PDA

View Full Version : favourite tanks!!



Paul Leeks
2008-Jul-11, 02:34 AM
for me

Panther Ausf G & Soviet T34/76

now THIS is a good match...why?? sloped armour,thats why, the Panther was designed to combat the T34.


PL

Neverfly
2008-Jul-11, 02:40 AM
Acetylene.
I also like MAPP.

Not fond of septic tanks, but I've seen many very interesting Water tower tanks.

My friend Hank is very fond of Propane tanks.

Torsten
2008-Jul-11, 07:45 AM
'Cuz it's saved me so often. (http://www.proquip.com.au/0940.jpg)

The Backroad Astronomer
2008-Jul-11, 08:03 AM
please and tank you.

Tog
2008-Jul-11, 08:15 AM
I'm gonna go with the "real" Tog. He doesn't really think he's a minotaur, but when you're breaking into a car, a 7 foot tall 400+ pound guy in a cow suit with a giant axe, makes an impression.:)

(He's a Tank Archetype in the game I play)

sarongsong
2008-Jul-11, 08:54 AM
:lol: :lol: :lol: N2O :lol: :lol: :lol:

pzkpfw
2008-Jul-11, 09:43 AM
http://images.google.co.nz/images?hl=en&q=tropical+fish+tank&gbv=2

LotusExcelle
2008-Jul-11, 10:35 AM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/Leonardo_tank.JPG

If this guy and Howard Hughes had ever gotten together we would be in the Jetsons era by now.

jrkeller
2008-Jul-11, 11:08 AM
As a kid I like the M551 Sheridan.

I'm partial to both the M60 and the M1, because my father spent most of his career developing these tanks.

KLIK
2008-Jul-11, 12:41 PM
T34/76 was great, simple and durable, would have been better with an extra crew member to ease the commander's work load.

The panther was ok but unreliable due to being rushed.

Any of the 'Funnies' under the command of Hobart for Overlord, D.Ds. Crocodiles etc.

did you know the first year or two of WWII the British tanks were still designed to be carried on railway carriages around Britain and as our rail tunnels are so small the tanks were equally naff? -shame Brunell didn't get his way.

the Ferdinand Porsche Tiger II always looks pretty business-like as well.

DyerWolf
2008-Jul-11, 01:17 PM
Personally, I prefer the USMC M1-A1; but I wish they had continued development of the flying tank (http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/3309765.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=BAA3E61C514E7EC6C1E3F884E844F5D7A55A1E4F32AD3138 ) (as it would be such a smoother ride!) but unfortunately the inventor mysteriously disappeared while testing his other invention (http://www.instablogsimages.com/images/2008/03/17/spaceship1_1333.jpg).

Nick Theodorakis
2008-Jul-11, 02:25 PM
Personally, I prefer the USMC M1-A1; but I wish they had continued development of the flying tank ...

What do you think the A-10 is? :lol:

Nick

DyerWolf
2008-Jul-11, 02:54 PM
What do you think the A-10 is? :lol:

Nick

Decent airframe. I just wish they'd teach Airfarce pilots what USMC vehicles look like so they'll quit killing Marines in the Middle East.

I've lost friends in two wars now to A-10 'pilot error.'

Jay200MPH
2008-Jul-11, 03:18 PM
http://www.bautforum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=8307&stc=1&d=1215789497

Gruesome
2008-Jul-11, 03:26 PM
The Panzer.

I don't have a joke or anything.

I just like saying "Panzer".

captain swoop
2008-Jul-11, 04:45 PM
did you know the first year or two of WWII the British tanks were still designed to be carried on railway carriages around Britain and as our rail tunnels are so small the tanks were equally naff? -shame Brunell didn't get his way.

Not quite. British tanks were Naff at the start of the war for a lot of reasons.

Compared spec for spec they were the equal at the start of the conflict with those tanks used by the Germans. In fact the best AT gun was the 2pdr and the 'Matilda' had the thickest armour in the field.

It was the tactics that let them down and their division into 'Infantry' and 'Cruiser' classes. Matilda was designed as a mobile 'Pill Box' It's top speed was quite low.As the 2pdr had no HE shell it couldn't take on 'soft' or dug in targets like anti tank guns and the 95mm howitzer in the Infantry Tanks had no effective A/T shell so couldn't engage tanks. (strangely the Matilda was an Infantry Tank but had the AT gun so couldn't give effective support to Infantry)

After the fall of France there was a desperate shortage of Armour so extended contracts were given to produce the same types rather than wait for new, untested designs.
This was just as well because the first 'new' design into production the 'Covananter' was a complete disaster, chronic overheating and unreliability meant it was never used for anything but training. Still, contracts for 3000 had been signed and couldn't be gone back on. The second 'new' tank was the Churchill which in it's early marks was also unreliable and under powered but it was made into a good tank.
In the Western Desert the Germans learned their lessons from France and up-armoured their tanks to 75mm and more to defeat the 2pdr and gun sizes were increeased to 50mm and later 75 to defeat the armour on the Matilda.
British Crusaders and Cavalier 'Cruise' tanks were up gunned with new turrets to take the 6pdr which was also adaptred in the USA as the 57mm M1. This weapon was also used as a 'Trailed' AT gun.

In the USA the Sherman went into production, designed to a British requirement it was adopted by the USA as the M4. All the early production was sent to the Western Desert, arriving in time for Montgomery to use at El Alamain. The Sherman was reliable, had decent protection and a good, genuine dual purpose 75mm gun. IT was designed to be produced by a number of different engineering companies so variants had cast, plate or 'composite' hulls and there were 4 different engine plants including radial and Diesel types.

A British version later in the war was armed with a 17pdr Anti Tank gun, probably the best AT gun of the war but they were only issued 1 in 4 with conventional 75s.

Cromwells came in just in time for D-Day, they were powered by a derated version of the Rolls Royce Merlin engine and with their 'Christie' suspension were one of the fastest tanks of the war, they had a 75mm gun and ok armour. they were issued to Recon regiments.

At the end of the war the Comet and Centurion were just coming into service armed with the 17pdr and with heavy armour they were the equal of any tank in the field.

The Centurion is still in service in some parts of the world today and the Chieftain and Challenger were evolved directly from it.

for the best account of the development of British Armour see Tank Museum 2 part history.

The Great Tank Scandal: British Armour in the Second World War: Part 1
Stationery Office Books (Nov 1989)
ISBN-10: 0112904602
ISBN-13: 978-0112904601

The Universal Tank: British Armour in the Second World War Pt.2
Stationery Office Books (Oct 1993)
ISBN-10: 011290534X
ISBN-13: 978-0112905349

Although they are getting expensive.

captain swoop
2008-Jul-11, 05:03 PM
I would think my fave tank is the M4 Sherman.

It might not have been the best armed or armoured tank but it was produced in more numbers and variants than any other.

In American strategy the Tank wasn't designed to fight against Tank. They were designed to support infantry so the M4 wasn't given a dedicated Anti Tank gun until quite late in the war with the introduction of the long barrel 76mm from the Tank Destroyers.

A seperate force known as 'The Tank Destroyer Force' was supposed to fight Tanks, they were equipped with both Trailed AT guns for defensive positions and Self propelled AT guns that to all intents and porposes looked like tanks.

Shermans were produced in differnt hull types to allow a wider number of companies to produce them. If you could do big castings or if you could weld plate you made the appropriate model. Later there was a 'composite' hull with a cast nose and welded hull. There were also different engine variants. M4 had a Radial engine designed for tank use, that's why the hull is relatively tall on these tanks. M4A2 had Diesel Engines, these were mostly employed in the Pacific by Marines as they used the same fuel as Landing Craft, the hit on performance was worth it. M4A5 hd a 'Mulit Bank' engine composed of 5 V8 truck engines on a common gear box. This was the main version the British used later in the war. It was a nightmare to service but had good reliability as the individual power plants weren't too over stressed and if one packed in it could still motor.

As the war went on Shermans were up gunned, up armoured, and up 'tracked' they kept pace with their main enemy the German PzIV. Against anything else they were outclassed in a head on fight but the chances were if they came up against a rare 'King Tiger' or Panther it was broken down anyway.

Versions were produced armed with 105mm Howitzers, Multiple Rocket Launchers, Anti Mine 'Flails' and whole regiments of artilelry were equipped with the 'Priest' 105mm Self Propelling gun. When the British version of this called the 'Sexton' came into production the Priests that were replaced had their guns removed and were used as some of the first Armoured Personel Carriers known as 'Defrocked Priests'

Swimming version were produced for the D-Day landings and were the first armour ashore giving close support.

Shermans were still in use iin the 70s in Israel, the final versions being given the name 'Super Shermans'

These were re engined with Diesels and a French designed turret housing a long 75mm gun derived from that of the German Panther a number of which were put into French service after the war. By Irony the Israeli Shermans came up against some Syrian PzIVs dug in as static gun posts on the Golan Heights in the 6 Day War.

RalofTyr
2008-Jul-11, 07:48 PM
I am partial to the Land Battleship like tanks.

http://www.missing-lynx.com/reviews/russia/t35.jpg

In wargames, the KV-2 was excellent against German Panzers. It's 152mm cannon would always kill on the first hit. Sometimes, it would blow the turrets right of, especially on Panzer-38s. It's armor was enough that the German's 50mm and 37mm shells couldn't penetrate, even from a rear shot. Even against infantry. One blast in the center of a squad from the 152mm is enough to scatter them and using machine gun fire as cover, they usually run. I had three of them up on a hill with good air cover and I was able stop a german force of over 40 tanks and other armored vehicles. Then, I exploited my success and used them offensively and they still defeated a German second-line unit of over 20 tanks and other armored vehicles. If I were alive in 1941, I would have stopped the Germans cold.


http://mysite.verizon.net/ressi2si/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/kv.jpg

mike alexander
2008-Jul-11, 07:53 PM
I should add...

You're Velcome!!!

Lianachan
2008-Jul-11, 09:03 PM
Swimming version were produced for the D-Day landings and were the first armour ashore giving close support.

It's a shame so many turned out to be diving versions.

:(

captain swoop
2008-Jul-11, 09:48 PM
It's a shame so many turned out to be diving versions.

:(

Only the ones launched by the Americans, they were used in unsuitable conditions and got swamped before they got ashore.

Lianachan
2008-Jul-11, 09:53 PM
Only the ones launched by the Americans, they were used in unsuitable conditions and got swamped before they got ashore.

Yup, I know. I didn't see the point in going into details - "it's a shame" is all I wanted to say about it. Good tank, though, the Sherman, in its infantry support role. You ever been to the tank museum at Bovington?

captain swoop
2008-Jul-11, 11:08 PM
Many times, on their 'Battle Days' I go to the 'War and Peace' show in Kent as well, it's a weekend show for any owners to bring their vehicles. Everything from Motorbikes to Chieftain Tanks. It takes all weekend to look round lol.

captain swoop
2008-Jul-11, 11:12 PM
I am partial to the Land Battleship like tanks.



In wargames, the KV-2 was excellent against German Panzers. It's 152mm cannon would always kill on the first hit. Sometimes, it would blow the turrets right of, especially on Panzer-38s. It's armor was enough that the German's 50mm and 37mm shells couldn't penetrate, even from a rear shot. Even against infantry. One blast in the center of a squad from the 152mm is enough to scatter them and using machine gun fire as cover, they usually run. I had three of them up on a hill with good air cover and I was able stop a german force of over 40 tanks and other armored vehicles. Then, I exploited my success and used them offensively and they still defeated a German second-line unit of over 20 tanks and other armored vehicles. If I were alive in 1941, I would have stopped the Germans cold.



Which shows the difference between reality and pushing toys around.

It was involved ina few notable actions, one in which a single vehicle at a cross roads held up a German advance for the best part of a day but it wasn't realy a good tank.

The T-35s were a liability. Britain played with multi turreted designs between the wars but they were a waste of material.

RalofTyr
2008-Jul-12, 06:45 AM
Which shows the difference between reality and pushing toys around.

It was involved ina few notable actions, one in which a single vehicle at a cross roads held up a German advance for the best part of a day but it wasn't realy a good tank.

The T-35s were a liability. Britain played with multi turreted designs between the wars but they were a waste of material.


By wargames, I meant video games. The KVs were unreliable, mechanically and T-35's, were worthless. Any hit from a German tank and the armor was penetrated. Most shots, didn't kill it, but it did cause the crew to exit the vehicle after a while. That is, the surviving crew.

I think the Crusader British tanks were multi-turreted. One with a cannon and one in front that only had a single MG.

pzkpfw
2008-Jul-12, 10:29 AM
One with a cannon and one in front that only had a single MG.

In practice the MG turret was ditched and the space used for more main-gun ammo.

captain swoop
2008-Jul-12, 10:44 AM
Later marks didn't have the turret, they did without a hull MG. Some of the Pre war cruiser Marks had a pair of MG turrets at the front.

chrissy
2008-Jul-13, 08:31 PM
It has to be the Leopard 2, sorry it is in Swedish!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5_49pXw8IU&feature=related

DukePaul
2008-Jul-13, 08:48 PM
It would have to be the Bolos, the super heavy tanks of the Dinochrome Brigade, creation of Keith Laumer.

KLIK
2008-Jul-15, 12:57 PM
It was involved ina few notable actions, one in which a single vehicle at a cross roads held up a German advance for the best part of a day but it wasn't realy a good tank.
.

48 hours according to Macksay, the Germans eventually used 50 tanks to distract it and snuck up on it. ;-)

I agree with your main post to me.

One of the problems we had was that a lot of our existing tanks were too narrow to be able to upgrade from the 2pdr to the 6pdr.

The matilda II's armour was a shock to the Germans (ditto Char B) only the 88mm would pierce it which made them decide to design the Tiger.

As our early tanks excepting the Matilda were rivetted and bolted there were a lot of problems with shells that didn't penetrate breaking the rivets which flew around inside.

The Grant gave the Germans a shock in the desert with the 75mm gun but by then they were upgunning the mk4, had the Tiger in production and were begining to design the Panther.

The Firefly was well armed but the long gun was very obvious so the Germans did tend to concentrate on that one first.

Sorry I don't have a long enough lunchbreak to clarify my thought more.

captain swoop
2008-Jul-15, 01:17 PM
The Tiger at the Royal Tank Museum was captured in Tunisia, the level of armour was copied for the Cromwell but it was achieved by adding extra riveted plates to the front so it wasn't as strong as a single thickness. Also by the time it was in production the Tiger was old hat.

A lot of lessons were learned by the British and the Germans in the desert. I think the Germans learned the wrong ones. Most actions in the Desert were started at fairly long range and head on. In the wide expanses the enemy dust could be seen miles away and the forces turned towards each other. It was a similar situation on the Eastern Front. From this the Germans developed the Panther, it had a long range gun and thick frontal armour but was weak on the sides. WHen it was deployed in the West it was easy pickings if it could be flanked in the lanes and hedgerows of the 'Bockage' where it couldn't manouvre. In the North where the British were trying to advance across open country and pull in as many German forces as possible to distract from US preperations for a break out the Panthers did a lot better, conditions were what they had been designed for, they still had terrible reliability problems though.
British tankers came away with the need for a vehicle that was above anything reliable. Crusaders and Cavaliers had terrible power plants derived from tghe old Liberty aircraft engine of WW1 vintage, it had OPEN valvve springs and rockers. It ground itself to a wreck in no time, they also had overheating problems. Also it was decided to standardise on one 'Universal' tank to meet all requirements. The Sherman was extremely reliable and easy to service and was almost 'Universal'. Russia came to the same conclusions with the T34, reliability and numbers was what counted. It was no good having a super armoured and gunned tank if it was always waiting to be recovered.

Paul Leeks
2008-Jul-15, 10:25 PM
I love the Tiger tanks..

My Dad was deafened in his left ear by a Tiger 2 during the war!(unfortunately)

I think I would have a Panther Ausg G in combat

PL

ginnie
2008-Jul-16, 02:44 AM
I would think my fave tank is the M4 Sherman.

It might not have been the best armed or armoured tank but it was produced in more numbers and variants than any other.

In American strategy the Tank wasn't designed to fight against Tank. They were designed to support infantry so the M4 wasn't given a dedicated Anti Tank gun until quite late in the war with the introduction of the long barrel 76mm from the Tank Destroyers.

A seperate force known as 'The Tank Destroyer Force' was supposed to fight Tanks, they were equipped with both Trailed AT guns for defensive positions and Self propelled AT guns that to all intents and porposes looked like tanks.

Shermans were produced in differnt hull types to allow a wider number of companies to produce them. If you could do big castings or if you could weld plate you made the appropriate model. Later there was a 'composite' hull with a cast nose and welded hull. There were also different engine variants. M4 had a Radial engine designed for tank use, that's why the hull is relatively tall on these tanks. M4A2 had Diesel Engines, these were mostly employed in the Pacific by Marines as they used the same fuel as Landing Craft, the hit on performance was worth it. M4A5 hd a 'Mulit Bank' engine composed of 5 V8 truck engines on a common gear box. This was the main version the British used later in the war. It was a nightmare to service but had good reliability as the individual power plants weren't too over stressed and if one packed in it could still motor.

As the war went on Shermans were up gunned, up armoured, and up 'tracked' they kept pace with their main enemy the German PzIV. Against anything else they were outclassed in a head on fight but the chances were if they came up against a rare 'King Tiger' or Panther it was broken down anyway.

Versions were produced armed with 105mm Howitzers, Multiple Rocket Launchers, Anti Mine 'Flails' and whole regiments of artilelry were equipped with the 'Priest' 105mm Self Propelling gun. When the British version of this called the 'Sexton' came into production the Priests that were replaced had their guns removed and were used as some of the first Armoured Personel Carriers known as 'Defrocked Priests'

Swimming version were produced for the D-Day landings and were the first armour ashore giving close support.

Shermans were still in use iin the 70s in Israel, the final versions being given the name 'Super Shermans'

These were re engined with Diesels and a French designed turret housing a long 75mm gun derived from that of the German Panther a number of which were put into French service after the war. By Irony the Israeli Shermans came up against some Syrian PzIVs dug in as static gun posts on the Golan Heights in the 6 Day War.

The Sherman Tank: The little tank that could!
Fast, easy to build, versataile, cheap. It also helps if you have a lot of them.

steve000
2008-Jul-16, 03:07 AM
why did America refuse to help against Hitler until pearl harbor

Neverfly
2008-Jul-16, 03:14 AM
why did America refuse to help against Hitler until pearl harbor

We were not equipped nor manned for War. In fact, we were losing the war for quite a while.
We were also across the ocean and it was deemed unlikely that Hitler would attempt to invade the US.

Kaptain K
2008-Jul-16, 04:26 AM
Up until Pearl Harbor, the US was "officially" neutral, although "unofficially" it was obvious whose side we were on!

ravens_cry
2008-Jul-16, 06:24 AM
We were not equipped nor manned for War. In fact, we were losing the war for quite a while.
We were also across the ocean and it was deemed unlikely that Hitler would attempt to invade the US.

If I was in charge I would not have attacked the eastern front till the western europe was completely consolidated. Then, making sure my men had adaquit cold weather gear and equipmant, I would attack the Soviet Union. America would have likely stayed neutral. If I wanted to go after America, I would first go through South America. Along with a push up from the south, I would engage in shore bombardment and bombing of major coastal cities, followed by an invasion.

captain swoop
2008-Jul-16, 08:05 AM
Drifting off topic here, start a thread!

captain swoop
2008-Jul-16, 08:12 AM
I love the Tiger tanks..

My Dad was deafened in his left ear by a Tiger 2 during the war!(unfortunately)

I think I would have a Panther Ausg G in combat

PL

There is a Tiger 1 at Bovington Tank Museum. It was restored to working order a few years ago. It was the one captured in Tunisia.

Tiger II was a mistake, too big and unreliable and used too much in the way of resources.

Germany should have stuck with the Tiger 1 and PzIV as the standard tanks and concentrated on getting the Panther reliable.

If they wanted some bigger AT guns inthe field then the Tank Destroyers like the Jagtiger and Jagpanther were the way to go. They are ideal for defensive operations which is what the Germans were fighting for the last half of the war.

KLIK
2008-Jul-16, 12:57 PM
Desert warfare definitely coloured our judgement, in the bocage a lot of tank commanders were killed by snipers as they kept their heads out of the turrets as they did in the desert.

Living in Devon I'm surprised the Bocage, which is similar to our Devon hedgebanks, wasn't considered more.

Do you think that the Germans had to concentrate on designing for the Eastern front as that was the greatest threat? It looked as if the Russians had the upperhand by D-Day and with our blockade and air war I suspect the Russians were capable of winning on their own. (that's not to say I'm denigrating our assault or that it didn't save a lot of lives in the long run).

As a lad I've clambered over the Sherman tank at Slapton and got Ken Small's book last year from a charity shop. I've been to Point du Hoc which is like a grassy moonscape (late 70's), and seen the Mulberry harbour which seem awesome to have floated across the channel. THere's a good museum in Arromanches and the wargrave are sad but peaceful at the same time.

http://www.shermantank.co.uk/visitorinfo.ikml (40kb) link I've just found about Slapton tank
(feeling sad all over again)

captain swoop
2008-Jul-16, 01:46 PM
Try and get to the War & Peace show (http://www.thewarandpeaceshow.com/) in Kent if you like Shermans, there are usualy at least a dozen there of various Marks. In previous years there have been running Panther, PzIV, PzIII and a Stug IV in running order as well.

As for the keeping the heads out, it was seen as a badge of courage. Remember these are Cavelry Regiments we are talking about. Plus, when you are 'buttoned up' with just a few periscopes for external vision you get paranoid. On the Cromwell and Churchills from Mk IV the 'Wide Vision' Cupola was introduced with a complete ring of 'episcopes' and a wide angle scope to the fromt, the whole thing could be rotated. This gave a wide field of view without the need to stick your head out. It also had a 'split' hatch that opened in two halves to the left and right giving some protection to the commander when he did pop up for a look.

captain swoop
2008-Jul-16, 01:52 PM
Just to add, the Bovington Tiger and at least one other have been there in the past as well. (see galleries on the link)

BigDon
2008-Jul-16, 03:36 PM
I had three favorite tanks of my own. (As opposed to the ones I set up professionally on someone else's pocketbook)

One was a 55 gal soft water Amazonian tank. I had 50 cardinal tetras that would take your breath away just by swimming from one side of the tank to the other. The cardinals were so robust I would feed them nightcrawlers and they would comsume it in just less than a minute. They would "ball" it completely and look absolutely gorgeous. Had a pair of rams and a couple of small schools of both harliquin rasboras and neon blue dwarf rainbowfish.

So very soft water, pH of 6.2 and if you what to induce spawning drop the ph to just under 6. In the wild they will spawn in waters with a pH as low as 4.2. due to tannins. This protects the eggs from bacteria and fungus.

A fairly high maintenance set up though. I was doing 25% water changes twice a week.

Then there was the 35 gallon green spot puffer tank. Green spot puffers do best when they are the only free swimming fish in the tank. Very intelligent fish, the are easily intimidated by aggressive or rowdy tankmates. To the point where they fail to thrive. The puffers actually "look" at stuff and have very mobile eyes. You will bust up laughing at least once while watching them as they will go cross eyed looking at stuff like food as they swim up to it.

Completely different water conditions than above. Instead of soft and acidic water you need water that's about halfway to marine in conditions with a pH of about 8.2 and a quarter cup of buffered salt mix per gallon. Personally, I recommend Reef Crystals salt mix. But only if you want a higher ph. (Sometimes you want to add salt without effecting (affecting?) the pH)

For tank mates I used Bumblebee gobies and small brackish water flounders

THEN not counting the formal guppy tank, which I will give the set up for in its own thread, there was a 45 gallon wild form guppy tank. Done right it should have conditions between the above two setups. A chaos of color.

jlhredshift
2008-Jul-16, 03:49 PM
I had a 1972 9 passenger top of the line Plymouth Fury station wagon with a 440 engine. What a great vehicle for going to the drive in, except I had green and brown shag carpet with pad in the back, not astro turf. My buddies called it "the tank" because we used it whenever we had to fetch parts for the racecars. I thought of it more as a land yacht though.

Nick Theodorakis
2008-Jul-16, 08:56 PM
I had three favorite tanks of my own. (As opposed to the ones I set up professionally on someone else's pocketbook)
...

Very good take on the question, BigDon!

Speaking of fish tanks (if you'll excuse the hijack) you would probably be pleased to know the Zebrafish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zebra_Danio) is becoming a favorite scientific model organism for genetics and developmental studies.

Nick

captain swoop
2008-Jul-16, 11:13 PM
I used to keep Rift Valley Cichlids, they are nice fish, all the colour of Marine tropicals but so mkuch easier to keep.

I just have Orfe and Koi in a pond now.

ginnie
2008-Jul-16, 11:29 PM
why did America refuse to help against Hitler until pearl harbor
They were helping.
They weren't fighting.

KLIK
2008-Jul-17, 12:27 PM
Captain Swoop great knowledge
Steve 000 Don't think this can be answered without lots of politics.
Ginnie thanks for making me smile
BigDon F/W with Synodontis nigriventris and Barbus pentazona.

BigDon
2008-Jul-18, 10:38 PM
I used to keep Rift Valley Cichlids, they are nice fish, all the colour of Marine tropicals but so mkuch easier to keep.

I just have Orfe and Koi in a pond now.

Actually cichlids are secondarily evolved back to fresh water. As a group they come from the labrids, ie wrasses, damsels and such. The rift lake cichlids retain a lot of the features of their salt water cousins. Especially hyper-territorialism.

KLIK, (without Googling) Upside down cats and tiger barbs? Nice set up. Straight up wild form tigers or the ruby and or greens as well?

Actually Mr. T zebra danios have been a favorite since the late 80's at least! The rarer and much more gorgeous Pearl Danio, Danio albolineatus is my favorite. You can't get a photo to do one justice though. Colors are too subtle and flatten out to white in photos.

captain swoop
2008-Jul-19, 12:51 PM
I like Gouramis as well (sp?)

BigDon
2008-Jul-19, 05:52 PM
Captain, ever see my favorite one, the moonlight gourami?

Quite gourgeous, too bad they are so territorial with conspecifics. I've had several over the years.

captain swoop
2008-Jul-19, 06:18 PM
not sure, it may have a different name her,

BigDon
2008-Jul-19, 06:27 PM
Google up Trichogaster microlepis though most of the pictures are immature specimans I've noticed. Adults are 8 to 9 inchs long, not counting feelers.

Chip
2008-Jul-20, 04:54 AM
Most futuristic tank (http://www.stomptokyo.com/badmoviereport/pics/T/Things2Come04.jpg) is this fictitious British model from "Things to Come". Single tank tread, complete armor protection all round, streamlined, plasma cannon.

Weirdest tank (http://www.downloadmunkey.net/images/rt-01.jpg) (also never built) is this gigantic proposed German model described in the book "My Tank is Fight!"

Scariest is still this monster (http://www.wartours.com/WW1%20Tank.jpg) built by the British in WWI.

Coolest tank ever. The Tron Tank (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2405/2308281754_bfd7673672.jpg?v=0).

Inside the Tron Tank (http://www.cyberroach.com/tron/tank10.jpg). (Scene from "Tron")

Kaptain K
2008-Jul-20, 05:21 AM
Chip,
I got this message when I tried to access Most futuristic tank!


Forbidden
You don't have permission to access /badmoviereport/pics/T/Things2Come04.jpg on this server.

RalofTyr
2008-Jul-20, 08:22 AM
This thread as become somewhat effishient

captain swoop
2008-Jul-20, 09:55 AM
That 'Monster' from WW1 was the standard design of tank up until the 20s. IF you look at the French CHar Bis and the british Churchill you will see a similar design with a turret on top.

They are designed for crossing Trenches, the guns are in wing 'sponsons' and are optimised for firing sideways along trenches are crossed.

The weirdest tank I have seen is an experimental British 'underground' tank. It was developed in the 30s from a Trench Digging machine and was supposed to cross No-mans Land under the surface and break through into enemy trenches.

Can't post a pic I am afraid, I don't think theres one on line but I have a couple in one of my Ref books somewhere.

Chip
2008-Jul-20, 10:27 AM
Chip,
I got this message when I tried to access Most futuristic tank!

Yeah. That link had a time limit. Just go to "Google" select "Images" and type in "Things to Come Tank".

Neverfly
2008-Jul-20, 10:35 AM
Yeah. That link had a time limit. Just go to "Google" select "Images" and type in "Things to Come Tank".

That wasn't easy to do. Got all kinds of wrong leads.
I finally google imaged the link from hitting quote on your first post about it... and found what I think is it:)
8362
ETA:^Click on the pic to make it a bit bigger.

ETA numbah 2: I can easily see this thing getting knocked over and stuck on its back like helpless turtle...:think:

Chip
2008-Jul-20, 10:39 AM
That 'Monster' from WW1 was the standard design of tank up until the 20s. IF you look at the French CHar Bis and the British Churchill you will see a similar design with a turret on top. They are designed for crossing Trenches, the guns are in wing 'sponsons' and are optimized for firing sideways along trenches are crossed...

While in London 10 years ago I visited the Imperial War Museum, and though an aviation enthusiast, I had to look over one of the tanks you've described above, which was on display. It was quite a brute.

captain swoop
2008-Jul-20, 04:08 PM
Bovington Tank Museum has one restored to working order, they roll it out a couple of times a year on their 'Battle Days'

Graybeard6
2008-Jul-20, 07:19 PM
Mine has to be the M1; it's not only superior to any tank listed here, but any tank in use today. Check the battle of 73 Easting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_73_Easting
It's extremely to operate. The company I worked for before retirement had a contract to manage the maintenance of the trainers and simulators. The program manager was a 5' 4'' 110 lb. woman and a top-notch engineer. The Armor School faculty decided she needed to learn to drive an actual tank, which she did. She said it was easier than driving a Suburban.

captain swoop
2008-Jul-20, 09:54 PM
I would put a Challenger 1 and 2 against the M1 any day, it out Armours and out ranges it, has a higher availability (reliability and wider service schedules) and has a far better fuel consumption. at practical and extreme fighting ranges it has a more accurate gun.

73 Easting wasn't a real battle. Neither the M1 or the Challanger have come up against a real opponent.

T72s are Toys in comparison.

tbm
2008-Jul-21, 12:57 AM
My favorite tank would be the WWII Tiger I. While not as efficiently armored as the Panther or T-34 series, the sheer power of it's L56 88mm canon and bulk of 56 tons, along with effective tactics, made it a feared weapon on any front on which it was employed. The same armored bulk that made it a mobile fortress, however, was also it's greatest Achille's heel................

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=518Df1Kxfsw&feature=related

tbm

captain swoop
2008-Jul-21, 08:01 PM
was also it's greatest Achille's heel

Ironic since the US M10 Tank Destroyer in British service had the 17pdr Gun fitted and knocked Tigers to pieces :)

RalofTyr
2008-Jul-21, 10:04 PM
I would put a Challenger 1 and 2 against the M1 any day, it out Armours and out ranges it, has a higher availability (reliability and wider service schedules) and has a far better fuel consumption. at practical and extreme fighting ranges it has a more accurate gun.

73 Easting wasn't a real battle. Neither the M1 or the Challanger have come up against a real opponent.

T72s are Toys in comparison.


Well, since the T72s were out of date and ten years older than both those tanks, the Iraqis didn't have much of a chance. They also used them incorrectly. The T72s were designed for offensive attacks and not defensive. They were very mobile and didn't have the armor for a fixed position role.

captain swoop
2008-Jul-21, 10:30 PM
They also had an unprotected rotary magazine under the turret and an unreliable auto loader. They were never a serious threat to any of the Western MBTs.

pzkpfw
2008-Jul-22, 12:36 AM
Did any M60's (Marines used 'em there?) tackle any T72's?

tbm
2008-Jul-22, 09:05 PM
The autoloaders in Russian tanks have been known to select the loader's arm and load it into the breeche of the main weapon.

tom

captain swoop
2008-Jul-22, 09:21 PM
And instead of ejecting the 'brass' through the little hatch at the back of the turret it gets bounced aroun dinside.

CHallenger uses 2 part ammunition with a bagged charge similar to artillery. It gets consumed when it's fired so theres no brass to handle and no fumes in the turret. In theory it's slower than a one piece cased ammo but it's easier to handle and in practice rate of fire is the same. Also it takes up less space and more rounds can be stowed. Plus if a charge gets penetrated by anything hot (splinters etc) it doesn't go bang it just burns. Charges are stowed in bins with water jackets surrounding them, if a splinter does penetrate it wets the charge and stops fires.

KLIK
2008-Jul-23, 12:56 PM
Bigdon. 5 banded barbs rather than the 4 banded Tiger barbs, They have less of the aggresive attitude of the Tigers but are still up-front and entertaining. I'd happily recommend a small group for a community tank.

RalofTyr
2008-Jul-23, 09:37 PM
The autoloaders in Russian tanks have been known to select the loader's arm and load it into the breeche of the main weapon.

tom

See, this statement doesn't make sense, because in Russian tanks with an autoloader, there's only three crewmen and no loader or a loader's arm.

captain swoop
2008-Jul-23, 10:49 PM
Well ok the crewmans arm then. When you see the interior of a Russian tank you will notice the complete lack of any guards or safety devices. Even the few pathetic fans they call Air Conditioning don't have any kind of guards on the blades.

tbm
2008-Jul-24, 03:13 AM
See, this statement doesn't make sense, because in Russian tanks with an autoloader, there's only three crewmen and no loader or a loader's arm. I

I actually struggled with what term to use for the person who's arm was involved. I wasn't sure if it was the gunner or commander. I figured SOMEONE had to put rounds into the autoloader hopper so I used the term "loader".

tbm

tbm
2008-Jul-24, 03:23 AM
Ironic since the US M10 Tank Destroyer in British service had the 17pdr Gun fitted and knocked Tigers to pieces :)

LOL.

But the Achilles Achille's heel was the very thin armor compared to the Tiger...........

I think the tank with the greatest reputation would still be the Tiger. The Tiger (Tigri in Russian, ask those surviving veterans about them) was feared by allied tankers to the point that ANY German tank that was approaching was feared to be a Tiger. As there were only 1500-odd Tiger 1s made, their reputation and effectiveness was all the more impressive. It was to the Allies good fortune that the German tank production was hampered by being delegated to heavy equipment manufacturing firms, rather than to high-production factories as tank production in the U.S. was.

tbm

lurner
2008-Jul-24, 04:30 AM
my favorite tank is the one in Grand Theft Auto that you can steal from the army and then use to smash cars with.

captain swoop
2008-Jul-24, 01:37 PM
LOL.

But the Achilles Achille's heel was the very thin armor compared to the Tiger...........

I think the tank with the greatest reputation would still be the Tiger. The Tiger (Tigri in Russian, ask those surviving veterans about them) was feared by allied tankers to the point that ANY German tank that was approaching was feared to be a Tiger. As there were only 1500-odd Tiger 1s made, their reputation and effectiveness was all the more impressive. It was to the Allies good fortune that the German tank production was hampered by being delegated to heavy equipment manufacturing firms, rather than to high-production factories as tank production in the U.S. was.

tbm

If it had been then they would have had to stop manufacturing something else. Plus there are only so many factories that can work armour plate, it needs heavy engineering to roll it into shape and cut it. SHerman was clever because it used several different construction methods and power plants making it easier to contract out to other manufacturers. German pre war and early war designs were difficult and time consuming to manufacture. Late designs were simplified to speed production but the manufacturing plants daily production was still below that of Allied plants. Russian and American equipment was designed and built with a short service life in mind, it only had to last a few years at the most.

A good example was German Radio and Radar equipment. Look at diagrams and pictures comparing German against British wartime equipment. Some of the Radar sets used by the RAF and Navy look crude compared to the German stuff but it was quicker to manufacture and easier to modify and upgrade sometimes in the field. German sets have lovely cabinets and internal layout but it's just a waste of resouces in a war where volume is what counts.

tbm
2008-Jul-25, 01:38 AM
Otto Carius mentions in his book "Tigers in the Mud" that the Germans delivered a large hydraulic press to Russia shortly before the war:

"The irony isn't lost when one discovers that we had delivered the large hydraulic press to the Russians shortly before the war with which they could manufacture the so elegantly rounded-off surfaces of their T-34s and T-43s. Our armament experts had placed no value in it. In their opinion, such thick armor would never be needed. As a result, we had to put up with flat surfaces."

No wonder the T-34 came as such a nasty shock to the Wehrmacht.

BTW, Carius mentions the T-43, which apparntly never got past the prototype stage. It is possible that it was a German designation of a variant of the T-34.

tbm

captain swoop
2008-Jul-25, 05:13 PM
I don't get that. The T34 didn't have that much armour compared to a Tiger 2 for instance, and it doesn't have any curves that I can think of. The turret was cast so doesn't need a press. It had a well sloped arlour but so did the Panther and Tiger 2. I would guess that Germany had plenty of big hydraulic presses of their own. Armour plate can't be bent, it's too hard, it would just crack. If you want rounded armour you have to cast it. Plate can be shaped before it's hardened but any decent engineering works can forge hot steel.

tbm
2008-Jul-26, 01:47 AM
I don't get that. The T34 didn't have that much armour compared to a Tiger 2 for instance, and it doesn't have any curves that I can think of. The turret was cast so doesn't need a press. It had a well sloped arlour but so did the Panther and Tiger 2. I would guess that Germany had plenty of big hydraulic presses of their own. Armour plate can't be bent, it's too hard, it would just crack. If you want rounded armour you have to cast it. Plate can be shaped before it's hardened but any decent engineering works can forge hot steel.

You'd have to ask Carius what he meant. Perhaps that press was used to create the molds for the cast turrets with the rounded features. Also, remember that the Panther was created especially to counter the T-34 and it and the Tiger II were designed and built long after the T-34 began production. Both of them copied the sloped armor configuration from the T-34 series.

tom

Salty
2008-Jul-26, 04:09 AM
Although no match for contemporary tanks, the old Sherman tank served well.
The springs, engine, armor and gun were beefed up, shortly after we entered WWII, to my recollection.

After these modifications, the sturdier Sherman with 90mm gun stood up well, during the Battle of the Bulge, against the Tiger tanks, with help from Allied air and artillery. Those old tanks survived long enough, to stop the German push.

Regards,
Salty

cplradar
2008-Jul-26, 04:24 AM
The best tank is whichever happens to be on your side at the moment.

pzkpfw
2008-Jul-26, 11:43 AM
After these modifications, the sturdier Sherman with 90mm gun stood up well, during the Battle of the Bulge, against the Tiger tanks, with help from Allied air and artillery. Those old tanks survived long enough, to stop the German push.

Do you mean M36 Tank Destroyer?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M36_Jackson

mugaliens
2008-Jul-26, 04:44 PM
My favorite tank is the one that can withstand a single pass of an A-10 and it's 30mm cannon.

Unfortunately, that tank has yet to be invented.

Stuart van Onselen
2008-Jul-26, 08:05 PM
Yup, the British don't have one, nor do the Americans themselves have a personnel carrier that can stand up to that gun.

Don't get me wrong, I love the Warthog, but it does have a terrible record of blue-on-blue attacks. But then again, that might just be the inevitable result for any close air support system. It's really hard to hit the right bunch of ant-sized soldiers while you're zooting overhead at 300mph.

Interdiction and strategic bombing is much safer, but sometimes the grunts really, really need some support. And they don't call it the "fog of war" for nothing. :(

Stuart van Onselen
2008-Jul-26, 08:12 PM
Sorry, Dyerwolf. I was reading this thread backwards, so I didn't realise that you'd already brought up this point, and furthermore, that the topic was personally painful for you.

captain swoop
2008-Jul-26, 09:09 PM
Upgunned Shermans had a 76 mm gun. The Pershing had a 90 but that was completely different and only came into service at the end of the war.

As for the sloping armour on the Panther and Tiger 2. It wasn't copied from the Russians. Sloped armour designs already existed and the designs of the Panther go back to early war design ideas. SLoped ar,our is mainly used to reduce armour thickness for the same protection. It's a method of saving weight as much as anything. Sloped armour gives an equivalent thicker protection as shot goes through it diagonal to the surface. It is only effective at certain ranges when incomoing shot strikes at the right angle. T34 wasn't all that well sloped.

BigDon
2008-Jul-26, 10:08 PM
My favorite tank is the one that can withstand a single pass of an A-10 and it's 30mm cannon.

Unfortunately, that tank has yet to be invented.


You civil engineer types will apreciate this.

When the A-10 was first coming on-line in a big way they realized the gun was so powerful a redesign of the practice range was needed. Prior to the GAU-whatevertheheck a target silhouette supported by a 20 inch piling driven ten feet deep was adequate for several uses.

But a single "practice" round, ei a lead bullet or solid slug, from the GAU-who'syourdaddy carries so much kinetic energy that it knocks those pilings clear out of the ground. And they don't come in "single shot".

Graybeard6
2008-Jul-26, 10:17 PM
The Israelis mounted 90mm guns on their Shermans and they performed well during the six-day war. Part of that was the Egyptian reluctance to engage a long range; They'd see Israeli tanks and say "let's go destroy them, Inshahlah!" If the Israelis say an Egyptian tank, they destroyed it. The Egyptians thought that was was very unfair.

HenrikOlsen
2008-Jul-27, 08:17 AM
When the A-10 was first coming on-line in a big way they realized the gun was so powerful a redesign of the practice range was needed. Prior to the GAU-whatevertheheck a target silhouette supported by a 20 inch piling driven ten feet deep was adequate for several uses.
GAU-8A Avenger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAU-8_Avenger).

Talking about GAU-8A, I wonder what it feels like to be on a ship when a Goalkeeper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goalkeeper_CIWS) fires.
It's a system like the Phalanx (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS), but build around the Avenger instead of the Vulcan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M61_Vulcan).

captain swoop
2008-Jul-27, 09:13 PM
The Israelis mounted 90mm guns on their Shermans and they performed well during the six-day war. Part of that was the Egyptian reluctance to engage a long range; They'd see Israeli tanks and say "let's go destroy them, Inshahlah!" If the Israelis say an Egyptian tank, they destroyed it. The Egyptians thought that was was very unfair.

No, the Israelis rebuilt Shermans with a French M50 75mm gun derived from the German Panther gun of WW2 design. About 150 of these were later rebuilt with 105mm guns as the M51. Both variants were known as 'Super Shermans'

korjik
2008-Jul-27, 10:13 PM
My favorite tank is the one that can withstand a single pass of an A-10 and it's 30mm cannon.

Unfortunately, that tank has yet to be invented.

most people dont armour the top of the tank. That might change now with top attacks becoming more common.

captain swoop
2008-Jul-27, 10:21 PM
Armour is a trade off, you put it where you expect to be attacked.

tbm
2008-Jul-27, 10:27 PM
Upgunned Shermans had a 76 mm gun. The Pershing had a 90 but that was completely different and only came into service at the end of the war.

As for the sloping armour on the Panther and Tiger 2. It wasn't copied from the Russians. Sloped armour designs already existed and the designs of the Panther go back to early war design ideas. SLoped ar,our is mainly used to reduce armour thickness for the same protection. It's a method of saving weight as much as anything. Sloped armour gives an equivalent thicker protection as shot goes through it diagonal to the surface. It is only effective at certain ranges when incomoing shot strikes at the right angle. T34 wasn't all that well sloped.

The Panther design was instituted after the initial German encounters with the T-34. In fact, it was proposed that the T-34 be copied by German industry. That was discounted, but the firt Panther designs looked a heck of a lot like the T-34.

"When in June of 1941, Germany invaded Russia, Panzertruppe encountered KV series and T-34/76 tanks, which were far superior in firepower and armor protection to any Panzer at the time. It was then decided, because of the constant reports from the Eastern Front to design a new more powerful medium tank, which could be quickly put into production."

(http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz4.htm#panther)

I actually vacillated between the Tiger and the Panther as my favorite tank (at least for WWII). The Panther was actually better balanced, but the Tiger had a more fearsome reputation.

captain swoop
2008-Jul-28, 11:30 AM
My point was that sloped armour wasn't copied from the Russian tank, it was well understood and was used in some designs on the drawing board.

Sloped armour has drawbacks, one of which is reduced interior space for the same wheelbase and profile as a tank that doesn't have sloped armour. This has to be allowed for in the design. In practice its rare that a shot hits at the optimum angle to use the slope of tharmour to it's best effect. Certainly the angles used on the T-34, Panther and front armour of the Sherman was only moderate and offered only limited advantage.

tbm
2008-Jul-29, 12:02 AM
My point was that sloped armour wasn't copied from the Russian tank, it was well understood and was used in some designs on the drawing board.

Sloped armour has drawbacks, one of which is reduced interior space for the same wheelbase and profile as a tank that doesn't have sloped armour. This has to be allowed for in the design. In practice its rare that a shot hits at the optimum angle to use the slope of tharmour to it's best effect. Certainly the angles used on the T-34, Panther and front armour of the Sherman was only moderate and offered only limited advantage.

Agreed. The main advantage of sloped armor is the reduction in weight (armor thickness) for the same basic protection. The high velocity 75mm and 88mm cannons of the German tanks sure made swiss cheese of the T-34s sloped armor at ranges far beyond where the 76mm of the Russian tanks were able to penetrate the sloped armor of the Panther and vertical armor of the Tiger. Armor protection is only part of an AFV's overall effectiveness.

tbm

Kaptain K
2008-Jul-29, 12:17 AM
Just out of curiosity. If no tank in existence can stand up to the Gatling gun on an A-10, why not use it as the gun on a tank?

SpecialEd
2008-Jul-29, 01:00 AM
Just out of curiosity. If no tank in existence can stand up to the Gatling gun on an A-10, why not use it as the gun on a tank?

____________________

Because tanks have difficulty attacking from overhead?

tbm
2008-Jul-29, 03:23 AM
____________________

Because tanks have difficulty attacking from overhead?

Well, the Russians TRIED that......

http://aeroweb.lucia.it/rap/RAFAQ/KT-40.html

tbm

pzkpfw
2008-Jul-29, 05:22 AM
I was thinking it was about ammunition.

The A-10 fires 3,900 rounds per minute (once gun is at full speed), and carries 1,174 rounds. So you won't get too many "shots" and although accurate you are not going to get one tank per round.

I couldn't google-up the ammunition storage of an M1A1 (for example) but in general I'd expect that while you of course have far fewer rounds stored in a tank, you'd hope to get one hit (and kill) per round.

...so you can be out there on the battlefield all day ('till you run out of fuel...), while the A-10 flies back to base for re-arming.


(Yes, the A-10 carries missiles too...)

mugaliens
2008-Jul-29, 04:36 PM
Armour is a trade off, you put it where you expect to be attacked.

Reactive armor can significantly reduce the mass footprint. Adding grates to either pre-detonate incoming, or to give it enough time/distance so that it detonates before penetrating the solid part of the armor, increases one's defenses.

However, proactive armor can also be highly effective, such as the Phalanx system used for shipboard defense against incoming missiles. A smaller, lighter, and much faster system using 9mm rounds would prove a boon, and could double as an anti-personnel device in short bursts. At 600 rounds/min, even a short 1/2 second burst would slam 5 rounds into your target.

Stuart van Onselen
2008-Jul-29, 05:10 PM
But none of this matters against kinetic penetrators, it only matters against HEAT/HESH/Hi-Ex. Five 9mm bullets will do little to deflect a hypersonic penetrator. And it will plough right through grates or reactive armour.

With current technology, the only things you can do to protect yourself against penetrators, is (a) be somewhere else, or (b) have lots of thick, dense armour.

Just like it has been ever since WW1.

Chip
2008-Jul-29, 08:58 PM
I like the inflatable tank (http://trax4you.com/proofs/patten/images/history/d-day-tank.jpg). Its much easier to move.

Neverfly
2008-Jul-29, 09:04 PM
I like the inflatable tank (http://trax4you.com/proofs/patten/images/history/d-day-tank.jpg). Its much easier to move.

Strangely, Mock Tanks have gotten pretty sophisticated...
I've moved quite a few of them, which I guarded at night with my Johnson Gun.

captain swoop
2008-Jul-29, 10:07 PM
Current tanks use a composite armour made of metals, plastics and ceramics that's why they are made from flat plates, it can't be cast or curved. It was developed in the late 70s in the UK and is standard on all 'Western' MBTs including Challenger, M1, Leopard, Leclerce and Merkava. It is effective against both Kinetic and Heat rounds.

As has already been posted in several ways, tanks don't have a lot of overhead protection that's why the latest generation of AT missiles are designed to fly over the target and fire a charge down into the upper deck.

pzkpfw
2008-Jul-30, 12:35 AM
As has already been posted in several ways, tanks don't have a lot of overhead protection that's why the latest generation of AT missiles are designed to fly over the target and fire a charge down into the upper deck.

I've always been impressed by the mine (I think it was developed in time for, and used in, Vietnam) that threw a little bomblet up in the air, that then exploded and by doing so simultaneously shaped a copper plate into a penetrating shape and fired it down onto the tank that triggered the mine.

Seems like a Rube Goldberg kind of thing, but apparently it worked.

Recently I saw an episode of "Future Weapons" on Discovery channel that showed a cluster-bomb style aerial delivery thing. It would disperse a whole bunch of these bomblet type things, that each spun and tried to detect vehicles by laser. Each would then explode and fling shaped penetrators down onto the vehicles.

The idea was this cluster-bomb could be dropped over a convoy, or maybe a group of tanks in laager - and try to hit them all.

Very impressive.

KLIK
2008-Jul-30, 12:58 PM
Well, the Russians TRIED that......

http://aeroweb.lucia.it/rap/RAFAQ/KT-40.html

tbm

As did Christie;
http://www.roadabletimes.com/roadables-modular_Christie.html (7kb)


and just found this about the KT-40 (bit of detail about the flight)
http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=374 (64 kb)

mugaliens
2008-Jul-30, 11:23 PM
Recently I saw an episode of "Future Weapons" on Discovery channel that showed a cluster-bomb style aerial delivery thing. It would disperse a whole bunch of these bomblet type things, that each spun and tried to detect vehicles by laser. Each would then explode and fling shaped penetrators down onto the vehicles.

The idea was this cluster-bomb could be dropped over a convoy, or maybe a group of tanks in laager - and try to hit them all.

Very impressive.

You're speaking of the BLU-108/B Submunition (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/blu-108.htm). It's carried aboard the JSOW, and is considered "the weapon of seven miracles," because each warhead, about 12 lb each, requires about seven things to happen correctly and in very short order for it to work as advertised. It can also be carried aboard several other clamshell release systems, such as the Tomahawk, ATACMS, and the JASSM.

Turns out, it works quite well, including against main battle tanks.

mugaliens
2008-Jul-30, 11:25 PM
But none of this matters against kinetic penetrators...

Yes it does (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoKG26OIO_w&feature=related).

pzkpfw
2008-Jul-31, 12:31 AM
You're speaking of the BLU-108/B Submunition (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/blu-108.htm).

Yes - that's it, thanks.

Graybeard6
2008-Jul-31, 02:14 AM
Back to tanks. In 1957, I was in Infantry AIT at Fort Benning. Co. B, 4th Inf Bn (Prov) 3rd Infantry Div. It was an experimental reorganization that was eventually rejected. At the end of training those of us who had applied for OCS or airborne were held over and told to "Check out a jeep, look busy and don't get caught goofing off." The division was training the troops that they would take to Germany later that year. Three of us did not get OCS and one day the First Sergeant called us in and told us that when the Division was re-re-organized he was going to be in charge of the Intel & Recon platoon, 3 jeeps w/ machine guns, and two M41 Walker Bulldog tanks. He wanted us for his tank crew, and got us checked out to see if we had the right stuff before we went to Fort Knox for training. We loved it! We played with the tank for a few days; They wouldn't let me fire the main (76mm) gun, but we showed good potential as a tank crew. Unfortunately, the army had other ideas; they said we didn't have enough time left to deploy to Germany. We were assigned to the Infantry Center, I ended up in Germany as a nuclear weapons technician, and had a good career, but I still wonder what it would have been like riding that little sucker around Graffenwoer.
The US Army hasn't had very good luck with light tanks, so they gave up and developed the Bradley. I know it's not a tank, but it fulfills most of the missions. One of the items on my bucket list is to fire that chaiin gun.

Stuart van Onselen
2008-Jul-31, 12:01 PM
The US Army hasn't had very good luck with light tanksTo the best of my knowledge, no-one has had much luck with light tanks.

The books I have read claim that, while popular between the wars, the very concept is flawed - Too small and light to carry much armour, but big enough to be an easy target for anti-tank guns (or even heavy machine-gus, to which some were vulnerable) and never fast enough to be un-targetable.

Although I believe the Panzer II didn't do too badly in Poland. But the Nazis were nevertheless very relieved that production of the Panzer III had picked up before the invasion of France.

tnjrp
2008-Jul-31, 12:40 PM
For some reason I'm partial to the early tanks of WWI. Especially the Nepotir/Lebedenko/Tsar Tank (http://www.landships.freeservers.com/lebedenko_info.htm) -- a feat of engineering with few concessions to reality (no small wonder it didn't work as planned)...

captain swoop
2008-Jul-31, 03:02 PM
To the best of my knowledge, no-one has had much luck with light tanks.

The books I have read claim that, while popular between the wars, the very concept is flawed - Too small and light to carry much armour, but big enough to be an easy target for anti-tank guns (or even heavy machine-gus, to which some were vulnerable) and never fast enough to be un-targetable.

Although I believe the Panzer II didn't do too badly in Poland. But the Nazis were nevertheless very relieved that production of the Panzer III had picked up before the invasion of France.

PzII was justg an MG armed training machine, useful for recon.

As for light tanks in general it depends what you want to use them for. GB has a policy of using tracked vehicles for it's Recon units. A whole family of vehicles based on the same hull the CVR(T) (http://www.army.mod.uk/equipment/fighting-vehicles/1480.aspx) has been very useful over the years. When it entered service there were two versions, one with a 76mm gun (Scorpion) and one with a 30mm cannon (Scimitar) The Scorpion has been phased out with some being sold and some getting the 30mm turrets from the wheeled 'Fox' armoured cars when they were phased out.(They had the same turret as the Scimitar but proved to be top heavy) There is a small APC version as well. Scimitar is aluminium alloy and very fast and agile.

Light Tanks as a mian battlefield weapon have never been of any use when they come up against anything bigger their small size and speed isn't of any advantage.

BigDon
2008-Aug-01, 06:23 PM
But none of this matters against kinetic penetrators, it only matters against HEAT/HESH/Hi-Ex. Five 9mm bullets will do little to deflect a hypersonic penetrator.
Just like it has been ever since WW1.

Well now Stuart, happy to report Super Weapons has revealed an Isreali system that slaps down kenetic penetrators such as those fired from the Abrahm's. Five "shots" per system. THAT would have changed the Gulf War dynamic had Saddam's men had been equipped with it. Was designed to stop RPG's, aka Iraqi greeting cards, and worked much better than hoped.

I think if we ask nicely the Israeli's might let the US have some too.

HenrikOlsen
2008-Aug-01, 06:58 PM
On the other hand, it's still rather useless against the A10's gun.
Ok, it may stop the first 5 shots, but then the rest will get through

BigDon
2008-Aug-01, 07:10 PM
Mr. Olsen, (darn it, every time I call you that I think of "Little House On The Prairie" and wonder if you are into string ties and big women.)

The A-10 didn't achieve all the armour kills in either war, sir, or even the majority, and you have to get relatively close to kill them with you're cannon. On the other hand they think this could also be adapted to include a "look up" mode for Mavericks and arty.

HenrikOlsen
2008-Aug-01, 07:28 PM
Mr. Olsen, (darn it, every time I call you that I think of "Little House On The Prairie" and wonder if you are into string ties and big women.)
I mentioned this to my GF, her reaction was that if that was an insinuation that she is in any way like Mrs. Olsen, she'll beat you until you admit she isn't.

Just call me Henrik when you're correcting my oversimplifications.

mugaliens
2008-Aug-01, 09:48 PM
To the best of my knowledge, no-one has had much luck with light tanks.

Uh, you're just not thinking three-dimensionally.

The A-10 isn't just a tank-killer. It's a flying tank, itself, complete with armor, and a gun that's as deadly as any tank's gun against a tank.

No, it doesn't have treads. No, it's not painted green. No, it doesn't way 70 tons. No, it doesn't have a crew of three or four. No, it doesn't kick up a lot of dust.

In modern warfare, the lines between weapons systems have blurred so much, not necessarily because they're hybrids, but because the "force-on-force" approach we used for centuries finally died, thanks to the lessons we learned from Vietnam. So we no longer fight "force on force," with an "our forces are strong than your forces." Instead, we fight "strength on weakness," where our strength may be something as simple as flying tanks that can obliterate the enemy's battlefield weapons systems, or knowing where to drop small guided munitions to take out key infrastructure, leaving them unable to communicate or coordinate.

Or it could be as complex as the variety of air and space-based sensors we have for watching and listening to them.

BigDon
2008-Aug-04, 02:19 AM
I mentioned this to my GF, her reaction was that if that was an insinuation that she is in any way like Mrs. Olsen, she'll beat you until you admit she isn't.

Just call me Henrik when you're correcting my oversimplifications.

Funny thing about getting older. I surely didn't think so at the time, but as I push fifty and she "doesn't age", Mrs. Olsen is starting to look better and better...

(Had to double check the top of the thread to make sure we were in Babbling before I threw that out there. :) )