Military Ground Vehicles of Your Nation [NO FUN] Mark IX

[Padnak]

Meanwhile, in Iraq...

[Schwere Panzer Abteilung 502]

Can anyone comment on the accuracy of the blog Archive Awareness? I've been sifting through some of the articles, it seems like the author has a crusade against everything non-Soviet and that the T-34 was the greatest tank in history bar none. It makes me feel like he's trying to make the T-34 the WWII equivalent of the Abrams or T-14.

[Connori Pilgrims]

Can anyone comment on the accuracy of the blog Archive Awareness? I've been sifting through some of the articles, it seems like the author has a crusade against everything non-Soviet and that the T-34 was the greatest tank in history bar none. It makes me feel like he's trying to make the T-34 the WWII equivalent of the Abrams or T-14.

Just by that alone I suspect its not very accurate, nor sane or rational.

[Schwere Panzer Abteilung 502]

Can anyone comment on the accuracy of the blog Archive Awareness? I've been sifting through some of the articles, it seems like the author has a crusade against everything non-Soviet and that the T-34 was the greatest tank in history bar none. It makes me feel like he's trying to make the T-34 the WWII equivalent of the Abrams or T-14.

Just by that alone I suspect its not very accurate, nor sane or rational.

I was exagerating, but you should look it up. No joke, at one point it is claimed that the 152mm gun was more accurate than the 8.8cm L/71.

[The Kievan People]

Can anyone comment on the accuracy of the blog Archive Awareness? I've been sifting through some of the articles, it seems like the author has a crusade against everything non-Soviet and that the T-34 was the greatest tank in history bar none. It makes me feel like he's trying to make the T-34 the WWII equivalent of the Abrams or T-14.

It's not inaccurate.

It is selective in it's use of sources and evidence.

[Iltica]

Does anyone know the recoil length of the Rheinmetall l/55?, the l/44 is about a foot I think, but I'm having a hard time finding it for the l/55.

You won't find it online anywhere because it's the same as the L/44.

Oh It is? Thanks.
This thing's probably going to be a little on the light side compared to tanks that usually carry the L/55 around the weight of eastern tanks like the T90, do you think that's going to be a problem?

[The Akasha Colony]

You won't find it online anywhere because it's the same as the L/44.

Oh It is? Thanks.
This thing's probably going to be a little on the light side compared to tanks that usually carry the L/55 around the weight of eastern tanks like the T90, do you think that's going to be a problem?

No, but the recoil calculations are available online if you want to try your hand at it. The resulting higher muzzle energy would be partially offset by the heavier gun, although this would not affect the impulse.

[Iltica]

As long as it doesn't fall over when it aims sideways, I'll be happy. The main thing I'm trying to do is make it as short as possible, as that affects the turret's height. The hull's already pretty flat, being modelled loosely on the T-72's, so there's not much room to pancake except in the turret and ground clearance unfortunately.

[Purpelia]

Just by that alone I suspect its not very accurate, nor sane or rational.

I was exagerating, but you should look it up. No joke, at one point it is claimed that the 152mm gun was more accurate than the 8.8cm L/71.

I would not be surprised if it was. If for no other reason than because late war German steel was not of the highest quality and thus any guns made in that period would have suffered from that as well. The A20 meanwhile, if that is the gun he is talking about is quite a good artillery piece. There is a reason why it was used well after the war whilst the L/71 was abandoned and nobody ever looked at it again. So yea, I would not be shocked.

[Gallia-]

I think Turkey is lowballing the production costs, and the Altay is now a ho-hum 3.5gen now that the Armata is a thing


T-34/76 was the best tank of the war

better enough for long enough to doom the hun to his fate

sorry M4A3E8 > T-34/76

the sherman is actually kinda shit sorry

it was just made well

the fact that it worked as well as it did is a testament to the efficacy of american and allied tankmen, not the merits of the design itself

breaking news: bad tanks can be used well in good hands

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T20_Mediu ... _plant.png

if it'd worked

[Gallia-]

Sherman beats the T-34. There's not much the T-34 can do that the Sherman can't do better; while not bouncing it's crew all over the place.

a sherman and a t-34 actually beat neither

considering tanks have no ability to operate themselves, although the pronoun is arguably wrong, they both just sit in their respective starting positions until the crews board them

in which case you can point out the flaws of the sherman all day long in comparison to its successors

the front mounted transmission made it unnecessarily tall, the 75mm gun was an inferior anti-tank gun (relative to the 76mm and the assumptions the us army relied on re: german steels), etc.

technically it was kinda a flop that just made itself prone to be used by really good tankmen who made the most of a bad situation

when life gives you shermans lemons

[Fordorsia]

I knew the Panther was the bestest

[Purpelia]

I knew the Panther was the bestest

It really wasn't. From what I understand it was fantastic on paper but not in practice because the technology to make it work as advertized and do so reliably just wasn't there. That's why the French had such troubles with them after the war. And why nobody else ever used them at all.

[Fordorsia]

I knew the Panther was the bestest

It really wasn't. From what I understand it was fantastic on paper but not in practice because the technology to make it work as advertized and do so reliably just wasn't there. That's why the French had such troubles with them after the war. And why nobody else ever used them at all.

It all depends on how you judge a tank's abilities. Do you judge it based on the materials, or the design? Because the main arguments for the Panther being shit are always talking about the bad quality transmissions and the bad steel that went into the armour. The transmission was fixed in the case of the Jagdpanther so that feature can be left out of the argument, and the bad steel in the armour can also be put aside for what I hope are obvious reasons.

So what do you have to say about it with those two very easy to fix problems out of the way?

[Purpelia]

It all depends on how you judge a tank's abilities. Do you judge it based on the materials, or the design?

I would judge it by taking it out on a test range and seeing how it performs. Everything else is irrelevant.

So what do you have to say about it with those two very easy to fix problems out of the way?

What I have to say is:
1. The transmission problem can not be ignored at all. It's not what could have been done that matters but what was done.
2. Ditto armor materials.
3. It had a host of other flaws including but not limited to everything from here: http://forum.worldoftanks.com/index.php ... -panthers/
I'll just draw some highlights out for you:

The turret traverse drive is not strong enough to either turn the turret or hold it in place when the Panther is on an incline of more than 20 degrees. The Panther is therefore not capable of firing when driving cross-country.

Because everyone knows wars are fought on a flat featureless plane.

Aside from his periscope gun sight ( which is excellent), the gunner has no other type of observation device. He is therefore practically blind, ­one of the greatest shortcomings of the Panther.

Who needs to see the enemy so they can shoot them?

Once the commander has located a target, it takes between 20 and 30 seconds until the gunner can open fire. This data, which is significantly greater than that of the Sherman, stems from the absence of a periscope for the gunner.

Well actually, apparently you do. Go figure.

When firing off a round the chassis demonstrates no unfavorable reaction, regardless of what position the turret is in.

No idea what this means. But it can't be good.

The truly weak spot of the Panther is its final drive, which is of too weak a design and has an average fatigue life of only 150 km.

Well hold on. Let's be fair here. Germany is on the defensive. They don't need to drive far.

And it goes on. Like at this point I'd be quoting the whole article. The point is that the Panther had some good ideas. And some of its details were very well done indeed. But overall the rest let it down. And in my opinion the Germans would have done better if they had used those good things to improve the Pz IV. Take what is good and fit it to what works.

[Fordorsia]

When firing off a round the chassis demonstrates no unfavorable reaction, regardless of what position the turret is in.

No idea what this means. But it can't be good.

It means that regardless of which way the turret is facing when firing, the tank doesn't shake about due to bad suspension, bad turret position or narrow hull and tracks. That's good.

What I mean by ignoring them is that both the transmissions and the armour quality are products of Germany's logistical situation at the time, not the design of the Panther. I don't take those two into account when talking about how good or bad the Panther was, because they weren't part of the actual design and they definitely didn't effect the majority of the tanks.

[Purpelia]

It means that regardless of which way the turret is facing when firing, the tank doesn't shake about due to bad suspension, bad turret position or narrow hull and tracks. That's good.

My bad. Misread. Happens to the best of us, and that ain't me. So I can be excused at times.

What I mean by ignoring them is that both the transmissions and the armour quality are products of Germany's logistical situation at the time, not the design of the Panther. I don't take those two into account when talking about how good or bad the Panther was, because they weren't part of the actual design and they definitely didn't effect the majority of the tanks.

And what I am saying is that we can't ignore those because that is how it was in reality. We are not discussing what the panther could have been but what it was. If you want to discuss what a NS totally-not-panther-clone can be sure, we can go there. But we have to be aware that this is what we are doing.

This said, I would like to hear how you envision the ideal WW2 tank. As in if you had a factory set aside for you in 1940-45 with all the worlds resources and technology what would you have designed?

[Fordorsia]

It means that regardless of which way the turret is facing when firing, the tank doesn't shake about due to bad suspension, bad turret position or narrow hull and tracks. That's good.

My bad. Misread. Happens to the best of us, and that ain't me. So I can be excused at times.

What I mean by ignoring them is that both the transmissions and the armour quality are products of Germany's logistical situation at the time, not the design of the Panther. I don't take those two into account when talking about how good or bad the Panther was, because they weren't part of the actual design and they definitely didn't effect the majority of the tanks.

And what I am saying is that we can't ignore those because that is how it was in reality. We are not discussing what the panther could have been but what it was. If you want to discuss what a NS totally-not-panther-clone can be sure, we can go there. But we have to be aware that this is what we are doing.

This said, I would like to hear how you envision the ideal WW2 tank. As in if you had a factory set aside for you in 1940-45 with all the worlds resources and technology what would you have designed?

There isn't really such a thing as a perfect tank though, is there? At least not for WWII. There were just too many kinds of fighting going on.

That said I do think my M45 Heavy Assault Tank would be usable, as long as the engine and transmission weren't shit which I just hadwave as being perfectly good. In what role though, I'm not sure. Part of a naval invasion maybe? The troop transport would definitely be an advantage in that situation.

[Imperializt Russia]

I'm not really sure you have room for an engine, transmission or fuel in there really.

[Korva]

I'm not really sure you have room for an engine, transmission or fuel in there really.

passengers operate a crank

[Schwere Panzer Abteilung 502]

The ideal tank for breakthrough and maneuver warfare in WWII terms is the Sherman; in an operational sense, it was fast, like the early panzers, but unlike the early panzers, it had just enough armor to be relatively well protected from the vast majority of threats on the battlefield and contrary to what you may hear, the basic armament was nothing to laugh at.

The Panther could have been the ideal WWII tank. It took the already proven design of the T-34, corrected some silly things like having sloped armor all the way around, had the most powerful gun put on a medium tank during the war(at least as far as killing other tanks goes). Unfortunately, the Panther went from first blueprints to full production in two years. No German even recognized the need for a new medium tank until Barbarossa. That's just not enough time to make a good tank. At least the Tiger had time in the design stage to mature and be thoroughly tested. So that meant that the Panthers sent to action at Kursk were still basically prototypes, and performed as you would expect a prototype to; not very well.

[Imperializt Russia]

I think I've come to the realisation recently that the modern MBT isn't an evolution of the medium tank, but the heavy tank. Just that modern automotive systems now allow today's "heavy tanks" to have their mobility.

Am I particularly wrong, given the typical assertion is that the mobile medium tank just became heavier?

[Immoren]

I think I've come to the realisation recently that the modern MBT isn't an evolution of the medium tank, but the heavy tank. Just that modern automotive systems now allow today's "heavy tanks" to have their mobility.

Am I particularly wrong, given the typical assertion is that the mobile medium tank just became heavier?

Or is it synthesis of both classes?

[Fordorsia]

I'm not really sure you have room for an engine, transmission or fuel in there really.

The fuel tank could easily be underneath the turret basket, and when the question fo the engine and transmission first came up I figured moving the driver all the way back would solve it.

[Ragnarum]

Trying to think of a decent design for a air-droppable APC, most likely based around the BMD series. Unsure what the armament should be (30mm, 40mm, etc), and whether or not I should create a separate vehicle as an equivalent to the Scorpion that is better at lobbing HE shells and general demolition, but cannot carry infantry instead of simply having a BMD-4 equivalent with both a 30mm and a 100mm. At the moment, they are the two armoured vehicle concepts I have for my airborne troops. Not sure about much.