Btw, that was 7.5 km/h, as the energy "weight" increases in square by speed, maybe you can ask your friend to do the math for 18 km/h, LOL and maybe he can tell you how that would turn out...
hmm, if i remember correctly it was u who asked for help in math, not me .
Quote:
No Damage? Really? Plz come back and "verify" this with an insult
throghn in my face again... Pretending to have know it all along, and now marking my use of words..
did i insult u?
Stalk, it's not the first time u throw the statements in discussions that
don't belong to me. Plz stop it, looks kinda childish.
This is not my statement:
Quote: DIMA: During the battle of Kursk It is known that Russian tanks with useless guns or turrets due to battle damage or partially killed crew would ram german tanks in an effort to block the traverse of their turrets/barrel.
Quote:
1. So why did u wright that? If u had known the basic physics invoulved?
why did i write what? be specific.
Quote:
2. And WHAT THEORY WOULD THAT BE?
ideal conditions of enviroment, target is not moving, yer tank speed is greater than target's speed, yer tank weight is greater than target weight, u hit target with the strongest part of yer tank upon weakest point of enemy.
enuf?
Quote:
3. What about the mercedes? No damage? 1 ton at 18 km/h in the side?
Stalk, u r really frightening me .
show me where i've told that there won't be damage? As i can c that i've wrote that there wouldn't be significant damage.
and then u showed what i've meant by significant damage:
Quote:
DIMA: Imo T-34 wouldnt really be able to do significant damage i.e. jam turret, immobilize PzVI as it was almost 2 times lighter.
So u insist that E-classe can inflict significant damage to G-klasse
with side hit at 18km/h speed?
Quote:
Ask you friend to calculate that for you... Guess you would not have
witten that if u had known this before,
About friend i've told u above already .
Quote:
But that funktion "F=kx." isnt the answer is it....
isn't it obvious?
the amount of damage u/target receive lineary depends on the material
u/target made of and it's deformation upon impact.
Quote:
So if u know this from the start of this thread, what have u been
blabbering about through out this thread? (have u got a little help maybe in
physics? from someone??) Seen the light maybe? Opeend a book maybe?
plz, don't judge everyone upon u.
Quote:
I am truly happy for that, maybe now u can stop this noncens.
plz, point me the nonsence i've told.
Quote:
Yes, another 360.... faster then any tank turret can do it...
really bored of yer empty statements.
Quote:
PS LOL, Ohhh no I dint know... Not that it matters, but when u talk
about weight or mass as it moves its NOT "impulse", its kinetic energy, ie:
the energy it represent when a mass moves...
i will tell u a secret: to act on 'target' u need to transfer impulse to it.
And depending of 'target' conditions and properties it will either accept impulse or return it back.
simply: F=-F .
Quote:
dima you should be politician with the BS you come out with
will think about it later .
Quote:
"dima its better to sit there and look stupid then to speack and
remove all dout"
matt, maybe u should take part in discussion and show yer arguments instead of farting around?
Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 12:45 am Post subject: Uhh
Ye...
Quote:
Dima: So u insist that E-classe can inflict significant damage to G-klasse
with side hit at 18km/h speed?
? What u think? The Mercedes driver go out with windex cleaning and whipe of the one ton (1000kg) car that just hit them in there side at 18 km/h? Or what you think? Windex do the trick and a bit of polish? ?
Quote:
Dima : Stalk, u r really frightening me .
show me where i've told that there won't be damage? As i can c that i've wrote that there wouldn't be significant damage.
and then u showed what i've meant by significant damage:
I let your previous statment (below) answer your new question abow, You wrote:
Quote:
Quote: Dima:
(well, theoretically it is possible to damage tank that is of same or lesser weight than yers.
Hmmm?
Quote:
Quote:
PS LOL, Ohhh no I dint know... Not that it matters, but when u talk
about weight or mass as it moves its NOT "impulse", its kinetic energy, ie:
the energy it represent when a mass moves...
Dima: i will tell u a secret: to act on 'target' u need to transfer impulse to it.
And depending of 'target' conditions and properties it will either accept impulse or return it back.
simply: F=-F .
Ahha, moving mass is kinetik energy... in that sentens u coment on was i talk of "weight", at moving speed, Compared to a standing still weight, Not impact. Read it again...
Quote:
Dima: matt, maybe u should take part in discussion and show yer arguments instead of farting around?
Truth is born in discussions .
Really, what truth would that be?
Maybe you can scip this nonsence, and maybe you can asnswer the "tough" and significant question I asked in the previous post, seem you forgot that, but u had a slick answer for everything else.
I place it here again if you have forgot it:
Btw, that was 7.5 km/h, as the energy "weight" increases in square by speed, maybe you can ask your friend to do the math for 18 km/h, LOL and maybe he can tell you how that would turn out...
If you whant me to post the question one more time I will.
Im looking forward to get the answer for the ONLY QUESTION THATS REALLY SIGNIFICANT in this argument.
What u think? The Mercedes driver go out with windex cleaning and
whipe of the one ton (1000kg) car that just hit them in there side at 18
km/h? Or what you think? Windex do the trick and a bit of polish? ?
i wonder, weather u really don't understand or just scoffing?
At such speed E-klasse would dent the part of 'G' it hit. But 'E' itself
would sustain much severe damages coz of several factors. Guess which?
Pretty same situation with T-34 and PzV/VI. Even if we take ideal conditions
where PzVI would not be moving, T-34 won't be able to reach such speed to bring PzVI out of order.
Quote:
I let your previous statment (below) answer your new question abow,
You wrote:
Quote: Dima:
(well, theoretically it is possible to damage tank that is of same or lesser
weight than yers.
its really funny how u rotate the statements and take them out of context .
that statement is about raming cases in general.
But if iam not mistaken we began discussing about raming PzVI with T-34. And as i told from the v start imo it is impossible to inflict significant damages(take PzVI temporary out of order) by raming it with T-34.
Quote:
Ahha, moving mass is kinetik energy... in that sentens u coment on was i talk of "weight", at moving speed, Compared to a standing still weight, Not impact. Read it again...
the higher speed u get the bigger impulse u will have upon contact with anotehr object. And in time of impact impulse will be transfered to standing
object and give it speed V2=i/m2.
So basically if no1 was moving and no2 was standing:
m1*V1o=m2*i/m2
These r the strengths both objects will act on each other during the collision.
Quote:
Really, what truth would that be?
Stalk, that;s an old roman saying .
Quote:
Maybe you can scip this nonsence, and maybe you can asnswer the
"tough" and significant question I asked in the previous post, seem you
forgot that, but u had a slick answer for everything else.
i really admire yer way of discussion .
u always pass along the questions i ask or just answer the question with another question and in same time demand answers on all yer questions... v good approach i must admit .
Quote:
Btw, that was 7.5 km/h, as the energy "weight" increases in square by speed, maybe you can ask your friend to do the math for 18 km/h, LOL and maybe he can tell you how that would turn out...
interesting is how things r chnging, not that long ago u called me genious
(or so) in math and now u r telling that my friend helps me to calculate...
anyway kinetic energy is beeing calculated as mV^2/2 not as mV^2 .
Once again i don't care about 'energy weight', as IIRC Mechanical Energy Saving Law doesn't work with non-rigid impacts - while Impulse Saving Law works in real situations.(Force of action is equal to force of counter-action with opposite math sign).
Quote:
Im looking forward to get the answer for the ONLY QUESTION THATS REALLY SIGNIFICANT in this argument.
Guess that's the problem.
U don't want to understand that same E-klasse can hit 2t car and get one result, then hit 2t heep of hay and get diferent result.
Anyway i can be easily mistaken in many things here as i don't pretend to be
good physician .
Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 8:59 am Post subject: heheh
Hehehhe
Yeee, impossible isnt it... Twist and turn...
To get you to answer the question how much that appel weight, and you would answer its green...
Stalk
PS. LOL,
Quote:
anyway kinetic energy is beeing calculated as mV^2/2 not as mV^2
I would not know that would I... That was what I told u in first place, remember the T34 at 7.5 km/h... Mr Genious... If u realy had understood that, you would NOT make this smuck remark would you. Mr Genious...
nah it's easy.
just need to adapt alil . And everything becomes v predictable.
Quote:
To get you to answer the question how much that appel weight, and you would answer its green..
once again, don't judge ppl upon u.
That's what u r doing for 2 pages of this discussion.
Quote:
That was what I told u in first place, remember the T34 at 7.5 km/h
it's still a mystery for me what did u try to show with T-34 at 7.5km/h and KT. KE is good thing but for ideal systems, don't forget other forces applied to objects in real life .
Imo it's obvious that the faster speed T-34 would have the worse damage it sustain after collision while it won't chnge much to KT.
Quote:
Mr Genious
never pretended to be. It was yer word.
Quote:
If u realy had understood that, you would NOT make this smuck remark would you. Mr Genious
guess i've misread this statement:
Quote:
Btw, that was 7.5 km/h, as the energy "weight" increases in square by speed
Looks like dead-end.
U just refuse to realize that in the moment of impact impulses of objects and kx play the main role.
Well i guess vector of impact will play big role as well and as far as T-34 is lower than either PzVI or KT so vector will be directed toward ground thus it's even harder for it to make damage by means of raming.
Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 12:26 pm Post subject: ye
Hm,
Quote:
DIMA: well, theoretically it is possible to damage tank that is of same or lesser weight than yers.
Quote:
DIMA: Imo T-34 wouldn’t really be able to do significant damage i.e. jam turret, immobilize PzVI as it was almost 2 times lighter. Plus most of germans tanx could avoid collision as they were faster offroad than T-34.
So we end this here OK, and I try to sum up our arguments and my thought. (We have done that before with mutual respect can we try to do that again maybe) We agree, that we don’t agree OK.
1. Dima Believe a T34 coming in 18 km/h with its strongest structural front side hit a heavier tank (Tiger fe) in the side cant do damage (quotes from a bow), Dima believe it cant immobilize, crack a track or dislodge a wheel, suspension, IE Imobilize (See abow), or do internal or structural damage or personnel damage, optic damage, or in any other way hurt a heavier tank in a “significant” way (quote a bow). Stalky Don’t agree.
2. Dima believe a Mercedes that is hit in its weaker side structure, with a car of 1 ton at 18 km/h (5m/s) with has its structural stronger front hitting a softer side structure cant causes any damage (Important, later he clarified it to significant damage, fine with me). Stalky don’t agree, 1 ton at 18 km/h (5 meters per second) is a mighty force Stalky thinks.
3. Dima believe the story’s (link below) of Soviet tankers who have got medals for there ramming, is all a myth, and Soviet propaganda. Dima don’t believe a soviet T34 tank even can ram a German tank as it’s faster.
Stalky are not that sure, but in essence Stalky don’t agree, for he believe they don’t give medals for actions that are meant to encourage and inspire other soldiers to follow these actions (role model). He means if its "impossible" to ram a tank why inspire other to try to do it, that would be suicide and sure destruction of soviet property and war materiel, it makes no sense to Stalky, that’s why he don’t agree.
Can we agree with this sum up, and agree we don’t agree. OK?
Well its nice to see you guys took this discussion up a notch ot two while i was enjoying some fine Johnnie Wallker. Seems to me talking to Dima is like talking to a brick wall so i give up my part in this discussion.
All that is left for me to say is that everything i pointed out in the beginning was to be was found true by other people research, so i`ll leave it like this.
i'd say to survive is basic human reaction.
So imho crew would leave its damaged tank immediatly after damaged was sustained. After they bailed out and found out that tank didn't catch fire they could return back.
Quote:
Answer: Simple equation and mathematics really, a less mass may have more “weight” as it’s moving, and in this case at this speed the T34 “weight” is much much more then a VI…
That's physics actually. But yes from elementary course. And I guess u've meant 'impulse' by 'weight'.
Quote:
At 7.5 km/h a T34 have the same "weight" as a Tiger 2 that stand still.....
ok impulses r 232.5kN vs 231kN
Looks fine for now. So when T-34 moving at 7.5km/h speed collides with standing KT, it will just stop and KT will get 3.3km/h speed for moment of the collision.
But how to determine damages both vehicles sustain?
yes,
F1=k1x1.
F2=K2x2.
Now we just need to know KTs material and it's properties so we can determine deformation according collision speed and properties of T-34 material .
And something telling me that T-34 armour would just deform backward (like u know when car collides at stone wall) or crack.
Quote:
PS: Wonder how that Merceds woud look when hit in side btw, by 1 ton at 18 km/h. No Damage u say?? Really?
F=kx.
how one of my teachers liked to tell "every complicated problem has simple, obvious to everyone but in same time wrong solution"...
Mega comback . If i was a Russian tank commander, i'd probably retreat to the rear if my tank was broken, then a recovery unit could fix it.
So we end this here OK, and I try to sum up our arguments and my thought. (We have done that before with mutual respect can we try to do that again maybe) We agree, that we don’t agree OK.
fine with me as physics always bored me.
U know iam into economics and history .
Guess it's time to open some hidden cards.
let me,plz, comment.
Quote:
1. Dima Believe a T34 coming in 18 km/h with its strongest structural front side hit a heavier tank (Tiger fe) in the side cant do damage (quotes from a bow),
once again, i can't c that i've told about CAN'T DO DAMAGE. As dented subwing = damage .
Maybe it's time already to stop taking statements/words out of context?
It's easy but i just don't want to descend that low(especially after 2 bottles of old, good Asti champagne).
Quote:
Dima believe it cant immobilize, crack a track or dislodge a wheel, suspension, IE Imobilize (See abow),
1)PzVI had main suspension box in the low front hull(tho can be mistaken here), 2)PzVI suspension(torsion bars and amount of wheels) allowed to move with several wheels absent.
About a tracks...in 1941 2kg of TNT couldn't break PzIII/IV tracks. Prolly they increased strength by 1943. Btw PzVI tracks system weighted about 30% less than T-34 itself.
Quote:
or do internal or structural damage or personnel damage, optic damage, or in any other way hurt a heavier tank in a “significant” way (quote a bow)
yeah, iam sure about it.
U'd surprised if i told u what soviet guns could pen. PzVI side armour at combat ranges in 1943 .
Quote:
Stalky Don’t agree
that's Stalky's rite .
Quote:
2. Dima believe a Mercedes that is hit in its weaker side structure, with a car of 1 ton at 18 km/h (5m/s) with has its structural stronger front hitting a softer side structure cant causes any damage
actually dima knows it for sure that E-klasse(W-124) can't do any significant damage to G-klasse but dent steel (and maybe tear away cell-phon from it's hand-free holder) at speed less than 20km/h. Practically proven .
Quote:
(Important, later he clarified it to significant damage, fine with me).
significant damage = take car/tank/etc out of order.
Quote:
Stalky don’t agree, 1 ton at 18 km/h (5 meters per second) is a mighty force Stalky thinks.
and what do u think about damages sustained to both cars if ML-klasse ram Skoda Felicia at 50km/h(speed upon impact) in it's side?
Wrong . both cars were intact and mobile tho there were hvy damage to outer steel.
Well there is a gradation of possible damages sustained to cars during accidents according speed. Just check such table for Volvo/SAAB(as i think it will be easy to get such info about swed car in Sweden) and u'll c.
Again 18km/h^2*1/2 will be valid only in ideal system where all the forces applied and they r compensated and their sum will be constant unit = 0.
In real life conditions it's obviously impossible.
Quote:
3. Dima believe the story’s (link below) of Soviet tankers who have got medals for there ramming, is all a myth, and Soviet propaganda
i can tell for sure (according soviet and german reports) than no PzVIE neither PzVD was brought out of order by tank ram during the Kursk battle. That article tells opposite - why should i believe it?
I know for sure that 85mm gun couldn't pen. PZVI hull/turret side 82mm neither make internal damage at 400m(during both combat actions and tests) tho 85mm AP shell had impulse of 7286.4kN on the moment it left barrel. Of coz after 400m it would loose some energy but upon the impact it would still had more impulse applied to square unit of PzVI armour than T-34 upon impact. But surprisingly PZVI armour deflected such force applied.
And u tell me that T-34 with it's 558kN(impulse upon impact) spreaded around ~3x1m of impact area could inflict significant damage to tank that had far superior armour and bigger weight?
PzVI was i guess the first tank during WW2 showed that KX factor matters...alot. As according table data alot of guns could pen. it.
Quote:
Dima don’t believe a soviet T34 tank even can ram a German tank as it’s faster.
Stalk, plz, don't spoil all the fun again. I didn't tell that.
I told that most of german tanx could avoid collision. T-34 frontal hull armour could make KwK43 APCBC to rico. but that doesn't mean it would always do.
And yes PzII/III/IV/V were faster offroad than T-34(4sp gearbox), VI was 1-2km/h slower. During the battle of Kursk there were not that many tanx with new 5sp. gearbox. Plus u tried to show model where german tank i.e. PzVi would stay still while T-34 is moving at it. Such model is pure utopic.
Quote:
Stalky are not that sure, but in essence Stalky don’t agree, for he believe they don’t give medals for actions that are meant to encourage and inspire other soldiers to follow these actions (role model).
iam sure that there were unstable personalities(drivers,commanders) in any army that would direct his tank to ram enemy tank w/o idea of what would happen instead of bail out and wait for evacuation to rear to take next tank and continue fiting.
But what i know that even air rams were forbidden in late 1941 or 1942 in RA as it led to useless casualties as 1 plane is not a power and pilots were really needed alive.
According to my knowledges of RA, such tankers would be send to penal units instead of receiving awards especially if their tank didn't catch fire after collision .
Prokhorovka wrecks were discussed on russian military forumhttp://vif2ne.ru/nvk/forum/0/0.htm and documents were shown from russ archives by some v respected historicians. And it appears that they just brought all the wrecks they found in the area of Kursk Strategical Defensive Operation in one field and placed them to simulate the greatest armor clash of all times. They needed propaganda movie for western allies .
IIRC no serious german historician accepts Prokhorovka battle as germans attacked via railway on narrow approach, destroyed some sov tanks lost 3-5 and were ambushed by concentrated ATGs and minefields. Attacked was stopped.
One more myth revealed?
Quote:
He means if its "impossible" to ram a tank why inspire other to try to do it, that would be suicide and sure destruction of soviet property and war materiel, it makes no sense to Stalky, that’s why he don’t agree.
Doubt they inspired anyone as everyone wanted to live and save their tanx as u prolly know that most any tank that didn't catch fire could be recovered and put in operation again.
In 90th (till some 1998-1999) it was fashion to 'discover' new facts. That's why most of rus 'historicians' just translated western book and publish them in Russia to earn money or just 'invented' their own history.
I guess Losik was one of them.
Quote:
Can we agree with this sum up, and agree we don’t agree. OK?
ok i've commented yer sum.
It's up to u now to comment my comments or to make new sum as imo u've told alot of incorrect things in yer sum.
Anyway, Stalk, i prefer knowledge friendly discussions where i can find new facts i didn't know before. This discussion didn't bring me any new info but that raming article - thnx for it.
Guess it's time to finish it .
Heeresarmee,
Quote:
Well its nice to see you guys took this discussion up a notch ot two while i was enjoying some fine Johnnie Wallker
hope it was Blue Label or above...as this discussion worth it .
Quote:
Seems to me talking to Dima is like talking to a brick wall so i give up my part in this discussion.
shame, Stalk is trying at least.
Maybe try to get more info and let's start another one?
Quote:
All that is left for me to say is that everything i pointed out in the beginning was to be was found true by other people research, so i`ll leave it like this.
almost .
There is no prove that any PzV/VI was taken out of order by raming maneuvre.
Btw in uncommon situations f.e. when T-34 approach directly to PzVI, it's easier to shoot 1 HE shell that would for sure make more damage to optics, communication systems and stuff.
Luft_Karabiner,
Quote:
Mega comback
u r welcome .
Quote:
If i was a Russian tank commander, i'd probably retreat to the rear if my tank was broken, then a recovery unit could fix it
prolly any army tank crew would do same especially during battle.
It was JW Green Label actually. And no i really see no future in continuing this discussion since it`s very hot here and i dont want to melt behind my computer while searching the net just becuz you dont want to take anything for granted.
Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 2:25 pm Post subject: mmm
this explanation is going to be good!
Forget words,actions will show your true ambitions!The Battlefield,In many cases, the terrain of a battlefield can be the best resource a commander has. A clump of trees, an abandoned house, or a drainage ditch can all be powerful tools in the right hands
Well, Stalk, u have really dissapointed me. That's why it will be my last reply in this thread.
Thought we were speaking about T-34 and PzVI...
Anyway:
Quote:
Didnt a Sherman Ram a King Tiger in Normandy and Imobelized it?
no.
Quote:
It was King Tiger 122 from SCHWERE PANZER ABTEILNUNG 503,
1.Kp/503.sPzA (#122). to be precise.
Quote:
Cant damage?
yes.
Quote:
maybe YOU belive the americans staged the photograph and medals rewarded?
1. why did u bring yanks here? 'ram' was commited by Irish Guards during Op.Goodwood.
2. where is the damage sustained by Sherman and KT after collision?
3. check how Sherman touches the KT.
now let me tell u in short german view of that case:
PzVIB from 1.Kp/503.sPzA was hit by friendly PaK at left low side hull. Hit immobilized it, crew broke internal devices and abandoned tank due to danger of beeing overrun by brits.
After crew reached the rear they received another KT and continued their serving ("Combat History of Schwere Panzer-Abtielung 503"/JJ Fedorowicz 2000).
More of it, i have 3 more photos of same 'ramming case' from diferent angles. And 1 of them precisely shows damage from PaK.
So maybe u will start to analize info u get? ever tried to look in depth?
Of coz it's easier to c what yer eyes want to c...
U remind me of the trojans who were looking at wooden horse and have seen it only as present from the loosers. If they looked in depth they would have prolly noticed the greeks inside. U know what happened in the nite .
kamfe,
Quote:
maybe thats why dima wont join army cus reality will kill him on front line in moments
matt, for u to know i'll be leutenant by next summer .
So it's another example of how ppl make conclusions on base of absence of information. As i don't think u've just tried to lie here, havent u?
but yes i don't have any romantic feels about wars and yes iam afraid to be on war. guess every normal human-beeing feels same way.
it's really of no interest for me to discuss things with opponents who try to replace lack of information with speculation, emotional statements and insults. So i wash my hands in this thread.
Now u can prove each other how T-34(or maybe Sherman) would KO PzVI/KT with ramming . Won't bother u anymore.
Cheers to everyone who took part in this discussion .
p.s. every complicated problem has simple, obvious to everyone but yet wrong solution .
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
In August of 2004, Zappi, Homba, Bambam887, RedScorpion and MOOXE all pitched
in to create this Close Combat site. I would to thank all the people who have visited
and found this site to thier liking. I hope you had time to check out some
of the great Close Combat mods and our forums. I'd also like to thank
all the members of our volunteer staff that have helped over
the years, and all our users that contributed to this site!
.
.
.
.
. If i was a Russian tank commander, i'd probably retreat to the rear if my tank was broken, then a recovery unit could fix it.
