General military questions thread
- Thread starter Buba
- Start date
-
- Tags
- military history
Weight doesn't always mean anything
That is because in a Tank you are surrounded by thicker metal and in the searing hot heat....
Plus Sand is worse for tracks
You do know those were not standard until 43 right?The Panzerfaust would like to have a discussion with you.
The vehicle we have been talking about was no longer used after 42 the desert campaigns
I got what you meant.I appologise for not clarifying that I was interested in the utility of the Mk.VI as reconaisense vehicle in the 1936-end of '41 period
During that time, early war it would have been effective but definitely useful for flanking and recon. Able to get places fast and be good for spotting and sending radio back about positions.
Also good for Cav and being fast moving
Nevermind the fuel use, reliability and maintenance needs of light tanks vs light trucks, and noise, all important concerns for LRDG.
That too.
Certain situations the armored vehicle works better if you want armored recon or fast moving light tanks to be used for cav purposes
Buba
A total creep
British 0.50 HMG not stronk! Same puny 0.50 HMG like Italian - no can destroy German SDKfz 231 and 222.
The British and Italian 12,7mm was weaker than the US and Russian weapons of same calibre.
Hence some of the last of the line of light tanks received 15mm BESA weapons.
On a more serious note - any British/French/German etc. data on the price of 3"/81mm mortar ammo compared with shells for 75/100mm field guns/howitzers? I'm asking because in pre-WWII Poland mortar ammunition was very expensive - I'm wondering if same applies elsewhere or the fault lies with Polish military buying tiny quantities, thus driving unit cost up ...
List of prices of rounds, in Zloty (1USD = 5,30 Zloty)
81mm mortar - 40,00
75 mle 97 - 48,50
100mm howitzer - 83,70 zł
105mm field cannon - 125,60 zł
75mm AA cannon - 120,00 zł
37mm Bofors AT cannon - 32,00 zł
46mm grenade launcher - 18,71 zł
Last edited:
In his memories he wrote that he was frightened when Hitler wanted abadonning PZ4 for Pather in 1943,and in his opinion it would end in entire Europe in soviet hands.Tiger - he neither supported nor was against,if i remember correctly.
According to what i read,Poland before WW2 had 5 submarines and planned get 7 others.Problem is,i do not knew each class.
I read,that we want another 2 from holland,like orzeł, and few from England,but i do not knew which class.
gral
Well-known member
Not much information about them; Erminio Bagnasco's Submarines of World War II mentions the 600 series originally had 'limited traverse stability while submerged, and low standard of habitability', but these were corrected in the 630 Series. It also says the following about the 600/630 Series: 'On the whole, both types had reasonable characteristics, were quite maneuverable and had a good torpedo armament. Their layout was thought to be too complex(fixed internal and external tubes, traversing mounts, etc.)'.
The French Wikipedia mentions the Circé class displayed during tests 'performance very inferior to expectations, especially in regards to underwater speed', but these units were modified in 1929-30 to correct these.
Buba
A total creep
@ATP - indeed Poland had the three Wilk class subs - submarine mine-layers intended to lay minefields blocking the Soviet Fleets exit from the Gulf of Finland. These are from the very late 1920s.
I wonder if smaller subs - smaller than Orzeł, i.e. c.600 versus 1100 tons surfaced - wouldn't had been better.
These would funded using the French loan of 2,4B Francs from 1936. Hence I'm not looking at the Italian 600 series or British "S" class boats.
Thank you, @gral
I wonder if smaller subs - smaller than Orzeł, i.e. c.600 versus 1100 tons surfaced - wouldn't had been better.
These would funded using the French loan of 2,4B Francs from 1936. Hence I'm not looking at the Italian 600 series or British "S" class boats.
Thank you, @gral