|
Whats the name of the crazy russian tank prototype with the double barrel cannon
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 06:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 17:57 |
|
|
Mange Mite posted:Whats the name of the crazy russian tank prototype with the double barrel cannon Are you talking about the ST-1?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 06:10
|
|
|
Tekne posted:His videos are sweet. Assad's fodder are stuck with old poverty spec ruskie tanks (they call them monkey models
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 06:13
|
|
), which are better at blowing up than blowing stuff up.
|
No i think it was built off like a t55 and it wad just somr weird experiment but it had two cannons side by side in the same turret
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 06:15
|
|
|
 The char 2C was nearly a good idea.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 06:22
|
|
|
Ka0 posted:
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 06:26
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:The big problem with stuff like this is that it requires a hell of a lot of coordination to get those guns to be effective. A naval ship can get away with having a ton of gun turrets on it because the captain of the ship and executive officers is located in a conning tower or superstructure can have a clear view of targets, give orders to fire control, and direct the helmsman to maneuver the ship. With a buttoned-up tank, that's hard to do. There's a reason why multi-gun tanks died out and why every production design from World War 2 and later allows for open communication between all members of the crew, even if you're likely using radio headsets. The biggest problem with land-battleships is that they are slow, easily spotted, and their firepower is outclassed by 3-4 smaller tanks who can actually move and take cover. I don't think the T-35 even saw actual combat as they all broke down due to transmission issues before the enemy even got close.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 06:34
|
|
|
Ka0 posted:
Those eventually saw combat in WW2. They didn't last very long against Panzers. BTW, I'm surprised no one has mentioned anything about the Chrysler TV-8. It was a medium tank that was entirely turret, relying on spaced armor for defense. Also, it could float.    Also, it was supposed to be nuclear-powered, although I believe they eventually figured out that using a turbine engine would be easier to maintain.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 06:40
|
|
|
They probably also realized that making a tank an additional meter or two taller than it needs to be is a bad idea.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 07:08
|
|
|
Blistex posted:They probably also realized that making a tank an additional meter or two taller than it needs to be is a bad idea. Americans thinking a tank is too tall? Unlikely. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 08:19
|
|
|
Prav posted:Americans thinking a tank is too tall? Unlikely. That's a Sheridan, ain't it? It was an amphibious light tank capable of being air-dropped - not exactly a main battle tank.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 08:26
|
|
|
CaptainSarcastic posted:That's a Sheridan, ain't it? It was an amphibious light tank capable of being air-dropped - not exactly a main battle tank. still a tank 
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 08:35
|
|
|
CaptainSarcastic posted:That's a Sheridan, ain't it? It was an amphibious light tank capable of being air-dropped - not exactly a main battle tank. M60A2 unless I'm mistaken. The Sheridan was much smaller. And it's not like the other Pattons didn't have some very generous cupolas as well.  TacticalUrbanHomo posted:still a tank i don't know man, they built them out of aluminium...
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 09:26
|
|
|
CaptainSarcastic posted:That's a Sheridan, ain't it? It was an amphibious light tank capable of being air-dropped - not exactly a main battle tank. Sheridans were way smaller  The tank in the earlier picture was a M60A1E2 "Starship", which is just a Patton with a poo poo ton of electronics and the same cannon as the Sheridan so it could use the MGM-51 Shillelagh guided missile as well TacticalUrbanHomo posted:still a tank The Sheridan was an AR/AAV (Armored Reconnaissance/Airborne Assault Vehicle) through pure designation. So if you really want to be a pedantic sperg about it, you could argue it's a glorified recon vehicle or tank killer or mobile gun system. But I agree, a lovely tank is still a tank Booblord Zagats fucked around with this message at 09:36 on Oct 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 09:33
|
|
|
Booblord Zagats posted:The Sheridan was an AR/AAV (Armored Reconnaissance/Airborne Assault Vehicle) through pure designation. So if you really want to be a pedantic sperg about it, you could argue it's a glorified recon vehicle or tank killer or mobile gun system. But I agree, a lovely tank is still a tank idk anything about this thing but he said it was a "light tank" so I just pointed out that a light tank is still a tank. I don't know a precise enough definition of "tank" to properly sperg about what is and is not covered by that label, the way that I can about how humans are monkeys and birds are dinosaurs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 09:57
|
|
|
Tank is a play on 'tactical bank'. Banks being the most fortified things of the time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 10:15
|
|
|
Isaac posted:Tank is a play on 'tactical bank'. Banks being the most fortified things of the time. lol. if anyone is wondering, tanks were originally called "landships". "tank" was the codeword for them during their early development, and, being a codeword, was deliberately non-descriptive of the vehicles to which they referred. other terms for the vehicles were "land cruiser" and "machine gun destroyer".
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 12:03
|
|
|
etalian posted:For a shaped type explosive most warheads are in the 18-25 lb range. Blistex posted:If you just want to drop the drone or shaped charge straight down on top of a tank, you could probably cut the 18lbs down to half or less and still take the tank out (make it inoperable, not cook it off). Then again, if this is a middle east war, you could just give the local goatfarmers a week's training, some TOWS and reap the rewards. In the past week Syrian rebels have uploaded dozens and dozens of videos of their "pudgy TOW pro" turning Russian armour inside-out. I was thinking more in the AT weapon that costs practically nothing per shot range. Don't need to cook it off if you can make it stop moving & firing. Maybe fly it under the chassis using an onboard camera?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 03:13
|
|
|
TacticalUrbanHomo posted:idk anything about this thing but he said it was a "light tank" so I just pointed out that a light tank is still a tank. I don't know a precise enough definition of "tank" to properly sperg about what is and is not covered by that label, the way that I can about how humans are monkeys and birds are dinosaurs. It was basically a light tank, but when it was commissioned the US Army was using nomenclature that meant it couldn't be called a tank. The things had a pretty checkered service history, it looks like, and I was wrong about what the picture was in any case.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 06:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 17:57 |
|
|
Why's all the text in japanese. Is this an anime?? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 07:06
|
|