quote:

do you have any link stats on the number of tanks destroyed by tank? I'm curious to see how many t-34s were destroyed in comparison with panthers

I doubt those kind of statistics exist at all.

But there are multiple instances of anecdotal evidence of well-positioned Tiger tanks destroying 10, 20, 30 Soviet T-34's in a single engagement. I recall reading an instance of a single Tiger destroying over 50 Soviet tanks in a single engagement from a defensive position because it had such a long range and was well defended by auxiliary forces and well camouflaged. This is largely due to the fact that the 88 mm gun on the Tiger could engage targets at a very long range (2000 m), meaning that most of the time the only way to overtake a well-positioned Tiger was to swamp them with multiple T-34's and try to get as many as possible to virtually point blank range to deal a kill shot to a Tiger. Of course, many T-34's would be destroyed in a suicide rush like that.

quote:

Originally posted by Aquadyne I doubt those kind of statistics exist at all. But there are multiple instances of anecdotal evidence of well-positioned Tiger tanks destroying 10, 20, 30 Soviet T-34's in a single engagement. I recall reading an instance of a single Tiger destroying over 50 Soviet tanks in a single engagement from a defensive position because it had such a long range and was well defended by auxiliary forces and well camouflaged. This is largely due to the fact that the 88 mm gun on the Tiger could engage targets at a very long range (2000 m), meaning that most of the time the only way to overtake a well-positioned Tiger was to swamp them with multiple T-34's and try to get as many as possible to virtually point blank range to deal a kill shot to a Tiger. Of course, many T-34's would be destroyed in a suicide rush like that.

there have to be some sort of raw stats

if the Soviets produced 58,000 t-34s, how many were left standing in 45?

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King i listen to trance becuase it is beautifully composed like a classical piece of music.... but with beats in it...

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium I hardly if ever acknowledge sarcasm from a person I dont know because I ran into serious problems on an undisclosed buying website before.

quote:

Originally posted by Aquadyne quote: Originally posted by XaNaX Right, I agree with you. What I was saying was that right at the end of WWII the US 'could' have nuked just about any city in Russia. We would not have done that though because we did not have enough bombs to do significant damage to a country the size of the USSR. And just how were you going to get around that little question of flying hundreds of miles through Soviet airspace without getting shot down? Somehow, I don't think you thought your cunning plan through.

It was 1945, the B-29 could fly higher and faster than Soviet fighters of the period. The USSR had no surface to air missiles, no sophisticated radar to warn them of an attack. Immediately after the war if we wanted to bomb them without warning it could have easily been accomplished.

quote:

B-29 Performance Maximum speed: 357 mph (310 knots, 574 km/h) Cruise speed: 220 mph (190 knots, 350 km/h) Stall speed: 105 mph (91 knots, 170 km/h) Combat radius: 3,250 mi (2,820 nm, 5,230 km) Ferry range: 5,600 mi (4,900 nm, 9,000 km) Service ceiling: 33,600 ft (10,200 m) Rate of climb: 900 ft/min (4.5 m/s) Wing loading: 69.12 lb/ft² (337 kg/m²) Power/mass: 0.073 hp/lb (121 W/kg) Lift-to-drag ratio: 16.8

quote:

IL-10 Performance Maximum speed: 551 km/h at 2,700 m; 507 km/h at ground level Range: 800-1000 km Service ceiling: 7,250 m Rate of climb: 515 m/min Wing loading: 211 kg/m² (43.2 lb/ft²)

What's a problem for IL-10 interceptor to shot down B-29 bomber?

quote:

Originally posted by star-traveller B-29 Performance Maximum speed: 357 mph (310 knots, 574 km/h) Service ceiling: 33,600 ft (10,200 m) IL-10 Performance Maximum speed: 551 km/h at 2,700 m; 507 km/h at ground level Service ceiling: 7,250 m What's a problem for IL-10 interceptor to shot down B-29 bomber?

I think you answered your own question here:

574 km/h > 551 km/h
10,200 m > 7250 m

last time I checked anyway

A bomber is not a lightweight fighter, you should remember that the 'Combat radius' parameter directly depends on an aircraft speed. That's why they mention 'Cruise speed' parameter, that in generally shows you an actual speed with which you can fly on 'Combat radius' range.

It means, you won't go too far flying with a maximum speed and carrying an atomic bomb.

Also, I really doubt that it would be possible to aim with that speed.

So, the only advantage I can see is a higher celling.

Last edited by star-traveller on Feb-06-2007 at 17:24

quote:

Originally posted by star-traveller A bomber is not a lightweight fighter, you should remember that the 'Combat radius' parameter directly depends on an aircraft speed. That's why they mention 'Cruise speed' parameter, that in generally shows you an actual speed with which you can fly on 'Combat radius' range. It means, you won't go too far flying with a maximum speed and carrying an atomic bomb. Also, I really doubt that it would be possible to aim with that speed. So, the only advantage I can see is a higher celling.

The 3000 meter difference in ceiling is all it needs. The cannon on the IL-10 are not going to be able to reach it.

Yeah, after Hitler bombed the hell out of Soviet Union during WW2, The Soviets would have not been able to withstand another attack? Especially after the whole industry was moved to Western Siberia, 10,000 km away? Pffft, you'd need to some great bombers for that operation. Allies figured it all out. Soviets would have attacked to continue their push in Europe in retaliation. I doubt the Americans would have nuked the front lines, knowing full well that advancing Allied troops would get the taste of the radiation as well. Plus you'd need a heck a lot of bombs ... LOT. Unrealistic. Surely the Soviets might have got defeated in the end, but at a huge cost to the Allies, and quite frankly, they were tired of 2 world wars in 30 years and were happy to leave the borders where they were, to appease the communists and settle issues later.

___________________
Whenever you go and buy something, you are affecting someone somewhere, be it environment, a person, or a community - you're making a statement with what you buy. So make it a smart choice ... Its a big picture

quote:

Originally posted by star-traveller Also, I really doubt that it would be possible to aim with that speed.

I thought we were talking about dropping A-bombs. "Almost only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades" "AND A-BOMBS"

I just watched a program on the Military channel about the end of war victory parade in Berlin, when the Soviets rolled tanks so big and so heavily armored down the streets of Berlin they instantly made the British Comet tanks (Britain's most advanced tank at that stage) obselete (sp?). I didn't catch the name of these tanks but surely, they would have tipped the power balance in an armor campaign, anyone know that statistics on these?