tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post5319959371521416294..comments2024-03-28T14:35:30.147-04:00Comments on Tank Archives: Common Questions: Unfair TestingPeterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09622237223229485503noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-42817705748660691592019-02-01T15:03:04.102-05:002019-02-01T15:03:04.102-05:00The famous German claims that Stukas destroyed the...The famous German claims that Stukas destroyed the French Char 2Cs on the way to the front are an example of a faked result. The tanks were scuttled by their crews, which is obvious from the photographs (flatbeds untouched, no signs of shrapnel hitting the hulls, all of the damage is pieces of armor bent outward, no evidence of bomb craters in the area).<br /><br />Of course, the Luftwaffe would have done the French a favor by bombing the Char 2Cs!Chits 'n' Thingshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01819307975178436315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-38309313542907168202016-06-29T12:09:23.341-04:002016-06-29T12:09:23.341-04:00The smaller projectiles leave holes and don't ...The smaller projectiles leave holes and don't catastrophically break the hull, so I don't see how hull integrity is relevant. If anything, holes would give the armor more "give", allowing it to repel shells a tiny bit better.li07.jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02615594101085179532noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-44560393514402574732016-06-29T12:09:19.141-04:002016-06-29T12:09:19.141-04:00The smaller projectiles leave holes and don't ...The smaller projectiles leave holes and don't catastrophically break the hull, so I don't see how hull integrity is relevant. If anything, holes would give the armor more "give", allowing it to repel shells a tiny bit better.li07.jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02615594101085179532noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-68620497087596043532016-06-23T18:25:33.285-04:002016-06-23T18:25:33.285-04:00While all of this applies to real combat, this is ...While all of this applies to real combat, this is not practical for testing purposes to claim that A can defeat B. If you shoot at A enough times with B, then B will naturally defeat A, it's only a matter of time before the metal gives out unless the round you are using is so minuscule that it's irrelevant.<br /><br />Shooting at structurally unsound targets makes this even more of a joke. If you've already shot half the tank apart, then how valid are the results on the remaining parts of the tank? What was done in many of these Soviet tests is for example, they'd start with their largest projectiles, 152mm, 122mm, etc, land multiple hits on their target before changing to smaller guns to then claim that even the smaller guns could defeat the armor in question while completely ignoring the damage the larger guns had already done.<br /><br />This is not indicative of impartial testing.<br /><br />z07https://www.blogger.com/profile/16175386517180829547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-19449310597291051812015-06-02T12:04:00.410-04:002015-06-02T12:04:00.410-04:00"Despite what some people like to claim, thes..."Despite what some people like to claim, these photos not the work of Stalin's propaganda teams" - first photo of the Panther with Black Ink Penetration is from a well known series of faked photos...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-86969905948377342322015-05-16T16:23:46.193-04:002015-05-16T16:23:46.193-04:00I do not know why anybody else recognized this bef...I do not know why anybody else recognized this before but the argumentation-chain in this post is non-existent.<br /><br />The first point is that soviet tests are not good because the tanks were shot too often. Peters point here is that this also happened in combat. While this point is probably legit, the "harsh reality" in combat is also that a penetration with the first hit is extremely important. Soviet tests disregard this -both kinds of penetration are mixed up. <br /><br />The other big point is that parts like the gun are removed before the tests. This point is also completely legit in my eyes - however, although a common practice - this does mean that the armor IS weakened this way. Peter denies this in the end without a reason why - "This was a common practice by any nation, no matter whose tanks they were testing. The removal of these components did not, in any way, compromise the armour. ". No matter how many nations do this, as a mechanical engineer i am sure that the force distribution on the armor is different without certain components - this can mean that the armor is weaker and can crack easier on a mechanical weak-part. Furthermore, the edge effect is more likely to happen this way. You can read more about it in WW2 ballistics - armor and gunnery.<br /><br /><br />Best Regards<br />Thor_Hammerschlaghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14230343757139315722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-7071805597290177682015-05-04T07:34:57.545-04:002015-05-04T07:34:57.545-04:00Only idiots could destroy tank by this way.
Only idiots could destroy tank by this way.<br />Crabteeth RMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09715071498952492184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-86643542363136037752015-04-26T19:42:03.065-04:002015-04-26T19:42:03.065-04:00Something as trivial as shoving a grenade into the...Something as trivial as shoving a grenade into the gun breech could make a vehicle "destroyed" by German standards. Meanwhile, it was perfectly suitable for armour testing. Tanks that have suffered catastrophic damage were not used for testing for obvious reasons.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09622237223229485503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-29924620294579685022015-04-26T06:21:02.701-04:002015-04-26T06:21:02.701-04:00You mean apart from the crew destroying the vehicl...You mean apart from the crew destroying the vehicles themselves, funny how it is that peopel will always ignore that in favor the awesome russian guns did that damage.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-14765387003641491332015-04-22T06:24:27.442-04:002015-04-22T06:24:27.442-04:00WOW at that hole in the ambushed tiger turret! :D
...WOW at that hole in the ambushed tiger turret! :D<br /><br />"When you capture an enemy vehicle, everyone wants a piece: the artillerymen, the optics scientists, the electricians, the mechanics."<br />Yea I guess that the hull is the slice of the pie for the testing grounds, even display tanks have everything missing imagine a captured tankAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-39060061804824230122015-04-20T10:01:04.387-04:002015-04-20T10:01:04.387-04:00I wrote a bit about it here: http://tankarchives.b...I wrote a bit about it here: http://tankarchives.blogspot.ca/2014/08/t-34-85m.htmlPeterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09622237223229485503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-2131292557202278682015-04-20T06:20:55.975-04:002015-04-20T06:20:55.975-04:00"T-34-85M after testing. The tank is simply a..."T-34-85M after testing. The tank is simply an empty hull with just enough wheels attached to get it to the range." - where could read more about this particular testing?Rosica Katrevahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16653366824005713613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-84935445855181321852015-04-18T14:10:42.098-04:002015-04-18T14:10:42.098-04:00Effective against Ferdinant like this? http://www....Effective against Ferdinant like this? http://www.warhistoryonline.com/military-vehicle-news/achtung-panzer.html/attachment/bbc9994e93ad5e2104fbdcdc2f58aaf8<br /> If you look carefully, you can see torn out first roof armour. Which shell except for 152 mm HE should do this, when it was destroyed at Kursk? Crabteeth RMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09715071498952492184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-48476937706044430682015-04-18T11:08:52.633-04:002015-04-18T11:08:52.633-04:00This article explains much. The notion that tanks ...This article explains much. The notion that tanks go into combat undinged from previous combats is kind of absurd anyway. At Aberdeen the Jadgtiger II has several divets (90 mm hits?) in the front glacis, and I was looking at Zaloga's book of an IS-2 driving through East Prussia that has a divet (75 mm?) on its front turret. That is the simple reality.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-87203841913365018032015-04-18T10:51:55.815-04:002015-04-18T10:51:55.815-04:00But I don't understand your objection, as the ...But I don't understand your objection, as the 152 mm round proved effective against Ferdinands actual combat. Usually the objection arises when the claim is made that testing result couldn't possibly arise from actual combat. So what's the beef?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-49755725600126354862015-04-18T10:20:46.218-04:002015-04-18T10:20:46.218-04:00The test I was critical of was the Ferdinand test....The test I was critical of was the Ferdinand test. Where the driver's plate was first penetrated by APCR from German 75mm/L70 then it was hit by 152mm AP. A large piece of the armor broke off along the line of the APCR penetration but no mention of this was made when the 152mm hit was sited.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com