|
Ensign Expendable posted:Huh, that's an exceptionally dramatic way to describe penetration/chance of penetration/no penetration. Is it really talking about penetration or is it talking about mobility/mission kill vs catastrophic damage?
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 05:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 04:29 |
|
|
Fangz posted:Is it really talking about penetration or is it talking about mobility/mission kill vs catastrophic damage? If it was mission kill vs catastrophic damage, then penetrating the upper or lower side of the hull would give the same result, but the upper side of the Valentine is only hashed instead of solid.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 05:09
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Vernichten would probably translate fairly literally as "annihilate" Yeah, I'm pretty sure that the extermination camps during the Holocaust were named "Vernichtungslager", which I always heard translated as "annihilation camp".
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 05:25
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:The wheel spacing looks more like a T-62, but it's abstract enough to be anything. The caption just says "medium tank". Dome turret is very T-62.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 05:30
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Vernichten would probably translate fairly literally as "annihilate" it does sound suspiciously like other roman words for "deny", though - to the point where my( Danish) dad cracked up laughing upon learning that a paper shredder is named "aktsvernichter" (asset annihilator, but sounds like "asset denier"!)
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 10:01
|
|
|
"Asset annihilator" still sounds hilariously overblown for a shredder.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 12:54
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:German speakers, what's the difference between zerstören and vernichten? Google tells me they both mean "destroy", but the context of the image seems to imply that zerstören is somehow not as bad. "Nicht jeder Treffer wirkt sofort vernichtend" = Not every hit leads to instant anihilation. -> vernichtet = instant and catastrophic kill "Sprenggranaten ??? erzielen behindernde bzw. zerstörende Wirkung beim Beschuß von Waffen und Blenden..." = HE shells cause impairing respectively destructive effect if aimed at guns and bezels... -> zerstört = technical knockout
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 12:56
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:It also makes the crew reliant on either technology or small vision blocks and periscopes to actually see outside, which can be a bit of a problem when your cameras get shot out or the software suffers a crash. You already have the same problems with visibility in a crewed turret.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 13:14
|
|
|
TasogareNoKagi posted:
Speaking of, how the hell do two pike squares fight each other? Assuming the other dudes have a pike as long as yours, there has to be absolutely no way to stab someone without being stabbed at the same time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 13:31
|
|
|
Fat Samurai posted:Speaking of, how the hell do two pike squares fight each other? Assuming the other dudes have a pike as long as yours, there has to be absolutely no way to stab someone without being stabbed at the same time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 13:34
|
|
|
Ok, you can parry 1 pike. What about the other 5 dudes next to your target? Also, how does right of way work with pikes? Do you move only forwards and backwards? Do you have to shout like a moron after touching your opponent?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 13:38
|
|
|
Fat Samurai posted:Ok, you can parry 1 pike. What about the other 5 dudes next to your target? quote:Also, how does right of way work with pikes? Do you move only forwards and backwards? Do you have to shout like a moron after touching your opponent?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 13:39
|
|
|
Lindybeige has a bit on pike squares fighting each other :P
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 14:58
|
|
|
spectralent posted:"Asset annihilator" still sounds hilariously overblown for a shredder. It translates poorly. It means something closer to "item destroyer", really.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 15:02
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:You already have the same problems with visibility in a crewed turret. A crewed turret lets the commander actually sit in the hatch and look around with a full, tall 360 degree view when it's safe. Instead of buttoning up under fire, the Armata is permanently buttoned up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 15:03
|
|
|
Stealing from B4Ctom1 in the AIRPOWER/Cold War thread, here's a post on the deceptions used during the evacuation of Gallipoli in 1915 to make it seem like the trenches were still occupied. The best is the simple yet clever use of dripping water in a pan to set up a rigged rifle to fire.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 15:53
|
|
|
Fat Samurai posted:Speaking of, how the hell do two pike squares fight each other? Assuming the other dudes have a pike as long as yours, there has to be absolutely no way to stab someone without being stabbed at the same time. In the late 16th/early 17th centuries pike blocks had more halberdiers and sword armed roloderos mixed into them, who could close on pikemen in melee combat and kill them by getting inside their guards. As the 17th century rolls on this falls out of fashion though as the ratio of musketeers to pikemen/other melee infantry goes up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 16:03
|
|
|
I think it was equipment costs that killed it though: Right you see that block of men with pikes? Your job is to get in there and gently caress poo poo up like a madman while they stab at you and our guys might also stab you. Here's your helmet, breastplate, sword, buckler and enormous brass balls.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 16:17
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:A crewed turret lets the commander actually sit in the hatch and look around with a full, tall 360 degree view when it's safe. Instead of buttoning up under fire, the Armata is permanently buttoned up. There are cameras on top of the turret, it's not like the crew is stuck looking from hull level. JaucheCharly posted:"Nicht jeder Treffer wirkt sofort vernichtend" = Not every hit leads to instant anihilation. That's very detailed, thanks!
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 16:21
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:There are cameras on top of the turret, it's not like the crew is stuck looking from hull level. Right up until the tank gets hit with anything from machinegun calibre fire on up, presumably.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 16:44
|
|
|
Well, wouldn't a commander who wants to unbutton/hatch down or whatever be as vulnerable to MG fire as the cameras? Cameras aren't that easier to hit than vision slits, no?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 17:06
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Well, wouldn't a commander who wants to unbutton/hatch down or whatever be as vulnerable to MG fire as the cameras? Cameras aren't that easier to hit than vision slits, no? Yeah, but you can unbutton when it lets up, but you have to fix a vision port. That kind of stuff seems to happen a lot; relatively light weapons can knock out periscopes and stuff. Presumably the russians know this and weighed it up against the disadvantages, but it seems like the kind of thing you could argue rather than just being a no-brainer.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 17:18
|
|
|
Essentially not having a command cupola at least makes your tank more likely to need repair if it gets hit by anything. Or you have severely reduced visibility from then until you get repairs. Also you'd need a really loving beefy optics package to give you better visibility than a guy with his head sticking out of the turret with a pair of binoculars. So, it's a lot of work for some fairly specific and situational gains, whereas high visibility is almost always useful to a tank.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
spectralent posted:Yeah, but you can unbutton when it lets up, but you have to fix a vision port. That kind of stuff seems to happen a lot; relatively light weapons can knock out periscopes and stuff. You can have armoured flaps that protect vision ports as well as cameras or periscopes that retract. This isn't particularly new technology.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 18:04
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Stealing from B4Ctom1 in the AIRPOWER/Cold War thread, here's a post on the deceptions used during the evacuation of Gallipoli in 1915 to make it seem like the trenches were still occupied. The best is the simple yet clever use of dripping water in a pan to set up a rigged rifle to fire. I learned about that the other day, It was very clever and nice to see the departure wasn't as horrific and bloody as the landings at the start of that campaign.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 18:10
|
|
|
lenoon posted:I think it was equipment costs that killed it though: HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 19:15 on Nov 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Essentially not having a command cupola at least makes your tank more likely to need repair if it gets hit by anything. Or you have severely reduced visibility from then until you get repairs. Tanks already have absurd optics packages. When tanks are unbuttoned, it usually means that there isn't much going on nearby, which means that it's not that important to have MAX VISIBILITY WITH THE MARK 1 EYE BALL.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
Excuse me, I think you'll find that's the Ball, Eye, Mark I, Making Visual Inspections, for the use of
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
The unmanned turret would be pretty cool if it actually lowered the overall silhouette and improved the armor layout except AFAIK the parade T-14 we saw did neither of those things.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
Mazz posted:The unmanned turret would be pretty cool if it actually lowered the overall silhouette and improved the armor layout except AFAIK the parade T-14 we saw did neither of those things. yeah, that was weird. seems that's one of the points that a unmanned turret would be good for. maybe it's an ammunition storage thing?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Who is hysterical about it? you know officers specifically people who get quoted in tabloid newspapers that want us to be afraid of russia, 'us' being norway
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
You guys do realize that since the turret is now no longer a part of the internal volume with the crew, a big part of what makes a penetration to the turret a bad time is removed? -The crew compartment is no longer in the turret, which means over-pressure of an impact in the turret is removed as a factor to crew health. -Spalling and fragments ripping through squishy crew are also removed as a factor. -Since the crew are no longer where the cannon and the ammunition are, the crew can't get cooked by propellant infernos. Really, the turret is now just a big-rear end RCWS so aside from the loss of sensors/weapons when it gets hit, it is no longer a "tank destroyed" event like in a conventional tank because the turret isn't a part of the fighting compartment anymore. Also in terms of armor layout, there are big improvements in the "deck armor" alone. It's no longer about trying to make the forward arc of the tank being the best protected and writing off the rest. 30-40mm of RHA on the roof isn't going to cut it anymore with how widespread and deadly top-down threats like cluster bomblets and ATGM's are proving to be. I think I already  'd out about it earlier in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
Mazz posted:The unmanned turret would be pretty cool if it actually lowered the overall silhouette and improved the armor layout except AFAIK the parade T-14 we saw did neither of those things. Mycroft Holmes posted:yeah, that was weird. seems that's one of the points that a unmanned turret would be good for. maybe it's an ammunition storage thing? The argument is that in this day and age it's no longer economical to try to minimize the size of the target that you present because your tank could be the size of a Reliant Robin and a modern MBT or ATGM would still hit it every time at 4 km. Instead the focus is on active protection and crew survivability and not being the one being fired at first. Then there's the family design and future compatibility, the hull needs to be able to house the innards of both T-14 and T-15, and T-14 might at some point be upgraded to carry the 152mm gun so might as well save some room for that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
Surely if the turret gets hit a tank without a gun is pretty much combat ineffective even if the gunner and commander now survive.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2016 00:57
|
|
|
Gunners and commanders are also expensive to replace. A tank that's penetrated is almost certainly hosed anyway, the difference here is that the driver will be able to get it off the battlefield in more cases
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2016 01:08
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Gunners and commanders are also expensive to replace. A tank that's penetrated is almost certainly hosed anyway, the difference here is that the driver will be able to get it off the battlefield in more cases The driver could do that just as well before and in WW3 how much does crew retention matter?
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2016 02:07
|
|
|
A remote turret can be more completely isolated from the rest of the compartment.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2016 02:10
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:The driver could do that just as well before and in WW3 how much does crew retention matter? An explosion inside the turret is probably going to kill the driver as well, and if crew retention doesn't matter, we might as well just go back to Waffentragers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2016 03:24
|
|
|
Are they working towards drone tanks, like sticking the crew behind the fighty bit of the tank at the end of a really long cable? Like going from a knife to a spear to a pike.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2016 03:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 04:29 |
|
|
Rockopolis posted:Are they working towards drone tanks, like sticking the crew behind the fighty bit of the tank at the end of a really long cable? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2016 03:57
|
|