Jump to content


Questions Submission Thread


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

solipsistnation #41 Posted Mar 09 2012 - 04:45

    Staff sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 8658 battles
  • 472
  • [DCVI] DCVI
  • Member since:
    09-01-2010
Well, gosh, might as well not go then.

(No, I'm still going. And I still think it's an interesting topic.)

Edited:

I'm not trying to be snarky, and I missed that article when it was originally posted, so thanks for the link. I do think it's an interesting topic and I'm interested in hearing about it. If it's that obvious a topic I suppose you can use it as an early warm-up question or something...  :)

Stug456 #42 Posted Mar 10 2012 - 08:48

    Private

  • Players
  • 2387 battles
  • 7
  • Member since:
    03-22-2011
1. The Germans considered French tanks, such as the Somua S35 and Hotchkiss H35 as good as if not better than their own at the time of the 1940 invasion of France. Considering this, if the French used their tanks properly and in greater number, do you believe that we would be considering the French as creators of the "superior tanks of World War 2" and not the Germans?

2. The Japanese have not been celebrated for their tanks, mainly because of their lack of innovations and inferior tanks. Could you enlighten me on the Japanese tank doctrines?

3. What really made German armour seem superior to the western allies? Was it that German tanks were just better quality, or simply just their armour was just that much thicker than the allies?

Lagometer #43 Posted Mar 14 2012 - 05:03

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 19499 battles
  • 598
  • [REL-V] REL-V
  • Member since:
    11-18-2010
I think the American T95 Medium tank and the M48 Patton would fit into the American tank tree of the game without a negative impact. In fact, the M46 > M48 > M60 were all developed before modern electronics were incorporated into armored vehicles. They are just an incremental continuation of the WWII gun & tracks concept. The same is true of the Soviet T-62.

Any comments?

Cold_Llama #44 Posted Mar 23 2012 - 23:43

    Captain

  • Players
  • 17109 battles
  • 1,761
  • Member since:
    06-21-2011
Posted Image

This is the M4 Firefly (IC). It was made by the British and not by America though.

tangojuliet #45 Posted Apr 12 2012 - 04:13

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 21793 battles
  • 36
  • [-GRU-] -GRU-
  • Member since:
    03-17-2011
i had heard rumors floating around from old tank guys that in ww2 the US made and tested a autoloader system but never fielded it is this true ????

tangojuliet #46 Posted Apr 12 2012 - 04:17

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 21793 battles
  • 36
  • [-GRU-] -GRU-
  • Member since:
    03-17-2011

View Postthe_moidart, on Feb 23 2012 - 19:05, said:

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?
something called ides basically they get about oh ide say 6 to 10 maybe 15 105 or 155 shell wire them up and BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM and that how abrams have been destroyed it has never been knocked out in a tank on tank encounter

The_Chieftain #47 Posted Apr 14 2012 - 09:08

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 9526 battles
  • 9,456
  • [WGA-A] WGA-A
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

tangojuliet, on Apr 12 2012 - 04:13, said:

i had heard rumors floating around from old tank guys that in ww2 the US made and tested a autoloader system but never fielded it is this true ????

There were a couple of autoloader systems tested by the US in the 40s and 50s, but I'm not sure off the top of my head if any of them were prior to 1945.

Noble #48 Posted Apr 14 2012 - 18:20

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 7312 battles
  • 465
  • Member since:
    04-30-2011
I'm a little curious about something and dont know where to submit this question exactly to an expert like yourself Chieftain and I do know operation is over but seeing tanks are being talked in here...Why wasnt the long 90mm on the "Super Pershing" ever mass produced? It showed to have better velocity and penetration compared to the standard M3 90mm, did it not?

The_Chieftain #49 Posted Apr 16 2012 - 23:39

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 9526 battles
  • 9,456
  • [WGA-A] WGA-A
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

View PostNoble, on Apr 14 2012 - 18:20, said:

I'm a little curious about something and dont know where to submit this question exactly to an expert like yourself Chieftain and I do know operation is over but seeing tanks are being talked in here...Why wasnt the long 90mm on the "Super Pershing" ever mass produced? It showed to have better velocity and penetration compared to the standard M3 90mm, did it not?

It was also very unwieldy. The T33 Shot round fired by the T15E1 cannon was over 4' long. A development, T15E2 used two-piece ammunition in order to make stowage and handling a little easier, but it was still impracticable. Instead, the T119 cannon, which had a chamber pressure of 47,000psi vs the 38,000psi of the M3A1, could do more or less the same job with the advantage of having a smaller round and shorter gun tube. Better yet, it was also compatible with the old M3 ammunition. (Though M3 could not fire the T119 ammo).

MAJEST1C #50 Posted Apr 19 2012 - 19:30

    Captain

  • Players
  • 24235 battles
  • 1,660
  • Member since:
    10-04-2011
i have a question in the future is it possible for you guy to make graphics, physics and battle like this video here :  http://www.youtube.c...ure=mh_lolz    :Smile_honoring:

Xander_fie #51 Posted Apr 19 2012 - 20:02

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 29816 battles
  • 86
  • Member since:
    09-24-2011
I play with a Logitech G13 game pad and I noticed that in the last update you have added some LCD information to its programing.  I was wondering if you were planing any future expansion in the use of this technology and/or if you would like input into its development?

Holem #52 Posted May 05 2012 - 19:16

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 28166 battles
  • 57
  • Member since:
    04-09-2011
I have seen this as a poll question on the front page of Worldoftanks but is there going to be removable camo to trade between class size or even just the tank. I love the camo pattern on my tank I picked up on sale but sometimes I want to change it or remove it totally. If not, then the "permanent" camo was a huge waste of money on my part. This also will limit demand for camo since if it is only silver, it is okay but if we paid gold, I'm sure there are VERY few that are willing to lose money like that.

smallgun #53 Posted May 08 2012 - 14:54

    Corporal

  • Beta Testers
  • 12692 battles
  • 42
  • Member since:
    01-26-2011

View Postmajsteven, on Apr 19 2012 - 19:30, said:

i have a question in the future is it possible for you guy to make graphics, physics and battle like this video here :  http://www.youtube.c...feature=mh_lolz :Smile_honoring:

these are not from the correct time frame, and it is NOT A WOT video.

on the question of the camo, i agree that paying silver for temporary camo is ok with me, even if i can't change it and still have it.
if i change it often enough maybe it could add a mm to the armor thickness after a while.;)

Edited by smallgun, May 08 2012 - 15:09.


MAJEST1C #54 Posted May 15 2012 - 02:11

    Captain

  • Players
  • 24235 battles
  • 1,660
  • Member since:
    10-04-2011

View Postsmallgun, on May 08 2012 - 14:54, said:

these are not from the correct time frame, and it is NOT A WOT video.

on the question of the camo, i agree that paying silver for temporary camo is ok with me, even if i can't change it and still have it.
if i change it often enough maybe it could add a mm to the armor thickness after a while. ;)

I'm not talking about the tanks it just the way the game works u know the better physics in that better stuff like that and change the Fps thing i always get 4 - 15 fps on my 2 year old laptop

Kaiser_Deadlytree6 #55 Posted May 16 2012 - 01:40

    Private

  • Players
  • 12915 battles
  • 7
  • [STARK] STARK
  • Member since:
    03-22-2011
I was wondering if the Tiger one and two could knock out a Sherman at 1.8 kilometres, then what is the view range of these tanks?

Deadly Tree6

Torsys_SD #56 Posted May 20 2012 - 10:07

    Private

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 5
  • Member since:
    04-16-2012
Hello, would like to ask a question of the tank е100, in advance I ask me to excuse about bad level of English - i'm from Russian forum. Also used autotranslaters so it can be lots of errors here...

Me and my friends saw the blueprints of armor of e100 and in the most of them the bottom front detail was 150 millimeter thickness. Also there is some photos of the hull of this tank, for example -

http://vn-parabellum...ger/e-100_1.jpg
http://vn-parabellum...ger/e-100_3.jpg

and lots of different armour blueprints

http://vn-parabellum...er/e-100_11.jpg
http://s2.ipicture.r...03/5I57JVK4.jpg

We were intrested by the real photos.


As well as on type tanks a tiger 2, jagdtiger, and other, connection of details of the case was executed "a thorn in a groove", and such connection allows to see cuts of armor plates, their thickness. In photos these cuts are well appreciable, and from for their quite good quality it appeared to calculate probably with a certain error thickness of bottom front detail of е100.

For error reduction I considered 2 different photos е100, on both carried out on 2 calculations, in the sum - 4.

What technique, I will describe in a kratets - on the image with a width about 4000 pixels for high precision I led round the tank case thin lines for identification of its exact form and error reduction from for defects of the photo, and received a set of angular points. Then methods of elementary geometry (crossing of diagonals of a rectangle is its center, regardless of perspective reduction) I entered a car board in an exact large-scale rectangle (the maximum is long plus the maximum height of a board). Knowing historical indicators of long (8700), over and over again dividing a rectangle into halves, it is possible to define with high precision horizontal projections of any object onboard the car (us the cut нлд interests), and knowing VLD tilt angle - the projection simple trigonometrical transformation turns into true length of a cut.

The  results are here
http://i.minus.com/i1kOHP0L6YmOo.jpg
http://i.minus.com/icFjzhauxmhYe.jpg
http://i.minus.com/ibxmpn0hG36lrz.jpg
http://i.minus.com/iJekOQCrYk2ke.jpg
http://i.minus.com/ibcATr6KSdl21E.jpg


plus this calculate

http://s2.ipicture.r...17/zuUx1gKK.jpg
http://i.minus.com/izY4FTewvVTUi.jpg

so if this calculations are not wrong the bottom front detail can be not 150, it can be more thick - 180? 190? 200?  Some blueprints say about 200...
Also i had to try another method - to try to illustrate the thickness of front armor
http://i.minus.com/igJUqXnICMGk.jpg

Also i used program -

iphoto measure

tested it - http://i.minus.com/i...cnHM8mFAjyI.jpg

and measured e100 - http://i.minus.com/ioLBGrD0dIz0v.jpg - and program indicated 200 mm too

So, respectable military experts, can you say something about this calculations - are they absolutely wrong and incorrect, or maybe they can be correct...

Topic in RU - http://forum.worldof...BA%D0%B0%D0%BC/

In advance I thank for answers

Edited by Torsys_SD, May 21 2012 - 13:01.


silverphinex #57 Posted May 31 2012 - 06:26

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 9698 battles
  • 30
  • [-ZZ-] -ZZ-
  • Member since:
    05-17-2012

View Posttangojuliet, on Apr 12 2012 - 04:17, said:

something called ides basically they get about oh ide say 6 to 10 maybe 15 105 or 155 shell wire them up and BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM and that how abrams have been destroyed it has never been knocked out in a tank on tank encounter


http://answers.yahoo...5121120AAArsDg. Here they guy wrote up a huge bit of information on damage done to abrams tanks by insergents and well the worst i saw was when a abrams drove over 1100 lbs and a couple 105 shells wired to blow and there was one where a Recoiless rifle round punched thru the rear vent on the turbine engien and punchtured the fuel tank and caught the tank on fire after attempts to put it out the desicion was made to destory the tank it was filled with oil and 50 cal rounds the ammo doors opened and two thermite granades droped inside and later a mavrick missle and two hellfires compleately disabled the tank but it still look largely undamwged from the outside

Odin_The_Wise #58 Posted Jun 11 2012 - 21:50

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 8921 battles
  • 86
  • Member since:
    07-28-2011

tangojuliet, on Apr 12 2012 - 04:17, said:

something called ides basically they get about oh ide say 6 to 10 maybe 15 105 or 155 shell wire them up and BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM and that how abrams have been destroyed it has never been knocked out in a tank on tank encounter


for one, it is an IED not IDE and two, there are rumors that a couple of abrams were taken out by the RPG29 compound warhead system

kotzubel #59 Posted Jun 20 2012 - 10:13

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 7510 battles
  • 317
  • Member since:
    06-17-2011
I would like to ask them to explain the property's of Rolled homogenized steel vs plate or cast steel. thank you. :)

The_Condominator #60 Posted Jun 23 2012 - 01:49

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 2312 battles
  • 25
  • Member since:
    05-07-2012
I have a few questions

1 - From my understanding, Americans fought Germans, and Soviets fought germans, but America and the USSR never fought each other. Seeing as how America went with the "light and mobile" approach, whereas USSR went with "slow and powerful", how would they have fared against each other. I would bet on the Soviets, as I doubt an M4 could breach a KV-1.

2 - It is often stated that for most of the war, Germany had the superior tanks. But looking at the later tanks of the war, German tanks look like they were designed by a child. Everything is very straight, compared to Soviet and American curved slopes, and in general, late German tanks look simple. Why is this, and would German tanks have been even more monstrous had they taken on the curves of the Allies?

3 - Sloped armour seems like a really simple concept, but it seems like it took designers a while to figure it out and apply it to tanks. Also, looking at the tech trees in game, it seems like some tanks "figured it out", but then in future iterations, the sloping is gone. Why was sloping so inconsistently applied, and why did it take so long to figure it out?




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users