Author Topic: Weird ass tanks  (Read 2336 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Richo

  • Big Kahuna
  • *
  • Posts: 2956
  • Fast, Cheap, Light...pick any two
    • View Profile
Weird ass tanks
« on: March 13, 2015, 02:09:03 PM »
Check out these crazy things !
Work Hard, Play Hard, Stay Hard

 

 
Meet my little Baby

Offline Hardman

  • Big Kahuna
  • *
  • Posts: 11884
  • Single Malt Effect
    • View Profile
Re: Weird ass tanks
« Reply #1 on: March 13, 2015, 02:46:55 PM »
;)

When I was a kid this place was not far from where we lived:

http://www.tankmuseum.org/home

We used to go there quite often, had some pretty weird and wonderful tank exhibits :)

Cheers
Politically incorrect?  You betcha!!!  :-)




Offline Smokey

  • Knucklehead
  • *
  • Posts: 144
    • View Profile
Re: Weird ass tanks
« Reply #2 on: March 14, 2015, 09:39:28 AM »
Recienty watched the movie Fury with Brad Pitt ,   Worth the viewing though not exactly accurate.
Those shermans were Totaly death boxes  but for their shear numbers.

Offline fuknKIWI

  • Custom Chrome Hardtail
  • *
  • Posts: 494
    • View Profile
Re: Weird ass tanks
« Reply #3 on: March 14, 2015, 01:10:58 PM »
.
Those shermans were Totaly death boxes  but for their shear numbers.

Here's a shot of my old man and his crew at the Sangro River in 1943.

Half gallon quarter acre Pavlova paradise.

Offline Smokey

  • Knucklehead
  • *
  • Posts: 144
    • View Profile
Re: Weird ass tanks
« Reply #4 on: March 14, 2015, 02:00:03 PM »
That's an awsome picture.  Tough men

Offline Hardman

  • Big Kahuna
  • *
  • Posts: 11884
  • Single Malt Effect
    • View Profile
Re: Weird ass tanks
« Reply #5 on: March 14, 2015, 02:26:24 PM »
That was one of those "United Nations" battles, mixed troops from across the Commonwealth (well, Empire then) under British command fighting German troops on Italian soil using American tanks.

I have to confess tanks scare the living daylights out of me, not as a weapon used against me but the thought of going to war in one against the extraordinary array of weapons both vehicle mounted, airborne and man portable that can reduce a tank to a steel coffin in a moment.

My maternal grandfather was in the first battles of WWI where tanks were deployed, received a commendation for getting his platoon to move away from the advancing tanks against orders - the generals had not foreseen that the Germans would fire their machine guns at the lumbering beasts and the ricochets cut down any following troops.  He also witnessed German troops coming out of the trenches and attempting to bayonet tanks.

Cheers
Politically incorrect?  You betcha!!!  :-)




Offline fuknKIWI

  • Custom Chrome Hardtail
  • *
  • Posts: 494
    • View Profile
Re: Weird ass tanks
« Reply #6 on: March 14, 2015, 02:29:32 PM »
That's an awsome picture.  Tough men

They had to be they fought at the Battle of Monte Cassino

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/18th_Battalion_%28New_Zealand%29
Half gallon quarter acre Pavlova paradise.

Online Rybags

  • Sergeant at Arms
  • *
  • Posts: 2227
  • Dudeworld
    • View Profile
Re: Weird ass tanks
« Reply #7 on: March 14, 2015, 03:38:12 PM »
The weird designs seemed to be mostly early on, but you could throw in a lot of the specialist machines that were designed for the D-Day landings into the mix.

Although some were found to be useful and continue on, like the extendable bridges and I believe there's still mine clearing machines around.

Shermans, for sure outclassed.  In fact the Panzer and Tiger were probably far superior to everything short of the T34 which itself also eventually had a massive numerical advantage.
Of course throw in the extremely useful fact that by D-Day, Hitler had lost trust with practically all his generals so practically all strategic decisions had to be run by him first which added extra time lag not to mention a huge dose of incompetence.

Offline Hardman

  • Big Kahuna
  • *
  • Posts: 11884
  • Single Malt Effect
    • View Profile
Re: Weird ass tanks
« Reply #8 on: March 14, 2015, 04:06:50 PM »
Mine clearers are pretty bizarre:



Stick around for the second segment to see a few tanks getting wasted.

I suppose tanks do have SOME place on the modern battlefield, after all the underlying concept is simply mobile heavy artillery but damn it's a tough life as a tanker. Back in the cold war days the Germans in particular wanted to play with lightweight faster tanks despite it being shown in exercise after exercise that it really didn't matter if the tank was a sports car a mix of helicopters, mobile ground troops with ATMs and utter tank killer the A-10 was going to make short work of lightweight or porbably even heavier tanks.

Fortunately the Russian hordes never did come pouring through the Fulda Gap, NATO's best estimates said day one about 10% attrition versus 50kms plus of Russian advance and anything up to 20 % attrition of NATA forces in place - not a good result and it became worse on day 2. The Russian losses would have been utterly horrendous but they would have secured a front deep inside Europe by sheer numbers.

Well, that was the publicity, by both sides, reality is Russian tanks of that era were so fucking unreliable they'd have been lucky to still be able to advance by day 2, it was no wonder they had so many battlefield recovery and repair vehicles.

Cheers

« Last Edit: March 14, 2015, 04:08:56 PM by Hardman »
Politically incorrect?  You betcha!!!  :-)




Online Rybags

  • Sergeant at Arms
  • *
  • Posts: 2227
  • Dudeworld
    • View Profile
Re: Weird ass tanks
« Reply #9 on: March 14, 2015, 04:41:56 PM »
In the modern day, tanks are only really good if the opposition is technically inferior.

The reality is if you have some scenario of US vs Russia, it just becomes an attrition thing.  Tanks don't stand much chance against airborne gunships, and they're even more vulnerable against decent shoulder-fired weapons.

Offline Hardman

  • Big Kahuna
  • *
  • Posts: 11884
  • Single Malt Effect
    • View Profile
Re: Weird ass tanks
« Reply #10 on: March 14, 2015, 04:57:36 PM »
Yep, it's not really even a case of technical inferiority, just keeping the combat asymmetric.

Most analysts were more that a little bemused when the coalition faced up to the Iraqi tanks in 91 but of course the Iraqi tanks were taken down by other forces than the opposing tanks in the main. That said it could well have been one of the last tank on tank battles.

Cheers
Politically incorrect?  You betcha!!!  :-)




Offline AccessDenied

  • Custom Chrome Hardtail
  • *
  • Posts: 1118
  • Dudeworld
    • View Profile
Re: Weird ass tanks
« Reply #11 on: March 14, 2015, 08:23:49 PM »
Then you hear about things like the Challenger 2's..

During the 2003 invasion of Iraq the Challenger 2 tanks suffered no tank losses to enemy fire, although one was penetrated by an IED. This was, at the time, unprotected by Dorchester armour. The driver was injured. In one encounter within the urban area a Challenger 2 came under attack from irregular forces with machine guns and rocket propelled grenades. The driver's sight was damaged and while attempting to back away under the commander's directions, the other sights were damaged and the tank threw its tracks entering a ditch. It was hit directly by fourteen rocket propelled grenades from close range and a MILAN anti-tank missile.[14] The crew survived remaining safe within the tank until the tank was recovered for repairs, the worst damage being to the sighting system. It was back in operation six hours later after repairs. One Challenger 2 operating near Basra survived being hit by 70 RPGs in another incident.[15]

25 March 2003: A friendly fire ("blue-on-blue") incident in Basra in which one Challenger 2 of the Black Watch Battlegroup (2nd Royal Tank Regiment) mistakenly engaged another Challenger 2 of the Queen's Royal Lancers after detecting what was believed to be an enemy flanking manoeuvre on thermal equipment. The attacking tank's second HESH round hit the open commander's hatch lid of the QRL tank sending hot fragments into the turret, killing two crew members. The strike caused a fire that eventually led to an explosion of the stowed ammunition, destroying the tank. It remains the only Challenger 2 to be completely destroyed on operations.[18]
The only listed incident of a Challenger 2 being destroyed was a 'blue on blue' incident.

 Specifically, another Challenger 2 mistakenly engaged another Challenger 2.

----------------------
I think tanks are improving in quality.

AD
« Last Edit: March 14, 2015, 08:26:13 PM by AccessDenied »

Offline LordDread

  • Sergeant at Arms
  • *
  • Posts: 4066
  • Eat da-shiang bao-tza shr duh lah doo-tze,dong ma?
    • View Profile
Re: Weird ass tanks
« Reply #12 on: March 15, 2015, 10:36:02 AM »
Loverly Pics, most are either concept or "test" tanks that never got anywhere, That 4th one however , in that style turned the tide of many battles, being designed to cross trenchs, it filled its roll very well.

The Challenger 2 is a pretty good tank, as is the Abrams, especially given the age of them, and how long its been since a NEW one was made.

Offline Hardman

  • Big Kahuna
  • *
  • Posts: 11884
  • Single Malt Effect
    • View Profile
Re: Weird ass tanks
« Reply #13 on: March 15, 2015, 11:59:40 AM »
:)

Challenger 2 probably represents the pinnacle of tank development, we may never see a more advanced MBT.



Whether it is invulnerable though is a different story, being hit by a 30 year old Milan missile or a sack-full of RPGs without significant damage is hardly surprising, in fact it's somewhat of a fluke that the blue-on-blue with a HESH round led to a loss. Tank against tank the round of choice would probably be APFSDS which may or may not defeat a Challenger's armor.

The trouble with the Challenger is there are not enough of them and never will be.

Cheers
Politically incorrect?  You betcha!!!  :-)