|
SeanBeansShako posted:THE PANTHER TANK IS UNDER THE HOUSE!
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2016 23:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 10:40 |
|
|
Yvonmukluk posted:I've got a question on WWII. Literally anything in China is an unknown when it comes to land combat. Not sure how you'd make it appealing or fun, but its definitely a theatre not encountered (unless you play ASL or groggy PC wargames like Order of Battle). Most of the China-Burma-India theatre hasn't really been explored either, although some games (Like Call of Duty World At War) have had events directly, or indirectly affecting/referencing them. Anyone vs. Vichy France is hardly ever talked about or referenced (See: Battle of Madagascar, Operation Torch, Operation Dragoon). Having some insurgency gameplay ala "The Saboteur" with that setting could make for an interesting game, in my opinion. And then you have the vastness of the Eastern Front. We've all seen Stalingrad, Warsaw or the Reichstag done multiple times but there are plenty of other locations that would be worth a look. Operations and other military plans that never came to fruition could also be quite intriguing. Things like Operation Tannenbaum, Operation Herkules, and others could prove interesting thought experiments on the war as a whole (What if Germany invades the Swiss, how does that affect combat operations in the east?). It would probably be taken too far by some as some sort of justification that Country X could've won the war earlier or whatever, but I guess that already happens so who cares? 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2016 23:37
|
|
|
Splode posted:Is it the panther or the tiger that's gears break before it runs out of fuel. I can never remember. Sometimes they were painted with huge identifying marks, other times they were small, but I've regularly seen 'regular' sized markings.      
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2016 23:40
|
|
|
DID SOMEONE SAY TIGER?! Time to put on some extra defenses, boys!    ArchangeI posted:The Germans absolutely painted giant iron crosses on their captured tanks (often with a swastika or two for good measure, just to be sure). The Western Allies obviously didn't have as much need for captured vehicles (apparently small arms were much more sought after). No idea about the Soviets but they have that hilarious quote re: Tigers and Panthers so I'm guessing they didn't much care. Depends on the unit, honestly. 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2016 23:43
|
|
|
Empress Theonora posted:Seeing a Sherman being used by the Nazis makes me really sad in a way I'm not sure I can justify regarding a piece of inanimate military equipment. Ok, now imagine if this got together with this And you've got another example of a captured Sherman.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2016 00:32
|
|
|
Koramei posted:why does it have an eagle on it? i thought those were always associated with nobility/ monarchy It's a Polish T-34 (Should be, anyways.)
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2016 01:44
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:How do you capture a B-17? Did they belly land somewhere and were in a repairable state? Basically, yes. You force a B-17 to land, capture the crew, and then use parts from various other captured examples to repair one (or more) to flying condition. Then you test it intensively to find weaknesses in the design, turret/gunner arcs, etc. 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2016 01:47
|
|
|
Empress Theonora posted:It's more like "the Sherman is literally the only tank I can identify by sight because I'm a WW2 equipment dunce", actually. There's always googling up "ww2 tank profiles"  Or buying books that are literally "Recognition Guides" Although, you do end up with this stuff once in a while...  "Main Battle Tank"
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2016 01:53
|
|
|
Yo, Raenir, wrt questions + last thread... https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/50002/check-your-6-breaking-luftwaffe https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/160418/wing-leader-victories-1940-1942 https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/5614/achtung-spitfire https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/83092/303 There are a bunch of other ones on boardgamegeek if you search for Flight/Aviation -> Category: WW2 -> Mechanic: Hex-and-Counter How far you go vis-a-vis Realism/Fun might be a little tricky, good luck!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2016 02:52
|
|
|
Plan Z posted:One of my favorite war games is the Brothers in Arms series. The first one really stands out for me in that instead of the "fight five battles over 6 years" formula in most similar games, it's a series of engagements over 8 consecutive days as your squad gets ground down and de-moralized. The sort of side-plot about the one suicidal soldier was kind of lame, but a lot of good humanizing moments came out of the story, which is incredibly rare for a war game. It also tones down the head-popping insanity of CoD and MoH by focusing on a "suppress and flank" mechanic using fire squads so that you don't feel like you're liberating France entirely by yourself. Man, when you put it like that, it would be cool if someone revisited this with any country.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2016 02:56
|
|
|
Monocled Falcon posted:I want to troll some wehraboos: buy one of those fancy model kits for some obscure nazi tank and paint it up as captured by the Soviets. Do one of the Leningrad Tigers A.K.A. the first ones that saw combat and where one was captured by the Russians because it bogged in swampy terrain.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2016 04:48
|
|
|
spectralent posted:KV-2 is so cute. Well, when you have one road through a marsh and a giant column of vehicles, any tank that could reliably penetrate any of the tank therein would've been successful at that. I remember it ran out of ammo, which is why the crew ended up abandoning it and withdrawing. Also, the KV-2 did not like any terrain that wasn't flat.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2016 15:11
|
|
|
Yvonmukluk posted:Obviously these scans are not the best, unfortunately, but hopefully they're a bit helpful. I'm sure EnsignExpendable has links to better guides. "The Panzer II's main combat drawback was His description of the Panther tank makes me assume he was jerking off as he wrote it.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2016 15:19
|
|
|
Yvonmukluk posted:Still he does at least admit the T-34-85 also deserves to be called the best medium tank of WW2. Even if it should share the crown with the Easy Eight and not the Panther. The problem is that "Best X of WWII" often falls flat or has some individual bias that tarnishes the argument. Do you look at the potential a design had? Do you look at the various strengths and weakness and, if so, which variant(s) do you compare? Do you examine combat reports where only tanks fought eachother, or do you allow air-to-ground reports or combined arms actions? There's no denying the T-34 is a good/great (Choose one) tank but "Best of X" always bugs me. Admittedly, I'm weird and a grog so
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2016 21:16
|
|
|
Even similar-sized guns in terms of calibre can be vastly different, just look at the 7.62x54R vs 7.62x39. One's a rifle cartridge, the other for assault rifles. Even the mighty German 88mm gun had multiple variations that used different rounds entirely. You've got the 88x571mm round in the first iteration, which was then upped to a whopping 88x855mm. 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2016 23:26
|
|
|
Yvonmukluk posted:I know Zaloga put out 'Armoured Champion' to finally put a lid on this and made sure to rate everything both from a commander's perspective but also from a tanker's view. I'm sure there'll never be a definitive answer, but I think we can all agree the Panther was overrated. I just put it down as "okay/good" but great is certainly stretching it. In any case, here's a post I don't think I ever put in the old military thread. Jobbo_Fett posted:Random Assorted Ammunition
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
Dazzle camo will never not be great.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2016 00:55
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:We don't do pacific air combat enough, other than occasionally rehashing midway and the general state of things before the hellcat. Many moons ago posted:Japan has a wide variety of aircraft. I've effort-posted a few times on them that I could try to fish from the archives if people don't mind me reposting content from a different thread. I'm always up to talking about planes. May not have a lot on Japanese Air Force tactics, unfortunately.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Yeah. I don't have a ton of that yet either, I'll need to decant sunburst into my head before I get rolling, and probably ought to do at least some light reading of the start of Dull's battle history of the IJN. That's why I tend to keep my posts short. There's so much to talk about, too, which makes it hard to choose just one thing.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:Edit: I forget the actual Lakota word since it's pretty rarely used, but there's another epithet for mixed-race (white and Lakota) people that means literally "translator." The French traders made a deliberate practice of marrying Native American women so they could have a translator and multilingual kids. Many, many Native American families have French surnames today. AKA Métis. At least, that's been my understanding of it. I really need to start reading up on that...
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
Lol, I'm the guy who goes to "Google this for me" rather than linking some articles/websites.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2016 23:47
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:OK, here's a question about planes. Namely, the Kawanishi H8K 'Emily' flying boat. I know little about the H8K, but for some reason whenever I see a blurb about it, it's described as "one of the best flying boats of the war." Do you know why this is? Because it looks like a Japanese Sunderland to me. If I remember correctly, and I'll have to double-check with what books, but I seem to recall that it had really good flight characteristics as well as a good hull shape. It could fly huge distances and had a lot of defensive guns to protect it, 10 guns, half of those cannons, give it a mean punch! Double checking with Wikipedia, its article is rather short, but I do have at least one of the books that cites the "Best Flying Boat" line so I'll make sure to check the exact reason(s) they give.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2016 01:53
|
|
|
The Kawanishi H8K "Emily" Most of this will be based on R.J. Francillon's "Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War," which is a very good source for just about every aircraft they had at the time. Checking the stats on the H8K2 (which the stats are provided for on Wikipedia's page), they differ only by the smallest of margins. Hopefully, I can cover all the different important factors in the H8K's design and implementation. Firstly, it came after the Short Sunderland (1937) and the PB2Y Coronado (1937), both of which are large, 4 engined flying boats whose purpose was maritime patrol, transport, and ASW duties. It should also be pointed out that flying boats weren't important for some countries, or at least not as important as Britain, the USA, and Japan. For example, Russia had several indigenous designs, but settled on using Lend Lease PBY Catalinas, whereas Germany had the monstrous BV-222 Viking and the less resource-intensive Do-16/Do-18. As a result, I'll try to keep comparisons to the two aforementioned aircraft: the Short Sunderland, and the PB2Y Coronado. Aircraft like the JRM Mars, the Short Shetland, and the BV-238 were either not produced in high numbers, still being tested, or still in the prototype stage. Alright, now that thats out of the way, let's begin with the fact that the H8K's design was a development from a request for an aircraft that could outperform the Short Sunderland, and the civilian Sikorsky XPBS-1 (AKA the VS-44). According to Francillon, the stipulations were for a plane that had a top speed of 276 mph, a cruising speed of 207 mph, and a max patrol range of 4,500 nautical miles. It would attain none of these (in its first variant, and only achieve 1 in the 'best' variant of the type) but that doesn't mean it was a failure. In fact, its one of the exceptions when it comes to Japanese aircraft where the designers thought that protecting the crew and having great safety features was a good idea rather than a waste of resources. To that end, the H8K had 14 individual fuel tanks - 8 unprotected tanks in the wings, 6 protected ones in the fuselage. The fuselage tanks had a carbon dioxide fire extinguisher system similar to the Yak-1 (or was it the Yak-9 and beyond?), with the tanks being partially self-sealing. In addition, the H8K had a system where leaking fuel (in the hull) could be pumped into the undamaged tank(s) thereby limiting the problem. Speaking of fuel, the H8K was designed to carry some 17,000 litres of fuel, roughly 30% of its take-off weight. Protection and defensive armament was also rather substantial, although the armor is only stated as being "extensively provided" which can't be a bad thing, at least. The prototype had 5 20mm cannons and 3 7.7mm machine guns, while the first production model would reduce the number of cannons, which were then brought back in subsequent versions. It could also carry 2 800kg torpedos (long lances), 8 250kg bombs, or 16 60kg bombs/depth charges. Compared to the Sunderland and Coronado, the H8K is the only aircraft to have cannons and either has a similar or worse bombload. For reference, the Sunderland would end the war with an average 18 machine guns (.303 or .50 cal), while the Coronado had 8 50.cal defensive guns.  The prototype version suffered from some handling and performance issues. Reports state that the high speed taxi-ing and take-off was "highly disappointing", but both of these were mostly remedied by modifying the shape of the hull of the aircraft, making it slightly deeper in the process. By the time it went into production, it carried four 1,530HP engines, and these were replaced by four 1,850HP engines in the H8K2 variant. By the time the H8K1 was authorized for serial production, it was already 1941. I want to point this out because 4 years is a huge(!) step up from the prewar designs and both of the comparative aircraft were using weaker engines. Because of the improvements vis-a-vis engine power thus allowing it to carry more fuel (now almost 19k litres!), the prototype's number of cannons (5), it gained a reputation as a hard to down plane. Interestingly, there were transport variants of the H8K, these being capable of carrying 29 passengers, or 64 soldiers, but this necessitated less defensive guns and a lowered amount of fuel carried. Boring Stats ahead! So, to go along with Wikipedia, since its a lot easier for people to check themselves (and because I haven't done any extensive readings of the Sunderland or the Coronado) let's compare the stats between the three planes. code:code:code:In any case, its clear to see that the Kawanishi H8K flew faster, higher, and for longer than either aircraft. All while having similar defensive armament and having similar, or 'slightly' less offensive power. It does have the benefit of having been in production later, and specifically to beat the Sunderland, which it does quite well. Its undoubtedly a great aircraft, and one of the examples of Japanese design that could be very good but, for every good design produced, they had others with shortcuts and limitations. Fake edit: Forgot code doesn't all bbcode, whatever. Its late, I might add photos tomorrow. Jobbo_Fett fucked around with this message at 17:16 on Aug 5, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2016 08:01
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:Could the overpressure be enough to throw off someone's balance? Cause him to fall down instead of a planned "hit the dirt" dive response? That could result in a lot of false kills. Doubtful, since again you're not creating enough of a pressure difference by missing with a projectile. You might react instinctively by going to ground because you heard (or saw) a projectile coming your way /passing you by, but you're not getting dizzy or knocked off your feet by a miss.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2016 08:42
|
|
|
lenoon posted:Yeah, keep the Lakota chat in the thread, we're all really just history nerds with overlapping niche interests, so go for it! Always yes
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2016 08:43
|
|
|
spectralent posted:Does it have an explosive round, or something similar? If some of the shrapnel hit someone in the leg or something they might think they'd been hit full-on and go down, maybe. Not sure, but at that point its not overpressure anyways so
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2016 16:39
|
|
|
spectralent posted:Oh, sure, I'm just wondering if they might've seen someone hit by what's basically a small grenade going off by then and misunderstood what happened. Definitely a possibility, since you don't tend to care about what specifically shot/wounded you 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2016 16:45
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:And thank you for this! I now think that "best flying boat" claim has merit. Honestly, had it been remotely possible/feasible, the Germans should have been importing those things. I can add a little to your analysis: the Sunderland, while good in may ways, definitely had flaws. The first was that it wasn't as powerful as it should have been; Mk.I-III were modestly powered by "in the thick of it" WW2 standards. A bigger flaw was their lack of feather-able propellers, which made dead engines a danger. (The dead engines would cause huge drag, to the point that the engine might rip itself off of the wing, possibly hitting the tail on its way out and wrecking the plane.) The third flaw was its defensive armament: while it was better than many pre-war RAF aircraft, it still was not heavy enough. To schnoor in on the ballistic discussion for a second, the Sunderland used .303 brownings in its turrets, only using .50s in its 'waist' positions. Once it all kicked off, upgrading the guns to all .50 cals would have been a cheap and useful upgrade that of course didn't happen, so credit to the Japanese there for going in for cannon right off the bat. Oh, here's something: you've probably heard that German pilots nicknamed the Short Sunderland the flying Porcupine? That appears to be a myth. I have a AIRPLANE! or similar magazine that did a special issue just on the Short Sunderland, and it contents this was something said by British Propaganda in 1940; there's no actual evidence the Germans actually did this. Everybody's just been repeating the flying porcupine thing ever since. Didn't know about the non-featherable props, which is quite surprising considering, like you said, the increased drag. That flying porcupine bit is intriguing, do you have a link? I've never heard of it being a myth and it would be neat dispelling that.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:I think the M3 Lights were riveted until the A3 version. The M3's had a welded hull by the time the A3 variant was put into production. Occasionally, you can see an M5 or some late M3 tanks with rivets on the upper rear hull, along with welding. As for the M3 Medium Tank, it had two variants with riveted hulls, one with cast hull, and another with a welded hull. Also, found this M4 effort post I did for a dumb game, reposted for posterity. The M4 Medium Tank "Sherman"  Production Dates*: M4: July 1942 - January 1944 M4(105): February 1944 - March 1945 M4A1: February 1942 - December 1943 M4A1(76)W: January 1944 - July 1945 M4A2: April 1942 - May 1944 M4A2(76)W: April 1944 - May 1945 M4A3: June 1942 - September 1943 M4A3(105): May 1944 - June 1945 M4A3(75)W: February 1944 - March 1945 M4A3(76)W: March 1944 - April 1945 M4A3E2: June 1944 - July 1944 M4A3E8(76): August 1944 M4A3E8(105): September 1944 M4A4: July 1942 - November 1943 M4A6: October 1943 - February 1944 *:This information was taken directly from Wikipedia. One source is a dead link and the 2nd doesn't mention all the same info, so take this with a grain of salt. Shortest production run: M4A3E8 (75) and (105) - 1 month Lowest production run: M4A6 - 75 examples Ascending order by production date*: M4A1 M4A2 M4A3 M4 - M4A4 M4A6 M4A1(76)W M4(105) - M4A3(75)W M4A3(76)W M4A2(76)W M4A3(105) M4A3E2 M4A3E8(76) M4A3E8(105) *This list created solely with the use of the above-mentioned production dates. Despite the naming convention, the M4 was not the first Sherman to be produced but the overall design did go through many different iterations and modifications. Throughout it's service life it was up-gunned, reinforced with more armor and re-engined for better mobility. It also used several different types of tracks, had many personal modifications by their crew, and multiple attempts to add more protection for the crew by the crew. So even though the M4 didn't come first, I'll start with it since it was the base design.  M4  The original M4, even though it wasn't the first to be produced, was named that way because it was the first model standardized for production. It was expected that there would be a bottleneck in production of the cast upper hull of the M4A1, which is why it was built. In fact, the M4 and the M4A1 differed only in the hull, the welded hull allowed for the stowage of seven more 75mm rounds than in the cast hull; the M4 had a welded hull and the M4A1 had a cast upper hull with welded sides. All M4's had a Wright R-975-C1 9-cylinder radial engine, driving a 5-speed manual synchromesh transmission with the final drive in the nose of the vehicle. The high-angle hull was a result of the height of the engine and the angled propeller shaft, and the vertical sides were designed to reduce production times. The width of the tank was dictacted by the turret ring, which necessitated full-length sponsons over the tracks and these in turn were used for ammo and equipment storage. The turret was a one-piece cast type with a full turret basket and carried a 75mm M3 L/40, and a .30 M1919A4 LMG as the coaxial gun in the combination mount M34. This arrangement provided an external mantlet for the main gun only. The fixed mantlet had a slot in it to allow the coaxial gun to elevate along with the main armament. The crew of five consisted of: the driver, assistant driver/bow gunner, and commander, gunner and loader in the turret. The gunner was located in the right-front part of the turret, with the commander sitting directly behind him; the loader was on the left side of the turret. There were hatches for the driver, co-driver and commander. Getting out of the turret in an emergency was a problem. Early production M4's still had some remnants of the M3 Medium Tank's design. For example, they retained the 3-piece transmission cover that was bolted together. The driver and co-driver hatches were located in bow extensions angled 60 degrees and had direct vision slots with armor visors. The tracks were usually a plain rubber block track. The rear of the tank had double doors to access the engine. Soon after production began, experiences in the field with the M4 (And it's earlier produced variants) lead to some changes that would regularly be found on mid-production examples. The suspension changed from the M3's bogies to the M4's Vertical Volute Spring Suspension (VVSS), the direct vision slots for the (co-)driver were removed and replaced by fixed periscopes in front of the hull hatches, the 3-piece housing for the transmission was changed to a sturdier 1-piece version, and the M34 mount was replaced by the M34A1 mount which had increased protection. Problems with ammunition fires led to the introduction of applique armor, 1" plates that were welded over the 3 sponson ammo bins. On late production M4's, applique armor was also applied to the front of the driver and co-driver hatches to improve frontal protection, and some applique armor was usually applied to the turret in front of the gunner. To help conserve rubber, different tracks were introduced. Near the end of the M4's production run, a composite hull was devised using a cast front section welded to rolled plate sides and rear.   M4(105) One part of the original M4 concept was to have it use a 105mm howitzer as an alternative armament. These, however, weren't produced until late in the war, from '44 on. Because they appeared so late in the production run of their respective variant, they had the improvements built-in straight from the factory. Late production M4(105)'s had the Horizontal Volute Spring Suspension (HVSS) and wider tracks, as well as a new commander cupola. It featured the late welded-hull M4 with a single-piece glacis. Ammunition storage for the 105mm howitzer was 66 rounds kept in dry stowage racks on the hull floor. Another interesting thing to note is that the hatches for the driver and co-driver are the larger type, making it easier to enter and exit the vehicle. An easy way to tell the M4 from the (105) variant is the additional blower dome at the rear of the turret, just above the radio. M4A1  The first Shermans to roll out of the factory was of the M4A1 type. As with early M4 Medium Tanks: the M4A1 had direct vision doors, M3-style suspension, T41 rubber block-style tracks, narrow M34 gun mount. On really early M4A1's, the T6's twin hull MG mounts were still in place but were rarely, if ever, used. The M4A1 had an all cast hull save the 3-piece transmission housing. Like the M4, the A1 variant had its direct vision doors removed and the front upper hull was modified to provide a lot more protection. Again, rubber tracks were removed in order to save on the scarce resource, with new all-metal tracks being used. Track extensions, called "Duck Bills", were used in order to reduce ground pressure and thus improving flotation on soft ground. Applique armor was also used on the M4A1, again welded to the side sponsons to protect the ammunition, and a small plate was added to the turret in front of the gunner. That small plate was eventually thickened in the original casting rather than adding a welded armor plate. It should be noted that all these different modifications were incorporated at different times, which production plant, and even which armor depot the tank was located at. This lead to some odd combinations of features, and even stranger mixes within combat units.  M4A1(76)W  In January 1944, changes were made and incorporated to the M4A1 Sherman in order to upgrade it's combat efficiency. The hatches for the frontal hull crewmembers were enlarged, an all new turret based on the one developed for the T23 Medium Tank was installed using the new M1A1 76mm gun. The first 76mm guns didn't have any provisions for a muzzle brake. The ammunition used for this new gun was stored in the new wet storage racks in the lower hull. Later examples had a modified loader's hatch and different guns - the M1A2 and A3 versions. M4A2  The main difference of the M4A2 from previous models is the use of a diesel-powered engine, the General Motors 6046. The Army resisted the idea of a diesel-fuelled tank as it would complicate supply lines, but the Navy, who used diesel in smaller craft, decided to use it. These were subsequently used in the Pacific theatre of operations. Interestingly, the Fisher tank arsenal produced a series of M4A2's which replaced the cast hull components will rolled steel plate and gave it a distinct appearance. Aside from the diesel engines, the M4A2 was a welded-hull tank and used parts identical to the M4 and M4A1, being upgrade as the war progressed in a similar fashion. M4A2(76)W Only late production A2's carried the 76mm gun. They were usually supplied to Allied armies via lend-lease rather than used with US forces. M4A3 By the time the M4A3 was put into production, they had introduced the one-piece cast transmission housing and, as production continued, further improvements were added just like previous models. M4A3's were powered by the Ford GAA Petrol V-8 engine due to a shortage of Continental radial engines. One of my books uses the M4A3 to talk about the ammunition issues. quote:"The M4A3 shared with other Shermans an unsatisfactory ammunition stowage arrangement. The conventional open racks, though protected by the external side armor, were exposed on the inside and ammunition fires were fairly common if the hull or turret were penetrated. Since the standard German PzGr APC projectiles had an explosive filler, nearly every penetration was followed by an explosion or fire. A series of controlled tests by the Ordnance Dept. proved that the major source of tank fires was the ignition of stowed ammunition followed by crew stowage, interior stores of lubricants for maintenance, and lastly the fuel tanks in the rear. Many tanks burned fiercely, even with empty fuel tanks." The solution they came up with was the addition of applique armor over the 3 most exposed ammunition bins as well as the two hull crewmember positions as they were nearly vertical compared to the 60 degree angled hull. Interestingly, the engine was more compact than other models and the Sherman's profile could've been lowered but the need to avoid any interruption in production meant that they opted out of changing the hull. The M4A3 was the most common Sherman and was also the type to be retained for use post-war.  M4A3(105) The 105mm-armed Shermans were often used as self-propelled artillery and it wasn't uncommon to see them with ammunition trailers when acting as an artillery piece. Since they also weren't expected to combat other tanks, most did not have the applique armor, and had dry stowage for their munitions. M4A3(75)W  The W stands for "Wet Stowage"  M4A3(76)W As with other (76) types, it was upgunned to the 76mmm M1A1 gun (And eventually the M1A1C and M1A2 gun). The 76mm gun provided approx. 1 inch of added penetration at comparable ranges, although the H.E. shell performed worse than the 75mm gun which is why it was continued. M4A3E2 To fill in the role of an assault vehicle, it was deemed possible, with some modifications to the new 47 degree hull on the M4A3, to fulfill this rolse. The resulting tank had an additional 1 and 1/2 inches of armor plating added to the glacis and the sides for a total of 4 and 3 inches, respectively. The final drive housing was changed to a thicker version of up to 5 and a half inches. It retained the 75mm gun as the H.E. shell performed better, but the turret itself was much better protected with 6 inch thick armor on the sides and two and a half inches at the rear. The gun shield had an additional plate added to it which increased the thickness to 7 inches. The suspension had a hard time coping with all the added weight and, as a result, it wasn't uncommon to see a variety of different roadwheels. Some Jumbos were re-armed to have the 76mm gun. M4A3E8(76) The Easy Eight's began as a way to improve the Shermans cross-country capabilities and lower overall ground pressure. This led to the Horizontal Volute Spring Suspension (HVSS) and how the E8 got it's nickname. When troops started to receive the new tank, they found the ride so greatly improved that the name "Easy Eight" stuck. The HVSS system used a wider track and was retroactively added to other variants. M4A3E8(105) Like other 105mm Howitzer armed M4's mated with the E8's hull and suspension. M4A4 Another engine modification, the M4A4 used the Chrysler A57 "Multibank" engine. The new engine was longer than previous types and as a result the hull had to be lengthened at the rear. Every A4 was built with the 75mm gun as the armament and were either kept in the States for training or supplied to the British as lend-lease. M4A6 The A6 type was an experimental look into multi-fuel engines. Using a modified Wright radial engine, it could be fuelled by diesel, 100-octane gasoline, and more. Even though only 75 tanks were built, they were not all the same. Some were built with later turrets while others kept the earlier type. It is easily identified by it's sharp nose where the final drive housing is located. The A6 never saw combat. Misc. Stuff Direct vision ports and rear deck  View of small hatches  Early 76mm Turret  Late 76mm Turret  "Jumbo" Turret  Stacking sandbags was a common field modification Tracks too! Even cement, in bags or not, was added in some cases Apologies for any mistakes that may be in the post. I need to get a scanner or something someday...
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2016 17:28
|
|
|
Dick Trauma posted:What's with the funky dual hull gun? I've never seen that before. That was a driver-operated forward-only dual-50.cal thing, that was promptly discontinued by the time it went to production. Some M4s were made with the holes still in place, IIRC, so they just plugged them up and never used them. It's the same thinking that went into the M3 Light Tanks forward-only guns in the side sponsons, and the M3 Lee. edit: If I recall correctly, they were operated by a foot pedal the driver would press down to activate.  Note on the bottom right of the hull, you can see two little holes right above the transmission.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2016 17:35
|
|
|
IM_DA_DECIDER posted:Why can't you put wheels on it and call it a day? Where would you fit the radar, power supply, and person/people to operate it? Can you still use it for its normal transport capabilities or do you now need more Humvees per unit to fill in the gaps?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2016 22:56
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Unfortunately, I don't. Have some images from where I got it from, though: Aeroplane: Icons: Short Sunderland That's pretty cool, thanks!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2016 01:36
|
|
|
spectralent posted:Thank you for this! It's very comprehensive. They would've used Russian equipment. All the factories the Poles had were either captured by Germans in 1939, or in 1941. The standard Polish rifle (the Wz.29) was chambered in 8mm Mauser, and was basically a Kar 98k (there were differences, though). A lot of heavy equipment was foreign (French tanks, Italian trucks), and there wouldn't be any benefit to having a separate supply chain just so that the Poles could have something unique.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2016 04:03
|
|
|
spectralent posted:This is super interesting, but I keep reading thing below the sniper's elbows in the diagram as "Bear". Corporal Teddy is a vital part of the squad!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
Why would you build latrines that leave you completely exposed to rifle fire? And then why would you use the shitter when 4 of your friends' corpses are all laying face-down in their own poo poo?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2016 02:32
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Well you do need to bury them, duh. Think before you post. As if the morning artillery barrage won't do that for you for free!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2016 02:54
|
|
|
WW2 Data As the Italian inventory expands, we take a look at the 8mm and 12.7mm rounds on display. Red tip, blue tip, white tip, none, which types of rounds are now done? What mixture does an APIT round use, and what color does it produce? Which round has a fuze similar to that of German origin? All that and more at the blog!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
MrMojok posted:OK tankophiles, I know of no better place to ask this. I thought it was okay as a character movie. The CGI/graphics were good and the plot was good-to-great but there were some big problems at the end when they have this entire "Battle-hardened" SS group that literally just zerg rushes the tank while dying in droves. And they also miss like 3 panzerfaust shots from 10 meters out which was ridiculous. I'd say its worth a watch, but I'm super into anything WW2-related so it was an easy sell for me.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2016 05:59
|
|
|
Here's mine.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 10:40 |
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:I know, if WW2 America can employ black women in shipbuilding, you'd think some sort of British office could sort this out. I mention it just because I've come across little remarks like this for years now. Pretty sure it also didn't help that Britain didn't have the facilities to fabricate entire cast hulls.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2016 11:36
|
|