It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Dorchester Shermans Vs Tiger&King Tiger

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 12:20 AM
link   
By act of R.O.B.(Randome Omnipotent Being) Shermans are armored with Dorchester . The catch is Shermans cannot deviate more than 10 percent in weight either way compared to the orginal Shermans . How far can Dorchester Technology close the gap between a 32 or 33 tone tank versus a 56 to 60 ton homogeniuos steel Tank ?What would the effect be on WWII if production rates could be magicaly hand waived to allow for identicle production capabilties of the Dorchester Sherman ?




posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 03:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by louisb
By act of R.O.B.(Randome Omnipotent Being) Shermans are armored with Dorchester . The catch is Shermans cannot deviate more than 10 percent in weight either way compared to the orginal Shermans . How far can Dorchester Technology close the gap between a 32 or 33 tone tank versus a 56 to 60 ton homogeniuos steel Tank ?What would the effect be on WWII if production rates could be magicaly hand waived to allow for identicle production capabilties of the Dorchester Sherman ?


If we knew that we would be in possession of classified information



posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Popeye

Originally posted by louisb
By act of R.O.B.(Randome Omnipotent Being) Shermans are armored with Dorchester . The catch is Shermans cannot deviate more than 10 percent in weight either way compared to the orginal Shermans . How far can Dorchester Technology close the gap between a 32 or 33 tone tank versus a 56 to 60 ton homogeniuos steel Tank ?What would the effect be on WWII if production rates could be magicaly hand waived to allow for identicle production capabilties of the Dorchester Sherman ?


If we knew that we would be in possession of classified information
we can guess we can speculate



posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 02:17 PM
link   
Without knowing the exact specs of Dorchester armour... The (vanilla) Shermans would still lose and lose and lose in a direct Tiger/Königstiger confrontation (BTW, the correct translation of Königstiger is Bengal Tiger...).

If we assume that nothing changes with the armour distribution and even with 10% weight increase, the Shermans would still be


  1. Outranged and outgunned
  2. ...by vastly superior german 88mm KwKs
  3. ...AND the revolutionary gunner sights of the Tigers
  4. ...without own means to scratch the paint off the enemy
  5. ...and still suffer from its technical flaws
  6. ...plus the on average inferior crew training and experience


The Sherman was a medium tank (or light by german standards) mainly protected against the 37mm of the mass produced german light tanks, and just slapping on some new armour doesnt change that. Also, "Dorchester" is not some kind of "Super-armour", it is still subject to physical limitations common with all kinds of armour. Also there is no comprehensive evidence about the quality of either the earlier Chobham-type or Dorchester, mainly because both are still classified.

One shouldnt forget that the main reason why people regard Dorchester as superior to anything is because the rumor mill (and the Brits
) says so.


[edit on 4/8/2006 by Lonestar24]



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 02:23 AM
link   
Dorchester Armour is a development of the world famous Chobham Armour and was discovered by accident.

It is made in exactly the same way, by sandwhiching layers of alluminium, steel, plastic, clay, and the secret added ingredient, then rolling them to the required thickness.

I think...........................that's what my mate tells me..................... but if anybody knows better......



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 05:10 AM
link   
Dear Lonestar.

Der König = the King...........

Link



Fritz, I think you will find that one of the issues with Dorchester and or Chobham is that it is not rolled but in square boxlike sections hence the shape of the turrets of tanks using it.

The proof of the pudding is in all those threads where M1A1 or M1A2 proponents tell us how difficult these tanks were to destroy once a mobility kill had been inflicted. Dorchester equiped ChallyII in op Telic also sustained 17 RPG hits without destroying the thing. Tracks gone sight glasses gone etc.

The penetrators of the German 88mm AP round were also not of the modern type or effectiveness. Sloping the Sherman armour (a la T34 etc). would have made them more resistant never mind addition of modern armour So the story would not have been that one sided as suggested.

The point that needs to be made is about the Sherman Gun not it's armour. Pitiful weapon except for selected tanks in UK use. (Firefly)

Have a good one

mod edit:

Please use this in the post creation window in future to cut down the length of your link, as long url's can alter the width of the page.
Or alternatively you can use: [url=www.urlhere.com]link name here[/url]
A good walkthrough to explain in more detail is ATTN :Image Size Guidelines

[edit on 25-8-2006 by UK Wizard]



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 05:20 AM
link   
Here is a extract from wikipedia about the sherman firefly


They were among the few Allied tanks capable of taking on the German Panzer V (Panther) and Panzer VI (Tiger) tanks. Though no more well-armoured than most M4 versions, the 17 pounder anti tank gun offered far better performance than the standard 75 mm gun which had been chosen for the infantry support role. Even using the regular APC round it could penetrate the front armour of a Tiger I at over 1,000 meters; with the more advanced rounds that became common towards the end of war, the APCBC and then the APDS it could penetrate at over 2,000 meters.


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 05:41 AM
link   
Thanks China white,

I didn't post a link as I doubted anyone would argue with such "old news"..

Thanks again ..



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 01:22 PM
link   
Deharg, 'fraid not old boy.

My friends in the KRH tell me a differant story and, having played on Chally 2, I can state that 'Dorchester' is not fixed in slabs or blocks. There is however, the facility to bolt on side armour plates on the skirts to protect the roadwheels and tracks, but the armour is most definately molded which means it has to be rolled.

As to your assertion that a Chally 2 suffered 17 RPG strikes - you are correct. It was my mates' oppo's tank (HQ Sqn). All optics were shot out by RPG and HMG gunfire, the tank was struck by 2 ATGW missiles (probably a Milan type/Spigot) and at least 1 mortar round.

All this happened after driver was 'blinded' as he was reversing the tank from the ambush site, when either an RPG or ATGW struck the rear of the tank, destroying the driver's rear optics. This resulted in the driver reversing into a deep ditch from which, they could not extract themselves.

Apparently, the enemy then closed and destroyed all the remaining optics and severley damaged the commander's cupola, wrecking the .50 in the process, all with RPGs.

The loader/radio op was injured [broken wrist] when the 2nd ATGW struck the vehicle, but it failled to penetrate.

It was also a KRH Chally 1 that suffered 49 missile, RPG and tank gun strikes in GF1, the damage I have described in an earlier thread.

You may also like to know, that 'A' Sqn - KRH also holds the record for the longest kill in a tank versus tank battle, at 2 1/2 miles, with a HEAT [warshot] round.



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Deharg
Dear Lonestar.

Der König = the King...........

Link


Dear Deharg...

Yes, König = King, but the Königstiger is the "Bengal Tiger", or "Royal Bengal Tiger".




I wanted to point out that the common literal translation is wrong, because "King Tiger" would be translated back to German as "the tiger king" or "the king [with the name of] Tiger"; whereas the "Königstiger" is the common trivial name for the Bengal Tiger species, and is not a direct reference to it being the "king of tigers". Not that it matters much in such a discussion, but its simply wrong to call the tank "King Tiger"... one should use Koenigstiger instead.

And this concludes today´s German language lesson


[edit on 26/8/2006 by Lonestar24]



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 05:28 AM
link   
Dear Fritz

Thanks so much for that, I wasn't sure who had posted that info before! I am glad it was you. I suppose I amongst many others would be fascinated to discover how to role the composite armour. Thanks for that info too.

I was aware of the HEAT hit in GWI. I read somewhere, don't remember where that 1 prototype Chally II was there for GWI as well. Is there any truth in it ??

Lonestar 24. I have asked several of my German colleagues if they use the Königstiger name for anything hoping they would say "yes it's the trivial name for the Bengal Tiger". Instead they just laughed at me and couldn't contain themselves for at least five minutes.

What they told me will make all the german native speakers on here laugh.Just to lighten the subject.

They said we use that phrase for "Ich gehe fur kleine Königstiger". Which translated literally (your point I believe) means little i.e. not much. The "Umgangssprache" (colloquial) use means to go for a pee.

There thats "my" language lesson (Deutsche Unterricht) for today. I hope I left you smiling. Thanks for the correction I didn't know that.
That is why I like this forum......



posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by louisb
By act of R.O.B.(Randome Omnipotent Being) Shermans are armored with Dorchester . The catch is Shermans cannot deviate more than 10 percent in weight either way compared to the orginal Shermans . How far can Dorchester Technology close the gap between a 32 or 33 tone tank versus a 56 to 60 ton homogeniuos steel Tank ?What would the effect be on WWII if production rates could be magicaly hand waived to allow for identicle production capabilties of the Dorchester Sherman ?



To be honest, I think more would depend on the engagement conditions than anything.

I'm reminded of another 'it cannot be' historical analysis of the Battle Of Ypres. In which a fair bunch of 'rugged British gentlemen' (and one fair maid in battledress) tried to run a thousand feet or so kitted out with all the gear the original WWI sorry lot went over the top with. Everyone died because they were doing little more than a walking pace.

Keep the kit and run as you may and about half died. Kick the everything but the ammo, water and a trenching tool I think it was and RUN LIKE YOU WERE BEING CHASED and almost 80% lived. Of course this was only against one machine gun (using MILES type gear) rather than a sited crossfire pair but the analogy probably holds, especially for late 1944 onwards in that:

1. If you are going up a single road in Belgium, you will probably die badly for as long as it takes to call up boots, RT or Air and force the threat to displace or die.

2. If you are able to get outside a given firelane and maneuver the tank in numbers relevant to your total production, another 100-200yds of protected distance may save quite a few more vehicles than the statistical value of the armor would suggest, just on the requirement of the German to across slew wider arcs against a moving target even as he takes more hits from vulnerable quartering angles.

3. If you are slogging your way through bocage or urban fighting, you may well be better off (for weight and ease of installation) giving the tankers some reactive tiles and either a remote weapons station for the turret guns or an armored cupola of some sort to keep the pesky LAW/ATG from doing the same as 2, using closein ambush tactics and vertical fires to defeat all possibility of uparmoring.

CONCLUSION:
Every German General who fought on the Eastern Front where air superiority was not such a big deal but artillery (en masse) was at least as bad, maintains that even the Panther was not worth the weight in steel for the trucks as well as the tubes that it cost in a properly layered AT gun defense. They could stop anything the Russians sent at them, IF they had the guns and the well shouldered frontages to do so.

Tigers were not even a consideration due to their unreliability and lack of logistical sense.

And of course we all know the stories of Hitler Jugend firing off a Panzerfaust or Ofenrohr at the lead tank and then 'throwing up their hands'.

Given the engagement distances in the West were so much shorter, the cabrank air and networked artillery so much superior in terms of day to day availability and the German logistical situation so much poorer from mid 1944 onwards, it seems to me that the question should in fact be what the effects of the heavy weight armor would be against these lighter weapons (and in what frontal/side arc distribution). Particularly since LAW have since proven quite effective at disrupting infantry operations in builtup areas especially and the USAr more often used tanks as an obstacle reduction mechanism in support of boots in these areas than it did heavy base of fire infantry options (which the Germans also excelled at as ambush weapons).

The Sherman is a pretty decent infantry support tank. It also does well in the reconnaissance/breakout mission if you can keep it gassed. It has good traverse and a high gun with good ammunition selection and total onboard counts as well as the speed and maintainability to work in all operating conditions.

It is NOT what we would call an MBT, IMO.

Use it as it should be while exploiting the potential to have constant rotations of at least 4 fighters over every combat team instead of sending them off 'once a day' to Berlin; and you can avoid most of the problems inherent to the Axis vs. Allied armor and gun controversy.


KPl.



posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 06:35 PM
link   
On the other hand, an M1A1 Abrams that had been disabled during a firefight was permanently taken out of action by a round from a sister tank.

It went through the Chobham armor on BOTH sides of the tank and kept on going.

If they can armor a Humvee to withstand RPG hits, I certainly hope our tanks can shrug off 50 hits without penetration of the interior.



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by fritz

You may also like to know, that 'A' Sqn - KRH also holds the record for the longest kill in a tank versus tank battle, at 2 1/2 miles, with a HEAT [warshot] round.


Well enagagement wouldn't be describing the encounter correctly. The opposing tank was an abandoned T-55, hardly a difficult target. Against a more modern tank the Sabot round wouldn't have penetrated the frontal armour.



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Retseh
On the other hand, an M1A1 Abrams that had been disabled during a firefight was permanently taken out of action by a round from a sister tank.

It went through the Chobham armor on BOTH sides of the tank and kept on going.


Erm no it didn't, it wasn't a through and through at all, where did you here this. In fact it took 2 Sabot rounds and 2 Maverick missiles to destroy it.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 02:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
Erm no it didn't, it wasn't a through and through at all, where did you here (sic)this. In fact it took 2 Sabot rounds and 2 Maverick missiles to destroy it.


I believe it was in another ATS thread a while back, I don't have a link.

The tank was photographed near a bridge and was taken from an angle which clearly showed the entry and exit holes caused by the Sabot, the caption read that the tank had been disabled and a decision was taken to destroy it rather than attempt a recovery.

I believe the tank you are referring to is the one in this photo, the sabot hole is clearly visible:

news.webshots.com...



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 05:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Retseh
The tank was photographed near a bridge and was taken from an angle which clearly showed the entry and exit holes caused by the Sabot, the caption read that the tank had been disabled and a decision was taken to destroy it rather than attempt a recovery.

I believe the tank you are referring to is the one in this photo, the sabot hole is clearly visible:


It wouldn't be possible for a sabot, especially a US DU round to hvae a through and through. Simply because on entering the turrent, teh sabot would break up and burn. The DU Sabot rounds didn't even g straight through the turrets of old T-55's during the first gulf war.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 06:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1

It wouldn't be possible for a sabot, especially a US DU round to hvae a through and through. Simply because on entering the turrent, teh sabot would break up and burn. The DU Sabot rounds didn't even g straight through the turrets of old T-55's during the first gulf war.


Exactly. I think they call it "spalling", when the DU round penetrates it vaporises, burning the inside of the enemy tank. Rather nasty way to go, if you ask me....



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
It wouldn't be possible for a sabot, especially a US DU round to hvae a through and through. Simply because on entering the turrent, teh sabot would break up and burn. The DU Sabot rounds didn't even g straight through the turrets of old T-55's during the first gulf war.


Then how do you explain these sabot exit hole photos.

www.uwgb.edu...

and another.......

members.tripod.com...

[edit on 4-9-2006 by Retseh]



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 02:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Retseh

Then how do you explain these sabot exit hole photos.


Yeah, how do you explain it rouge1?

There was an article circulating around the internet about a M829A1 going through two T-72 tanks



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join