What is the ugliest WWII tank
Moderator: MOD_SPWaW
RE: What is the ugliest WWII tank
What? Did they need to remove the turret to get in?
Don't be shocked, I AM funny.
- FlashfyreSP
- Posts: 1192
- Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2002 9:39 am
- Location: Combat Information Center
- Contact:
RE: What is the ugliest WWII tank
ORIGINAL: Puukkoo
What? Did they need to remove the turret to get in?
Nahh...it's the convertible model! [:D]
RE: What is the ugliest WWII tank
This not WWII tank but funny anyway
[:'(]
[:'(]
"Best soldier in war is one who has accepted that he has already died. Time,place or way is unrelevant"
RE: What is the ugliest WWII tank
ORIGINAL: FlashfyreSP
Nahh...it's the convertible model! [:D]
Oh cool, drive with turret or without turret.
That Taliban assault car has alone been more effective than many tanks, or even armies.
Don't be shocked, I AM funny.
RE: What is the ugliest WWII tank
I know it isnt a tank nor is it ugly. I would just hate to meet this in a dark ally on the way home from a heavy nite of binge drinking.[:'(]
German light recon SdKfz 222 with 20mm gun.
German light recon SdKfz 222 with 20mm gun.
- Attachments
-
- recon.jpg (19.75 KiB) Viewed 106 times
Stress is the confusion created when ones own mind over rides the bodies desire to choke the living shit out of some asshole who really deserves it!
RE: What is the ugliest WWII tank
delete it...
RE: What is the ugliest WWII tank
Matilda I..
Like Dirty Harry might have said "Bare tracks with no skirts just ain't makin' it!"[:D]
Like Dirty Harry might have said "Bare tracks with no skirts just ain't makin' it!"[:D]
RE: What is the ugliest WWII tank
ORIGINAL: m10bob
Matilda I..
<---- Okay, but leave her younger cousin alone, I think she's fine looking. [;)]
Reduce SP:WaW slaughter, "Low Carnage":
Settings: 80Spot,80Hit,100R/R,XXXTQ,110TkT,150InfT,180AvSoft,130AvArm,150SOFire / Command & Ctrl ON / AutoRally OFF
Enhanced http://enhanced.freeforums.org
Depot https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/spwawdepot/
Settings: 80Spot,80Hit,100R/R,XXXTQ,110TkT,150InfT,180AvSoft,130AvArm,150SOFire / Command & Ctrl ON / AutoRally OFF
Enhanced http://enhanced.freeforums.org
Depot https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/spwawdepot/
- Korpraali V
- Posts: 659
- Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2005 6:52 am
- Location: Finland
RE: What is the ugliest WWII tank
ORIGINAL: JEB Davis
ORIGINAL: m10bob
Matilda I..
<---- Okay, but leave her younger cousin alone, I think she's fine looking. [;)]
"If you hurt my girl's feelings, I will beat you..." [;)][:D][:D]
RE: What is the ugliest WWII tank
ORIGINAL: JEB Davis
ORIGINAL: m10bob
Matilda I..
<---- Okay, but leave her younger cousin alone, I think she's fine looking. [;)]
Matilda II, however, is a georgeous beast![:D]
RE: What is the ugliest WWII tank
ORIGINAL: m10bob
Matilda II, however, is a georgeous beast![:D]
Now that's what the crew and I like to hear! We love our old girl [:)]
Reduce SP:WaW slaughter, "Low Carnage":
Settings: 80Spot,80Hit,100R/R,XXXTQ,110TkT,150InfT,180AvSoft,130AvArm,150SOFire / Command & Ctrl ON / AutoRally OFF
Enhanced http://enhanced.freeforums.org
Depot https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/spwawdepot/
Settings: 80Spot,80Hit,100R/R,XXXTQ,110TkT,150InfT,180AvSoft,130AvArm,150SOFire / Command & Ctrl ON / AutoRally OFF
Enhanced http://enhanced.freeforums.org
Depot https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/spwawdepot/
RE: What is the ugliest WWII tank
ORIGINAL: JEB Davis
ORIGINAL: m10bob
Matilda II, however, is a georgeous beast![:D]
Now that's what the crew and I like to hear! We love our old girl [:)]
So indeed does the POL guy.....[:)]
RE: What is the ugliest WWII tank
ORIGINAL: m10bob
So indeed does the POL guy.....[:)]
You got me on that one...
Acronym - - - Definition
POL - - - Petroleum, Oil, & Lubricants
POL - - - Counter Pollution (on overtime forms)
POL - - - Packet Over Lightwaves
POL - - - Paints, Oils, and Lubricants
POL - - - Pakistan Oilfield Ltd
POL - - - Pakistan Online
POL - - - Paulo Online
POL - - - Physicians' Online Network
POL - - - Planet Online (Laos)
POL - - - Playonline (Square-Enix gaming server)
POL - - - Point on Line (surveying)
POL - - - Point-Of-Load (DC/DC converter)
POL - - - Pokémon Online
POL - - - Poland
POL - - - Polarization
POL - - - Policy
POL - - - Polish (language)
POL - - - Polymerase
POL - - - Port of Loading
POL - - - Position Organization Listing
POL - - - Presentation of Learning
POL - - - Price Online
POL - - - Problem-Oriented Language
POL - - - Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory
POL - - - Provisioning Object Library (Cisco)
POL - - - Psicologia Online
POL - - - Puke Out Loud
POL - - - Put on Left (propane valve)
Which one (if any) ? - - - Will I say "duh" when you tell me ?
Reduce SP:WaW slaughter, "Low Carnage":
Settings: 80Spot,80Hit,100R/R,XXXTQ,110TkT,150InfT,180AvSoft,130AvArm,150SOFire / Command & Ctrl ON / AutoRally OFF
Enhanced http://enhanced.freeforums.org
Depot https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/spwawdepot/
Settings: 80Spot,80Hit,100R/R,XXXTQ,110TkT,150InfT,180AvSoft,130AvArm,150SOFire / Command & Ctrl ON / AutoRally OFF
Enhanced http://enhanced.freeforums.org
Depot https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/spwawdepot/
RE: What is the ugliest WWII tank
[X(]The French Char B1 Heavy Tank was not very good to look at either. A second tank, which was built in the 30s and used at the start of the war was the Japanese Type 89B Medium Tank. This was really ugly!
Semper Fi
Randy
The United States Marines: America's 911 Force-The Tip of the Spear
Randy
The United States Marines: America's 911 Force-The Tip of the Spear
-
- Posts: 532
- Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2001 8:00 am
RE: What is the ugliest WWII tank
well, ugly looking.. for whom ?
for the enemy a t34 look ugly (cause it is coming near) and for the own soldiers even a sherman can look beautiful (cause it give the support your soliders needed urgently...
so, everything depends...
the KVII was ugly but also deadly.. 155mm gun with 160mm Armor around. Only the weak engine (for the weigth) and so little ammo made it bad. But it was a deadly opponent of MarkII and MarkIIIs...
for the enemy a t34 look ugly (cause it is coming near) and for the own soldiers even a sherman can look beautiful (cause it give the support your soliders needed urgently...
so, everything depends...
the KVII was ugly but also deadly.. 155mm gun with 160mm Armor around. Only the weak engine (for the weigth) and so little ammo made it bad. But it was a deadly opponent of MarkII and MarkIIIs...
Don't tickle yourself with some moralist crap thinking we have some sort of obligation to help these people. We're there for our self-interest, and anything we do to be 'nice' should be considered a courtesy dweebespit
RE: What is the ugliest WWII tank
The KV II was not intended for tank vs tank fight. Therefore, it had a HE gun which was not capable to fire AP rounds. Nevertheless, the detonation of such a round was still enough to knock out any German tank...if it exploded near enough. However, the limited ammo and the time needed to reload the gun made it not really a capable tank to figt enemy tanks.
Therefore, I think the influence of a KV II on the tank battlefield is much overrated....the KV I was in my opinion much more dangerous
Therefore, I think the influence of a KV II on the tank battlefield is much overrated....the KV I was in my opinion much more dangerous
"No other troops in the world but German paratroops could have stood up to such an ordeal and then gone on fighting with such ferocity" — Field Marshal Alexander.
- Dragoon 45
- Posts: 434
- Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 2:57 am
RE: What is the ugliest WWII tank
According to the sources I have on the KV-2, it could only fire its main gun in a forward 20 degree arc if it was not setting on level ground. Setting sideways on any kind of slope limited its ability to fire. Although from the picture it appears quite tall, it was only a foot taller than the Grant. I don't believe the problem was overturning when firing on a slope, I believe the problem was servicing the gun on anything but level ground proved almost impossible in the turret. Again from my sources it appears the earliest version was armed with a 122mm howitzer and the later versions were armed with a 152mm howitzer. There was also a KV-2B version which was almost a foot taller than the original KV-2. I should also mention that the German Tigers, both versions were over 10 feet tall. The Jumbo Sherman was over 11 foot tall also.
Another design that appeared to be quite top-heavy but really wasn't was the British Challenger; Cromwell chassis with a different turret designed to take the 17lbr gun. It had a tall narrow turret comparable to the KV-2.
My nomination for ugliest tank or WW II would be either the T-28 or T-35.
Another design that appeared to be quite top-heavy but really wasn't was the British Challenger; Cromwell chassis with a different turret designed to take the 17lbr gun. It had a tall narrow turret comparable to the KV-2.
My nomination for ugliest tank or WW II would be either the T-28 or T-35.
ORIGINAL: Zardoz
The KV II was not intended for tank vs tank fight. Therefore, it had a HE gun which was not capable to fire AP rounds. Nevertheless, the detonation of such a round was still enough to knock out any German tank...if it exploded near enough. However, the limited ammo and the time needed to reload the gun made it not really a capable tank to figt enemy tanks.
Therefore, I think the influence of a KV II on the tank battlefield is much overrated....the KV I was in my opinion much more dangerous
Artillery always has the Right of Way
- FlashfyreSP
- Posts: 1192
- Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2002 9:39 am
- Location: Combat Information Center
- Contact:
RE: What is the ugliest WWII tank
The problem with the KV-2 and level ground was that its turret ring was crudely constructed, resulting in it binding if the tank was not on relatively flat ground. The turret was too heavy (12 tons) for the bearing race used.
According to "Russian Tanks of World War II", Tim Bean and Will Fowler, the tank had a sillhouette of 4.9 meters (16 ft), compared to the KV-1 height of 3.1 meters (10 ft).
No reference is made to the KV-2 being fitted with a 122mm gun; The three projects begun for the vehicle were as follows: OKMO Team's T-100 hull mounting a B-13 130mm naval gun (designated T-100U), the Kotin team's attempt at mounting both a BR-2 152mm and a B-4 203mm gun on a lengthened KV-1 chassis, and an expedient model mounting a regular 152mm howitzer and 2 machineguns on an unmodified KV-1 chassis. The later version, which took two weeks to construct, was approved for tests in Feb 1940, and two prototypes were sent to the Karelian Isthmus for field testing.
Two models were produced, the KV-2M40 and the KV-2M41. The KV-2M40 was also known as the KV-II, the KV-IIB, and te KV-2B. The M41 model had a slightly different turret and engine.
Although from the picture it appears quite tall, it was only a foot taller than the Grant.
According to "Russian Tanks of World War II", Tim Bean and Will Fowler, the tank had a sillhouette of 4.9 meters (16 ft), compared to the KV-1 height of 3.1 meters (10 ft).
No reference is made to the KV-2 being fitted with a 122mm gun; The three projects begun for the vehicle were as follows: OKMO Team's T-100 hull mounting a B-13 130mm naval gun (designated T-100U), the Kotin team's attempt at mounting both a BR-2 152mm and a B-4 203mm gun on a lengthened KV-1 chassis, and an expedient model mounting a regular 152mm howitzer and 2 machineguns on an unmodified KV-1 chassis. The later version, which took two weeks to construct, was approved for tests in Feb 1940, and two prototypes were sent to the Karelian Isthmus for field testing.
Two models were produced, the KV-2M40 and the KV-2M41. The KV-2M40 was also known as the KV-II, the KV-IIB, and te KV-2B. The M41 model had a slightly different turret and engine.
- Dragoon 45
- Posts: 434
- Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 2:57 am
RE: What is the ugliest WWII tank
"Tanks of the World, 1915-1945" by Chamberlain and Ellis list the following heights: KV-2 is 12 feet, and KV-2B is 13.7 feet tall. The M-3 Medium Tank depending on version and source was between 10 ft 3in and 11 ft 1 in tall. Also in the narrative of the KV-2, they state "early models had a 122mm howitzer but most had a 152mm howtizer". What we have are two different sources that contradict themselves. I have the Bean and Fowler book and have read it through a number of times. It contradicts a number of other sources in other areas and I am not sure which is correct. This brings up one of the major problems in researching military equipment, without the actual source technical manuals, how do you tell which source is correct. And looking at pictures and basing a comment on them can sometimes be very deceiving.
The idea that the turret race would not support the turret effectively sounds the most likely as to why it was limited to firing on certain bearings. Also the structure strength of the hull sides could be a problem also; if they were weak and couldn't stand up to the recoil force of the howtizer this would allow the turret race to become warped interfering with the traverse.
The JS-4 precursor of the T-10 was known to break apart at the center of the hull. Hull sides were not strong enough to withstand lateral forces over rough terrain and also this tank had problems with the hull front coming apart when hit on the bow. The welds holding the two armor plates that formed the bow were not strong enough to take the impact of a large caliber round. These were staples of NATO briefings on Soviet armor, i.e. BMP-1's fuel tank was also the rear troop door, T-62 autoloader was prone to loading the gunner's arm into the breach of the main gun, T-55's auto-ejector was not lined up with the opening in the back of the turret which cause the spent casing to bounce around inside the hull and sometimes breaking arms or legs of the crewmen, etc.
The idea that the turret race would not support the turret effectively sounds the most likely as to why it was limited to firing on certain bearings. Also the structure strength of the hull sides could be a problem also; if they were weak and couldn't stand up to the recoil force of the howtizer this would allow the turret race to become warped interfering with the traverse.
The JS-4 precursor of the T-10 was known to break apart at the center of the hull. Hull sides were not strong enough to withstand lateral forces over rough terrain and also this tank had problems with the hull front coming apart when hit on the bow. The welds holding the two armor plates that formed the bow were not strong enough to take the impact of a large caliber round. These were staples of NATO briefings on Soviet armor, i.e. BMP-1's fuel tank was also the rear troop door, T-62 autoloader was prone to loading the gunner's arm into the breach of the main gun, T-55's auto-ejector was not lined up with the opening in the back of the turret which cause the spent casing to bounce around inside the hull and sometimes breaking arms or legs of the crewmen, etc.
ORIGINAL: FlashfyreSP
The problem with the KV-2 and level ground was that its turret ring was crudely constructed, resulting in it binding if the tank was not on relatively flat ground. The turret was too heavy (12 tons) for the bearing race used.
Although from the picture it appears quite tall, it was only a foot taller than the Grant.
According to "Russian Tanks of World War II", Tim Bean and Will Fowler, the tank had a sillhouette of 4.9 meters (16 ft), compared to the KV-1 height of 3.1 meters (10 ft).
No reference is made to the KV-2 being fitted with a 122mm gun; The three projects begun for the vehicle were as follows: OKMO Team's T-100 hull mounting a B-13 130mm naval gun (designated T-100U), the Kotin team's attempt at mounting both a BR-2 152mm and a B-4 203mm gun on a lengthened KV-1 chassis, and an expedient model mounting a regular 152mm howitzer and 2 machineguns on an unmodified KV-1 chassis. The later version, which took two weeks to construct, was approved for tests in Feb 1940, and two prototypes were sent to the Karelian Isthmus for field testing.
Two models were produced, the KV-2M40 and the KV-2M41. The KV-2M40 was also known as the KV-II, the KV-IIB, and te KV-2B. The M41 model had a slightly different turret and engine.
Artillery always has the Right of Way