Mate , Jasa was right.
As correctly note administrator Gen.Sandworm when Dani jeered above my english : “Well we are all here to have fun and learn…”.
I aggree with him. I don’t see the attempt to ridicule Hiddenrug in Jasa’s post.
It was real funny. In this post is nothing insulting.
If you really want to help “typical Australian” , tell him more about tanks weigh and size definition. OK?
And what “KGB sources” do you mean?
Very much correct! No one is saying anything about your English. BTW - it is improving! And we understand each other - what else we neeed?
I agree - no insults nor offence.
What prompted my a bit funny response:
Hiddenrug remark that T-44 was Biiiiig… It was just a tiny bit bigger than T-34 and mainly lower or “less tall”.
Jasa placed T-44 somewhere between “Mouse” and “Grant”.
This Jasa’s remark was very funny - at least for me!
I took it as Jasa’s joke towards Hiddenrug.
And jokingly I tried to “defend” Hiddenrug.
Hey, nothing will help! Australians were and are, the “foot sloggers”!
Nothing wrong with it. Do you know how many tanks Australian Army have?
Check!
Compare the figure with any 20 million people European country and you’ll see the comical situation.
We all know that Jasa, USA citizen, with service record in US Army, leaving in Prague and moving to Ukraine must be sort of a CIA or KGB subject. LOL
Judging by what he previously said, I guessed KGB will be a closer shot, somewhat a bit away from CIA…
The T-54 was certainly not built ‘from scratch’, it was an evolutionary design based on the T-44, that was in turn based on the T-34. The major change between the T-44 and the T-54 was the application of similar turret design principles to those of the JS-3, that is the flattened dome.
A simple visual comparison will show the hull of the T-44 and T-55 was virtually identical, down to the uneven roadwheel spacing.
When comparing the T-44 with its potential German opposition it is worthwhile to consider that the the 85mm Soviet gun was roughly equal to the German 75mm/L48 or the US 76mm. The nearest Soviet gun to the Panther’s 75/L70 in performance was the 100mm as fitted on the SU-100.
It is also not really applicable to compare Soviet and Western designs in a simple fashion. For instance, the IS-3 and the Centurion were roughly equal in weight, but were armed with very different philosophies, in that the early Centurion’s 17pdr was a tank destroyer with a limited HE potential, whereas the IS-2 and IS-3 were armed with a great HE gun with a secondary anti-tank performance.
The T-26 was more or less halfway between a Panther and a Tiger 1, but was much more mobile than a Tiger 2.
Last point, The IS-4 was to the IS-2 what the T-44 was the T-34, and Stalin stationed two Regiments of IS-4 in Mongolia, ready to intervene in Korea if the ‘necessity’ arose. The JS-3 were kept for the Eurpoean theatre.
Would anyone know whether T-44s were sent to Mongolia at the time that the IS-4s were sent there around 1951?
German Matilda II were "Infanterie Panzerkampfwagen MkII 748 (e).
You missed a few Australian WW2 AFVs.
Australia was the only country to use the Coventantor in action, as bridgelayers in Borneo. The RAAC also used M3 Stuarts, and in the desert picked up some second hand Crusaders for use in the 9th Division’s cavalry.
I am sure that there are others, especially if you include the Sentinel, which whilst only used for training was on strength in sufficient quantities to be thrown into the fray if continental Australia had been invaded.
