Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Wyrmalla wrote: Have the IDF released anything lately about the Merkava's planned upgrade? Supposedly they want to replace the main gun with a laser or sonic weapon, but that seems like its a going to be a pipe dream for years. They must have a stop gap for the mean time though. That and I don't see coil guns being practical enough to mount on tanks in the short term either, though how are those naval tests going?
Heh, you could mention laser, sonic and gauss weapons in this thread regarding crazy 60s science fiction, now countries are actually attempting to make those things (properly that is, there were tests as far back as the 40s).
The next generation of tanks are going to have rail guns.
That'll have to be a pretty powerful engine to generate that high charge... no?
Or trickle charge several high capacity capacitors. Then feed the rail gun using those.
jorny wrote: As a swede I have to point out that Stridsvagn 103 is a very cool tank indeed (and, no it is not a tank destroyer, it is main battle tank):
That's pretty nifty. Just by looking at the picture I would have thought for sure it was either a tank destroyer or an assault gun, but you are indeed right. It's considered a main battle tank. Cool stuff!
that thing was a death trap, i believe it took what 22 men to crew it and it had a tendencie to catch fire and the hatches would end up blocked by the turrets lol
It's armour was also barely resistant to small arms fire and even heavy machine guns could have caused catastrophic kills. Though to be fair this was made in the 1930s when 37mm was considered a potent anti-tank weapon.
that thing was a death trap, i believe it took what 22 men to crew it and it had a tendencie to catch fire and the hatches would end up blocked by the turrets lol
The T-35 had a crew of 11
Crimson Heretic wrote: It's armour was also barely resistant to small arms fire and even heavy machine guns could have caused catastrophic kills. Though to be fair this was made in the 1930s when 37mm was considered a potent anti-tank weapon.
Its protection did not really matter, it might as well have been unarmoured, for 90% of them were lost due to mechanical failure.
But at least it did look intimidating.
Also, all hail the mighty Kugelpanzer!
Spoiler:
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/07/02 20:31:46
Most amazing tank ever is probably the Centurion. Introduced into service in 1945 it was the first true modern format tank and all tanks of the present day follow the same design. It has fought in more wars than any other design and is still in service today.
Kilkrazy wrote: Most amazing tank ever is probably the Centurion. Introduced into service in 1945 it was the first true modern format tank and all tanks of the present day follow the same design. It has fought in more wars than any other design and is still in service today.
In true British style, it was invented too late for WW2
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
It never saw combat in WW2, Frazz, but it had a 100mm gun, which was a similar armament to an IS-2 or an IS-3, and those tanks had no problem taking out a King Tiger, if memory serves.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Early models were armed with a 17pdr. So they'd both have trouble penetrating each other from the front. The Centurion is more mechanically reliable.
The later 20pdr version would be more effective as would the even later 105mm version.
This is the most amazing tank in the world. Used in combat from 1917 until the late 1980s. It laid the blueprint for almost every successful tank design.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/07/02 22:53:20
It never saw combat in WW2, Frazz, but it had a 100mm gun, which was a similar armament to an IS-2 or an IS-3, and those tanks had no problem taking out a King Tiger, if memory serves.
No allied gun used during the second world war was ever confirmed to penetrate the KT's upper glacis, 150mm sloped at 50 degrees, giving it an effective thickness of somewhere around 220mm depending on angles, the lower glacis was 100mm sloped at 50 degrees and the turret front was 185mm flat, with another 100mm around the manlet. Basically no WW2 gun is getting through the front, the brits claimed the 17 pdr firing APDS could do it but it was never confirmed in battle. The American claimed a King tiger knocked out by their super pershing but that's also unconfirmed and probably a case of "tigerphobia".
The Centurion didn't quite have the armor of the KT but it was pretty close, 152mm on the manlet, 118mm on the upper glacis, both sloped well. The 17 pdr was not quite equivalent of the KT's 88mm KwK43 and would have to rely on APDS rounds, early variants of which were notoriously inaccurate. Once the Centurion MkIII entered service with the 20pdr gun the playing field would have been much more even, the 20pdr was at least the equal to the KwK43 and probably better, and fired better sabot rounds
British tanks include tea making facilities.
This makes them automatically superior to all other nations armoured vehicles.
If the thought of something makes me giggle for longer than 15 seconds, I am to assume that I am not allowed to do it. item 87, skippys list
DC:70S+++G+++M+++B+++I++Pw40k86/f#-D+++++A++++/cWD86R+++++T(D)DM++
marv335 wrote: British tanks include tea making facilities. This makes them automatically superior to all other nations armoured vehicles.
Stick the lid from a .50 ammo can in the back grill of your trusty M1 series heat making machine, set actual can (filled with water) on top of lid. Have driver crank it up. HOT water for shaving/tea/what ever pretty darned quickly. Alternatively, set one of these filled with water on the lid:
with a couple scoops of coffee grounds wrapped up in a bandana tossed into it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/07/03 12:44:51
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
Aye the "tea makers" in British tanks is just good PR. They're just regular boilers for your food that come as standard because of the Cold War and not wanting crews to have to leave their vehicles in the event of a nuclear attack. On that note you'd expect that other countries would have done the same, but evidently not given only the British have a reputation for these "tea makers".
But aye, realistically you just use the rear engines. =P
Looks French to me given the tracks. Interwar presumably, though IIRC most of the French tanks wound up being used as artillery tractors during WWII, so this could well be a later design than it looks.
It never saw combat in WW2, Frazz, but it had a 100mm gun, which was a similar armament to an IS-2 or an IS-3, and those tanks had no problem taking out a King Tiger, if memory serves.
No allied gun used during the second world war was ever confirmed to penetrate the KT's upper glacis, 150mm sloped at 50 degrees, giving it an effective thickness of somewhere around 220mm depending on angles, the lower glacis was 100mm sloped at 50 degrees and the turret front was 185mm flat, with another 100mm around the manlet. Basically no WW2 gun is getting through the front, the brits claimed the 17 pdr firing APDS could do it but it was never confirmed in battle. The American claimed a King tiger knocked out by their super pershing but that's also unconfirmed and probably a case of "tigerphobia".
The Centurion didn't quite have the armor of the KT but it was pretty close, 152mm on the manlet, 118mm on the upper glacis, both sloped well. The 17 pdr was not quite equivalent of the KT's 88mm KwK43 and would have to rely on APDS rounds, early variants of which were notoriously inaccurate. Once the Centurion MkIII entered service with the 20pdr gun the playing field would have been much more even, the 20pdr was at least the equal to the KwK43 and probably better, and fired better sabot rounds
Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure the Soviet SU-100 took out a King Tiger, in one engagement. Late Soviet tanks and tank destroyers were pretty mean.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
George Spiggott wrote: Early models were armed with a 17pdr. So they'd both have trouble penetrating each other from the front. The Centurion is more mechanically reliable.
The later 20pdr version would be more effective as would the even later 105mm version.
This is the most amazing tank in the world. Used in combat from 1917 until the late 1980s. It laid the blueprint for almost every successful tank design.
What tank is that? The British whippet?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/07/03 14:29:11
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Renault FT-17 I think. There used to be one at the Patton Museum.
Cheers. Definitely not a whippet. I've been on wiki as well.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
It never saw combat in WW2, Frazz, but it had a 100mm gun, which was a similar armament to an IS-2 or an IS-3, and those tanks had no problem taking out a King Tiger, if memory serves.
No allied gun used during the second world war was ever confirmed to penetrate the KT's upper glacis, 150mm sloped at 50 degrees, giving it an effective thickness of somewhere around 220mm depending on angles, the lower glacis was 100mm sloped at 50 degrees and the turret front was 185mm flat, with another 100mm around the manlet. Basically no WW2 gun is getting through the front, the brits claimed the 17 pdr firing APDS could do it but it was never confirmed in battle. The American claimed a King tiger knocked out by their super pershing but that's also unconfirmed and probably a case of "tigerphobia".
The Centurion didn't quite have the armor of the KT but it was pretty close, 152mm on the manlet, 118mm on the upper glacis, both sloped well. The 17 pdr was not quite equivalent of the KT's 88mm KwK43 and would have to rely on APDS rounds, early variants of which were notoriously inaccurate. Once the Centurion MkIII entered service with the 20pdr gun the playing field would have been much more even, the 20pdr was at least the equal to the KwK43 and probably better, and fired better sabot rounds
Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure the Soviet SU-100 took out a King Tiger, in one engagement. Late Soviet tanks and tank destroyers were pretty mean.
The soviets did testing with their best guns against the KTigers armour, and found that it was impossible to penetrate the front armour with a single hit, but that repeated hits to the same place could cause a penetration.
Could somebody also explain the hype for the centurion? What it effectively is is a slow panther.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jorny wrote: As a swede I have to point out that Stridsvagn 103 is a very cool tank indeed (and, no it is not a tank destroyer, it is main battle tank):
It never saw combat in WW2, Frazz, but it had a 100mm gun, which was a similar armament to an IS-2 or an IS-3, and those tanks had no problem taking out a King Tiger, if memory serves.
No allied gun used during the second world war was ever confirmed to penetrate the KT's upper glacis, 150mm sloped at 50 degrees, giving it an effective thickness of somewhere around 220mm depending on angles, the lower glacis was 100mm sloped at 50 degrees and the turret front was 185mm flat, with another 100mm around the manlet. Basically no WW2 gun is getting through the front, the brits claimed the 17 pdr firing APDS could do it but it was never confirmed in battle. The American claimed a King tiger knocked out by their super pershing but that's also unconfirmed and probably a case of "tigerphobia".
The Centurion didn't quite have the armor of the KT but it was pretty close, 152mm on the manlet, 118mm on the upper glacis, both sloped well. The 17 pdr was not quite equivalent of the KT's 88mm KwK43 and would have to rely on APDS rounds, early variants of which were notoriously inaccurate. Once the Centurion MkIII entered service with the 20pdr gun the playing field would have been much more even, the 20pdr was at least the equal to the KwK43 and probably better, and fired better sabot rounds
Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure the Soviet SU-100 took out a King Tiger, in one engagement. Late Soviet tanks and tank destroyers were pretty mean.
The soviets did testing with their best guns against the KTigers armour, and found that it was impossible to penetrate the front armour with a single hit, but that repeated hits to the same place could cause a penetration.
Could somebody also explain the hype for the centurion? What it effectively is is a slow panther.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jorny wrote: As a swede I have to point out that Stridsvagn 103 is a very cool tank indeed (and, no it is not a tank destroyer, it is main battle tank):
I think the hype surrounding the Centurion is justified. It was an absolute beast in the 1967 war between Israel and its enemies.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
It never saw combat in WW2, Frazz, but it had a 100mm gun, which was a similar armament to an IS-2 or an IS-3, and those tanks had no problem taking out a King Tiger, if memory serves.
No allied gun used during the second world war was ever confirmed to penetrate the KT's upper glacis, 150mm sloped at 50 degrees, giving it an effective thickness of somewhere around 220mm depending on angles, the lower glacis was 100mm sloped at 50 degrees and the turret front was 185mm flat, with another 100mm around the manlet. Basically no WW2 gun is getting through the front, the brits claimed the 17 pdr firing APDS could do it but it was never confirmed in battle. The American claimed a King tiger knocked out by their super pershing but that's also unconfirmed and probably a case of "tigerphobia".
The Centurion didn't quite have the armor of the KT but it was pretty close, 152mm on the manlet, 118mm on the upper glacis, both sloped well. The 17 pdr was not quite equivalent of the KT's 88mm KwK43 and would have to rely on APDS rounds, early variants of which were notoriously inaccurate. Once the Centurion MkIII entered service with the 20pdr gun the playing field would have been much more even, the 20pdr was at least the equal to the KwK43 and probably better, and fired better sabot rounds
Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure the Soviet SU-100 took out a King Tiger, in one engagement. Late Soviet tanks and tank destroyers were pretty mean.
The soviets did testing with their best guns against the KTigers armour, and found that it was impossible to penetrate the front armour with a single hit, but that repeated hits to the same place could cause a penetration.
Could somebody also explain the hype for the centurion? What it effectively is is a slow panther.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jorny wrote: As a swede I have to point out that Stridsvagn 103 is a very cool tank indeed (and, no it is not a tank destroyer, it is main battle tank):
We need somebody in the know to do a head to head. T-55 Vs Centurion. Who wins? Assume that both crews have similar training/experience.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Mordant 92nd 'Acid Dogs'
The Lost and Damned
Inquisition
