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.
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.) .