Coolest/Ugliest Weapons V5 - Bullpup AKs are the best - General

[QUOTE=Saza;43510074]the hellcat is my tank waifu [editline]12th January 2014[/editline] [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/05/Sturmtiger_2.jpg/300px-Sturmtiger_2.jpg[/img] [b]DADDY'S BACK[/b][/QUOTE] A Tiger and a Jagdpanther made love and created the SturmTiger i luv the hellcat too <3

then there's that retarded offspring (though I think it probably came before) Brummbar

[QUOTE=zupadupazupadude;43509665]To me a M4A1 Sherman with all the improvements that were made by the time Overlord began looks the sexiest: [IMG]http://www.track48.com/gallery/ww2/allied/american/tanks/m4a1-goh/m4a1-goh-header.jpg[/IMG] [/QUOTE] Crab is pretty boss. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/WtiF3rJ.png[/IMG] And the DD is neat. [IMG]http://www.scalemodeltips.com/uploads/GB-ShermanDD-1.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=Saza;43510126]then there's that retarded offspring (though I think it probably came before) Brummbar[/QUOTE] The Brummbar was 2 years before SturmTiger, that was when a Panzer IV made love to a StuG III and it went horribly wrong and Brummbar looked retarded and different. [editline]12th January 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Riller;43510144]Crab is pretty boss. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/WtiF3rJ.png[/IMG] And the DD is neat. [IMG]http://www.scalemodeltips.com/uploads/GB-ShermanDD-1.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] The US version of the Crab: [t]http://www.wwiivehicles.com/usa/tanks-medium/m4-medium-tank-sherman/t1e3-medium-tank-mine-roller-01.png[/t] doesn't look as cool

Just reading up on the Sherman DD, it's more insane than I remembered. They were launched four kilometers off coast, I thought it was only a couple hundred metres. They were fairly successful, despite being mostly remembered as being shit due to unlucky performance on Omaha, where a whole tank battalion sank due to rough seas.

[QUOTE=notrabies;43507570]I disagree. The hardest part of all rocketry is being able to carry enough fuel to push yourself, without bringing too much fuel that you can't go anywhere, so free acceleration to 300mph without having to bring any fuel or storage space for that fuel saves a tremendous amount of weight, which could definitely provide a large boost to a rocket's range. How much exactly I have no idea whatsoever, but it would certainly provide some tangible difference.[/QUOTE] Physically, the only difference between accelerating the tank rather than the projectile is that you need engines and fuel capable of propelling the tank and its missile, which will by necessity be much larger than those necessary just to propel the missile by the same amount. In other words, if your tank can't handle the additional weight of an additional stage on its payload, it certainly can't handle the weight of engines and fuel suitable for propelling itself, and there's nothing an engine on the launch platform can do that an engine on the missile itself couldn't. It's not done in real life because it's just not a physically sound concept, there's no reason not to just use a booster and jettison it as a first stage when empty like the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HGM-25A_Titan_I]Titan[/url] missiles.

On the topic of amphibious tanks... [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/Bundesarchiv_Bild_101II-MW-5674-45%2C_%C3%9Cbungen_mit_Panzer_III_f%C3%BCr_Unternehmen_Seel%C3%B6we.jpg[/IMG] Panzer III with [I]Tauchpanzer[/I] modification. Which is just a long rubber hose. It did not float. The Germans planned to [I]drive them along the sea-bed[/I] onto the coast of England. It was meant to function in up to 18 meters of water. Imagine throwing a track in that thing...

no a rocket doesn't use fuel nearly as efficient as a tank, which doesn't have to have a huge thrust to weight ratio, the reason why mobile tactical launchers never worked was because by bringing the rocket to the front you risk getting your nuke blown up, the whole point of these things is to have them be indestructible or untargetable [editline]12th January 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Riller;43510236]On the topic of amphibious tanks... [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/Bundesarchiv_Bild_101II-MW-5674-45%2C_%C3%9Cbungen_mit_Panzer_III_f%C3%BCr_Unternehmen_Seel%C3%B6we.jpg[/IMG] Panzer III with [I]Tauchpanzer[/I] modification. Which is just a long rubber hose. It did not float. The Germans planned to [I]drive them along the sea-bed[/I] onto the coast of England. It was meant to function in up to 18 meters of water. Imagine throwing a track in that thing...[/QUOTE] no the problem is at 18m the tank floated enough to just float above the seafloor, now you are 18m deep in a steel coffin that can't go forward or backwards and the hatch has enough pressure to kill you...

[QUOTE=Sableye;43510240] no the problem is at 18m the tank floated enough to just float above the seafloor, now you are 18m deep in a steel coffin that can't go forward or backwards and the hatch has enough pressure to kill you...[/QUOTE] Not really. In fact, the tanks were not able to stop once submerged, because if they did, they would sink into the soft sea-bed. Floatation was most certainly not their main problem.

[QUOTE=Sableye;43510240]no a rocket doesn't use fuel nearly as efficient as a tank, which doesn't have to have a huge thrust to weight ratio, the reason why mobile tactical launchers never worked was because by bringing the rocket to the front you risk getting your nuke blown up, the whole point of these things is to have them be indestructible or untargetable[/QUOTE] That's a tank physically bringing the rocket to the front. Not using giant jet engines to accelerate the tank to 300mph which is the same thing you'd be doing on the rocket.

The Elefant tank destroyer: [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/07/Elefant_USAOM-01.jpg[/IMG] This thing's worst enemy were hills. [editline]12th January 2014[/editline] M4A4 Sherman Tulip: [IMG]http://thetoyhq.com/shop/images/DRR60307.jpg[/IMG] These things had Hawker Typhoon rockets attached to them. [editline]12th January 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Riller;43510195]Just reading up on the Sherman DD, it's more insane than I remembered. They were launched four kilometers off coast, I thought it was only a couple hundred metres. They were fairly successful, despite being mostly remembered as being shit due to unlucky performance on Omaha, where a whole tank battalion sank due to rough seas.[/QUOTE] On Sword and Omaha they were launched 4 kilometers off-shore, on Juno, Utah and Gold they were launched a few hundred metres off the beach.

[QUOTE=zupadupazupadude;43511045] On Sword and Omaha they were launched 4 kilometers off-shore, on Juno, Utah and Gold they were launched a few hundred metres off the beach.[/QUOTE] And at one later point, crossing the Rhine, they swam 11 kilometers. Daaaaang, gurl.

Here's a M4A4 Sherman with its DD equipment still on protecting a Horsa glider: [t]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/Sherman_tank_and_Horsa_glider.jpg[/t]

[img]http://i1134.photobucket.com/albums/m614/nachoinigo/Covenanter/P1007.jpg[/img] I love the look of the Covenanter, even if it wasn't all that great of a tank.

Y'all aint got shit on the T29. [IMG]http://www.wwiivehicles.com/usa/tanks-heavy/t29-heavy-tank/t29e3-heavy-tank-04.png[/IMG] Glorious waifu [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/ARVN_M41_Walker_Bulldog.jpg[/IMG] Have a M41 Walker Bulldog as well. Because why the fuck not.

[IMG]http://i467.photobucket.com/albums/rr37/Bobmilpic/Danish military vehicles/IMG_8434.jpg[/IMG] M41 DK1. Danish upgrade of the Walker Bulldog. Can't for the life of me figure when it was phased out, but they were adopted in 1962, so it probably was late 80's or something. Make that mid-90's. The DK1 upgrade was finished in 1987, so must be after that.

[video=youtube;zhK8L0PgPdA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhK8L0PgPdA[/video] Goliath's are fantastic.

Panzerkampfwagen VIII Maus AKA Bigblockofsteelontracks: [t]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/18/Metro-maus1.jpg[/t]

[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/4GFiGkh.jpg[/IMG] Norwegian M-24 Chaffee upgrade. Was phased out in 1993. [IMG]http://media.desura.com/images/groups/1/3/2074/120SMainBattleTankHR.jpg[/IMG] M60 Patton 120S upgrade. Basically, poor man's M1A2. I quite like upgraded old tanks. They're charming.

Ratte tank [IMG]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_-oIwv0KgojY/TAieuLG-YaI/AAAAAAAAAZI/dxCuzpOWTGw/s1600/DVC00116.jpg[/IMG] Unfortunately this was never made, Only designed.

I really like that Chaffee. Angular Norwegian camo patterns make everything better. And if it was ever built, wouldn't the Ratte have just gotten stuck everywhere and been a massive target for aircraft to bomb the shit out of?

[QUOTE=Lawligagger;43513398][b]Unfortunately[/b] this was never made, Only designed.[/QUOTE] I honestly don't understand when anyone says this. "Yes, it's unfortunate that this massive waste of time, resources, and manpower was never built!" It looks cool, yeah, but this isn't the Warhammer 40k universe. That thing would have been insanely impractical in every way possible.

[QUOTE=TAU!;43513440]I honestly don't understand when anyone says this. "Yes, it's unfortunate that this massive waste of time, resources, and manpower was never built!" It looks cool, yeah, but this isn't the Warhammer 40k universe. That thing would have been insanely impractical in every way possible.[/QUOTE] I find it more of a novelty, if this thing were to be created, it wouldn't be able to go anywhere effectively, as well as having to worry about getting bombed.

[QUOTE=FloaterTWO;43513408][b]And if it was ever built, wouldn't the Ratte have just gotten stuck everywhere and been a massive target for aircraft to bomb the shit out of?[/b][/QUOTE] Just like every other 100:1 scale monster weapon the Axis had drawn up during WWII, it would have been another massive target to be shelled, bombarded, and bombed to hell and back. If the Axis [i]really[/i] wanted to do equal/greater damage than their stupid giganto-kill-tanks, they should have just mass produced atomic bombs and obliterated their enemies with them. But, [u]fortunately[/u], they did neither. [editline]12th January 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Lawligagger;43513470]I find it more of a novelty, if this thing were to be created, it wouldn't be able to go anywhere effectively, as well as having to worry about getting bombed.[/QUOTE] Yes, and then the British would have more things to poke fun at Germany about. Oh, could you imagine the embarrassment? :v: [i]"Remember that time the Jerries tried to drive their Rattes over the Channel and finish the Blitz permanently? Nope, I only remember their drowning crews and the water running black from leaking fuel!"[/i]

[QUOTE=TAU!;43513481]Just like every other 100:1 scale monster weapon the Axis had drawn up during WWII, it would have been another massive target to be shelled, bombarded, and bombed to hell and back. If the Axis [i]really[/i] wanted to do equal/greater damage than their stupid giganto-kill-tanks, they should have just mass produced atomic bombs and obliterated their enemies with them. [/QUOTE] [IMG]http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2010/255/f/3/russian_land_battleship_kv_vi_by_vonbrrr-d2yk6b3.jpg[/IMG] Turns out some of these might have actually been made, They died in hilarious ways. one of them driving over a wide trench and cracking in half due to it's own weight, and the other falling onto it's side after shooting it's big mainguns.

The fact it existed, and killed itself twice is hilarious.

AFAIK they didn't ever exist, the only 'photos' are photoshops and they're just completely made up. Is there any actual legitimate proof of them being a thing? I always thought they were a hoax but it'd be interesting if they were real.

[QUOTE=Lawligagger;43513536][IMG]http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2010/255/f/3/russian_land_battleship_kv_vi_by_vonbrrr-d2yk6b3.jpg[/IMG] Turns out some of these might have actually been made, They died in hilarious ways. one of them driving over a wide trench and cracking in half due to it's own weight, and the other falling onto it's side after shooting it's big mainguns.[/QUOTE] Pretty sure they've been confirmed as fake.

[QUOTE=Riller;43513688]Pretty sure they've been confirmed as fake.[/QUOTE] Well Shit. On another note, I recall seeing this a few months back as a polish concept tank. [IMG]http://www.armyrecognition.com/images/stories/east_europe/poland/main_battle_tank/pl-01_concept/PL-01_concept_direct_fire_support_tracked_combat_vehicle_Obrum_Polish_Defence_Holding_industry_military_technology_640_001.jpg[/IMG] Looks like a Sci-fi tank.

Found the 'only known photo' of it. It's hilarious. [IMG]http://blog.tankpedia.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/behemoth-tank.jpg[/IMG] It's literally just a picture of [I]one[/I] T-28 that's been poorly cut-and-pasted onto itself.