|
tardwrangler posted:Here's a thing, basically an agricultural tractor mounted with 6 106mm recoiless rifles firing those beehive rounds mentioned earlier. quote:The Ontos (Greek for "thing"[1])
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 13:48 |
|
|
DumbparameciuM posted:Time for some thread necromancy with the Urumi, AKA the Indian Whip Sword When my little brother and I were younger, we'd play with these foam wiffle ball bats and pretend they were swords. I thank god we never did anything as silly and useless as that lovely ribbon thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 21:58
|
|
|
tardwrangler posted:Here's a thing, basically an agricultural tractor mounted with 6 106mm recoiless rifles firing those beehive rounds mentioned earlier. I had the instruction book/field guide/whatever for this thing for a long time. Something that seemed odd about it at the time was that it can go up a steeper hill in reverse than forward.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
Probably all that weight at the back would pull it over if it went up forward.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
Probably. It seemed a lot more weird at the time though. I want to say that it also had a manual transmission and the steering controls looked like it was a real pain to drive, but I don't remember why I came up with that opinion. It was before I learned to drive myself, so who knows if I was right or not.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 16:02
|
|
|
Atmus posted:Probably. It seemed a lot more weird at the time though. I want to say that it also had a manual transmission and the steering controls looked like it was a real pain to drive, but I don't remember why I came up with that opinion. It was before I learned to drive myself, so who knows if I was right or not.  MBT-70, A joint research project Between the USA and Germany to develop the modern battle tank, project was cancelled but lead Directly to the creation of the Abrams and Leopard 2. Look at other pictures of it, i think it looks rad from every angle. Thing was only 6 feet tall, which is shorter than my car. The driver sat in the turret on a rotating seat that allowed him to always face forward (or backward if needed) which seems like an awkward position to drive from.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 00:27
|
|
|
Sentmassen posted:
Assuming the turret rotates, wouldn't the driver have to sit on a fixed (fixed to the body, not the turret) seat to always remain facing forward?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 03:31
|
|
|
The problems, iirc, arose from the fact that the drivers seat couldn't be in the middle of the turret, since then he'd get in the way of reloading the gun. Therefore he had to be in his own cupola off set ot the side, that would rotate relative to both the turret and the chasis whilst keeping him facing the same direction. Drivers found this too confusing and would get motion sick and/or loose their sense of orietation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 15:19
|
|
|
Jerry Cotton posted:Assuming the turret rotates, wouldn't the driver have to sit on a fixed (fixed to the body, not the turret) seat to always remain facing forward?  To get the profile down to 6 feet, they had to move the entire crew to the turret (no room to stuff a guy in the nose). The turret is largely a big self contained unit, and in all tanks the gunner, commander, and loader seats are mounted to the turret. They tried to add the driver to that list but it proved too awkward despite their efforts. They could probably do it now with LCD screens and cameras...
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
Am I understanding that right in that the driver's position was essentially fixed to the base in that it rotated counter to the turret's rotation? If so, there's no way you'll convince me that graphic is to scale AND that the tank is only 6' tall.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
Atmus posted:Am I understanding that right in that the driver's position was essentially fixed to the base in that it rotated counter to the turret's rotation? If so, there's no way you'll convince me that graphic is to scale AND that the tank is only 6' tall. You couldn't fix the drivers cupola unless it was exactly in the centre of the turret, which would get in the way of the gun too much. The probelm they experinced wasn't with stabilising the drivers direction of view, it was with the drivers getting sick becasue their periferal vision of the inside of the tank was telling them the opposite of what their main vision through the stabilised view blocks was showing. Also because as the turret rotates, the offfset cupola moves around a circle, even if it is always facing foward probably contributed majorly to the driver's problems. Even today I doubt you could do it without working a way of having the driver in the exact centre of the turret. Having your ears/peripheral vision tell you one thing whilst you're seeing another is a good recipe for throwing up down the back of the gunners neck.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 09:58
|
|
|
Why is there a secondary turret/gun, and who was supposed to use it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 11:25
|
|
|
Didn't Captain Scarlet drive a tank like that? He had to drive it sideways or something mad.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 11:46
|
|
|
ChogsEnhour posted:Didn't Captain Scarlet drive a tank like that? He had to drive it sideways or something mad. Yes but he's much easier to fit inside a turret since it doesn't matter if he gets mangled by the workings because you know he'll return.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 11:56
|
|
|
Atmus posted:Am I understanding that right in that the driver's position was essentially fixed to the base in that it rotated counter to the turret's rotation? If so, there's no way you'll convince me that graphic is to scale AND that the tank is only 6' tall. Correction, 6ft 6in with is hydraulic system set to low. It had a adjustable suspension that allowed it to take advantage of terrain features. Object 416 has the same driver in turret thing, if people are still confused, that thing was SHORT. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0VIpxZltgU he shows the chair at 5:10 if you don't want to sit through the obnoxious rock music.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 18:07
|
|
|
Comstar posted:Why is there a secondary turret/gun, and who was supposed to use it? Secondary guns always creep into theoretical tanks from some reason and then get ditched when it turns out that yes, they are still a waste of space with extra weak spots. Judging from the position I'd say it was intended for operation by the loader, although maybe it was supposed to be used by the commander with some kind of cctv system?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 18:48
|
|
|
IIRC on the MBT 70 the secondary was planned to be a 20mm autocannon to mulch infantry, light vehicles and helos.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 19:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 13:48 |
|
|
Jerry Cotton posted:Yes but he's much easier to fit inside a turret since it doesn't matter if he gets mangled by the workings because you know he'll return. WW3 will be filmed in SuperMarionation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 21:26
|
|
