Comments on: Ensign’s Q&A #14

By: Ensign’s Q&A 15 | For The Record

Ensign’s Q&A 15 | For The Record — Sun, 06 Oct 2013 17:51:00 +0000

[...] You know how this works, send questions to tankarchives@gmail.com, and I will answer them! The previous edition is available here. [...]

By: Guardian54

Guardian54 — Sat, 21 Sep 2013 19:29:34 +0000

Next Soviet heavy line will feature the Mammoth 1 from Red Alert 1 for a tier 9 and the Apocalypse 1 from Red Alert 2 for a Tier 10.

In the meantime the EU tech tree gets the Mirage Tank as a premium light and the Prism Tank as a premium med.

WHEN IS THE M56 SCORPION (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M56_Scorpion) COMING?

By: RedShocktrooper

RedShocktrooper — Sat, 21 Sep 2013 06:19:25 +0000

Proof that sometimes, reality is stranger than fiction.

By: gman2725

gman2725 — Sat, 21 Sep 2013 03:42:45 +0000

I imagine it would be as fun as using the 203mm on the S-51 in direct fire mode on Himmelsdorf used to be back in the day. Poor tank comes flying around the corner and gets whacked with WTF level damage through the side armor.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 20 Sep 2013 22:24:21 +0000

Also, apparently he is an expert in sheep. As the descendent of a long line of sheepherders I resent that.
Also, I don’t like EE. I loathe the very core of him actually. I have no idea who he is personally, and I enjoy his blog. Also the detailed and considerate responses he posts here. And I’m pretty sure he can mix a fair enough White Russian.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 20 Sep 2013 20:53:38 +0000

It’s not a particularly large turret, just a small chassis. The turret itself is still smaller than T29/34 or M103 standards.

By: EnsignExpendable

EnsignExpendable — Fri, 20 Sep 2013 20:35:18 +0000

“That’s just for tanks with two cannons of equal calibers. A great deal of tanks were equipped with dual machine guns, and with a smaller caliber gun or autocannon instead of a coaxial machinegun.”

If I was going to talk about every tank with a coax cannon, we’d be here all day.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 20 Sep 2013 17:57:01 +0000

They forgot to mention that the Maus is in-fact a dual-gunned tank, with the 128 mm main gun and a 75 mm gun that was most likely intended to be used for range-finding purposes but could possibly have been used to knock out light and medium tanks to allow them to save the 128 mm shells for any IS-2s or other heavy tanks it would have encountered. That being said, that doesn’t make it a good tank; on the contrary, it was horrendous irl, whereas in WoT it can at least drive somewhere without sinking up to the top of the turret in the mud.

By: OP-Guy

OP-Guy — Fri, 20 Sep 2013 17:24:44 +0000

I could have my dates mixed up, but from what I know, GAU (arty guys) told some design guys to
develop 85mm gun for vehicles in January 1943.
Petrov and I think Sergeyev has the prototypes ready in June 1943.
Trials in July 1943.
Turret is designe by I think Kerichev? in autumn 1943.
Obiekt 135 in November 1943.
Savin’s remix of the gun design (ZiS-S-53) proves to be less sucky December 1943.

Now here comes the part I have problems understanding/researching:
January 1944 to June 1944: 6000 85′s in service! Not produced, not planed, but fucking in service?!?!
And apparently only 500-700 of those were equiped with the crappy D-5S (could have the gun models messed up, i’m actualy using WOT as a source:)

Now if we just look at 6th Guards tank corps, they were already trolling with almost all the T-34 replaced with the 85 model during Bagration.
How did they manage to retrain the crews (I know the first crews had 2 hours to “train”, but later the training was much better), educate the support guys and fix the logistic for 6k tanks and tank guns (parts/shells) in fucking 4 months?!

Btw all the info I have is from Fowler/Bean and Zaloga.
The numbers for tanks are from Mark Harrison: Accounting for War.

P.S. Please if you are busy, have something better to do or just don’t feel like it, don’t even bother answering anything. I still need to read up on a bunch of staff before I can ask interesting questions.

By: EnsignExpendable

EnsignExpendable — Fri, 20 Sep 2013 16:12:27 +0000

Ah, so you are an expert in German archives, I gather? How fortunate for me! I have been looking for a similar document, but a German equivalent, perhaps you have seen one. It is certainly much better than the Soviet one, if all you say is true, and will definitely dispel all the myths of Soviet propaganda.

Unless, of course, you have never seen a German archive document in your entire life, and are pulling your standards out of your ass.

By the way, individual Soviet penetration tests include the blueprints of the shell in question, as well as its properties. The table that half of the internet is so butthurt about is a high level summary for engineers that have nothing to do with testing penetration. Why do they care about what type of shell is used? They care about how much penetration enemy guns are capable of, and the document provides them with this information.