This member has provided no bio about themself...
The aerospace industry is ridiculously protective of trade secrets. I've personally found it practically impossible to get even remotely detailed technical information on commercially available aircraft from the manufacturer (luckily, as it turns out, a lot of pilot's manuals get leaked onto the internet), and I can't imagine the defense industry is any less protective.
There is still a significant amount of speculation (trying to use aircraft geometry to estimate speeds, ect.) even within respectable periodicals like Jane's, and they tend to contain data that is, at most, lacking of any useable context such as cruise speed or minimum turning radius. In particular, conventional measures of acrobatic ability, such as the behavior of short-period oscillations, are practically never provided. Ultimately, the root of all information on non-operational military aircraft is the military, and the they rarely have any incentive to be truthful or thorough in what they release.
There's not much to discuss... The Chinese military doesn't have much of a need to justify its funding to the public since the country is autocratic, and as a result almost nothing concrete is released to the public about any of its military equipment under development.
Not that I put much trust into anything that's posted to this group (people here seem to be vastly over-confident in their knowledge of highly secretive combat aircraft, including ones not even out of early developmental phases), but with western and Russian aircraft there's at least some semi-reliable information available from official sources. Any discussion of new Chinese aircraft is basically going to be pure speculation, making it rather pointless.
Just because they're not at any physical risk does not mean that drone operators don't face a great deal of stress. For reference: Nytimes.com
It is maybe understandable to worry about leadership (which itself has never been at risk) being more ready to use airstrikes against targets when there is no risk to any allied soldiers, as with the extensive drone operations in areas such as Pakistan. However, those operations have resulted in extremely few civilian deaths relative to conventional military operations, and I'm happy for any development in war that reduces death toll.
As odd as it might seem, the exact opposite is true. Speed is one of the primary defenses of conventional aircraft, so they tend to drop in, attack their target, and leave so quickly that the pilot doesn't see the effects of the bombing.
Drone operators on the other hand often will watch a target for hours prior to bombing it, and will stay to confirm that the missile hits. The result is that not only do they see the people they're killing, given the current use of drones, they often see them acting like normal people rather than acting as soldiers. In fact, the US military has had a significant problem with drone operators suffering psychological problems (PTSD, ect.) due the high stress nature of their work.
Overall they were probably the most successful AFV of the war, being much cheaper than comparable tanks while still being very effective in AT and infantry support roles. Most of the well known German aces are known for driving the Tiger or Tiger II, but actually spent most of their careers in StuGs.
Nobody believed the F-313 because, frankly, Iran simply does not have the industry to design a home grown fighter that would rival those of major world powers, and its announcement came just after the country was caught faking missile launches.
The realty is that one can't really predict the performance of a stealth aircraft simply by aircraft geometry. Anyone with an undergrad aerospace engineering degree knows how to build a UAS, so the pictured aircraft could effectively be anything from a couple of engineers' pet project they built in their free time to the most advanced aircraft ever built. China's military is notoriously opaque to the public (which has some advantages and some disadvantages), so there is no point speculating on the performance of any of its aircraft that are currently in development.
The B52 was already introduced in the 50's. A more appropriate statement would be a B52 from the 40's.
I've heard having the turret backward shifts the CG closer to the center of the tank and thus put less stress on the suspension.
The Germans made plenty of strategic blunders, but all nations made their share of mistakes during the war. The worst German mistakes are nothing when compared to those made by the Soviets during the first few years of the war, for instance.
Needs a citation. I'll eat my hat if the pentagon actually had a press release saying that.
Saying the aircraft outmatches the F-16, which was designed almost half a century ago, is a little more reasonable, and that's not what people were dubious about I think.
With the turret turned backwards it looks kind of like a Crusader.
On modern aircraft there really is nothing that is not complex.
Presumably it's during testing and they're gauging its ability to cross shallow creeks, flooded shell holes, ect.
That's what it's primarily intended to combat, but this type of ERA does provide some protection from kinetic penetrators as well. It has armored plates above it that shear off at an angle when activated and that can damage the round or knock it off center, increasing the chances that the conventional armor will survive the impact.
It's not without its problems, but it's a very good way to cheaply improve the protection on aging designs like these.
There were a few specific units that averaged above 10 armored kills per Tiger lost. It was not common, but it was also far more than a handful of commanders that managed to knock out more than 9 tanks for each one they lost. If you're only looking at the top handful of German tank commanders (most of whom used StuGs admittedly) then you'll get numbers much, much larger than 9 kills per tank.
The turret is real, it's one of the early Pz.IIIs armed with a 37mm gun. The tank is still fake though.
It's armed with a recoilless rifle so the recoil should be low, but presumably it's meant to be fired stationary and the motor bike is just used to transport the gun.
Could have kept some around for propaganda purposes, or it may be a anti-partisan or garrison unit, since those sometimes kept tanks in use far longer than the regular military.
Agreed. It'd fit right in fighting robots in some Japanese anime.
Probably Mechanized Combat Vehicle. That's what it stands for the the Warrior's name(MCV-80).
In earlier versions angle wasn't accounted for, reducing the effectiveness of tanks like the Panther that have heavy frontal armor but weak side armor. However, there's still nothing unrealistic about a Sherman destroying a Panther.
There's no component damage due to engine limitations unfortunately.
It's about as realistic as possible given the engine. Angle is accounted for and armor values are all realistic, including weak spots like the shot trap on the lower mantlet of early Panthers.
I'm not sure where you're getting the 45mm number, the 44/45 refers to a time period(1944-1945), not an armor thickness.
I do agree the armor of the Panther still gave it some advantage against the T34 and Sherman, though, since HVAP and other ammunition that allowed these tanks to reliably penetrate the Panther's frontal armor at medium-long ranges was still quite rare through the end of the war. The Panther was never designed to be invincible like KV or Matilda II were early in the war, rather it was meant to be able out range other tanks and to some extent it could still do that. However, the 17 lber is in a different league than the 85mm and 76mm guns, and could easily penetrate the armor of any German tank with the exception of the Tiger II at long range.
I'm pretty sure it's just the back of an IS-2. The mod(Forgotten Hope 0.7) has a mini mod called Secret Weapons that adds a ton of new content and may include the rest of the IS series though.
It's not really much of a shot trap since the lower surfaces on the T34's original turret had very thin armor anyways, and thus most serious anti-tank weapons would penetrate it regardless. This is how most early T34's were lost, since the tank's hull armor was too thick to be penetrated by most German guns. Furthermore, this played a significant role in the design of some variants of the Sherman, as statistics showed most Soviet tanks were being lost to shots to the turret and this is why the Sherman's turret was generally much more heavily armored than the rest of the tank.
That being said it is one fine looking turret though, especially compared to the blocky (albeit much improved) turret that replaced it
Granted, it won't be a huge difference, but it's not necessarily useless. For instance, if the plane is on the ground at an airfield, camouflage will play a factor in concealing the plane since radar and other traditional sensors any enemy aircraft are using will have much more difficulty differentiating it from its surroundings then they normally would were the aircraft in the air.
The thing that would be exploding would be ammunition, not the engine. Seeing as the Ratte using a turret from a battlecruiser it probably would have a similar magazine, and naval magazines cooking off create a pretty gigantic explosion. Having seen it in game it looks like a small atom bomb and is no doubt exaggerated, but it would be a pretty large explosion in any case.
Why do so many people here not understand that depleted uranium is not radioactive...
Flan is a custard, it's kind of like a creme brulee without the hard sugary crust.
Different things for different people, I personally like FH2 a lot better than FH.7. It has less total content and tank combat is a little off, but infantry plays so much better than in .7 it completely makes up for it.
It's the Forgotten Hope mod for 1942. It's an amazing mod that adds a ton of new content if you still play 1942(and it still has players online I hear), but there's also a version for BF2.
Take off the text, it's redundant since moddb already puts text on top of the banner.
Otherwise it looks good, and not stretched like the other ones were.
About 200 will be built, but they're not attached to their own squadrons. The plan was never to completely replace F-15s, rather it was to integrate F-22s into the existing structure. The production halt means now there will be about a 1:3 ratio of F-22s to F-15s in a squadron, rather than the originally planned 1:1 ratio.
The source of the photo said it was taken in the Austrian Alps.
I'm pretty sure the suspension is from a Pz.I
The side skirts are also removed though. My guess is that their just in the process of doing some sort of maintenance work on it. If it was just missing some wheels that is the type of thing they would probably use reproductions or similar parts from another vehicle for.
It was probably primarily political, as they may not have wanted to continue using captured German tanks when they didn't need to.
The front of the hull looks wrong as well. It really does look like an Abrams, but I think it must be some other tank.
Forgotten Hope 1/2 is about the only FPS I play regularly, and that's more realistic than any main-stream WW2 game. But then again, games are very poor thing to cite as what is realistic, even ones that strive towards realism.
And of course there is camping in WoT, but there is other play styles too. Camping is ALL that real tank combat is. There would be no artillery, you would need about 10 guns to even hope at hitting anything. There would be no scouts or light tanks (well, they were used but not for long). No special ammo (except HVAP/APCBC/PzGr39, ect, which would be all incredible overpowered, and HEAT which would be the ONLY thing most howitzer armed tanks could hurt anything with). Oh, and yeah, no tanks could really go 60 kph off-road, let alone through 2m deep water. Combine that with the fact that aiming was extremely accurate on most tanks when stationary, but difficult when mobile, camping would be all there was in game too.
And lets face, would you really be happier if you could kill a Tiger in 1 shot with a T34, but 5 out of 6 times(Going by the losses as Kursk) it shot you before you got with a kilometer of it? Or on the flip side, would you like spawning in a city map with your fancy Tiger only to find it's useless because everything can kill you in 1 hit anyways, and it doesn't even matter because your engine gives out before you even see an enemy tank?
Realistic tank combat would be pretty lame, as it would just be a massive camp-fest. The HP system makes the game playable at the ranges in which it is fought and increases diversity between tanks.
Plus, you should not be using the 76mm gun on the T34. Its 57mm gun is probably the best gun in the game, given its tier.
It's too big and the suspension is wrong for it to be Universal Carrier. I'm guessing it was built off of a M113, which is a pretty common vehicle to use for mock-ups.
Could easily be none of those. Quality control wasn't so great in WWII, least of all in Germany, so the steel on this Tiger could just be significantly stronger than what it was assumed to have during whatever testing or analysis used to determine if a 122mm gun could penetrate it.
Plus, it could have just been lucky. Those armor penetration tables are good for averages at best, one can't look at one and conclude a shell would penetrate so much armor every time.
Seconding that it was only hit with AP though. HE makes a kind of flower shaped spattering where it hits, and certainly wouldn't bore into the armor like that.
Company of Heroes and Dawn of War 2 show IMO exactly how tanks and infantry should coexist. Tanks are extremely powerful, but if used improperly are just as fragile as infantry, and infantry are essential in any case for holding onto territory.
It's much more realistic than games where armored units are simply more powerful in every way.
Ramelle Neuville is a fictional battle from SPR, so this map is completely based off of the scene from that movief.
The Iraqi army wasn't entirely modern, but it wasn't weak or ill equipped either. Sure the AC-130 wouldn't fair very well against AA or fighters, but the US has no shortage of other aircraft to ensure those things aren't a problem.
Plus, it's for lending fire support for ground troops, which means it doesn't operate deep in hostile territory where it would be easy to hide SAM sites and the like.
Yep, the M2 Browning .50 has been is use since before WWII, and has only seen relatively minor upgrades since then. The US army has only recently begun looking for a replacement, and even that is supposed to be little more than a lighter weight version of the same thing.
Haha, sloped armor goes a lot further back than Soviet tanks. The old ironclads used during the American Civil War employed it, and you really could trace it back into the middle ages if you were generous with your definition of it.
I believe it's a T-60.
I think the word you're looking for by "barrel holder" is mantlet
...We can read the description too you know.
You can't fire well standing up, but guns are insanely inaccurate for about 1 second after going prone, so dolphin diving is quite rare-I think I've only gotten killed once by a dolphin diver since 2.2 came out.
There are also tripod versions of the gun which can be fired standing up, but require the gun to be set up which takes a few seconds.
Specifically it's a mod for Battlefield 1942 called Forgotten Hope (v0.7). People still play it apparently, if you're interested in it.
I think you only need the two 2.45 downloads, not any previous versions.
They were always very much at odds ideologically even while they were military allies, so it seems a bit of a stretch for the German's to have allowed any type of parade by the Soviets.
Helios is a Greek root for sun.
Korea is mostly mountainous and not at all ideal for tank combat, let alone heavy ones, so I wouldn't overestimate the IS-4's usefulness. The Pershing was withdrawn from combat in Korea rather quickly due to being to heavy to properly traverse the terrain, and since the IS-4 was a heavy tank that was dropped primarily due to mobility issues I can't imagine it would have fared any better.
It does look very similar to the T54/T55 chassis, but that doesn't necessarily mean a whole lot since the general shape was pretty common. For instance, the chassis also looks quite similar to that of the British cruiser tanks(For example, the crusader: Upload.wikimedia.org), but nonetheless it shares no meaningful similarities with those tanks.
It's a M107
It's an escape hatch that doubled as a way to throw spent shells out of the turret. Most large German tanks had the same hatch, just located on the back of the turret rather than the side.
To my knowledge the first effective air to air missiles were the R4M's carried by Me262s. There may have been others before those, but regardless they were developed considerably earlier than the Sabre and MiG 15.
He's probably referring to one of the failed super heavy tank designs designated under the KV name. Possible this, though it is fictional:
There's a reason the A-10 was named after the Thunderbolt. The racks of 50 cals on the P-47 couldn't penetrate heavy armor, but could penetrate weak points on tanks' top armor and engine deck, as well as cause damage to exposed external components. They wouldn't make tanks explode of course, but they were more than capable of causing severe damage to all but the most heavily armored vehicles even without using their rockets or bombs.
As far as I'm concerned, piracy is comparable to sneaking into a movie theater without paying. Like a theater(which may still earn money off of concession sales) game companies will not lose any money off of a pirated copy and may even earn some back through word of mouth or DLC sales. Yet, obviously neither business model works if people are allowed to gain free access and it screws over people who buy games legally and have to endure draconian DRM.
However, there is one main difference between sneaking into a movie theatre and pirating a game-if you're over 14 yrs old and sneak into a movie you're going to get ridiculed by your friends, while piracy is deemed relatively socially acceptable. The only way piracy is going to stop is if people start actively rejecting it in social situations. No one wants to be viewed as a thief, and if they start thinking that pirating will make others view them as such they will be far more likely to stop then if they think others see such behavior as acceptable.
The Bishop was not heavy, weighing under 20 tons, and while I don't know much about its reliability record I would assume it is similar to that of the Valentine(which shared the same chassis), which was a quite reliable tank.
Events like that really don't reflect the greater usefulness of a vehicle. You can take any of the early war heavy tanks-Matilda IIs, Churchill Is, KVs, ect.-and find instances where they seemed like unstoppable beasts, but these events are far outnumbered by the ones were the heavy tanks end up abandoned in a ditch without ever firing a shot.
Ultimately though, the KV2 was a victim of its circumstances. It was a vehicle designed for assaulting hardpoints being operated in a time when the Soviets were doing very few offensive operations. By the time the Soviets' situation improved, German weapons had improved enough that the tank's armor was no longer sufficient to make up for its massive profile, slow speed, and short range.
Aye, no experienced general would do that, but the Soviets had the bad habit of positioning politicians to lead their troops. Voroshilov even stepped it up a notch during the Winter War, by not only sending tanks in alone, he didn't even give them orders for what to do if they broke through(and since Soviet tanks of the era didn't have radios, this meant they just ended up milling around uselessly behind Finnish lines until they were all finally picked off).
Plus, the Russians made the same basic mistake of sending in tanks with insufficient support at Grozny in 1994.
Did you check your server filters? If you get on at an odd time there might not be many players, but even then you should be getting much more than 5 servers.