Jump to content

Entwicklungserie


27 minutes ago, Nope said:

 

There are things that just didn't go according to the blueprints and would only show themselves through actual testing. In planes it would be stuff like the Me 209 and LaGG-3, and with tanks it could be things like the entire development history of the Tiger I. This would then affect the end product. Reading through detailed books showcasing the many concepts that were proposed will show how much can change between a concept and even the first prototype, including looks. And even between prototypes there could be a lot of changes, which is why some may not like the implementation of the E-100.

But none of this matters in a game.

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, KorEEnium said:

But none of this matters in a game.

 

Unexpected significant changes in vehicle characteristics doesn't matter?

 

doki

  • Thanks 1
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread seems to have devolved into people just arguing over the game, not discussing the actual vehicles in the OP :/

  • Upvote 2
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Nope said:

 

Unexpected significant changes in vehicle characteristics doesn't matter?

 

doki

What are these significan't changes that affect how the vehicle is implemented in the game? Vehicle acceleration, turning speed are all made up by Gaijin anyway.

 

That's why we only need this:

In order to add a blueprint tank to the game we only need to know the following:

  • What the hull and turret look like
  • What the armor layout is like
  • What engine and transmission it has
  • What gun it has

Everything else can be speculated or copied from other vehicles without any issues.

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KorEEnium said:

What are these significan't changes that affect how the vehicle is implemented in the game? Vehicle acceleration, turning speed are all made up by Gaijin anyway.

 

That's why we only need this:

 

So you're fine with tanks that could have not worked at all in that manner being in game?

 

That's WoT territory, mate.

 

The point Nope is saying is the same one I made. A German guy went "And it'll have THIS much armour and it'll TOTALLY be able to go this fast too and its gun will be THIS big."

 

They never proved it could actually be built, let alone operated, in that exact configuration. Thats why it shouldn't be in game, elsewise any crazy fantasy project can get in.

  • Upvote 1
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, KorEEnium said:

What are these significan't changes that affect how the vehicle is implemented in the game? Vehicle acceleration, turning speed are all made up by Gaijin anyway.

 

You don't understand that this could affect even armor values, gun elevation/depression, rate of fire and the looks?

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, TheFuzzieOne said:

 

So you're fine with tanks that could have not worked at all in that manner being in game?

 

That's WoT territory, mate.

If it was up to me I would only use vehicles that actually saw combat but because Gaijin has taken it this far, it doesn't matter anymore.

 

 

50 minutes ago, TheFuzzieOne said:

The point Nope is saying is the same one I made. A German guy went "And it'll have THIS much armour and it'll TOTALLY be able to go this fast too and its gun will be THIS big."

 

They never proved it could actually be built, let alone operated, in that exact configuration. Thats why it shouldn't be in game, elsewise any crazy fantasy project can get in.

That's why you use common sense and knowledge to distinguish stuff that is obviously not going to work from stuff that should work just fine. Ofcourse too much to expect from random people on the internet.

 

 

29 minutes ago, Nope said:

 

You don't understand that this could affect even armor values, gun elevation/depression, rate of fire and the looks?

Every single one of these things can be made up and adjusted as needed. You don't need to have real vehicle to make rough estimations. Not to mention that a lot of the vehicles that were mass produced, have major design flaws that are not represented in the game in any shape or form.

Edited by KorEEnium
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, KorEEnium said:

If it was up to me I would only use vehicles that actually saw combat but because Gaijin has taken it this far, it doesn't matter anymore.

 

That's why you use common sense and knowledge to distinguish stuff that is obviously not going to work from stuff that should work just fine. Ofcourse too much to expect from random people on the internet.

 

Every single one of these things can be made up and adjusted as needed. You don't need to have real vehicle to make rough estimations. Not to mention that a lot of the vehicles that were mass produced, have major design flaws that are not represented in the game in any shape or form.

 

Trying to cast it off with "well of course you use common sense to distinguish" is misrepresenting and ignoring the core point that we're both making here. These could be major, enormous changes that would have occurred, but there is no way to tell without literally building the vehicle. Go ask the Italians with the successors to the P40 that have all the blueprints, but none of the knowledge that they would have ever met those specifications, thus it is not expected in game.

 

The mere fact you say armour values can just be made up, that elevation/depression can just be made up, that rate of fire can just be made up says it all I think.

Edited by TheFuzzieOne
  • Upvote 1
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, TheFuzzieOne said:

... armour values can just be made up... that rate of fire can just be made up... 

 

Doesn't Gaijin already make those things up? 

 

‘Looks over at the M60, M26...’ 

 

I’m not exactly supporting the E-series, but saying that some of the values in game aren’t already made up is also crazy. 

Edited by xX_Lord_James_Xx
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, TheFuzzieOne said:

Trying to cast it off with "well of course you use common sense to distinguish" is misrepresenting and ignoring the core point that we're both making here. These could be major, enormous changes that would have occurred, but there is no way to tell without literally building the vehicle.

 

37 minutes ago, TheFuzzieOne said:

The mere fact you say armour values can just be made up, that elevation/depression can just be made up, that rate of fire can just be made up says it all I think.

Almost all soft stats in game are already made up because you generally can't find documents with this information.

 

In game right now most vehicles have made up reload speeds, made up gun accuracy, made up projectile effectivness, made up gun elevation speed, made up acceleration, made up hull turning speed etc.

If Gaijin already makes stuff up for common mass produced vehicles/weapons then why can't they just make these stats up for blueprint, prototype tanks?

 

 

 

37 minutes ago, TheFuzzieOne said:

Go ask the Italians with the successors to the P40 that have all the blueprints, but none of the knowledge that they would have ever met those specifications, thus it is not expected in game.

Italians are not exactly known for making things that work in the first place.

Edited by KorEEnium
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll try and make a point inherent to this specific topic by the end of the post.

I'd say the argument that the actual implementation of a designed vehicle probably is more correct for aircrafts, as the way every small surface interact with fast moving air (relative to it) can cause great differences, so just vehicle weight and engine hp aren't nearly enough to describe how it would have worked IRL, and as War Thunder started as an aircraft only game, it makes sense that's how vehicles are chosen to be implemented, only if they were built. With ground vehicles however, I feel it's all much simpler, and a side effect of this is probably the fact that grund SB difference from ground AB in terms of vehicle handling is barely slower turret and gun movement, and correct engine hp (fictitious in AB btw, were that be right there, the differences in the vehicles themselves would be even less)

Realistic reload times are not simulated, taking an average between ready racks and hull racks for all shots, crew members are barely affected by anything other than "death" (air had blackouts for example),, components never break if not shot, etc. So... the gameplay and simulation is not that deep compared to air, and maybe it's inherently so.

Now, specifically about the E-series, we're half in luck here, as maybe one of the points of greater speculation that can be made is mobility (the other would be everything related to the gun, but since those are not even known anything could be said, barely even worth talking unless in seroious need of theories for some reason). And we're in luck because apparently the running components were the part both E-50 and E-75 were most complete. That means that knowing the hp at rpm, vehicle weight, and transmission details, plus maybe final drive details, it should be easy to calculate how they would have moved, and with not much ambiguity as there could instead be on other kind of vehicles.

Obviously not knowing other details such as turret and gun mean that the weight is actually not exactly known, and the fact that the main part of the tank is not known is big a problem on its own.

The fact that a vehicle would have been made different is a good argument, but not necessarily definitive, there might be situations where a vehicle wouldn't have worked at all and that was it, maybe that would have been recognied before having built it, and so that would be clear from analyzing the projects, or it would have become clear when a prototype was built, but then the vehicle would have reached status for WT implementation, having been built.

Nothing is gonna change the fact that both E-50 and E-75 were not built, so the only way to implement them is speculating that they at least got to one of these two previous points, the one where they were built, and if by carefully analyzing them, and predicting the performance, GJ would find they would perform poorly, then the "what if" scenario is of poor performing prototypes, not blindly trusting just the optimistic original goals of the projects.

This is all to say that I think prediction of performance can be done with enough details even without built prototypes, with particular attention, real data means they can just plop values in and the vehicle follows those, prediction means a study on how it would have performed needs to be done on the design, and changes due to inherently bad design are not always done before having built something, bad designed built tanks are realistic in their own merit. Still, we're missing so many details on the E-50 and E-75, and from my understanding these two were barely even really considered for production, that implementing them is probably not worth it.

Edited by Chupambrico
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

E-50 and E-75 are just modified KT.

E-50 problem is turret and gun,im i right?Why should we make a new turret when we can give her the KT turret with 8,8and those balls on side of turret.

E-75 you just enlarge the turret of KT and give her the 10,5 gun.

And i dont want those proto leos because those tanks are ugly and will bring nothing.

And some of you dont what BP in game?Wait when GJ will bring BP ships.......

  • Confused 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, wulfalier said:

E-50 problem is turret and gun,im i right?Why should we make a new turret when we can give her the KT turret with 8,8and those balls on side of turret.

E-75 you just enlarge the turret of KT and give her the 10,5 gun.


One of the purposes of the E-series was also ease of production, the Schmalturm for the Panther F was also made easier to produce compared to previous Panther turrets, so it's possible a cheaper and easier turret for both those two vehicles was at least theorized. Spielberger mentions a common turret, without showing it, but also soon later still shows an E-100 with a Maus like turret, so the info might be outdated or wrong.
 

Spoiler

 

17 minutes ago, wulfalier said:

And i dont want those proto leos because those tanks are ugly and will bring nothing.

 

Spoiler

post-8396-084972700%201323550435.jpg


This photo feels weirdly like "WW2 not in WW2"

 

Edited by Chupambrico
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, wulfalier said:

E-50 and E-75 are just modified KT.

E-50 problem is turret and gun,im i right?Why should we make a new turret when we can give her the KT turret with 8,8and those balls on side of turret.

E-75 you just enlarge the turret of KT and give her the 10,5 gun.

And i dont want those proto leos because those tanks are ugly and will bring nothing.

And some of you dont what BP in game?Wait when GJ will bring BP ships.......

 

The problem is that the E-50 isn't exactly a modified Tiger II, thus slapping on the turret like that could make it go over the required weight limit.

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Chupambrico said:


One of the purposes of the E-series was also ease of production, the Schmalturm for the Panther F was also made easier to produce compared to previous Panther turrets, so it's possible a cheaper and easier turret for both those two vehicles was at least theorized. Spielberger mentions a common turret, without showing it, but also soon later still shows an E-100 with a Maus like turret, so the info might be outdated or wrong.
 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

post-8396-084972700%201323550435.jpg


This photo feels weirdly like "WW2 not in WW2"

 

I think that the turret of KT would been used on both tanks(maybe little upgraded).

54 minutes ago, Nope said:

 

The problem is that the E-50 isn't exactly a modified Tiger II, thus slapping on the turret like that could make it go over the required weight limit.

Weight of the turret was 13,5t and what Koreenium wrote that the hull weight was 40t you have 53,5t so in the weight categorie of the E-50,you can take some armor from the front and you save some weight.

Edited by wulfalier
  • Confused 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry I haven’t checked lately!

I just read a lot of the other more recent posts, and I’m hearing a lot of repeated points. 

 

1. “It was never built, so we don’t know what changes would need to be made to even ensure the design would work.”

 

Under different circumstances, I’d agree. The difference here is that these weren’t “new” designs. These were slightly simplified developments of existing ones. That is why I disagree, because, in a way, there were indeed built. Using a different suspension system (which we know works. We still use the system today), changing an armor plate layout (so the hull is a few centimeters longer. whoop-di-doo), and modifying a gun platform (already successful projects). Yes, changes may have been needed, but none significant enough to deviate from the original design, which is all we need to reflect the vehicle in the game. Yes, maybe the fuel injection system needs resizing. Maybe the turret hydraulic has a pressure issue. Maybe one of the bearings is too lose. Sure, but this doesn’t really have an impact on the final design. All designs go through teething processes, such as the Panther and Tiger II. Yeah, the bearings were strengthened. The final drives and differentials bolstered, but the overall design didn’t change significantly. The E 50 and E 75, being so deliberately similar to these existing tanks, don’t need to worry about the same issues, and any issues stumbled upon would be fixed in the same manner. Either way, none of these changes would be significant enough for representation in-game. The overall layout would not be altered. Engines and differentials don’t break in War Thunder.

 

2. “Implementing vehicles that weren’t built opens the door for more fake tanks.”

 

I don’t want fake tanks any more than y’all do, but there is a fine line between real projects and fake designs. These tanks were slightly modified from existing vehicles and were certainly real designs. Certain numbers may need to be inferred from context, without literal writing, but these tanks are not fake.

 

3. “We don’t know the armor.”

 

Ah but we do. We’ve already discussed it. If it isn’t written down, we can measure it or use simple context.

 

4. “We don’t know the guns or turret.”

 

I will admit, it’s not written down anywhere, but by looking at the history of German tank developments and using simple context, they can be inferred. E 50 mounts a short-breech 88mm gun in a narrow-faced turret. E 75 mounts a similar 105mm gun in a turret identical (or almost identical) in dimensions to the King Tiger.

 

I’m afraid I don’t have time for more, but here there’s most of my thoughts. :)

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, __Herr__ said:

Sorry I haven’t checked lately!

I just read a lot of the other more recent posts, and I’m hearing a lot of repeated points. 

 

1. “It was never built, so we don’t know what changes would need to be made to even ensure the design would work.”

 

Under different circumstances, I’d agree. The difference here is that these weren’t “new” designs. These were slightly simplified developments of existing ones. That is why I disagree, because, in a way, there were indeed built. Using a different suspension system (which we know works. We still use the system today), changing an armor plate layout (so the hull is a few centimeters longer. whoop-di-doo), and modifying a gun platform (already successful projects). Yes, changes may have been needed, but none significant enough to deviate from the original design, which is all we need to reflect the vehicle in the game. Yes, maybe the fuel injection system needs resizing. Maybe the turret hydraulic has a pressure issue. Maybe one of the bearings is too lose. Sure, but this doesn’t really have an impact on the final design. All designs go through teething processes, such as the Panther and Tiger II. Yeah, the bearings were strengthened. The final drives and differentials bolstered, but the overall design didn’t change significantly. The E 50 and E 75, being so deliberately similar to these existing tanks, don’t need to worry about the same issues, and any issues stumbled upon would be fixed in the same manner. Either way, none of these changes would be significant enough for representation in-game. The overall layout would not be altered. Engines and differentials don’t break in War Thunder.

 

2. “Implementing vehicles that weren’t built opens the door for more fake tanks.”

 

I don’t want fake tanks any more than y’all do, but there is a fine line between real projects and fake designs. These tanks were slightly modified from existing vehicles and were certainly real designs. Certain numbers may need to be inferred from context, without literal writing, but these tanks are not fake.

 

3. “We don’t know the armor.”

 

Ah but we do. We’ve already discussed it. If it isn’t written down, we can measure it or use simple context.

 

4. “We don’t know the guns or turret.”

 

I will admit, it’s not written down anywhere, but by looking at the history of German tank developments and using simple context, they can be inferred. E 50 mounts a short-breech 88mm gun in a narrow-faced turret. E 75 mounts a similar 105mm gun in a turret identical (or almost identical) in dimensions to the King Tiger.

 

I’m afraid I don’t have time for more, but here there’s most of my thoughts. :)

you're my god...

 

the unique diferences btween the Panther F turret and E50 turret (aswell as the Tiger II H turret and E75 turret), is the ring size, its sligthly more bigger in the entwicklungseries

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, zSektor92 said:

you're my god...

 

the unique diferences btween the Panther F turret and E50 turret (aswell as the Tiger II H turret and E75 turret), is the ring size, its sligthly more bigger in the entwicklungseries

How do you know that?

 

Earliest E 50/75 drawing has regular Panther turret:

G7fuWZc.png

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, __Herr__ said:

Sorry I haven’t checked lately!

I just read a lot of the other more recent posts, and I’m hearing a lot of repeated points. 

 

1. “It was never built, so we don’t know what changes would need to be made to even ensure the design would work.”

 

Under different circumstances, I’d agree. The difference here is that these weren’t “new” designs. These were slightly simplified developments of existing ones. That is why I disagree, because, in a way, there were indeed built. Using a different suspension system (which we know works. We still use the system today), changing an armor plate layout (so the hull is a few centimeters longer. whoop-di-doo), and modifying a gun platform (already successful projects). Yes, changes may have been needed, but none significant enough to deviate from the original design, which is all we need to reflect the vehicle in the game. Yes, maybe the fuel injection system needs resizing. Maybe the turret hydraulic has a pressure issue. Maybe one of the bearings is too lose. Sure, but this doesn’t really have an impact on the final design. All designs go through teething processes, such as the Panther and Tiger II. Yeah, the bearings were strengthened. The final drives and differentials bolstered, but the overall design didn’t change significantly. The E 50 and E 75, being so deliberately similar to these existing tanks, don’t need to worry about the same issues, and any issues stumbled upon would be fixed in the same manner. Either way, none of these changes would be significant enough for representation in-game. The overall layout would not be altered. Engines and differentials don’t break in War Thunder.

 

2. “Implementing vehicles that weren’t built opens the door for more fake tanks.”

 

I don’t want fake tanks any more than y’all do, but there is a fine line between real projects and fake designs. These tanks were slightly modified from existing vehicles and were certainly real designs. Certain numbers may need to be inferred from context, without literal writing, but these tanks are not fake.

 

3. “We don’t know the armor.”

 

Ah but we do. We’ve already discussed it. If it isn’t written down, we can measure it or use simple context.

 

4. “We don’t know the guns or turret.”

 

I will admit, it’s not written down anywhere, but by looking at the history of German tank developments and using simple context, they can be inferred. E 50 mounts a short-breech 88mm gun in a narrow-faced turret. E 75 mounts a similar 105mm gun in a turret identical (or almost identical) in dimensions to the King Tiger.

 

I’m afraid I don’t have time for more, but here there’s most of my thoughts. :)

I doubt E75 E50 turret would have has the same shape as  the King tiger turret. 

 

First of all, king tiger turret was this long because initially the two huge racks at the back of the turrret housing the rounds acting as ready racks were prohibited from being used after several king tigers suffered ammo detonation when ambushed from the side and shot in the turret. As a result the long turret of the King Tiger had no purpose anymore since it was just long for nothing and the weight of all that useless steel could have been cut off to make the turret shorter and more armored all around.

 

Its very likely that the E50 E75 would have received the same turret, same hull with variations only in thickness and dimensions

 

Since its proven that a kwk 43 could fit in a schmalturm design, its very probable that both e75 and e50 would have received schmalturm design. Probably not with only 120 mm front though. Im pretty sure you could make a schmalturm with over 200 mm of armor at the front 80 mm on sides 40 mm at the back and top and not even be same weight as the king tiger turret.

 

 

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Tantor57 said:

I doubt E75 E50 turret would have has the same shape as  the King tiger turret. 

 

First of all, king tiger turret was this long because initially the two huge racks at the back of the turrret housing the rounds acting as ready racks were prohibited from being used after several king tigers suffered ammo detonation when ambushed from the side and shot in the turret. As a result the long turret of the King Tiger had no purpose anymore since it was just long for nothing and the weight of all that useless steel could have been cut off to make the turret shorter and more armored all around.

 

Its very likely that the E50 E75 would have received the same turret, same hull with variations only in thickness and dimensions

 

Since its proven that a kwk 43 could fit in a schmalturm design, its very probable that both e75 and e50 would have received schmalturm design. Probably not with only 120 mm front though. Im pretty sure you could make a schmalturm with over 200 mm of armor at the front 80 mm on sides 40 mm at the back and top and not even be same weight as the king tiger turret.

 

 

While I understand the concern regarding the turret rear of the Serienturm, there was an advantage to the King Tiger’s turret design in spite of empty ammo racks. Internal space.

 

While it has been suggested that the E 50 and E 75 were to mount the same turret, this would nullify the traditional German method of classifying tanks: the gun. While a short-breech 88 could fit (somewhat snugly) into a Schmalturm design (all of this intended for the E 50), mounting the same gun on the E 75 is nonsensical. We’ve already discussed the guns, so I’ll get right into the turret.

 

The Tiger II turret was, on its own, a “Schmalturm”-style design, using a narrow turret face as a primary protection. The turret could easily fit the standard Kwk43, and the 105mm gun already discussed would also be feasible in the design given a shortened breech and ammo (already in development). The space saved by the reduction of the ammo racks would come in handy by allowing for easier gun handling for the crew and greater potential for upgrades such as a vertical gun stabilizer (also in development). The space also serves as good protection in the case of spalling or penetration, as crew are more likely to be killed in a cramped space. This isn’t because, in a smaller area, fragments will ricochet off of internal surfaces several times... usually hitting any person unlucky enough to be in that space. Part of the reason for the size of German tanks was this as well as crew ergonomics. Keeping a crew comfortable was a large part of maintaining their efficiency. Additionally, in a situation requiring bailout, the crew would have a much faster and easier time of it thanks to the turret’s design. The weight of the turret also countered the gun barrel, which would be very handy with the intended 105mm gun. Improvements being made to the Tiger II’s ventilation, climate control, and other features, as well as new additions, would be seen in the E 75, and that turret space would be helpful indeed. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another issue I see in not keeping the basic Tiger II turret design is the fact that the entire rear bulge serves as a good counterweight, which is necessary to even allow the Kwk 43 to be mounted this far forward (the further forward the gun mount is the less the opposite end of the turret ring is in the way), and quite frankly, that much space really shouldnt go to waste and if you can have a big ready rack there, then why the xxxx not? 
And thats also a point where the Panthers Schmalturm design really falls short, especially if you put the Kwk 43 in. The gun mount is almost above the turret ring, so even with a shorter breech and cartridge it would make loading the gun similarly painful as on a Sherman Firefly, but also there is no significant overhang in the rear of the turret to act as a counterweight, nevermind the complete lack of a ready rack. It would probably be possible to still make the turret and have conditions in there that are at least workable, but the crews would pretty much hate the designer. If it were up to me personally I would probably ditch the Schmalturm per se and make a kind of shortened Tiger II turrets for Panther or E-50 in order to mount the Kwk 43. 

  • Thanks 1
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, builder396 said:

and if you can have a big ready rack there, then why the xxxx not?


Apparently because orders? Haven't seen a direct source though.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Chupambrico said:


Apparently because orders? Haven't seen a direct source though.

I was talking purely from a design standpoint. If you really badly want you can fill the turret rear with a radio or general stowage of whatever but quite honestly I dont see how the turret would be any more tempting of a target than the hull from the side (unless youre facing the hull and the turret is turned to the side.)

 

Edited by builder396
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, builder396 said:

I was talking purely from a design standpoint. If you really badly want you can fill the turret rear with a radio or general stowage of whatever but quite honestly I dont see how the turret would be any more tempting of a target than the hull from the side (unless youre facing the hull and the turret is turned to the side. 


I remember both Soviet and Americans manager to find out a high percentage of hits on tanks occurred above a certain height, and that's why they tried to make tanks much lower, and also why German tanks from that perspective were flawed, so the turret being higher than the hull means it would have been hit more likely, I guess. But as I said I haven't seen the direct source, there might be better details there.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Chupambrico said:


I remember both Soviet and Americans manager to find out a high percentage of hits on tanks occurred above a certain height, and that's why they tried to make tanks much lower, and also why German tanks from that perspective were flawed, so the turret being higher than the hull means it would have been hit more likely, I guess. But as I said I haven't seen the direct source, there might be better details there.

That's funny because most of the US tanks after the war were all just as tall if not even taller than Tiger II.

  • Upvote 1
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...