Stridsvagn 103, also known as the S Tank:
It's decommissioned now, but the absence of a turret and instead relying on hydraulics for cannon adjustment was pretty cool.
[img]http://www.haaland.info/sweden/tank/s103_1.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=ToXiCsoldier;20940638]Yea, but the firefly was born after the landing of Normandy (/Operation Overlord), and indeed, they were deployed especialy to counter the german tanks because the range and damage the 17p could do.
The American Shermans were for supporting role for infantry.[/QUOTE]
American armoured doctrine was fucking stupid in WW2. They had all of their tank destroyers completely separated from the rest of their tanks, meaning that if a company of shermans encountered something like a tiger, all they could do was either sit and wait to be destroyed or charge right up to the tank in a vain attempt in flanking, which in Normandy wasn't really an option, while they waited for the tank destroyers to arrive, which could take hours.
The British however had 1 firefly for every 4 shermans in each tank platoon, meaning they had the means to counter enemy armour instantly and effectively.
[IMG]http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/xml/news/2009/04/marine_abv_041809w/041809mc_abv2_800.JPG[/IMG]
[IMG]http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/xml/news/2007/06/marine_engineer_vehicle_070609/abv_night_800_070608.JPG[/IMG]
American ABV Tank. Clears mines and is overall badass.
[QUOTE=LordLoss;20941168]American armoured doctrine was fucking stupid in WW2. They had all of their tank destroyers completely separated from the rest of their tanks, meaning that if a company of shermans encountered something like a tiger, all they could do was either sit and wait to be destroyed or charge right up to the tank in a vain attempt in flanking, which in Normandy wasn't really an option, while they waited for the tank destroyers to arrive, which could take hours.
The British however had 1 firefly for every 4 shermans in each tank platoon, meaning they had the means to counter enemy armour instantly and effectively.[/QUOTE]
Indeed, not to mention, US tank destroyer doctrine was pretty flawed as well. Germany's assault guns and tank destroyers were far superior. (mostly, the elephant was a failure.) They had more destroyers and assault guns than tanks, and didn't we find out the hard way.
Yeah, silly of the Americans
[QUOTE=Darkhorse01;20941526]Indeed, not to mention, US tank destroyer doctrine was pretty flawed as well. Germany's assault guns and tank destroyers were far superior. (mostly, the elephant was a failure.) They had more destroyers and assault guns than tanks, and didn't we find out the hard way.[/QUOTE]
The updated version of the elephant with a machinegun did well compared to the original, which just got swamped by hordes of Soviet infantry with anti-tank grenades.
[QUOTE=bravehat;20935064]Challenger has superior armour.
And besides the only thing that can kill a challenger is a challenger.
Challenger:
1. Faster on the most extreme war torn ground, although slower than an ABRAMS on road
2. A more advanced firing system than the ABRAMS and a rifled cannon to again improve accuracy
3. If those werent enough I have a few more words to settle this
CHOBHAM II ARMOR
Oh and the ABRAMS armor is of british design
:smug:[/QUOTE]
challenger's heavier, more momentum over cross country. as for more advanced, not sure how it could be any better. pretty much all modern tanks can nail a dinner plate traveling full speed over terrain at 3 miles away. It is also dependent on crew ability. some ballistic computers can track heat signatures but more or less the target is lased, computed, and the gunner must aim at the target and send the round.
and as for rifling, that is irrelevant, as the common ammunition is APFSDS, which requires no interaction from the rifling to be accurate, as it is a sabot. rifling actually reduces the velocity of APFSDS because of friction. the british chose to keep rifling because of their use of HESH rounds.
I didn't think they updated it, I thought after the initial beating in Russia they sent the remaining ones down to Italy. When did they stick a machine gun on it?
[QUOTE=Gubbinz96;20936543]Also has the longest range confirmed kill on an enemy tank at something like 2 miles.[/QUOTE]
two miles? a modern tank can hit targets at that range with ease. 4-5 miles is usually the redline for rheinmetall's 120mm gun. HEAT rounds are more effective at long range as sabots lose energy quickly, HEATs do not require velocity to be effective, but do usually require a flat hit for maximum damage.
[editline]11:24PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=RayvenQ;20935089]Don't Challengers go slower than they are able to on roads, namely because if they went full speed, they'd chew the fuck out of the road (thus making it impassible for civilians/support vehicles etc etc)[/QUOTE]
the challenger is so heavy that it wears the tracks out insanely fast, as well as the road. an m1 abrams requires a new set of tracks every 2000 miles, each set of tracks costing 50 grand. most tanks are limited to 45mph because of the sole fact that the treads will just melt. the abrams has a governor override that allows it to travel well beyond 45 mph. i think it can push upwards of 65mph, as can other tanks.
[QUOTE=Karbinev2;20944141]HEAT rounds are more effective at long range as sabots lose energy quickly, HEATs do not require velocity to be effective, but do usually require a flat hit for maximum damage.[/QUOTE]
However, HEAT rounds offer poor ballistic performance, so the gunner (or the fire control computer) will need to apply superelevation to the correct range.
[editline]03:56PM[/editline]
[quote]a modern tank can hit targets at that range with ease. 4-5 miles is usually the redline for rheinmetall's 120mm gun[/quote]
Actually specialist rounds like STAFF and LAHAT can increase that range to a standoff 8000 meters
That second tank picture is awesome.
[QUOTE=mastermaul;20925821]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]
Damn. All of those are in [I]Toy soldiers.[/I]
T-54/55, most-produced tank in history(86,000 to 100,000.) It was built to invade Europe and fight on the nuclear battlefield.
[URL="http://s159.photobucket.com/albums/t156/SHIG357/?action=view¤t=t55tank.jpg"][IMG]http://i159.photobucket.com/albums/t156/SHIG357/t55tank.jpg[/IMG][/URL]
Looks like a crab tank
[QUOTE=Tac Error;20944968]However, HEAT rounds offer poor ballistic performance, so the gunner (or the fire control computer) will need to apply superelevation to the correct range.
[editline]03:56PM[/editline]
Actually specialist rounds like STAFF and LAHAT can increase that range to a standoff 8000 meters[/QUOTE]
8000 meters is 5 miles heh
[QUOTE=Karbinev2;20944141]two miles? a modern tank can hit targets at that range with ease. 4-5 miles is usually the redline for rheinmetall's 120mm gun. HEAT rounds are more effective at long range as sabots lose energy quickly, HEATs do not require velocity to be effective, but do usually require a flat hit for maximum damage.[/QUOTE]
I know, I couldn't remember the exact numbers, chap corrected me in like the following post.
[QUOTE=KommradKommisar;20946429]Damn. All of those are in [I]Toy soldiers.[/I][/QUOTE]
Cool quoting the entire OP bro.
[QUOTE=Karbinev2;20951153]8000 meters is 5 miles heh[/QUOTE]
Meters sound better than miles
[QUOTE=dagoth_ur;20935467]Has anybody mentioned the BMPs yet?
BMP-3
[IMG]http://www.haborumuveszete.hu/rovatok/news/oroszexport2/bmp-3.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
Learn to fear this mother fucker.
[QUOTE=Wikipedia]The BMP-3, nicknamed Troyka, is one of the most heavily armed infantry combat vehicles in service, fitted with a low velocity 2A70 100 mm rifled gun, which can fire conventional [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_explosive"]HE-Frag[/URL] [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_%28projectile%29"]shells[/URL] or 9M117 ([URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT-10_Stabber"]AT-10 Stabber[/URL]) [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATGM"]ATGMs[/URL] (40 HE rounds and 8 ATGM are carried), a 2A72 dual feed [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocannon"]autocannon[/URL] with 500 rounds and a rate of fire of 350 to 400 rpm, and a 7.62 mm [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_gun"]machine gun[/URL] with 2,000 rounds, all mounted coaxially in the turret. There are also two 7.62 mm bow machine guns, again with 2,000 rounds each. The BMP-3 is capable of engaging targets out to 5,000–6,000 meters with its ATGM weapon system 9K116-3 Basnya (with an approximately eighty percent probability of a hit[[I][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_clarify"]clarification needed[/URL][/I]] at that range). If the missile launcher is destroyed, missile guidance ceases and the missile may miss its target. The minimum engagement distance, flight time and vulnerability of launcher are typical of command-guided, rather than [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire-and-forget"]fire-and-forget[/URL], ATGM systems; most systems in service are command-guided.[/QUOTE]
This thing has more weapons then a small cruiser :damn:
I bet it can bet the living crap out of Bradleys too.
I wouldn't worry. Warriors and Bradleys took out T-72's in the Gulf with cannon fire at 400 to 500 metres. T-72's are much heavier armoured than the BMP series. 30mm RARDEN could probably knock a hole in that BMP 3 at 1000 metres, shade under that for 25mm Bushmaster, 800ish I'd imagine. And if the Warrior or Bradley is fitted with MILAN/TOW then its pretty even. Apart from the fact Western IFV's are better armoured.
[QUOTE=Gregah;20953473]I bet it can bet the living crap out of Bradleys too.[/QUOTE]
Or Warriors and Pumas and Marders, etc :P
[IMG]http://xmb.stuffucanuse.com/xmb/viewthread.php?action=attachment&tid=4693&pid=13557[/IMG]
That looked like something out of Metal Slug!
That looks shopped :ohdear:
How could that thing fly? It has no engine and looks far too heavy to be towed.
[QUOTE=Im Crimson;20954798]That looks shopped :ohdear:
How could that thing fly? It has no engine and looks far too heavy to be towed.[/QUOTE]
i'm pretty sure it's just a concept
Tanks have made warfare too boring. Huge tank battles no longer have the brutal feel of battle. If they're used as a back-up for infantry, it's cool, but for tank battles -
'' Herp a derp i'm fighting you over 500 meters lol i hit u boom! ''
Yeah imagine trying to guarantee that you survive and the enemy and spread across the battlefield.
In tiny pieces.
[QUOTE=Paravin;20954981]Tanks have made warfare too boring. Huge tank battles no longer have the brutal feel of battle. If they're used as a back-up for infantry, it's cool, but for tank battles -
'' Herp a derp i'm fighting you over 500 meters lol i hit u boom! ''[/QUOTE]
it's so there's not as many casualties you weirdo, war isn't something that's supposed to be fun and intense
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
