Tank turret upside down?
Discussion
FF to 10 seconds in (or just watch the whole thing!):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUq2B-s4zAM&fea...
...or why it's a silly idea to join a tank regiment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ARjuTKdiIk&fea...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUq2B-s4zAM&fea...
...or why it's a silly idea to join a tank regiment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ARjuTKdiIk&fea...
Edited by dr_gn on Sunday 5th July 23:23
Nick_F said:
...because of course you're much safer out in the open on your own two feet.
Agreed: tanks are great for use against unarmed civilians or third world armies, but in an action against any modern army you'd be F**ked.At least on your own two feet you can make yourself a lot less conspicuous than a tank, which would seem like a logical target for an anti-tank weapon.
dr_gn said:
Agreed: tanks are great for use against unarmed civilians or third world armies, but in an action against any modern army you'd be F**ked.
At least on your own two feet you can make yourself a lot less conspicuous than a tank, which would seem like a logical target for an anti-tank weapon.
Kinda thought Nick was being facetious? (Poss not, hard to tell!)At least on your own two feet you can make yourself a lot less conspicuous than a tank, which would seem like a logical target for an anti-tank weapon.
Those links are excellent/scary. Cheers.
DrTre said:
dr_gn said:
Agreed: tanks are great for use against unarmed civilians or third world armies, but in an action against any modern army you'd be F**ked.
At least on your own two feet you can make yourself a lot less conspicuous than a tank, which would seem like a logical target for an anti-tank weapon.
Kinda thought Nick was being facetious? (Poss not, hard to tell!)At least on your own two feet you can make yourself a lot less conspicuous than a tank, which would seem like a logical target for an anti-tank weapon.
Those links are excellent/scary. Cheers.
Cheers.
dr_gn said:
FF to 10 seconds in (or just watch the whole thing!):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUq2B-s4zAM&fea...
...or why it's a silly idea to join a tank regiment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ARjuTKdiIk&fea...
That second video scares the shttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUq2B-s4zAM&fea...
...or why it's a silly idea to join a tank regiment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ARjuTKdiIk&fea...
Edited by dr_gn on Sunday 5th July 23:23
t out of me 
I think however you'd be gone the millisecond the shell penetrated the armour
dr_gn said:
Nick_F said:
Next time there's a high-intensity conflict I'll have a CR2 and you can have a truck for when your feet get tired from running away from the nasty airburst artillery and stuff...
Next stop man-portable beam-riding KE missiles and we'll go round the houses again, of course.
Ready for the beard?
The T-72 - which is what that appears to be (in Ukrainian spec) has/had one serious design flaw; The Autoloading Carousel. Effectively there is a bloody great rack of live shells in the turret (or above the hull line) just waiting to go bang in the event of penetrating hit in the turret. (as opposed to US/UK/NATO designs which have the charge and rounds as low down as possible in the hull. Most T-72s which have a penetrating hit in the turret suffer catastrophic explosion in the autoloader - the result is normally blowing the turret off.
In effect, the T-72's design ensures it's death - a comparable hit on a Chieftain or Leopard of the same era wouldn't necessarily be so catastrophic.
The T-72 - which is what that appears to be (in Ukrainian spec) has/had one serious design flaw; The Autoloading Carousel. Effectively there is a bloody great rack of live shells in the turret (or above the hull line) just waiting to go bang in the event of penetrating hit in the turret. (as opposed to US/UK/NATO designs which have the charge and rounds as low down as possible in the hull. Most T-72s which have a penetrating hit in the turret suffer catastrophic explosion in the autoloader - the result is normally blowing the turret off.
In effect, the T-72's design ensures it's death - a comparable hit on a Chieftain or Leopard of the same era wouldn't necessarily be so catastrophic.
Nick_F said:
dr_gn said:
Nick_F said:
Next time there's a high-intensity conflict I'll have a CR2 and you can have a truck for when your feet get tired from running away from the nasty airburst artillery and stuff...
Next stop man-portable beam-riding KE missiles and we'll go round the houses again, of course.
"Javelin is a fire-and-forget missile with lock-on before launch and automatic self-guidance."
So presumably can't be jammed once in flight since its a type of vision system?
"The tandem warhead is fitted with two shaped charges: a precursor warhead to initiate explosive reactive armour and a main warhead to penetrate base armour."
Which presumably does what it says on the tin?
dr_gn said:
some stuff
Fire and forget is not much help if your target sees your firing signature, pops thermally opaque smoke and hops it in high reverse; equally it does at least give you the chance to leg it yourself - if your feet aren't too tired, that is - since you don't have to sit there and fly it.Tandem charges conceived to counter Soviet/Israeli-style ERA packs used to upgrade the protection offered by otherwise vulnerable cast or RHS-armoured T-72, M60 and others. Pretty effective if that's what you're shooting at, but not automatically so against composite armour.
You need top attack, or a way to take 'em from behind. Or maybe to go and bury a load of old 155mm HE and hope someone drives over them. As if...
My beard's not as thick as '76's - I haven't the time...
Nick_F said:
dr_gn said:
some stuff
You need top attack, or a way to take 'em from behind. Whatever, if I was in a tank, and I knew a few dozen people with those things were running around I'd be crapping myself.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff