|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:That's not a ring pull. It would have been funny I'd you had tried to use it as such and broken the rifle though. It was a couple years ago, but looking at the K31 it wasn't that, the design looks completely different. The ring was on the back of the bolt and pulled straight back with no twisting. Related to the K31 I noticed the Schmidt-Rubin, which it almost certainly was, given the description of the action and picture available on Wiki. I was pretty impressed with the unorthodox method of operation at the time, but wasn't about to drop a few hundred on a rifle I would only be shooting a couple times a year, if that. The Cabela's here is ludicrous (apparently most are so it lives up to the standard) with a huge artificial mountain waterfall/river/lake setup in the middle of the store, full of stuffed game like bear, deer, turkey, etc. It's a neat place between that and the "if you win the lottery" rare/historical gun room. They've got a beautiful Colt Model 41in there, along with a few old-rear end lever action rifles and stuff. All behind glass but still very pretty.
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 15:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 17:48 |
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:It was a couple years ago, but looking at the K31 it wasn't that, the design looks completely different. The ring was on the back of the bolt and pulled straight back with no twisting. Related to the K31 I noticed the Schmidt-Rubin, which it almost certainly was, given the description of the action and picture available on Wiki. I was pretty impressed with the unorthodox method of operation at the time, but wasn't about to drop a few hundred on a rifle I would only be shooting a couple times a year, if that. Regardless of which Swiss rifle it was, that ring is a cocking knob and safety (you pull back and twist the ring on both the K31 and the Schmidt Rubin to put it on ). It is not what you pull the bolt with. Instead you use the big handle on the right hand side. If that was missing then that rifle would not function, or at the very least would be dangerous to fire. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
"Cocking knob", teehee teehee
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 19:44
|
|
|
Boiled Water posted:How rainy must your day be to bring out guns from another era? If Wargame has taught me anything it's that a T-34 is perfectly decent in a infantry fire-support role even in a modern war, or to eat up ATGMs that are probably worth more than the tank 
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
Pimpmust posted:If Wargame has taught me anything it's that a T-34 is perfectly decent in a infantry fire-support role even in a modern war, or to eat up ATGMs that are probably worth more than the tank I remember a pretty strongly voiced opinion from somebody that a tank is better than no tank no matter what kind of tank. Stuff like mid WWII tanks doing inordinate amounts of work supporting infantry in Southeast Asia during the rough timeframe of the Vietnam war. The firepower and that it can only really be engaged by particular weapons makes it a much harder time for the infantry without a tank. So yeah, that infantry fire-support role is apparently pretty useful.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
A tank with a proper supply chain and infantry escort is better than no tank at all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:I remember a pretty strongly voiced opinion from somebody that a tank is better than no tank no matter what kind of tank. Stuff like mid WWII tanks doing inordinate amounts of work supporting infantry in Southeast Asia during the rough timeframe of the Vietnam war. The firepower and that it can only really be engaged by particular weapons makes it a much harder time for the infantry without a tank. So yeah, that infantry fire-support role is apparently pretty useful. Yeah, this is pretty true. Even the worst tank in the world can destroy most other IFVs in service and provide valuable support.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 22:04
|
|
|
I think it's unlikely for a situation to arise, nowadays, where something of WW2 vintage would be useful. Every third world hellhole seems to be drowning in RPG-7's and one of those will easily defeat the armour of a t-34 or similar, AFAIK.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:I think it's unlikely for a situation to arise, nowadays, where something of WW2 vintage would be useful. Every third world hellhole seems to be drowning in RPG-7's and one of those will easily defeat the armour of a t-34 or similar, AFAIK. And RPG-7 will easily defeat the armor of everything in service short of a true blue MBT. We still use vehicles with thin armor for a lot of reasons. EDIT: While it's probably not worth the trouble to ship around WW2 vintage stuff, if it's there, you might as well use it. Panzeh fucked around with this message at 22:32 on Feb 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 22:28
|
|
|
THEY BELONG IN A MUSEUM
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 22:34
|
|
|
Given some forces' propensity to mount machine guns on SUVs to give them at least some mechanised punch, having even an outdated tank would contribute an actual cannon, immunity to rifle and machine gun fire, and the ability to push through most obstacles. A big improvement. That said, the countries that keep giant arsenals of outdated weapons lying around generally have more than enough newer weapons. I suspect the answer is that it's expensive (and politically dangerous) to get rid of the stuff.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 22:38
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:And RPG-7 will easily defeat the armor of everything in service short of a true blue MBT. We still use vehicles with thin armor for a lot of reasons. Why? It would be a death trap, and a logistical liability. If you want mobile fire support use technicals, add some steel plates for protection against small arms if you wish.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
I'm not sure if they're still in service at all, but the Israelis converted some Shermans to armoured ambulances. That totally counts, right? Apparently Uruguay is still using the M24 Chaffee too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 22:41
|
|
|
This is the best thread to be wrong in.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Why? It would be a death trap, and a logistical liability. If you want mobile fire support use technicals, add some steel plates for protection against small arms if you wish. Come at my T-34 in your technical, we'll see who will win. You may add as many steel plates on it as you wish.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Come at my T-34 in your technical, we'll see who will win. You may add as steel plates on it as you wish. I'm game. My technicals are equipped with ATGM launchers that outrange your T-34, now what? Yes, I get several technicals at the cost of you supporting your silly old tank, because logistics. Hell, I might even come on foot and kill your stupid tank with a rocket launcher without you noticing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
Has any nation attempted to modify T-34s with missile systems and electronics and whatnot? Even the T-34s I've seen in photos from 90s Yugoslavia were just the usual plain rustbuckets (except covered in tarps and rubber mats, for some reason).
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 22:50
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:I'm game. My technicals are equipped with ATGM launchers that outrange your T-34, now what? Yes, I get several technicals at the cost of you supporting your silly old tank, because logistics. Oh, technicals with ATGM launchers. I suppose those ATGM launchers are just lying around.... Can I pull a few helicopters out of my arse to counter? Seems only fair, right? Fangz fucked around with this message at 23:22 on Feb 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 22:53
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:I'm game. My technicals are equipped with ATGM launchers that outrange your T-34, now what? Yes, I get several technicals at the cost of you supporting your silly old tank, because logistics. And we're fighting this on a flat featureless plain in a vacuum and the tank and technicals are both spherical masses?
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 22:53
|
|
|
I think 100 jeeps could probably beat both of them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:And we're fighting this on a flat featureless plain in a vacuum and the tank and technicals are both spherical masses? Yes, but you get a bonus to initiative thanks to your charisma.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Oh, Technicals with ATGM launchers. I suppose those ATGM launchers are just lying around.... In vastly larger quantity than operable T-34's and other WW2 tanks, yes. Come on, even if it's guys riding in Subarus carrying AK's and RPG-7's that T-34 would still lose.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 22:57
|
|
|
The T-34 is capable of indirect fire (if you have a hill that's sloped enough), ATGM technicals are not 
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:In vastly larger quantity than operable T-34's and other WW2 tanks, yes. The question was, if you had WW2 tanks lying around, would you use them if you had nothing else? Not, if you had WW2 tanks - and unlimited numbers of late cold war equipment lying around, would you use the WW2 tanks instead of the cold war equipment? If you can pull cold war equipment out of your arse, then at least make it a helicopter or something. Decent ATGMs, and the skill to use them, are not that common. The Iraqi insurgents don't have them, the Syrian rebels only have a few captured ones, the South Ossetians didn't have them, etc. Would these forces leap at any opportunity to supplement their arsenal with something capable of chucking high explosive shells downrange? When the alternative is an AK47 + what you can find at a local Toyota dealership? Heck yes. Fangz fucked around with this message at 23:14 on Feb 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 23:11
|
|
|
A fairly similar discussion happens almost every day at the three-star level.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 23:12
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Why? It would be a death trap, and a logistical liability. If you want mobile fire support use technicals, add some steel plates for protection against small arms if you wish. A toyota truck can't carry anything with nearly the HE power of the 85mm gun in a T-34, and wheeled vehicles have some disadvantages. I mean, if you're going to call any vehicle that can't stand up to an RPG a death trap that cuts into just about every vehicle on the battlefield. Though, to be honest most old tanks that would still be in service would be T-55s which are head and shoulders better than T-34s. Most countries other than the Warsaw Pact originals just don't have the spare parts or ammunition to use the T-34s in their inventory for very long though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 23:14
|
|
|
Strap TOWs to everything that can move and go out and blast tanks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 23:15
|
|
|
Boiled Water posted:Strap TOWs to everything that can move and go out and blast tanks. War of the future is just ersatz Ontoses, circle-strafing each other forever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 23:18
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:I'm not sure if they're still in service at all, but the Israelis converted some Shermans to armoured ambulances. That totally counts, right? Apparently Uruguay is still using the M24 Chaffee too. The Avalon Hill Arab-Israeli wars boardgame had the Israelis fielding 'Patturions' that looked like Centurion guns on Patton chassis. Did that kind of thing happen much?
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 23:20
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:I'm not sure if they're still in service at all, but the Israelis converted some Shermans to armoured ambulances. That totally counts, right? Apparently Uruguay is still using the M24 Chaffee too. The Israelis actually had a large number of converted "Super Shermans" in the '60s and '70s, which replaced the 76mm gun with a much larger and more capable 105mm. They did decently well against the various Arabic armies in the '67 and '73 wars, but as near as I can tell they were retired in the early '80s. As for the use of older tanks in modern wars, here's the thing: In a tank-on-tank combat, the most likely victor is whoever shoots first. That's why both the US Army and the Soviet Union invested so much into creating guns with longer ranges, better optics, and better training for crews so that they could be the ones to take the first shot. In that regard, an old T-34 is almost worse than useless in a modern conflict (And I'm including brushfire wars in here, not just a World War 3 technological wankfest), because it's big, easily spotted, has relatively poor armor, antiquated optics and communication systems, and has exceedingly poor range compared to other vehicles and anti-tank weapons. Let's not also forget that the supply chain to support such a vehicle would be ridiculous, as no one is still making spare parts, ammunition, or tools to help run and maintain, say, a Sherman tank.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:The Israelis actually had a large number of converted "Super Shermans" in the '60s and '70s, which replaced the 76mm gun with a much larger and more capable 105mm. They did decently well against the various Arabic armies in the '67 and '73 wars, but as near as I can tell they were retired in the early '80s. I don't think anybody would ever put T-34s in regular service in any capacity, but if you have them in storage somewhere and have the means to run them, why not? Of course, you're right, the T-34 had poor visibility even by WW2 standards and the T-55s that are still in service are heavily modernized versions with new fire control, optics, and even missile launch capability.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 23:33
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:Let's not also forget that the supply chain to support such a vehicle would be ridiculous, as no one is still making spare parts, ammunition, or tools to help run and maintain, say, a Sherman tank. The real reason why using super old equipment isn't a good idea.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 23:33
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Panzeh posted:A toyota truck can't carry anything with nearly the HE power of the 85mm gun in a T-34, and wheeled vehicles have some disadvantages. I mean, if you're going to call any vehicle that can't stand up to an RPG a death trap that cuts into just about every vehicle on the battlefield. Here's the thing about the truck, though-it's simple, it's fast, it's portable, and it's cheap. A tank is none of these things, and if we're talking about a group of insurgents, they're going to heavily favor a vehicle that can provide quick fire support and can possibly escape over a big, hulking piece of steel that'll be the death of five people against anything resembling modern ordnance.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 23:34
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:The Avalon Hill Arab-Israeli wars boardgame had the Israelis fielding 'Patturions' that looked like Centurion guns on Patton chassis. Did that kind of thing happen much?
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 23:37
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:A toyota truck can't carry anything with nearly the HE power of the 85mm gun in a T-34 Do recoilless rifles count? They're kind of a pet fascination of mine - a very clever thing to build, but basically worse than a missile or rocket in every possible way. If anyone has anything interesting to say about recoilless rifles, please do. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 23:46
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:Here's the thing about the truck, though-it's simple, it's fast, it's portable, and it's cheap. A tank is none of these things, and if we're talking about a group of insurgents, they're going to heavily favor a vehicle that can provide quick fire support and can possibly escape over a big, hulking piece of steel that'll be the death of five people against anything resembling modern ordnance. They aren't buying these things on ebay, they are taking advantage of whatever is available to them. The sort of situation where it's 'take a tank, or an equivalent cost in trucks' happens only in RTS games. The insurgent will take *both* the tank and the truck if he can find them. That's what they did in Libya and what they are doing in Syria. And a tank is faster than you think, especially over poor terrain. And having a HE chucker matters.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
You can purchase a vintage t-34-85 for like 40k US dollars. I know what I'm going to ride to work in. Anyone know what the GPM on one of these babies is?
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 23:48
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:You can purchase a vintage t-34-85 for like 40k US dollars. I know what I'm going to ride to work in. Anyone know what the GPM on one of these babies is? I'm incredibly curious if our poo poo roads would even be able to stand up to having a T-34 drive on them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 00:06
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:I'm incredibly curious if our poo poo roads would even be able to stand up to having a T-34 drive on them. Hell, here in Michigan you practically need a T-34 to be able to drive on our roads
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 00:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 17:48 |
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:I'm incredibly curious if our poo poo roads would even be able to stand up to having a T-34 drive on them. I know that in Czechoslovkia they built cobblestone tank crossings over asphalt roads in military areas (which was any place somewhat close to the borders) because repairing damage caused to ordinary roads would be too expensive.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 00:15
|
|