13 replies to this topic

[Mig Eater]

I did say I was going to post some US planes but I’m not finished working on them & I wanted to post them all at once, so here is something else I’ve been working on as well.

American Mark VIII Liberty


Soviet T-35


It will probably be two weeks before the next update with the USAAF stuff now but trust me when I say it will be worth it!

[Lee]

Cool work as usual Cant wait for next update.

[Athena]

Nice stuff again, I especially like the first one. You're an excellent voxeller.

[Jeeves]

Ah, the International and the LandBattleship... How about an Independent?

[Andre27]

Big tankies, but outdated before the war even started

[Rattuskid]

The T-35 is an awesome looking tank, but was such a miserable failure. Unreliable, expensive and with firepower only really adequate for anti-infantry action. The weight may have made it 'heavy', but according to Biohazard, who I trust on this, it's side and rear armor could be pierced by standard rifle rounds.

[raminator]

they´re looking nice...and that is what counts...and not if they were usefull

[Andre27]

Still, if i were to take place in a "heavy" tank i'd expect it to stop a simple rifle bullet.

[wilmet]

I really love those WW1-ish designs like the mk8

*(goes off to read what else I've missed these 2 weeks)*

[Jeeves]

Welcome back, Wilmet; I love the Mk.VIII too

[Mig Eater]

The T-35 is an awesome looking tank, but was such a miserable failure. Unreliable, expensive and with firepower only really adequate for anti-infantry action. The weight may have made it 'heavy', but according to Biohazard, who I trust on this, it's side and rear armor could be pierced by standard rifle rounds.

I know it's armor isn't that thick but dont know if it's that thin! I dont have any of my books to check it atm.

Yer WW1 stuff does look cool in it's own way, the Mk.VIII & the Char 2C are the only WW1 tanks that will be in D-day tho :/ but then there is aways Landship

[wilmet]

well the churchill tanks always seemed to me to be like a link between WW1 and WW2 tanks, which is why I like it so much aswell.

isn't it the T-35 the germans called "kinderschrek", meaning something in the lines of "it only scares children"? they weren't too impressed by it, it seems

[Jeeves]

It had what, 30mm armor? I don't know much about riffle round development post-WWI, but I know that the "K" round (steel-tipped armor piercing round developed for protected sniper positions and shields, etc.) was fairly obsolete by the wars end (late war tanks it was used against would have about 16mm armor), except when used in a HMG, where any round would serve to heat the metal where it hit, with successive shots on the same place would melt through.
If a 7.92 AP round can't penetrate 16mm armor, I kinda doubt that a 7.92 standard round could penetrate 30mm of armor.
Conclusion: I'm missing something if riffle rounds could penetrate, but its possible, I'm going out my era here.

Edited by Jeeves, 04 August 2006 - 03:01 AM.

[Rattuskid]

According to wikipedia, it had armor ranges from 11mm to 30 mm, probably with the most at the front, and different on the many varying versions.

I though a .30-06 could piece about 10mm of armor on it's own without aid of any special tips or whatnot. Hell, why do you think so many early war tanks were armed with MGs? In that era of armor, a .50 calibre machine gun in many ways is closer to a 12.7mm autocannon.

Edited by Rattuskid, 06 August 2006 - 01:09 AM.