|
How loud is a WWII era tank? If you were, say, a Finnish infantryman lying in the woods in December '39, how far away would the T-26s be when you heard them?
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 23:58 |
|
|
Tevery Best posted:How loud is a WWII era tank? If you were, say, a Finnish infantryman lying in the woods in December '39, how far away would the T-26s be when you heard them? It depends on the tank and how well everything is adjusted, and of course the terrain. If you want an ballpark estimate, Partisans Companion says 900 meters for a stationary tank, 450 if the wind is towards the tank, 1500 if the wind is towards you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
Aren't the tracks usually more distinctive/noisier than the engine? Provided it isn't climbing a hill or something.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 02:33
|
|
|
Diesel engines are really loud.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 02:51
|
|
|
Taken with my regular old compact digital camera so no special sound gear whatsoever but... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M11Ql8JAqN4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bd_uRXLUL_Y The wind seems louder than the vehicles. Bonus "historical" fact! That T-80 was one of the ones NOT stolen by Agent 007 while in St. Petersburg during the Goldeneye affair.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 03:20
|
|
|
Modern AFVs have gotten a lot quieter. The M1 Abrams was nicknamed something like "The Silent Death" or something along those lines because its turbine engine was so quiet that it could actually sneak up and ambush insurgents in urban combat. Of course, it creates an absolutely massive IR signature because the rear of the tank vents so much hot exhaust that you can't really stand directly behind it when it's running if you like feeling yourself.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 04:50
|
|
|
Well that Chieftain is well maintained 1960's tech, not an M1 by any stretch. TBH it really isn't that loud at all standing near it compared to ambient road noise from a few hundred feet away, or even the wind that day. Really the worst thing was the smell...
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 05:00
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Modern AFVs have gotten a lot quieter. The M1 Abrams was nicknamed something like "The Silent Death" or something along those lines because its turbine engine was so quiet that it could actually sneak up and ambush insurgents in urban combat. Of course, it creates an absolutely massive IR signature because the rear of the tank vents so much hot exhaust that you can't really stand directly behind it when it's running if you like feeling yourself. A Leopard 2 for comparison: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UddSH282K4Y&t=10s Edit: Interesting that you don't even really hear the turbine whine in that first video until the tank has already passed the camera.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 07:37
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Here's a great video to illustrate that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5XUQ2beGfM&t=15s The turret drive is louder than the engine. Also, stabilized turrets are kinda unnerving.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 11:42
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:Diesel engines are really loud. For those unaware, the Soviets used diesel in their tanks, but the Germans and Americans used gasoline. Not sure about other countries or non-tank vehicles.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 14:22
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Here's a great video to illustrate that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5XUQ2beGfM&t=15s
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 15:17
|
|
|
Why did they decide to use a turbines in the Abrams?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 02:01
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:Taken with my regular old compact digital camera so no special sound gear whatsoever but... I see that they properly placed the spectators downwind for the full interactive experience.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 02:56
|
|
|
TheChimney posted:Why did they decide to use a turbines in the Abrams? [clarkson]POWWWWWEEERRRR[/clarkson]
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 03:16
|
|
|
TheChimney posted:Why did they decide to use a turbines in the Abrams? Gas turbines are very powerful, despite all their drawbacks, and when you have a very heavy tank and a lot of money, it's a very good option.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 03:33
|
|
|
The Locator posted:I see that they properly placed the spectators downwind for the full interactive experience.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 04:20
|
|
|
TheChimney posted:Why did they decide to use a turbines in the Abrams? MrYenko posted:[clarkson]POWWWWWEEERRRR[/clarkson] Their drawbacks are all about cost. The engines themselves are expensive to produce and they drink jet fuel at a prodigious rate. But when you're willing to spend more on your military than everyone else on Earth combined and you've got a logistics operation that can provide enough jet fuel to melt every steel beam in Christendom those disadvantages aren't a big deal.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 04:50
|
|
|
Also, the military tries to use JP-8 jet fuel for literally everything they can to smooth out logistics. It's even used as a heater and stove fuel.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 08:18
|
|
|
Aren't they working on a diesel engine for the Abrams? I thought the prodigious fuel consumption of the turbine caused some very real range limitations.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
david_a posted:Aren't they working on a diesel engine for the Abrams? I thought the prodigious fuel consumption of the turbine caused some very real range limitations. There's been talk of a notional M1A3 being powered by a diesel power pack in common with whatever we replace the Bradley and M113 with, but Bradley replacement programs keep dropping dead under mysterious circumstances. Also, the M113 is effectively immortal.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 16:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 23:58 |
|
|
The M113 is a metal box on tracks. There's so much that you can do with it that there's never any reason to actually retire the drat things when you can always use another spare ambulance/reserve mechanised/amunition hauling/decoy/target practice unit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 17:02
|
|