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.
Stuart Recces were quite common and lacked a turret, which is what I assume would be the case here. It looks to be in too good a condition to have had it's turret blown off completely, considering the chassis and suspension doesn't look badly damaged as they would in the case of something like an ammunition explosion.
It's pretty impressive that the SU-27 didn't stall, given how it was going rather slow and at a nearly 90* angle of attack for a moment there. It's amazing how agile modern fighter aircraft are.
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.
Some tanks did use separated compartments, but even in these cases the separations weren't going to stop a round that could punch through the tanks main armor, or stop an ammunition fire. Depending on where the tank was hit some members of the crew are naturally going to have a better chance of survival than others, but it will mostly just be their proximity to the hit.
Museums often cut sections of armor off tanks to allow viewers to see inside, and there are plenty of pictures of these tanks on the internet. This is what the driver's area of a Sherman is like, for example:
Same reason that the Germans made the StuG IV even though they had the Pz.IV-cost. Turrets are expensive to build, and aren't necessary for certain roles.
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.
Just buy the game ffs, it's not expensive...
You may be able to play it without buying CR though. IIRC DoW 2 is like CoH in that people who don't have the expansions can still play against those who do, so you should have all the game files someone who bought CR has if you have your game patched.
I'm sure the devs would know more about this though.
That figure is rather misleading, as it's the total cost of the program divided by the number of B-2s built. The actually cost of building a new one is far, far lower but because the USSR collapsed and program got cut to only a fraction of its original size, the average cost per plane gets blown way out of proportion due to the high R&D costs and how few of the planes were actually built.
There's no external view on tanks and aircraft to represent the limited visuals of such vehicles.
Really depends on the model of Sherman, late war models that had used wet storage for ammo were one of the safest tanks to be in when a penetrating shot occurred. I don't know if the Shermans sent to the USSR were ever updated though.
I'd hate to see this die...
Maybe try releasing some more media of what you have finished, since you haven't shown much here over the last year. This would draw attention to the mod, which is good by itself, and might catch the eyes of some modders willing to help.
ERA requires the block to detonate to be effective, while the A-10's cannon is very accurate and fires at an incredible rate. Even if the armor was effective 100% of the time(I'd be even surprised if it even worked half the time) two rounds hitting close enough to each other or on an unprotected portion of the tank is not unlikely.
Javelins(which is what the missile in the picture looks like), along with most other modern HEAT weaponry use a precursor warhead to detonate any ERA armor prior to the main warhead firing, making ERA much less effective.
It's an WW2 era carrier, by today's standards it would probably be classified as an assault ship or the like though.
That's what I'm refering to in FH2's first release. I never played that version, but the dev's are pretty adamant about not bringing it back.
If a type of tank was at a battle in significant numbers, and the mod has it ingame, it will most likely be found on the map. The reason tigers aren't common is just that there are only a handful of late war armored maps and Tigers simply weren't very common in real life.
Also, I'm assuming you're referring to the Pz. III Ausf. N, which is historically accurate, and is only on late war Africa maps. You are correct that most earlier models had a 50mm or 37mm gun however, and the 50mm versions are by far the most common Africa maps.
As for tanks being disabled or immobilized it is not possible to do in the engine, and was done to a certain extent the original release of the mod(they became extremely hard to drive) but was taken out because it just didn't work well. I highly doubt it is possible to make crews survive either.
Dice developed it, EA just published it :P
I can't officially speak for the mod team, but they'll do what they can. I don't think there are plans for what front comes after the western front is finished, but they'll hopefully get to other fronts eventually(don't expect it for a long time though-they were working on Normandy from before the initial release of the mod 3 years ago).
It definitely deserves a vote. I just wish they'd be a little more active on the PR side of things so more people noticed this mod.
The rules specifically say that the mod must "have released a version of their mod to the public in 2009" to be categorized as released, so it'll be competing in the proper group.
It really depends on the game, but I chose maps. While I love total conversions, I rarely play mods that simply add a handful of new units or weapons to the existing content for very long, as these mods tend to be unbalanced. However, maps are usually easier to balance and can add variety to a game without causing gameplay issues.
Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a large player base in Australia's time zone but if you can play when it's the evening in Europe there should be plenty of players.