sunday Posted June 16, 2023 Posted June 16, 2023 On 6/15/2023 at 6:57 PM, R011 said: Please! Those poor benighted foreigners don't even have a proper boiling vessel for tea, let alone something as glorious as HESH. That is not the UK flag I am used to see. What do they call it, the B*gg*r Jack?
Ssnake Posted June 16, 2023 Posted June 16, 2023 3 hours ago, Manic Moran said: In fairness, I did kindof correct myself by posting the text from the Ballistics Research Laboratory document on the screen. You did, but under the headline "Sort of plasma" (which is the sort of plasma that isn't plasma at all, not even a liquid). The video was fine, really, except this part, strictly from an educational point of view. Which is not the only possible POV, but if a viewer made it that far in the video I think we can rule out that they are in for the entertainment. Plus, I think that this state of "superplasticity" is even weirder than "plasma" is, which to me makes it even more interesting - and none of that invokes a single incantation of "Navier-Stokes".
Manic Moran Posted June 17, 2023 Posted June 17, 2023 Well, considering how badly I fecked up by mis-identifying radiation liner retaining bolts as ERA mounting points recently, it's a minor matter in comparison.
Ssnake Posted June 17, 2023 Posted June 17, 2023 Eh, I once locked the CV90/30's driver's hatch and couldn't figure out how to open it again, was a bit of a bummer too.
sunday Posted June 17, 2023 Posted June 17, 2023 Nobody is born fully instructed/taught, so mistakes are to be expected.
DB Posted June 17, 2023 Posted June 17, 2023 15 hours ago, sunday said: That is not the UK flag I am used to see. What do they call it, the B*gg*r Jack? The unfurled flag is upside down, of course. A common error.
sunday Posted June 17, 2023 Posted June 17, 2023 No, I mean the one in the top left corner of the window.
shep854 Posted June 17, 2023 Posted June 17, 2023 (edited) 8 hours ago, Manic Moran said: Well, considering how badly I fecked up by mis-identifying radiation liner retaining bolts as ERA mounting points recently, it's a minor matter in comparison. Your appearance in Ryan McBeth's Q&A video? Edited June 17, 2023 by shep854
DB Posted June 17, 2023 Posted June 17, 2023 1 hour ago, sunday said: No, I mean the one in the top left corner of the window. That's just the poster's avatar. Says nothing about the video content.
sunday Posted June 17, 2023 Posted June 17, 2023 6 minutes ago, DB said: That's just the poster's avatar. Says nothing about the video content. Ah, ok!
Manic Moran Posted June 17, 2023 Posted June 17, 2023 3 hours ago, shep854 said: Your appearance in Ryan McBeth's Q&A video? Yep
Tim the Tank Nut Posted June 17, 2023 Posted June 17, 2023 don't worry about it. If you speak "in public" enough statistically you'll make errors no matter how much of a subject matter expert you are. It's grating as hell because everything is recorded but it's part of the territory. Just make the correction and drive on... the folks that hammer you on an error don't have a public persona to maintain.
Colin Posted June 17, 2023 Posted June 17, 2023 7 hours ago, DB said: The unfurled flag is upside down, of course. A common error. Normally the bottom of the flag has a longer line to attach to the halyard to indicate bottom from top.
Colin Posted June 17, 2023 Posted June 17, 2023 14 hours ago, Manic Moran said: Well, considering how badly I fecked up by mis-identifying radiation liner retaining bolts as ERA mounting points recently, it's a minor matter in comparison. Every mistake you make gives some rivet counter somewhere a reason to live. One day you have to write a book: "Tanks I have loved and hated" Your experience with different type of tanks and storytelling abilty is unique.
Tim the Tank Nut Posted June 17, 2023 Posted June 17, 2023 "Tanks I have loved and hated" it doesn't take a lot of experience to do both at the same time regarding the same tank! and that smell. Tanks just have a smell that is unique
RETAC21 Posted June 17, 2023 Posted June 17, 2023 1 hour ago, Tim the Tank Nut said: "Tanks I have loved and hated" it doesn't take a lot of experience to do both at the same time regarding the same tank! and that smell. Tanks just have a smell that is unique Really guys, what other title can a tanknetter have other than: "Tanked for Sam and was paided a bonus"?
sunday Posted June 19, 2023 Posted June 19, 2023 (edited) This space for rent. Edited June 19, 2023 by sunday
DKTanker Posted June 19, 2023 Posted June 19, 2023 On 6/16/2023 at 12:25 PM, Manic Moran said: In fairness, I did kindof correct myself by posting the text from the Ballistics Research Laboratory document on the screen. Moreover, the superplastic liner thus behaves much like a long rod penetrator. I noticed your HEAT projectile was missing the ass end with the fins. They do tend to break off for the same reason the probe bends. BTW, US HEAT rounds have been using a full frontal impact fuze for over 40 years. It isn't just the probe that initiates the detonation, the shoulders of the round can also initiate detonation. Lastly, I'm sure you merely overlooked this, the HEAT rounds don't utilize a long flash tube such as that for APFSDS.
Walter_Sobchak Posted June 20, 2023 Posted June 20, 2023 On 6/17/2023 at 11:36 AM, Tim the Tank Nut said: don't worry about it. If you speak "in public" enough statistically you'll make errors no matter how much of a subject matter expert you are. It's grating as hell because everything is recorded but it's part of the territory. Just make the correction and drive on... the folks that hammer you on an error don't have a public persona to maintain. Having dabbled in making youtube videos a bit myself, I can certainly vouch for this. One can be right 98% of the time, but dammit, the times one is 2% wrong are just....painful.
Ssnake Posted June 20, 2023 Posted June 20, 2023 6 hours ago, DKTanker said: the HEAT rounds don't utilize a long flash tube such as that for APFSDS. The (much) heavier projectile is slower to accelerate. Therefore, a longer but slower burn time for the propellants is advantageous, so the propellant is merely lit at the back and burns forward. Also, you don't want to exceed the maximum chamber pressure by lighting it up all at once.
Erik2 Posted June 30, 2023 Posted June 30, 2023 (edited) In this video ( https://youtu.be/bNjp_4jY8pY?t=2036) Nicholas seems to insinuate that the Sherman had almost as good frontal protection as a Tiger. I've always read that because of overmatching (and most shells being thicker than the Sherman's 50mm) the Sherman didn't have anywhere close to the protection of a Tiger, despite that the effective thickness makes it seem that way, and that even the late Pz IV's 80mm hull front offered superior protection. Is Sherman vulnerability exaggerated or is Nicholas forgetting overmatching? Edited June 30, 2023 by Erik2
bojan Posted June 30, 2023 Posted June 30, 2023 (edited) 7.5cm PaK40 penetrated later Sherman's front (64mm @ 47deg*) at 1100m. 85mm ZiS-S-53 from T-34-85 showed same performances. Going by table data (ok, big if) that is somewhat more, but not dramatically so than a distance those could penetrate 100mm vertical armor, about 900m. So his estimates is not really wrong. *AFAIK, ballistic protection requirements were same for both early and late model Sherman glacis. Quote and that even the late Pz IV's 80mm hull front offered superior protection No, 85mm gun from T-34-85s gun could penetrate that at 1500+m, vs 1100m for Sherman's front. In general, unless hit by really, really overmatching projectiles sloped armor in WW2 had better performances than simple trigonometry would indicate. Edited June 30, 2023 by bojan
shep854 Posted June 30, 2023 Posted June 30, 2023 My memory's foggy; how much did armor quality factor in?
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now