What are /r/tanks' favorite Products & Services?

From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

Here's a write up over at War is Boring: >[Tank expert David Rae] said the movie’s inaccuracies are minor—stuff that only someone >who is already an expert in tank warfare will even notice. “The tactics >employed in the film are pretty spot on,” he said. “The director has >really done his homework.”

edit: forgot link

The French were pretty much using them because they didn't have much else to go on outside of American vehicles. When the country has a stockpile of abandoned and broken-down Panther tanks, you might as well use them.

They came to a conclusion that the Panther's reliability were Scheisse though.

https://worldoftanks.com/en/news/chieftain/chieftains-hatch-french-panthers/

Here you go, this will answer your question. :)

For anyone who can't read it:

There was no heater in early versions of the Panther and they fixed that in the A by changing the way air moved through the engine compartment so that it could be vented into the crew compartment. When that vent was open however the engine was no longer being properly cooled. The 2 extra pipes allowed for more airflow into the compartment.

Haven't played those, I'll have to check them out. Last game I can remember that was anywhere near accurate was M1 Tank Platoon, and that was yeeeears ago.

>“why use the British gun instead of our own?”

The US refused to mount the British 17 pdr on our own tanks for several reasons (from nationalism, to logistics). The british wanted the 76mm gun on their tanks, but the US wasnt really willing to produce something specifically for them (at this point no US commanders specifically wanted the 76mm). The British military "brass" had generally decided to wait for AFVs which were designed to mount the 17pdr, but one guy really wanted to up-gun the M4s much sooner. He proposed the idea to up-gun the M4 with the 17pdr, but was told not to, and when he insisted he was threatened with a court martial if he did. Eventually he did make the 17pdr fit the M4, and the performance was such that they decided to start specially producing the modified 17pdrs to fit.

What's interesting is how the Brittish and US tended to integrate the up-gunned M4 variants. Typically they would throw one into a platoon, so 3 75mm M4s, and a single up-gunned M4. Again, the Brittish set was more effective than the US simply because their tanks were actually issued good ammo, while US tanks were not issued the best ammo (they were lucky if they were issued capped AP shells). The Chieftain has a pair of articles related to this which are really good, and explain most of what i'm talking about in here. Article 1 Article 2

The New Vanguard serie from Osprey.

They are more booklet than book as they are about 40 pages long but still contain alot of information about the subject its about. I bought 12 of them over the years and always end up re-reading them all the time.

Check them out on Amazon

As far as I can tell, there's no such thing as an Armor Piercing, Capped, Ballistic Capped, Face Hardened shell. The only reference I've found to APCBC FH is in penetration tables - mostly in World War 2 Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery. In this context, the tables are outlining the differences in performance of AP and APCBC against RHA vs FHA.

For example, in this table outlining the performance of British Projectiles, you will see that each AP entry has a matching AP FH entry and each APCBC entry has a matching APCBC FH entry. In just about every case, the plain AP does worse against FH, but the APCBC does better.

122 mm = 4.8 inches - According to this book the Russians went looking for better weapons after the Russo-Japanese War. Both Krupp and Schneider made 4.8 inch howitzers, which became the M1909 and M1910 48 line howitzers (a line is an old Russian unit of measure equal to 1/12 of an inch). I guess they liked the caliber a lot and continued using it.

I highly recommend trying to get a copy of the book, Son of a Sherman. It goes into the production of the Sherman tank and has a lot of information about things like the factories and the different modifications that were changed on the Sherman through the war. It’s a little pricy, but it has a ton of information that would be useful to you. I wouldn’t recommend paying more than $60 for it.

Link to te book on Amazon

can you take a picture from the front?

(actually, i figured it out. it is based on no tank in particular, but it's called "M60 Victor")

https://www.amazon.com/Coming-COLLIDE-Channels-Control-Shooting/dp/B010NNT84C

Not specifically interesting on the technical side, but a phenomenal read: Thunder Run

It describes how a US tank brigade captured Bagdad. It's much more than just an account of the battle.

>The general gist of this statement pretty much agrees that an immobile Abrams took some hostile fire and survived.

Which is the only thing that is true, the rest is made up flavour details straight from Tom Clancy's imagination. It reads a lot like that bogus Tiger Tank memoir.

>I've encountered it myself, reading about (non-military) events that I took part in. To expect anything else, or be surprised or outraged is naive.

I guess you have never encountered competently written history and have only ever read yellow journalism. Hence you have no familiarity with the means by which historical accuracy is pursued. Why else would someone seriously quote Tom Clancy for anything but his novels.