This member has provided no bio about themself...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 The Pershing was withdrawn from combat in Korea rather quickly due to being to heavy to properly traverse the terrain, and since the IS-4 was a heavy tank that was dropped primarily due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.
Agreed. It'd fit right in fighting robots in some Japanese anime.
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.
Probably Mechanized Combat Vehicle. That's what it stands for the the Warrior's name(MCV-80).
Quote:It's ridiciously unrealistic, atleast when I played it. Shermans can easily take out Panthers and what not...
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.
Quote:how about damage values and critical damage? Can you blow of the tracks, kill the driver and all ...like WoT has but made it suck because it's based on dice rolls?
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.
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.
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
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.