|
spectralent posted:Aaah, makes sense. Why don't later T-series tanks have it, then, and why not things like the ISes? They do, though? They're removable.   The only IS that doesn't seem to have one is the IS-3. Also there is no such thing as a T-series.
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 09:37 |
|
|
Wartime IS-2 and T-34 tanks don't have them yet, ones modernized after the war have them added.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
Malleum posted:They do, though? They're removable.  I've somehow just never seen one with them on I guess  Maybe I mixed them up with ERA blocks?And what's the correct term for "the group of tanks whose names all consist of T then a dash then a number", then?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
spectralent posted:And what's the correct term for "the group of tanks whose names all consist of T then a dash then a number", then? Landsknects
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
spectralent posted:
Soviet tanks or, if you're talking about post-Soviet tanks, then Russian/Ukrainian/Kazakh/whatever. Much in the same way you don't call the Abrams the last in the M-series.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
spectralent posted:And what's the correct term for "the group of tanks whose names all consist of T then a dash then a number", then? Soviet cold war tanks? The T- designation for Russian tanks doesn't really mean much more than the M designation does for American Tanks. By that logic, the M2 Medium Tank, M3 "Stuart", M3 "Lee", M4 "Sherman", M22 "Locust", M24 "Chaffee", and M26 "Pershing" are a group of tanks. EDIT: ^^ What he said.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
Forgot the Longstreet
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
That kind of breaks down because all the Ms in american service are mediums (at least in context of the cold war). I just meant "The mediums beginning with T and not the heavies", but I guess that breaks down too because it turns out those also have splash boards  EDIT: Also I thought there was a rough progression from T-34 to T-80, matching how the M3 (Lee) goes up to the M1? Is this a case where I've used series less rigorously than is generally used? My understanding was that you have T-34, T-44, T-54/55, T-62, and then a big T-64/T-72/T-80 blur when the soviet military-industrial sector went a bit bananas all following from needs to update the latter. Likewise the M "series" went M3, M4, weird stuff happens postwar with the M26 being moved into the medium slot, M46-48, M60, and later M1 spectralent fucked around with this message at 20:00 on May 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
spectralent posted:That kind of breaks down because all the Ms in american service are mediums (at least in context of the cold war). I just meant "The mediums beginning with T and not the heavies", but I guess that breaks down too because it turns out those also have splash boards Well, the M designation was used for ALL tanks in WW2. In the Cold War, it stopped mattering because the development of the Main Battle Tank made the idea of weight classes almost totally obsolete. The closest you get are a handful of light tanks like the Sheridan or the upgraded Stuarts in South America.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 19:54
|
|
|
Help me out here, what's the point you're trying to get across?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
The T prefix is just how the Soviets denote their production tanks. Like how their prototypes were Object (Number), and how Chinese tanks are Type (Number), and how US fighter aircraft is F-(Number). EDIT: There was no linear progression in T-numerals because of the way soviet tank design worked, with multiple competing bureaus that don't necessarily talk to each other. Someone had a good series of posts about the whole mess earlier. Fangz fucked around with this message at 20:11 on May 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 20:06
|
|
|
It makes sense, like the progression from M48 to M60 Patton to M1 Abrams to M113 Gavin. Don't even paperclips used in Pentagon have an M-number?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
Koesj posted:Help me out here, what's the point you're trying to get across? I'm basically just slightly confused because I thought T-34 to T-80 did constitute some kind of developmental timeline that could be called a series and am wondering if I'm either really misinformed on the history or really wrong on the language (or both). EDIT: And this is secondary and unrelated to the fact I just had my mind blown by the fact I've somehow only ever managed to see T-54s and -62s with splash boards on and assumed it was a unique feature when it turns out T-72s have them all the time and they're just removable. spectralent fucked around with this message at 20:12 on May 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:It makes sense, like the progression from M48 to M60 Patton to M1 Abrams to M113 Gavin. Uh, on that topic, what IS the basis of the M numbers?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
There's multiple separate design bureaus and factories involved in building that 'series', and that's not even taking the tanks that didn't make it to full production into consideration. Would you consider the US post-1962 sequential fighter aircraft classification a lineage of some sort? e: ^^^^ model...
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
Koesj posted:There's multiple separate design bureaus and factories involved in building that 'series', and that's not even taking the tanks that didn't make it to full production into consideration. Yeah, kinda? They feel like a cromulent group of "Vehicles that served similar* roles in a given force over the period". *similar, since while they're successors to each other in terms of service I'm aware the needs of being a fighter would change dramatically over 50 years. I'm assuming the correct word for this isn't "series", though. I guess just the role is the thing I'm really referring to, so it should be "Fighter aircraft" or "Soviet MBTs". spectralent fucked around with this message at 20:26 on May 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
spectralent posted:I'm basically just slightly confused because I thought T-34 to T-80 did constitute some kind of developmental timeline that could be called a series and am wondering if I'm either really misinformed on the history or really wrong on the language (or both). The developmental timeline is that in one year Soviet tank development bureaus made a tank and called it the T-34, and in another much later year Soviet tank development bureaus made the T-80. The T-80 incorporates the lessons learned from previous Soviet tanks, but it isn't necessarily the direct sequential child of some other model. It's a T-80 because it's Soviet-made and that's what the Soviets call their tanks. Any particular similarities it might have with other Soviet tanks are because it was also made by the Soviets, not because its name starts with "T-". The "T-" tanks do share a common lineage in that they were all built by the Soviet tank industry, and they have various similarities in design as a result of that, but there's no real grounds for calling them a "series" or assuming some kind of sensible linear progression through them.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 20:26
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The developmental timeline is that in one year Soviet tank development bureaus made a tank and called it the T-34, and in another much later year Soviet tank development bureaus made the T-80. The T-80 incorporates the lessons learned from previous Soviet tanks, but it isn't necessarily the direct sequential child of some other model. It's a T-80 because it's Soviet-made and that's what the Soviets call their tanks. Any particular similarities it might have with other Soviet tanks are because it was also made by the Soviets, not because its name starts with "T-". A good quick read on so of the background of the bureaus and the different tank models is "Why Three Tanks?" which gets into why the Soviets had the T-72, T-64, and T-80 all at the same time. Starts at page 23 in the July-August 1998 issue of Armor. http://www.benning.army.mil/armor/eARMOR/content/issues/1998/JUL_AUG/ArmorJulyAugust1998web.pdf
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
Koesj posted:There's multiple separate design bureaus and factories involved in building that 'series', and that's not even taking the tanks that didn't make it to full production into consideration. I mean the numbering scheme. It seems highly random.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
In the same vein US aircraft designations can be pretty non-linear as well: a late 1970s light bomber program gets a pre-1962 fighter prefix and design number because it's a black project, following the lineage of secretly acquired Soviet fighter planes part of a whole different black program operating out of the same region  Fangz posted:I mean the numbering scheme. It seems highly random. IIRC postwar it becomes M-year minus 19, and with the Abrams they do a rebranding :dunno:
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
The M1 rebranding thing is, I think, because the MBT 70 project was such a massive clusterfuck nobody wanted to number off that one. EDIT: And IIRC the T and M numbers run consecutively; things with T(n) numerics just become M(n) when they're standardised. The M46 at least was designed in 1948 and served from 1949, so that one breaks the pattern. It might be the case for the M60, which entered production in 1960, though. I also know that the M551 is such because it had to fit into the non-tank hierarchy because of MBT doctrine, and comes next to a tractor or something. spectralent fucked around with this message at 20:48 on May 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
spectralent posted:I'm basically just slightly confused because I thought T-34 to T-80 did constitute some kind of developmental timeline that could be called a series and am wondering if I'm either really misinformed on the history or really wrong on the language (or both). Nope, not at all. Here's the gist of it. The T-34 was developed at factory #183. The replacement T-34M was developed at the same factory, but was a whole new design despite the similar name. The war broke out and production never began. The next T-34 replacement project was the T-43, again a whole new design by factory #183. The result wasn't what the Red Army needed, but the turret was considered good, so that migrated to the T-34-85. The replacement for the T-34-85 was the T-44, visually similar but completely different on the inside. The T-44 evolved into the T-54, then T-55, then T-62. I guess that's the only "series" you can observe in this entire sequence. Then it gets weird. The T-64 was also developed at factory #183 (a whole new design, once more) but then the T-72 was designed in the Urals, and was again a whole new design. The two tanks were produced in parallel. Then the T-80 was designed at the Kirov factory with inspiration from the T-64, but a whole different tank. Then the T-90 is just a souped up T-72, but the T-14 is a completely new design again. So there are some dependencies here, but no continuous connection that makes it a "T-series". Then there are completely unrelated tanks, like the T-26, T-46, T-50, T-60, T-70, T-80, T-90 (yup, different T-80 and T-90) light tanks, T-12, T-24, T-28, and T-29 medium tanks, T-35, T-150, T-220, and T-10 heavy tanks.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Nope, not at all. Here's the gist of it. Huh! Admittedly I had thought there was a lot more direct descent than that. Also thanks to you and razak for the T-64-80 mess links; they're a really interesting read.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
If you want a mess, visit a Russian tank message board. About half the threads consist of "HPZ rules, UVZ drools" and "go back to making tractors, Kharkov scum"
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
spectralent posted:The M1 rebranding thing is, I think, because the MBT 70 project was such a massive clusterfuck nobody wanted to number off that one. The military loves breaking their patterns. The current designation for the pistol meant to replace the M9 ix XM17.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
spectralent posted:Huh! Admittedly I had thought there was a lot more direct descent than that. Fangz posted:The T prefix is just how the Soviets denote their production tanks. Like how their prototypes were Object (Number), and how Chinese tanks are Type (Number), and how US fighter aircraft is F-(Number). That would be me who had the posts  If you WOULD LIKE TO KNOW MORE spectralent, press the "?" under my avatar.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
Yeah that's what I meant by different factories and bureaus but you fuckers actually know your stuff 
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
Another interesting thing is that KV, IS and T-10 are part of the same lineage developed by one bureau but were named differently based on prevailing political winds.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Another interesting thing is that KV, IS and T-10 are part of the same lineage developed by one bureau but were named differently based on prevailing political winds. Always good to realise you're not only wrong but literally 180* counterfactual.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Another interesting thing is that KV, IS and T-10 are part of the same lineage developed by one bureau but were named differently based on prevailing political winds. Since I still had the browser tab open check out "Red Star – White Elephant?" from the July-August 2002 issue of Armor: Starts on page 28 of the pdf: http://www.benning.army.mil/armor/eARMOR/content/issues/2002/JUL_AUG/ArmorJulyAugust2002web.pdf
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
razak posted:Since I still had the browser tab open check out "Red Star – White Elephant?" from the July-August 2002 issue of Armor: A huge amount of new information on the topic has come out since then. This article ranges from kind of right to flat out wrong on most points.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:A huge amount of new information on the topic has come out since then. This article ranges from kind of right to flat out wrong on most points. Do you have a good source to start at? My google-fu is weak and I keep on ending up with game arguments.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Nope, not at all. Here's the gist of it. You are loving with my brain. Quite effectively, I'll admit.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 22:05
|
|
|
razak posted:Do you have a good source to start at? My google-fu is weak and I keep on ending up with game arguments. lol yep, same goes for aeroplanes the stupidest thing is that all of these arguments are about super arcade-y games
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:A huge amount of new information on the topic has come out since then. This article ranges from kind of right to flat out wrong on most points. I had the impression the IS-3 had reliability issues, but was rapidly replaced by the IS-4 and later the T-10, which had fairly legitimate claims to their reputation. How accurate is that? edit: razak posted:Do you have a good source to start at? My google-fu is weak and I keep on ending up with game arguments. Or that basically yeah.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
Military designation systems always turn out messy no matter what kind of ambitions you have initially. Example: in the early 1950's the Swedish army decided to standardize the naming of tanks and such vehicles in a clear and logical way. They were named according to the caliber of the main gun in centimeters (rounded down) plus a sequence number. Hence, the new Centurion tank became "stridsvagn 81" because it had an 8.4 cm gun and was the first vehicle with a gun of nominally 8 cm caliber. It immediately became messy, though. The new light infantry support vehicle with a 7.5 cm gun became "infanterikanonvagn 72", but there was no vehicle numbered 71 - presumably they intended to rename the older stridsvagn m/42 to this, but it never happened. Then the army bought new, modernized Centurions with more armor and 10.5 cm guns - they became "stridsvagn 101" (10 cm gun, first vehicle of that caliber) - no obvious relation to the older Centurions. And then it started to get confusing too, because the army decided to re-arm the older stridsvagn 81's and put a 10.5 cm gun in those too, re-designating them stridsvagn 102 - but they still had less armor than the 101's, so now you had an older tank with a higher sequence number. It barely took a decade until the system was almost as confusing as drawing numbers out of a hat would have been.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 23:08
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:If you want a mess, visit a Russian tank message board. About half the threads consist of "HPZ rules, UVZ drools" and "go back to making tractors, Kharkov scum" You can find it on American boards too. (that thread is actually pretty good)
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 23:24
|
|
|
There was also the case of Britain's naming system where it started with official names like Infantry Tank, A11 Matilda, Mk 1. Nevermind the "A" part had arbitrary numbers following them, so it was confusing for those not in the know of every vehicle before the nicknames became commonplace. The US one seemed easy on the outside with the M1/2/3/4 thing going on. It still had that sequence for differing equipment though, like M3 Light/M3 Medium (While a dumb example, I use the P-38 fighter/can opener to get a chuckle out of tour groups) which prompted the British to come up with the "General" naming system of Grant, Lee, Stuart, Sherman, etc. We didn't exactly find an elegant solution until someone in Chiefs of Staff demanded we start giving official "nicknames" to equipment. Still results in stuff like M551 and M1128 MGS, but who cares.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 23:30
|
|
|
spectralent posted:I had the impression the IS-3 had reliability issues, but was rapidly replaced by the IS-4 and later the T-10, which had fairly legitimate claims to their reputation. How accurate is that? The IS-3 and 4 were competitors. The IS-4 (object 701) actually started development as a whole new tank in 1943 in response to the Ferdinand (the Soviets expected it to be the next big threat), while the IS-3 (object 703) was developed later as a modernization of the IS-2. The IS-4 was a much heavier, and thus more problematic vehicle, and didn't make it into production before the war ended, whereas the IS-3 just barely started production in May. After the war, there was a huge drain of skilled engineers from military to civilian fields. Development of the IS-4 stagnated. By the time it began production, the technology involved in the design was obsolete even compared to the IS-3, and you already had space-age poo poo like the IS-7 on the horizon. The fate of the IS-4 was sealed by the new weight restriction on heavy tanks: no more than 50 tons. That restriction resulted in the development of the IS-8 with the new techniques and the stoppage of IS-4 production.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 23:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 09:37 |
|
|
I've never found an answer as to why the base HMMWV is the M1097 so I've just decided that in my little world there were one thousand and ninety six previous models of utility vehicles that were all fielded in great number and lived long and happy service lives. Take a look at this shitshow of designations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humvee#Versions
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 23:41
|
|