Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Battlecruiser_NewZealand

For you tank aficionados...

22 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,226
[RKLES]
Members
7,103 posts
8,758 battles
1 hour ago, Strachwitz666 said:

M3/M5 Stuart , that is prolly M3 given British Army 

 

Yes I can confirm this, not a very strong tank either. M3 Stuart was only good for infrantry support or scouting. You runninto another armored vehicle and your probably doomed in the Stuart, hence the reason it is innfkames in the picture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,158
[SOUP]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
7,375 posts

Yip, Stuart. Fun fact, they're still in service in Paraguay, they were rebuilt recently for use as trainers. They also have a few M4s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22,502
[HINON]
Supertester
18,943 posts
12,460 battles

Stuart, the tank that you bring when the the bad guys don't have anything bigger than a 9mm. Small, fast, light, armed with a 37mm, meant as scout and training tank.

  • Cool 2
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
202 posts
4,724 battles

never seen a picture of fighting in north Africa so clear, so colourful. The paint seems like it was just applied days ago, though I don't question the Priest crew's bravery, you gotta wonder what happened to them over the next several minutes.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,435
[REVY]
Members
6,017 posts
5,102 battles
5 hours ago, Admiral_Thrawn_1 said:

Yes I can confirm this, not a very strong tank either. M3 Stuart was only good for infrantry support or scouting. You runninto another armored vehicle and your probably doomed in the Stuart, hence the reason it is innfkames in the picture.

Well given that the Italian's most numerous armored fighting vehicle was the Carro Veloce, the Stuart would have been a weapon of utter devastation against Italian forces.

13508596373_8b207cc42a_b.jpg

And in the Pacific jungles, they acquitted themselves well against the most numerous Japanese armored fighting vehicle, the Type 95 Ha-Gō.  Don't fall into the trap into thinking the Axis was all about King Tiger tanks.

hagotrials02-21904d218264c4233ef0cbb2d2c

Edited by Sventex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54
[RELSH]
Supertester
314 posts
3,934 battles

M3 Stuart...the tank that really only was "powerful" in the Pacific Theater since its main armament was on par with most Imperial Japanese Army light tanks.  M4 Shermans were...overkill against most of the Japanese Armor they encountered, but as we said in the military, there's no such thing as overkill just dead and not dead.  

In the European and African theater M3's were useful as light armored scouts and counter scouts against the smaller Panzers, against the Pz. 3's and 4's the M3 and M5's were meat and eventually replaced by M24 Chaffey's

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22,502
[HINON]
Supertester
18,943 posts
12,460 battles
13 minutes ago, EroSun said:

M4 Shermans were...overkill against most of the Japanese Armor they encountered, but as we said in the military, there's no such thing as overkill just dead and not dead. 

There is such a thing as overkill if your 75mm AP shells go in one side and out the other and you have to resort to HE in order to kill a tank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,435
[REVY]
Members
6,017 posts
5,102 battles
1 hour ago, EroSun said:

but as we said in the military, there's no such thing as overkill just dead and not dead.  

That kind of thinking will lose wars.  There is such thing as overkill,  the King Tiger being the perfect example as the Germans wasted an enormous amount of precious resources building them.  "Perfect" weapons are overrated, a large number of 'good enough' weapons is the path to victory.

 

Tiger II & other German tanks cost chart

Edited by Sventex
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
821 posts
3,887 battles
3 hours ago, Weapon_of_Proliferation said:

never seen a picture of fighting in north Africa so clear, so colourful. The paint seems like it was just applied days ago, though I don't question the Priest crew's bravery, you gotta wonder what happened to them over the next several minutes.

Something I started looking at closely after I came back to this topic to read posts, and the clarity and such was bothering me too. I started looking at details, and Yep it is  staged picture or more prolly a movie or documentary reenactment. The Ox/Bison insignia on the front fender is of the 11th Armored Division , the 77 would has been of the 77th anti-tank brigade of that division.

The picture is "great" as you note, too great, and totally at odds- with an M7 Priest and a burning (M3 -questionable )  being on battlefield together.  That generally would not occur an SP gun wouldn't be up on the front line charging like that in a real battle . Beside those two vehicles/ models of each would have rarely met 

Many details denote why it is staged/fictional   besides the M7/M3 in a "battle"  picture. Yes the two vehicle are way too clean( though the north African UK forces did get brand new stuff from the USA ), still it would be dusted dirty by going to first battle . Other equipiment is too new and clean as well (the backpacks for example) 

The real clench for a fake picture/movie frame is simply the 11th Armored Division never fought in North Africa , It's first battle was D-Day. I am also  wondering even with it being a movie frame, the Driver of the M7 , that face and area look almost photoshopped in too, not sure.

 

My memory of exact models and vehicle is gone , so I can't say which specific models of these vehicles these REALLY

are. Yes, one is M7 and one is  a "stuart" (M3 or M5) . It would prolly be an M3 if an actual war photo, but since it is painted as 11th Divison  and post war collection vehicle and it is prolly a later model i M5 of some sort. not sureas to  if M5 A1 , or A3 or plain M5 , a more ' on the ball" tank/military historian  or true tank "nut" could prolly give an exact ID. all kinds of little tells if you look and have the knowledge of model differences and Insignia/etc. . I can't do it myself now as my photo graphic memory and much of my detailed knowledge of tanks and WW2/ military history  is long gone, though I suppose I am still a tank "nut"  , and  I did sleep on and beat on them with a hammer for a few years back in the 80's/early 90's. I haven't played WoT, IDK if I will.

 

IIRC/IMO- the M7 is an M7A1 to be exact

Edited by Strachwitz666
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,226
[RKLES]
Members
7,103 posts
8,758 battles
1 hour ago, Lert said:

There is such a thing as overkill if your 75mm AP shells go in one side and out the other and you have to resort to HE in order to kill a tank.

Lol that is another good reason why M4 Sherman carried .50 Caliber machine guns...  Have heard reports of those machine guns even being able to destroy some of those very lightly armored tanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,435
[REVY]
Members
6,017 posts
5,102 battles
29 minutes ago, Strachwitz666 said:

Something I started looking at closely after I came back to this topic to read posts, and the clarity and such was bothering me too. I started looking at details, and Yep it is  staged picture or more prolly a movie or documentary reenactment. The Ox/Bison insignia on the front fender is of the 11th Armored Division , the 77 would has been of the 77th anti-tank brigade of that division.

The picture is "great" as you note, too great, and totally at odds- with an M7 Priest and a burning (M3 -questionable )  being on battlefield together.  That generally would not occur an SP gun wouldn't be up on the front line charging like that in a real battle . Beside those two vehicles/ models of each would have rarely met 

Many details denote why it is staged/fictional   besides the M7/M3 in a "battle"  picture. Yes the two vehicle are way too clean( though the north African UK forces did get brand new stuff from the USA ), still it would be dusted dirty by going to first battle . Other equipiment is too new and clean as well (the backpacks for example) 

The real clench for a fake picture/movie frame is simply the 11th Armored Division never fought in North Africa , It's first battle was D-Day. I am also  wondering even with it being a movie frame, the Driver of the M7 , that face and area look almost photoshopped in too, not sure.

 

My memory of exact models and vehicle is gone , so I can't say which specific models of these vehicles these REALLY

are. Yes, one is M7 and one is  a "stuart" (M3 or M5) . It would prolly be an M3 if an actual war photo, but since it is painted as 11th Divison  and post war collection vehicle and it is prolly a later model i M5 of some sort. not sureas to  if M5 A1 , or A3 or plain M5 , a more ' on the ball" tank/military historian  or true tank "nut" could prolly give an exact ID. all kinds of little tells if you look and have the knowledge of model differences and Insignia/etc. . I can't do it myself now as my photo graphic memory and much of my detailed knowledge of tanks and WW2/ military history  is long gone, though I suppose I am still a tank "nut"  , and  I did sleep on and beat on them with a hammer for a few years back in the 80's/early 90's. I haven't played WoT, IDK if I will.

 

IIRC/IMO- the M7 is an M7A1 to be exact

Speaking as a Graphic Designer here, the picture has obviously been colorized.  So if it's a reenactment, why go to the trouble of taking the photo in black and white and force a Graphic Designer to color everything from scratch?  That's a massive waste of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
821 posts
3,887 battles
6 hours ago, Lert said:

There is such a thing as overkill if your 75mm AP shells go in one side and out the other and you have to resort to HE in order to kill a tank.

I have to say "Nah" on this ,  a 75 mm  shot going "through" even a light tank is going to cause alot of spall/splatter and also has a very good chance of hitting ammo, crewman, fuel , engine, and vital components or  a combination of several of these items. The inside of a tank is very small and the odds are much greater a penetrating round will  hit "something" important or vital or outright destroy/disable a tank , than it just passing through like say a BB shooting through a DD IRL or in this game. No such thing as over kill in tank warfare or having too big a cannon that will not affect a target fatally/vitally by shooting through it.  Not saying it didn't/doesn't happen , but usually a round going though a tank was not a benign occurrence and a "shoot though" is a good thing. Howver if it is a APHE round and the delay doesn't function or is too long , those rounds of course are doing less than they should by not adding an explosion to the penetration. Thinking about it , optimum would be a round bouncing around on the inside, with all the other effects, but that would be impossible to have a round do that to all targets, best to have a round that always goes through one side,.And by it going out the other side just says the round is overkill for that target/spot, but overkill is a good thing, as that will usually remove that threat and  you never know when you might really need that 'overkill" on a tougher target or threat.

This occurrence even happens now perhaps more than then and the result is generally a dead tank, becuase the 105-120mm  APDSFS tanks rounds of today pass through ALOT of targets/tanks and destroy them,in passing, LOL. Their cross-section is smaller than 75mm too IIRC.

 

What i think is a better word for what is bein talked about is Overcost, not Overkill,  

 

just Stuck in bed today passing time rambling on keyboard

Edited by Strachwitz666

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
821 posts
3,887 battles
56 minutes ago, Admiral_Thrawn_1 said:

Lol that is another good reason why M4 Sherman carried .50 Caliber machine guns...  Have heard reports of those machine guns even being able to destroy some of those very lightly armored tanks.

50 cal APIT will go through about (25mm) at less than 100 yards,  to about (12-15 mm) at about 200 meters or less,

 And it can "spall*" about 25-40 mm  of armor out to 200m maybe 300- 500m at best.  Depending on the armor and angle. I  have fired a few hundred rounds at hard targets and been able to see its effects and have seen alot more of the same. 

 *Spall - are little pieces  of metal/armor that flake off the backside of armor(inside of tank) when a round hits that spot on the outside.to be 

Yes , the 50 cal M2 was considered to be an effective weapon agianst light tanks of the interwar years, which was why the US Army/USMC never had anti-tank rifles , which were common in1930's- early war in most armies. And the 50 cal did kill and disable many Japanese light tanks in several battles of WWII. Japanese light tank usually had less than 1 inch of armor . So a 50 cal at the  short range(100yards) during many of the island battles  was effective

Edited by Strachwitz666

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,360 posts
3,915 battles
2 hours ago, Sventex said:

Speaking as a Graphic Designer here, the picture has obviously been colorized.  So if it's a reenactment, why go to the trouble of taking the photo in black and white and force a Graphic Designer to color everything from scratch?  That's a massive waste of time.

My thoughts as well. Although it might have been from a black and white movie made in the 1940s/50s?

Also, people are just assuming - if the photo isn't staged - that the M7 is somehow 'leading a charge.' The picture might have been snapped as a long convoy rolled past, and it happened to be the only vehicle in the frame. 

Edited by Battlecruiser_NewZealand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
821 posts
3,887 battles
3 hours ago, Sventex said:

Speaking as a Graphic Designer here, the picture has obviously been colorized.  So if it's a reenactment, why go to the trouble of taking the photo in black and white and force a Graphic Designer to color everything from scratch?  That's a massive waste of time.

 

39 minutes ago, Battlecruiser_NewZealand said:

My thoughts as well. Although it might have been from a black and white movie made in the 1940s/50s?

Also, people are just assuming - if the photo isn't staged - that the M7 is somehow 'leading a charge.' The picture might have been snapped as a long convoy rolled past, and it happened to be the only vehicle in the frame. 

This is no picture from a WWII battle.

The picture has an M7 Priest with an 11th Armoured Division insignia , in an obvious desert battle.setting .

IRL- The 11th Armoured division never was located or saw combat in the desert during WWII. The battles in North Africa by the British were all in 1940-1943. In May 1943 all the Germans and Italians surrendered in Africa

IRL- The 11th ArmDiv was forming up in England during this time, but its first time out of England and being in combat was D-Day.(1944).

 

I don't know what changes were made to this photo/film or why it was done or what it cost, but this photo is not a real photo of British/lend Lease AFV's in combat in WWII.

Edited by Strachwitz666

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,435
[REVY]
Members
6,017 posts
5,102 battles
1 hour ago, Strachwitz666 said:

 

This is no picture from a WWII battle.

The picture has an M7 Priest with an 11th Armoured Division insignia , in an obvious desert battle.setting .

IRL- The 11th Armoured division never was located or saw combat in the desert during WWII. The battles in North Africa by the British were all in 1940-1943. In May 1943 all the Germans and Italians surrendered in Africa

IRL- The 11th ArmDiv was forming up in England during this time, but its first time out of England and being in combat was D-Day.(1944).

 

I don't know what changes were made to this photo/film or why it was done or what it cost, but this photo is not a real photo of British/lend Lease AFV's in combat in WWII.

"The 11th (HAC) Regiment, RHA, served in North Africa at the Battle of Knightsbridge with 25-pounder guns and, after re-equipping with the M7 Priest self-propelled gun, in the Second Battle of El Alamein. The regiment's guns were the first guns ashore in the invasion of Sicily; then they took part in the Allied invasion of Italy and the Italian Campaign." - wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honourable_Artillery_Company

An M7 Priest of the 11th (HAC) Regiment Royal Horse Artillery in Tunisia (1943).

The_British_Army_in_Tunisia_1943_NA2313.

Edited by Sventex
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
821 posts
3,887 battles

OK I stand corrected, On 11RAC. That being the case ,yesterday while trying to figure out the Unit designation. , I  did find the 77 on the other fender could prolly only have meant the 77th ATR , anti-tank regiment, which struck me as strange . One , it was in north Africa which i weigh against being able to find the 11th AD  and figure I could not find the proper 77 regiment ,Since I conskidered why in the hell were they putting self -propelled artillery in an anti-tank unit. Not their 'optimun" use. it seems this is a case on ad-hoc use of aritlery ebing used as AT guns, like they did with their 25lbers.

Just didn't think they went so far as to use new SPA's fpor the purpose. But since the stuff was free(lend-lease) and Rommel was still their butt despite being outnumbered 8 to 1 in tanks , guess they could afford the luxury. Plus probable they may have viewed 105mm artillery as something they didnt want to mix in their own mainline artillery organizations, might explain the 77 ATR designation.  i did'nt think they went there.

This pushes a further imbalance in the tank vs tank numbers at 2nd Ala-mien even further. It was about 400 britsh tanks  to 50 german tanks(discount all italian tanks since they were POS and pzii's to get these numbers) , now might have to go add some SPA's to that british 400 as well . Always amazing how Elalamein was presented as a "near run thing" and Montgomery was some military genius, when in fact that battle, all that can really be said, was how well the Africa fought given the odds against them. 

But I digress, if it is a valid photo, then it becomes much easier to figure out what tank models these really are since they can be dated.(dating postwar 1945 is often more difficult)I'll leave that research to whoever might be inclined. figuring exact Stuart model.  The M7 might just be a plain M7, I forget the way to spot  M7 and M7 A1 differences(gun elevation stuff mostly IiRC) , or types shipped to Egypt

Edited by Strachwitz666

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×