|
You're going to lose accuracy from the fire control system fast as hell if you tried to fire like that in an Abrams, and there's no way you're going to be able to do an MRS update unless you have a poo poo hot gunner and some decent cover to roll into.
|
| # ? Jun 18, 2012 19:23 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2013 06:24 |
|
|
Spongebob Tampax posted:If that thing can punch out 12 rounds a minute, it's outdoing the Abrams 2:1. I'm sure if you threw caution to the wind and let your aim go to poo poo in an Abrams you could keep pace, but it wouldn't last long. However, the effectiveness of that rate of fire is only useful if stability can be maintained. I see no problem with this in the sense that a lot of guys are going to save hurting their backs from twisting, lifting, etc, every couple of seconds. gently caress it, let the machine do it. That just guarantees more work for the mechanics. In a defensive situation (e.g. stationary in a fighting position) you could probably squeeze off 8-10 aimed shots in a minute, but as soon as you put the vehicle in motion the autoloader will definitely outpace the gunner's ability to sight, acquire and engage targets. The other advantage that the autoloader has is that you can separate the crew from the ammunition; that is until the autoloader borks and the commander or gunner has to go figure out WTF and clear the jam in the middle of combat. 
|
| # ? Jun 18, 2012 19:39 |
|
|
Arishtat posted:In a defensive situation (e.g. stationary in a fighting position) you could probably squeeze off 8-10 aimed shots in a minute, but as soon as you put the vehicle in motion the autoloader will definitely outpace the gunner's ability to sight, acquire and engage targets. The other advantage that the autoloader has is that you can separate the crew from the ammunition; that is until the autoloader borks and the commander or gunner has to go figure out WTF and clear the jam in the middle of combat. uh...pretty sure the crew of an Abrams is separated from the ammo. T-72s(export models blah blah blah) are pretty notorious for taking a hit near the ammo and then blowing up. M1AXs aren't known for that...
|
| # ? Jun 18, 2012 19:48 |
|
|
Veins McGee posted:uh...pretty sure the crew of an Abrams is separated from the ammo. T-72s(export models blah blah blah) are pretty notorious for taking a hit near the ammo and then blowing up. M1AXs aren't known for that... The ammunition locker is indeed behind a set of hydraulically (electrically?) operated doors which are controlled by the loader with a foot pedal, it's also set up such that an ammunition explosion would be vented up and outward instead of into the crew compartment; however, when the loader has the doors open or a shell in transit to the breech of the gun there's a chance (admittedly small) of a penetrating hit touching off the shell or shells and obliterating the crew.
|
| # ? Jun 18, 2012 20:40 |
|
|
Hydraulic, with an IR beam that re-opens the doors if you let go of the leg switch and try to stick your hand in there. Think like an elevator, except if you try to break the beam in the last three inches you're losing your fingertips.
|
| # ? Jun 18, 2012 21:12 |
|
|
Arishtat posted:The ammunition locker is indeed behind a set of hydraulically (electrically?) operated doors which are controlled by the loader with a foot pedal, it's also set up such that an ammunition explosion would be vented up and outward instead of into the crew compartment; however, when the loader has the doors open or a shell in transit to the breech of the gun there's a chance (admittedly small) of a penetrating hit touching off the shell or shells and obliterating the crew. In either case, the autoloader wasn't really implemented in order to put out a large volume of fire. The idea was to reduce the crew requirement and provide a lower silhouette to the tank.(no doubt some other poo poo but I really dont feel like searching through a ton of articles on jstor to find something appropriate) Volume of fire rarely wins tank fights, well trained crews putting well aimed shots from well protected vehicles with excellent support tends to win tank fights.(see the Valley of Tears)
|
| # ? Jun 18, 2012 21:36 |
|
|
This page needs photos. Here's the Panzer VIII Maus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_VIII_Maus According to WWII era Germany, bigger is better. Pick up "My Tank is Fight!" if you're interested in theoretical German warfare technology. It's written by a goon, and the chapters are broken into sections about the designs and "What could have been" short stories. I've read it a couple times, it's not bad. EVA BRAUN BLOWJOBS fucked around with this message at Jun 18, 2012 around 22:11 |
| # ? Jun 18, 2012 22:09 |
|
|
Semi-famous Panther vs Pershing duel in Cologne http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jt5bJQOkI1g (history channel when it wasn't alien/ghosts bullshit) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBI9d0-IfEM (a video that diagrams that fight)
|
| # ? Jun 18, 2012 22:30 |
|
|
Veins McGee posted:In either case, the autoloader wasn't really implemented in order to put out a large volume of fire. The idea was to reduce the crew requirement and provide a lower silhouette to the tank.(no doubt some other poo poo but I really dont feel like searching through a ton of articles on jstor to find something appropriate) Oh very definitely accuracy trumps volume of fire, especially if that accurate fire can be delivered beyond the effective range of the opposition's capabilities. The Iraqis learned that lesson the hard way in 1991. Let me tell you about how as Scouts we used grill out, lounge in the bleachers and heckle the tankers as they flubbed their Table VII and VIII runs after finishing our runs the previous day. Despite all that technology on board it still comes down to a gunner taking the time to properly boresight, the commander to get his commands down, the driver to drive (and stop) smoothly, and the loader to do his thing smoothly and quickly. The Russians (Soviets) believed that an application of massed firepower was the key to overwhelming NATO and their tanks reflect that philosophy. And now for a picture! Here's a knocked out German Jagdpanther (note the penetration in the hull behind the casement in the vicinity of the engine compartment) with an American M36 Jackson (Slugger) facing it. 
Arishtat fucked around with this message at Jun 18, 2012 around 22:38 |
| # ? Jun 18, 2012 22:35 |
|
|
Veins McGee posted:In either case, the autoloader wasn't really implemented in order to put out a large volume of fire. The idea was to reduce the crew requirement and provide a lower silhouette to the tank.(no doubt some other poo poo but I really dont feel like searching through a ton of articles on jstor to find something appropriate) If I remember right the other element is prolonged running battles, the soviets who loved putting in auto loaders honestly expected their armour elements to be fighting protracted running battles on the offense, and auto loaders don't get tired from moving shells. This is also why they're willing to accept not being able to depress the barrel as far, because they expected their formations to be on the offensive. The trade off is basically being able to load shells continuously for a longer period of time vs being able to depress the barrel further for a wider variety of potential hull down positions. Now which end of the trade off was better is up for debate seeing as how WWIII never poured through the Fulda gap.
|
| # ? Jun 19, 2012 00:05 |
|
IDR posted:These pics make me sad to be Infantry I actually joined the infantry to drive Tanks. I did not know how the army worked.
|
|
| # ? Jun 19, 2012 00:16 |
|
|
The thing about the autoloaders is what happens when you have a misfire? Does the gunner or TC have to leave their position?
|
| # ? Jun 19, 2012 00:17 |
|
|
Ashmole posted:The thing about the autoloaders is what happens when you have a misfire? Does the gunner or TC have to leave their position? If you're practical, the TC uses what little space he has to tuck his legs behind his ears while the gunner kisses his rear end goodbye.
|
| # ? Jun 19, 2012 00:48 |
|
|
AB posted:This page needs photos. Here's the Panzer VIII Maus: Silly facts about the Maus: - Weighed some 200 tons, could move 'under ideal conditions' 12 km/h, most of the time it was stuck at a walking pace. - Used the same 128mm gun the Jagdtiger did, the largest armored vehicle ever to see combat. It's coaxial gun was a rapid-fire 50mm cannon that used to be mounted on the Panzer IV. - Had a hybrid diesel-electric drivetrain for reasons that remain obscure to me. - Was scheduled to be deployed mid 1943, but Hitler was dissatisfied with the pitiful speed and canceled it. So it was too silly for Hitler, which is saying something. - Could be moved by rail...if you had the special, custom built rail car. The height and width of the Maus were dictated by the maximum dimensions that could fit on rails. - Like several other massive Nazi tanks, mobility would have been a never-ending problem, as most bridges in Europe would collapse under its weight. This was a big issue with the Elephant, the King Tiger, and the Jadgtiger, and it would have been considerably worse with the Maus. I made a 1/72 model of one. (I tend to hoover up all sorts of spergy facts about whatever I'm making.)  Since it's kind of a fantasy tank, I painted it like a fantasy. In this case, the colors of a box turtle.
|
| # ? Jun 19, 2012 02:12 |
|
|
Arishtat posted:Oh very definitely accuracy trumps volume of fire, especially if that accurate fire can be delivered beyond the effective range of the opposition's capabilities. The Iraqis learned that lesson the hard way in 1991.
|
| # ? Jun 19, 2012 02:37 |
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Silly facts about the Maus: My burning question about this tank is how the gently caress do you get the skirts out of the way to do track maintenance? There has to be a shitload of grease points on something this large.
|
| # ? Jun 19, 2012 02:37 |
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Silly facts about the Maus: The answer is in your first bullet point, the drat thing was so heavy that a direct drive was impossible because no crankshaft, transmission or transfer case could take the strain so instead the engines turned generators which powered electric traction motors, much like modern diesel-electric train locomotives. To give you a comparison the Maus weighed just a little more than a modern General Electric ES44DC locomotive which comes in at a relatively sprightly 189 metric tons. AB posted:My burning question about this tank is how the gently caress do you get the skirts out of the way to do track maintenance? There has to be a shitload of grease points on something this large. Here's a shot of the Maus that the Soviets nabbed and put on display in Kubinka:  From the picture I'd say you don't. That side plate appears to be solid steel and it's welded to the glacis plate so any lubrication would have to be done by crawling up underneath it or possibly from the inside of the vehicle? I'll bet that would be lots of fun to do after a trip through some nice German or Polish mud in November. More Maus info here: http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/maus/index.html Arishtat fucked around with this message at Jun 19, 2012 around 04:03 |
| # ? Jun 19, 2012 03:57 |
|
|
The Soviet experimental heavy tank Object 279.
|
| # ? Jun 19, 2012 04:24 |
|
|
Cryogenic Jesus posted:The Soviet experimental heavy tank Object 279. Sloped armor is good, so lets just make EVERYTHING a slope! And tracks getting blown off? Well gently caress them, put more tracks on it. Redundancy is the key to good tank design.
|
| # ? Jun 19, 2012 05:19 |
|
|
gently caress yea a tank thread! So could someone elaborate on the quality of Russian tanks? Are they pretty good or what?
|
| # ? Jun 19, 2012 05:41 |
|
|
Cryogenic Jesus posted:The Soviet experimental heavy tank Object 279. I still give them kudos for coming up with something as close to a v-shaped hull as that generation had. I guess sweden was really the first nation to implement the concept consciously, but hey, credit for ingenuity (even accidental one) where it's due. Duzzy Funlop fucked around with this message at Jun 19, 2012 around 05:50 |
| # ? Jun 19, 2012 05:47 |
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Since it's kind of a fantasy tank, You rang?  Most folks probably already caught a wiff of this (and the "Monster") at some point, but for the sake of completeness, meet the Landkreuzer "Ratte", supposedly the brain child of two senior Krupp engineers feeding Hitler's insanity. While not the heaviest or biggest land-faring thing Germany ever put on tracks, at well over 1000 tons and armed with what would have been a converted 11-inch naval triplet, this certainly would have been the biggest thing with a gun to see the light of day. For comparison:  Note that the depiction of the E-100 and the Maus isn't entirely accurate as the latter was considerably taller; also take both the illustration of the Ratte and the Monster with a grain of salt as there are no valid sources for either and they're both based more on hear-say than actual blueprints recovered. In any case, like AB said, pick up "My Tank is Fight!" if you like a good read about nazi theorycrafting. If nothing else, it makes a great gift for people fascinated with megalomaniacal third reichery (americans) and while it may not rest entirely on sound factual footing, you want that poo poo to be true and you know it.
|
| # ? Jun 19, 2012 06:49 |
|
|
I think the M1A1 is under-appreciated here, but I'll stow the gripes because I'm new. Anyways, here's my second to last M1A1 in Twentynine Palms. This photo was taken right before the bore-evac was emblazoned with the tank's name: Dutch Rudder. 
|
| # ? Jun 21, 2012 03:57 |
|
|
The Flipperbaby posted:I think the M1A1 is under-appreciated here, but I'll stow the gripes because I'm new. Did you join armor so you wouldn't have to walk? How much of your time is spent fixing broken tracks?
|
| # ? Jun 21, 2012 04:07 |
|
|
Oxford Comma posted:Did you join armor so you wouldn't have to walk? I joined armor so I could destroy. As the ancient tanker saying goes, "let your weapon carry you"... I never complained about that. With considerable effort invested, I was lucky to become a Tank Commander relatively early, so I had the luxury of allowing my droogs to do most of the track-breaking. Right before I separated, an Officer T-boned my victor while he was doing 25mph (we were doing 5mph). We were able to fight our tank, but I personally invested an age un-caressing the track because my crew was too green. I'll never miss breaking track.
|
| # ? Jun 21, 2012 04:19 |
|
|
The Flipperbaby posted:I joined armor so I could destroy. As the ancient tanker saying goes, "let your weapon carry you"... I never complained about that. Shenanigans
|
| # ? Jun 21, 2012 10:21 |
|
|
IDR posted:Shenanigans Not shenanigans. I'll explain more over PM, if you'd like. Trust me, I'd not invent some weird story like that. There was an official investigation and everything which made me look like a total bag of dicks; I'd not brag about that.
|
| # ? Jun 21, 2012 10:26 |
|
|
Since apparently this is now an MBT jerkoff thead, have a Puma Germany's main IFV 
|
| # ? Jun 21, 2012 10:39 |
|
|
I'll never cease to giggle over how so many European MBTs/IFVs have rear-view mirrors.
|
| # ? Jun 21, 2012 10:47 |
|
|
I'll never cease to giggle over people thinking rear-view-mirrors are somehow limited to european IFVs or, in general, that they're a european thing. To be completely honest, I haven't really started giggling until your post, though.
|
| # ? Jun 21, 2012 11:12 |
|
|
Duzzy Funlop posted:I'll never cease to giggle over people thinking rear-view-mirrors are somehow limited to european IFVs or, in general, that they're a european thing. Fine, I concede that a lot of extra-European nations use rear-view mirrors on their armor, but I contend that it's mostly a European thing. It's a quaint idea, regardless: an armored vehicle with car features. The driver should have no say in what the vehicle does, the TC should let him know.
|
| # ? Jun 21, 2012 11:19 |
|
|
The Flipperbaby posted:un-caressing Un-loving, no word filter after you register. It's seriously loving okay to loving say gently caress as much as you loving want here. gently caress fuckity gently caress gently caress gently caress.
|
| # ? Jun 21, 2012 11:55 |
|
|
The Flipperbaby posted:Fine, I concede that a lot of extra-European nations use rear-view mirrors on their armor, but I contend that it's mostly a European thing. It's a quaint idea, regardless: an armored vehicle with car features. The driver should have no say in what the vehicle does, the TC should let him know. Shenanigans
|
| # ? Jun 21, 2012 12:04 |
|
|
The Flipperbaby posted:Fine, I concede that a lot of extra-European nations use rear-view mirrors on their armor, but I contend that it's mostly a European thing. It's a quaint idea, regardless: an armored vehicle with car features. The driver should have no say in what the vehicle does, the TC should let him know. Get out.
|
| # ? Jun 21, 2012 12:39 |
|
|
AB posted:Un-loving, no word filter after you register. It's seriously loving okay to loving say gently caress as much as you loving want here. I do not loving understand why people actually type the results of the word filter. Just type loving. Either it'll work, or the filter will change it. Don't change it yourself, that makes no sense to me whatsoever.
|
| # ? Jun 21, 2012 14:39 |
|
|
The Flipperbaby posted:Fine, I concede that a lot of extra-European nations use rear-view mirrors on their armor, but I contend that it's mostly a European thing. It's a quaint idea, regardless: an armored vehicle with car features. The driver should have no say in what the vehicle does, the TC should let him know. Yes http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9mNy7_38TU, very quaint  Road marches...
|
| # ? Jun 21, 2012 16:11 |
|
|
Koesj posted:Yes http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9mNy7_38TU, very quaint The odds of an American driver getting killed if M1AXs roadmarched would be 100%. This isn't some comment on the superiority of European drivers, cause I really wouldn't know, but an observertion that American drivers have no concept of stopping distance or what 20-60tons of steel moving at highway speeds is physically capable of. They will cut off vehicles, actively prevent vehicles from merging, and get between convoy vehicles.
|
| # ? Jun 21, 2012 17:38 |
|
|
I can see it now, a TC would tell a driver to brake check a tailgater. "Sir, I saw an animal coming onto the road, and the other guy was just too close. Whoops." E: But seriously, my exhaust would start melting off bits of a tailgater's car before it gets to that point.
|
| # ? Jun 21, 2012 17:43 |
|
|
AB posted:I can see it now, a TC would tell a driver to brake check a tailgater. "Sir, I saw an animal coming onto the road, and the other guy was just too close. Whoops." It's more like: 'oh god oh god oh god. I don't wanna get NJPed for hitting a car but I also don't wanna hit that jersey barrier at the end of the acceleration lane. What do I do? What do I do?'
|
| # ? Jun 21, 2012 17:52 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2013 06:24 |
|
|
One time I was in a CCP while towing an MPHT trailer that had no functioning brake lights. My trailing vehicle was an FL80 that was also towing a trailer. Some idiot lady swerved in front of the FL80 to cut them off, and started tailgating me on a road that had frequent crosswalks with yield to pedestrian signs. She was also adjusting her hair and makeup while talking on the phone as she did this. I just slowed down to a crawl until she went away and the FL80 took his spot back.
|
| # ? Jun 21, 2012 18:19 |
|
