This member has provided no bio about themself...
This is the cockpit layout of the F-35:
The F-35 and F-22 both were designed with human interfaces as a primary concern, and have probably the best cockpit layouts in existance. The F-15 was revolutionary due to its excellent electronics, but suffered for the exact same reason-the amount of information available was simply overwhelming to pilots. Pilot skill for the F-15 was mostly measured by how well a person could make sense of the many, many monitors, dials and other sensors while simultaneously being aware of their position in combat. The newer aircraft allow pilots to focus more on combat by greatly condensing sensor outputs and other cockpit functions, and this has been a huge selling point for the military.
Most T-72's still in use are encased in enough ERA that they'll have, at a minimum, a fair chance again most light infantry AT weapons, although generally they would still be worse off than Western tanks.
The Soviets followed a Cold War doctrine of overwhelming enemy ground forces with a large quantity of armor, and as a result their tanks were much smaller, cheaper and lighter than Western tanks (most Western tanks like the Abrams or Leopard II range from about 25%-50% heavier than the T-80 and T-72). While the smaller size of the tanks negates some difference in weight, the Soviet tanks were generally not as well armored as comparable western models.
Arguably this has made Soviet armor not age very well, since the type of large scale ground warfare the T-72 was built for has (thankfully) began to seem unlikely to occur anytime soon.
I think part of the problem with this and the last aircraft is that the wing is too far back for the aircraft to be stable realistically. Consciously or not, people are used to seeing aircraft that have certain layouts, and so it looks strange if those layouts are changed.
I don't care about realism, but following a realistic design can sometimes make things look more appealing.
The one on the left looks like an M36 Jackson. The suspension and turret don't match a Hellcat's and the gun seems too large for it to be an M10.
Yep, the under slung plane is the SpaceShipOne, which made headlines a while ago for making the first privately funded manned spaceflight.
Specifically it's a mod for Battlefield 1942 called Forgotten Hope (v0.7). People still play it apparently, if you're interested in it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I'm assuming he means for export variants, the US obviously has modern equipment for its own tanks.
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.
"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.
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.
It's armed with a pair of low caliber MGs, it was obviously never intended to fight other tanks.
It must have really sucked for the crews that were still stuck driving these relics in '44 though.
Actually it's a gigantic girl. Or a very small version of the tank.
You know why these are called UAVs and not RC planes? Because they aren't remotely controlled, they fly themselves. It doesn't need a constant connection to the ground controller, that's only require for it to change what programs it's following. And even in the best conditions, the autopilot controller can't make split second changes, as UAVs are generally controlled from very far from the front line(Nevada, in the case of the US), so there is a significant signal delay.
And plus, there isn't any modern fighter aircraft that could fly through an EMP(good thing they are extremely difficult to make), and electronic warfare aircraft aren't that common these days because they were never particularly effective.
The tendency for the Sherman to catch on fire is grossly exaggerated. For one, it was the first tank to have wet storage for ammunition, and as a result by the end of WWII it was by far the least fire-prone tank in service. Moreover, even early and mid-war Shermans were not significantly more likely to catch on fire when hit than many other tanks, such Panthers.
I can say I see it. The armor layout is completely different, with different turret shapes(one hemispherical, one rectangular) and different philosophies on sloping the front and rear armor(the challenger has a mostly flat glacis plate like that of a Kingtiger or Panther and a rearward sloping back, where as the IS7 has a pointed front like the IS3 and a inward sloping back). Moreover their suspension is completely different.
I really don't see anything significant they have in common...
Seconding that the vast majority of these images look like the result of bombings.
Not this one though, I'm not sure what's going on here... The more I look at this one the more I'm confused. At first I thought the StuG just fell through a bridge, but there isn't anything a bridge would be going over. It looks like it may have partially fallen through and gotten stuck in the roof of some sort of dugout or bunker, but it wouldn't make any sense to drive onto something like that.
It may have driven onto the rubble and then was destroyed by something else, but all the nearby terrain is clear, so it would have been stupid to drive onto a big pile of logs that's likely to damage the vehicles suspension or get it stuck. Plus, it's facing a wall, which it probably wouldn't be doing if it was just trying to cross the rubble, or if it was in combat.
The KV-1/-2 are pretty lower tier, you shouldn't have to grind much to get them. If you save up enough gold to get premium it should only take a few hours of playing.
At least it makes more sense than the ones who don't wear a helmet at all...
Eh? The Sherman is probably the best example of a tank being underestimated, not glorified. When it entered service in North Africa it was far better than the Crusader I/II and Pz.III J/L, the most common tanks of it's class at the time. It was left with the 75mm M3 gun for too long, leaving it underarmed when fighting Panthers and Tigers in Normandy, but by 1945 once it was up-gunned and wet storage of ammunition was adopted it was again a solid tank. The thing showed itself to be effective in combat as late as the 1970's, it was not a bad tank...
As for the main argument, the ME262 was easily one of the best fighters of the war in most combat situations, but as with all early jets its engines gave poor thrust at low velocities, which, as the person under me said, made it very susceptible to being shot down during takeoff and landing.
That was generally how it was used, however while it was okay at suppressing troops in towns and other large targets, it was too inaccurate to be effective against specific strong points such as pillboxs.
Moreover, it could not effectively operate as a normal tank with it's massive profile and what was basically several hundred pounds of explosives sitting unprotected on its roof.
Yes, but it couldn't be used effectively as both a tank and an artillery platform simultaneously. Positioning it as an artillery battery meant it would not see combat on the front line, where the tank could have been useful.
But it also took a otherwise useful tank out of action. The Wurfrahmen 40 launchers the Germans used were more effective, being a similar idea but mounting the rockets on armored vehicles that were not so critical to normal combat.
I'm not familiar with this specific aircraft, but it's clearly powered by a jet engine, not a rocket. Me163s were awful, yes, but had the Soviets been able to build something to rival the Me262, or any of the German jets, I can assure you they would have.
What exactly do you mean by that?
You have me very curious about this.
Heh, those look almost exactly like the ones in Dawn of War.
I suppose it is the same setting though so it makes sense.
Would it happen to be a ISU-152-2? Because that's what the image name says...
But both those guns weigh under 1100kg, compared to this which weighs 3700 kg. There's no way a few soldiers could push it across uneven ground.
Will this be static like the American TOW, or will it be movable in some way? I only ask because it looks like it weighs far too much to be moved by hand.
I'm not sure how that says anything about the tank's capabilites... Some models of the PzIII and IV were very solid designs, saying one could stand a chance against a T34 doesn't insult that tank's capabilities(particularly on the Russian steppes where the Germans had an advantage from the heavier guns of the PzIV). The Germans were constantly short on tanks however, so they needed something that would suffer less attrition when combating T34s.
Like everything humans design the T34 had advantages and weaknesses in all areas(including armament and armor). I fine with not citing specifics here as well since there's so many variants of each tank it's hard to compare any two.
Anyways, this discussion has gone on way too long and it's not something I care that much about honestly, so I'm done with it.
Okay, please point out where I said the T34 was a bad tank. In fact, in the very post you're responding to I specifically said it was not a bad tank.
By cost I mean economic cost. Seeing as I'm sure at least one German officer in the entire war complained about the larger number of enemy tanks than Axis tanks, they did talk about cost, yes.
I was merely making fun of his flowery word choice, I know that he meant a military historian.
And the Panther was largely a response to the T34. However, it was more a response to the large numbers of T34s than the tank's actual capabilities. The various 75mm/L42 and /L48 models of the Pz.IV could compete with a T34-76/-85 1 for 1, but seeing as the Germans rarely had the luxury of fighting with that ratio, they needed a tank that was more than just an equivalent of what the Soviets had. This is the reason almost all late war German tanks were armed with low caliber, high velocity guns heavily geared towards tank combat.
And note, I never said the T34 was a bad tank, it wasn't. I was merely saying that one cannot rightfully say the Sherman was bad because it was cheap, then glorify the T34, when the T34's primary advantage over the Sherman was the T34's low cost.
Please direct me to this someone who actually put "international military expert" on a resume their job title.
I wish to laugh at them.
The Germans used tanks from all sorts of different countries, including both the T34 and 7TP. Their early war tanks were mostly terrible and they didn't have very many of them, so they used almost anything they could capture. There were even unmodified pre-war tanks like Somua 35s fighting in the Normandy invasion that had been captured during the initial invasion of France.
There have been plenty of sci-fi aircraft posted before.
I really don't understand how someone could call the Sherman cheap **** and then turn around and say the T34 was one of the best tanks of the war, when the Sherman performed similarly or better than comparable models of the T34 in almost every way except cost.
Wow, what a puny bayonet. It barely even goes past the end of the barrel.
I'm not sure about modern tanks, but a lot of older tanks have special hatches to throw away spent shells during combat, usually in the back of the turret and often doubling as escape hatches.
However, because breeches usually evacuate shell cases immediately after firing, I'm guessing most just are left in the tank until they cool down and there's a lull in combat.
Essentially the competition is set up so the same mod can't win twice, so if a particularly popular mod like Counter-Strike came around it wouldn't just win every year and make the competition boring. However, if a mod wins a lower rank, such as 5th, it can still win a place higher than that.
Now, if a mod wins, but undergoes a major update(such as Dear Ester's coming update), then it could win again, but only if the update was so large there is little content from the original mod remaining. The updated mod would need to be able to be considered unique from the previous winner.
As a clarification I'm not staff, but I've been around for a while and understand the rules.
In my opinion it could have won then, and it's only been getting better since then.
They're different, but singleplayer requires vastly more mapping work, and depending on the engine it can require a lot of work to get functional AI. Of course, a well balanced and deep multiplayer game can take just as long, but to simply get the game to a playable level singleplayer is probably more difficult.
The game(Both BF2 and FH2) is meant primarily meant to be multiplayer. There are a number of community driven efforts to further improve the singleplayer gameplay that you can find on the FH2 forums, but singleplayer will never rival multiplayer in terms of quality.
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.
I'd argue differently, but it doesn't change any of the points in my original post so who cares?
I'm thinking this must just be a translation issue. "Anti-Japanese war of resistance" sounds like the mod is specifically made for the point of being against the Japanese race, with a secondary description that it is also about a war of resistance. It ends up sounding extremely biased, not to mention rather racist.
Probably you mean something along the lines of "War of Resistance against the Japanese," which is clear but sounds stupid in English. A better name would just be something simpler like "Chinese Resistance," ect.
I've got to agree with the people who are skeptical about this mod's name.
The modeling/texture work looks excellent but I'm having a real hard time believing this mod is going to be balanced when it's outspokenly Anti-Japanese.
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.
As Maltix said, probably infantry support. The Ausf. J's gun would have trouble hurting tanks as small as a T34. However, it wouldn't be lightly armored, as Pz. III's were more heavily armored than many models of the Pz.IV.