Picture of the day

2006121205223_Stirnpanzer.jpg


2006121205355_Stirnpanzer1.jpg
 
fat tony said:
^Cool example of deep drawing technology. I heard the British did not have technology like this. I think it is more likely that the British considered their men to be that much more expendable. They carried on this attitude into WWII as the more advanced British helmets did not appear until quite late.
Click to expand...

actually, they brits where far more concerned with casualties then the germans, they had a smaller population to draw on and a sensitive voting public to deal with that the germans didn't. The majority of head wounds where from above, from shrapnel. The british design provided just as much protection from this sort of injury, and was lighter and more comfortable to wear. It also used less steel, was less costly and significantly cheaper to make. Neither side went into WW1 with an effective helmet. Both developed them as the war developed. The germans for the largest part of WW1 favored a defensive stratagey which placed an emphasis on protection while the british where almost always pushing offensive actions putting much greater emphasis on trench raiding. This is best seen in the differences in the dugouts and fortifications both sides used in their trench and emplacement architecture.
 
The interior of the hetzer is cramped enough without that
Periscope weapons sight hanging down from the roof. The
Crew would be smacking their melons on that thing every 30
Seconds when the vehicle goes into action.
 
Poor Hetzer! Seems like their only advantage was they were tiny. Not so much when parked next to a Kubelwagen, but compared to Pz IV, V, or VI? Extremely tiny.
Tactic: Shoot once, then run like hell. Option: Surrender.
 
Sporting Lad said:
Poor Hetzer! Seems like their only advantage was they were tiny. Not so much when parked next to a Kubelwagen, but compared to Pz IV, V, or VI? Extremely tiny.
Tactic: Shoot once, then run like hell. Option: Surrender.
Click to expand...

they were actually a great little tank destroyer, low silhouette, decent sloped armour, and a good gun. they also were reliable and easy to make
 
The helmets are fascinating, though the one with the bullet in it must have been shot from extreme distance, or more likely caught a ricochet. As far as I know, no WWII helmets would come close to stopping a rifle projectile, the projectile would punch through the front of the helmet, your skull, and usually keep right on trucking out the rear.

Helmets were for artillery shrapnel more than direct rifle fire, though no doubt in the right scenario it could save the wearer from a serious lead migrane.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom