Tweet
And in practice they exchanged fire with BBs and got sunk as a result. Like how TDs were designed to not exchange fire with tanks, but kill them right out, and in practice TDs with lighter armor were so useless that the Army discontinued their use after WW2.
-
That is just the american versions. German and Soviet TDs had the same armor plating as tanks on a host of models, just no turret to speed up production."The DPRK is still in a state of war with the U.S. It's called a black out." - Che explaining why orbital nightime pictures of NK show few lights. Seriously. -
Okay, but your original suggestion was "why not just have a bigger gun and lighter armor"? To which I think I have convincingly proved why that is a particularly silly comment.
Today, you are the waves of the Pacific, pushing ever eastward. You are the sequoias rising from the Sierra Nevada, defiant and enduring.Comment
-
Well, I didn't just say that. I said that since the American tanks fielded in WWII all had at best medium armor compare to their German and Soviet counterparts, if they are not going to up the armor what does it hurt to up the gun?Okay, but your original suggestion was "why not just have a bigger gun and lighter armor"? To which I think I have convincingly proved why that is a particularly silly comment.
They did do this with the British fireflys and American 76mm Shermans. They should have continued."The DPRK is still in a state of war with the U.S. It's called a black out." - Che explaining why orbital nightime pictures of NK show few lights. Seriously.Comment
-
The 17pdr and HV 76mm, while an improvement over the 75mm were still not comparable to the 88mm that the Panther and Tiger tanks used(which could rip through the M4's armor like so much tissue paper)Today, you are the waves of the Pacific, pushing ever eastward. You are the sequoias rising from the Sierra Nevada, defiant and enduring.Comment
-
Oh I know, but at least they tried.The 17pdr and HV 76mm, while an improvement over the 75mm were still not comparable to the 88mm that the Panther and Tiger tanks used(which could rip through the M4's armor like so much tissue paper)
So why could they not put an 88mm type gun an a chasis with M4 scale armor? Not like the armor is required for the gun?
Not looking for an answer, but I think it was stupid to simply write off the heavy tank, noth the armor and the gun, when it was so obviously needed."The DPRK is still in a state of war with the U.S. It's called a black out." - Che explaining why orbital nightime pictures of NK show few lights. Seriously.Comment
-
The Israelis managed to squeeze a French HV 90mm onto the Sherman, but the gun in question was designed int he '50s.Today, you are the waves of the Pacific, pushing ever eastward. You are the sequoias rising from the Sierra Nevada, defiant and enduring.Comment
-
Panthers used the 7.5 cm KwK 42 gun.Originally posted by Lonestar
The 17pdr and HV 76mm, while an improvement over the 75mm were still not comparable to the 88mm that the Panther and Tiger tanks used(which could rip through the M4's armor like so much tissue paper)Originally posted by Serb:Please, remind me, how exactly and when exactly, Russia bullied its neighbors?
Originally posted by Ted Striker:Go Serb !
Originally posted by Pekka:If it was possible to capture the essentials of Sepultura in a dildo, I'd attach it to a bicycle and ride it up your azzes.Comment
-
You're right, the Tigers use the 88sOriginally posted by Saras
Panthers used the 7.5 cm KwK 42 gun.
Today, you are the waves of the Pacific, pushing ever eastward. You are the sequoias rising from the Sierra Nevada, defiant and enduring.Comment
-
Battle cruisers were intended to sail with the main battle fleet at the time they were built. The Royal Navy was frustrated that the Germans were building battleships slightly faster than Britain's, so they thought that a squadron of faster, lighter ships armed with battleship sized guns would force the Germans to slow down.Originally posted by Patroklos
Of course cruisers are capital ships.
So the BC did have their uses, namely being fast enough to run down commerce raiders and having the firepower to take them out handily.
Seems like the problem is using them incorrectly. It was stupid to pit a BC agains a BB in the line, and not what they were designed for.
The Washington Treaty excluded cruisers from the "capital ship" class. It also set the maximum displacement of a heavy cruiser at 10 000 tons. At the time of the Washington treaty aircraft carriers were not considered capital ships either, but then the heavy carrier which typified WW2 had not been designed yet. The US Navy had plans to build a couple of battle cruisers at the end of the war, but in order to keep the maximum number of battleships in service converted the battle cruisers into aircraft carriers.
I wonder, if the Washington treaty hadn't forced the Navy to do something with those superfluous capital ship sized hulls would any Navy have built fleet aircraft carriers prior to WW2?
Battle cruisers actually do have armor, but the thickness is only a bit more than that of a heavy cruiser."I say shoot'em all and let God sort it out in the end!Comment
-
Oh BTW, you're both right about the Hood. It was originally designed as a battlecruiser, but after Jutland it was decided to give her Battleship level armor. Her design was altered to conserve weight in other areas and to lengthen her hull so that even though she was the heaviest battleship in the world at the time of her inauguration, she was also the fastest. http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.3921"I say shoot'em all and let God sort it out in the end!Comment
Comment