Dear visitor, welcome to WesWorld. If this is your first visit here, please read the Help. It explains in detail how this page works. To use all features of this page, you should consider registering. Please use the registration form, to register here or read more information about the registration process. If you are already registered, please login here.
Quoted
[SIZE=3]PZInz 32TP wzór.44 (Polish 32-ton Medium Tank model 1944)[/SIZE]
This tank was designed by PZInz as a replacement for the 26TP wz.42, itself a heavily-modified variant of the German Panzer IV tank. The 32TP was designed to provide superior firepower and protection in comparison to the 26TP. An 85mm gun, based of an anti-tank gun prototyped in 1942, provided enhanced firepower in comparison to the previous 75mm guns used on Polish tanks. The Poles, having been pioneers of the diesel-powered tank, license-built the French MD.12/36 diesel engine at Ursus, and used it to power the 32TP.
[SIZE=3]Specifications[/SIZE]
Dimensions:
-- Length:6.07 meters (hull), 7.65 metres (with gun)
-- Width: 3.25 meters
-- Height: 2.455 meters
Weight: 32 tonnes
Armament:
-- 85mm/L55 with 58 rounds [1]
-- 2x MGs
Speed: 53 km/h (33 mph)
Range: 350 km (120 mi) with 500 litres fuel
Engine: Ursus V12 diesel, 600hp (Alsthom/SACM MD.12/36)
Suspension: Torsion bar
Protection:
-- Turret face: 120mm
-- Glacis: 40mm-90mm (sloped)
-- Sides: 30mm-75mm
Constructors: PZInz
Variants:
-- Tank: July 1944
-- Tank destroyer: October 1944
-- Self-propelled artillery piece: July 1945
-- Self-propelled AA gun: October 1945
Quoted
Originally posted by HoOmAn
From what I read from those specs that beast is lighter, faster, longer ranged, heavier armed and armored than the Panther.... Not sure if that is is technically feasible.
Quoted
Originally posted by HoOmAn
...but the point that really needs an answer some day is this: Why do the Poles (and other European powers) think they need these kind of tanks without the experience of OTL world war two?
Quoted
Originally posted by HoOmAn
Thanks for summary. Need to look up that Argun tank and whatever discussion we hsd back then. Not my intention to open old issues again too. Too much time has passed. Me just hasn't caref about tanks years ago but today I am playing catch up on it.
Quoted
[SIZE=3]Argun C[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]Specifications[/SIZE]
Dimensions:
-- Length: 5.80 meters
-- Width: 3.14 meters
-- Height: 2.72 meters
Weight: 36 tonnes
Armament:
-- 90mm/L56 with 65 rounds
-- 1x MG
Speed: 49 km/h (30.5 mph)
Range: 188 km (117.39 mi) with 908 litres fuel
Engine: Avati Tiger V12 diesel, 720hp
Suspension: ????
Protection:
-- Turret face: 80mm
-- Glacis: 70mm (sloped)
-- Sides: 50mm
Constructors: ????
This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Daidalos" (Jul 1st 2013, 9:40am)
Quoted
Originally posted by Daidalos
Though, what I generally don't understand is that sci-fi tanks from asian nations have any impact on anything. [...] If you refer to Sci-Fi-nonsense with your own designs you encourage Sci-fi-nonsense. I think Sci-fi-nonsense and Über-hardware should be ignored, especially as gameplay-wise there is no necessity to counter a big tank with an even bigger tank.
Quoted
Originally posted by Daidalos
Whatever man....I am just saying that it is cheap to complain about super-hardware and using this super-hardware as a justification to create own super hardware at the same time.
This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "TheCanadian" (Jul 1st 2013, 10:06pm)
Quoted
Originally posted by HoOmAn
Okay... Stop, stop, stop....
Quoted
Originally posted by HoOmAn
I really didn't want to start another endless discussion. Brock is right, that Indian tank is in service for long. And yes, other players used more reasonable approaches.
But still, Brock, your original statement sounded a lot like the "sci-fi to top sci-fi argument". At least that was the first thought it triggered in me... ;o)
Quoted
Originally posted by HoOmAn
To give this thread a different direction: The Panther is often rated the best tank of its era. I have even read somewhere it is considered the first modern tank because of its overall layout and performance (once the bugs were worked out). Now, why is this when it compares so "badly" to a T-34/85 or T-44 or probably some other tanks? Is the Panther just overrated or is there more about it that distinguishs it from other designs?
Quoted
Originally posted by TheCanadian
Edit
Hoo, my thought on how the Panther compares to other tanks of the era; they were good tanks that suffered perhaps from being over engineered, and to difficult to mass produce. I would still take 10 Shermans, or 8 T-34s over 1 Panther any day, which is the odds the Panthers were facing.
This post has been edited 2 times, last edit by "Daidalos" (Jul 1st 2013, 10:50pm)
Quoted
Originally posted by HoOmAn
Quoted
Originally posted by TheCanadian
Edit
Hoo, my thought on how the Panther compares to other tanks of the era; they were good tanks that suffered perhaps from being over engineered, and to difficult to mass produce. I would still take 10 Shermans, or 8 T-34s over 1 Panther any day, which is the odds the Panthers were facing.
Does it make sense to compare quantity of tank A versus single-unit quality of tank B?
How could the Panther gain its reputation if it was not superior to other tanks of its era? What were its advantages? On wiki it says "The Panther's excellent combination of firepower, mobility, and protection served as a benchmark for other nations' late war and post-war tank designs, and it is regarded as one of the best tanks of World War II."
However, comparing the Panther to the T-44 stats does not lead to this results.
Forum Software: Burning Board® Lite 2.1.2 pl 1, developed by WoltLab® GmbH