Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, dora9 said:

Ooooh! NF II or just black primer?

If you are talking about my Mosquito ? It's the one in progress in the NF-groupbuild.

 

The wings are finished.Fuselage needs the final coat.

Edited by Erwin

Share this post


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

I just watched a documentary on the king tiger (apparently king tiger was not what the Germans called it) these things had a 12:1 kill ratio! That’s a scary by anybody’s definition!

 

Yes, the official designation was simply Panzerkampfwagen VI Ausf B; the inventory listing was Sonderkraftfahrzeug 182. We Americans gave it the King title. Some sources claim none of the tanks had their front armor penetrated in combat due to the armor thickness/slope.

Share this post


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

 

Yes, the official designation was simply Panzerkampfwagen VI Ausf B; the inventory listing was Sonderkraftfahrzeug 182. We Americans gave it the King title. Some sources claim none of the tanks had their front armor penetrated in combat due to the armor thickness/slope.

 

In one of my Tiger books, there are photos of a King and a Pershing that went "toe to toe". The King had several large gouges in front, but no penetrations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After the war they took hulls from the factory and did some tests with different weapons and they could not penetrate the frontal armour!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Makes you (me) wonder about those super weapons! Great to build models of them but kind of happy they didn’t get them into action sooner and in larger numbers...with turbine engines

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/9/2018 at 5:06 PM, chrish said:

Makes you (me) wonder about those super weapons! Great to build models of them but kind of happy they didn’t get them into action sooner and in larger numbers...with turbine engines

 

The effects of the "super weapons" is, for the most part, a huge myth.  Take the Tiger II for instance, with its "unpenetrable frontal armor", it was a huge failure of a tank, and had a pretty amusing in a sad way, the first battle with the Russians, where several were knocked out and never saw the T-34-85 who did them in.  See this link.   If you search around the site, linked, you can find all kinds of translated documents from the Soviet Archives, translated to English, showing the Soviets had no trouble penning the frontal armor of a TII.  There M3 90mm Gun with HVAP could also pen the Tiger II from the front, but since it was so rare, it really doesn't matter much.  One of the few cases they were used in numbers against the US, during the battle of the bulge, they barely saw any fighting because they were so slow, they were kept to the rear of the columns so they would slow down the offensive. 

 

Another problem with the legends is the legendary kill claims, and them being BS, at least on the ground front. You can make a credible case the German fighter Aces got most of the kills they claim, but it's not as solid as some like to claim. For ground combat though, most of the legendary Germans like Karl Korner are German wartime propaganda presented as the truth.  In many cases the country and unit type claimed to be in combat was not there, when checked against allied records. 

http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/search/label/Tiger II?updated-max=2014-01-04T00:26:00-05:00&max-results=20&start=26&by-date=false

http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/2015/12/cheating-at-statistics-12-overclaim-at.html

 

That's just two examples, I can't find offhand, the ones with US and Brit units, but you run into the same problems with the German accounts. This is a huge problem with most of the books out there on German Armor, most of the authors, take at face value, the Kill CLAIMS, and do bother to cross-check with the units they supposedly faced, to compare the numbers.  This means all those claims of 10 to 1 kill ratios are total BS. You also get into problem when you look into what the Germans considered a lost tank and what the Soviets or US did.  Hint, in the Soviet Army, when a tank got stuck in the mud, it was counted as a battle loss,  in the German army, if a wreck is recovered, but has almost no chance of being repaired without a factory, its still counted as being a tank. This makes comparing the numbers pretty dicey. 

 

Anyway, a few more words on the "Wonder Weapons",  did you know the engines in the 262 Jet Fighter lasted less than 15 hours on average?

Would you rate a tank that could only travel 150 kilometers before it had to rebuild a major part of its drivetrain as good?  I wouldn't and that tank was the Panther.  In post-war testing, when the French put new and rebuilt Panthers into a regiment and ran them for a year, and on average the final drives in the powertrain got 150 kilometers. You could put 2500 MILES on any component of ANY Sherman tanks powertrain and motor setup, (there were four motors used) and with regular maintenance, get them to 5000. The Germans had no armored vehicles that could come close to those numbers. 

 

I find it a little sad, the Allies had wonder Weapons too, but no one talks about them all that much, and in the allied cases, they worked. 

 

For example The Meteor Jet fight,  The B-29, the US 90MM AA gun system, and the proximity fuze to name a few. 

 

 

 

 

Edited by JeepsGunsTanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×