Patton is set loose on Russia

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-03-03 02:22am

Sea Skimmer wrote:Ti-67 is a T-62 refitted with the L7. I don't believe the IDF ever used any with there original 115's.

Actually it's Tiran-6- at least according to jed.simonides.org (they have nice pictures sometimes).

The T-62M with applique armor is one of my favorite all time tanks. Don't know why.

http://pvo.guns.ru/weapon/images/tank/photo-cn01168.jpg

Fwar! Just looks beefy.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-03-03 02:34am

Ugly fuckers. Upgraded T-62's alway look like crap to me, the add on armor looks like its sheet metal. Though I just don't like the tank very much.

I've always seen the Ti-67 specifically stated to be rearmed with a 105mm gun in books and online. Tiran-6 I have never seen anywhere.

The T-44 would wade through the seas of Sherman's. However while the Union had gain a lot of industry, they also now need to produce all there own trucks. Eastern Europe isn't know for its automotive industry though, and tank production will end up being reduced.

There also not going to be facing just Sherman's, the M26 was already coming into service and seeing action by VE day and it would be a priority project. The US's superior industrial base and head start will be a considerable advantage.

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2003-03-03 03:52am

Vympel wrote:Perinquus, I don't agree with anything you wrote- but note that the 90mm max of the T-34/85 was all along the turret. The front hull, however, was still only 45mm- which is what it started off with way back in 1940. Even though it was at a very nice 60 degree slope. This is why I brought up the T-44- 120mm at a 60 degree slope. Shermans with even the long 76mm didn't have a chance against that.

Did you mean to say "I don't agree", or "I don't disagree"?

In any case, I know this, but the glacis plate was sloped, whereas the turret armor wasn't, so when the Soviets decided to improve the T-34, they thickened the armor where it was most needed. The glacis plate, being well sloped, didn't need it as much, and they decided to leave that alone both because it would involve fewer changes to the production lines, and because they wanted to keep the weight down to 32 tons.

The T-34 was, like the Sherman, outclassed technically by the latest German designs (though less so than the Sherman was), but the Russians kept it for the same reasons we did with the Shermans: it was a good enough vehicle with which to assert massive numerical superiority.

This was actually an approach used by all the Allies, in all vehicles - tanks, aircraft, ships, submarines - the concentration of production on proven designs, rather than focusing on constantly developing the most advanced superweapon. Given the Allies' industrial superiority, it proved a war winning strategy.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-03-03 03:56am

Perinquus wrote: Did you mean to say "I don't agree", or "I don't disagree"?

Bugger. I don't disagree.

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2003-03-03 04:33am

Oh, and another thing I forgot to mention: the T-34, with it's wider stance and wider tracks, and larger road wheels, had lower ground pressure, and thus superior mobility over soft ground.

Post by **Coyote** » 2003-03-03 02:33pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:There also not going to be facing just Sherman's, the M26 was already coming into service and seeing action by VE day and it would be a priority project. The US's superior industrial base and head start will be a considerable advantage.

I was under the impression that by VE day there were at most a company of Pershings in action, and only a couple of engagements fought with them (in which the M26 dominated). A clash between T-34s or T-44s vs. Pershings would be quite a show, though.

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2003-03-03 02:45pm

Coyote wrote:
Sea Skimmer wrote:There also not going to be facing just Sherman's, the M26 was already coming into service and seeing action by VE day and it would be a priority project. The US's superior industrial base and head start will be a considerable advantage.
I was under the impression that by VE day there were at most a company of Pershings in action, and only a couple of engagements fought with them (in which the M26 dominated). A clash between T-34s or T-44s vs. Pershings would be quite a show, though.

I believe there were only about 20 in action when the Germans surrendered. They were only just coming into service.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-03-03 03:00pm

About 20 sounds right for the number of Pershings that saw action by VE day. But over 200 where in the hands of troops in Europe, and more where coming into the theater. Thinner armor then the T-44, 102mm max vs. 120mm max. But differences in plate quality and sloping might switch things around.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-03-03 03:06pm

Ted wrote:Firefly was a BRITISH modification of the Sherman.

Armed with the 17 pounder.

The US never had them.

Actually, a few hundred were made available to US Armies, but Patton
refused to have them in 3rd Army.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-03-03 11:29pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:About 20 sounds right for the number of Pershings that saw action by VE day. But over 200 where in the hands of troops in Europe, and more where coming into the theater. Thinner armor then the T-44, 102mm max vs. 120mm max. But differences in plate quality and sloping might switch things around.

In regards to sloping- the T-44 glacis plate was virtually at 60 degrees.

Actually, a few hundred were made available to US Armies, but Patton
refused to have them in 3rd Army.

Why the hell not?