Jump to content

Damian90

Members
  • Content count

    747
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

About Damian90

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  • Birthday 05/13/1990
  1. SB Wiki problems.

    It seems that SB wiki can't be opened, anyone have similiar problems, Opera flagged it as being source of attacks, while Firefox and Chrome do not open it at all.
  2. ERA Bricks Super-Glue? [FIXED]

    Well all types of ERA modules disintegrate when hit, completely, not matters if it's K-1, K-5, Relikt, Knife, Duplet or western ERA systems.
  3. The Battle of the Bulge Movie 1965

    I would be carefull with claiming that Tiger could lay fire more accurately, especially considering that in general, WWII german tanks crews had rather poor situational awareness, and visibility from the inside was also quiet poor compared to, for example M4 or M26, due to how many periscopes were avaiable for crews, including gunner. Also in general Allied tanks had superiority in manouverability. As for Tigers, this is not accounts of soldiers fighting there, but based on assesment of the battlefields. And of course I do not imply all these 3 Tigers were taken out from the front, I only say, in the context of the "Fury" that the Tiger there, would be shot dead by 2 76mm M1 gun armed M4's, at this specific tactical situation and range. 76mm M1 gun had several subvariants, with and without muzzle breaks, also in ETO not all guns had muzzle breaks installed. In "Fury" there are actually 3x 76mm armed M4's, there is M4A3(76)W, there is M4A2(76)W that plays M4A3(76)W "Fury" and there is M4A1(76)W. Also in ETO, some crews rearmed their M4A3E2(75)W from 75mm M3 gun to 76mm M1 gun, thus creating a subvariant designated as M4A3E2(76)W.
  4. The Battle of the Bulge Movie 1965

    I think you confuse here some things. The 75mm M3 gun armed M4's had problems with Tiger's frontal armor, however 76mm M1 gun armed M4's had no problems with piercing Tiger's frontal armor at combat ranges. For example M62 APC round could penetrate 93mm at 500m and 88mm at 1000m, M79 AP could pierce 109mm at 500m and 92mm at 1000m, and M93 APCR 157mm at 500m and 127mm at 1000m. And yes it is a fact, in north western europe, US Army had encounters with only 3x (yeah it was 3 not 2, my mistake) PzKpfw. VI Ausf.H1/Ausf.E Tiger I heavy tanks, no more were ever meet. US Army actually met much more Panthers and King Tigers. Now in case of Panther and King Tiger, due to frontal armor slope and thickness, even 76mm M1 gun firing APCR M92 round, could not pierce it.
  5. History of US Tanks.

    https://www.themaven.net/warriormaven/land/army-self-propelled-howitzers-to-outgun-russian-weapons-R3jO2B9kAE2Sga9oAjBrLw?full=1 https://www.themaven.net/warriormaven/land/army-builds-new-high-tech-a5-bradley-fighting-vehicle-o5URjyC6GE2mi-xwHgbDmA?full=1 Some news about improvement of M109A7 and development of M2A5 IFV.
  6. The Battle of the Bulge Movie 1965

    Some had 76mm M1 gun, like the M4A2(76)W that played the "Fury". In reality even a standard M62 APCBC or M72 APC rounds fired from 76mm M1 gun, could with ease pierce front hull armor of the Tiger at most combat ranges. It's a myth that Tiger was so well armored, in fact it was not, and Tigers really did not created such huge problems for allies. It was the Panther that was a problem. As I said, in reality a 76mm M1 gun had no problem piercing Tiger frontal armor at combat ranges. Also interesting note here, US troops in Western Europe encountered only... 2 Tiger tanks in total. More Tigers were encountered by British Army but then again, M4's were perfectly capable to defeat Tigers, even with 75mm M3 gun, side shots could defeat it's armor. Nick Moran have a great lecture about this. The real problem was the Panther, because of it's sloped frontal armor, and also greater numbers than a Tiger 1 or Tiger 2.
  7. The Battle of the Bulge Movie 1965

    The thing is that M4's with 76mm M1 gun, at that distance, would simply pierce Tigers frontal armor without a problem. That was my biggest issue with "Fury".
  8. History of US Tanks.

    Yup, same new double pin tracks, suspension, transmission, engine etc. For some reason they only didn't add return rollers.
  9. History of US Tanks.

    A lot, A7 is actually a completely new design that only reuses turret shell from A6. So M109A7 actually have nothing in common with M109 family, as A6 variant also received a newly designed turret that replaced original. M109A7 is actually a member of the M2 Bradley IFV Family of Vehicles, M109A7 hull is based on M2A3/A4 components and is a completely new design. The A6 turret was disassembled to naked shell and all components were replaced with new ones. In future it is also planed to replace current M284 L39 155mm howitzer with new M907 ERCA L52 155mm howitzer with an autoloader and new munitions that will increase it's range up to 70km's. M109A6. M109A7. M109A7 CAD model with M907 ERCA L52 155mm howitzer. M907 ERCA howitzer will also be used in towed variant as modification for M777A2 system. M777ER (Extended Range) prototype with M907 ERCA L52 howitzer compared to a standard M777A2.
  10. History of US Tanks.

    From a reliable source I got information that US Army ordered first batch of over 700 M1A2SEPv3 MBT's, and over 200 M109A7 SPG's.
  11. Everything Leclerc

    UAE Leclerc, one of the tanks seems to use new type of addon armor kit.
  12. DVRC's are mounted and hidden inside the rear right light housing.
  13. History of Soviet Tanks.

    Another photo of Object 477A1 "Nota" leaked to the internet. Also based on photos, a model of this vehicle was made.
  14. History of US Tanks.

    It seems like technically every single variant of M1 can use DWFK kit, even old M1 and M1IP, altough Hunnicutt seems to imply first tests were done on the basic M1A1. Perhaps kit was designed with backwards compitability in mind.
×