NationStates

The Manticoran Empire wrote:

Romextly wrote:Quick question. Is the T-34 a better tank than the M4 Sherman?

Depends on the metric. For the Soviet Union, it was. T-34s were cheaper and easier to manufacture than the Sherman. However, for the US, the T-34 would be absolutely the most useless pile of junk in the history of armored warfare. The T-34 worked for the Russians because they built it with planned obsolesence in mind and had rail lines to the factories. The US had to ship everything overseas. As such, while the Russians were alright in reducing the lifespan of a vehicle to reduce its cost and complexity, the US could not make that sacrifice. Anything that would be sent overseas HAD to be able to fight anywhere in the world for prolonged periods of time with the only maintenance facilities being a tent with a mud floor.

Military History Visualized channel basically had similar thoughts on the big three tank designs of the war(Sherman, T34, Panzer IV) more or less. Each tank was designed for a different purpose depending on the nation and more or less fulfilled the criteria and hence were in effect, "the right design for the nations in question". Hence all technically were the best but also the worse design in a sense more or less. Depending on the nations circumstances the right tank for that nation depended greatly.

Kazarogkai wrote:

The Manticoran Empire wrote:Depends on the metric. For the Soviet Union, it was. T-34s were cheaper and easier to manufacture than the Sherman. However, for the US, the T-34 would be absolutely the most useless pile of junk in the history of armored warfare. The T-34 worked for the Russians because they built it with planned obsolesence in mind and had rail lines to the factories. The US had to ship everything overseas. As such, while the Russians were alright in reducing the lifespan of a vehicle to reduce its cost and complexity, the US could not make that sacrifice. Anything that would be sent overseas HAD to be able to fight anywhere in the world for prolonged periods of time with the only maintenance facilities being a tent with a mud floor.

Military History Visualized channel basically had similar thoughts on the big three tank designs of the war(Sherman, T34, Panzer IV) more or less. Each tank was designed for a different purpose depending on the nation and more or less fulfilled the criteria and hence were in effect, "the right design for the nations in question". Hence all technically were the best but also the worse design in a sense more or less. Depending on the nations circumstances the right tank for that nation depended greatly.

Exactly. The Soviets needed something cheap that they could field in enormous numbers and replace very easily. The US need something that could fight anywhere in the world with only minimal maintenance facilities to keep it operational. And the Germans initially wanted light, fast vehicles and eventually went for heavier, harder hitting tanks in the hopes of winning through KDR. The T-34 was the best tank for the Soviets but would have been mediocre for the Germans and utterly useless for the Americans. Similarly, the Sherman was the best tank for the Americans but would be mediocre for the Germans and too expensive for the Soviets.

jesus you people have no idea what your talking about

Hi everyone, I've been working on the history of chemical warfare in my country. I've already gone through it with some friends with relevant skillsets to set this up, but I'd appreciate any other feedback I can get.

So, prior to 1912, Anderia was a monarchy, and the army didn't make significant investment into chemical weaponry. Without any major gas-based combat actually having occurred yet, gas masks wouldn't be readily available, so experimentation focused primarily on pulmonary agents, specifically chlorine, phosgene, and chloropicrin. It's my understanding that all of these compounds are byproducts of common industrial processes at the time, like textiles. So with that in mind, I think my compound choices are reasonable, but with its relative unimportance to the military command I'm unsure how many (artillery) munitions could have been produced from around 1905 or so.

From there, my thinking goes, what munitions did exist would have fallen into the hands of the National Republican Army (who had allied/merged with former monarchists against socialists), and been used in the subsequent civil war. After the war ended, the new government's constitution essentially mandated armed neutrality, and chemical weapons weren't picked back up until 1931. At first, I figure that they would have tried to pick up where previous research had left off, and started experimenting with diphosgene gas. With the development of mass-produced gas mask technology, though, choking agents would have been substantially less effective as a general-use military tool. My guess is that would motivate a shift to producing agents that operate on skin, like mustard gas. As the insurgency faded, the motivation for funding chemical weaponry would have faded with it, and the program would have stopped in the 1940s.

By the 1950s, though, Anderia had become a non-nuclear power in a nuclear world, and sought to use chemical weapons as a stop-gap until its own nuclear program was ready. This would involve restarting production of mustard gas, and experimentation with (relatively) new nerve agents, like tabun and sarin. A little later, I would figure that there were investigations into V-series agents like VX or VR, but given the way V agents stick around and cause continuing ecological damage, there would be hesitation to deploy them given they would be being deployed in a theoretical war on Anderian territory. Since the main benefit to using VX is its toxicity (to my understanding), I figured they would focus on sarin production and phase out of sulfur mustard by the end of the 80s for the same reasoning as not adopting VX.

So, to recap my questions:
(1) How many munitions could have been built up and stored between ~1905 and 1912?
(2) Would aircraft and missile based nerve and blister agents offered a meaningful reason to avoid starting a WMD war (as opposed to conventional weaponry)?
(3) Does the reasoning behind not utilizing VX and phasing out sulfur mustard in favor of sarin follow?
(4) Is the general timeline plausible?
(5) Is there anything that I'm failing to consider that would substantially alter any portion of this?

Oh my god.....T-34 had an overwhelming advantage over German tanks at the beginning of the war. Never heard of the T-34 crisis? Panzer III need to break down T-34 within 100m,Panzer IV can't.Panther is the tank that can fight the T-34, but it didn't appear until 1943.Only when Panzer IV with extended barrel appears(Gun 7.5cm KwK 40 L43, Panzer IV 7/BW Umbau ), can it pose a threat to t-34-76. But it is still at a disadvantage in mobility, maximum range and armor protection.Gosh, some people say that compared with German tanks, Soviet tanks are rubbish.Have you seen too many anti Soviet movies?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_encounter_of_Soviet_T-34_and_KV_tanks
T-34 is cheap and easy to produce precisely because of the excellent design concept and the first use of automatic welding technology.It's not because they're rubbish.If they're rubbish, what's the tank that they easily break through?
Compared with the T-34-76, the original version of M4 Sherman has the same armor protection level and artillery penetration ability.But the design problems of the two are very different.Sherman used the r-975 series aeroengine for the universal parts.This makes it much higher than other tanks.The engine's drive shaft is centered, causing the drive shaft to be slanted forward to the front drive wheel, which in turn causes the Sherman body to be lift height in the middle and under the passenger compartment.This makes the front of the tank 2.97 meters high and easy to hit.Both the T-34 and Panzer IV are flat V-type diesel engines and do not require a propeller shaft.But because of the height of the car, Sherman has more interior space than the T-34. Because of the differences in design and production environment between the Soviet Union and the United States at that time, Sherman had obvious advantages in operability, maintainability and survival rate after being destroyed.The T-34 has been affected by the problem of armor fragmentation.Sherman also installed more and more advanced observation equipment and gun stabilizer, which gives them an advantage in shooting accuracy.
The quality problem of T-34 is more due to the bad production environment and the lack of raw materials of factories in the battlefield. In the pre war production of T-34 and post production of T-34, tank quality and maintainability are greatly improved.The T-34 was designed because the Soviet Union saw that BT tanks were not well equipped.And it did when it came out.Panzer IV can't compare with these two tanks in every way.It's too early. In 1934, when it was launched, the design requirements didn't match the battlefield conditions at the time of the war.Only by the time Panzer IV H was launched, it would be able to compete with the original models of the other two tanks.Sherman was designed as an infantry support tank.In the design, tank destroyer should be called when encountering enemy tanks.This design goal is far from the actual battlefield environment.

Shanghai industrial complex wrote:Sherman was designed as an infantry support tank.In the design, tank destroyer should be called when encountering enemy tanks.This design goal is far from the actual battlefield environment.

This is a common myth - the Sherman was designed for offensive armored warfare. I'm not sure what's meant by actual battlefield environment (a Panther might be a match for any number of Shermans when dug into a treeline in the bocage but at a disadvantage in the nearby town) but the Sherman was well-suited to American combined arms doctrine - and the development of American doctrine and training was a remarkable feat of organization that took into account limited resources (American resources were more limited than often thought) and the need to keep constant pressure on the enemy. See the Germans giving the Russians months to build up their defenses at Kursk in order to equip poorly-trained crews with Panthers that were promptly lost.

Anyway in regards to the original question actual tanks aren't boxers or WoT models so "which tank would win" is a silly way to compare tanks. Statistical advantages may be crucial in one instance and an actual disadvantage in others but they're rarely as important as they are in video games.

I feel War Thunder does a pretty good job with simply emphasizing the values of first-shot advantage and the ability to accurately rangefind and coordinate with teammates. I'm currently training up some of my friends on how to quickly size up targets and ways to call out distances and approximate difference in range from target and impact. Strangely enough, having effective means of coordinating increases your chances of outperforming even superior tanks in most situations.

>video games
>doing anything good

War Thunder still places too much emphasis on tank on tank duels (not that this isn't fine for a game.) Coordination on the operational level is even more important, which is why the entire Soviet tank force in the West evaporated in two weeks despite its advantages in guns, armor, mobility, etc. Turns out surprise, experience, and radios were more important than all that stuff.

Ultimately the best tank is the one with fuel and ammunition.

red army is the only good technothriller because it's about dudes in 5-tons hauling casualties back to hospitals, a confused ukrainian beating up an elderly bavarian couple with his rifle because he's a agist accelerationist, and puz's dad being sent with his entire air assault battalion on a suicide mission to embarrass some swamp germans and wannabe frenchmen during their pub crawl

Kassaran wrote:I feel War Thunder does a pretty good job with simply emphasizing the values of first-shot advantage and the ability to accurately rangefind and coordinate with teammates. I'm currently training up some of my friends on how to quickly size up targets and ways to call out distances and approximate difference in range from target and impact. Strangely enough, having effective means of coordinating increases your chances of outperforming even superior tanks in most situations.

Yeah, consider the germans against the French or British in 1940.

Sherman player:Let's remove R3/T20 FA-HS!

Gallia- wrote:red army is the only good technothriller because it's about dudes in 5-tons hauling casualties back to hospitals, a confused ukrainian beating up an elderly bavarian couple with his rifle because he's a agist accelerationist, and puz's dad being sent with his entire air assault battalion on a suicide mission to embarrass some swamp germans and wannabe frenchmen during their pub crawl

My grandpa killed fiddy men G*rmans.

Considering I don't have a 100+ yard range to go to. Would installing and practicing on ARMA help with multi target multi distance engagement with my real life counterpart. (does it have a 20 inch ar-10 with a crossfire ii 6-18 x 44 mm dead hold BEC (MOA)?)
Does it have wind and real gravity simulation?

Would this be the place to ask if diamonds would be too brittle to be the tip of a bullet/shell/spear?

Would graphene be better, outside of costs and manufacturing time?

Would the steady, time-tested, tungsten alloy be the only thing strong and sharp enough, without being too brittle?

Pentaga Giudici wrote:Would this be the place to ask if diamonds would be too brittle to be the tip of a bullet/shell/spear?

Would graphene be better, outside of costs and manufacturing time?

Would the steady, time-tested, tungsten alloy be the only thing strong and sharp enough, without being too brittle?

Yes, maybe, yes.

I'm digging and it really looks like diamond would just shatter before the bullet even made contact, which is what I suspected would happen.

Still going to dig for the other solutions.

Diamonds are tougher than graphene.

Triplebaconation wrote:Diamonds are tougher than graphene.

Diamonds aren't "tough". They are hard and very lacking in toughness, since it takes a comparatively limited amount of force to fracture them.

The Manticoran Empire wrote:

Triplebaconation wrote:Diamonds are tougher than graphene.

Diamonds aren't "tough". They are hard and very lacking in toughness, since it takes a comparatively limited amount of force to fracture them.

They aren't. But they're still nearly twice as tough as graphene which despite it's impressive strength is relatively brittle by comparison.

The Manticoran Empire wrote:

Triplebaconation wrote:Diamonds are tougher than graphene.

Diamonds aren't "tough". They are hard and very lacking in toughness, since it takes a comparatively limited amount of force to fracture them.

Thank you for that valuable information. However, note that I'm using "-er" here as an inflectional comparative suffix to compare a quality of two entities. Since toughness is a continuum rather than "tough or not tough," diamonds are in general tougher than current varieties of graphene, as diamonds are able to absorb more energy without fracturing - particularly polycrystal industrial diamonds, which are "tougher" than single-crystal diamonds.

You can go to the hardware store and buy a hammer to break your diamond.In addition, at 450℃, graphene turns into CO2.

I'll go with my dimond tip 308 pls.
Hardest substance known to man. Also make it sound like Kagome upgraded to modern times.

the hardest substance known to man is average NSer's skull

Since nobody's responded to my questions, should I go ahead and assume what I wrote up is reasonably plausible?