Jump to content


Questions Submission Thread


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
102 replies to this topic

cipher12 #21 Posted Feb 17 2012 - 00:59

    Major

  • Players
  • 11639 battles
  • 6,873
  • Member since:
    11-17-2011
Where weapons such as 152mm BL-10, 152mm M-69, 155mm T180, 183mm L4 ever seriously considered practical enough to see service?
And if they had been what if any impact would they have had on armor design?

the_moidart #22 Posted Feb 17 2012 - 01:28

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 30453 battles
  • 2,160
  • Member since:
    10-22-2010
Barring the very large weaponry of vehicles such as the SU-152, was there ever a practical reason for a tank to use High Explosive (HE) against another tank, or were HE rounds strictly used on infantry, structures, and artillery?

csp0811 #23 Posted Feb 17 2012 - 04:28

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 21732 battles
  • 325
  • [TEMPL] TEMPL
  • Member since:
    02-11-2012
As tank encounters have proven throughout the 20th century, armor cannot assault fortified infantry positions alone, and thus does not work without infantry support. As modern doctrine transitions from rapid assaults and deep fortifications to occupation style urban combat and low-intensity insurgencies, what is the role of the main battle tank today, and how has it changed from, say the 80s all the way to the way tanks were used in WWII?

UmamiSalami #24 Posted Feb 17 2012 - 07:32

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 21543 battles
  • 68
  • Member since:
    12-12-2011
What would World War Two have looked like if from the outset, the Americans had built traditional heavy tanks instead of Tank Destroyers?

EDIT: Another question, if it's okay to ask two, is: was the Tiger II more reliable, less reliable, or about equally reliable as the Tiger I?

Toxn #25 Posted Feb 17 2012 - 08:46

    Captain

  • Players
  • 6131 battles
  • 1,718
  • Member since:
    10-25-2011
More of a 'future of warfare' question, so a pinch of salt may be necessary:

Given the rapid advancements in automation and the current return to something like the pre-WWI state of warfare (no great power wars; lots of peacekeeping, wars against minor nations and proxy conflicts), what are the expected changes in tank design and doctrine?

My own personal opinion (salt may now be taken) is of a generation of lighter, modular tanks sharing common hull/drivetrain components with IFVs. These would have small crews, a lot of weapon automation (including, potentially, placing the entire crew in the hull and making the turret into a big remote weapons station), heavier reliance on active protection and stealth (including some sort of skin-mounted IR/visual spectrum display) and relatively light weapons (20-40mm autocannon or a relatively small main gun, with missiles to provide a heavier punch). I envision the ability to rapidly switch out weapon and armour packages (much like current attack aircraft) becoming more common as well.
On a broader scale, will the next 50 years see the introduction of completely new kinds of AFV? I'm thinking drone carriers, autonomous tankettes, vehicles designed specifically for in-building work and so on.

Phredde #26 Posted Feb 22 2012 - 21:27

    Corporal

  • Beta Testers
  • 17094 battles
  • 16
  • Member since:
    07-04-2010
How much influence (if any) did the use and performance of armor in Korea have on subsequent tank development by the US, USSR and UK?

the_moidart #27 Posted Feb 23 2012 - 19:05

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 30453 battles
  • 2,160
  • Member since:
    10-22-2010
On the internet, the Abrams tank is reputedly an unstoppable fighting machine, yet I've seen dozens of pictures of Abrams' knocked out in Iraq. Since according to fanboys the tank is invulnerable, what's knocking it out?

LYinKansas #28 Posted Feb 24 2012 - 14:08

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 20637 battles
  • 24
  • Member since:
    04-14-2011
Why aren't tanks coupled with air defense systems. Nothing major, but something. I'd like to see any tanker knoack out a fighter-bomber with it's machine gunner and co-axial..

Potoroo #29 Posted Feb 27 2012 - 13:17

    Major

  • Players
  • 16592 battles
  • 4,631
  • Member since:
    04-26-2011
In WW2 how effective was indirect artillery at disrupting, damaging or destroying armoured vehicles?



TheRonmasteh #30 Posted Mar 01 2012 - 05:26

    Major

  • Players
  • 39397 battles
  • 4,967
  • [11ADR] 11ADR
  • Member since:
    04-07-2011
The question got a bit long...

Spoiler                     

Shortened:

Why did the Tiger I got the engine alone in the center, and two very different compartments for the Fuel tanks and the radiator?

What made this layout so sucessful that it trascended to many tanks on the following years?

the_moidart #31 Posted Mar 01 2012 - 18:59

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 30453 battles
  • 2,160
  • Member since:
    10-22-2010
*In what World War 2 battle, large or small, did Soviet tank forces best showcase their abilities? Historians often fixate on the successes or failures of the better documented German tankers, often effectively depicting Soviet tank forces as a faceless and mindless horde that always simply charged.

*Did tanks operated by the Soviet Union itself ever engage other tanks during the Cold War? Much is heard about Third World countries military failures with Soviet equipment. Was there ever a chance to demonstrate the skill level of Russian tankers?

*Given that most agree the T-34 was the best tank of World War 2, what, in your opinions was the second best tank?

*Did the Tiger deserve its awesome reputation? Do statistics support "Tiger Terror?"

*Does the Ferdinand/Elefant deserve the ridicule leveled at it by popular historians?

*What events or changes in thinking and technology were key to killing off the concepts of the heavy tank and the turretless tank destroyer? Examples of both persisted for some time into the Cold War, such as the M103 and S-Tank.

*How would you compare Blitzkrieg with "Shock and awe?"

*Was the early World War 2 inadequacy of German tanks against heavy tanks such as the Char B, KV-1, and Matilda the result of policy, as it was for the United States, or the result of an actual oversight or intelligence failure?

FaustianQ #32 Posted Mar 03 2012 - 07:04

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 18664 battles
  • 7,726
  • Member since:
    07-13-2010
How do you think standardization and mass production of the M27 and M27B1 would have effected Post Normandy operations? Would they have supplemented or replaced the M4, or would there not have been enough by that time? Would the M27 have been more combat effective then the M4? Would the M27 have slowed or even halted the demand for the T26E3, due to the fact they shared turret rings - basically would a M27A1/T25E1 been the preferred tank, or was the additional armor on the T26E3 also in demand? Would this mean continued development of the T26E3 if the armor was in demand, or just simple M27 "Jumbos"?

Do you think any of the special projects relating to the Panzerkampfwagen Mark IV, such as the rear hydraulic drive, sloped armor, schmalturm, et al, would have been practical had a superior suspension been devised for the Panzer IV? Would it have been a more prudent choice over a Panther?

Why is there such a large discrepancy in German armor to weight ratios? Most German tanks seem abnormally heavy for a specific level of armoring, was this due to the raised silhouette from forward mounted transmission and resulting drive train running through the hull of the tank? Or could this have been worked around, and the excess weight is an artifact of either lazy, negligent, or dogmatic design style?

Why was there such apparent, stagnant growth in other nations in WW2, such as Finland, Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, and Italy, as far as tank design goes? There seems to be few who rose to the challenge as far as even napkin-waffe goes, is this simply an artifact of the (relatively) large numbers of American, German, and Soviet tanks available? Why so few homegrown designs, or improvements, despite needing similar requirements most of the time?

As far as heavy tank design goes, which nation approached it best as far as design and intended implementation? Were the designs that were produced as efficient for their task as they could be made to be, or, considering requirements and armament, could they have been made more efficient or practical? Was the concept of the heavy tank doomed to start with from a logistical perspective, or could it have been made more compatible with reality?

Is there a reason why such guns as the T54 90mm, T98 76mm, and T76 90mm, among others, were not more actively pursued by the US post war? Were the gains too small, or impractical? Why was the M36/M41 seen as adequate for so long? Why, in comparison to the Soviets, was there such extreme hesitancy to commit anything to metal/prototype, as far as promising designs went, from 1945-55?

What was the reasoning behind the rejection of the T-44-122? Was a larger turret/turret ring seen as unfeasible? Was the 122mm falling out of favor in place of the 100mm? Was the T-34-100mm issues deeper then simple weight imbalances? What was the reason for the introduction and development of the 130mm B-13/S-26/S-70/M-65, and what advantage did it hold over the 122mm guns?A bit of flight of fancy here, but do you think a modernized (to today's standards) T-10 or IS-7 would hold up well? What about such projects as the Object 907, with what appears to be a rather modern v-shaped floor?

Glythe #33 Posted Mar 06 2012 - 20:18

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 20799 battles
  • 1,662
  • [ZOUTH] ZOUTH
  • Member since:
    11-12-2010
There is a lot of speculation concerning confrontations between the IS tank and the Tiger tank and how the two would have been in larger scale combat (if more had been available to each side).

Do you think you could walk us through what a battle might have been like if 10 tigers faced a group of 10 IS tanks? Some key points of interest to me at least would be to know about the differences in reload speeds, effective gun ranges, optical differences and any other major strengths or shortcomings of the two tanks if they did fight in large scale. Would the fight be decided at certain ranges? Do you feel the fight would be largely decided by which crews had higher skill? Do you feel the two tanks were relative equals?

If you were part of this fight which machine would you wish to be in and why?


Note: Feel free to scale the numbers up or down for one side if those aren't equal in terms of production costs.

maxmylyn #34 Posted Mar 07 2012 - 07:59

    Private

  • Players
  • 2526 battles
  • 3
  • [A_T] A_T
  • Member since:
    09-01-2011
I have one question that has seriously bothered me for a while. During WWII before the landings at Normandy, the M26 Pershing(I think it was called T26 at the time) was mostly developed and was almost ready to enter production. My main question is why, for so many years, did the Army delay production and development of the Pershing. Belton Cooper claims it was Patton's desire for a more mobile tank force. This doesn't make sense as the Pershing was indeed more mobile than the Sherman. The Pershing was way ahead of it's time, so good that the basic design was used well into and after the cold war. Other people say that McNair who delayed it in favor of his "tank destroyer" doctrine. Anyways, I was hoping the panel could expand on this. Belton Cooper even claimed that if the Pershing was in full production, the Battle of the Bulge(Ardennes Offensive) would never have happened because the Armor Corps would have been doing much better with a tank that could tackle the Tiger and Panther, and could even have won the war a year or so earlier.

cwrm #35 Posted Mar 08 2012 - 06:23

    Private

  • Players
  • 6756 battles
  • 2
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011
Guess I'm just asking the question above in a less specific way, but this here's my take on the issue:

Tank design progressed rapidly during WWII, but even by the invasion of Normandy, the Western allies tanks were out performed by the German tanks.  The US had massive industrial resources, and was able to develop the atomic bomb in this timeframe, but wasn't really able to develop a tank on a par with the Germans; large numbers of Shermans were needed to counter each Tiger.  Was this a deliberate, somewhat callous, decision not to try to match the Germans in quality but go for quantity?  Or was it just that no-one really thought about it until it was too late to make much headway on design and production before the end of the war?  

And did the Russians strike, a better balance between design quality and quantity, or did they have the same issue?

Vollketten #36 Posted Mar 08 2012 - 16:27

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 29557 battles
  • 8,554
  • [----] ----
  • Member since:
    12-26-2011
Metallurgically what if any was the difference between standard armor plate used by the British/German/USSR/USA?
In terms of ductility/hardness/brittleness/density and were these strengths/weakness used/exploited effectively?

solipsistnation #37 Posted Mar 08 2012 - 18:28

    Staff sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 8737 battles
  • 472
  • [DCVI] DCVI
  • Member since:
    09-01-2010

View Postcwrm, on Mar 08 2012 - 06:23, said:

Guess I'm just asking the question above in a less specific way, but this here's my take on the issue:

Tank design progressed rapidly during WWII, but even by the invasion of Normandy, the Western allies tanks were out performed by the German tanks.  The US had massive industrial resources, and was able to develop the atomic bomb in this timeframe, but wasn't really able to develop a tank on a par with the Germans; large numbers of Shermans were needed to counter each Tiger.  Was this a deliberate, somewhat callous, decision not to try to match the Germans in quality but go for quantity?  Or was it just that no-one really thought about it until it was too late to make much headway on design and production before the end of the war?  

Yeah, I'm curious about this too-- why did US military doctrine lean more toward armored vehicles as pure infantry support and away from using them against other armored vehicles? Why did it take so long for the US to start fielding guns heavy enough to effectively fight German armor, even when it became pretty obvious that was needed? (And why did the British have to come up with the Firefly when the US arguably should have built something comparable first?)

Vasidic73 #38 Posted Mar 08 2012 - 23:23

    Sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 9022 battles
  • 130
  • Member since:
    01-11-2011

solipsistnation, on Mar 08 2012 - 18:28, said:

Yeah, I'm curious about this too-- why did US military doctrine lean more toward armored vehicles as pure infantry support and away from using them against other armored vehicles? Why did it take so long for the US to start fielding guns heavy enough to effectively fight German armor, even when it became pretty obvious that was needed? (And why did the British have to come up with the Firefly when the US arguably should have built something comparable first?)
In response to the first part, probably because the Allies had air superiority which meant the fighter-bombers had a field day with German tanks. (and everything else too)

The second part can be found here from the Wikipedia article:

The Sherman Firefly was a World War II British variant of the American Sherman tank, fitted with the powerful British 17 pounder anti-tank gun as its main weapon. Originally conceived as a stopgap until future British tank designs came into service, the Sherman Firefly became the most common vehicle with the 17 pounder in World War II.

Though the British expected to have their own new tank models developed soon, British Major George Brighty championed the already-rejected idea of mounting the 17 pounder in the existing Sherman. With the help of Lieutenant Colonel Witheridge and despite official disapproval, he managed to get the concept accepted. This proved fortuitous, as both the Challenger and Cromwell tank designs experienced difficulties and delays.

solipsistnation #39 Posted Mar 08 2012 - 23:33

    Staff sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 8737 battles
  • 472
  • [DCVI] DCVI
  • Member since:
    09-01-2010
Right, but why didn't the US do something like that, since we had the tanks and the guns? US command in Europe were asking for heavier guns but US military doctrine leaned toward infantry support. I guess I'd just be interesting in hearing a more nuanced discussion of it than you'd get from the summary on Wikipedia.

Potoroo #40 Posted Mar 09 2012 - 04:25

    Major

  • Players
  • 16592 battles
  • 4,631
  • Member since:
    04-26-2011

solipsistnation, on Mar 08 2012 - 23:33, said:

Right, but why didn't the US do something like that, since we had the tanks and the guns? US command in Europe were asking for heavier guns but US military doctrine leaned toward infantry support. I guess I'd just be interesting in hearing a more nuanced discussion of it than you'd get from the summary on Wikipedia.
http://forum.worldof...man-armor-pt-2/




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users