|
|
Post by willien on Mar 24, 2023 20:10:31 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. T34And not an outsized water container in sight.  |
|
|
|
Post by John Farrell on Mar 24, 2023 20:35:14 GMT
Not directly to do with the subject - a couple of days ago I watched a video on the "Laserpig" channel, on the T14 Armata tank. The author had an interesting take on the T34 - claiming that its reputation was the result of Russian propaganda. He also had comments about the Challenger tank.
|
|
|
|
Post by JohnY on Mar 24, 2023 20:49:12 GMT
This must be the only thread on any forum ever that is simultaneously concerned about starting a sentence with a conjunction and killing tank crews with DU shells.
|
|
|
|
Post by willien on Mar 24, 2023 20:52:16 GMT
How many such threads could one possibly hope to get on one forum?
|
|
|
|
Post by JohnY on Mar 24, 2023 20:53:48 GMT
None.
|
|
|
|
Post by willien on Mar 24, 2023 21:07:01 GMT
Aw come on. Its' (tee hee) been a bloody good thread. |
|
|
|
Post by terrywoodenpic on Mar 24, 2023 21:19:34 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.
True, however it used to mostly take one tank to kill another. Today a soldier or drone can do it. Putin is killing off his men faster than a general could do it in ww1. And Russia is short of the fighting age young men. And even shorter of trained ones. It could end up as a stalemate.but russia can not win. |
|
|
|
Post by willien on Mar 24, 2023 22:40:48 GMT
Just another poor boy off fighting a rich man's war.
Steve Earle.
|
|
|
|
Post by John Farrell on Mar 25, 2023 1:28:14 GMT
Lazerpig has a video on the T34.
|
|
|
|
Post by MJB on Mar 25, 2023 10:27:17 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. It's interesting. My uncle was in the RTR (he drove Churchill A22s in Korea) and served with some WWII veterans who held the belief that Shermans were easy pickings for Tigers and Panthers. Now if WWII had lasted a tiny bit longer and the Centurion had seen service, there'd be no arguing which allied tank was the best. |
|
|
|
Post by nickr on Mar 25, 2023 12:12:24 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. It's interesting. My uncle was in the RTR (he drove Churchill A22s in Korea) and served with some WWII veterans who held the belief that Shermans were easy pickings for Tigers and Panthers. Now if WWII had lasted a tiny bit longer and the Centurion had seen service, there'd be no arguing which allied tank was the best. Problem with the standard Sherman was that it could only knock out a Tiger from 500m, which made it vastly more vulnerable. The Centurion was in a totally different class, the first modern MBT. South Africa stillbhas some modifies ones in service, I believe. |
|
