The last thread’s turret got stuck
Geronimo Stilton Edition
> What's this thread about?
As usual this thread is for the discussion and pics of tracked and wheeled AFVs of all kinds from MBTs to supertanks to self propelled AA guns. Please keep it civil and cite sources for statistics.
The Maus remains one of the most curious oddities to emerge out of the various tank prototypes that Nazi Germany experimented with as the Second World War drew on. Envisioned by Hitler to be impervious to any conventional arms that could be deployed against it, it instead became an unused white elephant. Its origins lie in a request in June 1942 by Hitler to design a super heavy tank mounting a 12.8 cm gun with the maximum achievable amount of protection possible forwarded to the automotive company Porsche of Stuttgart. The earliest projected trial date was posted for May 1943, but frequent difficulties emerged out of the design process of what was then called the Porsche 205 project. Rather than an air-cooled motor, an improvised aircraft engine was installed, Porsche’s longitudinal torsion bar suspension system had to be discarded due to an abject lack of space to fit the ever growing number of components required to accommodate the staggering weight of the vehicle – which continued to grow. With a staggering 220 mm of frontal turret armour, and a large KwK 44 L/55 128 mm gun with the V2 also sporting a 75 mm coax, the weight was an inconceivable 188 tonnes! An ambitious 150 were requested, but the order was outright cancelled in October 1943. A V1 prototype was finally tested in a completed state in 1944, and a V2 was also started later the same year, but this was postponed after an accident with the engine, which would not be replaced until mid-1945. Both variants of the “Maus”, were later demolished at Kummesdorf with interior charges.
Rifled 128 mm KwK 44
> Dimensions (l w h)
10.09 x 3.67 x 3.66 m
OP: As always, feedback, suggestions wanted and appreciated.
As they say, go big or go home, so I decided to have a look at the biggest. It really is mind-boggling how anyone expected the enormous weight of the Maus to be able to cross bridges – there clearly was some kind of intent, seeing as how the tank’s ability to navigate bridges was tested during trials. Guderian, it seems, was not too happy with the tank, doubting its ability to function properly in close combat, much like the Elefant. He writes in Panzer Leader, that it was initially intended to mount a 150 mm and the weight to be 175 tonnes. What materialised, as we can see today, was a little different. The story behind the surviving prototype of the Maus, now resting at Kubinka in Russia, is the hybridisation of the relatively intact hull of the V1 and the turret of the V2 into one vehicle, for the purposes of testing by the Soviets.
Interestingly, Krupp was working on a super heavy tank called the “Lion”, with two patterns, a lighter 76 tonne and a heavier 90 tonne. A 105 mm L/70 would be its armament. Not too much is known about it, but the Maus effectively killed the Lion project, although later a shortened 80 tonne version was suggested with the 88 mm L/71 – a little like the Tiger II.
Also, I was wondering if anyone had any requests for what other heavy AFV to do next.
More tank news, as per the new format.
If you have more queries regarding a news story, just point it out, and I’ll further elaborate and provide links.
Paraguay is reportedly keeping its venerable M4 Sherman and M3A1 Stuart tanks, both 75 years old as trainers for its military. The country’s Stuarts were sourced in 1970 from Brazil as donations, while the Shermans were delivered from Argentina in 1980.
In Russia, Rosoboronexport, a subsidiary of the state owned enterprise Rostec, has announced plans to market its Uran-9 multipurpose UGV for export in 2016. The drone is capable of providing remote reconnaissance, combined arms fire support as well having counter-terrorism applications, its armament including Ataka ATGMs, a 30 mm 2A72 autocannon and a 7.62 mm coaxial machinegun.
According to unnamed sources in Ukraine, it is currently in the process of developing a new 155 mm self-propelled tracked howitzer. With close cooperation from Polish companies and accordance with NATO standards, the SPG is based off the chassis of the Oplot-M Main Battle Tank.
In other news, Ukrainian officials also countered previous claims that Thailand was considering the purchase of T-90S MBTs from Russia due to an impasse in the scheduled delivery of T-84 Oplot-M MBTs from KMDB. The willingness and ability of the firm to deliver on its contract was reiterated, to be executed “without delay”.
And that’s all for now.
Finally, I wish you all the best for 2016. Let's hope for good things in the future.
Happy New Year.
Happy new year, thanks for making /k/ a better place.
Seeing as you're gonna run out of tanks for the OP at some point, have you thought about doing OPs on famous tank battles/tank commanders? It could be neat.
Thanks again for maintaining these threads man, and have a happy new year.
Absolutely, tank commander, battles, campaigns of note and perhaps even tactics/strategies are all possible in the future.
Sounds great, it would be a crime to leave those trips unchecked.
>Australia decided to import tanks instead of build their own
somewhere out there in an alternate reality the Australian war machine is out there conquering the world
>Guderian, it seems, was not too happy with the tank,
Hitler should trust Guderian more.
They actually put out a devblog for that AC IV pictured there, put it never made it into the game. It was also probably going to be a premium.
Shame Gaijin has done absolutely nothing to improve ground forces, they just keep compressing the BRs and adding new useless shit.
It's a game that has a lot of potential to be a decent tank sim, but is ruined by poor developers who aren't responsive to their playerbase in the slightest.
>put it never made it into the game. It was also probably going to be a premium.
They're waiting for the discount to be over on british vehicles, it'll go into the store tomorrow. Mark my words.
I would not be surprised, just like the time they hiked up the Steam pack prices right before the sale. Gaijin is capable of some insane jewery.
>letting your wife lock up your bow cock
>spend your nights watching her get pumped full of APDS from Iron Duke IV.
I would check out the CIA reports in the dropbox (in the redux folder IIRC, don't know if OP has updated it recently), since they have explicit references to the dolly parton characteristics of the Russian armor.
This is the dropbox that anon was talking about. I have updated it recently, but just minor shuffling of documents, nothing major.
Well that's comprehensive as fuck.
The last Tiger tank. Berlin 1945, no one is quite sure of the history of this vehicle before being pulled into the street, as it still has the early war wheels and cupola it is unlikely to be a front line tank pulled back. This pic clearly shows the Brandenburg Gate in the background.
This photo was taken from the other side, it looks like the corner of the Reichstag.
Comparative photo of the reichstag, the pillars and shape of the arch seems to match.
>its armament including Ataka ATGMs, a 30 mm 2A72 autocannon and a 7.62 mm coaxial machinegun.
it also have a carrier for two RPO-M flamethrower( or Thermobaric grenade launcher in English) like the one on Webm related
they didn't include it in the news report but it was showed in the promote video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBC9BM4-3Ek
telescopic launch tube
the inner tube automatic move forward when fire
many people mistook it for a misfire like you
This must be triggering for people used to older launchers.
Happy New Year to everyone and their families and hope for a great 2016 !!
And contributing some Maus photos !!!
The amount of money required was far more than WG anticipated, the tank is nothing but a gutted shell now.
WG and the museum got a lot of backlash for wanting to restore a 'fascist' tank during a time of heightened Russian nationalism, combined with the propaganda machine painting Ukraine as run by fascists.
well, that is suck
they have money to run this thing but none for a fascist tank
Dog its an aussie tank, they JUST released the brit tank line and for aircraft, the boomerang is compressed into the the teashitter aircraft line so give them a bit. Itl be a teashitter premium in no time
>Aussies needed to make sure the tank could handle the recoil of the 17lbr
>cram in 2 25lbr howitzers into the turret and fire them together
>recoil of the two guns exceeds that of the 17lbr, so therefore if the tank didn't rip off its own turret firing fucking twin-linked howitzers then no worries
Straya fuck yeah
Quick question, /thg/:
So I'm not sure what kind of tanks were used in Full Metal Jacket, but I saw this part and had to wonder, was there some sort of safety device to tell the driver that someone was using the phone on the back? Or did you just have to trust the guy driving wouldn't throw it in reverse?
The tanks used in the film are M41 Walker Bulldogs.
There wasn't any mechanism that would tell the crew the phone was in use, although if the crew were having a conversation with infantry outside, I think it would be safe to assume that the tank wouldn't back up for as long as that conversation was taking place.
>Modernization is related, above all, to increasing the armour’s ballistic resistance, through application of the solutions provided by the German IBD company, and to the process of improving the operational awareness of the crew, realized through implementation of the targeting devices for the commander and the gunner, along with a reversing camera. Moreover, the issue of security of the soldiers is significant – here I am referring to the fire protection and IED protection systems. Both in the engine, as well as in the crew compartment. Moreover, modernization of the cannon, so that it is capable of shooting the DM11 and DM63 ammunition is planned. (...) Weight of the tank after the modernization shall not exceed 60 tonnes. Obviously, numerous elements I do not want to mention also exist, within the scope of tailoring the systems which are going to be changed due to the changes of the tank construction itself, also when it comes to emergency exits, handles, attachments, rigidity of the drivetrain and the load-bearing wheels. These are only details.
>Head of the Polish Armament Inspectorate, Brig. General Adam Duda
How do you guys think the Chi-Nu would have affected the war in the Pacific and or China if they would have started producing large numbers of them earlier in the war (say 41-42)
It's an armoured shroud for what I assume is a water cooled gun, either a Vickers or a Browning.
That's fucking magic.
Thing is, that tank they probably got reasonably intact, the Maus is nothing but armour, tracks, and a gun. There is NOTHING inside the engine compartment.
It would have given the Chinese a serious tank to capture, but the 75mm HE would have been nice against infantry.
In the Pacific though, these would either be exceedingly rare or not deployed at all, due to the Jap's lacking abilities to into amphibious landings, and the difficulty of landing large tanks without LVT/LST style ships.
The kind of war the Japanese were fighting didn't really require any tanks. That's why they didn't invest in them seriously.
The Chi-Nu would not have helped the Japanese as much as, say, more men, more time, and more supplies would have.
However, some of it could have been due to the fact that Russian light tanks such as BT-7s handed their collective asses to them at Khalkhin-Gol, so they responded by making their light and medium tanks on a level that could compete with the Soviet lights - of course, we know that by mid-WWII, the level of armor displayed by every the Soviets and Americans had changed drastically.
These two bastards spot each other in a town. Assuming both crews are similarly skilled and neither tank encounters engine problems (aside from getting shot at), who would win?
> as it [Tiger I] still has the early war wheels and cupola it is unlikely to be a front line tank pulled back.
That’s likely to be exactly what happened;
> be a Tiger I
> go to war
> sent back home for repairs
> go to war again
> repeat again
> things are looking bad
> get sent to Berlin
> get wrecked by Russkies
>In Russia, Rosoboronexport, a subsidiary of the state owned enterprise Rostec, has announced plans to market its Uran-9 multipurpose UGV for export in 2016.
A different robot is the Mobile Autonomous Robotic System (MARS) – an infantry support platform able to carry six fully equipped soldiers or 500kg of combat load for a squad. Powered by a 65hp diesel engine that can also provide battery charging for the squad. The robot can travel up to 200km at a speed of 32 km/h using internal fuel, or 500km with external fuel tank. It is equipped with autonomous navigation system comprising laser scanners, radar and inertial measurement.
In development since 2010, the A800 model of MARS can be configured to follow a soldier wearing an active beacon. The control system is compatible with ‘Ratnik’, the Russian soldier system. The robot would follow the soldier while keeping a safe distance as it scans the terrain for obstacles and movement path, and plots its course of action. The robot can also move autonomously, on a specific track to a designated point or follow a preplanned path, to ‘revisit’ specific points of interest, on patrol, performing observation and target acquisition.
>How do you guys think the Chi-Nu would have affected the war in the Pacific and or China if they would have started producing large numbers of them earlier in the war (say 41-42)
The U.S. would have to divert X number of Shermans to the Pacific to deal with it and there might be faster development of the bazooka but with the island fighting in the Pacific being wholly dependent on sea power, the Jap tanks will eventually suffer the same fate as the rest of their forces; lack of supply.
If they can’t keep their infantry feed, they aren’t going to be able to ship in fuel, ammo and parts for tanks.
On the other hand, if the Japanese have sufficient effective medium tanks early on, they will be able to invade India, (though not hold it) causing more trouble for the already beleaguered Brits but as above, they’ll suffer the same eventual result.
Alt-historically, with a decent armored force, maybe some Japanese General in Manchuria pulls a Kolchak and sets up a Japanese government / army in exile, which the Soviets would have to take down, potentially resulting in the Soviets seizing Manchuria from China while keeping them out of Korea.
What's that UGV that was shown alongside the quad bike with a mannequin on it? The chassis looked like a kevlar mattress. This is a really weird and strangely specific question I realize.
>These two bastards spot each other in a town.
> Churchill Black Prince vs. Tiger I
With a 23mph top speed, the Tiger has a definite speed advantage over the Churchill’s glacially slow 11mph.
Aemro penetration of the German 88mm L/56 is on roughly par with the British 17pdr gun, but the Brits don’t have any HE rounds while the 88 throws a substantial HE load.
The Churchill has the frontal armor advantage, with 152mm vs. 100mm with the Tiger having 80mm side armor. Dunno what the Churchill has on the sides.
I'd bet on the Tiger I.
Not saying they'd be smart about it, but if they were smart about it, the Japs could have gotten India to invade itself. Basically, work with the Indian independence movement and after kicking the Brits out, let the Indians do most of the fighting and dying. They did something similar in cooperating with the Thai monarchy to smack the French around.
Are they not all penetrating? Could you circle them for me?
To me, they look small for 88mm but what do I know?
And should the Pz.III 75mm easily penetrate the turret from the side?
> They did something similar in cooperating with the Thai monarchy to smack the French around.
The Japanese might have been able to spark a scattered guerrilla war by some Indians against the British but Britain had held India for a long time, much longer then the French in Thailand and with much greater control over Indian society and for the most part, Indians were loyal to the UK. And most Indians felt independence from the UK was inevitable before too long anyways, so why screw it up now?
The Panzer 3 at that time used 37mm and short 50mm
Panzer 4 used short 75mm.
Both were unable to penetrate the KV-1 / KV-2 and the T-34 at normal range but could penetrate the T-34 at close range at the sides.
Exactly. The British had a functioning bureaucracy and governmental protocol in place staffed with a mix of British and handpicked Indian civil servants, which the Indians more or less took over wholesale after their independence.
Naturally, being Indians, once the British educated and technically proficient staff died out or retired, they completely fucked it up with incompetents, illiterates, people who could not speak the lingua franca, namely English, and basically gave the country a governmental equivalent of the poo in the loo meme.
Not tank related, so I'll also add that it's possibly the reason they took so many casualties in their immediate war with Pakistan.
So its a modern unmanned version of the Universal Carrier.
Not a bad idea, much better then Big Dog.
The germans must have at least thought that without air support these super heavy tanks they were building would have been easy targets, and a drain on resources above anything else
It was part of the wonderwaffen mentality that infected German designs later in the war. The fundamental problem was that the Allies were outproducing the Germans and winning on the battlefield, so unless something dramatically changed the battlefield Germany was doomed. The wonderwaffen projects were all attempts to find that game-changer, in practice they were almost all wastes of effort.
The US tried that years ago with the M551 Sheridan and the M60A2 Starship, both of those tanks could fire the MGM-51 Shillelagh missile but it was riddled with technical issues and it compromised the gun pretty badly. Didn't help that the US hadn't really tried that stuff before and Fords military development seemed to be full of ambition and short on development given they also shit out the Sergeant York which could be befuddled by a Porta-John vent fan.
Starting tank enthusiast from Finland here. We just bought a hundred Leo 2A6-tanks from the Netherlands for pennies.
Im just wondering, that how well could they fare against russian mbt's in battle.
Personally I think they could easyly wipe the floor with ruskies, since there is a shit ton of forrest everywhere, the land is really uneven and Finnish tank-crews are fighting from a defencive positions.
why would the Ruskie want to invade Finland?
i thought you guys are good friend? you guy even using their 130mm gun.
and T-90A is Ruskie equivalent of the 2A6, but i don't know what are you arming your A6 with, so i think the Ruskie have the upper hand. And they also have more aircraft
A bit of both 120mm is good enough for killing tanks currently so there is no pressing need for it.
Some experiments are have been done on 105 and 120 ATGMs that can be fired through the gun and russia is entering a strap missiles every where phase after their 125 bore launched ones are believed buy some to be not enough.
> how well could they fare against russian mbt's in battle
All Russian MBTs have really damn good protection against radiation and nuclear fallout, so I doubt that they would be seriously harmed by burning wrecks, even if Giger is ticking really badly near them.
There is gif or webm that shows how those single shot ATGMs are reloaded, basically there is hatch right behind the launcher, when missile is fired, new one is fed into the launcher rail from that hatch.
>why would the Ruskie want to invade Finland?
>i thought you guys are good friend?
>So its a modern unmanned version of the Universal Carrier.
More like a modern T-20 Komsomolets.
The Leopard 2A6 is compares well against the bulk of the Russian inventory. Due to budget issues the quality of Russian armor is highly variable, the T-90 is roughly equal in quality to the later Leopard 2 variants (amusing equally trained crews) but very few are fielded, roughly 400. The rest of Russian tanks are modernized T-72 variants and unmodernized T-72 variants, the modernized tanks are definitely inferior to the Leo 2A6 and the data from Ukraine suggests that the unmodernized tanks are only 1/3 as effective as the upgraded versions.
In short, 100 Leo 2A6 is good enough to bloody a Russia attack as it is now.
>They could have done that ages ago
>mfw this capitalist dog doesnt know about my missiles
I wouldn't be surprised if we cover our MBTs with same camouflage blanket as we did with our BMP-2s. Apparently it is pretty effective way to block fool optics.
Or we just cover the Leos with spruce sprances like always.
But question to fellow threadheads, the life of our MT-LBs is going to end in about 2030. Older vehicles will be probably turned into spare parts much earlier. What vehicle do you think we should acquire to replace it?
you forget that Ruskie have shit tons of anti tank vehicle and man portable ATGM
according to Ukraine field report T-90A is some what untounchale due to their soft kill APS and the unmodernized T-72B with Kontakt-5 is onpart with modern western tank( B3 is the equivalent of Leopard A4 and A5, older BA and B 1989 is some where down below)
what kind of camouflage blanket are you talking about?
>What vehicle do you think we should acquire to replace it?
The problem I see with APS is that it doesn't help against Tungsten Rods of Doom or remove detonated IEDs. Against launchers it is pretty useful.
Didn't the study make the mistake on T-90s in Ukraine. I have only seen T-72B3s
Yep, I think it is Saabs product we are using.
Ehh, DT-30 really doesn't fit to role MT-LBs have.
there was some pics of the T-90A, but nobody give a fuck because it was from August last year and Putin is too busy bombing Kebab
APS like the Shtora detect laser signal form laser range finder
so it work with laser range finder on ATGM guidance module and tank laser range finder
the system warn the commander, so he can align the tank to withstand enemy fire
the "RED EYE " IR emitters seem to have some effect on active night vision and thermal camera
>The problem arises when in the 10 minutes its on the thermal signature of your tank it is visible again.
one have the MCS
I stand corrected. Had a strange idea on my mind that the blast from APS is not strong enough to weaken Rods. Still it does not destroy the rod so it still inflicts damage on tank.
Also Engie deleting his post when proven wrong made my day.
Got some sauce for that?
I've never seen an APS shoot down a KE penetrator, only rockets and ATGM.
>when proven wrong
>Grammatical error vs actually being proven wrong
>implying I was arguing with anyone, and not explaining how something works
The problem arises [when using any kind of visual or thermal camoflauge] when in the 10 minutes your tank is operating you're visible on the thermals again.
Its rare that a tank would use day sites, Thermals would pick you just as easily if you didn't have said camo. This was literally covered in the last /thg/ thread. Or one of the many MBT bait threads that goes through /k/ every 6 hours.
hey, I have got a few "Panzer Tracts" PDFs I could add to that collection.
Interested in those?
>I've actually viewed the system through our various thermal systems on the tanks and at 200 meters in the brush here, tanks using this system are completely gone thermally," Moore said. "We can't see it. We can see little hotspots here and there, but it doesn't look like a tank. It's very difficult to make out."
>"The other MCS tank actually came into our objective where we were on defense," Moore said. "Our tank commander and gunner were both looking through the thermals, and that tank was less than 200 meters away. They had eyes on us because their tank commander was up top scanning visually and their gunner was using day sights, but they didn't see us until they were right on us."
>"I saw a couple of little hotspots, but I couldn't tell what they were. That's kind of the idea behind this system. It doesn't completely eliminate the thermal signature, but it reduces and alters it to make it not look like a tank."
Explain to me why ABOLC makes the article suddenly worthless. I presume that Instructors there know what they are doing and if SAAB is cooperating with them, the instructors organize everything.
>Why is the Jagdpanther such a sexy tank?
Official ranking of the most badass looking armor in history:
Also here is a nice collection of the pictures taken during the construction of that replica Tiger the Russians build a while back
guys, what's up with the weird muzzle devices on the M42 duster?
Come to think of it, it seems like a lot of SPAAGs have weird muzzle devices
That's a great build, far better than the rubbish seen in many decent films when they convert a T-34 (Saving Private Ryan) or T-55 (White Tiger).
The Jagdpanther is an impressive beast to see in person, a sheer slab of metal. The Bovington one is complete, the one at the Imperial War Museum has holes cut in the side for God knows what reason. What a shame.
Sork here (well, living abroad). How well trained are Korean tankers in your eyes? I know most US soldiers stationed here think that most conscripts besides the KATUSA guys can barely be trusted with a rifle, and I know personally that while the arty arm has cool tech they're pretty terrible at rapid response and counterbattery stuff. IMO only the Korean marines are professional at all, but they're real Col Kilgore type war crime motherfuckers.
>I am certainly hopings you are of joking comrade
I hate it when Mom and Dad fight!
>SS.11 missiles with penetration of 600mm RHA and 500-3000m effective range triggered Khrushchev enough to scrap entire heavy tank program
wonder where they would be by 80's
better ergonomics give Tiger better chance to fire first, and in case both sides fail to achieve kill with first shot, pretty much guarantee faster second shot.
Altough realisticly, both crews will care more about getting out of sight, than scoring a kill.
keep your shit out of /thg/ threads
>lack of actual refutation
>posts a link to a training study done with people who have been in the army for 3 minutes
>because a brand new butterbar's opinion on something is somehow relevant.
>not knowing what ABOLC is
always thought it was suposed to be a tiger p representation, not the regular tiger h
It's hard to know what they wanted it to be.
Most tragic thing about that flick is that they had probably the best made-for-cinema Tiger clone ever seen (pictured here), and then decided to opt for the fuckawful IS-2 job seen in the production release after it had some engine trouble. Considering the end result, I really think they should have just fucking waited. What we got in its place is so bad it actually takes away from the movie.
As far as replicas built upon other tanks, T-44s and T-54/5s have the least "off" proportions. Pic related is a T-44 Tiger from the late 60s/early 70s "LIBERATION" series of films.
It's hard to beat what Western cinema gave us during the Cold War in terms of shitty Tiger depictions. At least Kelly's Heroes made a fucking effort with the T-34 job.
Yeah. To be fair, the M47s turret has a similar shape to the Tiger 2's.
The first time I saw pic related, I thought it was a screencap from the 1965 film! The Tiger 2's have same paint scheme, the stereoscopic rangefinders, and one even has the Patton style running gear.
back then they operated with what they had, and to be fair, not many people knew how these tanks should look like.
But damn, modern CG gives some hopes for future movies
clip mixes scenes from various movies, but ones from "Bloody Foreigners" clearly could not be done with traditional methods
on related topic: was Tiger in Fury a mockup, or they made it using CG?
Pattons for King Tigers and Chaffees fir Shermans. They didn't care and I don't think audiences were particularly discerning. It was a breath of fresh air when they had that T34-Tiger in Saving Private Ryan and even that looks a bit rubbish now.
Fury did use the real Tiger 131 at least partly.
As for Battle of the Bulge, tanks were the least of it's problems. The Ardennes Forest's worst winter in decades, was filmed in the hot deserts of Spain.
This anon is correct. It was one of the last operational Tigers left in the world and was used in the film.
>Fun fact,Michael Peña actually drove that Sherman in the film, had to go through a course to do it.
Was still the laziest shit I've ever seen.
Tiger in Fury was an actual one, 131 out from Bovington.
The Tiger in SPR was on par with the three in Kelly's Heroes. In fact, I think the Tiger in SPR was also the one seen in Band of Brothers.
I was easily impressed when it came to WWII movies as a tween, but that move still managed to turn me off with its hilariously off attempts. They didn't even try in Battle of the Bulge.
>some bit about rail-hauled naval cannons making their way to the front to turn the tide
>spend about five fucking minutes showing a POV shot of a train racing through some mountains at about 100mph with electric wiring overhead...for a steam train
>train just gets skullfucked in a tunnel by "Tigers", making the whole ordeal a pointless waste of screentime
One weird thing of Battle of the Bulge's sets: the driving controls of the "Tigers" were depicted as the typical two stick system...real Tiger uses a steering wheel. The weird part? M47 doesn't use two sticks either! M47 uses a single joystick that also functions as gear shift.
Try some of the more foreign films when it comes to WWII.
Stalingrad is a definite staple, but some of the Russian blockbusters are pretty good, as while they rip off hollywood pretty hard with all the heroics and cliches and so on, they get to use period appropriate ex-Soviet gear.
What I'm really sad about, is the complete lack of historical accuracy regarding WWI - I mean, after all these years, fucking Blackadder remains the most accurate representation of the trenches in modern media. I wouldn't mind if someone remade Paths of Glory or some of the other period films.
If there were historical and technical advisers on set, I'm sure they suckstarted the closest available firearm after the first month of shooting.
Band of Brothers has a few mock ups, a Jagdpanther was one. The SPR Tiger is in Duxford museum now, it's much smaller compared to the real thing, which has a great physical presence.
Dead Snow 2 has a Tiger Tank made from a T-54 or 55, not bad effort for a budget horror film.
Topleft is from "Liberation," I've seen a few documentaries change it to black and white, like your pic, and try to pass it off as real. (Some scenes were B&W, but not the ones those docs use)
I grinned a bit at Dead Snow 2's SPR reference (Tiger slamming down over pile of rubble, troops following in the dust)
They did a fantastic Stug job on an FV432, all things considered.
There is no cocksmacking way that there weren't some Shermans sitting around collecting dust in W. Europe at that time, and I wonder if he even made an effort to nab any.
>they get to use period appropriate ex-Soviet gear.
I'm not even suprised, considering T-34s remained in service until 70's, and plenty of WW2 tanks and assault guns have beign put on monuments without beign properly deactivated, with fully working engines and drivetrains. I recall even some WW2 tanks have been used in Ukraine by Seps, before Russia provided them with modern tanks
>better at penetrating IS-2 armor
>a lot shorter reload time
>more comfy to drive around in, so the crew is happier
>less likely to break down on the way in
>FAR less comfy to around in so the crew is ANGRIER
>122mm High explosive DOESN'T NEED TO PENETRATE TIGER ARMOR IT WILL SEND THE TURRET FLYING ANYWAY
Were not meant to fight each other, so that barely ever happened.
Yes there's an escape hatch in the floor.
The IS-2 was built without a driver's hatch deliberately rather than an oversight. The large hatch in the front glacis on the T-34 is a structural weakness for the entire front armor plate, so that wasn't considered. On the KV, there are hatches on the roof of the hull, similar to German tanks of the period. The IS-1/2 are derived from the KV, so this would be the logical place to put them - however, the very large turret is placed quite far forward, so there's literally no roof space there. As soon as the hull slopes up, turret starts.
Of course, this did also make evacuating out of the turret easier for the driver, since all he has to do is climb over the back of his chair and then he's literally inside the turret.
In any event, the IS-3 has a driver's hatch again, so obviously that was preferable to the above.
Still, having to got hrough the turret is always dangerous. Shermans and Pershigns arguably has the easiest driver escapes, a large hatch directly above. T-34s hatch required a bit of contortion, and Tiger's hatches were offset. Plus the US tanks had them spring loaded.
The part that's more dangerous on the IS-2 is that the driver is literally sandwiched by fuel tanks, IMO. If the front hull is penetrated by something, either you get raped by shrapnel and spalling or soaked in burning diesel.
Note here the lack of a turret basket, actually helpful in this case.
Yeah, the propellant cases were mostly stored in the hull floor, with the warheads in turret bustle. Wonder if that setup was less likely to detonate than one-piece rounds in the turret.
Yeah, that fuel tank setup is rather questionable. But most tank fires are due to ammo, not fuel, so I guess the Soviets figured it was an acceptable tradeoff.
They used two-piece ammunition in the IS-2 because it was the same ammunition used in the A-19 field gun. As far as I'm aware it was done for ammunition commonality and that's about it.
There was an experimental version of the D-25 installed in a T-44 where they used single-piece ammunition but evidently it was not pursued any further than that.
There's some documents experimenting with single piece shells in IS-2 and ISU-122, but actually reduced rate of fire, and in the case of IS-2, reduced ammo magazine as well. (To 27 rounds]
>If the front hull is penetrated by something, either you get raped by shrapnel and spalling or soaked in burning diesel.
1) Diesel is really hard to ignite. It's unlikely that a penetrating round would set it off.
2) Diesel, being a liquid, is quite dense and thus actually makes excellent armor against spalling and HEAT rounds.
These two qualities are the reason why they put the fuel tanks where they did.
Pretty much all modern AFV's also use their fuel tanks as armor; the Leclerc, for example, actually has a special auxiliary tank in the front of the hull, under the glacis, to serve as an additional layer to protect the driver.
>What caused this damage?
My first thought was 20mm but now I'm guessing a captured .50BMG.
>back then they operated with what they had, and to be fair, not many people knew how these tanks should look like.
I'd suggest the opposite was the case; many of the production crew and the viewers back then were WWII veterans and would have instantly known those ain't Tigers.
M48s and whatnot were used simply to save money on the production.
To be fair to the WWII vets, especially those on the Western Front in Europe, the Tiger was a boogeyman more than an actual opponent. US force encountered 3 Tigers in western Europe for example.
I don't see any penetrations, I see cratering, which both the .50 and 20mm would have done.
>the Tiger was a boogeyman more than an actual opponent.
Plenty of Tigers were encountered during the war and as there were hundreds of thousands of Americans stomping around Europe during WWII, even if they had never personally fought against a Tiger, they would have seen the wrecks scattered across the countryside.
The M48s (and crews) used in "Patton" were borrowed from the Spanish Army and were used because they could be had for cheep.
Russia's army playing a role in the conflict goes against his worldview that the separatists are just local people who bought brand new Russian equipment from local shops.
Image related, a buildup of Russian forces on the border which suddenly disappears right before Ukrainians are hit with a fresh unknown force.
> there are only 3 recorded incidents when American force ran into them.
No, the U.S. fought the German 504th Heavy Tank Bn (Tiger I) in North Africa in 1942 and would continue to encounter Tigers (and later in the war, Panthers) in Sicily, Italy, France and Germany.
You have no idea what is being talked about do you?
Fairly effective, although the Soviets just used tonnes of sappers, handheld tools, mine rollers and flails as well as human bodies to get the job done for a hell of a lot cheaper.
They were particularly effective in urban fighting; the Germans used bunches of Goliaths during the Warsaw Uprising of '44 to blow up strong points in buildings and road barricades the Poles had set-up throughout the city.
Are you implying a report written by an American, called Lessons Learned From the Russo-Ukraine War, is Ukraine begging for help?
we are talking about T-90A performance in ukraine and all you did was trying to prove Russia present in Ukraine with a satellite pic of nothing
what a butt hurt ukrop
and the BTR-3 is a shit
even Iraqi don't want that piece of shit
That doesn't even... Someone please translate
Are you serious? The Tiger I went into production in July ’42 with 1350 eventually being produced until Aug ’44.
Do you really thing the U.S. never encountered Tigers (or Panthers) until the last days of WWII?
The Germans only made 90 Ferdinands during the war, yet the U.S. faught them in Italy.
Acknowledging Russia's invasion of Ukraine does not make you Ukrainian.
yes, no body denying that on this thread
until this fag bring it up for no reason>>28408806
and keep on like a retard >>28409270
he must be a symbol of peace and freedom
>yes, no body denying that on this thread
>that report was fake as shit
Then this must come as an ever bigger shock to you, but Tigers were very rare all over, the Germans only made 1354 Tigers I and just 489 Tiger II, with 90 Ferdinands and 77 Jagdtigers (which the U.S. also fought).
The 501st was promised to Generalfeldmarschall Erwin Rommel for use in North Africa, and was prepared for tropical operations. Initially, the battalion consisted of 20 Tiger I and 25 Panzer III Ausf N.
Initially only three Tiger Is of the 501st landed at Tunis on 23 November 1942. These first elements of the battalion, along with four Panzer IIIs, were organised with other units into Kampfgruppe Lueder. They were involved in fighting just over a week later during the Axis counterattack on 1 December, destroying nine US and two British tanks on the first day while relieving German forces. On 2 December, KG Lueder, with one Tiger and five Panzer IIIs, attacked Tebourba, stopping an Allied advance and knocking out six tanks and four anti-tank guns for the loss of three Panzer IIIs. On 3 December, the single operational Tiger I was reinforced by three newly arrived Tigers, which, with infantry support, surrounded Tebourba. The next day, with Stuka support, Kampfgruppe Lueder took Tebourba but was then disbanded, all of its Tigers being out of action. Of 182 tanks present, the Allies lost 134.
And that was in just two weeks…
You are right, as in there were THREE RECORDED GROUND BATTLES INVOLVING CONFIRMED TIGERS.
That however does not equal literally three Tigers. For starters, they were almost never used in singles. But more importantly - there probably were some more fire contact incidents when Allied forces had a shootout with some German tanks that in fact were Tigers, but they managed to pull back before being identified/wrecks got evacuated (Germans wee really awesome at that)/grunts simply did not recognize the wrecks (there isn't much left of a tank if it takes a 100kg aviation bomb to the roof)
Germans indeed had some of Tigers on the Western front (most went East to feed Stalin's Beastkillers), but pretty much all of them were taken out via air, long-range artillery or simply were abandoned by their crews. So yeah - it was indeed much more rare on the Western front than one might think.
Not the original anon (and he indeed fucked up somewhat, as I pointed out), but, as stated where it started - >>28408509
> US force encountered 3 Tigers in western Europe for example.
>in western Europe
And later - >>28409838
>but yes the Tiger I was rare on the Western front.
>on the Western front
So if you was going to bitch about moving them goalposts you should have posted your handegg giant fish fork a few hours earlier.
Mines or flails, which one's better at demining?
>122mm High explosive DOESN'T NEED TO PENETRATE TIGER ARMOR IT WILL SEND THE TURRET FLYING ANYWAY
it could do plenty of structural damage due to kinetic energy of 25kg heavy shell, but it didn't rip off turrets, it was internal ammunition explosion (usually due to spalling) that was removing turrets from tanks.
>The large hatch in the front glacis on the T-34 is a structural weakness for the entire front armor plate
aye. I remember reading gunner's manual for 75mm Pak 97/38 (WW1 era field gun rebuilt into improvised anti-tank gun), and frontal armor of T-34 was penetrable for it only at 100m. Except hatch which was 500m.
We think (based on his descriptions as we don't have photos) that my grandfather saw an Elephant in Italy. It was at the top of a tall hill and hid around the corner just coming out to fire. They were held up all day by it as nothing could damage it and nothing could travel down the valley it was protecting. In the end a team took a Phesant 17 pounder up the valley on the other side and fire across to knock it out but that was a big delay for one vehicle.
Ahh, original PzKpfw V. Didn't expect someone to remember these freaks
>tfw slavshit commiefornia "muh second ammendment" freedom ATF motherjones alex jones REEEEEEEEEEEEEE autism glocknade 1,000 monkeys v 10 MuhReeNz?! STOPPIN POWAAHHH nugget muslim barack HUSS31N ()Bumm3r arsenal of bread EDC innawoods HiCOCK456789 here! taktik000l operators! >tfw slavshit commiefornia "muh second ammendment" freedom ATF motherjones alex jones REEEEEEEEEEEEEE autism glocknade 1,000 monkeys v 10 MuhReeNz?! STOPPIN POWAAHHH nugget muslim barack HUSS31N ()Bumm3r arsenal of bread EDC innawoods HiCOCK456789 here! taktik000l operators! >tfw slavshit commiefornia "muh second ammendment" freedom ATF motherjones alex jones REEEEEEEEEEEEEE autism glocknade 1,000 monkeys v 10 MuhReeNz?! STOPPIN POWAAHHH nugget muslim barack HUSS31N ()Bumm3r arsenal of bread EDC innawoods HiCOCK456789 here! taktik000l operators! >tfw slavshit commiefornia "muh second ammendment" freedom ATF motherjones alex jones REEEEEEEEEEEEEE autism glocknade 1,000 monkeys v 10 MuhReeNz! STOPPIN POWAAHHH nugget muslim barack HUSS31N ()Bumm3r arsenal of bread EDC innawoods HiCOCK456789 here! taktik000l operators!
This claim is true, but it's result of good cherrypicking
"On western front" excludes Tiger encounters in Africa and Italy, while "US" excludes ones that involved British and Canadians.
>mfw learning how simple it is to range an enemy tank in a T-62
a combination of the object 187 and the new bustle mount autoloader
and without ERA
i have the Russian autoloader but the ukraine one is more detail
>I like this turdpiece.
What's wrong with me?
Clearly this, because they offer extra frontal protection/fuck the steering and visibility.
Do note that when Zaloga says only 3 encounters with US, he means after D-Day. The final encounter of which were two days at the end of the war with M26 Pershings; Fireball got knocked out, hit through the Coax MG port (Not QUITE the tank equivilant of Saving Private Ryan's scope kill, but just as difficult), and the next day another Pershing knocked out a Tiger and two PzIV. (Some sources say the later was a Tiger 2...would make sense, US encountered more Tiger 2's than Tiger 1's post D-Day)
T-62 sight has this small scale for targets of a certain size. (Different anon)
All I have are Red Orchestra 1 and 2 really. 2 has fully modeled interiors like Steel Armor, but you only get, like, two tanks, T-34/76 and PzKpfw IVG. No Tiger, Panther, T-34/85, IS-2, or ISU-152
Here's the dropbox link.
Will be done in a few mins.
If you don't know what Panzer Tracts is:
It's a series of really detailed books on WW2 German armoured vehicles by Hilary Doyle. Worth a read if you love tanks.
>“Central Museum of Armored Vehicles” of the Ministry of Defense of Russian Federation officially states, that the information of the restoration works on the tank “Maus”, which appeared in various mass media, is not true.
>t’s a perspective project, which is in the state of negotiations and approval.
>The Museum staff is outraged by the insolence, ignorance and absolute lack of patriotism of the employees of the aforementioned mass media.
>The Museum will never prioritize the restoration of the German tank “Maus”, or any foreign tank to any of the Russian military anniversaries, let alone the Day of Victory celebration, which is the most important celebration for us.
>The restoration of the German tank is not “a great honor for us” as the journalists write, but a simple planned work.
>Restoration works on this projects, if they happen at all, will be carried out following the order of work.
>Currently, the Museum, exclusively on its own, restores the legendary Soviet tank T-35 to be ready for the 70th Anniversary of the Great Victory, for which we are rightfully proud.
>Furthermore, the information about our exclusive partnership with company Wargaming is not true.
>An “exclusive” partnership with any organization is out of the question, as the Museum is a public institution, that in the past cooperated and always will cooperate with all organizations and institution for the good of our Motherland within the framework of joint projects and programs, aimed at the Museum development, patriotic education and prevention of historical facts falsification.
>With kind regards
>Administration of the Museum”
>prevention of historical facts falsification