Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Editor-Distributed data injection capability?

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> RE: Editor-Distributed data injection capability? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Editor-Distributed data injection capability? - 1/24/2007 2:54:34 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline 		Hmmm..I think it was quite universally agreed in WW II after bitter experience that 3-man turret was way to go. 2-man turrets severely restricted crew's situational awareness since Commander had to be gunner too and not able to spot targets then. And having gunner act as loader too wouldn't work well either... Not to mention French who had *1-man* turret in some tanks...where Commander had to spot, load, shoot and command his own tank...and if also Platoon/Company commander..give flag messages to other tanks... No wonder it didn't work well...

Sherman was liked by Soviet for it's good finish and reliability. It did cause troubles with spare part/ammuniton communality and such, so was usually used on secondary fronts. It was used lot in battles around Kurland in 1944/45 though.


< Message edited by Sardaukar -- 1/24/2007 3:14:02 PM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 31
RE: Editor-Distributed data injection capability? - 1/24/2007 4:12:31 PM   
Monter_Trismegistos

 

Posts: 1359
Joined: 2/1/2005
From: Gdansk
Status: offline 		Sherman was liked by Soviets to travel not to fight. It was more comfortable.

There was a famous Polish TV series made in the late fifties: "Four Tanksman and a dog" - it was about a crew of T-34 during the war. But one historician said that that was a science-fiction: in T-34 crew of four barely fit into it and there definetely were no place for a dog. :)

Sherman was not liked by Soviests during fighting - It's silhouette was to high, and it's armour was to thin and gun was impotent.

Does three man turret is better than two man turret. Yes. But would I replace two man turret for three man turret with impotent gun? The hell NO!

Shermans were used in Manchuria in numbers not because they were better at fighting - they were using because they were better at travelling at long distances - they had probably lower breakdown rate, and engine was probably less prone to overheating. That was the reason they chosed to use it: it was best suited for this singular task of swift advance across Gobi desert without much of opposition.

_____________________________

Nec Temere Nec Timide
Bez strachu ale z rozwagą

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 32
RE: Editor-Distributed data injection capability? - 1/24/2007 6:45:41 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline
quote:

gun was impotent
  compared to what? 76mm usual of T-34 no...

The armor was not much worse than T-34 had less spalling and it's amno didnt exploded like T-34.





(in reply to Monter_Trismegistos)
Post #: 33
RE: Editor-Distributed data injection capability? - 1/24/2007 6:51:46 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Just so. And the reason a two man turret is probably superior today is that you no longer need a loader at all.
The Japanese autoloader permits 100% higher rate of fire (faster than other system) than we can achieve.
They use the same gun - so you can't say either ours or theirs is better - and the same rangefinder. But their tanks can articulate - crouch down or rise up to optimize use of cover/berms.

In 1938 Japanese tanks at Nomanhan [Khalkan Gol if you prefer the Mongolian as the Russians do] were possibly the only tanks in history to go into action gleaming! They polished every surface. They were very proud of their tanks - and they were not at all happy with what happened when they ran into 45mm AT guns. In fact - the 47mm IJA gun is a copy of the 45mm concept using existing IJN tooling that was no longer needed. By 1938 the Japanese had evolved two different lines of tank development - both based on imported British products - and both were superior to the originals. They had evolved diesel engines for everything - not just tanks - and self fueling was required by law for ALL non military vehicles - to minimize civil need for gasoline. Diesel fuel prooved to be a great advantage and became standard after the war. But a third line of tank development was still born - the decision to mobilize for war with China one day after production was approved prevented the first truly Japanese tank from being made after all. There had been an earlier effort - to make a "land cruiser" - and it went through no less than three generations - but it was as unsuccessful as foreign contempories were. No one believed in it - not even its designers! Interesting tanks with as many as three turrets and 105mm guns! Now there is something - maybe we should put that 1935 tank into EOS? There was also a superior light tank done in 1938 - but not adopted until 1942 - and we do permit it to enter production early in EOS - because it could (and should) have been adopted sooner.

(in reply to Monter_Trismegistos)
Post #: 34
RE: Editor-Distributed data injection capability? - 1/24/2007 7:23:37 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline
quote:

Just so. And the reason a two man turret is probably superior today is that you no longer need a loader at all.
The Japanese autoloader permits 100% higher rate of fire (faster than other system) than we can achieve.


There wasnt autoloaders in T-34 or Sherman and there are pros and cons today about 3 or 4 tank crew. First is that the human loader can put the round on the gun fast enough for gunner when changing targets, gives more flexibility and one more pair of eyes and arms , autoloaders dont have all amno ready to fire,  one less thing to fail/break in combat.
The autoloader advantages are: not afected by loader fatigue; less logistical strain and manpower due to less one crew per tank . T-64/72 were the first MBT to have 3 tank crew and autoloader didnt give them any noticeable advantage. Israel with Merkava 4 have an autoloader but retained the 4 crew.

Just for posterity: T-34 and Shermans were comparable tanks.     

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 35
RE: Editor-Distributed data injection capability? - 1/24/2007 9:01:40 PM   
Monter_Trismegistos

 

Posts: 1359
Joined: 2/1/2005
From: Gdansk
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

quote:

gun was impotent
  compared to what? 76mm usual of T-34 no...



Yes (75mm), compared to 76mm of T-34.
Yes (76,2mm), compared to 85mm of T-34.

< Message edited by Monter_Trismegistos -- 1/24/2007 9:12:55 PM >

_____________________________

Nec Temere Nec Timide
Bez strachu ale z rozwagą

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 36
RE: Editor-Distributed data injection capability? - 1/25/2007 1:08:59 AM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline 		75mm(M6L39)   APCBC-M72              63mm at 30º at 914m
76,2mm(F-34)  APCR-BR-350P           60mm at 0º at 1000m

76mm(M1/L55) APCR-HVAP-M63       135mm at 30º at 914m
85mm(D5T)      BR-365P                   85mm at 30º at 1000m

(in reply to Monter_Trismegistos)
Post #: 37
RE: Editor-Distributed data injection capability? - 1/26/2007 5:00:28 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

quote:

Just so. And the reason a two man turret is probably superior today is that you no longer need a loader at all.
The Japanese autoloader permits 100% higher rate of fire (faster than other system) than we can achieve.


There wasnt autoloaders in T-34 or Sherman and there are pros and cons today about 3 or 4 tank crew. First is that the human loader can put the round on the gun fast enough for gunner when changing targets, gives more flexibility and one more pair of eyes and arms , autoloaders dont have all amno ready to fire,  one less thing to fail/break in combat.
The autoloader advantages are: not afected by loader fatigue; less logistical strain and manpower due to less one crew per tank . T-64/72 were the first MBT to have 3 tank crew and autoloader didnt give them any noticeable advantage. Israel with Merkava 4 have an autoloader but retained the 4 crew.

Just for posterity: T-34 and Shermans were comparable tanks.     


To begin at the end, I agree with you. They both shared the same fault of gasoline power too. They had very comparable weapons - although both eventually mounted a variety of guns. The Sherman was more reliable in long distance conditions. The T-34 was more reliable in very cold conditions. The T-34 introduced a superior concept in turret shape. Protection was roughly comparable - except there were more shell traps on the Sherman - and being taller it was more likely to be hit.

The Russian autoloader is actually slower than a manually loaded system. So are others. Only the Japanese one is faster. The fastest time to retarget requires you NOT use our fire control system - or indeed any fire control system: invented by IDF - it is simplicity itself: for any target from minimum range to 3000 meters, do not find the range: use a standard elevation (which always has the shell within 6 inches of a line of sight to that range), put the cross hairs on the target and shoot. Not popular in the US Army, I saw this in action in the Middle East (in a war we were not in - so don't ask what we were doing there)* - and there can be no doubt: the Israelis are right. Shooting faster matters. Which means the Japanese are right - shooting twice as fast - not bothering with complex fire control solutions at all unless the target is above 3000 meters away - is a showstopper. Literally. In one action in Iraq this last time around, a 2 vehicle platoon (one Bradley, one Abhrams) encountered a dug in company of Soviet tanks: before it could be supported by a second platoon the platoon had taken out most of the company. The reason was the deadly effect of the chain gun on the Bradley - using depleted uranium rounds: I never knew you could kill an MBT with those. I happened to "witness" this action as it occurred - although I was not there - a miracle of modern electronics. The action makes me wonder if I might be wrong and Rumsfield right? Maybe we don't need tanks after all - if a Bradley kills them!

* When the President of Israel (I didn't even know Israel had a President - he is head of state - sort of like a King is) decided he had to say "thank you" - he wrote a letter - addressed to only two US Navy sailors - in which he said just that - without saying what for! He said "thank you for your sense of closeness during our crisis")

< Message edited by el cid again -- 1/26/2007 5:15:03 AM >

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 38
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> RE: Editor-Distributed data injection capability? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.656