Jump to content

Arminius

Members
  • Content Count

    422
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Arminius

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 07/01/1960

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Middle Europe, in the land, where life is so nice, there never was a successful revolution
  • Interests
    Guns, hunting, women, beer, fine red wines ...
  1. Finally! It seems the Hornady 6 mm ARC is adopted. Your opinion, gents? Hermann
  2. I wonder, why the French 75 mm was heavily modified for AT use ( muzzle brake ): wasn´t the original 75 Mod 97 the basis for the Lee´s, Grant´s and Sherman´s gun?? Why not just use a modernized, lower carriage? Hermann
  3. IIRC the problem with the excellent 5 cm PAK 38 was it´s BIG advantage, it´s light weight: it used LOTS of Aluminium. Did it weigh half of a 7.5 cm PAK 40? OK, against the T 43 with up armoured front and of course the KV´s it was also weak. Hermann
  4. IMO there´s a place for both: tracked and wheeled. IMO the mobilities are vastly different, more than "dry" technical data will tell, but that can be seen as an advantage: imagine you have to move a tracked unit for over 500 km. Through towns and winding roads. Will take time, breakdowns, ruined roads, traffic jams. A wheeled unit? Will drive that in one day, without further fuss. Of course, if you have to fight in snow, swamp, heavy rain, mountainous terrain, tracked is supreme. But the logistic "tail" is gigantic. Therefore also costs. For low intensity conflicts … wheeled has
  5. Looks like a Standard missile with altered front section, rather than a Sparrow... or like a French missile? ?? Hermann
  6. IMO a very good and underrated vehicle was the AIFV, YPR 765, or the South Korean K 200 KIFV and Turkish Variants ACV - AIFV . Cheap - M 113 derivate. Up - motorized and improved. On the gun: 20 mm was too small, see Marder. Over 35 mm seems to be too big, too expensive. So 25, 30 mm seems to be the best compromise. And yes, some specialized variants are fine: keep the basic vehicle SIMPLE ( 25 mm, perhaps mixed with .50 Variants ), and add Mortar Carriers, AT, AA, HE thrower ( no, not 105 mm low recoil, rather mount the Saladin or Scorpion or French 90 mm turret ) Numbers count,
  7. IIRC it was inside a very cramped tank, with lots of small problems all around, and very expensive in the end. Not sure from where I got that … maybe some old "Truppendienst" leaflet? Hermann
  8. Is that with GE engines? Are P & Ws now ever ordered? H
  9. IIRC it was first 8 x .303. Early 20 mm installations proved unreliable. So 2 x 20 mm and 4 x .303. ( "C wing"? ) 4 x 20 mm only after they got them reliable. "E Wing" (?) was 2 x 20 mm and 4 x .50 - a sensible choice. As a Hunter and Target shooter I may say, that I wonder about all that "trajectory" or "coincidence" BS. Again: loud and clear: armchair terrorists, ahem, I mean theorists! Distances in gunnery aerial combat are mostly under 400 m. Bullet drop difference at that distance may be 50 cm lower for the cannon bullets than high speed machine gun bullets, that translat
  10. I always wondered, why the French never used the famous French 75 mm as an AT gut. The Germans later certainly did. France had LOTS of these guns. Lighten them as much as possible, break up the outline of the top of the gun shield by cutting it down, in curves, camo the shield, and an AP shell should penetrate ~ 1 Caliber at usual ranges … that would be 75 mm. Could double as an Infantry gun, of course. About it´s capabilities it´s easy to discuss, as it was essentially the Sherman´s most used main gun. IMO the best AT gun of early War was the Austrian / Italian / Czech 47 mm ( Mountain
  11. Can´t speak of WW II, of course, but there´s usually a lot of space behind the drivers seat for gear ( and things, which shouldn´t be seen ). ( e.g. "liberated" German pistols or SMGs or "acquired" 1911s ) I can´t imagine a problem with storing an M 1 Carbine, which, I presume, was the typical US drivers gun. Behind the shifting lever leaning to the back of the cab? Hermann
  12. Not saying against this aircraft, but "Fighting Eagle" is ridiculous. "Baby Eagle" would be more appropriate. Hermann
  13. they were better for picking up a target in a jungle environment than the issue open sights. Today there are better solutions, but, hey, they look COOL! ;-) Hermann
×
×
  • Create New...