Panzer IV ausf H Invincible?! - Page 2

Foremost · 03-07-2008, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glyn

What on earth has that got to do with this thread?
Go to another forum and annoy their membership.
In case you fail to take this heartfelt advice I am putting you on IGNORE with immediate effect.

Please do with immediate effect that'll suit me fine, the subject of a post was tanks, was it not?, so why are you gettin' your panties all wrinkled, mmmm? do please tell,

Maxor · 03-07-2008, 12:17 PM

It was comparing tanks of a completely different era,

Its a little like comparing a stopwith camel, and a fokker triplane in a thread. Then someone coming in and saying the F-22 is better because it has thrust vectoring. Everyone else is going why is this moron discussing something that is completely outside of the context of the conversation.

Yes the thread is about tanks. But you can't compare a model T to a ferrai enzio, You can't compare a 1940's panzer or sherman to a modern challenger.

Foremost · 03-07-2008, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maxor

It was comparing tanks of a completely different era,

Its a little like comparing a stopwith camel, and a fokker triplane in a thread. Then someone coming in and saying the F-22 is better because it has thrust vectoring. Everyone else is going why is this moron discussing something that is completely outside of the context of the conversation.

Yes the thread is about tanks. But you can't compare a model T to a ferrai enzio, You can't compare a 1940's panzer or sherman to a modern challenger.

I'm not going to drag this on any more, one last point I'd like to make if you don't mind, begging your pardon, I was comparing tanks from a different era that was my whole intention, can I now have an apology from the member, then I think that it'll be even stevens & I'll gladly tiptoe away, I didn't intend to upset him, but he managed to upset me a little, & believe me that's not easy!!

Maxor · 03-07-2008, 16:34 PM

Typically when people start talking about a new subject they open a new thread with a new title. Ie for you post about the challenger. You may have started a new thread with something like. Delepeted Uraniam Tank Shells.

actually on this board since most people have at least some experiance you could typically go with DU Tank shells pro's and cons.

Foremost · 03-07-2008, 16:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maxor

Typically when people start talking about a new subject they open a new thread with a new title. Ie for you post about the challenger. You may have started a new thread with something like. Delepeted Uraniam Tank Shells.

actually on this board since most people have at least some experiance you could typically go with DU Tank shells pro's and cons.

I admit that tanks aren't exactly my forte, I have a six volume set of "War Machines" they cover an amazing amount of knowledge, so I use that to help me make good posts.

zraver · 03-07-2008, 17:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Triple C

My sources didn't say so. My sources say that the Pz IV was barely better or marginaly inferior to 75mm Sherman and T-34-76. When I was in a web forum some guy insisted that the Pz IV was inpenetrable; thinking back, he probably arrived to that conclusion without knowing that the Pz IVH's turret was not uparmored.

What I was saying is that the allies saw ever German AFV with a canon as a Panther or Tiger.

Quote:

The British "Challenger" is awesome, in the Iraqi war they fired spent uranium shells which could penetrate the thickest of armour exploding inside & spraying the crew with molten metal & sometimes even blowing the turret clean off, the firing these shells was abandoned when some British crews were quite badly affected by handling the shells as they loaded them.

In Iraq the British used the Chally 1 with the L11A5 rifled 120mm. They did not use depleted Uranium sabots. Rifling is bad for velocity and unbalances a fin stabilized round. British doctrine called for using HESH (high explosive squash head) this round was basically plastic explosive that would impact, conform to the area and detonate. The shock waves would then travel through the armor knocking pieces off the inside. These pieces are call spall, he process is spalling. Spall acts like a bullet vs flesh and hoses, and is also incredibly hot and can ignite fluids and ammunition.

it must be noted that for non-finned rounds or non-KE weapons rifling is more accurate. The two longest shots via a tank gun in history both go to british rifled guns. The longest kill was made by a Challenger 1 in 1991 using the L11A5, and the longest hit was against a Syrian bulldozer by the IDF firing from an American made clone of the British Royal Ordnance L7.

Also DU is inert, you can eat the stuff without harm. The only evidence that it may become dangerous is after an very energetic impact with a hard surface like armor.

Foremost, please think before you type.

T_igger_cs_30 · 03-07-2008, 17:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foremost

The British "Challenger" is awesome, in the Iraqi war they fired spent uranium shells which could penetrate the thickest of armour exploding inside & spraying the crew with molten metal & sometimes even blowing the turret clean off, the firing these shells was abandoned when some British crews were quite badly affected by handling the shells as they loaded them.

what are "spent uraniam shells" ?...........as for "spraying the crew inside" do you understand the difference between , kinetic and chemical energy rounds when refering to tank warfare?.........Its ok if you dont its just I believe if you want to state something as a "fact" then you should at least have the courtesy either to read it up first,or at least ask someone on the forum who is experienced in such matters.............for instance if I wanted to know about the Isle of White........I would ask you however I dont, so I wont

Foremost · 03-07-2008, 17:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zraver

What I was saying is that the allies saw ever German AFV with a canon as a Panther or Tiger.

In Iraq the British used the Chally 1 with the L11A5 rifled 120mm. They did not use depleted Uranium sabots. Rifling is bad for velocity and unbalances a fin stabilized round. British doctrine called for using HESH (high explosive squash head) this round was basically plastic explosive that would impact, conform to the area and detonate. The shock waves would then travel through the armor knocking pieces off the inside. These pieces are call spall, he process is spalling. Spall acts like a bullet vs flesh and hoses, and is also incredibly hot and can ignite fluids and ammunition.

it must be noted that for non-finned rounds or non-KE weapons rifling is more accurate. The two longest shots via a tank gun in history both go to british rifled guns. The longest kill was made by a Challenger 1 in 1991 using the L11A5, and the longest hit was against a Syrian bulldozer by the IDF firing from an American made clone of the British Royal Ordnance L7.

Also DU is inert, you can eat the stuff without harm. The only evidence that it may become dangerous is after an very energetic impact with a hard surface like armor.

Foremost, please think before you type.

I saw in the press that some people were getting radiation burns on their hands, might it have happened to munition workers in the factory producing these shells? I saw it in article a while back roughly a year ago, so I can't remember details, so end of,

'byeee!!

dave lukins · 03-07-2008, 18:28 PM

[quote=zraver;467883]through the armor knocking pieces off the inside. These pieces are call spall, he process is spalling. Spall acts like a bullet vs flesh and hoses, and is also incredibly hot and can ignite fluids and ammunition.QUOTE]

A slight adjustment in that zraver..It's called a SCAB and not a spall(unless the terminology has changed) if so I do apologise.

fitz · 03-07-2008, 18:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foremost

The British "Challenger" is awesome, in the Iraqi war they fired spent uranium shells which could penetrate the thickest of armour exploding inside & spraying the crew with molten metal & sometimes even blowing the turret clean off, the firing these shells was abandoned when some British crews were quite badly affected by handling the shells as they loaded them.

There is almost no factual information in that post at all, let alone the fact it is completely off-topic. No wonder people want to put you on ignore.

zraver · 03-07-2008, 19:14 PM

[quote=dave lukins;467907]

Quote:

Originally Posted by zraver

through the armor knocking pieces off the inside. These pieces are call spall, he process is spalling. Spall acts like a bullet vs flesh and hoses, and is also incredibly hot and can ignite fluids and ammunition.QUOTE]

A slight adjustment in that zraver..It's called a SCAB and not a spall(unless the terminology has changed) if so I do apologise.

In the US its spall and spalling, just like called your HESH rounds HEP (High Explosive Plastic), I guess its just the difference between US and UK English

T_igger_cs_30 · 03-07-2008, 20:25 PM

It is in fact Spalling we Brits effectionately call them "scabs" that come of on the inside of the turret and severly messes up a crews appearance obviously caused due to the CE created from the round hitting the outside, also just a point ZRAVER the points yuo mentioned regarding the rifled barrels and the stability of APFSDS, while there was some initial problems they were soon overcome and corrected, but the problems were no where near as bad as it sounded the way you wrote.

**Officer of Engineers** · 03-07-2008, 20:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zraver

Also DU is inert, you can eat the stuff without harm. The only evidence that it may become dangerous is after an very energetic impact with a hard surface like armor.

Z,

Are you out of your normal thinking mind? DU is a heavy metal. You might as well eat raw mercury.

dave lukins · 03-07-2008, 20:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Z,

Are you out of your normal thinking mind? DU is a heavy metal. You might as well eat raw mercury.

As long as it's a single Malt that's fine with me

zraver · 03-07-2008, 22:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Z,

Are you out of your normal thinking mind? DU is a heavy metal. You might as well eat raw mercury.

The stuff is completely inert Colonel, the body readily secretes it.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Could Germany have won WWII	Recon_sgt	The World Wars	1839	Yesterday 13:36 PM
Most decisive battle of World War 2	zraver	The World Wars	88	05-01-2008 21:10 PM
"The World Will Hold Its Breath": Reinterpreting Operation Barbarossa	sparten	The World Wars	11	02-19-2007 12:46 PM
ak47 vs m16	maersk	Small Arms and Personal Weapons	618	02-05-2007 15:43 PM
TOPOL-M invincible?	Sandman	Military Aviation	19	06-24-2006 20:37 PM

03-07-2008, 12:17 PM	#17 (permalink)
Maxor *Military Professional* Join Date: 11-18-05 Posts: 283	It was comparing tanks of a completely different era, Its a little like comparing a stopwith camel, and a fokker triplane in a thread. Then someone coming in and saying the F-22 is better because it has thrust vectoring. Everyone else is going why is this moron discussing something that is completely outside of the context of the conversation. Yes the thread is about tanks. But you can't compare a model T to a ferrai enzio, You can't compare a 1940's panzer or sherman to a modern challenger.

03-07-2008, 16:34 PM	#19 (permalink)
Maxor *Military Professional* Join Date: 11-18-05 Posts: 283	Typically when people start talking about a new subject they open a new thread with a new title. Ie for you post about the challenger. You may have started a new thread with something like. Delepeted Uraniam Tank Shells. actually on this board since most people have at least some experiance you could typically go with DU Tank shells pro's and cons.

03-07-2008, 18:28 PM	#24 (permalink)
dave lukins *Military Professional* Join Date: 01-04-07 Location: cheshire uk Posts: 4,029 Country:	[quote=zraver;467883]through the armor knocking pieces off the inside. These pieces are call spall, he process is spalling. Spall acts like a bullet vs flesh and hoses, and is also incredibly hot and can ignite fluids and ammunition.QUOTE] A slight adjustment in that zraver..It's called a SCAB and not a spall(unless the terminology has changed) if so I do apologise.

03-07-2008, 20:25 PM	#27 (permalink)
T_igger_cs_30 *Military Professional* Join Date: 01-04-07 Location: Canada Posts: 1,943 Country:	It is in fact Spalling we Brits effectionately call them "scabs" that come of on the inside of the turret and severly messes up a crews appearance obviously caused due to the CE created from the round hitting the outside, also just a point ZRAVER the points yuo mentioned regarding the rifled barrels and the stability of APFSDS, while there was some initial problems they were soon overcome and corrected, but the problems were no where near as bad as it sounded the way you wrote.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)