lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,365
|
Post by lordroel on Feb 9, 2022 4:42:28 GMT
The Czech 38T becomes the basis for the "Hetzer". This vehicle is absolutely horrible as a tank destroyer. The SPG was too cramped for the crew to fight it efficiently. The gun stuffed into it was too much gun for the chassis. The ergonomics were horrible. This thing was as awful as the British Valiant or the Australian Sentinel. The Tank museum recently did two nice pieces on the best tanks in the world made by the best producer of tanks, Italy.
|
|
miletus12
Squadron vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 7,470
Likes: 4,295
|
Post by miletus12 on Feb 9, 2022 5:36:19 GMT
Italy?
I admit the Centauro is a nice tank destroyer, but the Ariete?
Remember the tank was designed in the late 1970s but not introduced until 1988. The characteristics are as stated in the video.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,365
|
Post by lordroel on Feb 9, 2022 5:53:20 GMT
Italy? I admit the Centauro is a nice tank destroyer, but the Ariete? Remember the tank was designed in the late 1970s but not introduced until 1988. The characteristics are as stated in the video. Was talking about the two tanks they talked about on the Tank Museum channel on YouTube.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,365
|
Post by lordroel on Feb 11, 2022 15:21:13 GMT
Hope miletus12 does not mind but found this: CHIEFTAIN vs T-64A & T-72 Ural | Composite Armour Piercing Simulation | 120mm L15A5 APDS
|
|
miletus12
Squadron vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 7,470
Likes: 4,295
|
Post by miletus12 on Feb 11, 2022 16:12:55 GMT
Hope miletus12 does not mind but found this: CHIEFTAIN vs T-64A & T-72 Ural | Composite Armour Piercing Simulation | 120mm L15A5 APDS I would say that those are range shot simulations, emphasis on the word range shot and simulation. In the real world, much for the same reasons and same logic as anti-torpedo tactics, the Russian tank driver was trained to vary speeds and to angle his plate against the primary axis of incoming fire. The idea was to throw off lead and to increase effective skip-off angles and to increase effective armor thickness presented to the incoming projectile. I would add, the gunner before he launched shot out, would try to hit a flank or side aspect presented to him to minimize the armor angles and thicknesses at the strike point. In such cases, count on the NATO projectile to get it done. Russian plate was not too good along the flanks.
|
|
miletus12
Squadron vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 7,470
Likes: 4,295
|
Post by miletus12 on Feb 11, 2022 16:53:07 GMT
People rag on the Sherman.
How about these bottom 5 losers?
5. AEC Mark II armored car. Too tall. Gun armed for tanks but not for anything else. Sarg für vier Tommies (Coffin for four Tommies.) 4. Springer demolition vehicle. Just what is this thing? Imagine a kamikaze with treads. The British BUILT this thing and expected the driver to steer it toward a wall or bunker and then jump out just before impact while it trundled forward along and bumped into the target with 330 kgs of explosive charge in the nose of the Springer. The crew who thought this one up, "should have been volunteered" to test it. 3. Carro Veloce. Bara per due soldati italiani. (Twin sized coffin.). The name says it all. The most popular version comes with its own barbecue so one can be cremated in situ. 2. FV4005. We have seen this loser before. As a tank destroyer, it is too big, too slow and fires a round that would give three strong healthy Tommies hernias, unless the Josef Stalin tank had not killed them first. 1. T-34. This tank makes a Sherman 75 look like a wonder tank. Glass armor, fragile transmission, lousy sights, lousy ergonomics and sights that only a seeing eye dog could use. Let me remind readers that the Russians built 72,000 of these pieces of junk and the Germans destroyed 58,000 of them! An estimated 300,000 Russians DIED in these machines. How many Americans died in the 3,000 the Germans managed to destroy? 1 per tank.
Yup... the Sherman manages a 1 for 1 kill ratio and manages to only lose 1 crewman killed per tank. It "must" be the worst tank of WWII.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,365
|
Post by lordroel on Feb 11, 2022 17:00:26 GMT
4. Springer demolition vehicle. Just what is this thing? Imagine a kamikaze with treads. The British BUILT this thing and expected the driver to steer it toward a wall or bunker and then jump out just before impact while it trundled forward along and bumped into the target with 150 kgs of explosive charge in the nose of the Springer. Well the Germans had the Tank Chats #81 Goliath | The Tank Museum. And the Soviets had the Soviet Anti-Tanks Dogs: Everything You Know is Wrong. Wich of the 3 is most likely not to kill the operator.
|
|
miletus12
Squadron vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 7,470
Likes: 4,295
|
Post by miletus12 on Feb 11, 2022 17:22:03 GMT
4. Springer demolition vehicle. Just what is this thing? Imagine a kamikaze with treads. The British BUILT this thing and expected the driver to steer it toward a wall or bunker and then jump out just before impact while it trundled forward along and bumped into the target with 150 kgs of explosive charge in the nose of the Springer. Well the Germans had the Tank Chats #81 Goliath | The Tank Museum. And the Soviets had the Soviet Anti-Tanks Dogs: Everything You Know is Wrong. Wich of the 3 is most likely not to kill the operator. Goliath. At least the Germans did not drive the thing up to the target with the driver onboard. They stayed well to the rear and drove it by WCLOS. The Springer required the driver to bail out 50 to 100 meters from the target, do the 500 meter dash to the rear and survive the Olympic training event. The explosive dogs were very loy al Russian dogs. They would zero in on any RUSSIAN tank and then blow themselves up. Now maybe if the Russians had trained the dogs to home on German tanks, the idea might have worked.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,365
|
Post by lordroel on Feb 11, 2022 17:32:05 GMT
Well the Germans had the Tank Chats #81 Goliath | The Tank Museum. And the Soviets had the Soviet Anti-Tanks Dogs: Everything You Know is Wrong. Wich of the 3 is most likely not to kill the operator. Goliath. At least the Germans did not drive the thing up to the target with the driver onboard. They stayed well to the rear and drove it by WCLOS. The Springer required the driver to bail out 50 to 100 meters from the target, do the 500 meter dash to the rear and survive the Olympic training event. The explosive dogs were very loy al Russian dogs. They would zero in on any RUSSIAN tank and then blow themselves up. Now maybe if the Russians had trained the dogs to home on German tanks, the idea might have worked. The British did build and design the Mobile Land Mine (originally named "Beetle")which seems to be a British version of the Goliath and also would not kill any person driving it. However in 1942 Commander-in-Chief, Home Forces reported that it was not recommended for them to be use as there was no requirement for it. It was underpowered, slow, the motors overheated and it couldn't cross typical battlefield terrain.
|
|
miletus12
Squadron vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 7,470
Likes: 4,295
|
Post by miletus12 on Feb 12, 2022 14:59:25 GMT
Why do the Americans dislike autoloaders in tanks?
Well... maybe they do and maybe they do not.
The Americans played along with autoloaders a lot. Here is what they found. 37 mm 1. Unreliable. 2. Eliminating the tank commander in one of two ways. No space or it would kill him. 3. No coax machine guns. 75 mm 1. Unreliable 2. Shell selector did not work. 3. Rammer separated the cartridge into two pieces, usually with an explosion as the side effect. 4. Zigzag travel path to the gun is a jamming event waiting to happen. 5. How much does one love one's arm. Clearing jams is exciting! 6. Hangfires. Another 75 mm *(*T37 tank) 1. Actually 76 mm gun. Vertical loading with spent cases returned. Except that the return function would jam due to misfeeds and misalignments. 2. All the problems with the 37mm and previous 75 mm gun re-occurred. 3. Redesigned and fixed the new autoloader, now for the T41 tank, was a considerable improvement. It only tore off hands this time instead of arms. 90 mm autoloading gun in an oscillating turret no less! For the T42 tank. 1. The loader oscillated with the gun and the turret. Shake rattle and roll equals jams, misfeeds, only half the stowed ammunition and a motion sick tank crew who oscillated, too. 2. T69 tank attempt with another variation of this autoloader. Why does the American army still give the contract to Rheem? Have they not been reamed enough by these crooks? 3. Eight round revolver magazine for this turkey. Shots out sprung the hydraulic arms on the lifting turret roof jamming that closed and creating a "coffin for three dumb Americans" effect. 4. The revolver drum jammed. 5. The aforementioned motion sickness occurred. 6. No room for the human loader to feed the revolver, so two questions? Why put a revolver in his way to the gun? Why do you need a human loader to feed the revolver? 7. Also, getting one's head concussed during all those oscillations was not going to make the bean counters at the VA happy. Head trauma is an EXPENSIVE service-related disability. Some of the autoloader designers seem to have suffered from something like it, because they were obviously brain damaged engineers who designed the technology demonstrator. 8. By the way, the vibration unbalanced the magazine and this affected accuracy. 9. The lesson learned is maintenance was a nightmare, that the revolver needed a lot of work for balancing. There was another attempt at a T37 (T54) United Shoe again. 1. All electric loader. Not too good. 2. Indexer sorted by measuring the length of the cased ammunition. 3. Turret was unbalanced. 4. All the Oscillator problems appeared again. 5. Z path problems again. 6. This was an arm grabber. End of part 1.
|
|
miletus12
Squadron vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 7,470
Likes: 4,295
|
Post by miletus12 on Feb 15, 2022 10:35:58 GMT
The Comet. Last of the British cruiser tanks, but was it as good as claimed? Own opinion on part 1? a. Shot traps and Christie suspension were the two obvious defects. b. Less obvious is the lousy maintenance features. c. Return rollers wallowed out and one still got track slap. Also track throw is a problem. Own opinion on Part 2? a. Rear drive and sprocket wheels are unusual. The Sprocket teeth are of the "fishhook" type which means a snap off event and faster wear than symmetricals. The track was good for 1,000 imperial miles as opposed to a Sherman's 2,000 mile track-shoe-life before pad replacement. Something I have noticed about expert commentary about British tanks, down to the present, is how universally awful even "good" British track was. British commentary makes light of this major problem, but if one changes sets of tracks every two weeks instead of shoe pads every month, then one has an expensive and intensive maintenance load that is unnecessary in the middle of a major world war. It also tends to SLOW tactical speeds to a crawl which defeats the operational art "purpose" of a "cruiser" tank. The Sherman outran the Comet in pursuit and exploitation easily as the British themselves tested it. b. The track tensioning system is unnecessarily complicated and fragile. c. Engine compartment is poorly laid out for access and maintenance. One thing I noticed was the dual path air filter system allows for an easy Molotov cocktail barbecue send-off. What were the designers' thoughts here? Had they learned nothing from Crusader or Cromwell? d. The Merritt Brown gearboxes were an advantage the Comet, Churchill, Cromwell, etc., had over the Sherman as it allowed the British tanks to pivot turn on their tracks. (Not recommended, unless in an emergency, because of possible track throw in such a pivot.) It is a "minor" advantage. e. The ungoverned Comets, the Chieftain neglects to mention, shed tracks and snapped links at speeds of over thirty-five miles per hour. Governed Comets became a necessity with an upper safe speed bound of about thirty miles per hour ON ROADS and about fourteen miles per hour cross country. This again made the Sherman FASTER. Part 3 thoughts. a. Entry and exit paths in this tank for personnel and ammunition are HORRIBLE. Worse than a T-34 and that was a crew killer function on the Russian tank. If anything, as an example, the hatch offset for the Comet's driver is much worse than it was aboard Churchill. It is as if the British tank designers went out of their way to make it certain that British tank crews would DIE inside their tanks as well as make the machines extremely user-unfriendly. b. Instrumentation and controls are laid out British-fashion, which is to say backwards to the way human beings (Right handed ones anyway.), operate. c. Cruise select is second-gear, which is ridiculous because what happens if one has to hill climb in a convoy route and the interlock has to be disengaged to go down into first? The tank behind will get a Comet rolling backwards into it, that's what, or the transmission gearbox pops and sheds parts. This seems to be the hallmark of the lack of common sense that went into this tank. d. I agree that the BESA was an excellent machine gun. It was about as good as the Browning and if the Browning was not in US service, the BESA or rather the Czechoslovak ZB-53, would have been a good substitute for the Browning 0.30 or Vickers 7.7 mm as a general-purpose machine gun. e. The hull interior is cramped. Is it worth it to get the British version of the Christie suspension as opposed to the American volute system or the Hara bellcrank? or the Russian version of Christie suspension? No. The only thing worse is the Porsche system of torsion bars. Part 4 thoughts. a. Commander's position was designed for a Munchkin. If the tank commander throws out an elbow or knee he will collide with someone else or bark it or cut it on hard metal. b. Gunner's position, the place where the commander's knees hit the gunner in the back of his beret wearing head, is CRAMPED. c. The 77 mm gun, which was a 75 mm / 50 gun designed up to take US 3 inch ammunition, is a bodged up deal of a British 3 inch AAA gun breech and a 17 pounder gun barrel chopped short that might have been more useful as a replacement for the 75 mm gun on a British Sherman 75 instead of this death trap tank. Seriously, to make matters even more confusing, the 17 pounder (3 inch) British shell and shot was itself modified to FIT the same necked down Vickers cartridge case designed to fit US 3 inch shells into this gun. It worked, but it should not have worked. d. Gunner controls are British. (Backwards.). e. Looking at the loader's position I rolled off my chair and laughed at the ridiculous ergonomic disaster this was. One has to be a one-armed person to move about to access the ammunition which is stowed in impossible to reach locations. One thinks the T-34 was poorly thought out as to ammunition stowage? This setup is "unacceptable". f. My comment about the smoke bomb thrower is that it is "unacceptable as designed and used". g. As the Chieftain explains the ready-use ammunition feature and the lack of a sustained gun engagement capability in a tank fight in this tank, I thought of just what that would mean. Shoot off four rounds, then spend three minutes to reload the ready use four shot bins? Comets would have been slaughtered at Arracourt.
==================================================== The Chieftain may have good things to say about the Comet, but when compared to the deathtrap T-34 and the really user-friendly and very effective and reliable Sherman, this end of the WWII British tank shows that the British still have not got the plot right when it comes to "effective" tank design. It is "unacceptable".
|
|
miletus12
Squadron vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 7,470
Likes: 4,295
|
Post by miletus12 on Mar 3, 2022 2:54:04 GMT
Based on the fact we have not seen these turkeys committed yet in the Ukraine War... The tank seems to have been an internal development failure and has had limited export succsss.
|
|
miletus12
Squadron vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 7,470
Likes: 4,295
|
Post by miletus12 on Mar 7, 2022 2:07:40 GMT
Meet Lazerpig again. And consider his case for the T34 again. He summarizes the case of what I also know about this lousy tank. But pay attention to the details about the RUSSIAN ARMY as he discusses the T34 and how it was made, and how it was used.
As you laugh your way through this video, keep in mind that the Russian army of 1941... sure looks familiar to us as the Russian army of 2021-2022...
LOL. Enjoy the comedy!
|
|
miletus12
Squadron vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 7,470
Likes: 4,295
|
Post by miletus12 on Mar 11, 2022 16:15:42 GMT
Plastic tanks?
Properly this demonstrator of concept was built on a Warrior AFV chassis. The armor package is a composite of plastics, fiberglass, and other unnamed materials which was called E-glass. The program was subsumed under TRACR, a recon vehicle program, and was cancelled after the FRES program was substituted.
The "plastic tank" weighed less, was radar absorbent, had a smaller noise and heat signature than a warrior. The Americans experimented with the idea in WWII. They found the elasticity at the time against kinetic projectiles was fairly good but not as good as later composite steel and ceramic packages that they tried out in the 1950s.
===========================================================================================
Centurion cut in half.
This is a good lesson about what the British get right and wrong about tanks. See if you can identify the seven bolos.
Here is a hint and a start: the wrong side driving position directly contributes to and goofs up natural human steering and brake control ergonomics biases.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,365
|
Post by lordroel on Mar 11, 2022 16:17:40 GMT
We are seeing what tin cans do in battle, i doubt plastic tanks will do any better.
|
|