|
|
Post by willien on Mar 22, 2023 22:39:27 GMT
A positive advantage. No chance of baby teeth grinding off the toxic metal.  |
|
|
|
Post by John Farrell on Mar 23, 2023 0:41:17 GMT
All heavy metals including uranium are highly toxic. If the tank armour and superheated shell fragments do not kill you. You are certain to be poisoned by the toxic uranium vapour. That is if your own ammunition has not yet exploded under you. Not many people survive in Russian tanks that are hit by anything more destructive than a baby rattle anyway. However, Russian tanks were much more effective in WWII than the vastly superior German Tiger tanks because of the numbers game.
Tigers -Under 1,400 Russian tanks - 30,000 to 40,000 (cannot remember the name of the beast so cannot check numbers). President P seems to be playing the same game with young men.
The Americans played the same game with the Sherman - although the British Firefly variant was a match for the Tiger. |
|
|
|
Post by MJB on Mar 23, 2023 9:23:14 GMT
the British Firefly variant was a match for the Tiger. Not really. The high velocity 17pdr gun fitted to the Firefly could penetrate a Tiger's armour if, and it's a bloody big if, you could get close enough without the Tiger crew spotting you and taking you out with their far superior 88mm gun. Other than the up gunning the Firefly had the same issues as a standard sherman, most notably it's high profile and propensity to spark up like a Zippo lighter. |
|
|
|
Post by squeamishossifrage on Mar 23, 2023 11:02:29 GMT
the British Firefly variant was a match for the Tiger. Not really. The high velocity 17pdr gun fitted to the Firefly could penetrate a Tiger's armour if, and it's a bloody big if, you could get close enough without the Tiger crew spotting you and taking you out with their far superior 88mm gun. Other than the up gunning the Firefly had the same issues as a standard sherman, most notably it's high profile and propensity to spark up like a Zippo lighter. The Sherman was the most cynical weapon of the war. The reckoning was it took five Shermans to take out a Tiger, and two to three Shermans would be lost in the process. However, because the allies could out-build the Germans by much more than 2.5 to 1, the powers that be kept churning them out, and they kept bursting into fire at the least opportunity. |
|
|
|
Post by andytake2 on Mar 23, 2023 13:05:23 GMT
There was some concern over tank crews being exposed to dust/vapour from the DU rounds they fired.
IIRC, Gulf-War Syndrome has been at least partially explained, but I haven't read anything about it for a couple of years, and my brain is too frazzled to remember.
It should be pointed out though that DU rounds are not always completely DU, and are mixed with Tungsten. This is a far more ecologically sound method of delivering one's message to the opposing Tank crew.
|
|
|
|
Post by squeamishossifrage on Mar 23, 2023 15:23:46 GMT
It should be pointed out though that DU rounds are not always completely DU, and are mixed with Tungsten. This is a far more ecologically sound method of delivering one's message to the opposing Tank crew. The more usual ingredient of a DU projectile alloy is Titanium. Tungsten is used in older discarding sabot rounds and as the 'bullet' in HESH (high explosive squash head) rounds to penetrate double armour. As DU rounds become pyrophoric on impact you still get cooked inside the tank. |
|
|
|
Post by willien on Mar 23, 2023 19:39:04 GMT
There was some concern over tank crews being exposed to dust/vapour from the DU rounds they fired. IIRC, Gulf-War Syndrome has been at least partially explained, but I haven't read anything about it for a couple of years, and my brain is too frazzled to remember. It should be pointed out though that DU rounds are not always completely DU, and are mixed with Tungsten. This is a far more ecologically sound method of delivering one's message to the opposing Tank crew. Ta Andy. I remember at the time the "media" suggesting that gulf war syndrome might be explained by tanks etc churning up "virgin" sand which had not been disturbed for at least hundreds of years thus releasing bacteria and/or viruses which humanity had lost its immunity to and/or had mutated out of pre-existing immunity. Call me an old folkie, but I have long believed that to much heavy metal is bad for you.
|
|
|
|
Post by andy on Mar 23, 2023 20:50:30 GMT
Call me an old folkie, but I have long believed that to much heavy metal is bad for you.
Aye, seems to come with a high risk of long hair and a stinking leather jacket. |
|
|
|
Post by willien on Mar 23, 2023 21:20:56 GMT
Call me an old folkie, but I have long believed that to much heavy metal is bad for you.
Aye, seems to come with a high risk of long hair and a stinking leather jacket. My leather jackets (and there are many) are quite fragrant. Bye the way.  |
|
|
|
Post by nickr on Mar 24, 2023 15:28:48 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by nickr on Mar 24, 2023 15:58:41 GMT
the British Firefly variant was a match for the Tiger. Not really. The high velocity 17pdr gun fitted to the Firefly could penetrate a Tiger's armour if, and it's a bloody big if, you could get close enough without the Tiger crew spotting you and taking you out with their far superior 88mm gun. Other than the up gunning the Firefly had the same issues as a standard sherman, most notably it's high profile and propensity to spark up like a Zippo lighter. What I've read recently is that the propensity for Shermans to brew up was (a) not based on the petrol engine, as often stated, but on the ammunition storage in turret-mounted sponsons, and that when a switch was made to wet ammunition storage, that issue was resolved; and (b) that there's not actually any evidence that Shermans actually were more likely to go up in flames than any other tank. The 17 pounder was actually a better tank gun that the 88 - it had a little more penetrating power, and was lighter and easier to manage. A Tiger could take out a Firefly at 1800 m, whereas a Firefly could take out a Tiger at 1750 m - obviously, the extra Tiger armour made a difference, but very little in reality. 50m at over a mile. Add in the much worse reliability of the Tiger, and the Firefly was certainly a match for it. |
|
|
|
Post by willien on Mar 24, 2023 16:02:39 GMT
Not really. The high velocity 17pdr gun fitted to the Firefly could penetrate a Tiger's armour if, and it's a bloody big if, you could get close enough without the Tiger crew spotting you and taking you out with their far superior 88mm gun. Other than the up gunning the Firefly had the same issues as a standard sherman, most notably it's high profile and propensity to spark up like a Zippo lighter. What I've read recently is that the propensity for Shermans to brew up was (a) not based on the petrol engine, as often stated, but on the ammunition storage in turret-mounted sponsons, and that when a switch was made to wet ammunition storage, that issue was resolved; and (b) that there's not actually any evidence that Shermans actually were more likely to go up in flames than any other tank. The 17 pounder was actually a better tank gun that the 88 - it had a little more penetrating power, and was lighter and easier to manage. A Tiger could take out a Firefly at 1800 m, whereas a Firefly could take out a Tiger at 1750 m - obviously, the extra Tiger armour made a difference, but very little in reality. 50m at over a mile. Add in the much worse reliability of the Tiger, and the Firefly was certainly a match for it. And the fact that there were damn few of them in the first place. [no I did not start a sentence with "And" to wind you up it is just the way I express myself] |
|
|
|
Post by nickr on Mar 24, 2023 16:02:54 GMT
Not really. The high velocity 17pdr gun fitted to the Firefly could penetrate a Tiger's armour if, and it's a bloody big if, you could get close enough without the Tiger crew spotting you and taking you out with their far superior 88mm gun. Other than the up gunning the Firefly had the same issues as a standard sherman, most notably it's high profile and propensity to spark up like a Zippo lighter. The Sherman was the most cynical weapon of the war. The reckoning was it took five Shermans to take out a Tiger, and two to three Shermans would be lost in the process. However, because the allies could out-build the Germans by much more than 2.5 to 1, the powers that be kept churning them out, and they kept bursting into fire at the least opportunity. The reason why it took 5 Shermans to take out a Tiger is because they allocated 1 Firefly to each troop of 5 Shermans... As I've mentioned in another post, it appears they actually didn't keep bursting into flames any more often than any other tank, certainly once liquid ammo storage was instituted. I had always assumed the tales of Ronsons were true, but it appears perhaps not |
|
|
|
Post by nickr on Mar 24, 2023 16:08:31 GMT
What I've read recently is that the propensity for Shermans to brew up was (a) not based on the petrol engine, as often stated, but on the ammunition storage in turret-mounted sponsons, and that when a switch was made to wet ammunition storage, that issue was resolved; and (b) that there's not actually any evidence that Shermans actually were more likely to go up in flames than any other tank. The 17 pounder was actually a better tank gun that the 88 - it had a little more penetrating power, and was lighter and easier to manage. A Tiger could take out a Firefly at 1800 m, whereas a Firefly could take out a Tiger at 1750 m - obviously, the extra Tiger armour made a difference, but very little in reality. 50m at over a mile. Add in the much worse reliability of the Tiger, and the Firefly was certainly a match for it. And the fact that there were damn few of them in the first place. [no I did not start a sentence with "And" to wind you up it is just the way I express myself] But I've never accepted that you can't start a sentence with a conjunction. And I think it's perfectly reasonable. So no need to worry on that part. And yes, exactly. A handful of over-engineered and temperamental beasts against the mass production of Shermans and T34s. |
|
|
|
Post by andytw on Mar 24, 2023 19:45:51 GMT
However, Russian tanks were much more effective in WWII than the vastly superior German Tiger tanks because of the numbers game.
Tigers -Under 1,400 Russian tanks - 30,000 to 40,000 (cannot remember the name of the beast so cannot check numbers). President P seems to be playing the same game with young men.
The main Russian tank in WWII was the T34 which was probably the first "modern" tank with (mainly) sloped armour, there were 2 versions with either 76mm or 85mm guns. T34 |
|
