Ulatersk

Member
  • Content count

    4,579
  • Joined

  • Last visited

medal

Community Reputation

8,314 Outstanding

1 Follower

About Ulatersk

  • Rank
    Marshal of the Air Force
  • Birthday 07/13/1992

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Slovakia

Recent Profile Visitors

73,816 profile views
  1. Not many apparently. Try 1920s.
  2. About half of all knocked out tanks were repairable. And there is not much evidence to suggest they shot tanks more than 1 or 2 times. People using this "superior" statistical work that does not have direct, concrete cause of knock-out, ranges, or even circumstances many times to diss german accounting is frankly laughable.
  3. Americans didnt know what happened to roughly every 6th tank, and only 1000 out of 6000 cases studied in a broad report had a specific cause of knock-out mentioned. As in caliber, or what knocked them out exactly. So it wasnt all that hot, and considering Pattons ego, that got triggered so hard when his intel detachment could not find enough german graves for his liking, told them to falsify the statistics. Even worse things happened in Ardennes, where they just straight up 5x over-extrapolated the number of dead germans from number of PoWs they captured.
  4. The original german grey is for some strange reason a no-no for devs.
  5. Nope, KwK 37, the short 75 mm.
  6. Bdz fuze, when it was initially developed for PzGr. Rot in KwK 37, needed 30 mm of unsloped armor at 1000 meters for the shell to slow down enough and fuze to engage. For all intents and purposed, based on various reports, not even the glacis on M4 was enough to slow them down. Also, Gaijin is more than a bit off with how shells behave after entering the tank. Self-explanatory.
  7. German PzGr. 39s and later version should not shatter in any noticable way.
  8. PzGr. 39 was less likely to shatter than anything brits or americans had, except for 17 pounder APCBC, and later batches for long 88 were better than any tank gun ammo, quite literally.
  9. I would not trust wikipedia with anything before double-checking. There is a reason why any self-respecting teacher would laugh at you if you would use it. Mix in what I would bet is some kind of circlejerk of cringy hobbyists performing some kind of delusional war on "wehraboos" editing those articles and you can reliably discard any kind of ww 2 wikipedia articles except for hard numbers.
  10. No, tank crews lost 1 dead and one wounded in average from gunfire. About as many of them were HE shelled and machineguned getting out of the tank. Many crews escaped atleast the tank completely unhurt. As it should.
  11. Ninth army was asked on input about W shermans to cross-reference the 10% data from First Army, so of course that leads to a conclusion that they had none. Yes, plain M6X, that had no he burster. . Yes, tanks that were smaller, and/or lined with ammo stowage burned less than a Sherman. Yes, they had such a great experience with dem ww 1 tanks that the lost vast majority of tank engagements prior to El-Alamein propped up by US supply and tanks.
  12. Pz IV chassis had a very visible roof sloping toward the front. This one is an even box... why? Because it had to be an even box in order to accomodate a bigger turret ring. Like this:
  13. Gaijin failed to notice that Bdz fuse needs 30 mm of armor at 1000 meters to decelerate enough to engage, and that somewhere back then when they wre introduced with short 75 mm.