This member has provided no bio about themself...
I'm not sure about regulation, but kill markers were very common on German vehicles and artillery. Typically they were denoted by rings on the barrel, not random dashes on the turret, but the concept is the same.
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.
Do you have a source for that? I've heard basically what you said from multiple people but I don't buy that the US would not release any info on the helicopter at all yet give a detailed explanation like that.
I would assume it would destroy the engine, since that's what petrol bombs were usually used for in WW2. However, flamethrowers have limited range and are extremely conspicuous, so I can't imagine one being useful against a tank that had any proper support.
Not to mention the only way to create an EMP of any size is with a nuke, and once nukes start flying around it's pretty much over anyways.
Well, UAV controllers wouldn't need anywhere near the amount of training a pilot needs. I've worked with civilian UAVs, which are no doubt much less advanced than what the military uses, and you don't really need to do much other than watching for anything going wrong and imputing new orders when necessary. Plus, since military UAVs have a large signal delay, as they're often controlled from very far from the war zone, any air superiority UAV would need to be able to pretty much fight completely on its own.
UAVs certainly have advantages, primarily in cost, but I wouldn't expect to see manned aircraft completely disappear. Besides the technological hurdles facing a UAV that needs to be able to make split second decisions without the aid of a human controller, I simply cannot imagine a military willing to completely go over to a system that requires a GPS hookup to function. Most militarys are already very reliant on GPS or similar systems, but mostly in secondary functions. Having your entire air force grounded because satellite communications were impeded would very different.
Also, there is a very real advantage to having even a relatively small number of highly advanced fighters. For example, the US has basically not had to endure any significant air combat in the last few decades, mostly because the F-15 showed itself to be pretty much invulnerable to anything they were fighting. There's little doubt that Iraq would have fielded its air force in 2003, rather than scuttling most of it, if they thought they could do damage to the US forces even if they still knew they couldn't obtain air superiority.
B1's are intended to be used in the way you mentioned, not B2s. B2s are far too valuable for the US to risk in any sort of air-to-air engagement, and the only reason to include B1's is to compensate for the F-35's and F-22's relatively low payload of missiles while stealthed.
Furthermore, the US armed forces have expressed no concern over the ability of the F-22 to handle other air superiority fighters. While Russia and China may be working on their own programs, almost all specific information regarding the F-22 and other modern fighters is classified, the PAK-FA/T-50 is still in the prototyping phase, and almost nothing at all is known about the J-20. There is no way anyone outside of the intelligence community can make any reasonable comparison between these fighters.
Certainly if you can have only one branch, you want a land army. However,I'm referring to the fact that most well funded militarys value the three branches roughly equally. For instance, the distribution(percentages) in the US budget is as follows:
Army : 31.8
Navy : 27.4
This is of course not a perfect comparison though because all three branches have their own aircraft, infantry, and ships(except the airforce).
It's much more complex than the manpower disrupted to each front and there are more complex factors involved. For instance, most of the major eastern "collaborators" (Ukraine, Finland, Romania ect.) didn't like the Germans either, but they hated the Soviets. These nations would not have fought against any of the other allies, it was the Soviets own bad foreign policy that made these nations align with Germany.
Plus, by modern standards naval and air power are equally important as a land army and the western allies certainly did more than the soviets in terms of destroying the Axis's airforces and navys.
I'm assuming he means for export variants, the US obviously has modern equipment for its own tanks.
I was confused by that boss. Was there even a point to destroying the towers?
It took me and my friend about half an hour to kill him in the Eldar campaign.
Pure DU is barely radioactive at all, and externally it's not much more harmful than common, naturally occurring elements like radon. This isn't to say there aren't health concerns with it, but its small degree of radioactivity really isn't the main problem.
Also, while it is highly reactive, in bulk it isn't any more flammable than many other metals used in armor like aluminum. Under the right conditions it can "burn" even at room temperature, but a solid plate or mesh of the substance won't ignite from an HE round any more than a M113 would.
It used the same round and had very similar performance to the M3 75mm that was used with the Sherman. However, as late war Shermans mostly used the 76mm M1 they had an edge in AP performance.
The screen shot is from a freeware game called Battleships Forever. It's unrelated to WH40K but you can build your own ships to look like whatever you want.
It is just a presentation to THQ/Relic from when they were looking at the studio for the original Dawn of War game.
It's purely conjecture, but it seems to me at least part of that could come from people looking at different levels of the command structure.
There wouldn't be much reason for a Soviet general to like the Sherman, as to him its a tank that fulfills the exact same role as the T-34 but presents an added logistics burden due to using unique ammunition, spare parts, ect. However, the crews actually driving the tanks would no doubt have a very different perspective of them.
Well, all auto-loaders are pretty big, and circular, revolving magazines are actually pretty common on them, albeit they generally aren't oriented directly behind the gun like a revolver.
The problem with the said design is that the tank would need both a human loader and a auto-loader, since it could fire 6 shells at a very fast rate of fire but then would need to be reloaded manually.
Also, 13 rounds/minute is pretty average for a modern gun. Manually loaded Leopards and M1A2s both average around 15 r/m.
"Tommy Cooker" was coined as a result of early/mid war Shermans having a slightly higher than average chance of catching fire when hit, Shermans had a superb reliability history with the Western nations that used it. I've never heard of the Soviets having a problem with it, but if they did I would guess it was caused by the weaker training of Soviet drivers(T34s were famously easy to drive, Shermans not so much).
And Soviets crews loved the Sherman, in addition to excellent visibility and a 3-man turret it was practically like riding in a Cadillac when compared to most Soviet tanks. Hell, it even had leather seats.
The L24 armed Pz.IVs were for infantry support only, they usually didn't even bother carry more than a couple rounds of AP or HEAT ammunition, so I don't think you can count its poor AT performance against it. However, it would make sense to change the Pz.IV Ausf E to one of the later model Panzer IIIs, like J or L, because those are mostly what fought T-34/76s.
Also, putting the Pz.III and Crusader with the light tanks isn't that absurd, they just need to change them to the proper models. The Crusader Mk.I or any of the 37mm armed Pz.IIIs would fit in okay as a light tank.
Basically I can see two advantages of a walker design - the tank could move side to side without turning and it could move better over rock or uneven ground. These things might make a design viable in the future for a very specific use, like mountainous or jungle warfare, but as it is there are just way too many drawbacks to the design.
Pz.IIs saw service throughout the entire war, although they were pretty rare late in it.
This is a Pz.I, not a Pz.II, however. Pz.Is were certainly not a regular site on the battlefield in '44, but they did see sporadic service including about a dozen that saw combat during Normandy. The Germans kept around a lot of these early/pre-war tanks for anti-partisan duties, some of which inevitable saw regular combat.