Zatvarač 15cm K18

Zatvarač 15cm K18



We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Zatvarač 15cm K18

Ovdje vidimo sklop zatvarača na Kannonu 18 od 15 cm, koji je koristio ručno upravljano vodoravno klizno zatvaranje. Vidljiv je i lijevi ekvilibrator, kao i složeni mehanizmi koji se koriste za upravljanje pištoljem.

Njemačko teško artiljerijsko oruđe 1933-1945, Alexander Lüdeke .Uprkos tome što naslov zapravo pokriva laku, srednju i tešku artiljeriju, kao i minobacače i protuoklopne topove (isključuje željezničke topove, oklopne i raketne bacače). Svaki dobija koristan zapis, podržan statistikom i najmanje jednom fotografijom. Obuhvata oružje njemačke proizvodnje i mnoge vrste koje je Wehrmacht zarobio i koristio. [pročitajte cijelu recenziju]


Divizije vojske Sjedinjenih Država

Ova lista Divizije vojske Sjedinjenih Država podijeljen je u tri doba: 1911–1917, 1917–1941 i 1941 - danas. Ove ere predstavljaju glavne evolucije u strukturi vojske (u to vrijeme došlo je do nekoliko manjih promjena). U eri 1911–1917 navedene su divizije podignute tokom prvih pokušaja vojske da modernizuje diviziju, prije odobrenja stalnih divizija, a u eri 1917–1941 navedene su prve stalne divizije, prije dolaska specijalizovanih (oklopne, vazdušno -desantne itd.). ) podjele. U razdoblju od 1941. do danas navedene su sve divizije koje su od tada organizirane, podignute ili ovlaštene.

Što je više moguće, podjele su navedene samo u doba u kojem su nastale. Neke divizije, poput 1. konjičke divizije, navedene su u više doba, jer su se njihove organizacije drastično mijenjale iz jedne u drugu eru. Mnoge se podjele preklapaju s godinama navedenim u kategorijama epohe, uglavnom zbog sporog vremena u kojem su deaktivirane, deaktivirane ili na drugi način raspuštene.

Nekoliko je divizija postojalo pod više oznaka, poput 10. brdske divizije (10. laka divizija (alpska), 10. pješadijska divizija). Osim toga, nekoliko odjeljenja s istim brojčanim oznakama bile su potpuno zasebne i nepovezane odjele (postojale su dvije, na primjer, dvije pete divizije).


SIG 33 auf Geschutzwagen

SIG 33 auf Geschutzwagen postao je nekoliko borbenih tenkovskih pokretnih haubičkih platformi za njemačku vojsku u Drugom svjetskom ratu. Ova zbirka sredstava samohodne artiljerije (SPA) razvila se zajedno s dostupnošću različitih tenkovskih šasija koje su se koristile tokom sukoba. U svojoj srži, vozila su imala pješadijsku haubicu SIG 33 kalibra 150 mm (15 cm) i korištena su u ulozi potpore vatre s daljine. Linija je započela sa šasijom Panzer I Light Tank -a, a evoluirala je sa Panzer II Light Tank -om i, na kraju, Panzer III Medium Tank. Druga konverzija uključivala je češku seriju Panzer 38 (t).

Originalni teški pješadijski topovi kalibra 15 cm SIG 33 bili su kratke cijevi, vučena artiljerijska oruđa koja su koristila dvokolesna kola koja su uključivala mali štit oružja, hidropneumatski mehanizam trzanja i vodoravni klizni blok zatvarača. Oružje je ušlo u upotrebu 1927. godine i bilo je u igri s njemačkim snagama do kraja rata 1945. Proizvodnja oružja odvijala se kroz poznatu tvrtku Rheinmetall, prvenstveno s dodatnom proizvodnjom koja se susrela i pod drugim markama - ukupna proizvodnja postala je oko 4.600 oružje do kraja rata.

Ranoratne akcije njemačke vojske pokazale su potrebu za brzinom zbog evolucije mehaniziranog ratovanja - vučeni artiljerijski sustavi jednostavno nisu išli u korak s mobilnim oklopnim korpusima koji su ograničavali taktiku vatrene podrške tijekom datog napada. Time je fokus stavljen na to da haubice budu mobilnije i donesena je odluka da se oprema topova upari s postojećim, odlazećim šasijama Panzera I Ausf. B Linija lakih tenkova. Proces pretvorbe doveo je do 15 cm sIG33 (sf) auf Panzerkampfwagen I Ausf B koji je također postao poznat pod imenom Sturmpanzer I.

Krajnji rezultat bio je upravo to, trup i šasija Panzera I (zajedno s pokretnim mehanizmom) i pištolj serije SIG 33 (zajedno s kolicima na kotačima) postavljeni iznad vozila - prema tome uklonjena je kupola originalnog tenka. Ovome je dodana borbena kabina s otvorenim vrhom, koja se u osnovi sastojala od prednjih i bočnih zidova. Nagib je pronađen samo uz prednju ploču radi osnovne balističke zaštite. Ukupna težina novog vozila bila je 9,4 tone (kratka), a dimenzije su uključivale dužinu od 2,7 metara, širinu od 2 metra i visinu od 2,8 metara. Zaštita oklopa dosegla je 13 mm duž najkritičnijih obloga, a snaga je bila osigurana kroz 6-cilindrični motor vodenog hlađenja Maybach NL38TR sa 100 konjskih snaga. Motor je bio spojen na sistem prijenosa koji daje pet brzina naprijed i jednu natrag. Operativni domet bio je ispod 90 milja sa cestovnom brzinom do 25 milja na sat. Posada je brojala četiri i uključivala je vozača, komandira i dva utovarivača.

Proizvodnja Ausfa. Model B imao je samo 38 jedinica pod Alkett GmbH -om, a primjeri su bili dostupni već 1940. Nakon djelovanja, pokazala su se ograničenja koja su pokazala da je vozilo imalo visoko težište, čineći ga neugodnim i glomaznim prizorom na bojnom polju. Nedostatak oklopa lako je izložio posadu svim vrstama opasnosti na bojnom polju, kao i lošem vremenu. Ugrađeni skladišni prostor je takođe bio na ceni sa samo tri spremna projektila kalibra 150 mm. Ova posljednja kvaliteta zahtijevala je prateću poluguru SdKfz 10 da služi kao nosač municije i da prevozi tri od četiri posade u bitku.

Sve u svemu, vozilo je imalo prekomjernu težinu u kojoj su i okvir i rad motora bili napregnuti do krajnjih granica što je dovelo do čestih mehaničkih kvarova. Međutim, topovi kalibra 150 mm sIG33 bili su smrtonosni kao i uvijek, sposobni su indirektnom vatrom nanijeti snažan udarac u područja mekih meta. Domet oružja je dostigao 3,5 milje i mogla se postići brzina paljbe od četiri metka u minuti. Nosači oružja vidjeli su borbenu službu tokom belgijske kampanje, a zatim u bitci za Francusku (maj-jun 1940). Zatim su slijedili služenje u invaziji na Balkan/Grčku (april 1941.) i napadu na jug Rusije (jun-novembar 1942.). Do sredine 1943. godine, vozila su imala malu vrijednost na bojnom polju i bila su zauvijek odrečena ili su izgubljena općim iscrpljivanjem u ratu.

Uprkos ograničenjima rane marke, vlasti su smatrale da je dizajn nosača topa sIG 33 manje-više uspješan kao brzo proizvedena i efikasna mobilna platforma za podršku. 15 cm sIG 33 auf Geschutzenwagen II Ausf C (SdKfz 121) (Sturmpanzer "Bison II"), nakon čega je uslijedilo spajanje komponente haubice sa šasijom lakih tenkova Panzer II, a ovo vozilo se prvi put pojavilo 1942. Neke su promjene uvedene kako bi se riješili nedostaci. originalnog dizajna, kao što je niže težište - linija krova sada je jednaka onoj originalnog tenka Panzer II. 15 cm sIG 33 FGST Ausf. PzKpfW II (sf) "Verlanget" pojavio se 1943. godine i imao je produženi i prošireni trup radi boljeg pomaka težine. Snaga do oznaka zasnovanih na Panzeru II bila je preko 8-cilindričnog motora sa tekućim hlađenjem Bussing Typ GS snage 155 konjskih snaga.

Najperspektivniji oblik vozila Geschutzwagen sa oružjem SIG33 bio je model zasnovan na Panzeru III-15 cm sIG 33 Ausf PzKpfW III. Vozilo se razmatralo već 1941. godine, i iako se šasija srednjih tenkova pokazala više od održivog nosača topa, daljnji rad na liniji na kraju je izgubio paru u tome što je proizvedeno samo dvanaest primjeraka, koji su bili u službi uz Istočni front.

Najuspješnije od konverzijskih vozila sIG 33 bilo je ono zasnovano na češkom PzKpfW 38 (t), dizajn koji su preuzeli Nijemci osvajači. Novoostvareni model iz 1942. godine postao je 15 cm sIG 33 (sf) Ausf. PzKpfW 38 (t) SdKfz 138 "Bison" i SdKfz 138/I "Rešetka" bili su njegov savršeni oblik 1943. Sistemi na bazi PzKpfW 38 (t) postali su standardizirani ratni nosači oružja SIG 33 koji su se koristili u najvećem broju .


15 cm K39

Post by Sturm78 & raquo 10 nov 2008, 15:03

Može li netko potvrditi je li ovaj pištolj njemački pištolj K39 promjera 15 cm?
Znam vrlo malo ratnih slika ovog oružja.

Re: 15 cm K39

Post by jopaerya & raquo 10 nov 2008, 16:34

Kombinacija, podijeljeni repovi, kotači i dužina cijevi, rekao bih
da, ali nisam 100% siguran jer "kamuflaža" blokira veliki dio pištolja.
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. . to =+Kanone

Re: 15 cm K39

Post by 20P7 & raquo 10 studeni 2008, 18:13

možda pomaže slika 15 cm K 39 koju sam jednom napravio u Idar Oberstein -u:

Re: 15 cm K39

Post by Sturm78 & raquo 06. februar 2009., 12:22

Još fotografija ovog rijetkog pištolja:

Re: 15 cm K39

Post by SASH155 & raquo 19. februar 2009., 00:52

Re: 15 cm K39

Post by Sturm78 & raquo 19. februar 2009, 13:06

Re: 15 cm K39

Post by Sturm78 & raquo 08. listopada 2009, 12:06

Našao sam ovu sliku na Ebayu. Nisam siguran da li je pištolj K39 od 15 cm ili K18 od 10,5 cm. Može li mi neko pomoći?

Hvala unaprijed. Pozdrav Sturm78.

Re: 15 cm K39

Post by Sturm78 & raquo 11. listopada 2009, 12:13

Re: 15 cm K39

Post by jopaerya & raquo 11. listopada 2009, 19:23

Nisam siguran u vezi ovog pištolja, veliki retrejver bi pokazivao 15 cm K. 39.

Re: 15 cm K39

Post by SASH155 & raquo 11. listopada 2009, 20:46

Re: 15 cm K39

Post by SASH155 & raquo 24. listopada 2009, 01:31

Re: 15 cm K39

Post by Sturm78 & raquo 25. listopada 2009, 18:43

Hvala na odgovorima, SASH155 i Jopaerya.

Slažem se s vama: 15 cm teški pištolj K39. Našao sam u svojim datotekama ovu sliku (sa Ebaya) od 15 cm K39. Pretpostavljam da bi ova slika mogla biti slika iste serije kao i prethodna fotografija: isti pištolj

Edit: oprostite zbog male veličine

Re: 15 cm K39

Post by Sturm78 & raquo 20. april 2010, 12:16

Pronašao sam ove slike istih serija slika, koje prikazuju K39 od 15 cm u zimskom kombinezonu na djelu:


Zatvarač 15 cm K18 - Povijest

Pozdrav i dobrodošli u drugo izdanje "Buff my tank!"

"Buff my tank!" Članci su zamišljeni kao povijesni način da se sagledaju neki tenkovi za koje se smatra da nemaju dovoljno snage u igri i da se poboljšaju njihove borbene sposobnosti o kojima su govorili originalni njemački inženjeri.
Imajte na umu da, iako je ponekad ironičan u tonu, članak se bavi i troškovima i koristima svakog izbora i RG ga vjerojatno nikada neće poslušati kao prijedlog.

E-100 se često definira kao "zlatna municija" u igri zbog velikog oslanjanja na skupe HEAT čaure.
U ovom članku ćemo koristiti Panzer Tracts 6-3 kako bi istražili najekstremnije karakteristike o kojima su njemački inženjeri razgovarali tokom implementacije tenka, dok za istoriju tenka članak SilentStalker već pruža odlične informacije.

Kako E-100 nikada nije dostigao operativni status i napravljen je samo poluzavršen trup, nemamo iskustva na bojnom polju izvan virtualnog za prikupljanje informacija.
Na kraju je vjerovatno da bi E-100 i Maus radili kao propagandni tenkovi ili bi se koristili kao bunkeri tokom odbrane Berlina, a ne aktivno na bojnom polju zbog svojih logističkih problema jer ti tenkovi nisu baš ispijali gorivo koje je bilo izuzetno rijetko 1945. godine. i ne bih htio biti raspoređen na njihovo održavanje.

Prije svega, E-100 je već nešto iznad povijesnih specifikacija jer je oklop bočne kupole bio planiran da bude oskudan 80 mm za razliku od debljine od 150 mm u igri, čime se uklanja prilično velika potencijalna slaba točka jer bi je čak i izviđači mogli povrijediti.

Naravno, moglo bi se razmotriti originalna Krupp Tiger-Maus kupola:

Odgovor ovdje vjerojatno leži u izboru municije, ali kako 15 cm L/38 (koji se često spominje kao L/37) nema tablicu prodora iz Drugog svjetskog rata, to ne možemo realno reći. Po mom mišljenju, do trenutka kada bi pištolj bio spreman, trebao bi se koristiti ili modificirani metak od 15 cm za probijanje betona SFH 18 ili samo mješavina topline i HE municije, što je bilo dovoljno za misiju ubijanja bilo kojeg tenka iz doba Drugog svjetskog rata, što pokazuje ruske haubice od 152 mm.

Dakle, evo konačne presude:

Ostalo je vrlo malo prostora za poboljšanja.

Nažalost, činjenica da je od početka trebala biti jeftinija, lakša za proizvodnju znači da su se inženjeri fokusirali na stvari koje su mogle biti proizvedene ranije s raspoloživim sredstvima, a ne na izradi super tenka, pogotovo jer su E-serije često bile na koje mnogi gledaju s neprijateljstvom i u vojsci i u konkurentskim firmama.

Hvala vam na čitanju i vidimo se u sljedećem članku!

47 komentara:

nema problema, svidja mi se moj E-100 kakav je: zlatna spam siema-mobile: D

Tvoj & quotsiema-mobile & quot nasmijao me tako nezaustavljivo xD Koristit ću ga od sada, sviđa mi se ime & lt3

Da je barem mogao povećati penetraciju na 250 - ne bi me nasmijao svaki put kad pokuša probiti moj tenk.
(Moj Vk45P vs E100 - 5 hitaca, svi odbijeni u bliskoj borbi).

Uvođenjem zlatnih municija za kredite rehabilitovan je ovaj tenk.
Prije nego što se to dogodilo, olovka je mogla i trebala biti polirana

250 za ravnotežu.
Kao što je navedeno, ionako nisu dostupni pouzdani stolovi za olovke.

smiješno, jer u 0.8.0 zapravo sam dobio prilično lijepu statistiku koja je solo i tukla neprijatelja do smrti
nije mu trebalo zlato, a zlato je zapravo otežavalo igru, jer je njegova kupola ponovo postala ogromna slaba tačka

Pravi Maus suočio bi se s laserski navođenom artiljerijom. Da postoji rješenje, uklonite Artyja.

ne, ne bi 't. Prvi laser nije postojao do 1960.
-Voll.

Vjerujem da je to bila samo pravopisna greška, a izvorna izjava je bila & quotwouldwould (never) had suočena & quot.

Ukloniti arty rastvor jednako je dobar kao i rastvor E-100 imho.

Artiljerija bi trebala češće pucati čineći daleko manje štete i imati veće prskanje, uznemiravajuću vatru, a ne trenutno ubijanje. Svaka igra kojoj je potreban minut da se učita u bitku u kojoj se ne možete ponovno pojaviti ne bi trebala imati oružje za ubojstvo jednim udarcem.

pa jednostavno sam zaljubljen u zvuk kad puca iz pištolja :) ništa drugo me ne smiješi kao da je 800 neprijateljskih tenkova otišlo na neprijateljski tenk: P
čak sam volio kad nije bila zlatna municija za kredite, jednostavno sam znao kad mogu prodrijeti, a kada ne mogu, pa sam uživao

Da .. i ja to volim.
Sa pištoljem mog ruskog razarača tenkova 7. reda.

Osjećam se nekako prevareno kad moram moliti za takve hitove u svom teškom tenku T10.
E-100 je trenutno loša šala.

ok šta je onda sa alternativom?
Nijemci već imaju spor pod oružjem

Nažalost, ponestalo nam je njemačkih tenkova visokog ranga.
Jedino što preostaje su Maus II (imho rezervirano za rebalans Porsche linije) i Tiger-Maus (poznatiji kao sporiji, duži rani projekat E-100 koji koristi kupolu nalik Mausu).

pa imam dvije loše ideje:

Prvo ono neistorijsko: dajte mu verziju JT pištolja
Druga greška logike: izbrišite je i učinite E75 T10, manji je s božjim oklopom i agilniji (dobio bi HP i oklop)

osim toga ne vidim kako se problem E 100 može riješiti

Ma, tenk je užasan bez zlatnih municija.
S njim je druga priča, ali IMO je i dalje velika štala.

Dobar članak: D Pošto nemam njemačkog obožavatelja)

Ne mislim da je E-100 ozbiljan UP. Moglo bi mu koristiti malo olovke, dogovoreno, ALI sa 12,8 cm mogu svirati bez puno municije. Probao sam 15 cm, ali čak i sa zlatom imam bolje rezultate sa 12,8.
Zaista je dobar tenkovski imo i nezaustavljiv na karti s dobrim zaklonom.
Ako imate 5 artikala, na otvorenim mapama postaje malo teško, ali priznajmo, tome služi umjetnost. Nije problem u rezervoaru.

Volio bih da osim Wikipedije postoji izvor koji bih mogao pronaći za ovo, ali čak je i u tom članku navedeno da je E-100 imao plan nositi glavni top 173 mm koji je najvjerojatnije Kanone 18. Za koji sam se zalagao ovo uveliko u prošlosti. Kontraargument je uvijek bio da pištolj neće stati u kupolu, ali to osporavam jednostavnim rješenjem - upotrijebite Mausturm. Jedini pravi nedostatak je tanji omotač od 10 mm, a visina i ulegnuće pištolja ne bi bili najveći, ali barem biste trebali imati ozbiljan udarac pri brzini paljbe 2,7-3,0 o / min (3,0 s punom posadom, nabijač) , otvori itd.).

Mausturm je trebao koristiti iste topove kao i E-100.

Ovo je otprilike najbolji sažetak o ovoj temi:
http://s9.photobucket.com/user/zarax/media/nXaxbISKur.jpg.html

Ovaj video sam već gledao. Ako sam dobro pročitao, u osnovi se kaže da je u fazi razvoja jedna strana preferirala 15 cm u odnosu na 17 cm, te da je Maus * šasija * bila previsoka s opremom za nišanjenje da bi bila izvodljiva. Korištenje Mausturmove kupole ili trenutne kupole E-100, međutim, ne rješava uobičajeni argument da su zatvarač i blokovi za uzvišenje preveliki da stanu u kupolu. Glavna briga s velikim Kanoneom 18 bila je uzvišenje i udubljenje zbog čega je zatvarač udario u krov u potpunoj udubljenju ili u pod u punoj visini, što se lako moglo riješiti s ograničenjem na svakom od njih.

Također bih želio dodati da je po mom izvornom prijedlogu E -100 mogao biti "švicarski vojni nož" u smislu upotrebe s dvije dodatne kupole i pištoljem koje se mogu otključati - jedna je Mausturm koja bi dovela do 173 mm K18, ili kupolom E-75 ili verzijom sa poliranom bojom sa 128mm KwK44 L/55 s većom brzinom rotacije, vremenom ciljanja, preciznošću i RoF. Na ovaj način E-100 bi mogao biti prilagođen načinu na koji je vlasnik želio igrati.

Stok - trenutna kupola + 150 mm (blago nejasan pištolj)

Dugoročniji angažman-kupola E-75 ili modificirana jedna + 128 mm (udaljenost 'sniper ' verzija)

Svađač - Mausturm + 173 mm K18 (velika povreda, spora rotacija, spor RoF, velika alfa, velika olovka na bliskom/srednjem dometu)

17 cm uopće ne bi stalo u prsten kupole, bilo bi ga nemoguće učitati i ne bi imalo udubljenja ili uzdignuća. Također je potpuno povijesno netočno da Maus/E-100 turm montira takav pištolj. Kula u stilu E-75 takođe je šamar u istoriji.

Također morate shvatiti da Nijemci nikada nisu pokušali postaviti takav pištolj u bilo koju tenkovsku kupolu. Predloženo je da se topovi od 17 cm i duži od 15 cm nalaze na šasiji u nekom obliku nadgrađa, a ne u kupoli.

Još jedna greška u vašim planovima je ta što E-100 turm ima istu prostoriju kao i Mausturm.

Možete * reći * sve ove stvari, ali nema dokaza za bilo koju od ovih stvari. Slažem se da bi visina i depresija bili problem, ali osim toga, prvo govorimo o visinama vozila na šasiji maus. Kula Maus fizički je duža sprijeda prema nazad, što znači da ima više unutrašnjeg radnog prostora, osim ako je užasno uža od trenutne kupole (sumnjivo).

Najveći problem ovdje, kako ste istakli, bilo je ponovno učitavanje ili u ovom slučaju kapacitet ljuske. Bio sam sretan što mogu priznati da bi zatvarač bio veći i da bi se povukao dalje u kupolu, a u usporedbi sa umjereno velikih 150, broj granata bi bio daleko manji, ali dobro pogledajte Fv215 183 i recite mi o pištolju koji ne pristaje ili municiji koju može ili ne može nositi.

Dajte mi E-100 sa Mausturmom i Kanoneom 18 i možda 18 granata i ja bih bio prilično sretan tanker.

Osim toga, što se tiče kupole E-75, ne činimo ništa protiv istorije, jer ako zaista želite podijeliti dlaku, kupola E-100 nikada nije dovršena, a Mausturm bi se koristio sve dok se to ne dogodi završeno/ugrađeno.

Posjedovanje kupole E-75 ili pojačane verzije jednog kućišta manjeg kalibra, ali preciznijeg pištolja, omogućilo bi bržu rotaciju, lakši tenk i manji cilj poprečnog presjeka kad se okrene prema njemu-sve prednosti postoje.

Njemački Wiki kaže da je turbina E-100 premala za pištolj od 17 cm. Također možete pročitati podatke na slici koju je objavio Zarax i vidjet ćete da je Maus II turm (E-100 turm) trebao imati veću kupolu prsten od običnog Mausturma. Spojite dva i dva zajedno i dobićete da vam ne odgovara.

Još jedan dokaz je da 15 cm L/68 zauzima cijelu kupolu ako je prekrivate, a sada zamislite prekrivanje pištolja od 17 cm koji bi vjerovatno zauzeo više prostora od pištolja L/68 od 15 cm.

Volio bih zadržati tenk dizajniran u Njemačkoj, a ne onaj koji ste izvukli iz zraka.

Ne bi li E-100 s kupolom E-75 izgledao kao jedan od onih bodybuildera sa sićušnom glavom? XD

@Brice - vi govorite o prstenovima kupola, ja govorim o kupoli koja ima prostor u kubičnim stopama. Vi govorite grčki, ja govorim italijanski. Prsten odlazi u pod kupole, dobro, shvatio sam, ostatak radnog prostora kupole. ovo je pitanje koje spominjem. WG je odradila prilično bizaran posao smišljanja stvari zajedno sa glasinama, dijelovima i komadima, i to ne bi bilo drugačije. Nigdje ne piše "pištolj neće stati u kupolu". nigdje. Prsten je rješiv problem koji se lako rješava pomoću Ausfa. B oznaka ili zvjezdica pored naziva za označavanje izmijenjene verzije. Ionako se ne događa ovako i nikada se čak neće ni dogoditi, ali pokušavati to umanjiti je glupo.

@ fattoler: U osnovi ste dobili ono što je Trumpter vjerujem napravio model za koji se može vidjeti ovdje: http://wotarmory.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/e-100-model.jpg

Uh, promjeri prstena kupole uvijek su bili prilično veliko ograničenje u dizajnu tenkova (ili tačnije u izboru pištolja) koje znate. Nešto u vezi s apsorpcijom trzaja i slično, razumijem - uvijek ste mogli promijeniti i dizajn same kupole ako je na kraju krajeva potrebna samo jačina zvuka (unutar razuma).

S povećanjem prstena je AFAIK koji vam prilično treba da proširite trup da biste to učinili - i sumnjam da moram objasniti implikacije u kontekstu već super velikog vozila, kao u ovom slučaju.

Uhh, ne.
Konkretno govori o jurišnim puškama na kućištu Maus i E-100 kada se pominju veća oružja, tako da se radi samo o kazamatima, a ne o kupolama.

Hmm. Napravio sam ovu temu prije nekog vremena, možda će vam neke stvari biti zanimljive:

Položaj kupole, kut LFP -a i slično.

Njemački inženjeri premjestili su mjenjač naprijed jer nije bilo dovoljno prostora straga, nažalost to je povijesno.

Oh, a planirani motor nikada nije uspio pouzdano doseći preko 800 KS, dok je skraćivanje spremnika onemogućilo ugradnju većih motora.

Na svemu ovome moramo zahvaliti dizajneru koji je odlučio da je upoređivanje motora veličine Tiger II dovoljno.

Preporučujem da na kraju pročitate panzer pjesme 6-3 na stranici 54 (najvjerojatnije ste je već pročitali). Govorimo o prijenosu. E-100 je bio istog trupa kao i Tiger-Maus, nemamo pojma kako bi krajnji rezultat izgledao. Dio u mom postu na koji ste pogledali više je ličio na ono što budućnost donosi.

Trup je skraćen i malo proširen između prvih gaza od 170 tona i posljednjih 130 tona, da ne spominjemo dizajn je promijenjen sa stražnje na središnju kupolu.

Na stranici 54 stoji da je za stražnji prijenos potrebno pomicanje motora prema naprijed i promjenu izgleda trupa.

Gotovo se mogao vidjeti * troll * E-100 ausf M!

Pa ja ću to napisati na svom maternjem jeziku SilentStalker može to prevesti ako to želi

E100 nepotrebuje buff ale kompletni predelani proste i jednoduse udelat z ni mene Mause ale vice onu odlehcenou varijantu tezkeho tanku neko ve smyslu IS-7 s IS-4

Vzhledem k tomu ze ve hre mame stroje ktere nikdy neexistovali ani na nakresech, jsou to proste vytvory ze sveta WG vyvojaru kde neni problem sebrat tanku 10 mm z pancire a prezto mu pridat na vaze 2 tuny bych se nebal predelat E100 naslebedusom z

Odebrat 150mm kanon, soucasnou vez vymenit za Adler turm (pripadne jinou mene pancerovanou a lehci vez), pridat novij 128mm kanon (budto z JT) nebo novou varijantu zkratka lepsi penetracne moći nez u Maus kanonu, snizit hodnotu opancerovani tanku E100 horsi pancire nez jaky mela v realu met viz panzernet) tim by docililo snizeni vahy a pridal bych ji maximalku na tech 40km/h co bylo zamyslenejch v realu.

Dale bych (a nejenom u E100) umoznil nemeckejm tankum lepsi zoomovani s ohledem na fakt kterej uznavaj i historici sice ze nemci disponovali temu nejlepsima optikama (a dodnes je od nich odebira celej svet spolu s kanonama a motorima) tenhle fakt doted ne inby nik ne radi igra zohlednen stejne tak bych zauvazoval o zlepseni dosahu u nemeckejch radii (koneckoncu novej Leo ma dosah JENOM 750 zatimco T62 ma 850) selskej rozum by asi kazdymu rekl ze pouzivat puskohled u pistole nebo u praku zatim pri strelbe me puznuti šperut bez i miridla je proste kravina a pre jenom pokud je clovek za nemecke tanky stavenej do role snipera musim podle toho met i patricny radia a ne aby se me stavalo ze u jednom platonu si vedle sebe stoji IS-3 a T32 a strilej to do dalky na maksimalni dosah coby tanky ktery by me meli dostat souperum do tela a ja s KT si musim jeste znane popojet pred ne aby me me enemak ukazal na obrazovce (pri nastavi maksimalno vykreslovaci vzdalenosti) proto ze mam nejslabsi radio za jeden z nejvic snajperski tenk toho tieru tak asi neni neko u poradku.

Příště se prosímtě podepiš a zkus to spís anglicky.

U osnovi, ovaj igrač sugerira da E-100 treba učiniti (neistorijski) lakšim, lakšim Adlerturm-om treba dodati pištolj od 128 mm iz Jagdtigera, smanjiti težinu tenka (smanjiti oklop) i postaviti maksimalnu brzinu na 40 km/h. On također predlaže bolje zumiranje tenkova (jer su imali superiornu optiku), bolji radijski domet) kako bi bio izdržljiv snajperist.


Statistika o srednjoj artiljeriji 8. armije 4. novembra 1941. (veliko ažuriranje 19. juna)

Zanimljivo je vidjeti srednju artiljerijsku situaciju na Bliskom istoku u to doba. Iako je mnogo tinte proliveno gledajući stanje tenkova i tehnološke probleme s kojima se Imperij suočava, mnogo manje analiza je napravljeno na artiljeriji, osim protuoklopnih topova, naravno. To je dijelom vjerojatno zato što je barem u sektoru terenske artiljerije, i u sektoru lakog protuzračnog prometa, Carstvo bilo prilično superiorno u odnosu na snage Osovine. Zahvalan sam svom prijatelju Jonu koji mi je to ukazao.

Za terensku artiljeriju, Empire 25-pdr poljski top bio je vrhunski pištolj, koji je dobro služio u dvostrukoj ulozi, što je pokazao npr. 1 poljski puk u Omarsu 25. novembra, i naravno u ulozi terenske artiljerije. Tu superiornost primijetili su Nijemci, koji su prepoznali da je imperijalna poljska artiljerija smetnja. Dok je divizijsko topništvo Osovine imalo vrhunski kalibar, a posebno je talijansko terensko oružje od 105 mm priznato od strane Carstva kao vrlo dobro oružje, veliki broj, domet, svestranost i pokretljivost 25-pdr-a bilo je teško nadmašiti.

U protuzračnoj ulozi, 40-milimetarski Bofors AA pištolj također je bio vrlo dobrog vanjskog dizajna i superiorniji od lakih AA topova od 20 mm koje su izbacile snage Osovine. U periodu CRUSADER-a, po potrebi se udvostručio kao protutenkovski top.

Empire vs. Axis Medium Artillery

Na području srednje i teške artiljerije, Carstvo je jako nedostajalo. Teške artiljerije, uopće je nije bilo, a za srednju je bilo malo oružja, a više od polovice ih je zastarjelo. S druge strane, sile Osovine imale su u Africi neke vrhunske topove u ovom sektoru - zarobljeni francuski top 155 mm GPF, talijanski top 149/40, pištolj K18 dimenzija 17 cm i minobacač 21 cm 18. Imali su ih samo mali broj, ali ipak više nego što je Carstvo moglo postići. Nadalje, većina ovih topova bila je koncentrirana pod armijskom armijskom komandom Arka 104, dok su srednji pukovi Imperije bili skupljeni u Korpus i često su djelovali na bazi baterija. Razlog za to je, naravno, bio taj što je Oso planirala veliki napad na tvrđavu, te je dovezla opsadni voz da je preuzme. Ispod armijske artiljerije, standardni teški komad njemačke divizijske artiljerije, 15 -centimetrska teška haubica 18, iako nadmašena u Rusiji, bila je superiornija i od haubice Empire 6 ″.

Dana 4. novembra snage Carstva su izvijestile o ukupno 126 srednjih topova na Bliskom istoku, od kojih je 28 modernih topova 4,5 ″, dok su preostali dio zastarjela haubica od 6 inča, još zastarjela haubica 4,5 ″, i 18 haubica 155 mm. 11 haubica 4,5 i#8243 bilo je u Zapadnoj pustinji, 10 u Tobruku i 1 sa L.R.D.G. 16 haubica kalibra 155 mm imalo je 1 australijski korpus, a još 2 haubice 155 mm sa školama u području Delte. Vjerojatno je da od preostalih najmanje 16 6 ″ haubica 64 puka srednjeg puka nisu bile u zapadnoj pustinji, već i u Siriji s 1 australijskim korpusom. Tako je ukupan broj raspoloživih srednjih topova u zapadnoj pustinji smanjen na 63 ili nešto više od polovice broja osi. Većina ovih topova bila je zastarjela.

U isto vrijeme, iako postoji određena zabuna, činilo se da su Panzergruppe Afrika i talijanske snage uspjele izbaciti do 115 srednjih topova (& gt105mm), od kojih je veliki dio bio vrhunskog kvaliteta od oružja Empire. Upravo je to odstupanje uvelike doprinijelo problemima s kojima su se Imperije suočavale u statičnim borbama oko Sidi Rezegha i koridora Tobruk.

Neke informacije o oružju

Zahvalan sam Nigel Evans ’ vrhunskoj stranici na Kraljevskoj artiljeriji za mnoge ovdje navedene informacije.

Empire 4,5 ”pištolj, koji je tada opremio jedan puk i jednu bateriju, bio je u nekim aspektima bolji u odnosu na njemački 15 cm sFH, poput njegovog vrhunskog dometa. Međutim, nadmašio ga je talijanski pištolj Ansaldo 149/40. Za usporedbu, pištolj 4.5 ″ nije imao razornu moć i domet, s granatom i eksplozivnom masom od samo oko polovice mase Ansalda, a oružja u svakom slučaju nije bilo dovoljno. Njegova glavna upotreba bila je za kontra-bateriju, i iako je svakako bila superiornija od njemačkog 10 cm K18, koji je služio istoj ulozi, nije se mogao natjecati s težim dijelovima osovine, poput 17 cm K18 i Ansaldo 149/40 pištolji.

Odeljak od 4,5 srednjih topova: u blizini Reigel Ridgea, Cyrenaica, maj 1942

Haubica 6 ″ bila je jedno od slabijih srednjih topova u pozorištu u to vrijeme. Ispalio je projektil relativno male težine, a domet mu nije bio impresivan. Tokom rata u pustinji zamijenjen je haubicama iz 155 -og svjetskog rata (vidi dolje), a zatim i topovima od 5.5 i#8243.

6 ″ Haubica tokom operacije COMPASS

Tokom tog perioda, oko 100 155-milimetarskih haubica M1918 francuskog dizajna iz Prvog svjetskog rata (ali moderniziranih između ratova, npr. Kako bi se mogle vući iza kamiona) bile su u procesu isporuke jedinicama na pozajmicu od SAD-a, ali one nisu bile u Zapadna pustinja još. Dana 4. novembra opremali su samo australijski srednji puk 2/13 u Siriji. Daljnjih 12 je već bilo u skladištima oružja, a 78 ih je bilo na putu s različitim konvojima. Do 12. februara samo je jedna pukovnija bila 64 srednjih. RA je ponovo opremljen sa 16 ovih haubica i 2 topa 4,5 i 8243.

Haubica 155 mm francuske proizvodnje sa 212 baterija, 64. puk srednjih snaga, Kraljevska artiljerija, 23. jula 1942.

Haubica 4,5 ″ vjerovatno je bila najslabija srednja puška (iskreno rečeno, više je to terenski, a ne srednji pištolj, uprkos tome što je njen kalibar od 114 mm nešto više od standardnih 105 mm) u službi u pustinji. To isto znači i ispadanje na statičku ulogu u Tobruku. Bio je to dizajn prije Prvog svjetskog rata koji je moderniziran 1930-ih kako bi omogućio vuču kamiona. Domet mu je bio samo 6.600 metara, a težina granate samo 37 funti.

The guns go off as the crew of a 4.5 inch Howitzer of the 2/1st Field Regiment RAA are given the order to fire during the cooperation artillery shoot with 107th (SNH) Royal Horse Artillery at the Bir Asley Artillery Range. (AWM Item C1005952)

The distribution of these guns in the Middle East on 4 November 1941 was as below:


Austro-Hungarian Project V Battleship Design

This was the final battleship proposal by the MTK ( Marine technische Komitee - Naval Technical Committee) , Pola offered in late 1917, early 1918. It was a further improvement on the previous Project III type with another step taken in a larger main weapon calibre: the 42cm sized cannons. These weapons first appeared on the Imperial German navy post Jutland battleship and battlecruiser (The Grosskreuzer and L 20) designs planned for the post war fleet of Germany as well.
The 4 turrets are in a conventional layout of superfiring pairs forward and aft while the secondary armament are along the sides in casemates, while the 15cm heavy Dual Purpose AA guns are located in turrets on the deck with a single large funnel emphasising this design. What you actually see is the battleship equivalent of the Project VI battlecruiser mounting the same kind of armament but on a thicker and more armoured hull.

The ship reminiscent both in size, armament and armour to the Japanese Nagato class battleships laid down a few years earlier.

The design(s) had the following characteristics:
Dimensions: 215 (wl) x 32 x 9,5m
Displacement: 37.200tons (standard), 39.600tons (full load)
Armour: 40mm Deck, 300mm Belt
Engines: 56.000shp Steam Turbines, 4 shafts
Speed: 44km/h (24knots)
Range: 9.000km at 28km/h (5.000nm at 15knots) or
5.500km at 44km/h (3.000nm at 24knots)
Armaments:
4x2 42cm/45 Skoda K18 Cannons
20x1 15cm/50 Skoda K10 Guns
4x1 15cm/50 Skoda K18 DP-AA Guns
6x1 53cm Underwater Torpedo tubes

Or here together with a small history on them:
stefsap.wordpress.com/2017/12/&hellip


And finally based on the naming conventions of the German and Austro-Hungarian navies, the name of the class most likely be Ersatz Habsburg class the next oldest battleships of the KuK navy after the Monarch class.

This concludes the Austro-Hungarian Navy the Kaiserliche und Königliche Kriegsmarine never were warship designs I've started in 2017 March!

Oh I like this design very much.

Clearly shows that designers were very competent people. I love how turret 2 and 3 have such high placement to remove all obstruction when firing with superb arcs.

Brits didn't thought of this with Nelsons.

Yes they did, the LII, L2, L3, K2, K3, J3 designs.

Nelson was a good very strong battleship stronger then any RN ship before it including QE, Revenge and Hood!

I was referring to faulty design on very limited displacement. After all they banned firing forward and full broadsides because of damage it caused to the hull and armor around turrets. Didn’t said that Nelsons were bad, my most favorite British BBs because of their awesome quirkiness. But if they raised the turrets higher above the deck they wouldn’t have to ban a bojni brod from firing broadsides which was its primary function. Quite comical, in best traditions of British humor LOL!

I don't know where you get your info but it is wrong, I've found quite a few photos of both Nelson and Rodney firing broadside during the war

OK, I admit, that was poor choice of a word - ban. Oprostite.

They fired broadsides, especially during trials. But during WW2 after problems become all-too evident there was a directive which advised to refrain from full broadside (all 9 guns at once) firing unless under extreme circumstances. Especially on Rodney where structural integrity of the hull and leakage made this ship basically useless by mid-war-period outside stationary duties like for brief period in Normandy where it fired a gun at a time - beautifully seen in video - always from different turret.

As for firing forward video. That's not full forward firing from both turrets at minimal elevation. It's one gun at a time, from two separate turrets, at like 30 degree elevation. Even during trials when they fired all-6-gun forward fore deck was completely trashed.

All photos you provided prove my point. Neither of ships fires sve guns at once. It's this stepped firing procedure developed during the war or even before it. 1 gun fires two do not, 2 guns firing middle one is off.

What I've seen are more like ranging fire. But can you give me source of the Nelson not advised for full broadside?

You know why I'm rooting for this ship to be in WoW? (even-though the probability is extremely low)

The insane amount of secondary guns.
This ship packs Yamato and Grosser Kurfurst DPM level secondaries at Tier 7.
It's like having 2 Clevelands bolted on each side.
Will make for some very LOL worthy matches.

Wow Nice to meet someone who contributes to Wargaming.

Good luck making ships for Tier 9 and 10.

Another challenge is how the Reconstructed Austro Hungarian ships will look like in the 1940s timeframe
since you have no example to draw from.
Especially since the Austro Hungarian ships have the most bare bone minimalistic superstructures.
Or save from a pair of tripod masts, a conning tower and a tin can bridge there is NOTHING there.
They have less superstructures than WW1 American battleships.
Except from similar caliber size (and slide breech guns) these ships have barely anything in common with their German counterpart.
How are you going to infer a hypothetical WW2 level reconstruction from that?

With the WW1 German you can use modern examples of warships to estimate what a reconstructed
WW1 German vessel will look like for example Bayern has a bridge and tower superstructure straight from the Deutschland.

But good look trying to estimate what a Design V battleship will look like in WW2
and what type of AA guns it will use.
(Skoda did also use the 105mm caliber in their field howitzers which should act as the HAA counterpart
for the German 105 mm and the 140mm 56 caliber gun could make a powerful secondary weapon).

BTW. Who's bright idea is the T10 FRANCE?

Thanks for your kind words.

Yes, the most obvious problem would be how to approach the upgrades to the ships. Tzoli does have a drawing that I think comes pretty close to what I envision (Modernised Battleship Szent Istvan), though I wouldn't have large-scale reconstruction until tier VI. Looks-wise, I would like it to be similar to the upgraded superstructure of Bayern in WoWs. I think that would work fairly well with the austro-hungarian ships and probably even keep the general design for the rest of the branch.

Armaments aren't that much of a problem, I have enough historical equipment to work with for the early-to-mid tiers. Did you know, for example, that Hungary license-produced its own 40mm Bofors? They were used in the 40M Nimrod SPAAG, itself a license-built swedish design. For the later tiers, I can draw upon the weapons made in the A-H successor states, especially Czechoslovakia.

The biggest headache at the moment is the tier X. I don't really see any option beyond making it another 4x3 turreted ship, even though we already have 3 ships with the same gun arrangement. Also, I'm only making a rough overview of the specs without any drawings. I can't draw to save my life.

Finally, the T10 France seems to be an enlarged version of the Gascogne, a modification of the Richelieu that moved one quad turret aft. I'm not really a fan of the design myself, a T10 all-forward main gun BB would have been much more interesting in my opinion.

I look forward to the result.
But will Austro Hungary be the last Nation of the tech tree navies?
There are 8 in total right?
Japan
SAD
Njemačka
UK
Francuska
Italija
Rusija
Austro Hungary

I don't know of another navy that did independent ship R&D that warrant a full three.
I would be amazed if Wargaming can pull a Chinese battleship techtree out of its ass.
The other are minor navies that could have shared trees like Latin America's cruisers.
And you have other small navies that warrant premiums like Holland's Project 1047 and Spain's version of Littorio.

There's still room for a battlecruiser line for the Royal, German and Japanese Navy in case Wargaming is running out of nations.

"I don't really see any option beyond making it another 4x3 turreted ship"
The Austro Hungarians pioneered the 4x3 super firing setup and beat the USS Pennsylvania to it by 3 and a half years.
So it should be fitting that the Austro Hungarian T10 should end with this setup

IMHO Grosser Kurfurst should never have had triple turrets.
My original idea for a German T10 was 8 X 460 mm in twins.
Just like Quad turrets is the national flavor for the French navy the Germans went with Twin turrets.
All German ships in the battleship techtree has Twin turrets except Grosser Kurfurst.
The Germans put their shell elevators between the two guns their guns ended being separated far apart in the turret.
Because of this design quirk Germans avoided Triple turrets as much as possible because we can already
see the result with Grosser Kurfurst turret being way bigger than Yamato's (and probably way heavier with all the armor).

I'm not a fan of the France either.
You have to play it like a Graf Spee with the drawback of being a far bigger target.
France historically had a 450mm gun planned and possibly prototyped in the early 1920s.
I don't know where Wargaming got the 431mm from.
France could have been a LOLZY ship had they modeled her with 16 X 380mm guns in 4 quads.
Nothing in smoke would have been safe from this ship.
She would have been an Atlanta with 380mm guns.

When the austro-hungarian navy comes (I consider it a matter of time more than a matter of "If"), it will most likely be after the seven major navies are finished (like, german and russian CV branch-finished).

While I don't think you could add any more complete tech trees without WG making up their own ships, you can for example make half a tree for the spanish navy. They had enough cruiser and destroyer designs to warrant it - just take a look over at shipbucket's never-built section for Spain. There's even someone who made two branches for it on the forum: forum.worldofwarships.eu/topic&hellip

It's certainly much more justified than that copy-paste pan-asian DD line that's only in the game to attract more chinese players.

Regarding battlecruisers, I believe I heard that WG would very much like to include branches for the British and Germans. They actually have quite a number of designs that could be used to make complete lines - agains, shipbucket's never-were section is quite nice. Britain, for example, could have the Admiral-class at T7 (of which Hood was the only one built). Take a look: www.shipbucket.com/drawings/51&hellip

Thanks for reminding me that A-H pioneered the 4x3 design, it certainly puts the T10 into perspective (I'll probably name if Franz Ferdinand).

Regarding the Kurfürst, yeah, that's what happens when WG uses its "russian archives". I still refuse to believe that it's a real design. More likely WG made it up to avoid their "No guns bigger than Yamato's"-rule. I think it's silly and the GK should have the option to go for 48cm or 50.8cm twin turrets. We'll see if WG eventually decides to make it an option.

I'd also have preferred the France with 4x4 380mm guns. Heck, you could even make it an option to swap them out for 3x3 450mm guns for those who prefer their guns xboxhueg.


In combat

During the war, several Schwere Panzerjäger Abteilung (short s.Pz.Jg.Abt) would be formed, including 560, 655, 525, 93, 88, 664, 519 and 424. Other smaller units were formed, including the Schwere Panzerjäger Ersatz 43 und Asbuildung Abteilung, s.Pz.Jg. Kompanie 669 and Panzerkompanie Kummersdorf. The only units to receive Nashorns were the 1st Panzer Division and possibly the Das Reich Division.

Schwere Panzerjäger Abteilung 560

The forming of s.Pz.Jg.Abt 560 and equipping it with the Nashorn was a slow process. The first six vehicles were received in February, followed by 24 in March, and the last 15 in May 1943. In preparation for the coming Kursk offensive, s.H.Pz.Jg.Abt 560 was to be transported to Kharkiv in late April 1943. By the beginning of May 1943, the transportation of the unit was almost complete. In June, it was part of the Panzer Gruppe “Kempf”, but due to many mechanical problems, this unit was not ready for combat. While this unit did not see action during the battle for Kursk, it was busy defending the XXXXII Armee Korps’ (In September renamed into the 8th Armee) flanks from July onwards.

This vehicle had an early type travel lock that had to be released from outside. This vehicle belonged to s.Pz.Jg.Abt 560. It is on a train, possibly headed for the Eastern front. Source.
Throughout August, this unit also supported the 39th, 161st, and 282nd Infanterie Divisions. During this time, 14 vehicles were lost. s.Pz.Jg.Abt 560 would be used mostly in defending actions against Soviet attacks until the end of 1943.
Thanks to constant reinforcement (with 5 vehicles in September, October, November, and 4 in February 1944), s.Pz.Jg.Abt 560 managed to maintain almost full combat strength throughout 1943, although not all the vehicle were always operational. For example, on 31st October 1943, there were 39 vehicles in the unit, with only 8 operational and the remaining in various state of repair. By the end of 1943, s.Pz.Jg.Abt 560 reported having destroyed around 251 enemy tanks.
In January 1944, s.Pz.Jg.Abt 560 participated in the German defense of the city of Kirovograd (currently known as Kropyvnytskyi). In early February, this unit began a slow withdrawal toward Mielau in order to be requipped with the new Jagdpanther. By March, it was still engaged on the Eastern front under the LVII Pz.Korps, losing 16 Nashorn. By this time, s.Pz.Jg.Abt 560 had only 4 operational and 10 non-operational vehicles remaining. In late April 1944, the withdrawal was completed and s.Pz.Jg.Abt 560 was moved to Mielau.

Schwere Panzerjäger Abteilung 655

Another unit equipped with Nashorns was s.Pz.Jg.Abt “Stalingrad”. In April 1943, this unit was renamed s.Pz.Jg.Abt 655. For the creation of this unit, the remaining elements from Panzerjäger Abteilungen 521, 611, and 670 were used. It is for this reason that its Kompanie were named after these Abteilungen instead of the ordinary 1st, 2nd, and 3rd designations.
In April 1944, these would be renamed to 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Kompanie. In April 1943, this unit had 35 vehicles. The last 10 vehicles arrived in May. The unit assembly and training was carried out until June 1943. By the time of the Kursk offensive s.Pz.Jg.Abt 655 was part of the Heeresgruppe mitte, but was not directly involved in combat. It would, however, be engaged with the Second Armee in trying to stop the Soviet attacks. This defense proved to be unsuccessful and the unit was forced to pull out in the direction of the Desna and Dnieper rivers. In a report dated 1st July, s.Pz.Jg.Abt 655 was noted to have lost eight vehicles: one to a mine, and the remaining seven during an air raid. All these were recovered and sent to Germany for repair. From November to the end of 1943, s.Pz.Jg.Abt 655 was mostly used in support of different Panzer Division, both in the attack and in the defense, around the Pripet Marshes.
The Nashorns proved to be effective, as can be seen in the report of Kompanie 521 during a combat operation defending Orel in mid July 1943, when following vehicles were claimed to have been destroyed: 1 x KV-2, 19 x KV-1s, 430 x T-34s, 1 x M3 Lee, 1 x T-60, 5 x T-70s, and 1 rocket launcher mounted on a tank chassis, with the loss of only two Nashorns. These numbers are just claims and were probably larger than reality.
s.Pz.Jg.Abt 655 received around 33 Nashorns as replacements (8 in July, 5 in October, November and December, and the last 10 in March 1944). This unit was even above the official combat strength with 47 operational (and 1 in repair) vehicles during June-July 1944.
In February, it was stationed in Belorussia in support of the elements of the Second Armee. By the end of May 1944, this unit was transferred to the 4th Panzer Armee, and it would see action in Ukraine on the Vistula river and at Lublin. In August 1944, s.Pz.Jg.Abt 655’s 1st and 2nd Kompanie were moved from Heeresgruppe Nord Ukraine to the training center at Mielau to be equipped with Jagdpanters and Jagdpanzer IVs.


Sd.Kfz.164 of the 2nd Kompanie of the schwere Panzerjäger Abteilungen 560, summer 1943.

Nashorn of the schwere Panzerjäger Abteilungen 519, Group center, Vitebsk area, Russia, winter 1943-44.

Nashorn of the schwere Panzerjäger Abteilungen 88, Russia.

Another Nashorn of the schwere Panzerjäger Abteilungen 88, Russia, 1944.

Sd.Kfz.164 Nashorn of the schwere Panzerjäger Abteilungen 525 in Italy, summer 1944.

Sd.Kfz.164 Nashorn in Italy, schwere Panzerjäger Abteilungen 525.

Schwere Panzerjäger Kompanie 669

The 3rd Kompanie of s.Pz.Jg.Abt 655 was equipped with all remaining Nashorns (possibly around 24 vehicles). The unit was renamed to Einsatz Kompanie 655 and was stationed on the Eastern Front. It would remain on the Eastern Front supporting the 4th Panzer Armee near the Sandomierz bridgehead until late 1944. In November 1944, it was renamed to s.Pz.Jg.Kp 669. The combat strength of the s.Pz.Jg.Kp 669 was around 20 Nashorns (December 1944). During the Soviet offensive in January 1945, s.Pz.Jg.Kp 669 was part of 17th Panzer Division, suffering heavy losses during the battle for Kielce. In February 1945, it was reinforced with 13 new vehicles. The unit met its end during the battle for Prague in May 1945, when it surrendered to the Soviets.

Schwere Panzerjäger Abteilung 525

Schwere Panzerjäger Abteilung 525 was formed in August 1939 as Pz.Abw.Abt 525. During the attack on the West, this unit was equipped with 88 mm Flak 18 gun for use against tanks and bunkers. In France, it was used to attack parts of the Maginot line. Later, it would see action in the Balkans and in the Soviet Union. In late April 1943, it was ordered to reequip s.Pz.Jg.Kp 525 with Nashorns in a standard 45-vehicles organization. It was moved to Magdeburg where it was to be supplied with these vehicles, and by July 1943 the assembly of the 45 Nashorns was completed.
It was originally allocated to the 26th Panzer Division, but due to the need for crew training, the unit was only combat-ready by the beginning of August 1943. In preparation for the German occupation of Italy, s.Pz.Jg.Kp 525 was transported to northern Italy, but due to the Allied offensive, the unit was repositioned to the south. It was attached to different units (like the 90th Panzer Grenadier Division or 371 Infantry Division) and was mostly used for coastal defense. During December 1943, it was stationed near Rome as part of the 3rd Grenadier Division. From January 1944, it was engaged in defense of Cassino, where four Nashorns were destroyed and three damaged, but later repaired. Thanks to well selected and favorable combat positions, they managed to take advantage of their strong guns, even achieving a claimed kill from more than 2,800 m against an Allied Sherman tank. The 1st and 2nd Kompanie would see action during the Battle of Anzio in early 1944. In May, s.Pz.Jg.Kp 525 was again stationed around Cassino.
s.Pz.Jg.Kp 525 suffered losses during the Battle for Pontecorvo, where the Canadian Allied soldiers managed to capture one and destroy three vehicles. s.Pz.Jg.Kp 525 also saw action against Polish forces (part of the 2nd Corps) in August 1944, when one was captured and two destroyed.
On 31st August, s.Pz.Jg.Kp 525 was to be reinforced with Jagdpanthers and thus form a gemischte Jagdpanther-Abteilung. For this reason, the 1st Kompanie was sent to Mielau for rearming. The 1st Kompanie vehicles were given to the 2nd and 3rd Kompanies and these two would remain in Italy supporting the 10th Armee. In April 1945, what remained of the 2nd Kompanie was supporting the 26th Panzer Division and the 3rd Kompanie was supporting the 29th Grenadier Division. Many more vehicles were captured by the Allies during the German retreat across the River Po, as a number of Nashorns were abandoned by the Germans.
In late November 1944, the 1st Kompanie was in the process of reorganization, but due to the rapid development on the front, it was sent to reinforce Kapmfgruppe Fuehter-Begleit-Brigade. It was equipped with 10 Nashorns in late November 1944.

Schwere Heeres Panzerjäger Abteilung 93

The original name of this unit was Pz.Abw.Abt. 23 and it was formed in 1935. The name was changed to s.Pz.Jg.Abt 93 in October 1942. It was part of the 26th Panzer Division, stationed in France for training and rest. In June 1943, s.Pz.Jg.Abt 93 was chosen to be equipped with 45 Nashorns, and this process was completed in the period from July to September 1943. As the 26th Panzer Division was needed on the Italian front and s.Pz.Jg.Abt 93 was combat-ready, it was decided to detach it from this unit and attach it to the 7th Amree in Western France.
It was, from September 1943, engaged with Army Group “South” on the Eastern front for the support of the German retreat at the Dnieper River. and was used to support the German attack near Kryvyi Rog in late October. In early 1944, it supported the retreat of the 24th Division and the 6th Army. In early 1944, this part of the front was quiet, until 20th August when the Soviets launched a large offensive. Most elements of s.Pz.Jg.Abt 93 were lost together with the 6th Army near Chișinău (Kishinev). The 2nd Kompanie would survive and would be used to support s.Pz.Jg.Abt 525 in defense of the Rhine river. The final fate of what remained of s.Pz.Jg.Abt 93 is not clear.

Actions of the Schwere Panzerjäger Abteilung 93 and 525

s.Pz.Jg.Abt 93 and 525 were sent to the Western Front in order to reinforce the German forces which were desperately trying to stop the Allied advance to the Rhine. s.Pz.Jg.Abt 525 (1st Kompanie) was, in November 1944, equipped with 10 Nashorns while s.Pz.Abt 93 (2nd Kompanie) was, by December, equipped with just 12 Nashorns.
Both Abteilung 525 and 93 were attached to the 106th Panzer Brigade and operated in the Kolmar pocket until late December 1944 while suffering no losses. On 29th (or 27th depending on the sources) December, both were used to support Jagdpanthers from s.Pz.Jg.Abt 654. Later in January, they were used to reinforce the StuG.Brigade 280 until February. By that time, s.Pz.Jg.Abt 525 had suffered such heavy losses, that what was left was incorporated into s.Pz.Jg.Abt 93. In February, s.Pz.Jg.Abt 93 was renamed to s.Pz.Jg. Kompanie 93 due to its small size. By the end of February 1945, the Kompanie had only 10 vehicles left and was supporting 106th Armored Brigade near Cologne. In March, one Nashorn managed to destroy the new American T26E3 (at a distance of 500 m) tank near the town of Niehl. The Kompanie finally met its fate in April 1945, when it surrendered in the Ruhr area.

Schwere Panzerjäger Abteilung 519 and 664

Another unit to be equipped with Nashorns was s.Pz.Jg.Abt 519, which was formed in late August 1943. By November 1943, the last vehicle was received and the unit had 45 operational Nashorns. It was repositioned to the Eastern Front, where it supported the 3rd Panzer Armee. One of the first actions was the battle for Vitebsk, where the advancing Soviet forces were stopped. It would be stationed there from December 1943 to January 1944, during which time it helped repel many Soviet attacks. During the period from 10th December 1943 to 24th February 1944, s.Pz.Jg.Abt 519 claimed to have destroyed some 290 enemy tanks with the loss of only 6 vehicles, of which 4 were destroyed by their crews (due to a lack of towing vehicles).
From January to June, s.Pz.Jg.Abt 519 saw very few combat actions and was part of the 3rd Armee. From June 1944, s.Pz.Jg.Abt 519 was used to support the 4th Armee in Belorussia. By the end of June, s.Pz.Jg.Abt 519 claimed to have destroyed around 112 Soviet tanks with some losses. To replace the losses, this unit received 15 new vehicles (5 in March, April, and June). Due to the following fighting in July 1944, the unit lost many of its Nashorns. What was left of s.Pz.Jg.Abt 519 was used to support the Panzerkampfgruppe Hoppe by the middle of July. By August 1944, like the previous units, s.Pz.Jg.Abt 519 was also sent to Mielau to be equipped with Jagdpanthers, but was also equipped with StuG III.

Late production version somewhere on the eastern front. The crew observe their surroundings for possible enemy targets. The Nashorn is positioned between the two wooden houses which serve as makeshift camouflage. This vehicle belongs to s.Pz.Jg.Ab 519’s commanding Kompanie. Source.
Its remaining vehicles were given to s.Pz.Jg.Abt 664 which was equipped with towed 88 mm PaK 43 guns. This unit never achieved a full combat strength, with only around 12 vehicles being used (October 1944). It was engaged with HeeresGruppe Mitte, but was lost in late January 1945 on the Eastern Front.
Interesting to note is that Nashorn crews from s.Pz.Jg.Abt 519 had a habit of naming their (and paining it on the vehicle) vehicles after East German cities (like Pommern) or animals (Puma, Tiger, etc).

Schwere Panzerjäger Abteilung 88

s.Pz.Jg.Abt 88 was originally formed in late October 1940, and by late 1943 was mostly engaged on the Eastern Front. In late November, it was moved to Mielau to be equipped with Nashorns and for crew training. The unit reaches its full combat strength by January 1944 but was not ready for combat operation until February 1944.
By early 1944, s.Pz.Jg.Abt 88 was part of the 1st Panzer Armee on the Eastern Front. s.Pz.Jg.Abt 88 was heavily engaged during the battle of Kamienets-Podolsky. Later, in March/April 1944, this unit supported the 6th and 17th Panzer Divisions. An interesting fact is that, in May 1944, one s.Pz.Jg.Kp 88 Nashorn managed to destroy a new Soviet tank IS-2 in somewhat comic circumstances. This vehicle had actually been captured by the Germans and was in the process of being towed to the rear when it was spotted by the Nashorns. They immediately destroyed it without knowing it was actually captured by their comrades, although it is unlikely that the soldiers towing their prize back were amused by this incident.
This unit suffered heavy losses during the support of the Army Group A, around Brody and Lvov. In order to replace the losses, it received 30 new vehicles in August 1944. The rest of the year, this unit was stationed near Miechow. From January 1945, it was engaged against the Soviets near Lisow and Kielce.
In late January, an unknown number of Nashorns from this unit were supporting the German defense of Preiswitz near the village of Gieraltowice. During these actions, some Nashorns from s.Pz.Jg.Abt 88 were equipped with experimental night vision equipment, but in what numbers and how effective this system was is unknown. In March, the remnants of s.Pz.Jg.Abt 88 supported the 17th Armored Division near Lauban. s.Pz.Jg.Abt 88 would fight on until it surrendered in Prague in May 1945.

Schwere Panzerjäger Ersatz 43 and Asbuildung Abteilung

These two units were originally used for training and as reinforcements and were stationed at Spremberg. In desperation, both units were mobilized in the defense of the Oder River, where both would be lost. The number of vehicles that these units had is unknown.

The use of Nashorn in other units.

Panzerkompanie Kummersdorf was formed using the vehicle present at the Kummersdorf Weapons Testing Center, including at least one Nashorn. An unknown number of Nashorns were allocated to the 1st Panzer Division in December 1944. They were used to reinforce Pz.Jg.Abt 37, which had lost most of its Marder anti-tank vehicles. By April 1945, there was still an unknown number of Nashorns operational with this unit. It is possible that at least 12 Nashorns were given to the Das Reich Division in late December 1944, but precise information is not available.
By the end of 1944, there were still some 130-165 operational Nashorns in total (depending on the source). Most were located on the Eastern front, with smaller numbers to the West.

Schwere Panzerjäger Abteilung/Kompanie 424

The origin of this unit is not clear, and depending on the sources it is either marked as an Abteilung or a Kompanie. What is known is that s.Pz.Jg.Ab 424 was mostly destroyed in early 1945 near the Kielce area. The remaining elements of this unit (with only two Nashorns) were used to defend the Order river.


Other potential users

The attempt to sell Kuwait and Romania Disston Tractor Tanks, and the successful sale to Afghanistan is documented with primary sources and clear photographic evidence. However, there were three more reported attempts to sell the vehicle. These are: the US Military (namely the US Army and US Marine Corps), Canada, New Zealand, and China. There is a general lack of credible evidence for each of these potential users/buyers, but the claims cannot be categorically dismissed either. In some cases, there has been difficulty obtaining the original source material for the claims, however, additional research on the claim has been undertaken in each case.


Combat record [ edit | uredi izvor]

The first field combat for the 15 cm sFH 18 was with the Chinese National Revolutionary Army in the Second Sino-Japanese War. The Chinese were desperately short on artillery guns and other heavy weapons, but the few 15 cm sFH 18 units the Chinese did have hopelessly outclassed their Japanese counterparts which were mainly the Type 38 15 cm howitzer and Type 4 15 cm howitzer, forcing the Japanese to introduce the Type 96 15 cm Howitzer. It is interesting that some earlier pieces (about 24) of sFH18 in China were designed specially with a 32/L barrel, known as sFH18 32/L. The maximum range was increased to 15 km. But most of the sFH18 in China were lost to attrition. Only two pieces can be seen in the museums today. [ potreban citat ]

Against the Soviet Union however, the sFH 18 proved to be greatly inferior to the Red Army corps artillery 122 mm gun and 152 mm ML-20 gun-howitzer, whose maximum range of 20.4 kilometres (22,300 yd) and 17.3 kilometres (18,900 yd) allowed it to fire counter-battery against the sFH 18 with a 7 kilometres (7,700 yd) and 4 kilometres (4,400 yd) advantage. This led to numerous efforts to introduce new guns with even better performance than the ML-20, while various experiments were also carried out on the sFH㺒 to improve its range. These led to the 15 cm sFH 18M version with a removable barrel liner and a muzzle brake that allowed a larger "special 7" or 8 charge to be used. The 18M increased range to 15,100 metres (16,500 yd), but it was found that the liners suffered increased wear and the recoil system could not handle the increased loads in spite of the brake. This led to a more interesting modification, the introduction of the 15 cm R. Gr. 19 FES ammunition, which used a rocket-assisted round that could reach 18,200 metres (19,900 yd) and give it some level of parity with the A-19 and ML-20.

Several countries continued fielding the sFH 18 after the war in large numbers including Czechoslovakia, Portugal and many South American and Central American countries. Finland bought 48 sFH㺒 howitzers from Germany in 1940 and designated them 150 H/40. These guns were modernized in 1988 as the 152 H 88, and they are still used by Finnish army.


Pogledajte video: Распаковка Kite Kiteu0026More 48 х 29 х 12 см 18 л Черный K18-1018 х L-2