Not sure if anyone's posted it yet, but Stalin's Orchestra isn't real. Someone made that model by putting parts of various models together. It unfortunately never existed.
[editline]11:28PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=PEn1s lol;20976187]The T-80 is still a Great tank and so is the T-84. The T-80 and T-84 are better then the T-90
[editline]06:29PM[/editline]
[IMG]http://www.pycomall.com/images/P/Su47.gif[/IMG]
I can hear your land attack plane crying[/QUOTE]
I hear Russia's economy crying.
[QUOTE=PEn1s lol;20976187]The T-80 is still a Great tank and so is the T-84. The T-80 and T-84 are better then the T-90
[editline]06:29PM[/editline]
[img]http://www.pycomall.com/images/P/Su47.gif[/img]
I can hear your land attack plane crying[/QUOTE]
[img]http://pvo.guns.ru/images/expo/mspo2002/SAM-6_Missile_Poland_MSPO_01.JPG[/img]
I hear your airplane falling to earth in a manner most satisfying.
[QUOTE=jeimizu;21157555]Not sure if anyone's posted it yet, but Stalin's Orchestra isn't real. Someone made that model by putting parts of various models together. It unfortunately never existed.[/QUOTE]
Any proof to back that out?
[editline]09:37AM[/editline]
AFter some reseearch it is indeed fake. No other info exists of it other than that model image and the exact same story.
Shame, really. Stalin never said "It'll drive straight to berlin!"
[quote=certaindoom;21053187]but atleast the sheridan looked good and actually had a decent gun.[/quote]
It's made out of fucking ALUMINUM.
[editline]01:41AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=3v3ryb0dy;21122714]I just can't get over how huge the turret is on this assault gun.
[IMG]http://www.hsgalleries.com/gallery04/images/kv2lp_1.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
KV-2s were suprisingly good little tanks for being an assault gun but that huge turret with its slopes made a easy target for some of the post-43 German weapons.
[QUOTE=Linelor;21158333]KV-2s were suprisingly good little tanks for being an assault gun but that huge turret with its slopes made a easy target for some of the post-43 German weapons.[/QUOTE]
That is, until...
[img]http://fichtenfoo.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/fichtenfoo-kvx2-151.jpg[/img]
While it's an awesome model, it would collapse under it's own weight. Joints seem awfully weak for a cannon of that volume
[editline]01:22PM[/editline]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mv4Rmy1f6as[/media]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=2GJD-n_KcEE&feature=related]or this walkey thing[/url]
If only the tank designers would look in this direction :sigh:
I think ill stick with treads, the walker above is too noisy and too slow, but no doubt in the future it could be more advanced.
Noise is not an issue. Tanks aren't designed to be supasilentkilla1337 either. They are quite fucking loud.
[QUOTE=3v3ryb0dy;21160300]While it's an awesome model, it would collapse under it's own weight. Joints seem awfully weak for a cannon of that volume
[editline]01:22PM[/editline]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mv4Rmy1f6as[/media]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=2GJD-n_KcEE&feature=related]or this walkey thing[/url]
If only the tank designers would look in this direction :sigh:[/QUOTE]
It would probably fare well in urban warfare if given more mobility, but it would most likely be pretty worthless in other scenarios.
[QUOTE=3v3ryb0dy;21160300][url=http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=2GJD-n_KcEE&feature=related]or this walkey thing[/url]
If only the tank designers would look in this direction :sigh:[/QUOTE]
Only as a direct fire support vehicle for light infantry and paratroopers and probably as a reconnaissance vehicle if the terrain is bad. Its possible advantages over a conventional vehicle in urban warfare is that they are able to elevate their main weapons at multistory enemy positions and step over roadblocks. Nevertheless they'll still need a healthy amount of infantry support to stay alive in that environment.
Why paratroopers? I don't see any walking tank being near them. I doubt they can be airdropped.
[QUOTE=Tac Error;21166634]Only as a direct fire support vehicle for light infantry and paratroopers and probably as a reconnaissance vehicle if the terrain is bad. Its possible advantages over a conventional vehicle in urban warfare is that they are able to elevate their main weapons at multistory enemy positions and step over roadblocks. Nevertheless they'll still need a healthy amount of infantry support to stay alive in that environment.[/QUOTE]
Paratroopers operate as guerrillas and hit and run warfare. They don't use tanks and such, and the ones that do exist are about the size of a VW Beetle
We've seen airplane tanks, battleship tanks, and even spider tanks, but where are the airship tanks? The German's had to have gave it thought!
[QUOTE=Conscript;21166712]Why paratroopers? I don't see any walking tank being near them. I doubt they can be airdropped.[/QUOTE]
Depends on the size. If this was 70-100 years in the future and we had the technology to build and field say a 4m walker, it would be a useful organic support vehicle for light forces particularly in rough terrain (Afghanistan, Korea) . Infantry can do the job just fine, but it's often shown in practice that ground based armored support reduces casualties and increases operational effectiveness of a force. You can fight fine without them (or any kind of support for that matter) but if you have the technology and funds to field them, sensibility says why not?
Other than that, let's end the walker talk here, alright?
[QUOTE=Im Crimson;20956227]Actually...
When the crossbow first began to see battle around Europe, some wanted them banned (the church, possibly?) because of how their "unfair power" allowed a mere peasant with a few hours of target practice (and the right bolts) to kill a horseback knight in armor who had spent a lifetime in combat training.[/QUOTE]
If people didn't use different tactics, the Americans would have lost the war of independance.
Besides, a cobra or apache could take out a tank as quick as a tank could take out a soldier.
But wahat if the tank aws composd of lasers
[IMG]http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/images/content/122809main_crime-laser.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Pvt. Martin;20914128][img]http://www.normandybattlefields.com/mapphotos/25-tiger_tank.jpg[/img]
CLassic Tiger Tank[/QUOTE]
If i were a tank commander given the choice i would've rather gone for the Panzer MkIV
[QUOTE=Sean C;21167084]We've seen airplane tanks, battleship tanks, and even spider tanks, but where are the airship tanks? The German's had to have gave it thought![/QUOTE]
Because they're huge, slow, and one hit turns them into a massive falling fireball.
[QUOTE=PEn1s lol;20976187]The T-80 is still a Great tank and so is the T-84. The T-80 and T-84 are better then the T-90
[/QUOTE]
They all have one fatal flaw, a nade down the exhaust pipe which is easily located and it's out of action.
[editline]09:03PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Linelor;21169194]Because they're huge, slow, and one hit turns them into a massive falling fireball.[/QUOTE]
Read:Hindenburg disaster.
[QUOTE=MachiniOs;21169166]If i were a tank commander given the choice i would've rather gone for the Panzer MkIV[/QUOTE]
I would want a King Tiger.
[QUOTE=Kyle902;21169974]I would want a King Tiger.[/QUOTE]
and then have it break down after some miles
so many tanks... but no anti-tank.
what now bitches!
[IMG]http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/infantry/antiarmor/Javelin/Javelin_02.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t95.jpg[/IMG]
That looks like it's going really fast, I mean, seriously fast. But it could be not moving at all, who knows?:iiam:
[QUOTE=Firefox42;21171321]so many tanks... but no anti-tank.
what now bitches!
[IMG]http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/infantry/antiarmor/Javelin/Javelin_02.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=OvB;20986481][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icJOjKwn_7Y[/media]
I'm not so sure about that.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=SoupCan;21171449][IMG]http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t95.jpg[/IMG]
That looks like it's going really fast, I mean, seriously fast. But it could be not moving at all, who knows?:iiam:[/QUOTE]
There is fumes coming from the exhaust so yes, it is moving.
[IMG]http://www.need4speed.ro/userfiles/image/masinile%20apocalipsei/9.jpg[/IMG]
The ZIL-2906
Not a true AFV (neither armored nor armed), but awesome none the less.
[QUOTE=MachiniOs;21169166]If i were a tank commander given the choice i would've rather gone for the Panzer MkIV[/QUOTE]
No you wouldn't because the tiger had thicker armor, a better gun and on top of that it was faster (I'm talking later model PZIVs with appliqué armor).
[QUOTE=3v3ryb0dy;21160300]While it's an awesome model, it would collapse under it's own weight. Joints seem awfully weak for a cannon of that volume
[editline]01:22PM[/editline]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mv4Rmy1f6as[/media]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=2GJD-n_KcEE&feature=related]or this walkey thing[/url]
If only the tank designers would look in this direction :sigh:[/QUOTE]
The main issue with waker type tanks is maintenance. Wheels and treads are *reasonably* easy to change in combat, legs are not. Speed is another factor. With todays technology a walker type tank would not be able to keep up with the rest of the ground fleet for vehicle maneuvers.
A walker type tank would be a very purpose built vehicle that would only serve a limited area with todays military. With plenty of other vehicles that can already cover said areas there is no reason to make such a vehicle.
[QUOTE=LordLoss;20934735]The thing is though, the Allies could afford to lose 500 tanks (and sadly crews) for every 50 KTs. The Axis however could not afford to replace 50 KTs. Theres no point building the bestest tank evar if you can only have a handful, when the enemy is throwing thousands of inferior tanks at you.
If you put all of the T-90s, CR2s, M1A2, L2A6s and Merkervas in existance on a giant field, and put them up against every T-55, T-62, T-72 and T-80 in existance, fully crewed to the standard of each representive nation, the western forces would lose, easily.[/QUOTE]
stop posting why do you feel you need to troll an educational thread?
[editline]04:57PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ignhelper;20935704]Am I the only one that love modern russian AFVs here? The T-90 is awesome, and I like the BTRs also.
Did I mention that the black eagle tank is also fucking badass?
[img]http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/MBT/640.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
No they aren't awesome, they are cramped, uncomfortable, old and combat proven to fail their crews in combat. History has proven Russian AFVs to be inherently flawed against western counterparts. Hell in the six day war Israel fielded modified Sherman tanks against Egyptian T-55s and they had an outstanding k/d ratio.
American teenagers that respect the USSR because they played red alert 2 growing up blow my mind.
[editline]04:58PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Conscript;21170068]and then have it break down after some miles[/QUOTE]
I'd rather it broke down and the crew got out alive than destroyed along with its crew against another tank.
[QUOTE=Idi Amin;21171802]No they aren't awesome, they are cramped, uncomfortable, old and combat proven to fail their crews in combat. History has proven Russian AFVs to be inherently flawed against western counterparts. Hell in the six day war Israel fielded modified Sherman tanks against Egyptian T-55s and they had an outstanding k/d ratio.[/QUOTE]
Note that the Soviets never exported their top of the line tanks during the Cold War. Take the T-72 for example. The Soviet Army kept models like the T-72A and T-72B while their Warsaw Pact puppets produced the T-72M with no composite armor, lower grade steel, penetrators made of inferior materials and obsolete night vision sights or none at all. It was the inferior T-72M that Coalition forces faced during Desert Storm.
Yes, they were cramped and uncomfortable and had primitive gunnery systems compared to NATO ones, but since the Soviets didn't cross the Fulda Gap there's no way in telling how they would actually perform in their intended role. You could mention the Battle of Grozny as an example of Russian armor failure but remember, the USSR just collapsed and the Russian Army was a shadow of its former self with plenty of obsolete equipment and poor training due to the fact their military budget went to hell.
Oh, was the T-34 a tank proven to fail their crews in combat? I wonder how in the hell they managed to win those armored battles like Kursk.
[QUOTE=MachiniOs;21169275]They all have one fatal flaw, a nade down the exhaust pipe which is easily located and it's out of action.
[editline]09:03PM[/editline]
Read:Hindenburg disaster.[/QUOTE]
A tank's supporting arms (infantry, BMPs, SAMs) aren't deaf, dumb and blind.
Also, all modern tanks of Soviet origin use a carousel autoloader, so if a round penetrates and ignites the ammo, it is one dead tank. The Ukrainian designed T-84 is an exception with its Western-style turret that has ammo blowout doors in the turret bustle in the same fashion as the Abrams.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
