|
Based on what a few of my friends had to say on the subject, Canadian Leopards usually put the fear of a risen Jesus into the Taliban in Afghanistan. Aside from colossal IEDs, they didn't have regular access to anything that could really wreck one. Which is funny, because about ten years ago we were going to get rid of them entirely and focus on the whole IFV concept as it was widely held that MBTs were outdated notions. I remember being at a conference in grad school wherein an artillery officer explained at great length that because our likely enemies don't use tanks, we don't need to either. An armour officer neatly shot that down with "That's the best reason to deploy heavy armour. We don't get bonus points for fighting fair, just avoidable deaths." Fearless fucked around with this message at 21:30 on Apr 23, 2014 |
# ? Apr 23, 2014 21:28 |
|
|
# ? May 23, 2024 15:18 |
|
Those CF leopard 1s (aka C2s) would have been super fun in the summer months what with no A/C fitted! Cooling vests to help you not die but that's about it. I think some of the Leopard 2s got A/C fitted, luxury!
|
# ? Apr 23, 2014 21:41 |
|
Taerkar posted:A lot of the Cold War-era armor before the introduction of composites was based on the mostly correct idea that RHA just wasn't suitable for tank armor anymore. Studies also showed that there was a remarkably small area of a tank that would normally get hit anyways (Upper Front Glacis to turret) so many of the post-war designs focused on making that more resilient. Severe slopes and low profiles to minimize exposure. Sometimes with pretty thick turret fronts as well. Pardon my ignorance, RHA?
|
# ? Apr 23, 2014 23:44 |
|
Rolled homogenous armor. http://videos.howstuffworks.com/discovery/35895-howstuffworks-show-episode-12-rolled-homogenous-armor-video.htm
|
# ? Apr 23, 2014 23:47 |
StandardVC10 posted:Pardon my ignorance, RHA? Rolled homogeneous armour, ie big ole plates of metal. e:welp.
|
|
# ? Apr 23, 2014 23:47 |
|
priznat posted:Those CF leopard 1s (aka C2s) would have been super fun in the summer months what with no A/C fitted! Cooling vests to help you not die but that's about it. The MGS strykers also had that problem of no AC and the crew also haing to use cooling vests as well as the electronics overheating
|
# ? Apr 24, 2014 01:49 |
|
I remember reading somewhere that the Stryker MGS got cancelled or hasn't been deployed in the numbers originally intended, is that true? Information on it is surprisingly scarce. It doesn't help that half the google hits for anything Stryker-related are from Sparky.
|
# ? Apr 24, 2014 01:55 |
|
There was a plan with the CF to replace the Leopards with MGSes because who needs tanks etc. But a combination of a change of govt and the war in Afghanistan changed those plans for the better. Seems like a goofy design with the basically unprotected turret with an auto loader out there. What if it jams, get out and fix it! Also I read something how it was really uncomfortable to be in it when firing the 105mm.
|
# ? Apr 24, 2014 02:46 |
|
wdarkk posted:There was a letter attached to the instruments dropped right before the Nagasaki bomb with a letter to Japanese atomic scientist Ryokichi Sagane basically saying "tell your bosses about what a nuclear bomb means and how hosed they are". A scientist, who had worked in the US, mentioned by name in a letter dropped next to a vaporized city? Holy poo poo, sounds like a prime way to win a one-way trip to the worst Kempeitai party room there ever was. Good thing for him it apparently wasn't found until after the war.
|
# ? Apr 24, 2014 03:28 |
|
priznat posted:There was a plan with the CF to replace the Leopards with MGSes because who needs tanks etc. But a combination of a change of govt and the war in Afghanistan changed those plans for the better. There's some great armor stories around from the COIN roles they got put in, like a story about Abrams HEAT rounds more safe then the commander's .50 for room clearing, because .50 liked to travel through walls and still be lethal several rooms/structures away. Mazz fucked around with this message at 05:16 on Apr 24, 2014 |
# ? Apr 24, 2014 04:55 |
|
Geez, that's why you put on a bigger turret. B-but my scout Shut up general, shut up.
|
# ? Apr 24, 2014 05:49 |
|
Mortabis posted:I remember reading somewhere that the Stryker MGS got cancelled or hasn't been deployed in the numbers originally intended, is that true? Information on it is surprisingly scarce. It doesn't help that half the google hits for anything Stryker-related are from Sparky. I believe the Army curtailed their buy pretty hard, but it's not cancelled since they did buy and deploy some. I've seen them in person actually - just driving down the highway, a convoy of some personnel carriers and one Stryker MGS rolling in the right lane.
|
# ? Apr 24, 2014 05:52 |
|
Psion posted:I believe the Army curtailed their buy pretty hard, but it's not cancelled since they did buy and deploy some. I've seen them in person actually - just driving down the highway, a convoy of some personnel carriers and one Stryker MGS rolling in the right lane. Like, literally rolling over into the ditch? LAV III speciality!
|
# ? Apr 24, 2014 05:57 |
|
priznat posted:Like, literally rolling over into the ditch? LAV III speciality! No, just driving down I-5. They wisely had the MGS gun locked down probably to prevent that.
|
# ? Apr 24, 2014 05:59 |
|
Pimpmust posted:B-but my scout But uh, it's a troop carrier, general. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA
|
# ? Apr 24, 2014 06:21 |
|
Aaaaand we come full circle. To be fair, that's supposedly just a larger RWS which means you don't cut into the troop compartment/capacity like the Bradley did, although I can't find too much about it or any internal pictures. Mazz fucked around with this message at 06:39 on Apr 24, 2014 |
# ? Apr 24, 2014 06:33 |
|
Speaking of the Bradley, what, if anything, did the M2A1 and up versions do to...if not "fix" then cut down on the silliness of the original boondoggle? Or is the whole line compromised and therefore we should move to Strykers as soon as production permits?
|
# ? Apr 24, 2014 06:43 |
|
Davin Valkri posted:Speaking of the Bradley, what, if anything, did the M2A1 and up versions do to...if not "fix" then cut down on the silliness of the original boondoggle? Or is the whole line compromised and therefore we should move to Strykers as soon as production permits? I think the plan is to go with something called the "GCV", one of the competitors being this sexy little turd right here Look at this fuckin crazy flipperbaby Heavier than an M1 abrams to boot Probably shelved due to budget cuts anyway priznat fucked around with this message at 06:51 on Apr 24, 2014 |
# ? Apr 24, 2014 06:47 |
|
priznat posted:Probably shelved due to budget cuts anyway Yep, already happened in the 2015 budget IIRC.
|
# ? Apr 24, 2014 07:31 |
The hell is that under the .50? A rack of mini missles?
|
|
# ? Apr 24, 2014 09:02 |
Arrath posted:The hell is that under the .50? A rack of mini missles? Probably. All this future concept poo poo is basically like paying a bunch of third graders infinity-dollars for the doodles on the backs of their homework assignments.
|
|
# ? Apr 24, 2014 09:19 |
|
Arrath posted:The hell is that under the .50? A rack of mini missles? Active Defense System maybe?
|
# ? Apr 24, 2014 12:11 |
|
priznat posted:I think the plan is to go with something called the "GCV", one of the competitors being this sexy little turd right here It's been cancelled, but the notion was to have an IFV that's armored like a tank (see for example the Namer) but also armed with missiles and an autocannon and with capacity for 9 men (as opposed to the Bradley's 6). My understanding is that the Bradley is actually doing alright now aside from being a bit underpowered.
|
# ? Apr 24, 2014 12:35 |
|
BBC News - Russian fighter jets "breach Japan airspace" I assume they were just dicking around. Russia's still cool, right?
|
# ? Apr 24, 2014 13:03 |
|
Memento posted:BBC News - Russian fighter jets "breach Japan airspace" Have you been watching the news recently? Cold War 2: Bear Harder is about to start.
|
# ? Apr 24, 2014 13:19 |
|
FrozenVent posted:Have you been watching the news recently? Cold War 2: Bear Harder is about to start. Yeah sorry that was basically my joke, I'm just bad at them. This time the Cold War's going to be real cold, mostly to the people in Eastern Europe who need
|
# ? Apr 24, 2014 13:28 |
|
Memento posted:Yeah sorry that was basically my joke, I'm just bad at them. Is there some rule about having to host an Olympic Games before being a complete gently caress-head to the world?
|
# ? Apr 24, 2014 14:11 |
|
Dietrich posted:Is there some rule about having to host an Olympic Games before being a complete gently caress-head to the world? Berlin, Salt Lake City and Sochi all seem to indicate that it is so.
|
# ? Apr 24, 2014 15:03 |
|
hailthefish posted:Probably. All this future concept poo poo is basically like paying a bunch of third graders infinity-dollars for the doodles on the backs of their homework assignments. NO IT ISNT IT IS A VERY PRECISE AND DIFFICULT PROCESS Also I made this thing as a joke some months back and someone actually thought it was a serious thing (to include the text) and it wound up in relatively late drafts of a couple of CONOPS. I don't...think...it ever got traced back to me. ...
|
# ? Apr 24, 2014 15:12 |
|
Arrath posted:The hell is that under the .50? A rack of mini missles? You have to have at least 4 or else they can still be dodged!
|
# ? Apr 24, 2014 15:17 |
|
Fearless posted:Berlin, Salt Lake City and Sochi all seem to indicate that it is so. Well! We've got all this "Political Good Will". Time to spend it!
|
# ? Apr 24, 2014 16:07 |
|
The thread's offical unofficial blog has reviewed "Command and Control" and it is good. The author also recommends another book to go with it: the Titian II handbook. e: Shithead Deluxe posted:Imagine having to play against those clods in a tabletop wargame Imagine the smugness you could respond with though: "OK, your tanks are better than mine on a 1 to 1 basis. Here's the thing, though: I have complete air superiority, so every time your magnificent super tanks move in anything less than terrible weather, I'm gonna hammer them with my air force. Also, I outnumber you enormously. Look! My infantry divisions often have armor units attached that outnumber the tanks in your Panzer divisions! Also, you are out of gas. Also also, I know you want to do a fighting retreat to those open areas where your tanks can use their large firepower advantage but der Fuhrer just ordered you to *HOLD THE LINE* at all costs, which happens to be this countryside where our swarms of well-trained infantry have the advantage (as you know because we spent the last week slaughtering you there.)" Nebakenezzer fucked around with this message at 17:43 on Apr 24, 2014 |
# ? Apr 24, 2014 17:27 |
|
Hell, most of their tanks weren't even better 1:1. The Pz IV was outclassed by the later model M4s and T34s, the IS was better than the German heavies even. Even the Panther apparently had trouble breaking even.
|
# ? Apr 24, 2014 18:22 |
|
Actually, comparing contemporary variants the Pz IV was pretty much always inferior to the T-34 and only ever (at best) on equal footing with the Sherman. Hell, until later in the war when it started getting the longer 75s it was inferior in the tank-on-tank role to the Panzer III.
|
# ? Apr 24, 2014 18:35 |
|
Q_res posted:Actually, comparing contemporary variants the Pz IV was pretty much always inferior to the T-34 and only ever (at best) on equal footing with the Sherman. Hell, until later in the war when it started getting the longer 75s it was inferior in the tank-on-tank role to the Panzer III. Tank-on-tank was never the primary role for armor in WW2 - they spent a hell of a lot more time blowing the poo poo out of PBI. . .
|
# ? Apr 24, 2014 18:54 |
|
Both contractors claim their designs are below the 70-84 tons expectation of what the GCV will weigh. BAE's vehicle weighs 60-70 tons, based on modular armor package, and a 20 percent margin for weight increase the Army has planned for future upgrades would bring it up to 84 tons. The vehicle burns 20 percent less fuel while running, with 4.61 gallons (17.45 liters) per hour used while stationary. When your Best part is that the Namer used in comparison looks like the first version of the Bradley (without the turret)
|
# ? Apr 24, 2014 18:59 |
|
Kenlon posted:Tank-on-tank was never the primary role for armor in WW2 - they spent a hell of a lot more time blowing the poo poo out of PBI. . . I know that, but did you happen to read the conversation that lead up to that post? That seemed to be pretty clearly the context of it.
|
# ? Apr 24, 2014 19:26 |
|
Taerkar posted:Hell, most of their tanks weren't even better 1:1. The Pz IV was outclassed by the later model M4s and T34s, the IS was better than the German heavies even. Even the Panther apparently had trouble breaking even. Q_res posted:Actually, comparing contemporary variants the Pz IV was pretty much always inferior to the T-34 and only ever (at best) on equal footing with the Sherman. Hell, until later in the war when it started getting the longer 75s it was inferior in the tank-on-tank role to the Panzer III. I don't want to bog this thread down in WW2 tank chat, but - like everything else - you have to keep in mind the contexts from which the various tank designs emerged, their intended uses, and what the situation was like when they were first fielded. The PzIV was a profoundly pre-war design and it's a minor miracle it was able to be as effectively upgraded as it was. Saying that it was outclassed in 1944 is a bit like complaining that the 109 was showing its age at the same time. The real difference is that the US didn't constantly try to improve on the Lee for the entirety of the war. The soviets had a similar thing going on with the T34 as the germans did with the MkIV, but that was a later design as well which gave it a bit of a leg up in that respect. Same deal comparing the IS line to german heavies. How do you begin to compare a design family that emerged in 1944 to something like the Tiger, which came out in 1942? It's not as simple as Russian > German or German > everyone else. You need to look at specific times in the war and look at who was fielding what to have any kind of grip on what the actual AFV situation was like in the field. Doctrine and tactics also come into it in a huge way. German armor was pretty piss poor compared to contemporary foreign designs from 1939-1941, but doctrinal and tactical differences between how various militaries employed their tanks led to some pretty amazing results for the Germans. It might not be true that the Germans invented Blitzkrieg or that they were undisputed masters of mechanized warfare, but there's also a core of truth to their having a pretty solid advantage as a result of how they actually employed their assets in the field.
|
# ? Apr 24, 2014 19:28 |
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Saying that it was outclassed in 1944 I'm actually saying it was outclassed well before then. Though to be fair, much like the M4A1, early Pz IVs were built as infantry support tanks, not really intended to fight other tanks head-on. Q_res fucked around with this message at 19:37 on Apr 24, 2014 |
# ? Apr 24, 2014 19:35 |
|
|
# ? May 23, 2024 15:18 |
|
Mercy sakes alive, looks like we got us a convoy! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8_Rl0pbkUk Well Vlad shot the line and he went for broke with a thousand screamin trucks. And eleven long haired friends of Stalin in a olive drab micro-bus. CONVOY e: They even have a great big bear in the air Doctor Grape Ape fucked around with this message at 19:41 on Apr 24, 2014 |
# ? Apr 24, 2014 19:38 |