Comments on: Ensign’s Q&A #20 Special Edition

By: Ensign’s Q&A #21 | For The Record

Ensign’s Q&A #21 | For The Record — Sun, 26 Jan 2014 05:21:53 +0000

[...] Previous Q&A. [...]

By: EnsignExpendable

EnsignExpendable — Mon, 20 Jan 2014 06:04:14 +0000

Goddamn, what a shitstorm that will cause.

Naturally, I have to do it,

By: alecnin

alecnin — Mon, 20 Jan 2014 00:38:07 +0000

What is really common knowledge is your a fucking troll kid

By: Mauschen04

Mauschen04 — Sun, 19 Jan 2014 20:18:56 +0000

Hey EnsignExpendible – though you are risking a shitstorm, could you please do an article on German Armor? I’d rather get the information from you guys than the comment section.

By: EnsignExpendable

EnsignExpendable — Sun, 19 Jan 2014 17:50:54 +0000

I still haven’t gotten mine, I think there was a mixup in the mail.

By: Captian Nemo

Captian Nemo — Sun, 19 Jan 2014 16:25:27 +0000

Armor consists of alloys. Which have hardness’s and thicknesses. They can be mathematically calculated to do specific things under given conditions. Thus they can me measured.

War and combat for the most part is unpredictable.

By: Atomic_Emu

Atomic_Emu — Sun, 19 Jan 2014 14:09:02 +0000

“I quote from Ensigns above comment “Yes, it’s common knowledge that it sucked” ”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm

Do you really base your opinion that IS-3 was bad on the fact that tanks that came 10 years later were better?

By: Martin541

Martin541 — Sun, 19 Jan 2014 12:49:11 +0000

I quote from Ensigns above comment “Yes, it’s common knowledge that it sucked” yes the is3 was designed to take on the likes of a Tiger 2 but the IS3 was in service well into the 1960s where it was meant to take on the likes of M48s and centurion tanks of which it was incapable of in every way and this was proven in the 6 day war the Israel army slaughtered them in their M48s and centurion tanks.

Israel even captured a few and didn’t even use them as reverse tanks because they were useless they used them as Pillboxs

By: Kuad

Kuad — Sun, 19 Jan 2014 12:21:46 +0000

Perhaps we need a +1-ing system here for when people speak sense.

It was an issue for all the players. The Americans were almost certainly the most consistent in production quality, the others varied a fair bit. Early German stuff is probably superior to American in terms of meeting design tolerances, but quite the opposite by the end. Soviet assembly quality has always been on poor side, but the designs have tended to factor this in such that it’s not too big a deal. The only surprising thing is that they never seemed to manage to have a set of high quality teams for the really fancy stuff. Alfas cracked, Kirovs were nightmares, etc. and these were pride units rather than mass-produced front line units.

By: Kuad

Kuad — Sun, 19 Jan 2014 12:14:14 +0000

The other ones look fine, but the KV’s steel is rather obviously on the soft side judging by the pictures. This is not a bad thing when you’ve got plenty of spare capacity to eat the round, as it were. KV armour was more than a match for any 37mm or 50mm round and being a bit soft reduces the chance of cracking. So it can be a conscious decision to reduce the hardness (and brittleness!) of your steel if you know that it’s unlikely to face anything too powerful.