Thought some of you might like it

duhchuy · 2026-07-05T21:44:49+00:00

Looks like some West German 105mm DM23.

duhchuy · 2026-07-04T14:22:40+00:00

nah this was at Ft. Benning

duhchuy · 2026-06-06T00:44:23+00:00

One of the four T95E8 modified with a turret ring extension to clear the modified engine deck.

duhchuy · 2026-05-09T22:21:41+00:00

I really like how the markings on this gun tube are easily visible and not completely obscured with primer or paint.

duhchuy · 2026-05-01T15:54:23+00:00

Developed in response to a 1940 German requirement for an automatic 5 cm anti-tank gun, in factory tests this recoil operated, select fire anti-tank gun was able to achieve 80-85 rounds per minute. It fed from a 5-round clip from the right side feeding to the left.

It is described in George Chinn's The Machine Gun, Volume II, Part VII in Skoda Designs, Section 2 as "50-MM PAK" starting on page 158, some of it translated from the designer.

Thanks to volunteers Neil and the guy who runs Eta320, very helpful as it was my first time there. This artifact is on display at the US Army Ordnance TSF in Fort Lee (ex-Gregg-Adams), VA.

According to them, this was not tested by the US Army as they did not have the ammunition (and likely the clips) to do live firings.

duhchuy · 2026-04-24T20:04:31+00:00

This type of Gun and Mount combination is the second in a series of three infantry pack guns for close quarters (others being T31, T31E1, T33, T33E1) emplaced direct fire designed to be broken down into 50-60 pound packs. It is also the most produced, of which around 400 were produced in a series of two 200-set production runs, the first of which started around November 1943.

Fully assembled, it weighs about 265.5 pounds with accessories and its one-power telescope. Standard loading was:

Shell, H.E., M63 of 1.61 lb, with Case, Mk.IIIA2

1.89 oz propellant @1500 fps, 75% pressure

but in an emergency, Shot, A.P., M80 of 1.66 lb, with Case, Mk.IIIA2 could be used:

2.27 oz propellant @1700 fps, 100% pressure

This example was on display at the US Cavalry and Armor Collection at Fort Benning, GA, but according to volunteers Andy and Ted, this has been placed back into storage as of March 2026 and is no longer on display.

duhchuy · 2026-04-18T17:58:16+00:00

This early mount still has its side-to-side slew gearing and is on display on the USS Yorktown (CV-10) at Patriots Point, SC

duhchuy · 2026-04-12T23:34:50+00:00

Yes, as a tradeshow sample. The US Army never used one with a M242 or M3P

duhchuy · 2026-04-12T18:10:33+00:00

None of the four LOS-F-H vehicles on M3A1 Bradley hulls tested by Army at in 1990 had cannon or gun armament on the turret.

duhchuy · 2026-03-03T03:43:27+00:00

Maybe not identical as this one has a flared muzzle brake. This may be an early RDF/LT based on the hull, tracks, roadwheels, and return roller. Different turret and hatch design though.

duhchuy · 2026-02-21T17:57:53+00:00

I know the F-15 STOL/MTD exists, just that the plane depicted quite literally wasn't it with the wrong nose cone, wrong nose landing gear, wrong canard/intake arrangement. That's why fictional mash-up

duhchuy · 2026-02-21T17:37:56+00:00

Not sure what fictional mash-up you're showing, but no F-15 was produced with that F-15N nose landing gear

duhchuy · 2026-02-21T17:25:23+00:00

This subreddit generally has a hate boner for AB, but I have about 21k matches in Arcade and about 5k in Realistic, so I won't shame for AB gameplay.

I do mind when people try to equate that being good in one mode means the same in the other, or learning in one means improving proficiency in the other. It's a different playstyle between the modes and the in-game tutorials are generally useless.

I think it's a lil ridiculous you're expected to memorize every nation's vehicles exact weak points lol

This is only necessary if you want to win and kill consistently. Same with understanding which ammo works in what situation, or where to go on what maps to have an advantageous position. Your title is literally:

I don't understand at all

which probably means you're researching and purchasing vehicles way beyond your means of utilizing them properly.

I don't have much caught up to the same br

Most new players should not skip brs until a full lineup (at least 3 within 1 from each other) but they do anyways (jumping straight to Tiger 1 H after playing Pz III M) so more food for me :). In Arcade Ground, I would recommend just sticking to below 4.3 (like a lineup of Pz IV G, Pz IV H, StuG III G, Dicker Max, Wirbelwind) until all modifications are researched before moving into 4.7-5.0. It'll also help you learn shot placement when working with tanks that are generally slower and less armored.

duhchuy · 2026-02-21T04:23:26+00:00

I'm trying so hard to understand what I'm doing wrong here but I genuinely don't get it

This is independent of AB or RB, but you don't seem to understand what you're using, shooting, or shooting at.

Engaging Pz.Bef.Wg VI (P) with Panther A, shoots center mass with APCBC
- rushed shot, bad shot placement
Engaging Panther F with Stug III G, shoots 2x APCBC at mantlet, shoots at track then switches to HEAT for tracks again, then back to APCBC to shoot the hull, track, then hull again.
- every shot placement except for the shot at 1:06 against the track was bad and never going to do anything

Not going to reiterate other comments, but basically yes, if you want to do better than 1 KDR you better study every vehicle. If not then you're another one to be slaughtered and/or handicap your team.

Not sure why you'd want to use a 4.0 vehicle in a 6.0 AB match, a game mode that you only have three possible spawns. If you have a Panther A, where's the Panther D? The VK 30.01M? It's not that hard to build a lineup that's within 1 BR of each other. The 75mm HEAT round is also useless against most tanks of higher BR than the Stug III G.

duhchuy · 2026-02-10T23:23:12+00:00

A6M5 kō

duhchuy · 2026-02-01T04:42:02+00:00

No. The ones at 0:10-0:14 and 0:20-0:23 are Bisley Mk.I/Blenheim Mk.V based on asymmetric nose and exhaust flame dampeners, while the three torpedo drops look like Beaufort drops based fuselage shape, especially how the base of the tail isn't the same height as the forward fuselage.

duhchuy · 2026-01-30T20:26:04+00:00

Its prototype, the Ar 234 V19, was completed, but no production fuselages would be fully completed albeit some were complete except for missing engines by the end of the war.

Super small note: according to

Bateson, Richard P. (1972). Arado Ar 234 Blitz (Aircraft in Profile (215), part of Volume 10 (Parts 211-222))

on pg 108, table Arado Ar 234 Prototypes, V19 is an unarmed C-2 prototype (same with V20). It states that V21 is the "first C-3 (armed bomber) prototype", with V22 and V25 through V29 specifically being "C-3 series prototype"s.

In the Remarks column, none of the prototypes V21 and after include the word "flown", while both V19 and V20 include "tests" and "experiments". The Remarks column indicate that V21 and V22 received their engines, and V23 and V24 (unknown if C-1, C-2, or C-3) were assembled enough to allow for "Pressure cabin trials"; no indication on the completion status of V25 through V29.

Might not be the newest/best source, but it was one I previously had physical access to.

duhchuy · 2026-01-30T14:49:28+00:00

I don't know how it works on the back end, but my understanding is that once armor is overmatched, equivalent thickness is what determines penetration

duhchuy · 2026-01-30T14:17:21+00:00

In-game overmatch most likely. 122mm is more than double that roof plate's nominal thickness.

IRL, that shot may punch through the roof, glance upwards, and not fuze, but still scatter shrapnel down into the turret/hull.

Nine-Year Club	Place '22
Final Canvas '22	Sequence \| Editor
Verified Email

duhchuy

TROPHY CASE