Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 1
 

Double...Sorry:)!

Well you can hope so it isn`t like your story with the PaK 40, because I was right about both cartirdge size and penetration in that case as well... like I was right about cast armor on M-26 etc.

And of course I can submit primary documents if needed to prove my point of view, unlike others.

http://www.pbase.com/image/8237282

Jesus...you are fast...Hi!:)

Still that Pak 40 pen 98mm at 2000 angle 30 ? I thougth it was closed.:) it came up,that performed 73mm that is slightly better than Kwk40's 64mm. What's wrong? Still that tale about the fabolous Pak40?

"And of course I can submit primary documents if needed to prove my point of view, unlike others."

Do it,please, after examining and I'll accept,of course. :cool:

CBo said that in the document is a mistaken about this filled by hand PzIVH/J's turret...I can't decide it.

By the way Isegrim,you do what you want to,you believe in that you want to.:) When nine people from ten says me I'm drunk I should go to bed.

Whatever you want...Col.Valentine:) Ohhh...I'm far to old that::

Still that Pak 40 pen 98mm at 2000 angle 30 ? I thougth it was closed.:) it came up,that performed 73mm that is slightly better than Kwk40's 64mm. What's wrong? Still that tale about the fabolous Pak40?




Well let make it clear to everyone: Several times you asked about capabilities on the PaK 40, and you were told several times about it, and all but ONE occasion I told you 98mm/90deg/2000m, which now you admit is correct and that you were wrong when you stated that it`s same as the KwK, and that you were wrong when you thought it`s the same cartridge.


Some Mr. Attila wants to make that loo like that it was eventually I who was wrong and not him.. For some odd reason he INGORES the 6-8 times I said 98mm/90deg/2000m, and only remembers that one occasion when I mistyped the information, probalby because it was so boring to tell Attila the same value all the time, as he refused to accept it.



"And of course I can submit primary documents if needed to prove my point of view, unlike others."

Do it,please, after examining and I'll accept,of course. :cool:

I will remember you about that. URL is above.

CBo said that in the document is a mistaken about this filled by hand PzIVH/J's turret...I can't decide it.

Last time I showed the same doc to Mr. Cbo - who loves to play that he`s smart and the Mr. Expert - kept parroting the same for about 10 pages in another Forum, so this is nothing news.. he can`t accept facts.

By the way Isegrim,you do what you want to,you believe in that you want to.:) When nine people from ten says me I'm drunk I should go to bed.


Well have a good sleep then.

Hi!

Please don't make me be tired:)I know about the differences between Kwk40 and Pak40. Fortunately it was cleared.:)

But unfortunately your opinion has only any meaning in that former discussion if you use that mysterious data (which was wrong).:)It's better not to talk about it once more,I don't like being a parrot or someone else. Anyone should decide it:

http://www.onwar.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/001922-6.html

Yes I'm sure you will say,that your primary source is undoubtable...maybe, I'm keen on truth and your one should be right as well.

"Last time I showed the same doc to Mr. Cbo - who loves to play that he`s smart and the Mr. Expert - kept parroting the same for about 10 pages in another Forum"

As you do,as I do this isn't any case for criticism.

Waiting for results...Col.Valentine I will tell it,right here!.)

Hi Barbie,

Glad you haven't lost you sulphur spewing rethorics and charming personality :D

As for Spielbergers most recent book, it contains new data found by Thomas Jentz but the authors are, as you can see on both the front page as well as in the foreword: Spielberger, Jentz and Doyle in that order. Anyone in doubt, take a look at www.amazon.de.

Secondly you suffer from the delusion shared by a few amateurs and many incompetents that primary documents are by default more reliable than secondary works including books presenting years of meticulous research into primary sources.

I have news for you. Old documents are loaded with errors, omissions, inconsistencies, conjecture and hyperbole and the trick is sort them and to combine whats left to find the most probable representation of the past.

But as I said, you can believe whatever you want. My only reason for bringing this up is to point out that you ignore the most recent research into the problem. You are not disagreeing with me, you are disagreeing with Spielberger, Jentz and Doyle.

But as Attila says, anyone can take a ruler to a museum with a Panzer IV Ausf. H or J and make the measurement. If I recall correctly, when you or your friend did that you measured it to 7cms or thereabouts..... :D

Now you can have the last word, I know it is important to you ;)

Claus B

I'm afraid it was over-loaded already.

Although, it would probably need the thick armor all around, as it would not be able to move more than 10km/h{help} .

Isegrim, Claus:
I measured armor thicknes on Pz-IVh in Belgrade and it was:
Front hull - 82mm
Front turret - 53mm
Mantle - 51mm

Hi Bojan!:)

I think I've seen an AFV looks like an M36 Jackson 90mm tank destroyer used by croatian militia a few years ago. Is it true? I know about some US built weapon sent to Yugoslavia in the early 50s like artillery,aircraft etc and I've seen a few Stuarts in a magazine,they said,that photos were taken in Belgrad.:)

Is any existing M36/M18 in the former Yugoslavia?

Hi! Col.Valentine

Bojan
 

I like the 'hands on' research! It beats arguing about source materials.

Re: Bojan
 

Hi!:)

I walk the maze of moments but everywhere I turn to...

Beginns a new beginning but never finds a finish...

I walk to the horizon and there I find another...

It all seems so surprising and then I find that I know...


The shells upon the warm sends...have taken fron their own lands...

The echo of their story,but all I hear are low sounds...

As pillow words are weawing and willow waves are leaving.

But should I be believing that I am only dreaming ?


To leave to thread of all time and let it make a dark line...

In hopes that I can still find the way back to the moment.

I took the turn and turned to...Beginn a new beginning...

Still looking for the answer...I cannot find the finish...

It is either this or that way...it's one way or the other...

It should be one direction...it could be on reflection...

The turn I have just taken...the turn that I was making...

I might be just beginning...I might be near the end...


I'm sorry gentleman it was just a song



:laugh: I'm wondering conclusions will come up but I'm preffering peace not bloody discussions.

;)

Never mind...Col.Valentine

Re: Bojan
 

It does, but unfortunately we cannot all have a Panzer IV Ausf. H in our backyard :D

Thanks bojan.

[mounting soapbox]
Btw, I think arguing about source materials is important and credit must go to Barbie for actually referring his opinion to a primary source, however dubious I think it is.

It may be worth mentioning that even though both Spielberger and Jentz uses primary sources, they rarely tell the reader what those sources are and never, to my knowledge, give a proper reference to the archive where the documents can be found. It is may not be their fault, many publishers aiming at the popular market don't want to include documentation and footnotes. Still, it would make things a lot easier if they did in fact tell their readers where they got the info.
[getting off soapbox]

Claus B

You don't have one in your yard? I thought everybody had one.

Seriously though, have any of you guys published writings on the subject of armor? I'm still early in the reading stage, so I don't know much about this source or that source. [angel]

Hi!:)

So we are two... {help} ,by the way ,are there any downloadable original "user manuals" somewhere (I mean for crews)? O.K. In libraries maybe but I'vent got so much time.:(

1
 

The Belgrade PzIV is a "G" and not a H.. I have picture of it. It has bolted on plus armor on upper hull only, making it 50+30mm.

BTW, I also have the Datenblatter for the "PzIV F-2 / G ". The datenblatter says exactly the same as you: Turret: 50mm, Superstructrue/upper hull: 80mm, lower hull: 50mm.

Picture of PzIV G in belgrade. Why it`s a F-2/G? There are vision slot for river on the sides, the H and J didn`t have them anymore, as they would be blocked by the skirts anyway.

http://www.pbase.com/image/8444451

When this was showed to Mr. Claus Bonnenswen, he cried out and said this is dorect proof of the "unreliability" of the Datenblatter, as who the hell in the world has ever seen such a PzUIV that has additional armor only on the lower hull but not on the superstructure.... this was Claus`s reaction to it on ForumOnWar. I can show the thread if neccesary... Claus was even shown a pciture of that PzIV G, he still didn`t accept it.

Given that boyan has just showed us that the Datenblatter for the PzIV F-2/G is correct, there is no reason to doubt that the Datenblatter for PzIV H and J is incorrect...

I think most of this myth about 50mm turret armor on late PzIVs is developed as result of mixing up long barreled "G" versions with the similiarry long barreled H and G...