217 replies to this topic

[W3r3Wu1F]

Blackhorse_Six, on Sep 12 2011 - 16:21, said:

I have found that the difference in "tonnage" (itself a maritime term relating to Displacement) is often related to the source of the given information, ie, expressed as long tons, short tons, and metric tons - some authors quote an "official" source, while others have performed conversions for the convenience of their readership in other nations. These figures are often later requoted in other books & databases, thus propagating the "error". The error is further compounded when tonnage is cited without notation relating to "Factory" weight vs "Cobat-Loaded" weight.




The gun on the production M18 was never anything other than the 76mm gun, though I cannot recall exactly which model (M1, M1A1 or M1A2). A 90mm gun was tested on one M18, but the weight of it slowed the vehicle considerably and the additional recoil tonnage stressed the current susupension beyond acceptable service parameters. With the end of the war in sight, the fact that the capabilities of the M18 had already been superceeded by tanks like the M4A3E8 Sherman Easy-Eight and the M26 Pershing, and the impending consolidation of the Tank Corps and the Tank Destroyer Corps into one Armor Branch, the project was dropped. If anyone has the Squadron Pub on the M18, it's pretty definitive on the basics ...  


Whistling soft tune, looking around, hands in pockets, shuffling of feet ...

Otherwise, (+1) for the impressive Links ... Here's one more ... http://m18hellcat.co...r_Carriage.html
Together, the Firepower Demo and the Restoration Video should give you a better "feel" of the M18. Note also, related vids and slides.

Don't no what happened here,could someone delete this plz (The_Chieftain).

[W3r3Wu1F]

hmmm asked to "reply" and it posts quote....

Statement1. "I have found that the difference in "tonnage" (itself a maritime term relating to Displacement) is often related to the source of the given information, ie, expressed as long tons, short tons, and metric tons - some authors quote an "official" source, while others have performed conversions for the convenience of their readership in other nations. These figures are often later requoted in other books & databases, thus propagating the "error". The error is further compounded when tonnage is cited without notation relating to "Factory" weight vs "Cobat-Loaded" weight."

Reply1. I didn't mention "tonnage"(did anyone?), though apparently, i should have stated metric(in Australia, and most of the world metric is now standard...)

Note: The tonne (unit symbol t) or metric ton (U.S.),often written pleonastically as metric tonne, is a unit of mass equal to 1,000 kg (2,204.62 lb) (103 kilograms). It is sometimes abbreviated to mt in the United States, although this conflicts with other SI symbols. The tonne is not a unit in the International System of Units (SI), but is accepted for use with the SI. In SI units and prefixes, the tonne is a megagram (Mg). The spelling tonne pre-dates the introduction of the SI in 1960; it has been used with this meaning in France since 1842 (when there were no metric prefixes for multiples of 106 and above), and is now used as the standard spelling for the metric mass measurement in most English-speaking countries. In the United States, the unit was originally referred to using the French words millier or tonneau,[10] but these terms are now obsolete. The Imperial and US customary units comparable to the tonne are both spelled ton in English, though they differ in mass. Pronunciation of tonne (the word used in the United Kingdom) and ton is usually identical.

Please be aware that "Tonnage" and "tonnes" are two different things...

Source: http://en.wikipedia....ki/Metric_tonne

Yes i know its Wiki, but its pretty much accurate...

Statement2: while others have performed conversions for the convenience of their readership in other nations. These figures are often later requoted in other books & databases, thus propagating the "error". The error is further compounded when tonnage is cited without notation relating to "Factory" weight vs "Cobat-Loaded" weight."

Reply2: Alot of that is(more or less is true) but, Usually an empty weight of 56 Tonnes(ie: 56,000kg)is given as "empty weight and 57 tonnes(ie: 57,000kg) is given as combat loaded weight is given(any other information that you would like to provide, would be interesting)

Statement3. "expressed as long tons, short tons, and metric tons"
Reply3    :expressing "metric tons" is erroneous, it would be Metric tonnes...

Statement4. "These figures are often later requoted in other books & databases, thus propagating the "error". The error is further compounded when tonnage is cited without notation relating to "Factory" weight vs "Cobat-Loaded" weight."

Reply4.     Agreed, more or less, this Issue, is propagated in many authoritative   sources, which makes it quiet difficult to find accuracy and truth

Statement5. "compounded when tonnage is cited"

Reply5. I don't agree that "Tonnage" has been "cited"

[W3r3Wu1F]

Hey Blackhorse_six;

Statement1. "The gun on the production M18 was never anything other than the 76mm gun, though I cannot recall exactly which model (M1, M1A1 or M1A2). A 90mm gun was tested on one M18, but the weight of it slowed the vehicle considerably and the additional recoil tonnage stressed the current susupension beyond acceptable service parameters. With the end of the war in sight, the fact that the capabilities of the M18 had already been superceeded by tanks like the M4A3E8 Sherman Easy-Eight and the M26 Pershing, and the impending consolidation of the Tank Corps and the Tank Destroyer Corps into one Armor Branch, the project was dropped. If anyone has the Squadron Pub on the M18, it's pretty definitive on the basics ...

Reply1. Yes i made a mistake, the M18 Hellcat used the M1A1 76mm gun, not the 90mm, sorry about that, i'm going to be VERY careful of what i say! lol, which is good...

[W3r3Wu1F]

hey again, Blackhorse_six,What do you mean by "Whistling soft tune, looking around, hands in pockets, shuffling of feet ..."?

[W3r3Wu1F]

warmonger180, on Sep 12 2011 - 22:13, said:

so, the OP is here to . here's something to review, and I'll never let go of it. do something about the Panzerkampfwagen VI Tiger. it's ridiculous that this tank is incapable of destroying other tanks of its tier or lower in one shot with the KwK36 8.8cm L/56 gun as it was so very capable of in real life.

Hey warmorger180, I more or less agree("the devil is in the details"), there's alot of propaganda/ BS around; perhaps you would be interested in the Doco:

http://www.youtube.c...feature=related

[W3r3Wu1F]

Dominatus, on Sep 12 2011 - 22:37, said:

Please stop talknig about 1-shotting tanks with the 8.8cm. Real life tanks do not have health bars. At 17 pdr took out 3 Tigers with one shot each. A 76mm M1 gun can do the same.

Penetrations a different story though.

Also, just a note on the Panther for whoever was asking. The Panther had 80mm on the front glacias plate at a slope that made it about 150mm or so effective. This seems more or less correct in the game.

The Panther's Upper Glacis, is/was 80mm, Lower Glacis is/was 60mm

http://upload.wikime...a/M1A1-edit.JPG

http://militaryhisto...ermany/pz5.html

I will go to more trouble if needed...

This statement, i find quiet interesting:

"Please stop talknig about 1-shotting tanks with the 8.8cm. Real life tanks do not have health bars. At 17 pdr took out 3 Tigers with one shot each. A 76mm M1 gun can do the same."

[ToveyADMCinCHomeFleet]

drakonniz, on Sep 13 2011 - 00:01, said:

Perhaps maybe you need to watch the movie "Kelly's Heroes". Couldn't hurt.

oh of course, that's a very accurate source

may these should be watched instead: http://youtu.be/K3ocpCPZBnMhttp://www.youtube.c...feature=related I never said the Tiger could not be destroyed, and it took the 17pndr(76.2mm) gun to do it and even with that it likely wasn't easy

great, now i wanna take my Tiger out to play

[Zergling]

UWS_W3r3Wu1F, on Sep 13 2011 - 10:50, said:

The Panther D model had 100mm upper glacis, Modle A had 60mm or was it the Prototype.....

http://militaryhisto...ermany/pz5.html

I will go to more trouble if needed...

According to that link, all Panther models had 80mm front upper hull, 60mm lower. Different soures vary slightly around those thicknesses, 82/62mm being common values (and ingame), aswell as 85/65mm.

A large number of Panthers suffered from flawed glacis plates though (as much as 1 in 3 tanks), which would have reduced their protection by at least 20%.

To the best of my knowledge, only the Panther II had 100mm thick glacis plate.

[Nodbugger]

From a current Scout PL, welcome sir.

[W3r3Wu1F]

Zergling, on Sep 13 2011 - 12:31, said:

According to that link, all Panther models had 80mm front upper hull, 60mm lower. Different soures vary slightly around those thicknesses, 82/62mm being common values (and ingame), aswell as 85/65mm.

A large number of Panthers suffered from flawed glacis plates though (as much as 1 in 3 tanks), which would have reduced their protection by at least 20%.

To the best of my knowledge, only the Panther II had 100mm thick glacis plate.

Statement1. "According to that link, all Panther models had 80mm front upper hull, 60mm lower."
Reply1.      Sorry, i gave that link, as a comparison/ difference, and sorry i made the mistake of quoting 100mm as the Upper Glacis armour(U.S = Armor)thickness, i had been researching a related controversy. i.e: The panthers Mantlet armour thickness 100mm/120mm, and the 100mm was on my mind at the time...

Statement2. "Different soures vary slightly around those thicknesses"
Reply2.      Agreed.

Statement3. "82/62mm being common values"
Reply3.      The 2mm variation, i find curious, i've wondered in the past if it had something to do with the Imperial/Metric conversion? or perhaps a confusion around the British testing/British Machinable Quality Armour? Or maybe   because of "The following table gives a list of Poldi hardness, corrected to Brinell figures, taken at the surface of the armor"?

"Moreover, in the same reference book, Jentz presents the data from a British testing of the Tiger's armor protection by firing different guns against it. The tests were realized in a place beside the the main road from Beja to to Sidi N'sir in Tunisia, on May 19, 1943. The reports from these tests stated that the resistance of the Tiger's armor was "considerably higher than that of the British machineable quality armor. The side armor, with a thickness of 82 mm (nominal thickness was 80 mm) had a resistance equivalent of 92 mm of British armor" (Jentz, op cit, page 15). However, a little further, when addressing directly the issue of the Tiger's armor quality, the report states that "The armor plates (with exception of the hull roof plates) did not show any marked tendency to brittleness, and their behavior generally was not unlike British mechineable plates. The following table gives a list of Poldi hardness, corrected to Brinell figures, taken at the surface of the armor".

Statement4. "aswell as 85/65mm."
Reply4.      Never heard those figures mentioned/quoted (not saying your lying or what ever, just i've never seen those figures ever quoted, i havn't seen everything, not even close lol)

Statement5. "A large number of Panthers suffered from flawed glacis plates though (as much as 1 in 3 tanks)"
Reply5.      This is quiet(Very) a complicated area, and fairly obscure, technical and controversial, 2 secondary(and perhaps Authoritative?) sources on this subject are Jentz and Zaloga ,  even Primary sources seem to differ on      the subject, never heard anyone quantify it as "(as much as 1 in 3 tanks)" or even as "A large number of Panthers suffered from flawed glacis plates", the last few batches probably were sub-standard, in 45 Germany no longer had access to Molybdenum or nickel(the only Panzer that i know of that used Nickel was the Tiger...).

Statement6. "which would have reduced their protection by at least 20%"
Reply6.      I couldn't find the source of that statement, i have heard(Read) that it may of affected the panthers ability to resist a impact/penetration by 10-20%

             "Testing by U.S. Army officers in August 1944 in Isigny, France showed catastrophic cracking of the armor plate on two out of three Panthers examined"
              I've, seen a Test where a Panther was struck 6 times by a 76mm M1A1 in the side of turret, no penetration, but it did crack...

Note:         Found source(original?)
              http://yarchive.net/...tank_armor.html
                
It's all quiet interesting, but also quiet confusing/annoying lol.

Kind regards - Wulf.

[W3r3Wu1F]

drakonniz, on Sep 13 2011 - 00:04, said:

Hands down, my choice is the Tiger tank. I have never liked any other tank. As for modern tanks? I choose the M88 Hercules. No other tanks out there suit me.

The M88, a tank?  erm i was under the impression it was a ARV( U.S call it MRV?)

"Tank Recovery vehicles like the M88 were designed to recover damaged vehicles from the frontline while under fire. The standard ARV in the US Army immediately after the Second World War was the M74, designed by Bowen-McLaughlin-York (later BMY and now part of United Defense), which produced over 1,000 vehicles"

Source: http://www.globalsec.../ground/m88.htm

see also: http://upload.wikime...hicle_in_pm.jpg

The M728 Combat Engineer Vehicle, looks kind of like a "tank"

see: http://en.wikipedia....ngineer_Vehicle

Kind regards Wulf.

[Kapitan_War_Wizard]

UWS_W3r3Wu1F, on Sep 13 2011 - 19:06, said:

The M88, a tank?  erm i was under the impression it was a ARV( U.S call it MRV?)

"Tank Recovery vehicles like the M88 were designed to recover damaged vehicles from the frontline while under fire. The standard ARV in the US Army immediately after the Second World War was the M74, designed by Bowen-McLaughlin-York (later BMY and now part of United Defense), which produced over 1,000 vehicles"

Source: http://www.globalsec.../ground/m88.htm

see also: http://upload.wikime...hicle_in_pm.jpg

The M728 Combat Engineer Vehicle, looks kind of like a "tank"

see: http://en.wikipedia....ngineer_Vehicle

Kind regards Wulf.

The base definition of "tank" is an armored vehicle. The M88 is armored. End of story, thanks for reply.

[Dominatus]

warmonger180, on Sep 13 2011 - 11:49, said:

oh of course, that's a very accurate source

may these should be watched instead: http://youtu.be/K3ocpCPZBnM http://www.youtube.c...feature=related I never said the Tiger could not be destroyed, and it took the 17pndr(76.2mm) gun to do it and even with that it likely wasn't easy

great, now i wanna take my Tiger out to play

A single penetrating shot will generally hit some important component and knock out a tank. At Wittmann's last battle, Ekin's Firefly made 3 confirmed kills. He put one shot into each of them. Wittmann's own Tiger is disputed.

An American 76mm was inferior to the British model, but not by horribly much. Again, if it did penetrate, the Tiger would be knocked out.

[Nodbugger]

drakonniz, on Sep 13 2011 - 20:43, said:

The base definition of "tank" is an armored vehicle. The M88 is armored. End of story, thanks for reply.

Not really. It is one of those things real tankers get picky about.

Armor and tracks doesn't make something a tank. It is about its role on the battlefield.

[The_Chieftain]

UWS_W3r3Wu1F, on Sep 13 2011 - 09:11, said:

hey again, Blackhorse_six,What do you mean by "Whistling soft tune, looking around, hands in pockets, shuffling of feet ..."?

Same as the cough.

In a thread where people have started delving into arguments over minutae, there was a rather obvious and glaring error made when referencing the Jadgpanther and its 75mm gun.

[JeanneAlter]

How do you think German tanks ingame compare to other nations? I personally believe they're just fine, though I suppose it's always possible that the people who post whine threads about the Tiger all the time are right. =p

[W3r3Wu1F]

The_Chieftain, on Sep 14 2011 - 01:22, said:

Same as the cough.

In a thread where people have started delving into arguments over minutae, there was a rather obvious and glaring error made when referencing the Jadgpanther and its 75mm gun.

Hey, The_Chieftain, thanks for clarifying my misunderstanding(Blackhawk_six, sent me a message, of same, i asked simply, because i didn't want to jump to conclusions), Yes the 75mm armed Jagdpanther, was a rarity indeed, so rare in fact, it never existed (I am quiet aware that the Jagdpanther used the 88mm KwK43/3 L/71 gun, i had been researching the 75mm, looking for any clips showing a Panther firing the 75mm, or just the the 75mm KwK42 L/71 firing, and i guess in the rush to finish off my post, my tired brain, put both of them together, apologies...)

In regards to the "arguments over minutiae' 1. i have no interests in "arguments" the only form of inter-personal communication that has any positive usefulness is discussion, and 2. by "minutiae" ("in everyday English, minor or incidental."), things like "...NBS filtration system, paint composition,calling a ARV a tank..."?

My reply/statement on that issue, wasn't to put down the poster down, merely my horror of and ARV being called a Tank, being a fact that an ARV isn't even an AFV, and then claiming that due to an ARV having "Armour" it was/is considered a "tank" almost made to pass-out, by that line of "reasoning" an Armored car is a "tank" i could go on; That such an "obvious and glaring error" was not picked up, but my silly mistake was, is kind of curious...

In regards to the question of, the relevance/appropriateness of replying to the post in question, in hind-sight, i would agreed that it was unnecessary in general(It was a kind of, what the... reaction)

Regards Wulf.

[W3r3Wu1F]

Troika, on Sep 14 2011 - 03:16, said:

How do you think German tanks ingame compare to other nations? I personally believe they're just fine, though I suppose it's always possible that the people who post whine threads about the Tiger all the time are right. =p

This subject is kind of a hot potato, there are many seeming variables, and inconsistencies, so trying to compare the different tanks is difficult, if not a waste of time; having said that, i've noticed a significant drop in my Tigers
performance, in penetrating armour, the KV/KV-1s/KV-13 and IS-3(IS-3 was hard and now almost impossible)were quiet easy, even at long range i.e: 300m+ i pretty didn't have to worry about where i hit them or the angle i hit them(That was the case even when using the 88mm KwK36 L/56) now it seems that even at rangers of 100m and less, with the 88mm L/71, its quiet dificult, to impossible(before, average of 2-3 rounds, now 3-4 rounds), about 4 days ago i took my brand new Tiger 2 for a spin(max engine, everything else, was stock i.e: same 88mm L/71 gun etc), i played 5 matches, "we" lost 4, but even with alleged improved armour, it felt worse, the 150mm frontal armour, didn't mean jack, the sloped armour didn't mean jack either, i get more bounces off the Tiger than the sloped armour of the Tiger2...(BTW, i now only have the M4 and T2 for comparison, being thinking of trying out the T1 HT, but that seems to mean i have to go and buy the M3Lee, cries...).

"...though I suppose it's always possible that the people who post whine threads about the Tiger all the time are right. =p" seriously, i'm not sure of your intention with that statement, though i've seen what many people would regard such a statement as... And to single out the Tiger is quiet instructive, have use seen the threads on the T1/14/M6, or the KV series...? The U.S T1/14 and the M6 series never went into production, some say for good reason, the KV series did enter production, but never achieved the same results as the Tiger(i can almost guarantee that some one will reply to that statement,and i'm fairly sure of what that reply will be, then we can engage in, hopefully a mature and intelligent - hopefully i qualify discussion/debate).

Regards Wulf.

[Kapitan_War_Wizard]

As much as it pains me to do this.... I shall post a definition in multiple form, as it has become necessary to do so.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tank

{first definition set}
3. An enclosed, heavily armored combat vehicle that is armed with cannon and machine guns and moves on continuous tracks.

{second definition set}
2. (Military)
a.  an armoured combat vehicle moving on tracks and armed with guns, etc., originally developed in World War I


{Thesaurus listings}
Noun 1. tank
tank - an enclosed armored military vehicle; has a cannon and moves on caterpillar treads
armored combat vehicle, armoured combat vehicle, army tank
armored vehicle, armoured vehicle - a vehicle that is protected by armor plate
cannon - heavy gun fired from a tank
gun enclosure, gun turret, turret - a self-contained weapons platform housing guns and capable of rotation
military vehicle - vehicle used by the armed forces
panzer - an armored vehicle or tank
tracked vehicle - a self-propelled vehicle that moves on tracks
armed forces, armed services, military, military machine, war machine - the military forces of a nation; "their military is the largest in the region"; "the military machine is the same one we faced in 1991 but now it is weaker"

Can we please move past this? Seriously... A tank does not have to be a howitzer or a Abrams. Why else do we call them "light tank", "medium tank", "heavy tank", "combat tank", "engineer tank", "medic tank", etc etc etc.  The M88 series of combat vehicle, is a recovery TANK used to recover other tanks and vehicles. The M88 is a RECOVERY TANK, the Abrams is a BATTLE TANK...

Chieftain, may I please get your input as per definition? The only contradiction to definition is the view of those who have opinions. There is nothing wrong with having an opinion. Yes, I know that by my definition postings above that "tank" has 2 sets of definition that says a tank has a cannon and 1 that does not. As a military veteran, and Abrams battle tank mechanic, I view the M88 as a tank. It is armored, it has heavy tracks, and it has a .50 cal machine gun as opposed to a 120MM cannon like on the Abrams. The M88, granted, does not have a turret. HOWEVER, the M88 chassis is that of the lower half of an M60. Even without the cannon, I will always view the M88 as a tank, because whether a definition proves a different word means one thing or another over the one I use, and even if I prove myself wrong... The M88 is a tank, that opinion shall not change for me. I loved and still love the military. I loved my/the M88 tank, and I loved working on tanks. Didn't matter to me if it was a light or a heavy tank, I still loved working on them. I take pride in being able to fix a tank and other armored vehicles, and I would give anything to do it again. For me, working on a tank is a passion. In Germany I remember my days working on the Abrams, and I cry at times from longing of working on them. Just like a 19K cries at not being able to be in one, I as an 63E (yes, 63E back before it was 63A) hate not having my hands on a tank and turning a wrench. The Abrams, the M88, the 113, the Howitzer... ALL tanks.  A bank truck with armor, is a armored vehicle, not a tank. A presidential limo is a armored car, not a tank. The HalfTrack is not a tank as it has wheels in the front, only partial tread that is rubber and not really a track, and was never meant to function as a tank( atleast that I know of, however, it seems silly to think it would considering its open design.).
.
Right, Wrong, or indifferent... ARV, MRV, whatever mv... The M88 is a tank, I love it, and I refuse to call it anything else.

Best of luck to everyone in World tanks, Real life, and everything else. ~salutes~
                                                                                               Duane Dalles Schlender, D.A.V.
                                                                                          63E : Abrams Tank System Hull Mechanic

[The_Chieftain]

drakonniz, on Sep 15 2011 - 12:53, said:

Chieftain, may I please get your input as per definition?

I disagree with all those definitions: They all require treads. I see no reason that a tank need to have treads, it is just the default method of locomotion today. Would a hovertank not be a tank?

I'll go with something akin to "mobile, armoured vehicle equipped with a direct fire weapons system with the primary role of and capable of defeating the full variety of enemy systems to be found on the battlefield"