If the timeline was extended to 1997, what prototypes would become suddenly available?

User avatar
Killertomato
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 13730
Joined: Mon 9 Jul 2012 02:46
Contact:

Re: If the timeline was extended to 1997, what prototypes would become suddenly available?

Postby Killertomato » Wed 1 Feb 2017 04:02

GARGEAN wrote:Well, without ATGM under any bush and AT-planes a.k.a. panic-buttons 24/20/20 with extremely low speed might be pretty funny.


That depends on how planes would be implemented. I doubt Maus would respond too well to an A-36 dropping 1000 lb through the roof...

Or for that matter some aircraft rockets or even smaller bombs. Roof armor is ~60mm at the most.
orcbuster wrote:USSR gets prototype marsupials, why would you need moose when you got stuff with kickers like that AND transport capability? And I'm not even gonna START on the french Marsupilami, I don't even think thats a real animal! Why no trolls for Norway?

XanderTuron
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 591
Joined: Thu 10 Mar 2016 23:17
Contact:

Re: If the timeline was extended to 1997, what prototypes would become suddenly available?

Postby XanderTuron » Wed 1 Feb 2017 04:07

Killertomato wrote:
GARGEAN wrote:
That depends on how planes would be implemented. I doubt Maus would respond too well to an A-36 dropping 1000 lb through the roof...

Or for that matter some aircraft rockets or even smaller bombs. Roof armor is ~60mm at the most.


Well, If I recall correctly, the Maus had 40mm of roof armour.
My mouth is moving, but nothing relevant is coming out. Also I cannot guarantee that my research is perfect or even remotely accurate.

I have low quality Wargame Red Dragon casts on my youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/user/XanderTuron

User avatar
Killertomato
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 13730
Joined: Mon 9 Jul 2012 02:46
Contact:

Re: If the timeline was extended to 1997, what prototypes would become suddenly available?

Postby Killertomato » Wed 1 Feb 2017 04:15

XanderTuron wrote:
Well, If I recall correctly, the Maus had 40mm of roof armour.


Doesn't make much of a difference. 250lb bomb dropped in a dive, HVAR, Tiny Tim, RS-82, RP-3...
orcbuster wrote:USSR gets prototype marsupials, why would you need moose when you got stuff with kickers like that AND transport capability? And I'm not even gonna START on the french Marsupilami, I don't even think thats a real animal! Why no trolls for Norway?

User avatar
Darkmil
Brigadier
Posts: 3025
Joined: Mon 29 Oct 2012 15:17
Location: Massy
Contact:

Re: If the timeline was extended to 1997, what prototypes would become suddenly available?

Postby Darkmil » Wed 1 Feb 2017 04:42

Killertomato wrote:
Darkmil wrote:Same with a bullet really, it's about having an accurate gun, a stable gun platform, and a good trigger control (I think is even less necessary in a tank since the gun is quite heavy and stable already by definition), and obviously a good shooter. I believe a non insignificant proportion of the Schwere Panzerjäger-Abteilungen's gunner were.


This is still insufficient to reliably get hits at 2000m with nothing more than a scope, unless you're a really good shooter. Some were, most were not. Modern snipers use LRFs and wind sensors, etc.

There's a reason why LRFs are legion among modern tanks and coincidence rangefinders were on the generation before.

http://home.arcor.de/thuernagel/sf14-e.htm
I believe that qualify as a range-finder, right ? (It's not but it was used as so, and it seems with some decent results results, as it was nonetheless used like a telemeter thanks to the fact it was stereospscopic)
I'd just like to assert once again my stance as I fear I've said things in such way they are not clear. I do not state that Nashorn had a 100% or even a 50% hit-rate at 2km. I'm not really interested in the specific performance of the Nashorns at this specific range anyway, What I say is that they had the capability to reliably engage the enemy vehicles outside their engagement range (Which is perfectly sensible, because if it was not the case the 45 Nashorns that took place in the Kursk battle would have been obliterated.) .
Image

GARGEAN
Brigadier
Posts: 3496
Joined: Wed 9 Apr 2014 14:19
Contact:

Re: If the timeline was extended to 1997, what prototypes would become suddenly available?

Postby GARGEAN » Wed 1 Feb 2017 04:46

Killertomato wrote:That depends on how planes would be implemented. I doubt Maus would respond too well to an A-36 dropping 1000 lb through the roof...

Or for that matter some aircraft rockets or even smaller bombs. Roof armor is ~60mm at the most.

Most of that threats comes not from above. Rockets hit side armor, bombs miss and explode nearby... Planes would not be such problem anyway cause of much less acc, much longer response time and more vulnerability to proper AA/interception.

XanderTuron
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 591
Joined: Thu 10 Mar 2016 23:17
Contact:

Re: If the timeline was extended to 1997, what prototypes would become suddenly available?

Postby XanderTuron » Wed 1 Feb 2017 04:52

One of the things to remember is that while not a whole lot of German tanks were actually lost to artillery and air strikes, a lot of the supporting vehicles were destroyed, removing the logistics necessary to keep the panzers running.
My mouth is moving, but nothing relevant is coming out. Also I cannot guarantee that my research is perfect or even remotely accurate.

I have low quality Wargame Red Dragon casts on my youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/user/XanderTuron

User avatar
Sweedish_Gunner
Brigadier
Posts: 3105
Joined: Thu 25 Apr 2013 20:23
Contact:

Re: If the timeline was extended to 1997, what prototypes would become suddenly available?

Postby Sweedish_Gunner » Wed 1 Feb 2017 05:16

Trucks would have to be properly balanced for a WW2 Wargame, can't have them be unicorns like they are now.

Things like halftracks have their place but trucks should be commonplace if a WW2 Wargame is to come about.
Image

User avatar
Xeno426
Carbon 13
Posts: 11965
Joined: Tue 13 Mar 2012 21:27
Location: Acheron, Hadley's Hope
Contact:

Re: If the timeline was extended to 1997, what prototypes would become suddenly available?

Postby Xeno426 » Wed 1 Feb 2017 06:54

Darkmil wrote:
Xeno426 wrote:Most of those numbers are useless because penetrating a target at 2000m means nothing if you can't consistently hit anything at that range. And if you can't consistently hit targets, you're not going to open fire and give away your position.

I don't know for sur for Tiger I, but Nashorn were very capable of hitting at 2 km. And some tank aces were very good at "sniping" (Kurt Knipsel achieved great result from afar in its Tiger I).

Aces don't win wars, though.
The US didn't bring their 76mm Shermans to Normandy because they didn't think they'd be needed. This view came because Panthers had been faced in Italy and the 75mm Shermans were able to deal with them.

Killertomato wrote:
XanderTuron wrote:
Well, If I recall correctly, the Maus had 40mm of roof armour.


Doesn't make much of a difference. 250lb bomb dropped in a dive, HVAR, Tiny Tim, RS-82, RP-3...

Problem is that the various fighter-bombers used by the US and the UK didn't have much success in actually knocking tanks out on their own, though having loads of rockets flying about the enemy certainly had a detrimental psychological effect.
Image
CloakandDagger wrote:And you're one of the people with the shiny colored name. No wonder the game is in the state it's in.

User avatar
Killertomato
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 13730
Joined: Mon 9 Jul 2012 02:46
Contact:

Re: If the timeline was extended to 1997, what prototypes would become suddenly available?

Postby Killertomato » Wed 1 Feb 2017 07:09

Xeno426 wrote:Problem is that the various fighter-bombers used by the US and the UK didn't have much success in actually knocking tanks out on their own, though having loads of rockets flying about the enemy certainly had a detrimental psychological effect.


That's all vs. Panzer IVs, Panthers, Tigers, Tiger IIs...

Maus is both much larger and much less maneuverable than any of the above.

GARGEAN wrote:Most of that threats comes not from above. Rockets hit side armor, bombs miss and explode nearby... Planes would not be such problem anyway cause of much less acc, much longer response time and more vulnerability to proper AA/interception.


For tanks as a whole, they certainly wouldn't be. For the 10m long, 3m wide, 20 kph at full speed maus? A different story. The problems are more along the lines of hitting a structure than a tank.

Darkmil wrote:http://home.arcor.de/thuernagel/sf14-e.htm
I believe that qualify as a range-finder, right ? (It's not but it was used as so, and it seems with some decent results results, as it was nonetheless used like a telemeter thanks to the fact it was stereospscopic)


Certainly there were rangefinders- they've been on battleships since before WWI. I just haven't heard of their being in use, or at least common use, in armored vehicles until at least the T29 with the 'ears.'

Darkmil wrote:I'd just like to assert once again my stance as I fear I've said things in such way they are not clear. I do not state that Nashorn had a 100% or even a 50% hit-rate at 2km. I'm not really interested in the specific performance of the Nashorns at this specific range anyway, What I say is that they had the capability to reliably engage the enemy vehicles outside their engagement range (Which is perfectly sensible, because if it was not the case the 45 Nashorns that took place in the Kursk battle would have been obliterated.) .


True enough.
orcbuster wrote:USSR gets prototype marsupials, why would you need moose when you got stuff with kickers like that AND transport capability? And I'm not even gonna START on the french Marsupilami, I don't even think thats a real animal! Why no trolls for Norway?

User avatar
PzAz04Maus
Lieutenant
Posts: 1368
Joined: Sat 22 Mar 2014 01:42
Contact:

Re: If the timeline was extended to 1997, what prototypes would become suddenly available?

Postby PzAz04Maus » Wed 1 Feb 2017 07:11

The US didn't bring their 76mm Shermans to Normandy because they didn't think they'd be needed. This view came because Panthers had been faced in Italy and the 75mm Shermans were able to deal with them.


They figured that the Panther was simply another Tiger: a heavy tank with limited numbers put into heavy independent tank battalions for the breakthrough/fire brigade role. That was a job a tank destroyer could handle.

Turns out it wasn't. The double bad news was that they were stuck in the Bocage for a while trying to face them. However, once they got to open tank country, the disparity was mitigated very well once one took the Sherman's advantages to heart. Check Abram's successful defense against some mean tigers and panthers using 75mm armed Shermans in the Battle of Arracourt.

http://www.benning.army.mil/armor/eARMOR/content/issues/2015/APR_JUN/2BattleAnalysis15.pdf

Certainly there were rangefinders- they've been on battleships since before WWI. I just haven't heard of their being in use, or at least common use, in armored vehicles until at least the T29 with the 'ears.'


I figured you'd appreciate this.

Image

http://www.benning.army.mil/Armor/historian/content/PDF/Armor%20Dev%20Cold%20War.pdf

Looks like the problem came down to complexity and user difficulty for US service.
Last edited by PzAz04Maus on Wed 1 Feb 2017 07:19, edited 1 time in total.

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests