Hello everybody
Today I came across the home page of the plastic modellers' club of Lüneburg.
They have a page devoted to a hitherto secret variant of the
Leopard II ( http://www.pmcl.de/sms.htm ). The Sea-Leopard was a
cooperative development of the German and Danish navies for coastal defence
purposes. The page has a photo of the only existing prototype, at the Danish
armour school in Esbjerg. The club will present a model at their next
convention
Greetings Karl Heinz
There's a vertical editing line right through the middle of the turret, so I'd
say that we have a nice hoax here. I sincerely hope nobody built a modern MBT
with three main guns, thats just scary.
> K.H.Ranitzsch wrote:
> Hello everybody
It sure didn't meet the weight to stress ratio, especially when the turret
looks to be the same size (without reinforcement) as the standard LEO A2.
Don
[quoted original message omitted]
Not to mention the fact that the loader's job would really be a bitch
:).
Mark
> Don M wrote:
> It sure didn't meet the weight to stress ratio, especially when the
True. But you'd never get gunners to transfer out - the firepower
junkies would be in fits of rapture.
> Mark Reindl wrote:
> Not to mention the fact that the loader's job would really be a bitch
Yeah he'd need to be pretty buff....) Auto loader or not!
> Not to mention the fact that the loader's job would really be a bitch
> Not to mention the fact that the loader's job would really be a bitch
Nah, they made a geneticly enhanced loader with three sets of arms for the
occasion! Now he can load away!
---
with kind regards
Octopi-ped loader??? Wonder if Beth has been doing any splicing?
Running and docking from incoming rocks, (they can develop quite
some velocity when hurled from down under!) ...;-)
[quoted original message omitted]
> At 10:47 PM -0700 4/20/02, Mark Reindl wrote:
120mm rounds are already a bitch. This is a bitch x3...
Serously though, the only tank I've ever seen with 2 main guns was a Sexton
(Austrailian) that was build to see if the turret ring and turret structure
could handle the force of a 17 pounder. The tank in question had 2 6 pounders
fitted for simultaneous firing. It worked too, so they proceeded with 17
pounder tests once they got some from the UK.
[quoted original message omitted]
If I recall correctly it was a prototype AC3 'Sentinal', fitted with two 25
pounder field guns, as you say, for trials for the 17 pounder (as none were
available in australia at the time.)
The AC1 was fitted with a 2 pounder, the AC2 with a 6 pounder, AC3 wit a 25
pounder and the AC4 with a 17 pounder...
Tremble in fear, Chi-ha, tremble in fear...
> At 10:47 PM -0700 4/20/02, Mark Reindl wrote:
Barry Cadwgan
> Tremble in fear, Chi-ha, tremble in fear...
Ummm.... is this an Aussie thing, or am I going to get ridiculed by everyone
for not getting the reference?
3B^2
If I've read it right, he's referring to the Chi-Ha tank which the
Japanese used in WW2. 'Twasn't very good, as tanks go...
> -----Original Message-----
OK, that makes sense. Armor wasn't their strong suite, was it? Of course, most
of the terrain they fought on didn't beget huge North
Africa/Russian
Steppe-style tank battles, either.
3B^2
> From: "Tony Francis" <tony.francis@kuju.com>
> At 8:59 AM -0700 4/22/02, Brian Bilderback wrote:
Hmm. There was this big area of land that they captured called Manchuria that
has pretty big wide open spaces. Korea isn't a big swamp either.
From: Ryan M Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com>
> At 8:59 AM -0700 4/22/02, Brian Bilderback wrote:
True, but the Japanese had some interesting (and bad) ideas about the usage of
tanks, doctrine that was based on geography and the types of enemies they were
engaging on a regular basis. Very few of their enemies could field effective
tanks, especially early in the war.
Besides, the Japanese Army got scraps. The Navy and the Air Force were the
glamour boys.
Aside -- I love playing the Japanese in Axis and Allies. The last time
we
played, I was very close to taking Moscow with a tank assault. Chi-Ha!
> Ryan M Gill wrote:
> OK, that makes sense. Armor wasn't their strong suite, was it? Of
Yeah, and China and Korea had HUGE tank forces - it takes 2 to tango,
remember. Besides, Not I said MOST of the terrain. I was thinking of the
island campaigns, Burma, etc.... If I had said ALL the terrain they fought in,
then ytou'd have a point. MOST and ALL are not the same thing.
*RANT MODE ON*
this is actually a minor irritation of mine on the list, and I'm not sure if
it bugs anyone else or if I'm just sensitive, but here goes. I've noticed that
when someone makes a statement about a generalization, people immediately cite
a given exception to the generalization, and present that as a refutation of
the generalization. While it is important for anyone who states a
generalization to remember that there are exceptions to the rules, it's also
important to remember that the exception does not necessarily refute the rule.
Let's suppose I come from a small town in the middle of nowhere (I do,
actually, but not the one in this example). Let's say of the 500 people who
live in the town, 400 of them drive pickup trucks. If I say, "Most people from
Beeyeffee drive pickups," And someone says, "But I know Jonny Bob Roscoeson,
and he's from Beeyeffee, and he drives a station wagon!" you HAVE cited an
exception, but have in no way refuted the truth of my generalization.
Again, I repeat, just because a generalization is not ALWAYS true, does not
mean it is not USUALLY true!!!!!
*RANT MODE OFF*
Thanks for letting me vent.
3B^2
> At 8:59 AM -0700 4/22/02, Brian Bilderback wrote:
History supports you there in 1939 the USSR got hold of a Japanese plan to
launch a attack over disputed Mongol and Manchurian territory. The Russians
preempted that attack with one of their own and kicked the Japanese butts
badly. This caused the Japanese to leave vast amounts of troops and equipment
in Manchuria, as it turned out to no avail. In the last days of WW2 the
Russians launched a sweeping attack that virtually destroyed several Japanese
armies in 20 days. Guess the Japanese should have taken more care in the
development of it's armored forces (a Cha Vs T3485 is not a fare gun
fight)....
> At 10:18 AM -0700 4/22/02, Brian Bilderback wrote:
Properly employed, you don't have to have armor on the other side for your
tanks to be useful. Tanks in the purest sense are excellent for exploiting
breaches in the line and making good on gains. They are the modern cavalry in
every sense. So just because the Chinese didn't have anything heavier than run
down WWI era armored cars doesn't mean that tanks weren't useful.
The US and the British brought tanks with them on a number of the island
hopping fights where they were quite useful for dealing with bunkers and other
fortifications. This is where tanks are also useful.
Tanks are and always will be excellent infantry support platforms when used
correctly. Sometimes I wonder if the British practice of two types of tanks
wasn't such an incorrect method given the uses that some tanks were put into
when dealing with entrenched opponents. Flame Thrower tanks were the best
example of useful against fortifications. But really anything with a good HE
round was better than a guy with a Bazooka or a squad rushing the MG with
grenades.
> *RANT MODE ON*
It wasn't just a little generalization, it was a massive sweeping blanket
statement that really doesn't hold water better than a sieve. The Japanese
didn't build good tanks just like the Germans never built a long range
strategic bomber. Not because they didn't have a use for it, but because the
powers that be never made it so.
> Ryan M Gill wrote:
> Properly employed, you don't have to have armor on the other side for
Ok, first of all, if you can show me in quotations where I ever said "Tanks
were not useful to the japanese," I'll quit ever making any comment on the
list, because my Other Voices have been talking out of turn. In response to
the comment about the quality of the Chi-ha, I merely pointed out that
in most of the Pacific war, especially against the US, the japanese were
fighting on terrain that did not favor tanks. In regions where tanks WERE more
at an advantage, the Japanese were fighting opponents with equipment inferior
even to their own (Except as was pointed out at the end vs. the
USSR, by which time it was too bloody late to matter). This does NOT mean I
thought tanks useless to the Japanese, it merely meant that the
large-scale
tank battles witnessed in Eurpoe and the Soviet front did not occur, and
there was little need for the Japanese to rapidly evolve their tank designs
the way the allies and Germans had to.
> The US and the British brought tanks with them on a number of the
Yes, useful. In large formations like those found in Europe and Africa?
> Tanks are and always will be excellent infantry support platforms
> It wasn't just a little generalization, it was a massive sweeping
Let's see. My blanket statement was that MOST terrain in the pacific wasn't
suited for LARGE-SCALE tank combat. Other than exceptions like Korea
and
Manchuria, most of the pacific WAS pretty jungle-clad, no? Or maybe I'm
hallucinating all those trees in places like the Phillipines....
3B^2
> At 1:04 PM -0700 4/22/02, Brian Bilderback wrote:
It seemed like your statement indicated that since the Chinese and Koreans
didn't have tanks, then the Japanese wouldn't have found them useful. (the two
to tango comment).
Large scale tank battles are an oddity. Usually it is a matter of tanks
supporting infantry in their advance on a held position and then exploiting
the holes in the line. Battles like Kursk are the exception, not the rule.
> Yes, useful. In large formations like those found in Europe and
Nope. But just because I'm not using two full batteries for an attack on this
mountain strong hold doesn't mean that some artillery would really help the
attack.
> Let's see. My blanket statement was that MOST terrain in the
Yes, a good portion of SEA is jungle. As it was learned in Vietnam, tanks do
very well in jungle. Even with man carried ATW's. During WWII, this would have
been borne out as well were it really pressed I think. The Japanese never
developed a number of things the US used for island landings and were still
using barges as a means of landing troops when the Allies had developed the
Higgens boats and other landing craft. Further, the US development of other
tracked and armored amphibious vehicles worked well.
WWII battles were in Burma, Malaysia, Phillipines, Vietnam, China, Thailand,
Laos, etc. Lots of Jungles, lots of rough terrain, lots of places tanks would
be able to be useful. Just like in the Bocage.
My point is that they were useful. Not in large massive numbers, but useful.
The Japanese Army officials didn't see fit to develop a good tank or continue
to develop designs to maintain parity with the allies.
On Mon, 22 Apr 2002 13:04:24 -0700, "Brian Bilderback"
> <bbilderback@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Ok, first of all, if you can show me in quotations where I ever said
You said, "Of course, most of the terrain they fought on didn't beget huge
North Africa/Russian Steppe-style tank battles, either." Someone pointed
out that they fought in Manchuria and Korea, large chunks of land in
themselves, much of which is conducive to tank operations.
So, the question now becomes one of how much terrain is found in Manchuria and
Korea versus Burma, other parts of Indochina, and all the islands that the
Japanese fought over. Or, how much is "good tank terrain".
Regardless, before someone starts counting up square miles of tank friendly
terrain, could you guys take it off list?
> Ryan M Gill wrote:
> It seemed like your statement indicated that since the Chinese and
Sorry, I merely meant to imply that Tank-on-tank combat was not likely
to
occur in Manchuria, regardless of how wide-open it was.
> Large scale tank battles are an oddity. Usually it is a matter of
True, but they were more likely in arenas with A) Lots of tanks on both sides
and B) Plenty of room for them to manouver.
> Yes, useful. In large formations like those found in Europe and
There were a lot of things the Japanese failed to develop properly, many of
which would have been much more useful than a better tank.
> WWII battles were in Burma, Malaysia, Phillipines, Vietnam, China,
A good point, but it seems our points kind of just miss each other. My point
is that while useful, tanks were not the lords of battle they were in
Europe/North Africa/SovU.
3B^2
MISERABLE TANKETTE ACTUALLY!
made the US STUART light tank look like a JADGTIGER, it did!
actually made ITALIAN tanks look tough!
> If I've read it right, he's referring to the Chi-Ha tank which the
Well, it might have been barely adequete when the war started... but it never
got any better.
A Matilda with it's 2 pounder (40mm) gun and relativly heavy armour was a
deadly opponent for it... I tremble to think what anything with a 17 pounder
would have done. I have a vague memory of an incident where sherman fireflys
caught japanese armour on open ground... not a pretty sight.
> > -----Original Message-----
> Tremble in fear, Chi-ha, tremble in fear...
> for not getting the reference?
The type 97 (ie vintage 1937) Chi-Ha and the improved new turret version
Shinhoto
Chi-Ha was the best tank in widescale production the Japanese had in
WW2. On a good day, it was nearly as good as an M3 Stuart, which is to say,
not very.
See
http://www.wlhoward.com/japan.htm
or
http://users.swing.be/tanks/edito/japonais.htm
for japanese tanks.
Chi Ha
http://users.swing.be/tanks/engins2/244.html
Shinhoto ie "New Turret" Chi Ha
http://users.swing.be/tanks/engins2/245.html
Maximum armour: 25mm.
Compare with Sentinel:
http://www.overkill82.freeserve.co.uk/Sentinel.html
or
http://users.swing.be/tanks/engins2/576.html
Maximum armour: listed as 65mm (though rather more from my own examination of
the one in the Australian War Memorial)
According to http://salts.britwar.co.uk/salt7.htm
A UK 2 lb would go through 40mm at any range it could hit at.
A 17lb would go through rather more - at least 100mm, often twice that.
" many sources credit the 17-pdr firing APDS with 231mm penetration at
1000 yards on armour sloped at 30 deg, but it seems tolerably obvious that
this figure really refers to armour at 0 deg. "
The Chi-Ha's gun would penetrate 10mm with luck ( 57mm gun not designed
for penetrating armour)
Quoting Brian Bilderback <bbilderback@hotmail.com>:
> Ryan M Gill wrote:
Happens everywhere else as well. Think of all the
"my-uncle-foo-who-smoked 300-
a-day-and-lived-to-see-140" that people seem to think means smoking
isn't the biggest killer around. The fact that warfare is only a close second
to smoking as the leading killer of the C20th is supposed to be made
irrelevant by the anecdotal evidence of uncle "foo".
It's a human failing - you have to go learn how to handle large
populations. The human brain comes naturally equipped to understand
populations of a few dozen people and no broadcastable knowledge.
Suddenly you have populations of millions and the direct or anecdotal evidence
which was acceptable as truth for the few dozen doesn't work.
It works the other way as well sometimes, just to be inconvenient. That's why
people are wankers on the roads - they've been safe so far, so the use
the generalisation that they'll always be OK, not understanding that in this
case
the exceptions are the ones that matter - It doesn't matter how many
times you survive a risky overtaking, it's the time you don't that hurts...
Basically, right, human judgement is all up and down the wall...
[quoted original message omitted]
> --- Brian Bilderback <bbilderback@hotmail.com> wrote:
It did. Japanese vs. Russia in 1939, where Georgi Zhukov kicked a Japanese
army around with the same Siberians that would later ruin the Germans' day
outside Moscow. While the Russians didn't have the best tanks on the planet in
that fight, they were more than adequate to throw around anything the Japs
could produce. Traumatized their tiny little minds so badly that they never
had the nerve to hassle the Ruskies again, even when they should have in 1941.
> There were a lot of things the Japanese failed to
Reliable machine guns would have been a good start.
On Sat, 27 Apr 2002 18:11:22 -0700 (PDT), John Atkinson
> <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Traumatized their tiny little minds so badly
A good chunk of their "trauma" was being intensely peeved with Adolf Hitler,
who signed a peace treaty with the Soviets within a couple of days of
Khalkin-Gol. The Japanese weren't pre-disposed to helping out the
Germans by invading the Soviet Union from the east.