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.
I'd love to go to Bovington at some point, but it being at the other end of the country and me not liking to travel alone, especially long distances, makes things difficult.
Mandorallen turned back toward the insolently sneering baron. 'My Lord,' The great knight said distantly, 'I find thy face apelike and thy form misshapen. Thy beard, moreover, is an offence against decency, resembling more closely the scabrous fur which doth decorate the hinder portion of a mongrel dog than a proper adornment for a human face. Is it possibly that thy mother, seized by some wild lechery, did dally at some time past with a randy goat?' - Mimbrate Knight Protector Mandorallen.
Excerpt from "Seeress of Kell", Book Five of The Malloreon series by David Eddings.
"You need not fear us, unless you are a dark heart, a vile one who preys on the innocent; I promise, you can’t hide forever in the empty darkness, for we will hunt you down like the animals you are, and pull you into the very bowels of hell." Iron - Within Temptation
A sexy little machine, and incredibly well protected for it's size and weight (especially with it's additional armour addons). It's wholse design philosphy is quite intresting as well, anywhere else in the world it would be too expensive and not tough enough, but in most of Japan's islands and thick forests it's the only tank that can operate, unlike the larger American, Chinese, and Russian tanks whoa are simply too big and too heavy to operate in Japan's infrastructure. There's a reason it's job is to replace the Type74 and and not the much larger type 90. Also any tank that can do 70 km/h in reverse has a special place in my heart.
You know, this shares a similar design with the Leopard in that the front of the turret slopes up and down at the front. Having armor sloping up helps drive shot up and away from the tank, but in the case of these two tanks, it seems to me that an incoming round could hit the lower slope and the round would just drive into the turret ring. Isn't this kind of a design flaw? I mean I think both tanks look cool, but I would think something designed like the Abrams would be better since its harder to get to where the turret meets the main body of the tank, which I imagine is like the Achilles heel.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/08 00:43:13
Overall, with modern ammunition, shot traps aren't really that much of an issue anymore. Many tanks have what would be considered shot traps (t14, t90, M1, Leo2) but they aren't really a design flaw because of the ddvent of APFSDS and HEATFS. We aren't firing full caliber AP rounds anymore, which is what shot traps were vaunrable to.
For referance, just take a look at this 1980 article about the XM1 (i.e. the M1 abrams). It's not a tank that has ever been known to be easy to kill. https://www.csmonitor.com/1980/1121/112144.html
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/08 00:51:43
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Ha wow. Yeah I have read how hard it is to kill those things. *cough* At least when the US is using them *cough*.
You know, articles like that remind me of all the negative press the F-35 has gotten. Was that project too ambitious? Sure. Is the F-35 going to be an amazing weapon within the system of the US military? I have no doubt. Not sure for other users, but for us I think so.
KTG17 wrote: Ha wow. Yeah I have read how hard it is to kill those things. *cough* At least when the US is using them *cough*.
You know, articles like that remind me of all the negative press the F-35 has gotten. Was that project too ambitious? Sure. Is the F-35 going to be an amazing weapon within the system of the US military? I have no doubt. Not sure for other users, but for us I think so.
But having skeptics is a good thing.
Yeah. Every tank and every aircraft ultimately is very vulnerable. Anti-tank (and anti-air) weapons are very sophisticated. So the best guarantee for keeping a tank alive is not its armour or any other fancy design things, it is the training of its crew and the degree of support it gets from other elements of the military forces.
You could have US tank crews drive old Sherman tanks and they would likely still outperform Iraqi tank crews driving the Abrams. Good education and training are hugely important for the performance of military equipment. And in most countries outside of the West and Russia (and maybe China) that training is often lacking.
Not my favorite, but one of the few tanks I actually touched:
The Patton Museum out in California, where troops trained for desert conditions. Now it's just a few old tanks and a couple indoor displays. I kinda wish they had more but it's still to put your hands on something.
I prefer to buy from miniature manufacturers that *don't* support the overthrow of democracy.
Wyrmalla wrote: And well, its not like many of the improvised fighting vehicles which came out in Europe at the same time were much better. Those did see combat however (admittedly against better tanks than the Japanese had as well).
Yeah, don't get me wrong, I appreciate it's character. That's what I do love about the early tanks - they certainly have a lot of character. Now everyone's tanks look and perform pretty much the same. Back then peeps were still trying to figure it out with whatever tech was available, and some of the results are pretty fun.
Well, that's not quite what the Bob Semple Tank was. It was designed in 1942, where the concept of the "Tank" had long drifted away from the pre-war ideas. Bob Semple knew what a modern tank was, but had to work with what he had. It was supposed to be a last ditch attempt at throwing together a fighting vehicle of "some" sort with what was available. New Zealand didn't have enough infrastructure to make anything better. Those machine guns were the heaviest gun they could find (the original designs wanted something larger). The country had plenty of farms, and that was the toughest and most common tractor they could start serial production on. The high profile's a result of note being able to move the engine (the front machine gunners are literally lying on top of it.
For a similar vehicle compare the Kubus armoured car produced by the Polish Resistance.
*Ah, though as a counterpoint to this whole thing. In a what if scenario where the Japanese had committed to their theoretical land war in Australia and New Zealand (see "The Brisbane Line"), they likely wouldn't have been fighting with the tankettes they were stereotyped for. The Japanese fought WWII largely with light tanks as 1) in Asia their enemies barely had tanks which were any better till the Americans showed up and 2) most of the terrain they were fighting on was too difficult to traverse with anything large. They did have tanks equivalent to Panthers and Tigers, they just never saw a reason to put them into large scale production as they would have been useless on the terrain. By the time that the Home Islands being invaded had become a real prospect the Japanese had begun to start up production of these vehicles, but their supplies had already been cut by that point, so not many were built. In a situation where the Bob Semple tank had seen combat, i.e. the early war, its likely the Japanese would have churned out "proper" tanks to contend with Commonwealth armoured forces stationed in or brought to Australia.
Iron_Captain wrote: Oh, I almost forgot a tank that really needs to be mentioned:
Meet the Antonov A-40, history's only tank capable of flight:
Unfortunately it never made it past the prototype stage, and only one photograph of it still exists.
Well, being capable of flight on paper isn't the same as a *working* prototype. That "photograph" of it in flight was just a drawing (and Wikipedia's article on the subject is suspect). I believe that they did manage to get lighter tanks in an air droppable format, though they had the unfortunate habit of smashing into bits when they hit the ground.
Meanwhile the British at the same time developed the Tetrarch, a much more practical idea which fulfilled a similar purpose. The Germans as well had similar ideas to provide to their paratroopers (though the A40 wasn't intended for that role, instead being dropped to support existing positions), though those never made it out of the planning stages.
Yeah. It was not really a feasible thing, which is why it never advanced past a single prototype that made only one flight. While that flight was a succes, it was only barely so. The tank was too heavy for the aircraft towing it to get it up to speed, and the test pilot had real trouble landing it successfully. If the tank had been fully loaded with fuel, ammo and crew as in a combat situation, it would have surely crashed. And so the design was scrapped. But fly it did.
The Soviets did a lot of experiments with airdropping tanks, some of them really successful leading eventually to the development of vehicles like the ASU-57 and the BMD which can be dropped complete with ammo and crew and everything onboard.
Also, I believe the image is not actually a drawing, but rather a photograph of the designer's model. There are versions where you can see it sitting on a flight stand.
Unfortenately, it is the only image of the complete vehicle there is. There is a few more images of just the wing frame, but not with the modified T-60 tank.
I'm using Tank Encyclopedia's article as a source, which tends to be the most reliable Internet one available. Quote:
Fourthly, it is unclear as to whether or not the vehicle was even successful. The official story, as recorded above, might be a gross exaggeration, or a total fantasy. The purported photo of the A-40 in flight is actually a drawing produced by the Antonov factory.
KTG17 wrote: Ha wow. Yeah I have read how hard it is to kill those things. *cough* At least when the US is using them *cough*.
You know, articles like that remind me of all the negative press the F-35 has gotten. Was that project too ambitious? Sure. Is the F-35 going to be an amazing weapon within the system of the US military? I have no doubt. Not sure for other users, but for us I think so.
But having skeptics is a good thing.
If you look at modernizations of older tanks, like the ones coming out of Italy and Ukraine, they're focused more on ERA and slat armour than shot traps. Modern ammunition is designed not to bounce, unlike what was being used in WWII (most - ignoring late war British and German stuff). As such a tank laden with that winds up finding itself more concerned with protecting itself from its own ERA than enemy shots.
The Germans had seen this coming at the end of the war and started developing tanks with *no armour*. See they had just developed the ATGM, the British had begun using HEAT warheads, and the Soviets were about to standardise on the 100mm gun (T-44/100 i.e. the T-54). The idea being that at the time if the enemy hit you you'd be dead anyway (this is before ERA of course - ah ...well the Germans also had prototypes that as well), so positioning and speed were more important (that and the plan was to fight at night with infrared so the enemy couldn't see you in the first place).
Additionally, modern tanks are using modular compartmental designs. I.e. in the Israeli Merkava the crew are in their own bubble inside the tank. So even if the vehicle is hit, vital systems have their own protection systems to keep the tank operational to an extent. Combine this with the concept of decreasing the number of vital systems, increasing redundancy, or the novel idea of allowing remote systems to take over and tanks are more survivable. The Russian T-14 Armata can be controlled wireless like a drone with no crew at all (though it isn't the first tank to do this).
Yeah. Every tank and every aircraft ultimately is very vulnerable. Anti-tank (and anti-air) weapons are very sophisticated. So the best guarantee for keeping a tank alive is not its armour or any other fancy design things, it is the training of its crew and the degree of support it gets from other elements of the military forces.
You could have US tank crews drive old Sherman tanks and they would likely still outperform Iraqi tank crews driving the Abrams. Good education and training are hugely important for the performance of military equipment. And in most countries outside of the West and Russia (and maybe China) that training is often lacking.
The Israelis were using Shermans to fight modern Soviet tanks, albeit Monkey Models of them (...which damn, I recall one Dakka Dakka user saying those didn't exist. Either you or the other guy Iron Captain ). To this day we still see 50 year old tanks serving and beating their modern counterparts. Israel's the big example for how training and tactics beat technology, i.e the 5-1 loss ratio of Jordanian tanks to Israeli ones at the Valley of Tears (though that particular battle ended where after 3 days of no supply the Israelis were about to be overrun, before they (apparently) threatened to nuke Jordan - that at least being the Jordanian reason for why they had to retreat).
The world's moved away from massed tank battles, to them being used as tactical tools for supporting other elements. Tank on Tank conflicts are rare, and as such when facing up against infantry any sort of armoured vehicle has an edge. With infantry AT weapons and air support available however, armoured vehicles aren't as effective. That's probably why we're seeing more dedicated "anti-infantry/ air / light armoured vehicle" tanks being developed. I.e. like the Russian BMPT-72 and its Ukrainian T-64 counterpart, or one of the many Israeli IFVs with a dozen MGs and foot thick armour (America was interested in buying some Israeli armoured vehicles a few years ago. The deal fell through when they realised most of the Israeli vehicles were too heavy to transport).
Ah, and seeing as I'm just dumping caveats. Speaking of those Russian T-14 Armatas. Besides being able to be remote controlled like any other drone and using automated systems, the gateway to entry for training the crews is way lower than other tanks for another reason. ...It uses Playstation controllers for controlling it, mapped to something similar as you'd see in any popular video game. No levers. Playstation controllers.
The world we live in...
KTG17 wrote: Can't believe they just let that sit out there and rust.
Most Tank Museums don't have the floor space to keep most of their vehicles. The Tank Museum at Bovington has tons sitting behind the museum in its backlot. Of course the ones in storage could do with tarps...
That's in tandem with the limited budgets any museum has to face. However, military museums also tend to have ties to some government body or similar group. If you can't pay to give the things a new coat of paint every few years you invent an excuse to have some body come in and donate the funds for you to do it (i.e, rust potentially destroying the historic artifact). I think it was the Bovington museum which secured the funds for repainting all of its tanks a decade ago by saying that most of the paint used was before legislation against the lead content of paint came in, so having them on display was a safety hazard till they were repainted (even on the tanks which didn't have lead based paint, or had already been stripped and repainted...).
I love this little feature. I think the 74 and 90 have it as well
Leopard 2 has you there. Every tank comes with a completmentery beer (for precision testing):
My favorite part is how they make certain it has a good head of foam - just to double down on the stabilization rig's ability.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/08 15:44:35
Bender wrote:* Realise that despite the way people talk, this is not a professional sport played by demi gods, but rather a game of toy soldiers played by tired, inebriated human beings.
Leopard 2 has you there. Every tank comes with a completmentery beer (for precision testing):
My favorite part is how they make certain it has a good head of foam - just to double down on the stabilization rig's ability.
That... is the most German thing I have seen in my life. A panzer, beer, mustache and immaculate precision all combined in 16 seconds of video. Only way it could have been more German is if the guy had worn a pickelhaube instead of a beret.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/02/08 17:01:08
Anyone have a link to the last edition (more or less) datasheet for it in 40K?
The breeches of those guns can't fit inside those turrets. Its like GW/FW just stick a barrel on something and have anything inside the turret telelported into a bag of holding...
Not to mention that given the size of the shells required for those guns, and the comparatively massive amount of space allocated for the crew based on the placement of the hatches, the ammunition storage space is going to be minute.
The Imperium liberated Time Lord technology at some point during the Great Crusade, and have spent millennia studying it in top secret facilities. This has resulted in designs for all sorts of things that somehow seem... roomier than they should be.
Mandorallen turned back toward the insolently sneering baron. 'My Lord,' The great knight said distantly, 'I find thy face apelike and thy form misshapen. Thy beard, moreover, is an offence against decency, resembling more closely the scabrous fur which doth decorate the hinder portion of a mongrel dog than a proper adornment for a human face. Is it possibly that thy mother, seized by some wild lechery, did dally at some time past with a randy goat?' - Mimbrate Knight Protector Mandorallen.
Excerpt from "Seeress of Kell", Book Five of The Malloreon series by David Eddings.
"You need not fear us, unless you are a dark heart, a vile one who preys on the innocent; I promise, you can’t hide forever in the empty darkness, for we will hunt you down like the animals you are, and pull you into the very bowels of hell." Iron - Within Temptation
I just noticed the placement of the periscopes on that Stormhammer. They're above the guns. Right, bonus points for not knowing how tanks work - the periscopes are descending through the barrels of the guns, not counting wondering where the feth the crew are supposed to be seated (inside the guns?). Simarly the sponson guns wouldn't be able to move, as their rears would be obstructed by the tracks (and that's assuming that they're entirely remote controlled. If they had gunners then there's even more timey wimey space. Not to mention how anyone even accesses those sponsons in the field, unless you squeeze in between the roadwheels - and I mean literally lay on your stomach judging by their positions).
Ah, tangents. ...But Christ that is a badly designed model.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/08 23:17:28
I love this little feature. I think the 74 and 90 have it as well
Leopard 2 has you there. Every tank comes with a completmentery beer (for precision testing):
My favorite part is how they make certain it has a good head of foam - just to double down on the stabilization rig's ability.
I mean stabilization is one thing (of which the Leo2 is certainly one of the best), but the ability to completely tilt your tank in any direction is something else. It can "lean" "kneel" and "stand" depending on your need and automatically adjust for terrain.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
I love this little feature. I think the 74 and 90 have it as well
Leopard 2 has you there. Every tank comes with a completmentery beer (for precision testing):
My favorite part is how they make certain it has a good head of foam - just to double down on the stabilization rig's ability.
I mean stabilization is one thing (of which the Leo2 is certainly one of the best), but the ability to completely tilt your tank in any direction is something else. It can "lean" "kneel" and "stand" depending on your need and automatically adjust for terrain.
). To this day we still see 50 year old tanks serving and beating their modern counterparts. Israel's the big example for how training and tactics beat technology, i.e the 5-1 loss ratio of Jordanian tanks to Israeli ones at the Valley of Tears (though that particular battle ended where after 3 days of no supply the Israelis were about to be overrun, before they (apparently) threatened to nuke Jordan - that at least being the Jordanian reason for why they had to retreat).
