Skipper Posted December 5, 2001 Share Posted December 5, 2001 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
von Murrin Posted December 5, 2001 Share Posted December 5, 2001 Pz IV, Tiger, KT, ?, Panther? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
109 Gustav Posted December 5, 2001 Share Posted December 5, 2001 PzIV, Tiger I, king tiger, not sure, T-34 Who's the guy in the pictures? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgdpzr Posted December 5, 2001 Share Posted December 5, 2001 I would say the one the two previous posters are unsure of is a JS-II or IS-II, however you prefer. So that would be PzrIV, Tiger, Kingtiger, IS-II and T-34/76. [ 12-05-2001: Message edited by: jgdpzr ]</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
von Murrin Posted December 5, 2001 Share Posted December 5, 2001 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by 109 Gustav: Who's the guy in the pictures?<hr></blockquote> Captain Wacky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoffel Posted December 5, 2001 Share Posted December 5, 2001 Pz IV,Tiger I/Tiger II/KV 1/T34 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
argie Posted December 5, 2001 Share Posted December 5, 2001 PzIV, Tiger I, Konigstiger, KV85, T34/76 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
argie Posted December 5, 2001 Share Posted December 5, 2001 Also, rexford is the first and the last guy from left to right. Captain Whacky is the one in the middle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
argie Posted December 5, 2001 Share Posted December 5, 2001 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by argie: Also, rexford is the first and the last guy from left to right. Captain Whacky is the one in the middle.<hr></blockquote> Or viceversa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
von Murrin Posted December 5, 2001 Share Posted December 5, 2001 Hey! You're right! Nathanael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gredeker Posted December 5, 2001 Share Posted December 5, 2001 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by jgdpzr: So that would be PzrIV, Tiger, Kingtiger, IS-II and T-34/76. <hr></blockquote> Agreed. The KV-I and the IS-II look quite similar from a straight head-on view, but the barrel on the IS-II is a much larger caliber (122mm vs. 76mm). Also, if this were anything but a straight-ahead view, you'd see just how stinkin' long the IS-II's barrel is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgdpzr Posted December 5, 2001 Share Posted December 5, 2001 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by redeker: Agreed. The KV-I and the IS-II look quite similar from a straight head-on view, but the barrel on the IS-II is a much larger caliber (122mm vs. 76mm). Also, if this were anything but a straight-ahead view, you'd see just how stinkin' long the IS-II's barrel is.<hr></blockquote> Another difference is the shape of the glacis. This is clearly the cast, curved glacis of the IS-II. The KV series had a welded glacis characterized by right-angles. But you are right about the gun. If you look closely, the bore is considerably larger than the 88/L71 of the Kingtiger next to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skipper Posted December 5, 2001 Author Share Posted December 5, 2001 The right answer: Pz-IV, Tiger, KT, IS-2, T-34. Scales, by the way, are all correct. Somehow i never occurred to me that IS-2 was not bigger than Pz-IV, and much smaller than KT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgdpzr Posted December 5, 2001 Share Posted December 5, 2001 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Skipper: The right answer: Pz-IV, Tiger, KT, IS-2, T-34. Scales, by the way, are all correct. Somehow i never occurred to me that IS-2 was not bigger than Pz-IV, and much smaller than KT.<hr></blockquote> The Russians were (still are) the masters of economy in size of their vehicles. Another thing they were obviously good at (except the KV's) was using sloping armour. If you look at the glacis of the IS-II, you will note only the small central area in the middle would present a flat plane directly to the front. Everything else (the sides of the glacis) is angled quite effectively from the front. BTW, what's my prize? [ 12-05-2001: Message edited by: jgdpzr ]</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted December 5, 2001 Share Posted December 5, 2001 Ah, it's a trick question! The answer appears to be: Art reproductions (bootlegs) from... Ewe Feist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hensworth Posted December 6, 2001 Share Posted December 6, 2001 It sure brings home what a godawful monster the KT really was. The tracks alone reach up to that guy's head ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M Hofbauer Posted December 6, 2001 Share Posted December 6, 2001 it also sure shows nicely just how small the frontal area of the KT turret really is, and how much of the frontal area is taken up by the sides, and therefore just how poor CM's current system armor box simplification really is for such vehicles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ari Maenpaa Posted December 6, 2001 Share Posted December 6, 2001 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by jgdpzr: The Russians were (still are) the masters of economy in size of their vehicles. <hr></blockquote> True, but it should also be remembered that thick armor in a comparatively small sized tank lead to very cramped room inside the tank. And that has negative effect on the crew's performance, which has been noticed in the Isreal - Arab wars, for instance. Still I hadn't noticed before how relatively small JS-2's frontal silhouette actually is. Seems that the turret makes up almost half of the whole frontal area. Ari Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgdpzr Posted December 6, 2001 Share Posted December 6, 2001 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ari Maenpaa: True, but it should also be remembered that thick armor in a comparatively small sized tank lead to very cramped room inside the tank. And that has negative effect on the crew's performance, which has been noticed in the Isreal - Arab wars, for instance. Still I hadn't noticed before how relatively small JS-2's frontal silhouette actually is. Seems that the turret makes up almost half of the whole frontal area. Ari<hr></blockquote> Oh, I agree 100%. The Russians, while focusing on keeping a vehicle's silhouette as small as possible, never garnered many style points for creature comforts of the crew. Reminds me of a passage I once read from a Russian tanker who had experience in both the T-34 and the Sherman. He said something to the effect that compared to the T-34, the Sherman was like a luxury suite, but when the lead started to fly, he just knew that the Sherman was too big a target to miss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Wacky Posted December 6, 2001 Share Posted December 6, 2001 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by von Murrin: Captain Wacky. <hr></blockquote> True, you'll notice how my well-chisled physique and dashing sillouhette give it away. [ 12-06-2001: Message edited by: Captain Wacky ]</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
von Murrin Posted December 6, 2001 Share Posted December 6, 2001 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Captain Wacky: True, you'll notice how my well-chisled physique and dashing sillouhette give it away. [ 12-06-2001: Message edited by: Captain Wacky ]<hr></blockquote> Ahh, but then why not show your entire self and not just your sillouhette? What exactly are you hiding? Nathanael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Wacky Posted December 7, 2001 Share Posted December 7, 2001 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by von Murrin: Ahh, but then why not show your entire self and not just your sillouhette? What exactly are you hiding? Nathanael<hr></blockquote> Why, I wouldn't want to embarass you uglier types, that's all! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
argie Posted December 7, 2001 Share Posted December 7, 2001 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by von Murrin: Ahh, but then why not show your entire self and not just your sillouhette? What exactly are you hiding? Nathanael<hr></blockquote> I think he is holding something with both hands :eek: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted December 7, 2001 Share Posted December 7, 2001 The T-34 is a /85 version: There is a cupola for the commander and the size of the turret is larger than the /76 version would be (the /76 turret sides slope up almost continuously from the side armor, at almost the same angle. The /85 turret was larger above the turret ring by a significant degree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swift Posted December 7, 2001 Share Posted December 7, 2001 Why is the KT so big or the IS-2 so small? I'm no expert but I always thought that the KT and the IS-2 had matching armour protection... am I wrong? And even if not the gun on the IS-2 must have weighed more than the KTs (and thus created a larger tank). :confused: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts