Is a panzerfaust capable of making a hole in wall so big that a soldier fits in?
The shape charged warhead is so effecitive because it concentrates the explosion to a small point.
Upvote
0
As requested: Pz IV H - and update news
- Thread starter [TW]Wilsonam
- Start date
Is a panzerfaust capable of making a hole in wall so big that a soldier fits in?
The shape charged warhead is so effecitive because it concentrates the explosion to a small point.
Upvote
0
Incorrect. There is plenty of photographic evidence of Tiger II's shot up. Correct, however, in that there was no tank gun mounted during the course of the war that could penetrate the front of it - same for the IS-2m!
Tiger II is defeatable - but it has to be done from the side or rear. Just makes the tactics of defeating it very important
And now - back to the topic
To repeat: yes, the schuerzen will stop a panzerfaust round, disrupt AT rifle rounds and may give some slight added protection against main gun rounds (but primarily because they will cause the round to yaw, rather than removing any significant amount of energy!)
Is this a hint that Tripwire has done research into the king tiger and plan on implementing it in the future???
oh and I edited my statement from earlier, Never killed by penetration on the western front, one of the helpfull memebers sent me to a couple of webpages =)
Upvote
0
![[TW]Wilsonam](/data/avatars/s/0/10.jpg?1568638684){kind=avatar}
Actually, I am just a sad git, with far too much armor research material on hand
Over 3,000 books/papers in total - about 1,800 on armor.And your second part (Tiger II on the Western Front) remakes the old point: the Soviets upgunned far more rapidly and succesfully then us Westerners. We tended to be stuck with "reasonable" 75mm guns when the Soviets had already moved on to more powerful 85mm and 122mm guns. The IS-3 and its 122mm gun were hugely influential in post-war tank design in the West. Reading some of the post-war intel reports, you get a distinct sense of "Yikes... we need to catch up"!
Upvote
0
Actually, I am just a sad git, with far too much armor research material on hand
And your second part (Tiger II on the Western Front) remakes the old point: the Soviets upgunned far more rapidly and succesfully then us Westerners. We tended to be stuck with "reasonable" 75mm guns when the Soviets had already moved on to more powerful 85mm and 122mm guns. The IS-3 and its 122mm gun were hugely influential in post-war tank design in the West. Reading some of the post-war intel reports, you get a distinct sense of "Yikes... we need to catch up"!
I think the reason why is because russia didn't have to deal with the transportation problems that we did. I think that is one of the reasons why american armor during WWII was so out gunned and out armoured.
Just had to stick to the constraints of having to ship them over seas by air or sea.
Wasn't it only to the later half of the war that america was producing the "Pershing" you wouldn't know if those were produced in Europe? Or maybe it was an advancement in transatlantic shipping that allowed america to produce and deliver one of America's first heavy tank to europe.
While russia and germany had no such problems and could build things as stupidly armored and heavy gunned as they wanted =)
Let's just hope Tripwire never decides to bring in the Jagd Tiger, or any "Jagd" tank in general.
Upvote
0
ACtually, I'd prefer a little more focus on the early war period. I'd like to see the Panzer II, BT-7, hell, even a T-28 maybe. The "uber tanks" and such of the late war are rather overdone in my opinion. People are always clamoring for the king-ultra-super-duper-ganga-ganga-mega-sabretoothedtiger-hunter-destructo-tank. Me, I'd like to see more maps like Berezina where early-war tactics and vehicles can come into play.
Plus, the more emphasis on the late war, the more we're going to need to improve the hand-held anti-tank weaponry.
Plus, the more emphasis on the late war, the more we're going to need to improve the hand-held anti-tank weaponry.
Upvote
0
The Pershing entered service during 1945. I've never seen any reference to concerns about shipping weights Besides, the M4 with a 75mm gun weighs about 31 tons, the Firefly 33 tons. Really not a lot of difference
Besides, the M4 with a 75mm gun weighs about 31 tons, the Firefly 33 tons. Really not a lot of difference
Upvote
0
The Sherman never got upgunned until 1944 is because it never really had to face a challenge before then. Up until that point it was fighting Pz4 mostly and Italian tanks but in Normandy the Germans had placed a never large number of Panthers which the Sherman did have a hard time with so it wasnt until then that the Allies started to see the downfalls of it. thats when the started putting the 76 mm on it. It was higher velocity so it was much better against the Panthers. The Sherman was a great tank until it went up against the large numbers of Panthers. If it had been Pz4 there wouldnt have been much of a problem.
Also teh British/Canadian tanks werent upgunned because they were built for the 2pd and later on they often found there wasnt enough room to add a 6pd. Hell look at the matilda I, the thing is like a MG carrier.
As for tanks I to prefer the early war ones. It seems to be maps with early war tanks are more about tatics and movement then the late war ones. in the late war maps people just take the biggest tank they can find and park it and trade shells at 1000m Tiger vs IS2.
Upvote
0
Very true!!
By addin more earlier (uncool?) stuff, it gives mappers more room to be creative and encourage movement in maps. People arent gonna see much of a map if all they have to do is sit in a lumbering late war tank and snipe at the opposition!
By addin more earlier (uncool?) stuff, it gives mappers more room to be creative and encourage movement in maps. People arent gonna see much of a map if all they have to do is sit in a lumbering late war tank and snipe at the opposition!
Upvote
0
Haha, a T-70. I m not sure it exists. The only T-70 tank is the T-72 and that one has seen service in between 1960 till now.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
One of the things to remember is the American tank and anti-tank doctine at the time. Friendly tanks were to provide support for infantry. Enemy tanks were to be engaged with arty, aircraft, anti-tank guns and tank destroyers. Hence the reason why originally the Sherman was armed with the medium velocity 75mm, which had a very good HE round.
The British doctine envisaged tanks being used in both infantry support and anti-tank roles. The infantry support tanks were heavily armoured and slow, because infantry can only walk so fast. This doctrine didn't work well either.
The best British tank for the anti-tank role was the Firefly, a Sherman tank armed with the 17pd, a truely effective anti-gun.
The Churchill and Comwell tanks carried the 6pd. Later this gun was modified (bore and breach), to fire the American 75mm shell, because of the HE shells excellent performance. However, a new APCR round was developed to provide some a better anti-tank capability for this modified gun, in theory allowing these tanks to take a role. But who knows much much APCR ammunition was available. The infantry keep using the 6pd. as an anti-tank gun.
Me too!
The T-70 was in brought into service in 1942. It's the T-60, but armed with a 45mm gun. Production of the T-60 continued co-current with the T-70 until August '42.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Please check out this link to see the importance of the T-70 in the Kursk battle:
http://www.uni.edu/~licari/citadel.htm
http://www.uni.edu/~licari/citadel.htm
Upvote
0