T-34 had some impressive cgi slo mo ballistics. Fantastic tanker flick, a must see..
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Senior Member
T-34 had some impressive cgi slo mo ballistics. Fantastic tanker flick, a must see..
Last edited by jmp45; 03-01-19 at 19:49.
Site Sponsor
I still havent' found that anywhere online to watch!Originally Posted by jmp45
Tell my tale to those who ask. Tell it truly; the ill deeds along with the good, and let me be judged accordingly.
Senior Member
On the subject of Heinz Guderian...
It should probably be remembered that while the Soviets and Germans could effectively design new tanks and roll them straight into combat, the development cycle necessitated by the distance from the US to Europe meant that by the time any American tank showed up in Europe, it would have already become obsolescent. Which is a large part of why the US didn't engage in the same sort of incremental improvement programs as the Germans or Soviets, but instead sought to leapfrog and pretty much ended up introducing the 76mm Shermans just in the nick of time.
The M26 Pershing was supposed to leapfrog the Panther, Königstiger, &c. But it wasn't really available until late 1944 and had the Battle of the Bulge not occurred, they probably never would have made it to Europe. As it turned out, the M26 suffered from a lot of the same problems as the Panther and other German tanks, in that it tended to suffer a large number of mechanical issues. Mechanical issues which continued to plague the M26 into Korea, where they were frequently sidelined in favor of 76mm-armed Shermans (which proved themselves the equal of the vaunted T-34/85), until the M46 and M46A1 Pattons were available in sufficient quantities to withdraw the M26 and the M4.
The Sherman continued to be used into the 1960s and 70s, when the Israelis up-armed them with 90mm guns, and were able to use them with skill and success against the latest and greatest Soviet tanks used by Egypt and Syria right into the Yom Kippur War.
Also, fun fact: The Sherman VC Firefly's 17-pdr gun mounting was such a bodge job that the tank gained a reputation for burning the hair off of it's crew inside the tank when the 17-pdr was fired. (The Firefly had other problems, too, but they were never really addressed because the tank was a stopgap until the Comet and Centurion were available in quantity. By which time the war was over.)
" Nil desperandum - Never Despair. That is a motto for you and me. All are not dead; and where there is a spark of patriotic fire, we will rekindle it. "
- Samuel Adams -
Senior Member
http://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=16662
One interesting thing about tank evolution that never gets mentioned in America is just how good the Soviets were at making tanks. The Germans are always assumed to have been the great tank builders, followed by the Americans, but it was the Russians who dominated the field in the tank game. Russian tanks were fast, powerful and easy to operate by their crews. Most important, they were reliable in all weather. The Russians assumed they would be fighting in horrible conditions and built a tank for it.
Senior Member
I would not say easier to use by crews. Sit in a T-72 or T-55 then sit in any other western tank. Crew ergonomics are by far better in western tanks. Soviet tanks sacrifice crew ergonomics to reduce protected volume and hence have a lower profile turret. Soviets had better tanks until the Abrams, I would not want to be an M60 Patton crewman going against T-64s in Europe but once the Abrams came out it was the Soviets who had to play catch up.
Senior Member
Det cord detonates a lot faster than 1720 fps.
Senior Member
My first thought when I watched that video was 'I wonder what condition the bore is in'. The projectiles seem to be new made 'training' (solid) rounds, so I would presume them to be in spec.
Also, the load for the 152 didn't seem like a full power load. Propellant for big guns is hard to come by for civilians, I'm sure the correct propellant for that gun is unobtanium. I'd bet that is a reduced power load with similar-ish properties, or totally different propellant in a small enough amount that it doesn't matter that it's not the right propellant.
Also, I'm pretty sure there are some 155's in private ownership, that are fired (there was a comment in the vid that the 152 was the biggest privately owned gun).
Seriously cool video, though.
From what I have read, Dan was an Ammunition Tech, or ATO in the Royal Logistics Corp... ATOs do IEDs and stack/store British Ordnance, but not foreign ordnance. The Brits also have Engineers that do IEDs, and I was very amused that they have a similar relationship to American EOD and Combat Engineers.
Last edited by eodinert; 03-03-19 at 22:14.
Member
There are a couple people in different places that have these toys (which is what they are effectively) and every time they shoot it’s at very close range with a very big target. It’s because none of them can hit anything. The ammo is a complete guessing game, usually lathe turned aluminum but sometimes other materials. Loading has to be a complete nightmare, you’re right the correct propellants are hard to come by, and you won’t find loads for German 88’s or 76mm Sherman’s in the Hodgdon annual. None of these guys shoot anything close to full power because they need the brass to last as long as possible. But by darn that doesn’t mean it’s not fun as hell either.
The only real thing close to replicating real performance are the guys shooting civil war era big rifles and replicas. It’s easy to make round balls and simple projectiles and black powder is easy to come by. Some of those guys can actually hit shit at 6-700 yards using correct sights and data tables.
Last edited by eightmillimeter; 03-04-19 at 02:09.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks