Tango01  | 02 Nov 2018 12:19 p.m. PST |
Of possible interest?
From here
link Amicalement
Armand |
| Tango01 | 03 Nov 2018 12:19 p.m. PST |
Bad?… or it's the scale? (smile)
Amicalement
Armand
|
 Legion 4 | 03 Nov 2018 12:33 p.m. PST |
Nice model … but they had to learn the hard way … they needed to add an MG to the front hull …  |
| Lion in the Stars | 03 Nov 2018 3:00 p.m. PST |
Also mechanically unreliable, needed a huge battery pack in addition to the electric generators. Yes, it really was a hybrid! |
| Andy ONeill | 04 Nov 2018 9:24 a.m. PST |
The thing about the machine gun.
I think this is based on a mis understanding.
AFAIK
There were very few and maybe no losses at all to soviet infantry assault during Kursk. Two vehicles destroyed by fire are often attributed to infantry assault. One was definitely already disabled by a mine. It's quite possible the other one was also already disabled. The vehicle was so heavy it was nigh on impossible to recover. If one ran over a mine or failed mechanically then crews usually blew them up. Or set them on fire. These two vehicles I mentioned above are both listed as destroyed by "incendiary bottle".
This is based on examining the wrecks after the event rather than eyewitness descriptions. It could have been sov infantry or it could be a crew member lit them up. I wasn't aware the production machines needed any extra battery packs. |
| Tango01 | 04 Nov 2018 3:54 p.m. PST |
Thanks!.
Amicalement
Armand
|
| Lion in the Stars | 04 Nov 2018 4:33 p.m. PST |
@Andy: As far as I know, there was only the usual small battery to start the gasoline engines, which turned generators. There were two big electric motors powering the tracks, no mechanical connection between the engines and the tracks. You get much better reliability and fuel efficiency if you have a big battery pack to either store excess power or provide more power than the generator can. But you'd be stuck with lead-acid batteries in WW2, which are very heavy (and splash sulfuric acid around if breached). |
| Legion 4 | 04 Nov 2018 4:56 p.m. PST |
The thing about the machine gun. Well regardless an MG was added later to the front hull. For obvious reasons I'd think. |
| Skarper | 05 Nov 2018 3:25 a.m. PST |
From what I gather the Kursk fighting was heavily propagandised by the Soviets and the Germans. I would not be surprised if the stories about these vehicles were exaggerated somewhat to make the Soviets more heroic and to explain away the poor results from the German point of view. These were capable vehicles with excellent armour and a superb gun. If they failed to achieve results it is probably down to poor tactics rather than lack of MGs. StuG's lacked MGs too and were well regarded and highly effective. Bow MGs have marginal value anyway and were discontinued post war. Anyway. It's a nice model. |
| Legion 4 | 05 Nov 2018 7:48 a.m. PST |
StuG's lacked MGs too But some had an external MG mounted behind a gun shield in front of the loader's hatch, etc. link ghqmodels.com/store/g84.html ghqmodels.com/store/g47.html But if Infantry is that close you'd probably stay buttoned up. And try to use the main gun with HE, etc. But again even the later version of the Ferdinand, aka the Elefant got a bow MG … ghqmodels.com/store/g11.html Bow MGs have marginal value anyway and were discontinued post war. Yes as we see as tech and tactics evolved the need for bow MGs could be very useful at times in WWII and even in the Korean War. I've heard when masses of Infantry tried to overwhelm/overrun, e.g. IJFs, Chinese, etc., a tank. With the crew all buttoned up, the TC would call on his radio a fellow TC to "scratch my back" and open up with hull and coaxial MGs to kill off the enemy massing Infantry. Which would do little to no damage to the tank. But chew up the enemy infantry very effectively. Of course you don't want to be in that situation often if at all. But as the saying goes, "desperate times call for desperate measures". |
| Tango01 | 05 Nov 2018 11:30 a.m. PST |
Glad you like it my friend!.
Amicalement
Armand
|
