Apparently the Russians have produced 95,000 T-54/T-55 .
Amazing figures....Why would they need to build that many?
Printable View
Apparently the Russians have produced 95,000 T-54/T-55 .
Amazing figures....Why would they need to build that many?
The Soviet military fielded roughly 100 divisions, with each motor rifle division needing about 100 MBTs and each Tank division needing about 320. Moreover, all of the Warsaw pact divisions were similar and similarly equipped.Quote:
Originally Posted by coalition
Plus, they loved to stockpile great warehouses of the things just in case AND the exported the bejeebers out of it.
My favourite would be the Tiger I
A friend of mine agrees, and is still looking for blueprints to replicate the tiger so he can conquer the world :sweatdrop:
Send out one of your more accomplished gentlemen to steal the technology. :cheesy:Quote:
Originally Posted by Wausser
Don't know whether this belongs here or in the Cute thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wausser
Where is Michael Wittman when you need him?
What can i say
Even wittman will not hold with 10 rockets into his tigers ass.
Has anyone ever played the game A Bridge Too Far? (an oldie for PC)
I'm going to go with the Königstiger just because it would devistate anyone or anything in its path.
Yeah, my brother had A Bridge Too Far.
It was in the same series as Close Combat, right?
Helicopter view of the battlefield; you issue march orders with a somewhat complex right-click, select type of movement, click on end point etc?
I've played CCII; I remember watching my brother play the other ones all the time. Ahhh, good times.
Anyways, I'd agree that the Panther (specifically the G and later models) were probably the most cost-effective.
Although, being that they didn't come into their own until later, the PzKpFw IV probably had greater impact overall... :juggle2:
The Centurion.
Came too late for WW2 was undoubtedly the tank that would have given parity to us against the germans had the war continued any longer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centurion_tank
not a tank but it looks cool , the ISU-122
The Russians age-old policy is 'Never throw anything away, ever.'Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
I've heard that they're still uncovering WWI/WWII weapons caches that have been forgotten about/lost in paperwork/were going to be sold but the seller got killed. Generally in working condition, although given the typical construction of Russian hardware that's hardly surprising :P
Also, I think the Russians themselves only built something like 55,000 T-54/55s. It is, however, still the most produced tank in history. Amusingly, the T-34 still holds second place at 50,000 or so, as far as I know.
The Landkreuzer P 1500 Monster because holy ****, that ****** will **** you like **** ************* *******. ****.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
I believe that's what the Russians would've call 'IL-2 bait'Quote:
Originally Posted by Azathoth
I mean... apart from the crazy amount of resources something like that would gobble up (The Kriegsmarine could've actually built a few more Mega Battleships) There is no way something like that could've been practical, between the Fuel they didn't have, and the Insane Engine that would've pushed the thing at a whopping 15km per hour, the Germans (And rightfully so) could build ten King Tigers, or 30 Panthers. And besides that, Sheogorath is pretty much right, everyone wants to get the big Target.
Practicality is not a factor when it comes to super tanks. :smash:
Never mind IL-2s, you could comfortably carpet bomb the bugger.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheogorath
It might even have provided another use for those high altitude bunker busting bombs (Tallboys) that the RAF used to knock out the Tirpitz.
Sucker's big enough where you could carpet bomb without the edges of the bomb quadrant going past the AFV!Quote:
Originally Posted by alh_p
Bah! You could've probably mounted several anti-air turrets on the thing. :dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheogorath
CR
You wouldn't even need bombers. You could just hit it with artillery. Even WWII era artillery wouldn't have trouble hitting something like that. You could probably hit it with ROCKETS.Quote:
Originally Posted by alh_p
But, all things considered, you'd expend a lot less resources in planes taking it out than the resources required to build it in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
I mean, the time and effort that would go into something like that would produce, like, a five hundred T-34's.
It would also have really thick armour though so the question remains whether normal shells would be able to penetrate it at all. I'd think if it had, say 1m of steel armour, a 500 pound bomb's explosive blast might just spread along the surface instead of really denting the armour. I'm not an explosives expert though.
Yep, the designs certainly talk about thick armour (I don't think the Porsch designers were that silly) -and AA guns too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
This is what would have taken it out though: Tallboy bombs.
As I mentioned above, they were used to finish off the Tirpitz and destroy U-boat pens, as well as other undergroung/bunker targets.
Tanks this big are just a crazy idea - must have been what inspired the Mammoth tanks in C&C Red Alert :2thumbsup:
The problem with the P.1500 Monster is the fact that while the hull can be armoured, the gun can't really be that well armoured. So even if you might not be able to destroy the vehicle itself, the main armament is big enough to be a relatively easy and vulnerable target.
:laugh4:
Where would you use it? What kind of bridge would support it? What kind of ship could transport it? It looks more like a proof-of-concept design than anything anyone would actually build.
I wonder what would happen if an artillery shell were to, say, bounce down the barrel :PQuote:
Originally Posted by AggonyDuck
Considering the sheer size of the weapon they've got on the Monster, it's not unthinkable that some ordinance might end up setting off the vehicles own shell inside the gun.
I understand they actually started building a prototype for the Rat. The Monster seems more like a railgun-type thing, which would make it a little more plausible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
I guess it would be like one of those railway guns, yes, except with more manouverability, meant to destroy bunkers and perhaps hurt enemy morale.
Otherwise I'd prefer the Ratte though, the enemy tankers might just pee in their pants when it comes along. ~D
Or laugh when they realized that they could walk faster than it :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Yeah, they made one of the 280 mm guns and later shipped it to the Netherlands to be a fixed coastal defence emplacement.Quote:
I understand they actually started building a prototype for the Rat. The Monster seems more like a railgun-type thing, which would make it a little more plausible.
40 kph is a lot faster than a human can walk. At any rate, it wouldn't have ended up like the steamroller scene in Austin Powers if that's what you were thinking.Quote:
Or laugh when they realized that they could walk faster than it :P
Remember, the point of one of these IS NOT practicality or effectiveness in combat. The point is to make you **** in awe when you see it. And just imagine a column of IS-2s getting hit by a 800mm shell point blank - epic stuff right there.
Are you sure it's not just a battleship gun? What are the specs on that cannon anyway? I know the Germans love big artillery.
hmmm... Probably not a BB Gun, the Germans had a love of monstrous artillery weapons, didn't they have a huge railroad gun that could hit the outskirts of Paris during WWI, and they had to lob those shells a good distance behind their front lines...Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
Hitler loved big, radical things, be it social policy or weapons. Anyone who worked for Hitler knew that the way to get promoted was to do things that Hitler liked. Therefore, what the rest of the world treated as purely hypothetical design exercises for intellectual development, Hitler would order into reality. The result was a whole host of weapons which the very people making them knew were ridiculous and pointless. However, if any of these people objected and told Hitler that it was stupid or impossible, they were effectively ending their careers (and on very rare occasions, their lives) because Hitler despised people who didn't literally believe that nothing was impossible. Also, if you objected to Hitler, there were a dozen people around you who would happily say that they could do that job because they wanted the chance to impress Hitler, so it was not as if objecting would stop a project anyway. Someone somewhere would be willing to work on it if it pleased the big man.
As for my favourite tank, it is the Leopard 2.
The reason I like this tank is because it more efficient than the M1 Abrams. Its armour is proof against all likely opponents, its gun is the same as the American vehicle, and best yet, there is not one vetronic device or mechanism that is fitted to the Abrams that cannot be put into a Leopard at a cheaper price. Last but not least, its advanced diesel engine has twice the endurance of the American tank which means that one is les likely to hear the driver screaming "I'm on empty!" when the enemy sends another battalion. 10 hours on 504 gallons of JP8 Av-Gas versus up to hours on 255 gallons of regular and cheap diesel is a no contest in the court of military opinion.
In short, the Leopard Two is only limited by the budget the Germans have decided to impose on it. In the event of a real war, for only a few hundred thousand dollars, a leopard two can be equipped with the latest vetronics equal to and often superior to those fitted in the much more expensive Abrams. The Leopard is lighter so it does not have to worry about collapsing bridges. Its superior fuel economy means longer battle performance, easier logistics (less fuel consumed means less demand for trucks or risk of depleting local supplies). Hell, you can fill a leopard two up at a gas pump and it will run just about as well as it does on standard diesel. Do the same for the Abrams and you will see a performance drop, even if it not huge. Finally, the Leopard 2 is readily adaptable. The Abrams is so expensive to produce and operate as it is that despite having a vastly larger budget behind it than the PanzerWaffe, the US tank force is constantly cancelling upgrades and improvements while the Germans readily upgrade theirs. The US tank force runs out of money for upgrades because fuel costs rise, the Germans cancel upgrades because they want to spend that few million on making a babycare in Potsdam. Got to love Social Democracy! (Joke)
Hello Beirut,Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut
I 'm a french guys who is found of history in génral and ww1 in particular.
With my organisation, since two years, we made and historical studies on the first tank corps in france in 1917 built by Patton in our area.
When i search for patton document's on the web, i see your grand father's discharge paper !
Do you know if your grand-father made a stay at "Bourg" (Close to "Langres - Haute-Marne in France) ?
It was the light tank school in france, a training area built by Patton. The main subject of our research is on this place because we live close to this little village.
Perhaps could you contact me directly if you want in order the exchange our knowledge ?
Thanks in advance for your repply. Nicolas.
En francais, svp. :smiley:Quote:
Originally Posted by trailmobile
I'm gonna have to go for
1. T-34/85
2. Centurion
3. T-72
m1 abrams.
I never understand why people like the Abrams, in terms of combat statistics its inferior to the Challenger 1 and 2 (few casualties proportionally speaking) and I doubt it can be classed as decisive when you consider the opponents it has faced have mostly been poorly maintained T-55s and other sub-standard Soviet export models.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
Could you elaborate on what you mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brennus
I mean that (although my understanding is by no means authorotative on the subject) in cases where the M1 Abrams and Challenger 1/2 have been employed Challengers have performed better in terms of losses, proportionally speaking. By that I mean although greater numbers of Abrams have been deployed in combat (and for that matter produced) even when you account for the fact that more Abrams were exposed to danger the Challenger still has fewer casualties. I hope I worded that in a way which is easy to understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
Plus, on a personal note its not the prettiest tank in the world.
The number of tanks involved and actual engagements are way too small to make any conclusions. In 2003 there were only 120 Challenger 2's in Iraq and they were focused primarily in the Basra area IIRC.
Both tanks are well protected but precise data is top secret, so those who do know won't tell and those who tell can only make educated guesses. The M1 does have its ammo separated from the crew so that will increase crew survivability.
The other factors like firepower and mobility is a bit easier to judge, and AFAIK several trials have been made where the Challenger did not show any advantage over other Western tanks: The Greek Main Battle Tank Competition in 1998 put the Challenger 2E (export model) in a fourth place below the Leopard 2A5, M1A2 and LeClerc.
If the M1 has a problem then it is logistics as it is a terrible fuel guzzler. But it has improved somewhat since they added an Auxiliary Power Unit (at least on some M1 versions)
Overall I doubt they really are that different in capability, and they have all received several upgrades over the years
Even in this regard, IIRC, the Abrams has a greater operational range. I'm not sure whether that is because the Abrams has more fuel capacity than the Challenger 2, or whether it has greater fuel economy. The Challenger 2 uses a diesel, so I doubt it is the latter- but it must carry a lot less fuel. Do you know anything about this?Quote:
Originally Posted by CBR
I think the Challenger 2 use an older engine. The export model in the Greek trial apparently had a new German 1500 hp diesel, and IIRC both the Challenger and the LeClerc (using same engine) were noted for their good range in the tests. The M1 has 1900 liters of fuel and the Challenger 2 apparently has about 1600.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
edit:The primary problem for the M1 is that it needed the turbine to produce the power needed for its electrical system. It consumes nearly 40 liters to start up and about 45 liters/hour when idling. It is also an older engine so it could easily get better if they found the money for the next generation engine.
edit2: I just checked some numbers and the M1A2 SEP has less fuel (1680 liters) and a range of just 350 Km compared to the about 450 Km of the M1A1. Compare that with about 450 Km for the Challenger 2 and maybe 550 for the Leopard 2. But it is easy to find conflicting numbers so cannot be sure.
Thanks for the information. We'll see what the M1A3 has in store, if it doesn't get axed. It is supposed to be 15 tons lighter, which should help fuel economy (not to mention an assumed new engine). IIRC, they are planning on keeping the thing in service for another four decades!Quote:
Originally Posted by CBR
Oh 15 tons lighter? And in the mean time they are thinking about the next IFV and numbers like 70 tons have come up, heh. But maybe future active defenses will be so good that weight of armour can be lowered to maintain a good strategic mobility.
That is the plan. It seems pretty ambitious, and if all the changes come to fruition it will make the A3 a far more radical departure from the A2 than the A2 was from the A1.Quote:
Originally Posted by CBR
Well I have certainly learnt alot with reading the last few posts.