Page 4 of 16 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 152
Thanks Tree94Thanks

Thread: Tanks

  1. #31
    Member
    Joined
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    3,804
    Thanks
    1075

    From
    TN
    Saw am ad for the WWII movie fury coming out. I'll watch it eventually, but noting the trailer the trailer noted that the life expectancy of a tank crew was 6 weeks?

  2. #32
    Member Zaragunudgeyon's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    3,278
    Thanks
    523

    Must have been terrifying being inside a tank in a big battle. Not knowing really how the battle is progressing. Lots of screaming and crying I bet!

  3. #33
    Member Zaragunudgeyon's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    3,278
    Thanks
    523

    Pretty much sums up how things went at Kursk.




  4. #34
    Member Zaragunudgeyon's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    3,278
    Thanks
    523

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutch View Post
    When they did there was nothing that could touch them. That high velocity 75 mm gun was a killer.
    Indeed.. The main gun was a 7.5 cm Rheinmetall-Borsig KwK 42 (L/70) with semi-automatic shell ejection and a supply of 79 rounds (82 on Ausf. G). The main gun used three different types of ammunition: APCBC-HE (Pzgr. 39/42), HE (Sprgr. 42) and APCR (Pzgr. 40/42), the last of which was usually in short supply. While it was of only average caliber for its time, the Panther's gun was one of the most powerful tank guns of World War II, due to the large propellant charge and the long barrel, which gave it a very high muzzle velocity and excellent armor-piercing qualities. The flat trajectory also made hitting targets much easier, since accuracy was less sensitive to range and increased the chance of hitting a moving target, though these same attributes made the gun a poor fire-support weapon using HE ammo. The Panther's 75 mm gun had more penetrating power than the main gun of the Tiger I heavy tank, the 8.8 cm KwK 36 L/56,[56] although the larger 88 mm projectile might inflict more damage if it did penetrate.

  5. #35
    Veteran Member EnigmaO01's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    17,851
    Thanks
    9779

    From
    Indiana
    Quote Originally Posted by Dutch View Post
    I didn't say we "lost" any. I said we didn't "win" any.
    Sounds like you're playing semantics.

  6. #36
    Veteran Member Dutch's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    34,673
    Thanks
    6663

    From
    Middle of nowhere Arkansas
    Quote Originally Posted by EnigmaO01 View Post
    Sounds like you're playing semantics.
    Hardly. I'm just using English.
    Thanks from grinder

  7. #37
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    22,674
    Thanks
    4505

    From
    In the empty heads of the right wingers I own
    Quote Originally Posted by Dutch View Post
    Hardly. I'm just using English.
    Learn to use it more precisely.

    As Hollywood pointed out, we haven't been in a war since WWII.

  8. #38
    Veteran Member Dutch's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    34,673
    Thanks
    6663

    From
    Middle of nowhere Arkansas
    Quote Originally Posted by publius3 View Post
    Saw am ad for the WWII movie fury coming out. I'll watch it eventually, but noting the trailer the trailer noted that the life expectancy of a tank crew was 6 weeks?
    American tank crews had it the worst. The Sherman tank was called Ronsons ( a well known cigarette lighter of the time) by the Germans because they instantly burst into flames when hit.

  9. #39
    Veteran Member Dutch's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    34,673
    Thanks
    6663

    From
    Middle of nowhere Arkansas
    Quote Originally Posted by Shanty View Post
    Learn to use it more precisely.

    As Hollywood pointed out, we haven't been in a war since WWII.

    Tell that to the boys and girls who served in Korea, Vietnam, desert storm, Iraq and Afghanistan.
    Thanks from grinder

  10. #40
    Veteran Member Dutch's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    34,673
    Thanks
    6663

    From
    Middle of nowhere Arkansas
    Quote Originally Posted by Zaragunudgeyon View Post
    Indeed.. The main gun was a 7.5 cm Rheinmetall-Borsig KwK 42 (L/70) with semi-automatic shell ejection and a supply of 79 rounds (82 on Ausf. G). The main gun used three different types of ammunition: APCBC-HE (Pzgr. 39/42), HE (Sprgr. 42) and APCR (Pzgr. 40/42), the last of which was usually in short supply. While it was of only average caliber for its time, the Panther's gun was one of the most powerful tank guns of World War II, due to the large propellant charge and the long barrel, which gave it a very high muzzle velocity and excellent armor-piercing qualities. The flat trajectory also made hitting targets much easier, since accuracy was less sensitive to range and increased the chance of hitting a moving target, though these same attributes made the gun a poor fire-support weapon using HE ammo. The Panther's 75 mm gun had more penetrating power than the main gun of the Tiger I heavy tank, the 8.8 cm KwK 36 L/56,[56] although the larger 88 mm projectile might inflict more damage if it did penetrate.
    Somebody's done their homework.
    Thanks from Zaragunudgeyon

Page 4 of 16 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Tanks, but no tanks!
    By Cicero in forum Current Events
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 30th April 2013, 03:18 AM
  2. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 29th April 2013, 05:32 AM
  3. Army to Congress: Thanks, but no tanks
    By Singularity in forum Current Events
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 10th October 2012, 07:46 PM
  4. Bread, guns, and tanks
    By The Man in forum Warfare
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 20th September 2011, 04:58 PM
  5. Beck movie tanks.
    By Ronin Tetsuro in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 4th December 2009, 07:51 PM

Search tags for this page

Click on a term to search for related topics.

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed