Jump to content


Questions Submission Thread


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
102 replies to this topic

The_Chieftain #1 Posted Feb 15 2012 - 20:53

    Military Specialist

  • Military Specialist
  • 5203 battles
  • 7,352
  • [WGA-A] WGA-A
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

Posted Image


This thread is one where you may submit questions for consideration to be posed to our panel of experts. Of course, we won't have time to ask all of them, so the more interesting the question, the more likely it is that it will be asked!

Don't forget, the focus is tank development and technology, 1930s to 1950s. Questions not appropriate to this panel will be deleted.

IrishGuard #2 Posted Feb 16 2012 - 04:23

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 17686 battles
  • 234
  • [FGWLF] FGWLF
  • Member since:
    05-07-2011
How effective was the mouting of a 75mm howitzer in an M5 Stuart Light Tank? I have never been able to find reports on how effictive this Howitzer Motor Carriage M8 was in comabt and how wide was it's distrubtion to armored units? HOw does this compare to the M24 Chaffee introduced later on and the M4 sherman 105?
-IrishGuard
B)

ApplesauceBandit #3 Posted Feb 16 2012 - 04:54

    Major

  • Wiki Staff
  • 23586 battles
  • 5,391
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    05-17-2011
I came across a variant of the Stuart, the M5A1E1, and I am curious to know what made it different.  It looks the same as a M5A1 externally.

A picture of it:
http://www.tankinfo....ages/M5A1E1.jpg

Wolfguard #4 Posted Feb 16 2012 - 05:02

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 30804 battles
  • 54
  • [SP3AR] SP3AR
  • Member since:
    02-27-2011
Reality check
I rather have an expert opinion so here is the question:The 88mm AT rnd, How effective would this round be vs a T-54 or an IS series tank or for that matter the American M-103 tank ??

Ormazd #5 Posted Feb 16 2012 - 05:53

    Private

  • Players
  • 2714 battles
  • 2
  • Member since:
    02-05-2012
While the French Bat Chatillon 25t is an awesome tank in the game, it never saw service in real life, being discontinued for several reasons, such as being hard to make gas tight and the oscillating turret falling out of favor. Were these issues worth not using the design? If they weren't, or even if they were, how effective do you believe the tank would have been had it saw battle?

tankman221 #6 Posted Feb 16 2012 - 06:42

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 6494 battles
  • 100
  • Member since:
    11-27-2011
I have seen that there is any French tanks in my book about tanks called "Tanks And Armored Fighting Vehicles Visual Encyclopedia"© But I cant find any French tanks from any era except the Renault FT-17 LIGHT tank so do you know any week spots for French tanks. Thank you

LYinKansas #7 Posted Feb 16 2012 - 09:19

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 19422 battles
  • 24
  • Member since:
    04-14-2011
The problem with tanks has always been the power to weight ratio. Armor has always been limited by its powerplant, due to its immense weight. However, steam powered locomotives and ships of the era never seemed to have much problem propelling their massive weight forward, it just took time. My question to the panel is why were steam powered tanks impractical then, and with modern electric water heaters, are they still impractical today?

-Joel M. Brewer

Tishr #8 Posted Feb 16 2012 - 09:45

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 11239 battles
  • 923
  • [BOWRD] BOWRD
  • Member since:
    05-23-2011
I would like to know their opinions on what they believe influenced how the different powers approached tank design.

Otto_matic_Reiffel #9 Posted Feb 16 2012 - 11:29

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 7046 battles
  • 2,008
  • Member since:
    11-16-2010
Guys remember this is about actual tanks, not about game balance or any gripes with Wargaming's policies.

Do any of the experts believe the 'Krokodil' design of the Stug E-100 would have ever worked (never mind impracticalities of super heavy tanks)? How about any tactical implications of that design versus the chosen rear mounted design?

PS Thanks for organising this Chieftain, that's quite an impressive panel you've managed to assemble :Smile_honoring:

redplauge #10 Posted Feb 16 2012 - 14:57

    Captain

  • Players
  • 15234 battles
  • 1,089
  • [_7TH_] _7TH_
  • Member since:
    02-27-2011

View PostTishr, on Feb 16 2012 - 09:45, said:

I would like to know their opinions on what they believe influenced how the different powers approached tank design.

i like this question.
but a few of mine.

the french prewar designs are generaly considered superior to others of the early war period; if the french tanks where put into battle in an effective manner, how would their tatics and technology stand up to the german blitzkreig of the pz2,3,4's?

if german design and production was allowed to continue into the early cold war era; what, if any, impact on designs would the maus/e100 and e50 standarpanzer's would have been to the nato and warsaw pact designs?

the panther, tiger, and koingstiger has mystque that persists even to today, how have these tanks influenced postwar designs?

CommanderCaldwell309 #11 Posted Feb 16 2012 - 16:32

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 931 battles
  • 33
  • Member since:
    07-11-2011
I have a question, whats the history of the Tiger's development. Though an American who despises the Nazis, i have a interest in their "Super-Weapons" and "Famous Aces" like for example, Michael Wittman who was killed in the famed 007 Tiger. This is something i have wondered for so long of how this machine came to be an idea, was made, etc. I am a huge history buff but mostly of WWII and yet i am told by many "you know almost everything!" when i tell what ik. This is not at all true. I only know of the most famous battles,guns,tanks,invasions, the factions,aces (most decorated anyway), ive played the game that got me started on WWII history, Call of Duty, and other games as well (company of heroes series, call of duty 1,UO,3,finest hour,5,etc, and this great game that deepens my love for such a game, WoT. I wish to use all my knowledge to not just be a famed general if i make it to westpoint after high school if i get a scholarship and work my way up, but also to use knowledge to make Americas "Dream Arsenal" come to be, one that will be so strong, no nation will want to start a war in fear of America wiping em out, thus our strength being the beginning of world peace. You can see these ambitions are why i ask such questions. The Tiger is one i wish to study and make a modern one of.

noll11 #12 Posted Feb 16 2012 - 17:08

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 5039 battles
  • 746
  • Member since:
    04-23-2011
This may be a simple question, but i will ask it anyway; Where did the word "tank" come from, and when was it first applied to, well, tanks? (rather than, say a water tank,etc).

Thanks, noll11

Bretspot #13 Posted Feb 16 2012 - 17:12

    Private

  • Players
  • 3465 battles
  • 2
  • Member since:
    06-06-2011
What do you think will be the next big advance in tank design?
For example:

Weapon Design/Delivery:
Such as: Directed Energy Weapons such as Rail Guns and/or lasers, higher velocity conventional weapons.

Increased/More effective Armor:

For Example: Stronger composite armors, reactive armors etc.

Motive capabilities:
Such as fully electric "Silent" tanks, longer range etc.

Stealth Capabilities:
Such as active camo "Similar to "E-paper" covering a tank allowing it to blend into its environment on demand or even block/divert its heat signature. And or operational sounds.

Or some other fundamental shift in modern tank design?

The_Chieftain #14 Posted Feb 16 2012 - 18:24

    Military Specialist

  • Military Specialist
  • 5203 battles
  • 7,352
  • [WGA-A] WGA-A
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

View PostApplesauceBandit, on Feb 16 2012 - 04:54, said:

I came across a variant of the Stuart, the M5A1E1, and I am curious to know what made it different.  It looks the same as a M5A1 externally.

A picture of it:
http://www.tankinfo....ages/M5A1E1.jpg

The bogies were mounted further away from the hull to leave room for wider tracks to reduce ground pressure. (Question is too short to warrant submission to panel!)

husband #15 Posted Feb 16 2012 - 18:46

    Major

  • Players
  • 32076 battles
  • 3,278
  • [FRGLS] FRGLS
  • Member since:
    07-01-2011

View Postnoll11, on Feb 16 2012 - 17:08, said:

This may be a simple question, but i will ask it anyway; Where did the word "tank" come from, and when was it first applied to, well, tanks? (rather than, say a water tank,etc).

Thanks, noll11

Tank (in English) from 1915-16 when tanks were first invented to overcome the stalemate in trench warfare.
The word tank, literally as in "water tank" as you suggested, was painted on the sides of the shipping containers to conceal the contents from spies.
The name stuck. In german of course the word is "PanzerKampfwagen" translating to "Armored fighting Vehicle" and shortened to Panzer (Pz).

redplauge #16 Posted Feb 16 2012 - 20:16

    Captain

  • Players
  • 15234 battles
  • 1,089
  • [_7TH_] _7TH_
  • Member since:
    02-27-2011

View PostBretspot, on Feb 16 2012 - 17:12, said:

Weapon Design/Delivery:
Such as: Directed Energy Weapons such as Rail Guns and/or lasers, higher velocity conventional weapons.


ah technically a  rail or even coil gun is not a DEW. it throws a solid shell at very high velocities. a laser or accelerated particle gun would be a DEW.
also the military channel had a show on about the various branches interest in rail, coil, and laser weapons.

Force_Lord_1992 #17 Posted Feb 16 2012 - 20:55

    Private

  • Players
  • 1694 battles
  • 5
  • Member since:
    04-14-2011
What it is known about the E-50 and the E-75 tanks from the never-built (with the exception of the E-100 hull) German E-Series?

Based on the information we have on these two tanks, how on paper (and realistically) an E-50 would compare with the M46/47/48, the Centurion and the T-54, and how the E-75 would fare (on paper and realistically) against the T29/30/34 or the M103, the Conqueror, and the IS-3/4/7?

Harlech #18 Posted Feb 16 2012 - 21:40

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 30738 battles
  • 172
  • [CONZ] CONZ
  • Member since:
    11-01-2011
It seems the German quest towards gigantism as a solution was one of the cornerstones of their downfall. In the considered opinion of the panel, would the German war machine have been better served in developing new, smaller scale innovative technologies (such as the 75L58 'Konisch' and other squeezebore guns)and other new technologies or by shifting all of their resources into production of 'standard' tanks like the PzIV and a number of standard variants?

Madox76 #19 Posted Feb 17 2012 - 00:33

    Captain

  • Players
  • 22288 battles
  • 1,451
  • [BEERS] BEERS
  • Member since:
    10-01-2011
Along lines of Harlech question.  While I don't think super sized tanks were really the downfall of Germany I think in the end all nations really were getting there... American T95 anyone LOL.

1- What i am curious though is what is the Think Tanks opinion on just where Germany was going and getting backed into.  Most designs had started before 1944 as far as I have seen so the Invasion and how effective the rush Across France was took all by surprise, followed by the USSR grinding in from the east.  

Combined with Germans dwindling resources and trained personnel regardless of these super weapons it seems after summer of 44 even with the few German counter offensives the end was really there for Germany.  So even if the Maus and other super weapons had made to field, which truthfully they seemed more like really costly test cases or proof of concepts before the real next wave of game changers hit.  With the end coming really was there a point in pushing them instead of falling back on known weaponry if anything to get your army back up to full strength.

2- I guess in end question would be with Tank warfare as it was in mid 40's after the invasion really was there any way Germany, without nuclear threat could have held out and hit a stalemate? let alone pushed the line back again?  Seems to me at the time once truly on the defensive unless the Offense makes a critical error (runs out of supplies, over reaches etc) the defender is well doomed.

3- Also if the war had continued do you believe these super tanks or there next generation really would have made any sort of effect or would development continue but really the Tanks out there would have stayed and kept getting tweaked.  Compared to how things turned out after the war up til 50's.  Do you think with pressure of actual war going on the later 40's would tank development have differed greatly?

4- Also, what are your thoughts on if WW2 had turned right into WW3 if the West had just kept going or USSR had just kept going?  How do you think the current armories at the time would have faired?  Both sides being well equipt and experienced with high morale?

totensburntcorpse #20 Posted Feb 17 2012 - 00:56

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 29247 battles
  • 149
  • [-VETS] -VETS
  • Member since:
    04-15-2011
How much did Henry Mohaupt influence the development of HEAT rounds among the various belligerants in WW2 ?

Up to their development it seems the triangle of mobility, firepower and protection tended to migrate to protection for everyone.