Купцов и Лоутехи, или безбашенная крутость
Я тут решил немного просветить массы на тему величия безбашенных танков, но решил не засорять чужое коммьюнити.
Как бы то ни было, сказано Мастерами Лоутеха: лучший танк - это "Хетцер" (по крайней мере, для европейских условий).
И я, кстати, наконец-то нашёл ту страницу (Accurate U.S. Army Armor History) в работающем виде. Правила прежние - старайтесь не вчитываться в текст, смотрите картинки.
"The excellent 10-ton 38T chassis was also made into the superb Hetzer STUG with hull-mounted assault/tank destroyer gun. And contrary to popular myth, Guderian liked and wanted more STUGs over more turreted Mark IV light to medium weight tanks.
The Germans had a "killer bee" mudfighter ON THE GROUND in WW2---it was the STUG. They also had a "stealth fighter" and M113 Gavin near-equivalent in the STUG and 38T chassis.
Turret Fixation Caused the Allies to be Creamed in WW2
The next question is why did we, the allies FAIL TO LEARN THE TRUE LESSON OF EUROPEAN GROUND WARFARE, which is to USE LIGHT TURRETLESS TANKS with maximum terrain mobility to support infantry in closed terrain and be air-transportable?
Firepower: Turretless is better
During combat against sub-national groups the enemy will be mostly infantry or idiots in wheeled trucks so not having a turret and having a negative 10 degree or plus 20 degree elevation and 24 degrees of left/right traverse of your main gun is not a problem. On top machine guns or autocannon on a 360 degree swivel can provide close-range defense.
Not having a turret to have a height under a man, making you extremely hard-to-hit using folds in the terrain, vegetation, camouflage with 24 degrees of instant gun traverse and the remaining 336 degrees of aiming after turning the vehicle to face the threat with heaviest armor protection is a greater advantage than having instant 360 degree gun firing traverse capability that offer the enemy a visible target far above the height of a man that can hit you instantly from all directions.
Swedish "S" Medium Tank... If there's no defilade, the "S" tank can make its own hull-down position with a dozer blade!
In the S tank everyone is a driver to spell the main driver/gunner...the man facing the rear can immediately drive the tank in the opposite direction WITHOUT HAVING TO TURN!
The "S" tank can be operated by just 2 and even 1 man in a pinch...
We wonder how a turretless Swedish "S" medium tank with the same one-shot-one-kill fire control but heavier armor than a turreted heavy tank do against a M1 Abrams in open terrain moving directly at eachother, Kursk-style if terrain folds shield the turretless tank so the turreted one can't even hit them, but the turreted ones are easily hit within the limited 24 degree left/right traverse?
STUGs exploited the first battle against the earth---by hugging the ground human foes couldn't get line-of-sight to even hit them. If you can't hit you don't have any penetration effects."
Воистину, "great minds think alike"!
Как бы то ни было, сказано Мастерами Лоутеха: лучший танк - это "Хетцер" (по крайней мере, для европейских условий).
И я, кстати, наконец-то нашёл ту страницу (Accurate U.S. Army Armor History) в работающем виде. Правила прежние - старайтесь не вчитываться в текст, смотрите картинки.
"The excellent 10-ton 38T chassis was also made into the superb Hetzer STUG with hull-mounted assault/tank destroyer gun. And contrary to popular myth, Guderian liked and wanted more STUGs over more turreted Mark IV light to medium weight tanks.
The Germans had a "killer bee" mudfighter ON THE GROUND in WW2---it was the STUG. They also had a "stealth fighter" and M113 Gavin near-equivalent in the STUG and 38T chassis.
Turret Fixation Caused the Allies to be Creamed in WW2
The next question is why did we, the allies FAIL TO LEARN THE TRUE LESSON OF EUROPEAN GROUND WARFARE, which is to USE LIGHT TURRETLESS TANKS with maximum terrain mobility to support infantry in closed terrain and be air-transportable?
Firepower: Turretless is better
During combat against sub-national groups the enemy will be mostly infantry or idiots in wheeled trucks so not having a turret and having a negative 10 degree or plus 20 degree elevation and 24 degrees of left/right traverse of your main gun is not a problem. On top machine guns or autocannon on a 360 degree swivel can provide close-range defense.
Not having a turret to have a height under a man, making you extremely hard-to-hit using folds in the terrain, vegetation, camouflage with 24 degrees of instant gun traverse and the remaining 336 degrees of aiming after turning the vehicle to face the threat with heaviest armor protection is a greater advantage than having instant 360 degree gun firing traverse capability that offer the enemy a visible target far above the height of a man that can hit you instantly from all directions.
Swedish "S" Medium Tank... If there's no defilade, the "S" tank can make its own hull-down position with a dozer blade!
In the S tank everyone is a driver to spell the main driver/gunner...the man facing the rear can immediately drive the tank in the opposite direction WITHOUT HAVING TO TURN!
The "S" tank can be operated by just 2 and even 1 man in a pinch...
We wonder how a turretless Swedish "S" medium tank with the same one-shot-one-kill fire control but heavier armor than a turreted heavy tank do against a M1 Abrams in open terrain moving directly at eachother, Kursk-style if terrain folds shield the turretless tank so the turreted one can't even hit them, but the turreted ones are easily hit within the limited 24 degree left/right traverse?
STUGs exploited the first battle against the earth---by hugging the ground human foes couldn't get line-of-sight to even hit them. If you can't hit you don't have any penetration effects."
Воистину, "great minds think alike"!