Author Topic: News... (Read 3643 times)

Fariz · « **Reply #75 on:** October 12, 2004, 06:59:01 PM »

Very nice work Nate, congrats!

United · « **Reply #76 on:** October 12, 2004, 07:04:10 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mitsu
B-24 interior is completed?
is new version really close to release?

I've heard that its due out sometime late this month. My bet is the 25th or 26th. Remember, they still need to do the interior of the B-24 (if it hasnt already been done. Pyro made a post wondering about the bomb loadout in A/C forum) and the T-34, along with any extra goodies.

Chortle · « **Reply #77 on:** October 12, 2004, 07:12:34 PM »

Very nice work.

Interesting thread as I've always thought the T34 was considered the best all round tank of WWII but obviously not.

Another myth perhaps is that Shermans tended to ignite pretty easily? I never questioned any of this but seem to remember it had a petrol engine?

Urchin · « **Reply #78 on:** October 12, 2004, 07:51:04 PM »

I don't know if there was a "best" tank of WW2.

The King Tiger was a great tank... on defense. It wouldn't be any great shakes on offense because it wasn't very mobile.

I've heard the IS-2 was a fantastic design, I don't know much about tanks though. The last english tank to make it into the war (cromwell?) was also said to be a very good design.

GScholz · « **Reply #79 on:** October 12, 2004, 08:42:50 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Pyro
The turret looks fine to me. You need to elaborate about what you think is wrong with it. If you're comparing it to the photos above, you're comparing different things. One of the photos is a T-34/85 and the other shows an earlier production turret.

Yes, my mistake.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #80 on:** October 12, 2004, 08:46:20 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak
Arlo,

Frankly I'd rather see a Panther V A or Panther V D when it is added rather than the ultimate Panther V G. The V A or V D would be far more useful for scenarios than the V G.

There really wasnt much of a difference except that they were more reliable. The glacis armor was 80mm always except for a few 60mm early pre-producyion D, the side armor always had the same effectiveness - the G had thicker plates but was not as steeply sloped as the D and A models.

The only difference of note between definitive D/A and G were no direct vision port in G and for late G the new mantlet with a chin to prevent shells deflecting into the roof and adding the new cupola. Otherwise most of the changes were to improve reliabity.

Karnak · « **Reply #81 on:** October 12, 2004, 11:49:09 PM »

I see what you're saying GRUNHERZ.

Basing the appropriatness of the tank on the gun makes more sense, barring massive armor upgrades. I'd think the following would make a good German tankset:

Panzer III J (50mm KwK 38 L/42)

Panzer IV D (75mm KwK 37 L/24)
Panzer IV F2 (75mm KwK 40 L/43)
Panzer IV H (75mm KwK 40 L/48) We have this one

Panther V G (75mm KwK 42 L/70)

Tiger I (88mm KwK 36 L/56) We have this one
Tiger II (88mm KwK 43 L/71)

A Russian tank set using the gun as the guideline:

T-26S (45mm Model 1938 L/46)

T-34/76A (76.2mm L-11 1939 L/30.3)
T-34/76D (76.2mm F-34 1942 L/41.2) We're getting this one
T-34/85 (85mm ZIS S-53 1944 L/51.5)

KV-85 (85mm ZIS S-53 1944 L/51.5)

IS-2 (122mm M1943 D-25 T L/43)

These tanks sets would track the steady increase in firepower as the war progressed.
The Panzer III J, Panzer IV D, T-26S and T-34/76A would be used for 1941.
The Panzer IV D, Panzer IV F2, T-34/76A and T-34/76D would be used for 1942 with the Tiger I possible for late '42 .
The Panzer IV F2, Panzer IV H, Tiger I, T-34/76D and KV-85 would be used for 1943.
The Panzer IV H, Panther V G, Tiger I, Tiger II, T-34/76D, T-34/85, KV-85 and IS-2 would be used for 1944 and 1945.

Arlo · « **Reply #82 on:** October 13, 2004, 12:28:28 AM »

Do the Western! Do the Western!

M5 Stuart - 37mm
M3 Grant - 37 mm and 75 mm
Shermie jr. (M4 with 75 mm)
Shermie sr. (Jumbo) - 76 mm
Pershing - 90 mm
M7 Priest - 105 mm

Karnak · « **Reply #83 on:** October 13, 2004, 01:02:06 AM »

I was leaving the pleasure of that to you.

Also, I'm not real good with tanks and, unlike with airplanes, have to look everything up.

Based on your list it looks like American tank progression works as well if the focus is on the gun.

I don't think that a full British tank set would be needed. Maybe two or three British tanks and one Italian, Japanese and French tanks, if any.

Pongo · « **Reply #84 on:** October 13, 2004, 01:26:49 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak
A Panzer IV H firing at a T-34/76's front with a horizontal angle of 20° has approximately 94mm of armor to pierce if I've done my calculation correctly.

The 75mm KwK 40 L/48 has about the following chances to penetrate with the listed ammo:

PnGr 40 has about a 25% chance to penetrate at 1,000m
PnGr 39 has about a 25% chance to penetrate at 500m
APCBC has about a 25% chance to penetrate at 500m

Does anybody know what kind of AP ammo the Panzer IV H is using in AH?

Wow where did you get those numbers.

Even if your granted a 94mm armour for the front of the T34. The Panzers normal (39) ammo can kill it the whole way out.
500 - 114
1000- 85
2000 - 64

How so? because at the longer ranges the slope of the t34s hull is countered by the plung of the shot. So definatly a T34 is threatend by a Panzer IV with its normal ammo out to well beyond 1000 meters.

What happens in reverse?
500 - 71
1000 - 51
2000 - 40
Hope for a plung through the roof cause that tank is in trouble to get through the 80mm front hull on the Panzer IH. The 50mm turrent of the 50mm currved mantlet are doable but the Panzer is basically hull down to the T34 even at 500m!

If you introduce special ammo. Then the things change. The German ammo gets 150% of the penetration of the Soviet ammo and the T34 can be split end to end by the sub caliber 40 round.
The T34 gains some capability vs the Panzer but only at very short range. By 1000 meters certainly the Gun has returend to its normal penetration.

If the Pak 40 gets its special ammo it would be knocking out tigers pretty routinely.

Who knows how they will model it. The special ammo was very rare at all times for the soviets and by 44 almost unheared of for the Germans. They built 88s instead. Haveing 4 special ammo rounds in a T34 max would be about right. Maybe 2 in a Panzer IVh.

Karnak · « **Reply #85 on:** October 13, 2004, 01:42:26 AM »

I made a mistake when I gestimated the chance of penetration, that is really all.

Remember, the German tests gave penetration if 50% of the shell passed through the armor and the Russian tests if 75% of the shell passed through the armor.

The differing test methods cause the numbers to be incomparable.

If the penetration numbers I based my post on were accruate, there should be a 50% chance of penetration at the ranges I listed, not a 25% chance.

That is still far better than the T-34's chances, but it isn't a guaranteed kill by any means.

Further, talking to an ex-tanker, he pointed out that the force is divided by the vector. That is, sloped armor does not just provide the additional thinkness that can be seen by measuring a line straight through it, it also redirects the engergy of the shell. In the case of a straight on shot to the T-34's front hull it redirects 2/3rds of the energy due to the 30° slope of the armor. If the round is coming in from 20° off center then it redirects even more of the energy.

His take on it was that the Panzer IV H was better due to it's vastly better gun, but that the slope of the T-34's armor would still give it a fighting chance.

MOIL · « **Reply #86 on:** October 13, 2004, 04:49:47 AM »

Looks nice!

Do the tracks/wheels move?

Sounds!! are the sounds going to be implemented?

Can you have a tank crew?

Tilt · « **Reply #87 on:** October 13, 2004, 05:29:30 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ

Oh and Tilt I think thats actually a cast turret.

Actually I am pretty sure its fabricated......... the clue is the welded web fillets under the lip of the sloping turret. These are welded to brace the turret plates which have been layer welded and then ground smooth on the joins. The whole thing then has to be annealed and then hardened to ensure continuity of strength across the welds. (and more importantly adjacent to the welds)

If you look to the pictures given further up this thread you will see cast turrets...........infact on one you can still see where the moulding line has been left rather than fettled off . A cast turret does not need the web fillets because there is a large curved fillet cast into the under side of the main turret hexagon. You will also see the bottom of the hexagon is radiused on a cast turret but cut square on the fabricated one.

Given HTC's aversion to true radii then the fabricated turret was always the one they would choose.

Cast

Fabricated

GScholz · « **Reply #88 on:** October 13, 2004, 07:57:12 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak
Further, talking to an ex-tanker, he pointed out that the force is divided by the vector. That is, sloped armor does not just provide the additional thinkness that can be seen by measuring a line straight through it, it also redirects the engergy of the shell. In the case of a straight on shot to the T-34's front hull it redirects 2/3rds of the energy due to the 30° slope of the armor. If the round is coming in from 20° off center then it redirects even more of the energy.

That is in fact the only advantage of sloped armour. The added thickness of the sloped plate is offset by the increased weight of making the plate high enough. A sloped armour plate does not cover the same height as if it was vertical.

Karnak · « **Reply #89 on:** October 13, 2004, 10:24:09 AM »

MOIL,

You can do gunner/driver tank crews right now, but it is very claustrophobic for the driver. Maybe it is being used to having a clear perspex around me so that I can see what is happening around me, but the complete lack of SA as a driver was kinda erie.