![]() |
![]() |
|
|
I never said that these battles were dececive, but they were important nevertheless. Leningrad drew German forces, and they had to keep several divisions around it all the time. Battle of Moscow was more of ideological victory, and germans lost not only because of the weather. They lost, ironically, because of their fast advance. Red army destroyed most of the infrastructure while falling back. And there were many russian forces left behind the frontline simply because german pazner divisions advanced faster than red army could withdraw, and there were no enough forces to eliminate them fast enough. Also, germans needed fuel, ammo. spare parts. They needed bases for them, and it all took time. By the time they reached Moscow, even if they would have crossed volokolamsk road, they had not enough forces for the streetfights. And of course there was cold.
The amount of troops engaged in these battles were small when compared to stalingrad, they were huge compared to other war theaters. Here is amount of forces germans used in sevastopol: 11th army(10 infantry divisions) approx 204.000 soldiers. approx 2100 artillery pieces: 670 artillery pieces(75mm to 600mm). 655 Anti tank artillery. 720 Howitzers. 450 tanks. 600 planes. In el alamein british had 194.000 men, about 1200 tanks and 1900 artillery pieces. 2 Doppleganger Here is M1A1 armor data, M1A2 has the same armor. M1A1 Abrams MBT - Estimated Armor Protection Levels (2002) M1A1HC, M1A1HA, M1A1D Against Kinetic Energy (in mm of RHAe) Against Chemical Energy (in mm of RHAe) Turret 800 - 900 1,320 - 1,620 Glacis 560 - 590 510 - 1,050 Lower Front Hull 580 - 650 800 - 970 RHAe = Rolled Homogeneous Armor Equivalent; an equivalent RHA thickness of a given armor type against a given armor piercing ammunition or missile (i.e. Kinetic Energy penetrators, like APFSDS DU long-rod penetrators or Chemical Energy projectiles, like HEAT ammunition and ATGM's). Modern composite (Chobham) armor may be several times more efficient against Chemical Energy than RHA of the same thickness. Here is T-90 Front armor rating, mm RHA vs APFSDS: 550 mm + 250-280mm with Kontakt-5 = 800-830mm vs HEAT: 650 mm + 500-700mm with Kontakt-5 = 1,150-1,350mm more on T-90 armor is here http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/Tanks/MBT/t-90_armor.html You have to remember that T-90 is much lighter,faster and has various electronic countermeasures(as Abrams does). ERA is said to work slightly better against cumulative ammunition than regular plates, but works slightly worse against APFSDS. P.S In my opinion Merkava is the best ![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
what about the SMK or the T-100 programs, there had light armor for a tank, slow speed for a snail, and less firepower than most tanks, not all, but most, and it was classified as one of russia's super heavy experimental's and the germans took it out with their pre-WWII light tanks ....... it's not neccasarily how you catagorize them, or how accurately if you do, it's how you use them and if you could use them, our sherman was the equivalent of a german light tank, and our and the british's medium tank, and the us designed the T-95 that made the german tigers and koenigtigers look small and impotent, and then the russians just made the same tank outa a cookie cuter plant , everyone uses things differently, but when you have a loosing hand like slow production, and then you have severe mechanical, and weather difficulties, ontop of the fact that russian's were defended their homeland to there own deaths , and russia has a reputation of being unbeatable, no one has taken it over, they tried and failed, hitler is one of the many , so remember, whether it's a 4 mile an hour super heavy trudging along, or a 140 mile an hour light makin' dust , you have to use them very very intelegently, which means knowing what can and can't kill you and vice versa
|
![]() |