|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51f_2l8fWhw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvI6tqj6obA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tJ91ZtX6L0 The Chieftain has all your armor needs.
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2018 22:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 08:58 |
|
|
i've always thought those S tanks would've been a nightmare to deal with...they're tiny to begin with and then have even tinier vulnerable spots and you're charging into the woods where these stupid tanks you cant see are shooting at you and even when you do see them its hard as gently caress to hit them was a well thought out bit of kit
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2018 22:47
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Iirc the effort post re S Tanks in the previous thread refutes this but in any case 'digging in' in Cold War tank warfare is still a great way to eat some arty or a Hind. Hence 'shoot'n'scoot' and multiple pre scouted shooting positions in the Fulda Gap. Dig in for the the first shot and then scoot/"dig in" in the general sense of "come and take it, but we will make a tactical retreat", yes. I was phoneposting, so  to properly summarize the post mentioned. It had a secondary driver facing backward for that, even.bewbies posted:i've always thought those S tanks would've been a nightmare to deal with...they're tiny to begin with and then have even tinier vulnerable spots and you're charging into the woods where these stupid tanks you cant see are shooting at you and even when you do see them its hard as gently caress to hit them That was the point I was trying to make. Also, the most-sloped frontal armor ever! So in the rare chance that you can see more than the gun tube, your shot's going to skip off like a rock off a pond. In other news, there's an episode of this stupid TV show on, in which they're looking at a WWI German U-boat supposedly sunk by the Kraken or some poo poo. Yeah, turns out the cable powering the captain's space heater blocked the hatches from closing when they dove to escape a British escort ship, and the captain (maybe, or it may be an internet-era urban legend) made up the sea monster story in an attempt to save his career. Edit: Another story of hilariously incompetent Germans. See also the WWII U-boat that was almost lost when somebody hosed up flushing the toilet while submerged. I made an effortpost on that incident in either a previous incarnation of this thread or the PYF Historical Fun Facts one. Chillbro Baggins fucked around with this message at 23:01 on Nov 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2018 22:51
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
Somewhere the hair just stood up on the back of thefluffs neck.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2018 23:10
|
|
|
Chillbro Baggins posted:Dig in for the the first shot and then scoot/"dig in" in the general sense of "come and take it, but we will make a tactical retreat", yes. I was phoneposting, so I remember reading about some Italian submarines that gassed their crews when they dived.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2018 23:18
|
|
|
There's an interesting article on evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of the S-tank here: https://defenceoftherealm.wordpress.com/2015/08/28/the-british-army-and-the-s-tank/
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2018 23:55
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:I remember reading about some Italian submarines that gassed their crews when they dived. Yeah, if you get seawater in the people tube, it shorts the batteries and does electrolysis on the salt water, producing oxygen, hydrogen, and chlorine gases (the sodium presumably dissolves into the water, producing sodium hydroxide (i.e. the active ingredient in Drano). So yeah, submarines are nigh-undetectable, but when they do get hit, it's bad.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2018 01:20
|
|
|
Mycroft Holmes posted:how is max hastings new book about the vietnam war? is it good? So far, but I'm only two chapters in.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2018 02:27
|
|
|
Chillbro Baggins posted:The S-tank was a turretless MBT, Sorry, no turret, not an MBT. I will fight over this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2018 02:29
|
|
|
Cessna posted:Sorry, no turret, not an MBT. You'll lose because I don't have a turret
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2018 02:41
|
|
|
Fangz posted:There's an interesting article on evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of the S-tank here: This article is full of some pretty silly errors. The one that stands out the most is the photograph of a Chieftain on a tank transporter labeled as a Strv 103 on a tank transporter, but I also want to dig into this passage: quote:the Strv 103 to the world in the late 1950s describing it as a main battle tank many observers were puzzled. <snip> The uniqueness of this vehicle extended beyond the exterior. The vehicle had a crew of just three when most turret tanks of the period had a crew of five. Two of the crew sat up front in the forward hull while a third sat at the rear of the vehicle and had an extra driving console for fleeing rearward. Armament for the tank was a bit more conventional however in that it was equipped with the outstanding British L7 105mm gun which at that time had become NATO’s standard tank gun equipping a large proportion of British, American and German tanks. There was nothing to unveil in the late 50s: the first two prototypes were delivered in 1961, and the unveiling happened in March 1963. By the Strv 103's development began every single tank-designing nation in the world had dropped the concept of the five-man tank and removed the bow gunner. Four man tanks was the rule when the Strv 103 was conceived, not the exception. Between M46s, M24s, and T-34s there's probably a bunch of them around, but the Soviet Union standardized on the 4-man T-54, the 4-man Centurion Mk.3 has been in service since 1948, and the 4-man M47 entered service in 1952. It might be the case that between M46s and T-34s still in service five-man tanks are still the majority, I don't know, but there is nothing special about a tank having less than five crew members in the late fifties or early sixties. Further, in 1963 the L7 was not in use in the Bundeswehr except on prototype Leopards. The Leopard 1 enters serial production in 1965. In 1963, the vast majority of Bundeswehr tanks are M47s and M48s armed with 90 mm guns. A large proportion of West German L7-equipped tanks does simply not exist yet.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2018 02:45
|
|
|
Chillbro Baggins posted:That was the point I was trying to make. Also, the most-sloped frontal armor ever! So in the rare chance that you can see more than the gun tube, your shot's going to skip off like a rock off a pond. Sadly, long rod sabot ammunition doesn't much care about armour sloping. The Strv 103's armour, like much of the general concept, was quickly obsoleted. Eukie mentioned Swedish acquisition of ex German T-72s in the 90s when talking about the Ikv 91 and mobility testing, but one of the other things they did with the T-72s was shoot the Strv 103 with Soviet sabot (almost certainly old 70s 3BM-15 because the Fascisti can't be trusted with nice ammunition) and supposedly rather than bouncing off as expected the penetrators dug into the armour, went clear through it, the crew positions, the rear wall and finished up in the ammunition compartment. The crew being hit is unfortunate, but the 103 is unique in being the only tank ever built that can be operated by one crewmember. However, it can't be operated by one crewmember while it is exploding, so the ammunition compartment hit is very bad news indeed. The 103 did have that cool HEAT fence though, which as far as I know totally worked and gave you literal metres of stand off if it got hit somewhere near the top. Cessna posted:Sorry, no turret, not an MBT.  Behold an MBT.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2018 03:08
|
|
|
Cessna posted:Sorry, no turret, not an MBT. It was designed as a tank, made to be a tank, marketed as a tank, served as a tank, labeled a tank, named a tank, fulfilled all the roles of a tank, armed like a tank, and protected like a tank.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2018 03:13
|
|
|
LatwPIAT posted:It was designed as a tank, made to be a tank, marketed as a tank, served as a tank, labeled a tank, named a tank, fulfilled all the roles of a tank, armed like a tank, and protected like a tank. Let me know when it can rotate its turret like a tank.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2018 03:23
|
|
|
Cessna posted:Let me know when it can rotate its turret like a tank. by this standard neither the British Mark I-V series of vehicles nor the German A7Vs were tanks
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2018 03:27
|
|
|
Cessna is a tanker (or is he an amtracker...  ), they’re an odd and contrarian lot. I think it’s because they’re mad at their inability to shoot over mountains like the king of battle.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2018 03:30
|
|
|
The original tanks had no turrets. If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for us.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2018 03:50
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:by this standard neither the British Mark I-V series of vehicles nor the German A7Vs were tanks The British WWI tanks had sponson mounted gunss, which allowed them to traverse their guns more than any S-Tank. The A7V is a barn. FastestGunAlive posted:Cessna is a tanker (or is he an amtracker... I did an enlistment in AAVs, then lat-moved into tanks. FastestGunAlive posted:I think it’s because they’re mad at their inability to shoot over mountains like the king of battle. Hey, I could shoot over a hill. No promises on whether I'd hit anything on the other side, though... Look, I like the S-Tank. It's a really cool vehicle. I'd love to get a chance to work on one. But I have a very time accepting the idea that an AFV without a turret is a tank.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2018 04:22
|
|
|
Cessna posted:
drat. I always give my buddy a hard time about being a tracker (he’s a tanker) and he hates it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2018 04:30
|
|
|
A IFV becomes a tank when the infantry disembark. Especially the BMP-1, because it has a cannon instead of a auto-cannon.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2018 04:34
|
|
|
C.M. Kruger posted:A IFV becomes a tank when the infantry disembark. Especially the BMP-1, because it has a cannon instead of a auto-cannon. There is no such thing as an IFV. There are only well armed APCs and poorly armed APCs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2018 04:40
|
|
|
Cessna posted:The British WWI tanks had sponson mounted gunss, which allowed them to traverse their guns more than any S-Tank. The Saint Chamond didn't have a traversable gun at all. Sponsons aren't really turrets either, and if you accept that it's a traverse, even if limited, that makes something a tank the Jagdpanzer IV presents a pretty strong argument for being a tank... LatwPIAT fucked around with this message at 05:04 on Nov 5, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2018 04:40
|
|
|
C.M. Kruger posted:A IFV becomes a tank when the infantry disembark. Especially the BMP-1, because it has a cannon instead of a auto-cannon.  BMP-1's gun fires fin-stabilized rockets, therefore it is a mobile rocket launch system.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2018 05:10
|
|
|
LatwPIAT posted:The Saint Chamond didn't have a traversable gun at all. I'm willing to grandfather that one in for cool graffiti-based camouflage paint schemes. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2018 05:21
|
|
|
Cessna posted:I'm willing to grandfather that one in for cool graffiti-based camouflage paint schemes. This would be a reasonable position if Swedish Splinter were not the raddest camo scheme of all time. They had the same pattern on the strike planes and the tanks. Awesome!
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2018 05:38
|
|
|
In the contemporary parlance of the Afghan government and their insurgent opponents, a tank is any armored vehicle, most commonly humvees or other light tactical vehicles. So the Taliban will release propaganda statements along the lines of "In Gazni on October 2 the Mujaheddin of the Islamic Emirate destroyed one tanks and captured two trucks." *post video of guys dancing on burned out mrap*
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2018 07:57
|
|
|
What were the specifications of the first tank? What job was it made for? Cross-country capability, trench crossing capability, ability to pass through at least some barbed wire, enough armor to protect the crew against small arms fire, and some weapon or weapons to destroy enemy infantry with?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2018 09:20
|
|
|
Cessna posted:Let me know when it can rotate its turret like a tank. There's an exception to every rule.The S-tank's traverse and elevation are just in the suspension, the tracks are the turret ring. See also the Stryker M1128, which has a fully traversible turret with an antitank gun similar to the S-tank's, but it's an assault gun, like the original StuG. Also the M1128 is hilarious because it looks like it's going to roll over when firing to the side.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2018 09:23
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:What were the specifications of the first tank? What job was it made for? Cross-country capability, trench crossing capability, ability to pass through at least some barbed wire, enough armor to protect the crew against small arms fire, and some weapon or weapons to destroy enemy infantry with? AFAIK it had to be able to cross trenches, it had to be able to pass through barbed wire, and it had to be able to protect its crew from small-arms fire The "cross-country capable" tank came later in the form of the Mark A Whippet, which moved at a blazing 13 kph after designers realized that the Mark I/V tanks, with their 3 kph speed, would never be able to exploit breakthroughs. The Whippets weighed about half as much as the Mark I/V's, and (IIRC) their track designs may have been less capable of getting through trenches, but they were, as intended, that much faster. I'm not quite sure what the specific intention for the cannons on the tanks were, but these first tanks had both machine guns and cannon, with some variants having only machine guns to maximize anti-infantry capability. These variants were called "females", as they were supposed to operate as "consorts" to the cannon-equipped "males" to protect them from massed infantry.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2018 09:44
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:AFAIK it had to be able to cross trenches, it had to be able to pass through barbed wire, and it had to be able to protect its crew from small-arms fire The first tanks must have had cross-country capability, otherwise they could have only used roads.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2018 09:51
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:The first tanks must have had cross-country capability, otherwise they could have only used roads. I guess I took "cross-country capable" to mean something else, but you're right, that makes sense. I suppose the distinction I was trying to make was that the Mark I's were very slow and couldn't travel very far.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2018 09:59
|
|
|
Chillbro Baggins posted:Dig in for the the first shot and then scoot/"dig in" in the general sense of "come and take it, but we will make a tactical retreat", yes. I was phoneposting, so That is not what 'dig in' means to me, but ok. Regardless, as mentioned there was an effort post in the previous thread about these things; they were actually intended to be used (counter)offensively.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2018 10:52
|
|
|
M1a2 is not a tank Its a deadline on tracks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2018 11:39
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:AFAIK it had to be able to cross trenches, it had to be able to pass through barbed wire, and it had to be able to protect its crew from small-arms fire 13 kph was very much a theoretical top speed. The Whippet had two engines, each one of which individually powered one track. The driver had to work to synchronize them, so the ride wasn't really even and kept going off to one side or the other. Also the suspension was unsprung, so if you went too fast on a bumpy road you would really feel it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2018 11:44
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I'm not quite sure what the specific intention for the cannons on the tanks were, but these first tanks had both machine guns and cannon, with some variants having only machine guns to maximize anti-infantry capability. These variants were called "females", as they were supposed to operate as "consorts" to the cannon-equipped "males" to protect them from massed infantry. For WWI tanks, the cannons were mainly aimed at engaging fixed fortifications and field guns. The Saint Chamond had 19mm of sloped armour in the front which was quite good for WWI so it can afford to futz about trying to get its shot in a duel with a field gun. In theory. The really inexplicable tank armaments are the fixed machine guns on the IS7...
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2018 11:57
|
|
|
New thread! Excellent, will attempt to contribute more than the last one and drunkenly argue less. In my Conscientious Objector research job I wrote month by month chronicles of the first world war from the perspective of the main CO newspaper, The Tribunal. I thought they had vanished off the internet, but have found today that they’re all there albeit on a website that is insanely hard to navigate! If you’d like to read a slightly dramatised and polemic look at the First World War from 1916-1920, you can find it here: The Tribunal If, and I suspect this will be, far too hard to navigate, well I wrote the bloody things so I’ll post some good bits periodically.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2018 12:03
|
|
|
lenoon posted:New thread! Excellent, will attempt to contribute more than the last one and drunkenly argue less. Oh this is super interesting! Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2018 12:08
|
|
|
this guys swag is approaching early modern levels
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2018 12:35
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Oh this is super interesting! Thanks! Please excuse any odd spelling mistakes - I’ve just noticed “clink images to enlarge” - there is a long and complicated story behind every typo on the page that I’m sure anyone who has worked in a mainly volunteer led organisation will be well familiar with.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2018 12:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 08:58 |
|
|
Ice Fist posted:I was in Iceland recently, and Icelanders are very proud they stood up to England and won. One of our guides spent an hour or so talking about it at a bar. Yeah. This. I love Iceland. Its one of the few countries I would move to from the US.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2018 14:52
|
|
