|
Brown Moses posted:Here's another example I remember this video and the debate if the truck got hit or the tank.
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 21:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 09:51 |
|
|
Some OG SEAL dude:
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 21:15
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:Another example of the importance of infantry support for tanks from Syria What does he throw there? Does he get a grenade into an open hatch or is it an RKG or some other anti-tank grenade?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 21:18
|
|
Phanatic posted:What does he throw there? Does he get a grenade into an open hatch or is it an RKG or some other anti-tank grenade? It looks like he threw something down the barrel of the gun.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 21:23
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:Another example of the importance of infantry support for tanks from Syria Better if you start it a little earlier https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoFRXks2X68&t=76s
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 21:31
|
|
|
Still wondering what it is he threw. Didn't look like as explosion so much as an incendiary of some sort. Tanks burn pretty good apparently.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 21:41
|
|
|
I'm guessing it was a grenade, you can kind of see him pull the pin and count. What's burning is the propellant in the magazine. E: EVA BRAUN BLOWJOBS posted:I'm Twice. First time it got shot out of the barrel when the main gun just happened to fire. Snowdens Secret fucked around with this message at 21:49 on Apr 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 21:43
|
|
|
Wasabi the J posted:I can't believe how loving hard I laughed at the attackers "hand and arm signal" when he runs back to his buddies. I'm  ing that he just walked up and tossed whatever that was down the gun tube. That's some Looney Tunes poo poo right there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 21:47
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:Still wondering what it is he threw. Didn't look like as explosion so much as an incendiary of some sort. Tanks burn pretty good apparently. Well they're full of propellant and HE so what did you expect.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 21:47
|
|
|
EVA BRAUN BLOWJOBS posted:I'm I don't know a lot about non-floating warfare so I have to ask - do these tanks not have machine guns? Is it really that easy to just run through a field up to a tank and lob enough explosive in it to destroy everything inside?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 22:08
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:I don't know a lot about non-floating warfare so I have to ask - do these tanks not have machine guns? Is it really that easy to just run through a field up to a tank and lob enough explosive in it to destroy everything inside? Tanks have a very constrained field of view if the commander is forced to sit down in the turret. Normally, the commander wants to be standing up so he can see 360 and direct the fire of the gunner and the movement of the vehicle. When the commander is forced to button up, the commander can only see out of periscopes and these periscopes leave large blindspots. The commander generally has a machine gun on a flexible mount for close in defense. On the Abrams, the loader also has a machine gun for close in defense. T-55/T-72s dont have a loader so there is no loader pintle mount. In this case, the rebels appear to have forced the commander to button up so they could move infantry close in and destroy the tank. Additionally, the coax machine gun is limited to the elevation/traverse limitations of the main gun. The guy that blew up that tank looks like he came from beneath the depression limits of the main gun. The telescopic sight of armored vehicles is also limited to the traverse/elevation limits of the main gun. Some tanks have a 'unity viewing window'(I assume all tanks do) which is like a periscope for the gunner. It gives him a wide field of view to the front of the turret. The 'unity viewing window' is still linked to the main gun and the telescopic sights and suffers the same elevation/depression limitations. vains fucked around with this message at 22:20 on Apr 2, 2013 |
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 22:17
|
|
|
Veins McGee posted:
I wonder what a defensive "blind shot" would do if you saw that guy and shot a round in his direction. I know tanks are loud as gently caress, I could only imagine that the effect from the front would be described as "debilitating".
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 22:27
|
|
|
What he said. You can't see poo poo when you're buttoned up, and you're definitely not going to see a guy sneaking up below the limits of the sights. Drive might catch it if it's at a certain angle Wasabi the J posted:I wonder what a defensive "blind shot" would do if you saw that guy and shot a round in his direction. Dead or severely hosed up from burning propellant and overpressure. You really, really don't want to be that close to the gun tube when it fires. T-72 firing for example:  Guy would be toast. EBB fucked around with this message at 22:30 on Apr 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 22:28
|
|
Wasabi the J posted:I wonder what a defensive "blind shot" would do if you saw that guy and shot a round in his direction. Probably gently caress him up pretty good between the volume and pressure from the shot but then what? Firing a main gun round to possibly incapacitate one dude who might be there(or he might be under your gun or off to the side) isn't a good use of limited resources. A better tactic would be to increase your standoff or don't commit tanks without infantry(like has been noted above).
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 22:34
|
|
|
What I don't get with all these tank kill vids is why the tanks are sitting still, without even traversing the turret, for more than enough time for these guys to set up both a killing attack and a camera vantage point to film it
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 22:37
|
|
|
If I had to guess, they've never had any real combined arms training so they think that a TCP/mounted patrol is literally drive and park.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 23:02
|
|
|
Military Brony Granted this is at an anime convention, so it could just be tacticlol cosplay. Of course, it also seems like a pretty junior enlisted thing to do to wear your uniform to an anime convention.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 23:05
|
|
|
Plastic_Gargoyle posted:Military Brony No tape on the chinstrap, probably tactilol.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 23:10
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 23:30
|
|
|
Veins McGee posted:Tanks have a very constrained field of view if the commander is forced to sit down in the turret. Normally, the commander wants to be standing up so he can see 360 and direct the fire of the gunner and the movement of the vehicle. When the commander is forced to button up, the commander can only see out of periscopes and these periscopes leave large blindspots. The commander generally has a machine gun on a flexible mount for close in defense. On the Abrams, the loader also has a machine gun for close in defense. T-55/T-72s dont have a loader so there is no loader pintle mount. In this case, the rebels appear to have forced the commander to button up so they could move infantry close in and destroy the tank. Does the commander not have an independent sighting system? i only know of Challenger 2 but it seems incredibly easy for him to get up and close to it and for that group of people to be close and filming as well. I'm assuming whatever he used either set off the charge in the breach or the breach was actually open when he threw it in.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 23:37
|
|
|
Road rage incident between Marines, possibly on-base: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=73b_1364917659 The aggressor is arrested at the very end of the clip. Climax at 1:40.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 00:20
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:I'm guessing it was a grenade, you can kind of see him pull the pin and count. What's burning is the propellant in the magazine. You're saying he threw a grenade down the barrel? That's quite a shot.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 00:37
|
|
|
He walked right up to it. Did you not watch the video?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 00:52
|
|
|
Solid Snake could throw it down the barrel. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 00:55
|
|
MonkeyLibFront posted:Does the commander not have an independent sighting system? i only know of Challenger 2 but it seems incredibly easy for him to get up and close to it and for that group of people to be close and filming as well. I'm assuming whatever he used either set off the charge in the breach or the breach was actually open when he threw it in. They do. For the main weapon system/coax, their sights have the same limitations that the gunner's sights do. Abrams TCs can control their 50 from inside the turret, as far as I know. However, the primary limitation remains: Their situational awareness(i.e., what they can see around them) is degraded because they're either looking out a pinhole(telescopic sights) or they're looking out the periscopes.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 01:00
|
|
|
Wasn't that why the soviets trialled all those claymore-type things strapped to tanks during the invasion in the 80s? From what I've heard they were set off if you suspected anti-tank troops were sneaking around, but took out too many friendlies even for Soviet command and were mothballed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 01:06
|
|
|
Godholio posted:He walked right up to it. Did you not watch the video? On my tiny phone. Looked like he chucked it onto the turret. So they were both down the barrel and the second one set off the round in the chamber or the magazine inside? Proust Malone fucked around with this message at 01:14 on Apr 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 01:12
|
|
|
Pretty insane that he went up to the tank twice
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 01:12
|
|
|
Raimundus posted:Road rage incident between Marines, possibly on-base: All i could think of was Thad from Blue Mountain State When the guys voice started to get all high pitched. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTqj6JICMGc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4mqCbS_gN4
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 01:22
|
|
|
MonkeyLibFront posted:Does the commander not have an independent sighting system? i only know of Challenger 2 but it seems incredibly easy for him to get up and close to it and for that group of people to be close and filming as well. I'm assuming whatever he used either set off the charge in the breach or the breach was actually open when he threw it in. The commander's hatch is on the far side of the turret in the video and neither the commander's telescopic sight (if he even had one) nor his vision blocks (periscopes) would have allowed him to see the guy approaching the tank. As for how it exploded I'd guess that the fighter got incredibly lucky and caught the tank in the middle of the reloading cycle with the breech open or not fully locked with an incendiary grenade. That doesn't really make sense to me, but the Soviets had different ideas about crew safety than the US or NATO tank designers did.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 01:43
|
|
|
Veins McGee posted:They do. For the main weapon system/coax, their sights have the same limitations that the gunner's sights do. Abrams TCs can control their 50 from inside the turret, as far as I know. However, the primary limitation remains: Their situational awareness(i.e., what they can see around them) is degraded because they're either looking out a pinhole(telescopic sights) or they're looking out the periscopes. Case in point: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jd3H05HgXLg
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 01:44
|
|
|
Vindolanda posted:Wasn't that why the soviets trialled all those claymore-type things strapped to tanks during the invasion in the 80s? From what I've heard they were set off if you suspected anti-tank troops were sneaking around, but took out too many friendlies even for Soviet command and were mothballed. These? It looks like they're still in use, just with the added caution of "keep the infantry away from the tank." Which seems counterproductive, really. (I don't think the Russians have ever had a standard for "took out too many friendlies.") On a semi-related note, I was reading a bit about the Tiran 5, and I'm genuinely curious how the Israelis managed to capture 400 intact tanks over the course of the Six-Day War. Were they facing the Keystone Kops?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 01:56
|
|
|
Arishtat posted:The commander's hatch is on the far side of the turret in the video and neither the commander's telescopic sight (if he even had one) nor his vision blocks (periscopes) would have allowed him to see the guy approaching the tank. As for how it exploded I'd guess that the fighter got incredibly lucky and caught the tank in the middle of the reloading cycle with the breech open or not fully locked with an incendiary grenade. That doesn't really make sense to me, but the Soviets had different ideas about crew safety than the US or NATO tank designers did. Doesn't matter for either platform, breech closed or not. A grenade going down the tube would detonate the propellant and ruin the crew's day. Only difference is the Abrams having blowout panels to offset round cookoff, and that wouldn't factor in if the explosion hit the crew compartment before round storage. Madurai posted:Case in point: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jd3H05HgXLg And drat I'm glad we don't have an autoloader, poo poo is claustrophobic enough as it is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 02:04
|
|
|
EVA BRAUN BLOWJOBS posted:Doesn't matter for either platform, breech closed or not. A grenade going down the tube would detonate the propellant and ruin the crew's day. There's more fill in the 120mm shell than there is in the grenade, even if the grenade blast does cook off the loaded round (which I think is unlikely), okay, your loaded round just went off. The chamber pressure's not going to be significantly higher than the round just firing normally. Yeah, the grenade detonates, but it's relatively unconfined, the breech block has to deal with pressures higher than that every time it fires. If the grenade managed to set off the explosive fill in a loaded HEAT round, okay, bad news, but that's shock-insensitive stuff otherwise you'd be crossing your fingers every time you fired it. EVA BRAUN BLOWJOBS posted:You're no fun. Sorry. I occasionally get upset that I don't blow stuff up at my job anymore. Phanatic fucked around with this message at 03:38 on Apr 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 03:15
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:There's more fill in the 120mm shell than there is in the grenade, even if the grenade blast does cook off the loaded round (which I think is unlikely), okay, your loaded round just went off. The chamber pressure's not going to be significantly higher than the round just firing normally. Yeah, the grenade detonates, but it's relatively unconfined, the breech block has to deal with pressures higher than that every time it fires. If the grenade managed to set off the explosive fill in a loaded HEAT round, okay, bad news, but that's shock-insensitive stuff otherwise you'd be crossing your fingers every time you fired it. You're no fun.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 03:19
|
|
|
Plastic_Gargoyle posted:These? It looks like they're still in use, just with the added caution of "keep the infantry away from the tank." Which seems counterproductive, really. ERA is to combat rounds penetrating, not to combat infantry units nearby. Im pretty sure they cant be manually set off
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 06:54
|
|
|
EVA BRAUN BLOWJOBS posted:And drat I'm glad we don't have an autoloader, poo poo is claustrophobic enough as it is. That thing looks loving terrifying, like having a giant metal deathsnake up in the turret with you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 07:41
|
|
|
swagger like us posted:ERA is to combat rounds penetrating, not to combat infantry units nearby. Im pretty sure they cant be manually set off Yeah, I've certainly heard about some kind of manually fired thing mounted to protect the sides and back of the tank, but this was from a Challenger 2 commander boasting about some vision upgrade kit that would make it easier to see AT squads sneaking up, so usual "heard from the military" standards of believableness apply.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 10:35
|
|
|
AFAIK they used to/still have fragmentation or riot control rounds rounds loaded into the smoke launcher to kill dudes trying to climb around your tanks
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 15:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 09:51 |
|
|
Plastic_Gargoyle posted:On a semi-related note, I was reading a bit about the Tiran 5, and I'm genuinely curious how the Israelis managed to capture 400 intact tanks over the course of the Six-Day War. Were they facing the Keystone Kops? The massive superiority of the IAF meant that Egyptian crews were fleeing their tanks on foot.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 16:06
|
|
