What are
/r/TankPorn's
favorite Products & Services?
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
The most popular Products mentioned in /r/TankPorn:
The most popular Services mentioned in /r/TankPorn:
World of Tanks
Creative Commons
War Thunder
Wikiwand
Scribd
Google Play Books
Medium
Wikimedia Commons
Frequency
Flickr
Autodesk Tinkercad
Shutterstock
Algodoo
OpenStreetMap
Audible
The most popular reviews in /r/TankPorn:
The single Tiger that Japan purchased never left Europe, so no.
A Japanese delegation apparently studied them in Europe, then sold them back to Germany since there was really no way to ship them back.
At least according to this thread.
Japanese Tanks 1939-45 by Steven J. Zaloga is a great book
>How effective were tanks in the Vietnam war? Can't imagine that they were particularly effective due to the nature of Guerilla warfare.
Against the Vietcong, not very, but against the NVA they actually were pretty useful considering the NVA was organized much more like a conventional army than guerrillas. Flame tanks were (unsurprisingly) especially useful in urban fighting.
This is a good book for this subject.
Nuclear War Survival Skills: Updated and Expanded 1987 Edition https://www.amazon.com/dp/094248701X/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_HhfXDbN41QBQ0
This book points out that the majority of the deadly radiation in the blast area has deteriorated within 3-14 days.
According to good ol’ Chieftain, by the time such a creative masterpiece was approved for frontline service, it was March 1951, which is actually is in the (Year of the Rabbit)[https://www.chinahighlights.com/travelguide/chinese-zodiac/rabbit.htm]
Before anyone comments about the name.
Read the image, it says T95 #2. This was taken when it was renamed from T28 to T95.
After a year, named back to T28 Super Heavy.
If you are confused, read... https://worldoftanks.com/en/news/chieftain/T28_and_T95/
This vehicle was part of the Littlefield Collection in California, but now belongs to Adrian Scott collection (UK)
Sequence number 4963, built as an M4A1(76) VVSS in August, 1944.
Image source https://www.flickr.com/photos/26943652@N05/38224745871/in/dateposted/
Image holder allows redistribution under Creative Commons 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/
https://www.amazon.com/One-Soldiers-War-Arkady-Babchenko/dp/0802144039
Amazing book on the 1st and 2nd Chechen war. Gave guys a bunch of old soviet equipment, not enough food or other supplies, told them to go off and fight Chechens.
They ended up having to trade gear to the Chechens just to have something to eat.
>Unfortunately very little writing exists of the Russian account.
There are hundreds, if not thousands, of accounts made by the Soviet soldiers. Not a lot of them are translated to English, but that's another story.
I would like to recommend reading Bessonov's "Tank rider", https://www.amazon.com/Tank-Rider-Into-Reich-Army/dp/1510712399.
He was an officer of recon troops that were driving the very first after the German linea were breached, not letting the Germans chance to prepare their new positions. He fought from '43 to' 45, starting just after the Kursk battle and reaching Berling. His memories are quite low level, he speaks of what he has seen from his position on the frontlines, so there is no focus on thr bigger picture.
obligatory picture on how they found it after 28 years: https://worldoftanks.com/dcont/fb/imagesforarticles/chieftains_hatch/randompics/t28field.jpg
Also there has been someone who had an image of it after it fell of a train
This book states a good crew could reload and fire in ~5 minutes while ~7 minutes was normal.
Yes a single person could reload the gun but it would take 3x as long to do it which is why it was recommended for the entire crew to help with reloading. The barrel had to be raised above a 30° angle to be loaded as well. Imagine like how a naval gun loads.
I'm not saying the round took 5 minutes to load either. The process of firing the gun, reloading, and then firing again took ~5 minutes with an above average crew.
I find it ridiculous and silly to have such an abysmal firing rate but that's just me.
Serial Number 521.
This example was recovered in 1945 from the Shumshu island in the Kuril Island chain. It is complete with both its original front and rear pontoons.
It is Currently on display in Hall 12 of the Patriot Museum Complex.
Image source/credit https://www.flickr.com/photos/ajw1970/38218661842/in/album-72157690022315036/
Image license holder allows redistribution under Creative Commons 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/
http://www.wikiwand.com/de/Eidgen%C3%B6ssische_Konstruktionswerkst%C3%A4tte
Interesting write up if you speak German(they have an English version if looked more closely, though it isn't as detailed.). Based off this writeup the image is from 1977.
Google suggests it's an Entpannungspanzer 65/88
I know. At least kubinka has most of these vehicles inside, but I guess that very important technological history doesn't really need preserving...
I'm especially pissed about the T30, T34 and T29 prototypes. I mean look at them. I don't think there'd be an abrams without these.
This is a very good read if you're interested in that period of warfare:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Tank-Normandy-Cassell-Military-Paperbacks/dp/0304366404
There's a section where he talks powerfully about the regimental padre, who had the job of identifying remains in destroyed vehicles.
Read this book. More accurate then Fury and really goes into late WW2 German and American military tank tactics.
Someone in this sub recommended it to me and it was awesome.
Image source https://www.flickr.com/photos/ajw1970/38218665982/in/album-72157690022315036/
Image holder allows redistribution under creative Commons 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/
T28 was the final army designation for this vehicle. The T95 and T28 were the same vehicle contrary to WoT and WT representations. You see the T28's massive weight and thin suspension made it practical to apply another set of tracks which when in urban areas could be detached and towed behind the vehicle. Seen here.
https://worldoftanks.com/dcont/fb/image/t95trail.jpg
Also no dashes are used for the majority of US vehicles. Expect for cases like T26E1-1 or M6A2E1-1 and M6A2E1-2
This Ha-Go was discovered on Shumshu Island in 2015, and subsequently taken to Hall 12 in the Patriot Park complex.
Image source https://www.flickr.com/photos/ajw1970/26475603059/in/album-72157690022315036/
Image holder allows redistribution under Creative Commons 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/
Some words that i thought i would never need to string together.
Image credit/ source https://www.flickr.com/photos/aalien/1283647909/
redistributed under Creative Commons 2.0 license https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/
The figure was originally given here, based on French experience with vehicles in service after the war. These could have been any modification, even post-war builds, considering the fact that the British built some Panthers for themselves out of wartime manufacture parts.
> Shitty tactics of the enemy were the main issue.
When you got the job because you married into Saddam's family and can be relied upon not to do any coup shit rather than getting the job thanks to your tactical prowess.
This book did a great job highlighting the process.
The Sherman model/submodel/type indications are something that tank nerds will argue about even 75 years after WWII. I think I can say with some certainty that most tank nerds agree that R.P. Hunnicutt wrote the definitive book about Sherman and all the different sub versions: https://www.amazon.com/Sherman-History-American-Medium-Tank/dp/1626548617
If you are a WWII tank nerd or want to become one this book is essential.
Fahrgestell number 150072 this served in the s. Pz. Jäg. Abt. 654, with the tactical number "501". Captured during the battle of Kursk in July 1943
image source https://www.flickr.com/photos/ajw1970/26555210489/
Image holder allows redistribution under Creative Commons 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/
Image credit/ image source https://www.flickr.com/photos/12535240@N05/3577689535/
This specific monument is at the Novodevichy Cemetery in Moscow (Russia)
Creative Commons license https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/
Edit: It should be noted that the date in the title should be 1964 not 1944
>I can't imagine that a T-34 would actually be of much help to anyone these days.
Tell that to the Syrian and Kurdish rebels.
Supporting the infantry, lobbing HE-frag and working the coax is a tank's main job, at least that's how the Soviets loaded them up for. It's not like they have to use them in an AT role against T-64s. The T-34-85 is still better armed and armoured than any AFV in the Philippine Army, and numerous other third world armies.
With TUSK-1 you've got the M19 Abrams Reactive Armor Tiles, and for TUSK-2 you got the M32 ARAT-2. I could be wrong, but I think the M32 is just an M19 brick with cassettes used to deflect blast upwards or down to allow it to be used closer to infantry around the tank.
Here's an online magazine that covers American ERA with some info about both BRAT and ARAT. It's not much, but it should get you started.
Image credit https://www.flickr.com/photos/26943652@N05/35716520122/in/dateposted/
redistributed under Creative commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/
It's the official US name for unofficial use (i.e. speaking to the media). In the American military, it would have been referred to it as some variation on "Medium Tank, M4", though it is noted that the British name "Sherman" did catch on somewhat.
Image source https://www.flickr.com/photos/simononly/7528101810/in/album-72157630479026320/
Image holder allows redistribution under Creative Commons 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/
Germans lacked critical metals to harden armor late in the war leading to cracking. I didn't read all of this but it has pictures of similar damage.
https://worldoftanks.com/en/news/chieftain/chieftains-hatch-us-guns-vs-german-armour-part-1/
That would make sense. I know that post-war, the Soviets weren't going to give us tanks for evaluation, but I'll do some searching to see if they ever gave us a T-34/85. I know we only got to look at a T-54/55 after it drove onto the British Embassy in Hungary. Edit: The earliest US analysis of the T-34/85 is a Korean war era report, on what I'm assuming is a vehicle captured in combat. So no, I don't think they gave us a T-34-85.
Aw, easy enough mistake to make considering the split in design while remaining the same designation.
A bit of searching shows that the L/60 J models were dubbed 'J1.' So there you go, a way to distinguish them better. :)
Serial Number 711, built by Fisher in May, 1945. USA 30127457.
This tank has been transferred from the Replacement Training Centre to the Armored School at Ft Knox in Sept, 1945, It has then been listed in the Army Ground Forces Bd 2 (test tank) inventory at Yuma PG in July 1947. It had then either given or sold to France (still having remains of French markings on it) before ending up on a firing range in Germany at an unknown date.
Image source https://www.flickr.com/photos/131561895@N06/33914741874/in/album-72157659728704768/
Image holder allows image redistribution under Creative Commons 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.0/
One can see that the M1A1 variant was tested by looking at the photos from the comparative trials held in Saudi Arabia.
There are quite a few write-ups on the tests one can find on the internet. Many of them are Brazilian/Portuguese or referencing Brazilian sources. Nicholas Moran (World Of Tank's TheChieftain) once wrote a short blog post about it.
The website GlobalSecurity.org has a (machine translated) Brazilian article on the Osório tank which mentions the following regarding the Saudi trials:
"During the qualification tests, which lasted 3 months in the desert, the Brazilian product was outstanding, along with the Abrams M-l. In the firing tests, the Osorio managed to hit a target every 4 seconds, traveling 70 km per hour, with a total of 16 strikes during a 32-second course. The results were repeated by the Saudi crew. In the same course, the Abrams M-l made 12 strikes. The French AMX-40 hit only eight targets, and the British Challenger, only six. During the resistance tests, on several thousand kilometers of rocky, sandy desert, the Osorio and the Abrams showed no flaws. The AMX-40 exploded two engines, and the Challenger lost a motor assembly and a transmission case. Other problems appearing were the French gun's excessive wear, and the large number of failures in the British tank's firing control."
So the Osório was more accurate than the other tanks (including Abrams) and more reliable than the AMX-40 and Challenger 1.
I love the fact that the French army used the Panther tanks longer than the Germans ever did. They used them through 1949, but found that they weren't too terribly fond of them.
No, the T28 in Korea article is an April Fool’s day article. WarGaming date format is DD/MM/YYYY, regardless of the author’s nationality.
The author had to make a follow-up article to clarify that it was an April Fool’s joke because the article was too good.
Image source https://www.flickr.com/photos/13963542@N08/4343091704/in/set-72157623103988639/
Image license holder allows redistribution under Creative Commons 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/
Image holder allows image resdtribution under Creative Commons 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/
Image credit https://www.flickr.com/photos/131561895@N06/22328055606/in/album-72157659728704768/
licesne holder allows redistribution under Creative Commons 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.0/
It was found during demolition work on the Vienna South Station.
Image credit/ source https://www.flickr.com/photos/quinet/29536682655/
Redistributed under Creative Commons 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/
The Germans did not care about him at all. In fact they may have considered him sub par. The patton myth is based on the post war movies.
https://worldoftanks.com/en/news/chieftain/chieftains-hatch-truth-we-know-it/
Looks like it's in modern day Russia. Finnish wikipedia: https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessoila
Openstreetmaps: https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=61.847222&mlon=33.188333&zoom=12#map=12/61.8472/33.1883&layers=T
Not until they make batteries about 8x more dense and even faster charging than what we have today or someone makes a miniature nuclear power plant that can fit in a tank.
Or, actually, my bad. They're already available. Enjoy!
> Lastly, smoothbore makes it possible to launch ATGMs out of the gun, though I only heard this used by russian or russian-based tanks, not western ones, so I'm not sure if it's a factor for them.
The U.S tried a bit, they were not impressed with the results.
Image source https://www.flickr.com/photos/26943652@N05/14607539413/in/album-72157645129543028/
Image license holder allows redistribution under Creative Commons 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/
Image source https://www.flickr.com/photos/26943652@N05/9445163867/in/album-72157634950120108/
Image license allows redistribution under Creative Commons 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/
Image credit/ source https://www.flickr.com/photos/26943652@N05/33001012115/in/dateposted/
Image permission to redistribute granted under Creative Commons 2.0 License https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/
Image source/ credit https://www.flickr.com/photos/26943652@N05/7687351882/in/set-72157630844962638/
Image redistributed under a Creative Commons 2.0 license https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/
Image source/ credit https://www.flickr.com/photos/djackmanson/5824332858/
Photo taken in Brisbane, Queensland (Australia)
Redistributed under Creative Commons 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/
The T95 was mainly an assault tank for smashing fortifications. It was even deployed in korea but probably didn't shoot anything. The Chieftan did an article with some cool pics on that https://worldoftanks.com/en/news/chieftain/T28_in_Korea/
Well in 1941 the Germans were still using Panzer IIIs and IVs. Tigers and Panthers are later (as a response to the T34), so if you're talking about the initial invasion a basic T34 is pretty good.
I'd need to go and look it up, but my main impressions of this are drawn from Forcyzk's book on armored warfare in 1941 - 42; basically, the Germans were far better on operational stuff and combined arms than the Russians at this point, but they had a number of bad tactical surprises, among them being the Russian tanks being significantly tougher than they expected.
Strategically, of course, the entire thing was always poorly conceived, although this didn't become obvious until later.
...are you denying the obvious, that getting crews killed is going to affect the performance of your armoured forces? AND that the performance affects manufacturing demand?
I've also heard of a Hungarian tank ace knocking out Soviet tanks left and right but these stories are anecdotal and don't reflect actual statistics.
Boris Kavalerchik, a Belarussian engineer born in the USSR looked at the T-34 and found that during a 15-20 day operation 82% of T-34s were lost while the book I mentioned above also telling of a crew survival rating of 15% as opposed to the Sherman's 85%. Doesn't take a genius to put 2 and 2 together to see that it was an abysmal failure of a tank.
As cool as it would to ser BOLOs in action, unless we ever develop some sort of anti-grav engines, I just don't see it as feasible.
https://www.amazon.ca/BOLOS-II-UNCONQUERABLE-KEITH-LAUMER/dp/0671876295
Tom Clancy already predicted in 1987's Red Storm Rising that the next major conventional war in Europe would be very much WW1 like
At least the Soviet Army in that book was competent, and the technology gap has widened even more since then
> According to a report compiled by the UN, and chaired by M. Cherif Bassiouni, while all sides committed war crimes during the conflict, Serbian forces were responsible for ninety percent of them, whereas Croatian forces were responsible for six percent, and Bosniak forces four percent. The report echoed conclusions published by a Central Intelligence Agency estimate in 1995.
Is straight from Wiki.
The source being from this book
This is just sad.
The green and tan army men had a semi accurate M48 Patton back in the 80s, what has happened to toy production?
Sure. It was originally written in Bangla. The book's name is "Desh e bideshe", and the author is Syed Mujtaba Ali.
There is an English translation of the book, although I don't know if the translation is good enough. The translation is named "In a land far from home"
Syed Mujtaba Ali was an excellent story teller, and his storytelling and style can be very hard to capture, specially when translating. I hope the translator did a good job, still, a lot get lost in translation.
If you want good overall view of Winter War and tactics, this seems to be good book to start:
https://www.amazon.com/Frozen-Hell-Russo-Finnish-Winter-1939-1940/dp/1565122496#customerReviews
I have not read it, but reviews like it being kind of overall book telling about troops and tactical viewpoint.
> This would indicate to me a blowout panel for a relatively small bustle ready rack, similar to that found on Leopard 2.
The bustle rack can be seen in this infographic.
It's a MT-LBu chassis with i think a PPRU-1 radar.
The image in the link below is the best example i could find of similar vehicle with a stowed radar. Both vehicles have similar square mount in the center which is pretty distinct.
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/kyiv-ukraine-august-20-2018-ppru1-1161112198
Honestly, this is somewhat of a myth-- while some soldiers surely ditched the gas mask the German army took the threat of gas very seriously. Each soldier's mask was noted in his Soldbuch and as inspections took place was required to have it on their person and inside the canister. Even passing through MP checkpoints they could have their equipment inspected by the Feldgendarmerie.
That said, it was often carried in their Tornister packs or stowed away in vehicles with the rest of their equipment (motorized, and mechanized infantry respectively). In some of the books I have regarding field gear and equipment it's stated that the soldier was expected (and did) keep their gear with them at all times.
"Ditching" the gas mask is only partly true, using the canister to store personal items and the like was definitely a thing as the canisters were sealed, waterproof, and made of metal-- keeping precious cigarettes, lighters, photos, letters, etc. safe from combat conditions and the weather.
They would however, keep the gas masks with them, or nearby in the very least as punishment for losing equipment was fairly serious and the German army would not take these infractions lightly. You wouldn't ditch your rifle, right? Same with the gas mask. It was that serious.
Yeah I don't understand trolls, the other guy was simply looking for this
Don't know if theres any pictures in the production part but this seems like a good lead:
Image source https://www.flickr.com/photos/ajw1970/38251002671/in/album-72157690022315036/
Image holder allows redistribution under Creative Commons 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/
Fahrgestell Nr. 150329, built in November 1942. Served in 2 Polizei Company. This tank was captured in June 1944.
Image source https://www.flickr.com/photos/ajw1970/26555213979/
Image holder allows redistribution Under Creative Commons 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/
Nope.
https://worldoftanks.com/en/news/chieftain/T28_and_T95/
“Compared to the real tank, it has VVSS suspension instead of HVSS, frontal drive-train, and an extended lower front hull.
Well, put frankly, we made it up. I speculate that the thinking was that the US rather gave up on the whole concept of heavy TDs and assault guns and didn't develop much which could survive at Tier VIII while remaining in the tech tree lineage. So, we had to fill in the gap a bit with a little creative license/speculation.”
Aaaaannd we have yet another!
False. There is absolutely no difference at all between them, outside of date. It was initially designated Heavy Tank T28, renamed 105 mm Gun Motor Carriage T95 and finally renamed again to Super Heavy Tank T28.
If you really want to get angry about this stuff, check out Tim Weiner's book, Legacy of Ashes: the History of the CIA.
It's more than 700 pages all about 70 years and trillions of dollars of criminality, corruption, and incompetence.
No
That's WoT that you're thinking about because they used the same vehicle twice for two different tiers.
The T95/T28 had a removable outer pair of tracks to make rail transportation slightly easier as well as traveling through tunnels and cities which would otherwise be too narrow for the full vehicle.
https://worldoftanks.com/en/news/chieftain/chieftains-hatch-us-guns-vs-german-armour-part-1/
The August Isigny tests are the most thorough.
Here compiled into a table.
I could also link you the original documents but I hope you just believe me that those sites have the transcripted the tests properly.
I believe anyone who calls it such is, in fact, wrong. I have not seen any indication that the German M10s engaged Allied forces whilst displaying Allied insignia.
https://worldoftanks.com/en/news/chieftain/The_Chieftains_Hatch_Panther_M10/
>M1 arrays would have provided similar level of protection as the Osorio in 1987. As a matter of fact
This is what you look like when you claim 700mm arrays are comparable to 500mm arrays.
>This wasn't supplemented by any other figure. The said price of 4.3 million that gets often thrown around in 1990 is a compound/mistake of the previous MCU M1A1 and the actual cost of the LRIP M1A2.
No it wasn't. It was the amount the Army paid for a new M1A2.
>Phase 1 had a total cost of 770million USD in 3 years. that is for 200 vehicles upgraded the cost was at 3.4 million. This means that tanks that had a price tag of about 2 million at minimum were going to get another 3.4 million on top of it.
2.28 million. See above. You are eliding all the production costs into a single number and comparing that (false) single number to another single number. You are lying by not comparing like to like.
It's interesting that the elephant still has his tusks. According to Colonel J.H. "Elephant Bill" Williams, the tuskers they recaptured during the advance back through Burma were almost all shorn of their tusks by Japanese officers for the ivory, which Williams decried, as removing a working elephant's tusks greatly reduced its ability to work as it had to adjust.
You might want to read his books Elephant Bill and Bandoola, both of which I highly recommend.
>They did not you moron. The UN had an ad hoc council for that. The Moscow Conference was a great power council outside the UN.
Were the US and USSR not founding members of the UN? Lol keep moving the goal post you dumb cunt.
>You clearly state UN trusteeship anyway, so moot point for backpedaling.
But it is UN trusteeship
>Russia didn’t exist as an independent actor in 1945.
Wtf are you talking about lmao
>My argument was that the US troops in Korea weren’t a trip wire because of the number, quality and firepower. The US troops in Korea had fucking NUKES you dolt. The tripwire as discussed in the book you obviously didn’t read, is that the presence of Nukes in both sides would lead to an accidental exchange. But you are a slimy fucker with no knowledge.
So back to your fucking retarded number counting, which proved nothing from the start. The numbers are meaningless but keep harping on it. Now whose backpedaling lmao Stupid twat. The US troops in Germany had nukes too you fucking rat. You certainly didn't read the book lol Don't pretend you did.
>America's foreign policy and military deployments remain largely unchanged despite the end of the Cold War. The expensive U.S. commitment to South Korea exemplifies Washington's outmoded strategic thinking and could easily embroil the United States in another Asian war.
What do you think that description means? What do you think "military deployments" means you know-nothing? It's not discussing nukes anywhere. If it is, source it, twat.
Read a book. Barbarossa was a failure in the first month.
https://www.amazon.com/Barbarossa-Derailed-Advance-Encirclement-Counteroffensives/dp/1906033722/
Nazis started suiciding themselves by the end of the year.
The World Encyclopedia of Tanks & Armoured Fighting Vehicles: Over 400 Vehicles And 1200 Wartime And Modern Photographs https://www.amazon.com/dp/0754833518/ref=cm_sw_r_apan_glt_fabc_266B41PND0T3R6Z94T7M
Tank: The Definitive Visual History of Armored Vehicles https://www.amazon.com/dp/1465457593/ref=cm_sw_r_apan_glt_fabc_60BT6M7FF6CP3D0ZZMVE
This one too, which I have read and would recommend.
If you want a great read about fighting in one, take a look at Brazen Chariots-
I spent about 40 dollars for this + paints and glue (~$10). Here’s the amazon page: https://www.amazon.com/Tamiya-Models-Tiger-Mid-Production/dp/B000LFUGBW/ref=mp_s_a_1_3?crid=2G8AKUCT6W9PH&keywords=tiger+tank+model&qid=1555709097&s=gateway&sprefix=tiger+tank+model&sr=8-3
To be honest, I’ve been using an airbrush and compressor kit for which I paid less than 90€, you can find them on Amazon such as this one and I painted really cool models with that. I used said airbrush until a couple of months ago and for more than a year. It really does the trick and it helps you understand the basics of airbrushing before getting an expensive one. If not, you can always use a hand brush and you can also do nice things with it :)
I also thought Red Army was pretty cool but that was ages ago.
Excellent! What is the publication date? Amazon has one from 2016 and so I was curious how comparable they are.
Amazon’s title is slightly different: Tanks: 100 Years of Armoured Warfare https://www.amazon.com/dp/0233004955/
Panzer Battles by Von Mellenthin is a good read and gives a decent run down of the order of battle and accounts of battles from an executive officer’s viewpoint. It is a bit dry but will contain the information requested. Like others have said there are order of battles of available but really if you want to figure out who, what, where and why you’re going to need to do some digging.
What exactly are you looking for? Anything specific or just an overall idea of what kinds of armor was involved?
If you are curious about the Italian armor divisions from a different perspective than the usual German one, try this book:
https://www.amazon.com/Iron-Hulls-Hearts-Mussolinis-Divisions/dp/1861268394
My bad I was wrong about this book. I have the 304 pages and i did not know the 1994 version had less.
To be exact: I have the second edition from 2016 of Panzer IV und seine Abarten
Also it seems there is an even newer version released this month with 320 pages.
​
Well I can give you a direct quote from February 17 1943 by the Ministerium für Bewaffnung und Munition:
"Es fand eine eingehende Aussprache über den Umbau des Pz.Kpfw.IV statt. Grundsätzlich soll der Schwerpunkt auf den Panther gelegt werden, d.h. Absinken des B.W. zugunsten des Panther, sobald dessen Anlauf gesichert ist. Von verschiedenen Seiten wurde jedoch betont, daß auf den bewährten Pz.Kpfw.IV keinesfalls verzichtet werden kann." (Panzer IV und seine Abarten page 261)
​
Quick translation:
"There was an in-depth discussion about the modification of Pz.Kpfw.IV. In principle the emphasis should be placed on the Panther, which means, B.W. (Panzer IV) production decrease in favor of the Panther, as soon as its production can be sure. From different sides, however, it was emphasized that the proven Pz.Kpfw.IV can not be waived under any circumstances." (Panzer IV und seine Abarten page 261)
​
​
​
A few books by Russian historians on Prokorovka have been translated into English recently - I can recommend Demolishing the Myth: The Tank Battle at Prokhorovka by Valeriy Zamulin. It's been a while since I read it, but he doesn't seem like he's out to make the Red Army look particularly good. I particularly remember him ripping Rotmistrov to shreds. There are a lot of first hand accounts from soldiers in the field from both sides, which he compares to official reports and documents.
It isn't really pop history, so it is extremely dry in places, but it is well worth a read if you are interested in Kursk.
This book (if accurate) paints the nightmare scene of panzers in the East. https://www.amazon.com/Tiger-Tracks-Classic-Panzer-Memoir-ebook/dp/B00UASW4GK/ref=sr_1_2?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1492711632&sr=1-2&keywords=Panzer