning Sherman would be grateful to hear the 'pop-pop-pop' of the rounds cooking off in the vehicle instead of 'BOOM!!!'

I remember when the Beta team was researching armor penetration stats for the PT-76 light tank we were astounded by the numbers. Our initial guesstimate penetration numbers for the gun had to be doubled, or something like that.

[chuckdyke]

6 minutes ago, MikeyD said:

I recall reading the Russians used a more 'energetic' propellant for their rounds which gave higher MV than US guns

I did as well if we take the post war US as an example they improved their munitions and it is likely the Russians did it too. 

[Codreanu]

41 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

With all respect not sucking it out of my thumb, but how do we know what the Soviets did post war. That tank stayed in service for a long time. 

Look at your picture a little closer, those are the values of the D-48 anti-tank gun, an entirely different gun from the one used in the T-34-85. The shells in the D-48 would not even fit in the breech of a T-34-85, it would be far too long, 708mm vs 629mm. If you can find evidence of some post-war super shell for the ZiS-S-53 gun I'd love to see it, but, well, if nobody can find any references to it how could it be added to the game? Nobody would know the stats for it.

Here is the D-48 gun, clearly very different from the T-34-85's cannon.

[chuckdyke]

4 minutes ago, Codreanu said:

I'd love to see it, but, well, if nobody can find any references to it how could it be added to the game? Nobody would know the stats for it.

Correct the only thing we can go by are the Arab Israeli wars which I am looking into. The Israelis won every battle but it was not completely one sided. SU100 and T34/85 vs Centurions with the 105mm NATO gun and Super Shermans with the 105mm French gun. Loss ratio was 2:1. I found this reference that Some Post WW2 models had HVAP which is a different name for APCR shells? Final say on the matter, by the Korean war it was outdated already. 

[Codreanu]

8 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

Correct the only thing we can go by are the Arab Israeli wars which I am looking into. The Israelis won every battle but it was not completely one sided. SU100 and T34/85 vs Centurions with the 105mm NATO gun and Super Shermans with the 105mm French gun. Loss ratio was 2:1. I found this reference that Some Post WW2 models had HVAP which is a different name for APCR shells? Final say on the matter, by the Korean war it was outdated already. 

HVAP/APCR would be the BR-365P which we already have in Red Thunder, not aware of any further shell developments for the ZiS-S-53 beyond that.

[chuckdyke]

1 minute ago, Codreanu said:

not aware of any further shell developments for the ZiS-S-53 beyond that.

I agree it is probable but we have no data. It is a round for sub 500 meters and knocks out most armor. After 750 meters you are better off using standard AP. 

[LukeFF]

12 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

The M14 was about equal to the SLR (FAL) the Australian army was using.

...and the M14 was/is nothing more than a glorified M1 Garand. 

[chuckdyke]

2 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

and the M14 was/is nothing more than a glorified M1 Garand. 

Never had one. 7.62 NATO started as the .308 Winchester and the 5.56mm started as the .223 Remington if I am correct. Really comparing apples and oranges. Never met a veteran who didn't like the FAL which we call the SLR. The difference FAL pardon me French, it is not perfect. Means Fusil Automatique Legere or light automatic rifle. It could fire fully automatic as well as semi auto if I understand it correctly. The SLR was semi auto only but could be modified in the field. What they didn't like about the M16, unreliable was the verdict. No doubt if you get hit by one you don't complain it is not powerful enough. But they say the same about the 9mm which was the round of the F1 submachine gun. Submachinegun 9mm are +P. They preferred that above the M16. Clock forward the M4 I understand is highly regarded. I just referred to veterans who held the SLR in high regard. As a handloader I can't see why you can't manufacture a round little less powerful to permit easier control on fully automatic if it is an issue. 

[Halmbarte]

28 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

...and the M14 was/is nothing more than a glorified M1 Garand. 

It's actually worse than that. The Army intended for the M14 to replace the BAR, M1 carbine, the M1 Garand, and the various SMGs the Army had been using. In the end the M14 didn't replace any of them and was itself replaced after being the US Army's shortest in service rifle since the Krag, I think. What the M14 did was force the adoption of a overly powerful cartridge by NATO and kill other promising designs.

 

The US Army could have had the FAL/SLR in a decent intermediate cartridge in ~6.5-7mm in the 1950s, A rifle that would have been able to compete with the AK on even or better terms in the various CW conflicts. 

 

The US Army had a almost fatal case of NIH syndrome in the time frame where the M48/M60 was being designed and adopted. 

 

H

 

 

Edited December 6, 2021 by Halmbarte

[chuckdyke]

Well I look into it and looks like it is already a cutdown version of the 30.06 which they loaded to roughly the same specification. You could have had a 100 grain pill going at 3000ft/sec. Which I think would have been nice in the SLR, we never know why not.

[John Kettler]

BeyondTheGrave,

Welcome aboard!

Thanks for your most informative discourse, which, in turn, got MikeyD involved. Used to have Volume 1 of the Hunnicutt Abrams book, and that was where I. learned of the T95 and its sandwich armor of steel, glass, then more steel, which, I believe was revolutionary.Don't recall much else of the design, except that it could easily have been bought and fielded, leaving no M48 to discuss, but the Army, which is highly conservative, preferred to avoid the technical risks and pass up on a major breakthrough opportunity in favor of incremental improvements in several areas.

But part of the T95's breakthrough technology did transfer, and that was what the Army called siliceous core armor, a term which itself was compartmentalized and SECRET. Read the declassification document for that term myself. The Abrams, as first fielded, had T95 type armor, and this gave rise to excitement and panic later when it was discovered obsolete Soviet HEAT rounds (couldn't be exported otherwise), captured by the Israelis in 1973 but not given to the US until 1984--could easily pentrate the Abrams's frontal armor. But that wasn't the bad news. Why? The killer was a lowly PT-76!  Have written extensively on my background as a Soviet Threat Analyst and things I know from 11+ years doing that work, but for here, all you need to know is that I attended a SECRET and change CIA conference for people like me, and during which the CIA brought in all its SMEs. It was their top shaped charge guy who hit us with the M1 being vulnerable to such a frontal kill, and people were shocked. Turns out that, as the Soviets became aware of the T95's armor scheme, they gathered all the info they could and set to work to build a specially designed shaped charge to defeat it. And oh, did it work! That's just one of the awful discoveries made that led to the M1HA and beyond.

MikeyD,

That tank pic you posted reminds me of a Soviet tank design that supposedly could be flipped by a nuclear blast wave.

Regards,

John Kettler.
 

[IICptMillerII]

23 hours ago, MikeyD said:

I remember when the Beta team was researching armor penetration stats for the PT-76 light tank we were astounded by the numbers. Our initial guesstimate penetration numbers for the gun had to be doubled, or something like that.

Man you made the joke and then the man himself restated it just now in a new thread! Nice bait and switch!

[John Kettler]

Blast! Could NOT be flipped. Objekt 279 was the Soviet concept of designing a tank heavy enough and tough enough to survive a close nuclear detonation without being flipped over and left useless. The design was specifically done in such a way as to make the tank as aerodynamially clean as possible, thus reducing  the surface area on which the blast wave could act and the duration of that force being applied to the tank.



https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/strange-object-279-the-soviet-heavy-tank-designed-to-survive-a-nuclear-explosion.602672/

Regards,

John Kdttler

[Ultradave]

On 12/5/2021 at 11:29 PM, chuckdyke said:

On 12/5/2021 at 11:06 PM, LukeFF said:

and the M14 was/is nothing more than a glorified M1 Garand. 

Never had one.

I did, early on. Heavy (compared to an M16), but accurate. Compared to an M1, 20 rd mag > 6 rd clip. Add a scope to the base rifle and it's decent sniper rifle. A little hard to clean the bolt with it's funky notches and angles, but that's a minor nit, and I've never cleaned an M1 so I can't compare, and the bolt on a M16 is no prize in the easy to clean sweepstakes either.

While on exchange in Canada with the Cdn Parachute Regt, I got to try out their FNs though, and I would take one of those over and M14. Same with their Browning Hi-Power 9mm over our M1911 .45s. This was back in (I think) 1981?

Dave

[chuckdyke]

52 minutes ago, Ultradave said:

I would take one of those over and M14. Same with their Browning Hi-Power 9mm over our M1911 .45s.

I owned a 1911 but that was for competition. Still iron sights but bigger for rapid fire acquisition also the insides had a workover to strip it required a wrench for the bushing. But it still fitted in the box for a 1911. The Browning HP some penpusher insisted on a magazine safety which stuffed up the strength of a single action semi auto. It ended up with a horrible trigger. I reloaded .30.06 and the Winchester .308 which is just a shorter version but again somebody wanted to keep the performance of the .30.06. They missed the boat here in my opinion. It could have had a 100 grain pill going at 3000ft/sec from a bolt rifle it was pleasant to shoot. Bullet weight influences the felt recoil just compare the .45 ACP and the 9 mm parabellum. Always wondered why Colt never made a 9mm for the military and the US army went overseas. I know you can get rid of the magazine safety of a Browning but try to tell that to the insurance company. 

Edited December 10, 2021 by chuckdyke

[Ultradave]

M1911 recoil takes a little getting used to  - to not fight it. We did a range competition with the Canadians. Shot with our own weapons first then switched and used each others. We won the pistol easily. The Canadians needed more practice time with the M1911s before we shot for score. Like a lot more. We could easily shoot the Brownings. Kind of unfair for them.

Dave