Picture of a Sherman withstanding a clean hit of a pak40 or better

Discussions on the vehicles used by the Axis forces. Hosted by Christian Ankerstjerne
Christianmunich
Banned
Posts: 801
Joined: 26 Nov 2018 17:37
Location: Germany

Re: Picture of a Sherman withstanding a clean hit of a pak40 or better

Post by Christianmunich » 26 Feb 2019 21:56

critical mass wrote:
26 Feb 2019 21:46
I have a question:

what is the primary source evidence for FH armor plate ever used in PANTHER glacis or nose plate application? Not secondary sources, primary please.

2nd, when discussing these questions, one needs to guard against the possibility that an RHA glacis (or any other plate) may look externally ok but it could very well be not up to specifications due to defect heat treatment. German late war, chromium-vanadium alloyed plates could be made fully up to specifications in terms of ballistic resistence despite a very lean alloy composition. BUT, this lean alloy required a complex, multi stage, intermittent quench-reheat-temper- cycle, timed to the next second and these lean steels were not very benign to time variances. For the manufacturers, who needed a large volume output of plate it was difficult to guarantee satisfactory plate from a QC point of view because QC tests are destructive per definition. While the specifications eventually even increased, there were more of the molybdenium free plates rejected in QC tests than regular ones, indicating that this may have lead to greater than desired variances in ballistic quality.

----

By mid 1944, the 17pdr APDS was still experimental. This rules out that either PANTHER or TIGER2 could -protectionwise- be laid out in response to the 17pdr firing APDS as this was unknonw in their respective design stage. However, I´d personally agree that the effectivity of APDS against the PANTHER glacis is somewhat borderline effective/marginal. You need to get fairly close, and You need a direct shot with no lateral deviation to the plate. You also need to rely on an APDS with minimal whobble in flight (caused, in part, by subtle, in flight seperation variances of the sabot petals and base plates), and finally, You need to have the APDS functioning on impact without cavitation (this phenomenon, leading to great variance in penetration performance was not fully understood during wartimes).
Consequently, I am also convinced that one might rate the 17pdr gun firing regular AP and APCBC to at best marginal and at worst unable to deal with the glacis, safe remote chances, which jointly come across. The abilities of the 17pdr firing AP and APCBC to deal with the nose plate is marginal, too. However, these, along with APDS will effectively deal other exposed frontal areas (turret/mantlet), and all of the other target aspects under a wide range of conditions.

The presumption that tanks act like kind of dinosaurs -with a thick skin but remote senses, engaging only frontally each other- does not hold true on the battlefield. The tank is just one component of combined arms warfare, and it can´t dominate others if it is to act independent or isolated of them.
Clarification:

I have never claimed German vehicles were specifically laid out to defeat 17pdr APDS, I said the Germans had no reason to react to 17pdr in any panicky way due to the Panther still doing the job. Strong frontal protection, at least specification wise. The argument was the Germans failed to react to the 17pdr and kept producing Panthers, I claimed there was no reason to react the Panther was fine against the 17pdr. APDS wasn't even mentioned by me or the person I replied to ( I believe ). MY argument was simple the 17pdr was not good versus the Panther front therefore the Germans could have reacted with little concern at all, no much changed. The front of the Panther was still pretty safe, the Panzer IV StugIII were pretty much as endangered than before by the 75mm et cetera, maybe less so because the 17pdr ADPS didn't hit shit. The Jagdpanzer IV was still fine.

So yeah, never claimed more than that. Also 76mm was dumb.
Consequently, I am also convinced that one might rate the 17pdr gun firing regular AP and APCBC to at best marginal and at worst unable to deal with the glacis, safe remote chances, which jointly come across. The abilities of the 17pdr firing AP and APCBC to deal with the nose plate is marginal, too. However, these, along with APDS will effectively deal other exposed frontal areas (turret/mantlet), and all of the other target aspects under a wide range of conditions.


Agreed. Which in my opinion rates the Panther glacis as one of the best "tank technologies" of the war. Designed in 1942/43 it was still totally viable versus the new line of armament used the West. But people will surely disagree. The Panther from the moment it rolled out of the factory until the war was pretty armoured in the front. In regards to the dinosaurs allegory. The thread is about armour tho and if you design armour you kinda want it to achieve a particular job, the Sherman was likely one of the biggest failures in this regard while the Panther glacis one of the best examples. Nobody here argued about the Panther as tank, it is about the glacis. Nobody cares but I believe the Panther was kinda dumb as weapon system but that is just me.
what is the primary source evidence for FH armor plate ever used in PANTHER glacis or nose plate application? Not secondary sources, primary please.
I have none, only secondary sources. I read one book where I believe optical difference in regards to damage where explained but I can't remember where it was. Secondary sources claiming FHA are plenty tho.

Side note. The 17pdr ADPS was silly, lets not beat around the bush, the loss of accuracy meant you actually on average decreased your chances of success. THe performance you gain you might lose due to missing a tank which you might have hit and penetrated otherwise. So I would argue the vehicles like StuG III Panzer IV Hetzer et cetera like were happy if the opposing enemy used 17pdr ADPS it actually increased their survival chance. The weapon system was bad.

Duncan_M
Member
Posts: 224
Joined: 11 Oct 2018 15:07
Location: USA

Re: Picture of a Sherman withstanding a clean hit of a pak40 or better

Post by Duncan_M » 26 Feb 2019 22:10

Christianmunich wrote:
26 Feb 2019 21:56
Side note. The 17pdr ADPS was silly, lets not beat around the bush, the loss of accuracy meant you actually on average decreased your chances of success. THe performance you gain you might lose due to missing a tank which you might have hit and penetrated otherwise. So I would argue the vehicles like StuG III Panzer IV Hetzer et cetera like were happy if the opposing enemy used 17pdr ADPS it actually increased their survival chance. The weapon system was bad.
Complaining about technical problem. LOL. This coming from the dude who utterly discounts every mechanical problem with German cat panzers as not pertinent to the discussion. Priceless

Juha
Member
Posts: 280
Joined: 29 Sep 2005 10:38
Location: Finland

Re: Picture of a Sherman withstanding a clean hit of a pak40 or better

Post by Juha » 27 Feb 2019 00:44

critical mass wrote:
26 Feb 2019 21:46
I have a question:

... Consequently, I am also convinced that one might rate the 17pdr gun firing regular AP and APCBC to at best marginal and at worst unable to deal with the glacis, safe remote chances, which jointly come across. The abilities of the 17pdr firing AP and APCBC to deal with the nose plate is marginal, too. However, these, along with APDS will effectively deal other exposed frontal areas (turret/mantlet), and all of the other target aspects under a wide range of conditions.

The presumption that tanks act like kind of dinosaurs -with a thick skin but remote senses, engaging only frontally each other- does not hold true on the battlefield. The tank is just one component of combined arms warfare, and it can´t dominate others if it is to act independent or isolated of them.
i agree that against Panther's glacis 17-pdr AP and APCBC rounds were at best marginal but IMHO when one looks Isigny test results, the 17-pdr APCBC was fairly successful against Panther's nose plate.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 6396
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: Picture of a Sherman withstanding a clean hit of a pak40 or better

Post by Richard Anderson » 27 Feb 2019 03:04

Christianmunich wrote:
26 Feb 2019 21:56
critical mass wrote:
26 Feb 2019 21:46

what is the primary source evidence for FH armor plate ever used in PANTHER glacis or nose plate application? Not secondary sources, primary please.
I have none, only secondary sources. I read one book ...
Well, there's your problem... :lol: :lol: :lol:

Anyway, all of 79 the Panther ausf A for I./Pz.Regt. 3. were delivered between 27 January and 28 February 1944, so were early 1944 quality and not late-war expedient quality...or manufactured with face-hardened armor. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Richard C. Anderson Jr.

American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2619
Joined: 25 Apr 2006 15:58
Location: Colorado

Re: Picture of a Sherman withstanding a clean hit of a pak40 or better

Post by Yoozername » 27 Feb 2019 03:16

MarkN wrote:
26 Feb 2019 19:40
WW2 was not won because one side had bigger guns on tanks than the other. Far, far too many posters on AHF and elsewhere seem to see big guns on tanks or some other equally daft wunderwaffe nonsense as war winning - and then excuse away war loss by blaming it on logistics, Hitler yadda yadda. The principal reason why the Allies lost disproportionatly high numbers of tanks was not because Tigers and Panthers had big guns, but because their tactics were not as good as they thought they were and they could 'afford' the losses as they tried to learn to do better.

Too many people obsessing for the wrong reasons on red herring.
Maybe some agenda? Regardless, what does it have to do with this section of the forum? There are others that argue such things.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23724
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Re: Picture of a Sherman withstanding a clean hit of a pak40 or better

Post by David Thompson » 27 Feb 2019 05:23

Yoozername -- You asked, in regard to an earlier post by MarkN:
Regardless, what does it have to do with this section of the forum?
I'm wondering the same thing about the subject matter of this thread ("Picture of a Sherman withstanding a clean hit of a pak40 or better") in the "Panzer & other vehicles" section of Axis Equipment, and the discussion appears to be drifting away even from that subject.

User avatar
EKB
Member
Posts: 712
Joined: 20 Jul 2005 17:21
Location: United States

Re: Picture of a Sherman withstanding a clean hit of a pak40 or better

Post by EKB » 27 Feb 2019 06:42

Christianmunich wrote:
26 Feb 2019 21:56
I said the Germans had no reason to react to 17pdr in any panicky way due to the Panther still doing the job. MY argument was simple the 17pdr was not good versus the Panther front therefore the Germans could have reacted with little concern at all, no much changed. The front of the Panther was still pretty safe

Yes the Panther and its L/70 gun was a better gestalt. Formidable defensive package. Gun and frontal armor rightly feared and respected by Allied tank crews. But execution of said design was plagued with build quality and materials defect issues, and disparaged as a fire trap.

The Panther had a well earned reputation for burning fiercely. The high-powered shells brimmed with propellent that fed fires inside the tank and so did fluid from cut hydraulic lines. Even when the Panthers were not in combat, engines tended to burst into flames on long road movements. Technical changes were made to fight engine fires, but reports from Normandy suggested there was little improvement. Railway transport was the Panther’s best friend.

Christianmunich wrote:
26 Feb 2019 21:56
The thread is about armour tho and if you design armour you kinda want it to achieve a particular job, the Sherman was likely one of the biggest failures in this regard while the Panther glacis one of the best examples.

It doesn’t make sense to condemn Firefly and Easy Eight as failures. Germany’s L/70 and L/48 75mm main guns would score similar results in a test shoot against a retired Panther.

Christianmunich wrote:
26 Feb 2019 21:56
Which in my opinion rates the Panther glacis as one of the best "tank technologies" of the war.

I’ve found pictures of eight Panther tanks with catastrophic cracking of armor plate, including three with massive holes in the front. No one has proved what grade of plate quality was typical. Unless you can establish how many were built to exacting paper specs for chemistry and process of armor plate, this debate is not really helpful.

I worked for a company that fabricates tensile armor windings for deep water oil pipelines. Heat treating is an art as much as procedure. When the specs are tight, there is a fair amount of scrap because the customer won’t accept defects other than a small number of minor surface pits and scratches. It’s very expensive and time consuming to cut, reheat and form the steel perfectly. Germany did not have this luxury in 1944 and had to use out-of-spec material that would have been rejected in less desperate times.

Christianmunich wrote:
26 Feb 2019 21:56
I said the Germans had Nobody here argued about the Panther as tank, it is about the glacis.


I’ll raise you with a Sherman wearing a pair of glacis.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2619
Joined: 25 Apr 2006 15:58
Location: Colorado

Re: Picture of a Sherman withstanding a clean hit of a pak40 or better

Post by Yoozername » 27 Feb 2019 06:55

David Thompson wrote:
27 Feb 2019 05:23
Yoozername -- You asked, in regard to an earlier post by MarkN:
Regardless, what does it have to do with this section of the forum?
I'm wondering the same thing about the subject matter of this thread ("Picture of a Sherman withstanding a clean hit of a pak40 or better") in the "Panzer & other vehicles" section of Axis Equipment, and the discussion appears to be drifting away even from that subject.
It could be worse...there is this Canadian guy that invents sock-puppets to argue with himself, typically in a stilted manner, just so he can destroy him and be 'the hero'....he posts blurry pics too, now that I think of it.... really sad...

j keenan
Financial supporter
Posts: 1575
Joined: 04 Jun 2007 11:22
Location: North

Re: Picture of a Sherman withstanding a clean hit of a pak40 or better

Post by j keenan » 27 Feb 2019 10:10

EKB wrote:
27 Feb 2019 06:42
The Panther had a well earned reputation for burning fiercely. The high-powered shells brimmed with propellent that fed fires inside the tank and so did fluid from cut hydraulic lines. Even when the Panthers were not in combat, engines tended to burst into flames on long road movements. Technical changes were made to fight engine fires, but reports from Normandy suggested there was little improvement. Railway transport was the Panther’s best friend.
Strange as the the I/SS-Pz.Rgt.12 moved to the front over a long road march 140 km plus with out any losses, rail transport was to save fuel as Pz.V G was an improvement on the mark D.

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2635
Joined: 12 Jan 2015 13:34
Location: On the continent

Re: Picture of a Sherman withstanding a clean hit of a pak40 or better

Post by MarkN » 27 Feb 2019 10:48

You responded to my last post with...
Yoozername wrote:
27 Feb 2019 03:16
Maybe some agenda? Regardless, what does it have to do with this section of the forum? There are others that argue such things.
... and your next post...
Yoozername wrote:
27 Feb 2019 06:55
David Thompson wrote:
27 Feb 2019 05:23
Yoozername -- You asked, in regard to an earlier post by MarkN:
Regardless, what does it have to do with this section of the forum?
I'm wondering the same thing about the subject matter of this thread ("Picture of a Sherman withstanding a clean hit of a pak40 or better") in the "Panzer & other vehicles" section of Axis Equipment, and the discussion appears to be drifting away even from that subject.
It could be worse...there is this Canadian guy that invents sock-puppets to argue with himself, typically in a stilted manner, just so he can destroy him and be 'the hero'....he posts blurry pics too, now that I think of it.... really sad...
Sad, really sad..... :roll:

My 'agenda'? Showing agreement with this post.
critical mass wrote:
24 Feb 2019 20:21
Penetration isnt everything. It is a major asset but far from the most important it is not irreplaceable, either. Tank warfare is a combined arms execerise if it to be employed tactically.

I studied armor and projectile dynamics and its importance is kind of blown out of proportion now.
This thread is another example of "projectile dynamics [being] blown out of proportion" to the detriment of historical research and understanding. This thread was started by a poster whose interest on AHF is not to advance our knowledge of history by to deceive and to wind other people up with his nonsense at every opportunity.

What's your agenda? Or do you just like posting comments about Canadian guys with a stilted manner?

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23724
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Re: Picture of a Sherman withstanding a clean hit of a pak40 or better

Post by David Thompson » 27 Feb 2019 12:30

Let's get back on topic.

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2635
Joined: 12 Jan 2015 13:34
Location: On the continent

Re: Picture of a Sherman withstanding a clean hit of a pak40 or better

Post by MarkN » 27 Feb 2019 13:55

David Thompson wrote:
27 Feb 2019 12:30
Let's get back on topic.
Serious questions attempting to understand what exactly is site policy regarding "on topic" and how to deal with such threads in the future.

The thread title is: Picture of a Sherman withstanding a clean hit of a pak40 or better

The first words thread originator's (TO) initial post: As discussed in another thread it looks like there is no picture available of a Sherman withstanding a 75mm high-velocity gun or better on the frontal plate.

That initial post then goes to redefine what exactly "a clean hit" is. However, this redefinition was quite unclear and later needed clarification.
Christianmunich wrote:
19 Feb 2019 01:18
Sheldrake wrote:
19 Feb 2019 01:06
Christianmunich wrote:
18 Feb 2019 22:49
Such reports include glancing blows and all kinds of hits on the edges of the vehicle et cetera. Examples for this can be found in the British late war sample of Sherman tanks. I am aware of the reports but I am looking for a direct clean hit on the front.

Not trying to prove anything at the moment, just curious if such pictures exist.
Let me get this right.

You are looking for evidence of hits on tanks that do not penetrate, but want to ignore "glancing blows " which are , by definition, hits that have not penetrated. What do you think a non penetrating his would look like? A Sherman tank with a 75mm AP round sticking out of it?

You are also missing a lot of images of tanks which were penetrated. Paragraph 2 in the extract goes on the mention that many tanks that had been penetrated were patched up and re-issued. So there ought to be photographs of patched M4s. Maybe the patch job was an invisible mend to disguise an obvious weak spot.
I am looking for pictures of the Sherman glacis actually stopping a directly incoming projectile from penetrating into the tank. Not sure if you know what I mean with glancing blows.

Sometimes projectiles just scrap by the tank and keep flying. They hit the armour but don't have the vector to actually ever go into the tank they just move through the peripheral armour.
This clarification (including the subsequent words which I have snipped for brevity) actually does nothing to clarify what exactly the TO is looking for other than to give the impression he is deliberately trying to wind people up chasing unicorns.

So, what exactly is the topic of this thread that we are to stick to and what degree of 'wander off' is allowed?

1) Is the topic a general discussion about the effect of the gun/armor duel on the battlefield? A discussion which may have historical relevance.

2) Is the topic a general discussion about penetration properties of projectiles and armor - and thus any gun/tank combination is allowable? How the thread (in between the nonsensical posts) seems to have developed.

3) Is the topic a specific discussion only about penetration properties of German projectiles 75mm and above only against Sherman non-Jumbo tanks? The way the title of the thread is written.

4) Is the topic an even more specific discussion of "clean hits" as per the TOs nonsensical definition? The way the TO wishes to impossibly narrow the discussion according to his, and only his, impossible terms.

5) Is the topic the ultimate narrowness of whether a picture exists of "a clean hit" as per the TOs nonsensical definition? Just plain daft but seems to be the purpose of thread.

Avalancheon
Member
Posts: 373
Joined: 23 Apr 2017 06:01
Location: Canada

Re: Picture of a Sherman withstanding a clean hit of a pak40 or better

Post by Avalancheon » 27 Feb 2019 15:17

critical mass wrote:
26 Feb 2019 21:46
2nd, when discussing these questions, one needs to guard against the possibility that an RHA glacis (or any other plate) may look externally ok but it could very well be not up to specifications due to defect heat treatment. German late war, chromium-vanadium alloyed plates could be made fully up to specifications in terms of ballistic resistence despite a very lean alloy composition. BUT, this lean alloy required a complex, multi stage, intermittent quench-reheat-temper- cycle, timed to the next second and these lean steels were not very benign to time variances. For the manufacturers, who needed a large volume output of plate it was difficult to guarantee satisfactory plate from a QC point of view because QC tests are destructive per definition. While the specifications eventually even increased, there were more of the molybdenium free plates rejected in QC tests than regular ones, indicating that this may have lead to greater than desired variances in ballistic quality.
Exactly. It was widely known that the Germans were struggling to maintain quality control on their plates by 1944. Some of it was good, and some of it was bad. The exact cause of these metallurgical flaws was later traced to temper embrittlement at the steel mills*. This was a question that had been settled back in the 80s.

It wasn't until 2013 or so that the fraud known as TankArchives challenged this historical consensus, and attempted to claim that German armor quality had been steadily declining from the beginning of the war to the end. He was able to peddle his revisionism for years on forums like FTR and WOT, convincing many armchair historians. TankArchives built up quite a reputation for himself... But his luck ran out when he met you.


*Speaking of that, was it ever determined whether some mills were pumping out more flawed plates than others? It seems distinctly possible that they were cutting corners in order to churn out as much armor plate as possible.
critical mass wrote:
26 Feb 2019 21:46
By mid 1944, the 17pdr APDS was still experimental. This rules out that either PANTHER or TIGER2 could -protectionwise- be laid out in response to the 17pdr firing APDS as this was unknonw in their respective design stage. However, I´d personally agree that the effectivity of APDS against the PANTHER glacis is somewhat borderline effective/marginal. You need to get fairly close, and You need a direct shot with no lateral deviation to the plate. You also need to rely on an APDS with minimal whobble in flight (caused, in part, by subtle, in flight seperation variances of the sabot petals and base plates), and finally, You need to have the APDS functioning on impact without cavitation (this phenomenon, leading to great variance in penetration performance was not fully understood during wartimes).
Were APDS rounds as sensitive to oblique impacts as APCR? If so, was this problem ever fixed with postwar APDS rounds? And as for the wobble issue, wasn't that partly influenced by shell interactions with the guns muzzle brake?
critical mass wrote:
26 Feb 2019 21:46
Consequently, I am also convinced that one might rate the 17pdr gun firing regular AP and APCBC to at best marginal and at worst unable to deal with the glacis, safe remote chances, which jointly come across. The abilities of the 17pdr firing AP and APCBC to deal with the nose plate is marginal, too. However, these, along with APDS will effectively deal other exposed frontal areas (turret/mantlet), and all of the other target aspects under a wide range of conditions.

The presumption that tanks act like kind of dinosaurs -with a thick skin but remote senses, engaging only frontally each other- does not hold true on the battlefield. The tank is just one component of combined arms warfare, and it can´t dominate others if it is to act independent or isolated of them.
Yep. This can be corroborated by the Tunisian tests with the 17 pdr gun against the Tiger. Even regular AP rounds were able to eject plugs from the glacis. This matters because the Panthers turret face was roughly equal to the Tigers glacis.

But as for the questions about the protection (or lack thereof) offered by the Shermans armor, that is kindof relevant. Even a 'mere' medium tank should be able to offer some protection from enemy anti-tank guns. On paper, the M4A3 should be able to shrug off hits from a 75mm L48 gun from medium range. But we've found no evidence of them doing this in combat.

Image

Avalancheon
Member
Posts: 373
Joined: 23 Apr 2017 06:01
Location: Canada

Re: Picture of a Sherman withstanding a clean hit of a pak40 or better

Post by Avalancheon » 27 Feb 2019 15:51

Richard Anderson wrote:
27 Feb 2019 03:04
Well, there's your problem... :lol: :lol: :lol:

Anyway, all of 79 the Panther ausf A for I./Pz.Regt. 3. were delivered between 27 January and 28 February 1944, so were early 1944 quality and not late-war expedient quality...or manufactured with face-hardened armor. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Don't be too quick to dismiss this. We haven't adequately explored all the possible explanations.

''Researcher Carey Erickson performed a detailed analysis on the original test photographs supplied with the Isigny report. He concluded that the Panther Ausf. A tank labeled as No. 1 and listed as having only average plate had in fact a face-hardened glacis plate. This can be observed by the characteristic flaking that occurs only when face-hardened armor is penetrated by an AP projectile. Erickson explains that encountering a face-hardened glacis plate on a Panther Ausf. A tank was not impossible because it could have come from leftover stocks to meet production quotas as German tank production was under greater pressure to put weapons into the hands of the Panzer divisions by 1944.''

''Erickson also notes that it took nine hits into the hard outer surface of the face-hardened armored Panther tank labeled No. 1 to make it susceptible to penetration. Pictorial evidence also shows that the Panther tank labeled No. 3 and described as having had significant prior battle damage with extensive cracking across its glacis plate. This damage should have excluded tank No. 3 from even being part of the testing process. Erickson makes the valid point that the Panther tank labeled No. 2 with the best plate reflected the true quality of Panther glacis plates for most of World War II and not the face-hardened armored Panther tank or the battle damaged example used at Isigny.''

-Panther: Germanys Quest For Combat Dominance, by Michael Green.
Last edited by Avalancheon on 27 Feb 2019 15:54, edited 1 time in total.

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2619
Joined: 25 Apr 2006 15:58
Location: Colorado

Re: Picture of a Sherman withstanding a clean hit of a pak40 or better

Post by Yoozername » 27 Feb 2019 15:53

David Thompson wrote:
27 Feb 2019 12:30
Let's get back on topic.
Good Luck with that.
This thread is another example of "projectile dynamics [being] blown out of proportion" to the detriment of historical research and understanding. This thread was started by a poster whose interest on AHF is not to advance our knowledge of history by to deceive and to wind other people up with his nonsense at every opportunity.
Thanks for proving my point. Again, there are many sections in the board index. For whatever reason, you want to impose what you think belongs here. I think it's great that AHF has a place where some very knowledgeable people can discuss engineering and technical aspects of weapons. Unfortunately, there are very disruptive people that don't like it, feel that people need to discuss other matters, want to post blurry pictures and make incredibly incorrect technical statements, etc.

Luckily, I am equipped with a sense of humor. And intelligence. And quite good looking too, by the way.

Return to “The Ron Klages Panzer & other vehicles Section”