[QUOTE=Im Crimson;20919940]Because the Challenger had a better survival ratio in Afghanistan :smugdog:[/QUOTE]
guarantee if the two ever went up against each other, the Abrams would come out on top.
Thank god we will never see that happen though, last thing I want to do if i'm a tanker is shoot at British people :love:
I still see no reason why the P1000 Ratte couldn't be built :colbert:
[IMG]http://www.neoteo.com/Portals/0/imagenes/cache/9339x1024y768.jpg[/IMG]
German Scientist - [I]"Mein Fuhrer, ve have discovered that splitting ze atom releases massive amounts of energy! Ve could veponize this into a new kind of Uberbomb!"
[/I]
Hitler - [I]"NEIN! I want a tank zat is 35 FEET TALL AND HAS NAVAL CANNONS ON IT! Build me zis tank NOW!"
[/I]German Scientist - [I]"Fuck zis, I'm defecting."[/I]
Seriously though, that tank would have been the most badass thing to ever exist if it was actually feasibly possible.
[QUOTE=frankie penis;20917412]challenger 2 tank bitches, this thing can go to nearly 40mph.
[img]http://www.enemyforces.net/tanks/challenger2.jpg[/img]
[editline]05:09PM[/editline]
fuck, the thought of that thing racing towards you will make you shit bricks[/QUOTE]
I'm pretty sure anything weighing in at over 60 tons racing towards you at 40MPH you will cause bricks to be shit, before it smears them and you into a paste on the wall so hard it's scientifically impossible to tell the two apart.
[IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/17/T-28-1.jpg[/IMG]
fap fap fap
Why, Hello new background(s).
[url]http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/6888/m3tank1942b.jpg[/url]
[url]http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/1623/m3front.jpg[/url]
TOO BIG FOR THE FORUMS.
Good spot of information, FT-17 reminds me of advance wars, can't say why.
There's only been 2 challengers damaged in combat and only one destroyed.
In one engagement a Challenger survived 14 hits from rocket propelled grenades and from one MILAN anti tank missile The only damage of that was 2 sights messed up and thrown tracks. Another was hit by around 70 RPG's, coming out from that relatively unscathed.
Of the two that were damaged, the most severe injury was the loss of a leg, the next one was loss of three toes, there has been another crewman injured in them but that was minor injuries.
Challenger 2 also has a onboard kettle perfect for those mid war cups of tea. It can also fire as accurate while moving as it can while standing still, which few tanks actually can do.
[QUOTE=The Vman;20920889]I still see no reason why the P1000 Ratte couldn't be built :colbert:
[IMG]http://www.neoteo.com/Portals/0/imagenes/cache/9339x1024y768.jpg[/IMG]
German Scientist - [I]"Mein Fuhrer, ve have discovered that splitting ze atom releases massive amounts of energy! Ve could veponize this into a new kind of Uberbomb!"
[/I]
Hitler - [I]"NEIN! I want a tank zat is 35 FEET TALL AND HAS NAVAL CANNONS ON IT! Build me zis tank NOW!"
[/I]German Scientist - [I]"Fuck zis, I'm defecting."[/I]
Seriously though, that tank would have been the most badass thing to ever exist if it was actually feasibly possible.[/QUOTE]
The Germans where developing nuclear weapons, they even had places manufacturing heavy water for the purpose, they just didn't create it in time, likely because they scared off most of their scientists with their hatred of Jews. Hell wasn't the guy who helped design the USA's A-bomb a German scientist?
Here's a wiki page on it [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_nuclear_energy_project[/url]
The Germans where so incredibly advanced, imagine what would have happened if they hadn't made so many mistakes.
Why has no one posted [URL="http://strangevehicles.greyfalcon.us/PANZERKAMPFWAGEN%20VIII%20MAUS.htm"]this[/URL] yet?
[IMG]http://strangevehicles.greyfalcon.us/Pictures/mau16.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://strangevehicles.greyfalcon.us/Pictures/mau11.png[/IMG]
The Maus was one of the Germany's insane vehicle ideas made during WWII which actually left the drawing board and entered the prototype stage. It had a 128mm, armor with a range of 60-240 mm in thickness, and it weighed 188 tons. It was also so hard to transport, it even had it's own railroad transport car because it was so huge.
[IMG]http://strangevehicles.greyfalcon.us/Pictures/mau17.jpg[/IMG]
Actually I can't confirm this, but I heard the very very first tank was french made.
It was just a stage coach like vehicle that was covered with sheets of metal and horse drawn.
Apparently those frenchies first used it in WWI.
Pretty intimidating right? Seeing a metal monstrosity being slowly pulled through no man's land by a few muscular horses, and guns sticking out everywhere.
Well not really, because apparently, the Germans just shot the horses leaving the carriage stuck in no man's land. And since they were all soldered in, the french gunners inside couldn't get out.
Obviously, genius engineering let this baby haet up to around an estimated 150 degreees +
pressure cooking anyone inside.
Apparently.
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/Crusader_tank_III.jpg[/img]
One of the most important tanks the British developed during the second world war. And used to devastating effect during the Africa campaign against romel. Suffered from unreliability during its first few months until a new air filter with a sand guard was fitted as standard. Then it could outpace and outmaneuver the German tanks which would get bogged down due to design flaws that let sand get into the gearing mounts on the tracks, clogging up the axles and wrecking them. Turning them into bunkers with a gun turret (AKA sitting ducks)
[QUOTE=Jimjim32;20922029]Good spot of information, FT-17 reminds me of advance wars, can't say why.[/QUOTE]
It's the light tank that blue comet use I think.
[QUOTE=cherry gmod;20923311][img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/Crusader_tank_III.jpg[/img]
One of the most important tanks the British developed during the second world war. And used to devastating effect during the Africa campaign against romel. Suffered from unreliability during its first few months until a new air filter with a sand guard was fitted as standard. Then it could outpace and outmaneuver the German tanks which would get bogged down due to design flaws that let sand get into the gearing mounts on the tracks, clogging up the axles and wrecking them. Turning them into bunkers with a gun turret (AKA sitting ducks)[/QUOTE]
Was a pretty useless piece of kit, until we stuck a 6pdr gun on it instead of the 2pdr.
What about the Leopard 2? Alongside the Abrams, Challenger, T-90 and Merkava, it's one of the best main battle tanks in the world.
[img]http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/2195/leopard2a48bq.jpg[/img]
A6 model:
[IMG]http://i44.tinypic.com/oaywj9.png[/IMG]
I kinda like the Le Clerc, although to be honest it looks very similar to the Abrams at many angles:
[img]http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/7663/800pxleclercopenphotonewi3.jpg[/img]
ZSU-23-4. The Shilka![IMG]http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k21/Kai365/toot.gif[/IMG]
[img]http://www.enemyforces.net/artillery/shilka.jpg[/img]
[img]http://armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/Modern/Shilka/shilka_10.jpg[/img]
Four 23mm 2A7 Cannons watching the skies.
Apparently they stopped production in 1982 but are still used.
[QUOTE=Orkel;20923668]What about the Leopard 2? Alongside the Abrams, Challenger, T-90 and Merkava, it's one of the best main battle tanks in the world.[/QUOTE]
I remember when the Bundeswehr were planning on mounting a giant 140mm smoothbore gun to counter the next generation of Soviet main battle tanks. Too bad the Cold War ended.
Ok I'll do a short thing on failed WWI designs.
First off: The K-Wagen!
[img]http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y40/Plynkes/72_K-Wagen_09.jpg[/img]
This German beast was thought up around the same time as the A7V. The War Ministry wanted a heavy tank heavier then the goddamned house they were already planning, so they came up with the K-Wagen. It originally weighed [B]165 tons[/B], but they decided they would cut it down to a more manageable 120. They couldn't even transport the thing whole, so they would have had to break it up and ship it by rail to be assembled near the front as needed. Two of these were almost actually completed, but the Armistice ordered them and all other tanks destroyed.
[img]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3016/2972084346_7e666e8e32.jpg?v=0[/img]
Here they are in the factory. The K-Wagen had four main cannons, more than any other existing tank of the time. Seven MG08 machine guns were located around the hull. The Germans actually saw this tank as a landship.
Now onto another, the Lebedenko Tank, better known as the Tsar Tank.
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/Tsar_tank.jpg[/img]
This is what happens when you give Russian engineers too much guns, money, and vodka.
(Yes, this was actually built and driven.)
As you have probably noticed, this thing is even more batshit insane then all the other tanks i've covered combined. This thing is powered by two engines normally used in airships, one for each wheel. The guns were supposed to be mounted in the central tower and to the side of the wheels, as shown in this scale model. The experimental model that was actually built was not armed.
[img]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_qsZFggp2bPg/SJjAqlKPwSI/AAAAAAAAAAU/_VqaiOck6Mo/s400/tsar_tank_1to35scale_model.jpg[/img]
Now, you might be saying, "Jesus Christ, how did this thing even work?" The answer would be it barely did. The wheels were supposed to be quite good at crossing obstacles. The front ones, anyways. The back wheels, due to weight miscalculation, would be prone to getting stuck in things with the front wheels unable to pull them out. The thing was also huge as shit and thus easy as fuck to hit with artillery. This tank would have got nowhere, but it is interesting to see the closest we have ever gotten to the so called "trench destroyers".
[img]http://airminded.org/wp-content/img/magazines/electricalexperimenter191702.jpg[/img]
We thought this was the future.
But hold on. It gets even weirder. Meet the Boirault Machine:
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/69/Boirault_machine_underway.jpg[/img]
This thing still has me at a loss for words. Here's a diagram on how it moves.
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b3/Boirault_machine_mouvements.jpg/292px-Boirault_machine_mouvements.jpg[/img]
This thing was built before even Little Willie. And it worked exactly as shown above. It even managed to cross a few trenches. But of course, you couldn't steer the damned thing worth shit and it was even SLOWER than Little Willie.
Eventually a second, smaller version was built.
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/81/Second_Boirault_machine_II.jpg[/img]
This was slightly better, although in the sense that a turd sprayed with air freshener is better than a turd that isn't. It could actually turn, but the turning radius was 100 meters.
One more quicky:
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/US_Army_Corps_Of_Engineers_Steam_Tank_1918.jpg[/img]
Here's one some of you might like. Why is that? Well, this here tank specimen was produced by the US in 1918. As you can see, it's quite ugly. It's not the look or the place of origin that is weird, but the fact that the tank [B]is powered by a steam engine.[/B] That's right, a Steam Tank. What's more? It worked. And another thing, the main weapon is a flamethrower.
Now as you can imagine, riding around in a tank full of flamethrower fuel and high-pressure steam boilers isn't exactly the greatest thing imaginable. One can only imagine what one of these would do if it was hit directly by artillery.
[QUOTE=Inplabth;20926072][img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/Sturmtiger_frontal.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
Tank Choad :v:
[QUOTE=Inplabth;20926072]Nazi Germany had some truly odd designs during WWII. (Revised sentence because the guy above me ninja'd me, and those are the strangest designs I've ever seen) Take, for example the Sturmtiger. This thing had a 380mm rocket launcher. It probably wasn't practical, but imagine looking down the bore of that monster!
[img_thumb]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/Sturmtiger_frontal.jpg[/img_thumb]
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmtiger]Sturmtiger Wiki Page[/url][/QUOTE]
That's not a rocket launcher, that's a naval gun.
[QUOTE=Javascript;20915702][IMG]http://cdn-www.cracked.com/articleimages/randall/MilitaryVehicles/MVScooter2.jpg[/IMG]
Not so much a tank, just a... well, it's a moped with a fucking cannon in it. Used by the French (:v:) mid WWII. Yes, they actually killed shit with these abominations.[/QUOTE]
No, they didn't use it during WWII. They used it during the war in Algeria in the 1950s.
[QUOTE=PrismatexV8;20914120]WWI tanks look weird.
The pinnacle of tank styling was the T-34.
[img]http://www.saunalahti.fi/~ejuhola/7.62/t34-85a.jpg[/img]
[b]Prove me wrong.[/b]
Also, good thread. Interesting how in both WWI and WWII, when the Germans finally got the good shit, they were too deep in shit to get shit. [/QUOTE]
Sure thing bro
[img]http://www.aberjonapress.com/catalog/sh/images/kingtiger.jpg[/img]
Also, must take the opportunity to post my favorite tank destroyer:
[img]http://www.wbracing.com/Military%20Museums/Aberdeen%20Proving%20Grounds/_w/jagdpanther_jpg.jpg[/img]
Also, you're last statement is vaguely incorrect.
I've noticed the complete lack of a turret on that tank destroyer.
[QUOTE=j-richardson;20916416]dunga dunga!!!
MASTIFF LET'S GO
[IMG]http://www.snipersystems.co.uk/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/GolightonMastiffAfghanistan.jpg[/IMG]
time to kick some fucking ass
[IMG]http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/LAND_BvS10_Viking_UK_Trials_lg.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://www.militaryimages.net/photopost/data/507/AS90_Royal_Artillery.jpg[/IMG]
AS90 155mm artillery[/QUOTE]
Woah never seen those before.
[IMG]http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb87/muharred/leman-russ.gif[/IMG]
Leman Russ Battle Tank.
You have to admit, if it existed, you'd shit kittens. Fucker has an engine that'll burn ANYTHING.
[quote]Obyekt 279 (Russian: Объект 279) was a Soviet prototype heavy tank developed in the Kirov industrial plant, Leningrad by a group headed by the engineer L. Troyanov at the end of 1959 [1] ("В конце 1959 года был построен опытный образец"). The tank project, on which the tank was built, was ready in 1957. It was a project based on a heavy tank operational requirements developed in 1956. The special-purpose tank was intended to fight on cross-country terrain that was inaccessible to conventional tanks and act as a vehicle to break through enemy defensive positions. It was planned as a tank of the Supreme Command Reserve.
This tank was a unique version boasting increased cross-country capability. The tank featured four-track running gear mounted on two longitudinal, rectangular hollow beams, which were also used as fuel tanks. The tank hull (with 269 mm armour) was covered by a thin, elliptical shield protecting it against HEAT shaped-charge ammunition and preventing it from overturning due to the shock wave of a nuclear explosion. It comprised large cast irregular shape structures of variable thickness and slope. The all-cast front part of the hull was rounded in shape with thin armour panels against HEAT projectiles, which ran around the edges of the front and sides of the hull. The sides of the hull were also cast and had similar protective armour panels.
The all-cast turret (front armour thickness 305 mm) was rounded, with anti-HEAT protective panels mounted at a seventy degree angle. The turret ring was also heavily protected.
The tank was fitted with a 130 mm rifled M-65 (firing APDS rounds with a muzzle velocity of 1000 m/s), and a co-axial 14.5 mm KPVT heavy machine gun, stabilized in two planes by a "Groza" stabilizer. The gun was provided with a semi-automatic loading system. Firing control system comprised optical/radar rangefinder, auto-guidance system and L2 night-sight with IR searchlight. The tank suspension was hydro-pneumatic with complex hydrotransformer and three-speed planetary gearbox. The track adjuster was worm-type.
The tank was also fitted with NBC protection and auto fire-fighting systems, smoke laying equipment and combat compartment heating/cooling system.
The specific ground pressure of this heavy vehicle did not exceed 0.6 kgf/cm2. The track chain, running practically along the whole track length provided for increased cross-country capabilities on swampy terrain, soft soils and area full of cut trees, Czech hedgehogs, antitank obstacles and the like. The powerful 16-cylinder 1000-hp engine 2DG-8M enabled the 60-ton vehicle to attain 55 km/h speed with active range of 300 km on one refuel.
Eventually, one of the reasons this tank project to be abandoned, as other heavy tank projects, was the fact that the russians stopped operating with heavy fighting vehicles of that type (tanks and similar) as of 1960. Since then, the heaviest ones are kept at about 50 metric tons of weight, that is without counting in any additional equipment such as additional active armor, mine clearing devices (mine ploughs, mine rollers) etc. It was something concerning the current Soviet policy [2] ("А 22 июля 1960 г. на демонстрации новой техники на полигоне Капустин Яр Н. С. Хрущев категорически запретил прием на вооружение любых танков массой более 37 т, тем самым поставив крест на всей программе тяжелых танков, оказавшейся столь результативной" / On July 22, 1960 at the demonstration of new technology on the range of Kapustin Yar, Khrushchev strictly forbade any tanks with a weight of more than 37 metric tons to be adopted by the military, having thus written off the entire program of heavy tanks which proven to be so successful). Nikita Khrushchev himself was a supporter of guided-missile tanks (which apparently added to the decision), such as the IT-1 (ИТ-1) which was armed with Dragon (Дракон) ATGMs. Furthermore, the russians wanted tanks with a suitable weight for crossing their own bridges (in case of homeland defence situations, similar to the WWII ones), which at that time seemed to be unreliable for heavy vehicle crossings. Other reason was the fact that a number of serious deficiencies of the running gear appeared during the trials, such as low nimbleness, efficiency loss during swampy area crossings, complex and expensive production, maintenance and repair, and impossibility of reduction in the overall height of the tank.[/quote]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obyekt_279[/url]
Favorite weird tank design. Seemed like it could've actually been pretty effective.
[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v155/akumabito/t_object279_318.jpg[/img]
[img]http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/5313/77695271.jpg[/img]
With sloped armour like that...daaaaaaaamn. But the treads are VERY exposed.
