|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Edit: At 500 yards Yards, meters, same thing.  So yeah, excuse the dumb european here. Gnoman posted:While Wikipdia's article on the Sherman is full of misinformation, the data on the armor scheme, at least, appears to be accurate; placing the frontal turret armor of the Sherman at 76mm (effectively immune to the Chi-Ha's gun at 500 meters), and the hull armor at 51mm at a 50 degree slope (marginal at best for the gun). Effective hull armor on the M4 was not uniform - the upper hull was weaker than the lower one. It also varied between the different production hulls.
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 02:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 19:59 |
|
|
Magni posted:Effective hull armor on the M4 was not uniform - the upper hull was weaker than the lower one. It also varied between the different production hulls. Yeah. Maybe I should make a post on the M4 Sherman when we start seeing it, because its confusing and full of little details.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 02:36
|
|
|
Magni posted:Effective hull armor on the M4 was not uniform - the upper hull was weaker than the lower one. It also varied between the different production hulls. The IJA declared the 47mm gun entirely inadequate for combating the Sherman tank, and the Allies considered IJA anti-tank weapons so harmless that the PTO turned into a dumping ground for vehicles that were wholly obsolete in Europe and Africa (the famous "Matilda" being a prime example) but remained more than adequate for action against Japan's anemic weapons.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 02:38
|
|
|
so, is 'Fury' a good movie to watch to see some vaguely realistic non-cartoonish tank battles? are there any movies that do a good job of rendering a tank battle? i bet the russians made something decent
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 02:38
|
|
|
oystertoadfish posted:so, is 'Fury' a good movie to watch to see some vaguely realistic non-cartoonish tank battles? are there any movies that do a good job of rendering a tank battle? i bet the russians made something decent Fury isn't terrible outside INVINCIBLE TIGER MODE, but "tank battles" as you're probably thinking of them were a pretty rare event during the war.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 02:44
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Fury isn't terrible outside INVINCIBLE TIGER MODE, but "tank battles" as you're probably thinking of them were a pretty rare event during the war. yeah anything vaguely realistic about tanks would be cool, 'tank battles' or no tank battles
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 02:46
|
|
|
oystertoadfish posted:so, is 'Fury' a good movie to watch to see some vaguely realistic non-cartoonish tank battles? are there any movies that do a good job of rendering a tank battle? i bet the russians made something decent Fury was a good story movie, not too much tank on tank action in it. As for other tank movies, I'm not too sure. Just be sure to include "Very few, if any actual German panzers may be in this flick" in your expectations. Cythereal posted:Fury isn't terrible outside INVINCIBLE TIGER MODE What?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 02:47
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Fury isn't terrible outside INVINCIBLE TIGER MODE, but "tank battles" as you're probably thinking of them were a pretty rare event during the war. It doesn't turn in that scene because the people who restored it didn't want it to break again 
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 02:48
|
|
|
There was almost nothing in Fury that I liked
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 02:48
|
|
|
Splode posted:It doesn't turn in that scene because the people who restored it didn't want it to break again Really? That's hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 02:51
|
|
|
When you have one of, if not the last working Tiger, you don't want to break it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 02:54
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:What? A Tiger I vs an M4A3E8 Sherman would have been at a massive disadvantage even one-on-one, as the Tiger was never intended as a tank-on-tank platform (it was intended to be a "breakthrough" tank against fortified trench lines, much like the French B1 or Soviet KV series), and was never more than mediocre in such a role (after the immediate post-war period, cross examination of German and Allied records found that as many as 90% of the Tiger's kill claims were entirely fictional (as in, the Allies didn't have any vehicles of the types claimed destroyed in the area) and the majority of losses that the allies believed to have been from Tigers turned out to be from the upgunned Panzer IVs or, rarely, Panthers(as no Tiger-type tanks were actually in action in the regions where the losses took place, and the Pz. IV with the long 75 was visually nearly identical to the larger Tiger.) If the encounter depicted in the movie took place in reality, the Tiger would have, at most, gotten one surprise shot in before being disposed of with extreme ease. It is entirely possible that that one shot would kill a Sherman, as the 88mm gun really was as good as reputation suggests, but that would have been all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 03:04
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:When you have one of, if not the last working Tiger, you don't want to break it. From what I've read it is the last functioning Tiger. I also remember reading somewhere (take with grain of salt I don't know if it's true) that someone uncovered a nearly intact set of production blueprints for a Tiger and I believe a Panther. Suppose ably someone's grandparents passed and one of the grandkids recognized the drawings for what they are and donated them to some museum. Again no idea if it's true or not but it would be cool if it is 
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 03:21
|
|
|
Gnoman posted:If the encounter depicted in the movie took place in reality, the Tiger would have, at most, gotten one surprise shot in before being disposed of with extreme ease. It is entirely possible that that one shot would kill a Sherman, as the 88mm gun really was as good as reputation suggests, but that would have been all. Also, the typical American response to being surprised by an entrenched enemy position during WW2 was to retreat and call in artillery or air power to hit it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 03:25
|
|
|
Wasn't Fury the only Easy 8 in that pack of 4? Besides, arguing about which tank is better is about as productive of a discussion as "my dad can beat up your dad" or who is the best superhero. shalafi4 posted:I also remember reading somewhere (take with grain of salt I don't know if it's true) that someone uncovered a nearly intact set of production blueprints for a Tiger and I believe a Panther. Suppose ably someone's grandparents passed and one of the grandkids recognized the drawings for what they are and donated them to some museum. If it is true that'd be awesome. I kinda hope for the day that some company/group builds 1/1 replicas of tanks without all the associated issues they may or may not have had. Same for aircraft.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 03:28
|
|
|
Gnoman posted:If the encounter depicted in the movie took place in reality, the Tiger would have, at most, gotten one surprise shot in before being disposed of with extreme ease. It is entirely possible that that one shot would kill a Sherman, as the 88mm gun really was as good as reputation suggests, but that would have been all. Hardly. You're still dealing with an ambush by a hull-down opponent in a flanking position, who outguns the E8 and its escorting 75mm M4s and is frontally vulnerable only at mid-short range even for the 76mm gun. The vast variety of reasons why the Tiger was a bad tank don't actually apply for the specific scenario in the movie. Except for the unrealistically short engagement ranges and the obsession about a rear shot instead of going for a short-range frontal or a side hit, the scene worked out pretty well. Throwing smoke at it and charging was the best choice left to the platoon of Shermans after they blundered into the loving open shooting range that the kittie had set up for itself. Trying to duke it out at long range with a hull-down opponent while you sit in the open is suicidal and trying to retreat when you're caught in the middle of an open field far away from cover isn't exactly the best choice either.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 03:58
|
|
|
oystertoadfish posted:so, is 'Fury' a good movie to watch to see some vaguely realistic non-cartoonish tank battles? are there any movies that do a good job of rendering a tank battle? i bet the russians made something decent Sam Peckinpah's Cross of Iron's main tank scene was tanks vs entrenched infantry and guns, but I've always thought it was one of the best battle scenes out there. They use real T-34s and historical tactics and movements. Some of the opening is a little confusing since part of the point of the scene is to communicate how scary and confusing it is to be overrun by an attack (it's from the German POV) but it's an excellent scene and one of my favorite war movies. Here's the scene on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bqk1BjkaD4A
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 04:01
|
|
|
just what i was thinking of, thanks!
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 04:30
|
|
|
Here's what an English tanker who fought in Normandy has to say about Fury: http://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2014/oct/24/fury-movie-tank-veteran-sherman-verdict-realistic And here's a story I hadn't heard before that is pretty amazing (Nothing to do with Fury, WitP alas and dreadful source): http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/the-heroic-wwii-mission-to-capture-a-deadly-820143 I am however reading SPECIAL SERIES NO'0. 34 1 AUGUST 1945 JAPANESE TANK AND ANTITANK WARFARE, which I found looking for info on Japanese antitank gear.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 04:33
|
|
|
Cartoon posted:Here's what an English tanker who fought in Normandy has to say about Fury: That last paragraph...  fake edit: Also why Fury is a good story or character movie.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 04:46
|
|
|
It wasn't completely accurate, but I enjoyed Fury for what it was. I actually bought the DVD since I wanted to watch the special features, but of course they're apparently only available on the Blu-Ray. Sony! 
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 06:18
|
|
|
shalafi4 posted:From what I've read it is the last functioning Tiger. Yep, Tiger 131, captured in Africa during WWII and used for experiments, then handed over to Bovington Tank Museum - I've seen the thing running, and when it started reversing, it broke the concrete under it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_131
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 06:38
|
|
|
lol at the people laughing at the museum for going so far as to use their priceless artifact in a movie, and then mocking them for not wanting to break it B.b.b.but the Tiger is bad, you see!
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 16:40
|
|
|
HerpicleOmnicron5 posted:The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Games > Let's Play! > Pacific Theatre of Operations 2 - Day By Day - Imperial Edition An LP of this would be amazing for anyone stupid enough to attempt such a thing. I also recall there's a way to set both sides to CPU so you can just watch your Super Nintendo play the game - card games and all. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
Sounds more compelling than Sherman v. Tiger chat, Mark VIIA3E8
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
The Merry Marauder posted:Sounds more compelling than Sherman v. Tiger chat, Mark VIIA3E8 I'm sure we can stop just as soon as we figure out which one was a good AFV and which one was a steaming pile of crap.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 17:51
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:I'm sure we can stop just as soon as we figure out which one was a good AFV and which one was a steaming pile of crap. Well you see tank destroyers and furthermore polish bears
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
The best tank is the one you have when you need it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 17:59
|
|
|
The best tank is the one you can use if you have sufficient logistics to utilize its strengths
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 18:13
|
|
|
   Two hits, one a dud, the other not.   Exactly the same thing happens here, except our target is bigger!  Two more fish will finish her.   Hey, reported damage for once.  Two! Imagine the damage we are really doing!   We land troops on Manado to try and pick up the pace of invasions.   More marching is going on, I need to clean up the Philippines now , then get back on track taking Java. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
USS Zeilin is a pretty good score. Troop transports are taking a hammering.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 18:50
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:If it is true that'd be awesome. I kinda hope for the day that some company/group builds 1/1 replicas of tanks without all the associated issues they may or may not have had. Same for aircraft. Well... 
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
Splode posted:It doesn't turn in that scene because the people who restored it didn't want it to break again Steven Spielberg bitched up a storm when he was making "Saving Private Ryan" because the guys who owned the P-51's that he used during filming insisted on being present the entire time they were on-set. IIRC, they even took turns camping out next to them in the hangar to make sure that no one hosed with their planes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Well... Welp.. time for me to win the lottery and buy myself a StuG, a Panther, a Comet, ... Also, I would kill for a flyable Bf-110. Zeroisanumber posted:Steven Spielberg bitched up a storm when he was making "Saving Private Ryan" because the guys who owned the P-51's that he used during filming insisted on being present the entire time they were on-set. IIRC, they even took turns camping out next to them in the hangar to make sure that no one hosed with their planes. I think the going price on P-51's is multi-million at the very least, so I'm not too surprised by this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
Hollywood has a long history of treating airplanes like rental cars and then claiming they were bent like that when they got them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:I think the going price on P-51's is multi-million at the very least, so I'm not too surprised by this. Market is a bit soft at the moment, but rebounding. $2m USD is a good, round number for a nicely restored (but not 100% correct, show-winning) P-51D with the jump seat instead of the aux tank, and decent, modern radios and instruments. Rarer models, anything with a proven combat record, period-correct-restorations, etc, command more. You could probably edge nearer to $1.5m and get a deal, but it's going to need an engine/blower overhaul, which will be $125k at the BARE MINIMUM, even if nothing significant is wrong. Buying a V1650 outright is getting harder and harder, and would probably set you back more than a half million. Jack Roush (The race team owner; he owns a couple of them,) was playing with the idea of casting new heads and other parts for them, both to keep them flying, and improve the reliability and service life of the engine, but I don't know if anything came of it. He does own the only P-51/V-1650 FAA certificated repair station in the country.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Jack Roush (The race team owner; he owns a couple of them,) was playing with the idea of casting new heads and other parts for them, both to keep them flying, and improve the reliability and service life of the engine, but I don't know if anything came of it. He does own the only P-51/V-1650 FAA certificated repair station in the country. I've toured that facility and it's pretty amazing. They had an entire engine torn down and laid out like inside a museum. Attached to that building was one of the most advanced machine shops in all of Detroit. The guys said they did production work for the Nascar side, for other job shops, and for the P-51 stuff. Judging by their capabilities I think they'd have no problem simply machining the heads out of a piece of stock.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
Yooper posted:I've toured that facility and it's pretty amazing. They had an entire engine torn down and laid out like inside a museum. Attached to that building was one of the most advanced machine shops in all of Detroit. The guys said they did production work for the Nascar side, for other job shops, and for the P-51 stuff. Judging by their capabilities I think they'd have no problem simply machining the heads out of a piece of stock. War in the Pacific - Tiger Tanks and P-51s
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 21:16
|
|
|
Dunno about the 51s but I knew a gentleman that flew and restored old aircraft and because of parts scarcity there was a lot of work going into manufacturing and machining new parts for the racing prop planes due to both technology improvements and constantly blowing them up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 22:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 19:59 |
|
|
Chance Vought OS2U Kingfisher Reconnaissance and obersation flights can be pretty boring affairs. Long flights, usually alone, over enemy territory, and all the while you're hoping you either don't get spotted, or don't get shot down. And if the enemy didn't stop you, nature sometimes brought you down, or you might succumb to fatigue, poor health or other issues during your long flight to and from your objective, if you could find it. Some of these aircraft had no armament, others did but may have been limited to defensive guns. Reconnaissance is certainly a very important aspect of warfare, and for naval warfare it could mean the difference between life and death. It did not take long for the naval branch of the military to realise its potential and, by World War 2, had developed into a potent tool for information. The Kingfisher, created by Chance Vought, was one such aircraft. With it's prototype constructed and flown in early 1938, it incorporated spot welding and an alluminium alloy construction to keep it light, yet strong, as well as being able to change out its landing gear based on if it was planned to fly from land or at sea. It's development went smoothly, helped by the fact that it was ready months ahead of the competition and, after successful trials, was put into production by the end of May 39, but only reached units in May '40. This initial model, the OS2U-1, used a 3-float system instead of 2, had a crew of 2 men and sported both offensive and defensive weaponry. The -1 had a fixed .30 cal machine gun in the wing, a .30 cal in the gunner's position, and had underwing racks that could carry a 100 lb bomb, or 325 lb depth charge, each. The previously mentioned gunner also had to pull triple-duty, being the radio operator and observer as well. The OS2U-1 was also the first monoplane to serve aboard battleships in an observational role, which it accomplished with many battleships throughout the war. Along with the BB's, the Kingfisher also served aboard cruisers, with the Marine Corps, with the Coast Guard, and was used by several other nations.  General Information on the OS2U-1 Kingfisher General Characteristics: Crew: 2 Length: 10.24m Wingspan: 10.95m Height: 4.61m Powerplant: 1 x Pratt & Whitney R-0985-48 radial engine rated at 450 HP at takeoff Loaded Weight: 2540 kg Performance: Maximum Speed: 282 km/h Range: 1580 km Ceiling: 5800 m Armament: 1 x .30 cal machine gun in starboard wing 1 x .30 cal machine gun in dorsal position Ordnance: 2 x 100lb bombs or 2 x 325lb depth charges The second variant of the Kingfigher, the -2, was a simple upgrade to the basic design to increase it's endurance and survivability. It received self-sealing fuel tanks, added armor protection, and additional fuel tanks. The modifications did reduce its top speed but it was deemed necessary. One good thing about the OS2U being convertable to a land-based plane meant it could be operated from many different bases, and were even used as trainers. While based in the States, the Kingfisher was, more often than not, used in the anti-submarine role and patrolling the coast. The following variant, the OS2U-3, was virtually identical to earlier versions and had a different engine, although producing the same total amount of horsepower, and added protection for the crew. The -3 variant was also the most numerous Kingfisher, with just over 1000 aircraft built. In addition to all this, the Kingfisher was also pressed into the Search and Rescue role many times throughout the war saving many men.  General Information on the OS2U-3 Kingfisher General Characteristics: Crew: 2 Length: 10.24m Wingspan: 10.95m Height: 4.61m Powerplant: 1 x Pratt & Whitney R-985-AN-2 radial engine rated at 450 HP at takeoff Loaded Weight: 2770 kg Performance: Maximum Speed: 275 km/h Range: 1460 km Ceiling: 4700 m Armament: 1 x .30 cal machine gun in starboard wing 1 x .30 cal machine gun in dorsal position Ordnance: 2 x 100lb bombs or 2 x 325lb depth charges One experimental type of Kingfisher was the XOS2U-4 which was modified to use "Zap Flap" wings which had full span flaps and wing spoilers for lateral control. While the two aircraft used to test these wings were used extensively, no production order came from it. Another type, the OS2N-1 was exactly the same as the OS2U-3 except that it was assembled/built at the Naval Aircraft Factory. Interestingly, the Navy tried expanding the observer/reconnaissance aircraft role to destroyers but problems with the catapult (it could not be rotated 360 degrees), the constant need for maintenance and recovery of the aircraft required the destroyer to move at a snails pace. Despite the failure of the program, both DD Stevens and DD Halford used their Kingfishers in combat at Marcus Island. Additionally, DD Stevens saw action against Tarawa in Dec 43 and DD Halford took part in the raid on Wake Island. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 01:04
|
|