Tweet
Actually you are right there. A lot of people get lost in the calibre size because of how MBT work today, but back then large calibre many times designated an infantry support weapon for HE shells, while a slightly smaller calibre with high velocity ammunition is far more effective against armor.
-
"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. -
No offense, but you would need a really large amount of rounds to kill a tank and that is if it decides to stay put. A moving target - well, forget anything but a lucky hit.Originally posted by Lonestar
Artillery. A lot of it.
The most dangerous thing to a German was an American LT with a radio.
I spent some 9 months with a M101 howitzer and at range firing we would at most be a nuisance to armoured units except for a lucky hit.With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
Steven WeinbergComment
-
No offense, but (1)You are grossly underestimating the amount of the USA and Red Army tended to put up in artillery barrages in WW2 (2)Comparing a WW2 armored vehicle to a modern one in survivability is a bit silly.Originally posted by BlackCat
No offense, but you would need a really large amount of rounds to kill a tank and that is if it decides to stay put. A moving target - well, forget anything but a lucky hit.
I spent some 9 months with a M101 howitzer and at range firing we would at most be a nuisance to armoured units except for a lucky hit.
There are many instances of the USA using M101 batteries to tear panzers apart, especially as American tanks(M3 vs Panzer IIIs/IVs, M4 vs Panthers/Tigers) tended to be inferior than their German counterparts.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, let us keep on being politeOriginally posted by Lonestar
No offense, but (1)You are grossly underestimating the amount of the USA and Red Army tended to put up in artillery barrages in WW2 (2)Comparing a WW2 armored vehicle to a modern one in survivability is a bit silly.
There are many instances of the USA using M101 batteries to tear panzers apart, especially as American tanks(M3 vs Panzer IIIs/IVs, M4 vs Panthers/Tigers) tended to be inferior than their German counterparts.
Nope, first, I don't underestimate the size of barrages that was used - they were quite heavy. Second, I have never talked about modern armor. What I'm talking about is that an artillery grenade can only destroy an armored vehicle if it's a direct hit. That only happens as pure luck. I think that it's you that are confusing modern accuracy of artillery with what was possible during WWII.
M101 is surely capable of destroying armour, but then it has to be direct shooting.With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
Steven WeinbergComment
-
Re: If Hitler had died in the summer of 1939 how would he be remembered?
Memel was majority German, iirc. And it could easily remain in German hands just like it was during 7 centuries of its existance. The city was founded by the Teutonic Knights in 13th century and remained a German city for the most part of its history.Originally posted by Oerdin
Same goes for Memel as it was majority Lithuanian so I don't see how it could remain in German hands in the age of 20th century nationalism.
Aside his achievments to resurect Germany, he would be remembered as nazi ****er, the author and prophet of inhuman ideology of hatred which nazism is.If Hilter had been killed before the war started but after his big pre-war land grabs how would history see him?Last edited by Serb; July 23, 2008, 00:00.Comment
-
Never heard about the largest tank battle in human history? Google for Prokhorovka then.Originally posted by Patroklos
Aircraft, mechanical breakdowns, mines, manuever warfare, heavy artillery...
Hell, there were cases when Panters and Tigers were destroyed by T-70 LIGHT tanks with bulletproof armor and 45mm main gun, not to mention by T-34/76 or T-34/85.I honestly have never read a single account of a T-34 taking out a Tiger, let alone reliably in general combat. If you can point one out I'd be interested.
This page contains some examples, but it's on Russian and I don't have time to translate. So feel free to use any online translator and ask questions if needed.
And one more thing, T-34 was not a counterpart of Tiger.
Tiger was a heavy tank while T-34 was a medium tank. The Soviet counterpart of Tiger was IS-2. And it was more than a match for Tiger and King tiger. Not to mention we had IS-3 in 1945 (though it didn't see actual combat) which was WAY MORE superior than any other tank in the world for a next decade.Comment
-
No way, dude. Have you ever seen a coordinated artillery barrage? If it is any where with in an area the size of... say... 4 football fields then they'll kill it. We're talking a LOT of shells falling in extremely quick succession. They can get hundreds of guns firing at the same area every 5-8 seconds and they don't stop until the area is a smoking crater. Even tanks know to run from that ****.Originally posted by BlackCat
No offense, but you would need a really large amount of rounds to kill a tank and that is if it decides to stay put. A moving target - well, forget anything but a lucky hit.
I spent some 9 months with a M101 howitzer and at range firing we would at most be a nuisance to armoured units except for a lucky hit.
Of course a cheaper way to knock out tanks is to just give infantry a light anti-tank weapon like all the sides had in WW2. Once the tank has been hit in the treads. It's just a rather crappy artillery piece which can easily be knocked out by counter battery fire.Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.Comment
-
Originally posted by Patroklos
The Stuart was the American light tank Oerdin, the Sherman was considered a medium tank just like the PzIV or T-34. If your tank didn't have at least a 76mm, it was useless against a Tiger of Panther which was the case for most of both the M4s and T-34s during the majoirty of the war. Even with the 76, to pierce the frontal armor of a Panther they still needed to be at close range.
T-34 had 76mm main gun from the beggining (1939). That's why the first model of T-34 is known as T-34/76. The upgraded variant with new turret and more powerfull 85mm main gun which entered service in 1944 is known as T-34/85.
Neither German or Soviet tanks were designed for tank on tank warfare. Both Germans and Soviets had instructions and regulations to evade tank on tank engagements when possible. The main role of tanks was to kill infantry, not tanks. Tanks should have been destroyed by AT artillery and tank busters.The IJ of both types were "breakthrough" tanks and designed for short punches through entrenched positions more than manuever anti tank warfare. Thats not to say they were not well armed, they just were not designed with tank on tank warfare as their sole purpose...Comment
-
Yeah, the big anti-tank weapons were artillery and ground attack fighters.Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.Comment
-
Really? So Su-152 was nicknamed "Zveroboy" (beast killer) for nothing?Originally posted by Patroklos
That was a asault gun, a whole other ball game
hint: Tiger, Panter, Elefant... does "beast killer" ring the bell?
You seem to misunderstand the role of tanks on WW2 battlefield. Once again: tanks were not intended to fight tanks. That was a job of anti-tank means like Su-100 or Su-152. Sure Su-152 wasn't initally a tank destroyer (like Su-100), but it proved its efficiency in killing enemy tanks.Comment
-
Ok, I found an English source for you. Enjoy:Originally posted by Patroklos
I honestly have never read a single account of a T-34 taking out a Tiger, let alone reliably in general combat. If you can point one out I'd be interested.
Comment
-
Well, a good thing it never had to go against a Maus...Originally posted by Serb
Really? So Su-152 was nicknamed "Zveroboy" (beast killer) for nothing?
hint: Tiger, Panter, Elefant... does "beast killer" ring the bell?
It never ceases to amaze me, that people designing heavy killing machines have sense of humor. Puma, Panther, Tiger, Nashorn, Elefant, what have you, and the biggest, meanest, not the most effective one, granted... Maus.
I've allways wanted to play "Russ Meyer's Civilization"Comment
-
crusaders where outclassed by German Tanks, the Cromwell did a better job but was comparable to Shermans rather than Panthers or tigersSpace is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind- bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space.
Douglas Adams (Influential author)Comment
-
I would just nod my head at Pat and keep moving dude.Originally posted by Serb
T-34 had 76mm main gun from the beggining (1939). That's why the first model of T-34 is known as T-34/76. The upgraded variant with new turret and more powerfull 85mm main gun which entered service in 1944 is known as T-34/85.
Hmmm....you sure? That sounds more like US Army doctrine(which resulted in tanks with weak AT capacity and lightly armored destroyers with, well, "better" AT capacity)Neither German or Soviet tanks were designed for tank on tank warfare. Both Germans and Soviets had instructions and regulations to evade tank on tank engagements when possible. The main role of tanks was to kill infantry, not tanks. Tanks should have been destroyed by AT artillery and tank busters.
Well, American artillery was notoriously accurate(relative to the Commies and Axis), and we had stuff like TOT down pat.Well, let us keep on being polite
Nope, first, I don't underestimate the size of barrages that was used - they were quite heavy. Second, I have never talked about modern armor. What I'm talking about is that an artillery grenade can only destroy an armored vehicle if it's a direct hit. That only happens as pure luck. I think that it's you that are confusing modern accuracy of artillery with what was possible during WWII.
M101 is surely capable of destroying armour, but then it has to be direct shooting.
Second, you don't have to "destroy" armor to knock it out(forgetting for the moment there were many, many engagements when American Arty did just that), rendering a tank immobile is just as good as destroying it, often times.
Third, my Dad was a career Artillery guy(22 years) in the USMC, and he's one of those guys that goes on rants about the historical accuracy of video games...speficially the relative ineffectiveness of the 105mm against German armor in Company of Heroes.
I'll take what I've read in the history books(Army at Dawn, the Day of Battle) and the word of a 20year+ professional over a conscript with 9 months with a single M101.
Today, you are the waves of the Pacific, pushing ever eastward. You are the sequoias rising from the Sierra Nevada, defiant and enduring.Comment
-
The Allies had Typhoon ground attack aircraft and air superiority which made up for the relative weakness of tanksSpace is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind- bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space.
Douglas Adams (Influential author)Comment
Comment