|
Trin Tragula posted:THE END OF THE FIRST WORLD WAR: A (Really Short) TIMELINE Amazing, Trin. Could we have seen an Entente advance on Austria or Hungary itself had the war continued?
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 00:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 09:34 |
|
|
Davin Valkri posted:If that's, to use the joke structure, a "tank made in heaven", what would a "tank made in hell" look like? Here you go: 
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 01:59
|
|
|
Needs interleaved road wheels.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 03:45
|
|
|
The MBT-70 can hardly be called a tank developed in hell. It was a failure, sure, but mainly in that it was ahead of its time, tried to do a joint NATO project at a time when that poo poo never panned out and the costs went up too much too quickly. Overall though it incorporated a bunch of decent ideas that went on to to be a part of plenty future tanks. The 152mm gun/launcher was the closest thing to a complete failure on the whole thing, and that was mainly because the MGM-51 was a dud and the caseless ammo sucked. I know you have a soft spot for it manning them but the M60 was showing it’s age by like 1975 or so, especially against T-64 equipped opponents, and the M60A2 was not in any way a better project than the 70. Mazz fucked around with this message at 04:09 on Nov 7, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 03:56
|
|
|
Mazz posted:The MBT-70 can hardly be called a tank developed if hell. It was ahread of it’s time and the costs went up too much too quickly, but overall it incorporated a bunch of ideas that went on to to be a part of plenty of future tanks. The 152mm gun/launcher was the closest thing to a complete failure on the whole thing, and that was mainly because the MGM-51 was a dud. The 152mm gun/launcher was an amazing weapon. Alone it killed not only the mbt70 but also m60a2 and 551 sheridan. By all accounts it made more damage to US armor AND airborne than any Soviet weapon system ever. The worst part is that germans were adamant that a 120mm smoothbore could do everything the mbt-70 needed and good 25 years later US finally caved and took it as m256 to the abrams on the m1a1 upgrade.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 04:03
|
|
|
Valtonen posted:The 152mm gun/launcher was an amazing weapon. Alone it killed not only the mbt70 but also m60a2 and 551 sheridan. By all accounts it made more damage to US armor AND airborne than any Soviet weapon system ever. Pretty much. Had the MBT actually had alternative gun development it probably would’ve been considered a lot more successful. It was still ahead of its time and too expensive, but the gun/ammo was far and away the biggest issue.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 04:07
|
|
|
Mazz posted:The MBT-70 can hardly be called a tank developed in hell. It was ahread of its time, tried to do a joint NATO project at a time when that poo poo never panned out and the costs went up too much too quickly, but overall it incorporated a bunch of ideas that went on to to be a part of plenty of future tanks. Like, say, the retractable 20mm anti-aircraft cannon that jammed constantly and tended to get stuck halfway out of the turret? Or the hydraulic suspension that was supposed to raise and lower the vehicle, but blew hydraulic lines constantly, flooding the hull with flammable hydraulic fluid? Or the sealed turret which also enclosed the driver, who was set up in his own counter-rotating drivers station that was so disorienting that drivers got nauseous? Or mixing SAE and metric tools and parts on the same vehicle as a compromise between Germany and the USA? None of these ideas carried forward. Yes, a few systems like laser rangefinders went on to future designs, but overall the thing was overwhelmingly garbage. Worse, if it had gone into production there would have been far less incentive to start over and make the M-1; we would have been stuck with a junk tank with steel armor and failing systems well into the 80s, and with the end of the Cold War it's entirely possible we wouldn't have any sort of replacement on the horizon even now. The best thing to come out of the program was a cautionary example of how not to design an AFV. Mazz posted:I know you have a soft spot for it manning them but the M60 was showing it’s age by like 1980 or so, especially against T-64 equipped opponents, and the M60A2 was not in any way a better project than the 70. There's no doubt that the M-60s were desperately in need of a replacement. This fact does not make the MBT-70 a good AFV.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 04:17
|
|
|
Doesn't the RoC still use the Patton?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 04:21
|
|
|
Cessna posted:Like, say, the retractable 20mm anti-aircraft cannon that jammed constantly and tended to get stuck halfway out of the turret? They cut the Rh 202 for the XM-803 and the hydopneumatic suspension is in use on every Japanese tank since the Type 74 and derivatives on the T-14 and Challenger 1/2. Again, systems that that were too complex for their time but not inherently terrible ideas. Also it was still steel but it at least incorporated advancements like spaced armor, there’s no reason it couldn’t have been improved like the M60 (which had worse protection for its lifetime outside ERA) and M1 were. It was flawed sure, but to pretend like it was a tank developed in hell is a pretty over the top. The Maus was a tank developed in hell. Also that metric/imperial poo poo killed the US Roland program as well, which is such a stupid problem to have but not at all surprising. EDIT: If we’re going down that road the FCS/GCV puts the MBT-70 to loving shame on “how to not build an AFV” Mazz fucked around with this message at 04:37 on Nov 7, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 04:22
|
|
|
Milo and POTUS posted:Doesn't the RoC still use the Patton? A number of countries still use them. Often an old tank is better than no tank at all. (And many of the old M-60s have had a whole suite of upgrades and improvements done to them.) South Korea builds their own MBT, called the K-1. It's like a Korea-specific M-1. It's a bit smaller, has a different engine, suspension, etc:  As an aside, I love the fact that South Korea still uses MERDC camouflage; it makes me all nostalgic.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 04:29
|
|
|
Valtonen posted:The 152mm gun/launcher was an amazing weapon. Alone it killed not only the mbt70 but also m60a2 and 551 sheridan. By all accounts it made more damage to US armor AND airborne than any Soviet weapon system ever. There M19 fire control system fitted to the M60A2 is very nice for 1969. Unfortunately, it was on the Starship and not the M60A1-but-better. US tanks development in this period makes for a period from 1960 to 1978 where they just seem to make the most awkward tanks despite having all the tools necessary to make some pretty decent ones.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 04:35
|
|
|
Mazz posted:They cut the Rh 202 for the XM-803 and the hydraulic based suspension is in use on every Japanese tank since the Type 74 and derivatives on the T-14 and Challenger 1/2. Again, systems that that were too complex for their time but not inherently terrible ideas. No, but they aren't necessarily GOOD ideas either. Hydraulic suspensions are not, in my eyes, a good idea. As it is, tank suspensions require a lot of work and maintenance. Trust me here. Adding the ability to lift or raise a tank is - well, it's cute, but in my opinion it is unnecessary and only adds problems and failure. A decent crew can read the ground and find that extra foot or so of concealment without adding complex and breakable systems that add inordinate maintenance and logistics requirements. quote:Also it was still steel but it at least incorporated advancements like spaced armor, there’s no reason it couldn’t have been improved like the M60 (which had worse protection for its lifetime outside ERA) and M1 were. It was flawed sure, but to pretend like it was a tank developed in hell is a pretty over the top. To make the tank NBC-sealed they put the driver in the turret. But when you turn the turret, the driver faces in another direction - so they put a turret inside the turret to keep the driver facing forward and had him drive by looking through a disorienting system of mirrors and periscopes. How is this a good idea, or something that you can improve? It's a bad idea followed with another bad idea, followed with another bad idea - and eliminating it would have necessitated redesigning the entire hull and turret. You might as well design a new tank at that point. Every system that is important on a tank - the gun, the suspension, the engine, you name it - was bad. Crew layout? Bad. Ease of maintenance? Bad. Mazz posted:The Maus was a tank developed in hell. Presumably it at least partially accomplished its mission, which was keeping its designers from being conscripted into the Volkssturm and thrown under the tracks of a T-34.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 04:44
|
|
|
in addition to having arguably the best tank name of all time the South Koreans have built the best (and most expensive) pound for pound next generation tank on the planet https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/K2_Black_Panther crazy that thing is replacing m48s
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 04:55
|
|
|
You really are pushing things to make your point here though. Because you dislike the idea of the hydropneumatic suspension it is now bad even while several very modern designs use it (including the K2 mentioned above); the engine was a pretty bog standard Continental or MAN diesel, which again, is now bad. I cede the driver thing wasn't an easy fix but was probably able to be improved given some development time. I certainly haven't read anything that suggested it was the killing blow, especially compared to the gun (which killed far more than the 70 as mentioned). It wasn't a great tank, I didn't argue that. I did argue it wasn't the worst tank ever designed or developed in hell. I can cite several other US armor programs alone that jump way ahead on the piece-of-poo poo scale, a couple of which I mentioned at the end of one of the previous posts. FCS makes the MBT-70 program look as well managed as the Virginia SSN. Mazz fucked around with this message at 05:24 on Nov 7, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 04:57
|
|
|
FrangibleCover posted:That's pretty good, but instead of removing the AAMG why not put it in a comically large commanders cupola a la M60? I'd also suggest some possible "upgrade" paths: Well if the laser warning system is set up to automatically arm and/or fire the smoke dischargers you've got more of a chance, especially if the laser is from a ATGM rangefinder instead of a gun system, since you'll have more time to change position behind the smoke. Even better if it can indicate where the laser is coming from and automatically slew the turret, a snap shot at whoever's firing the laser might throw off their aim. But to all that I'd add: - The laser warning system has the same alert noise as a more mundane alarm. - Twin fixed forward machine guns that the driver can fire so they don't feel left out. (the Stuart, M3 Lee and early Shermans had this, I presume in the field they'd likely get used as spares for the coax/bow guns or traded to infantry for stuff) - A gun-missile system that doesn't have a big enough HE shell for being effective against infantry/buildings, the muzzle velocity is too low to effectively use HEAT rounds against moving targets, and the ATGM doesn't have good armor penetration and has a overly long minimum range. - The Coax is a slow-firing auto-cannon mounted outside of the turret, there isn't a traditional GPMG at all. - For a British tank, the water boiler has a open flame. To cheat, add "it's the Soviet export model" to the end of anything that's been proposed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 05:24
|
|
|
Mazz posted:You really are pushing things to make your point though. I think it is entirely reasonable to use my experience as a tank crewman to comment on things. I assure you that I'll critique other systems with as much harshness if I think it is warranted - just ask me about the M85 machinegun, for example. Mazz posted:Because you dislike the idea of the hydropneumatic suspension it is now bad, The MBT-70 didn't have a hydropneumatic suspension like a Challenger. It had a hydraulic suspension which could raise and lower the tank, like a low-rider. Check out this video at 0:49: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCrZL4_ZTX0 And, yes, I think that is a bad system. It doesn't really add a useful capability, but introduces huge amounts of complexity. Mazz posted:the engine was a pretty bog standard Continental AVCR V12 diesel, which again, is now bad. No, that engine was fine. The turbine it was initially supposed to use wasn't. Mazz posted:I cede the driver thing wasn't an easy fix. It wasn't a great tank, it also wasn't the worst tank ever designed. I can cite several other US armor programs alone that jump way ahead on the piece of poo poo scale, which I mentioned at the end of the previous post. The big thing with the MBT-70 is that it had huge problems which weren't really surmountable through upgrades. You can't really undo that driver-turret-thing. You can't practically rework that suspension without replacing it entirely, etc, etc. By the time you get a good tank you're practically rebuilding it entirely, and that would have taken a long time and a lot of money. As it is, wiping the slate clean and starting over resulted in the M-1. To be sure you can't count on that, but I maintain that we were very fortunate not to be stuck with the MBT-70.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 05:27
|
|
|
I think we're mostly on the same page just disagreeing about how adamantly it sucked. I look at a lot of its stuff as inherently not terrible ideas just underdeveloped/overly complex for the 1960s where you just see them as poo poo to operate. That's not a big deal so we can agree to disagree on that. I will mention the MBT used a hydropneumatic system, I don't know the exact details but I assume its a similar principle to all the japanese ones giving the same RoM. I don't know how the Challengers is set up only that its also one. I also agree the M1 was definitely the better way forward but I worry, given the US army track record, without the MBT to set them straight we would've just had ourselves an MBT-80 instead, with all the same poo poo attached. The army certainly didn't learn anything in the long term (another FCS reference here).
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 05:33
|
|
|
C.M. Kruger posted:To cheat, add "it's the Soviet export model" to the end of anything that's been proposed. Most Soviet export tanks were actually quite decent. They had a tiered system for exports, and as long as you're not on the bottom of the list like Iraq was, a Soviet export tank is a perfectly fine tank. The export version of the T-72A obr. 1983 was available for export as the T-72M1 at least as early as 1985, and the only major downgrade was the absence of the anti-radiation lining, IIRC.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 05:37
|
|
|
Mazz posted:I think we're mostly on the same page just disagreeing about how adamantly it sucked. I look at a lot of its stuff as inherently not terrible ideas just underdeveloped/overly complex for the 1960s where you just see them as poo poo to operate. That's not a big deal so we can agree to disagree on that. I think that's a fair assessment, agreed. Mazz posted:I will mention the MBT used a hydropneumatic system, I don't know the exact details but I assume its a similar principle to all the japanese ones giving the same RoM. I don't know how the Challengers is set up only that its also one. I've never worked on a Challenger, but it is my understanding that their suspension is hydropneumatic. That is, it uses sealed systems instead of torsion bars. You can set them to "hard" or "soft" to give a better ride on different surfaces. This isn't the lo-rider hydraulics of the MBT-70, which you can see in that Youtube video. That's a whole other level of weirdness. Mazz posted:I also agree the M1 was definitely the better way forward but I worry, given the US army track record, without the MBT to set them straight we would've just had ourselves an MBT-80 instead, with all the same poo poo attached. The army certainly didn't learn anything in the long term (another FCS reference here). Agreed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 05:39
|
|
|
Here's the Type 10 doing the same low rider poo poo, the K2 also can do ride height changes but I'm not sure to the same extent as this. I don't know the mechanical differences but they all are hydropneumatic AFAIK. Was discussed recently in the airpower thread but for Japan it makes sense as it works for the hilly terrain they expect to fight on, increasing gun elevation/depression. The MBT was very likely a shittier early version with more problems like you mentioned, no real argument there. https://gfycat.com/BleakUnlinedIndianringneckparakeet Mazz fucked around with this message at 05:51 on Nov 7, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 05:47
|
|
|
Cess you could probably do a mini effortposts on tank anatomy. I can follow most of the stuff but sometimes I'm a little lost.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 06:10
|
|
|
Mazz posted:Here's the Type 10 doing the same low rider poo poo, Huh, cool. The Type 10 is after my time. We occasionally trained alongside the JSDF at Camp Fuji, but they were using Type 74s at the time and I never saw them do anything like that with their suspensions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 06:14
|
|
|
How do tank crews work anyway? How much authority does the tank commander have? How does the gunner get the driver to move a little bit so that he/she has a clear shot? In tanks with a loader, does the loader say anything or just load what they're told to load? A video of a crew in action would be helpful if anyone knows of one out there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 06:27
|
|
|
Cessna posted:Huh, cool. It could, not sure how extensively.  Japan really loves it. Also if you want like 400 pages of good cold war reading while on the can, go look at the AIRPOWER thread in TFR. Mostly airplane poo poo but tons of good cold war effortposts. Mazz fucked around with this message at 06:31 on Nov 7, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 06:28
|
|
|
LatwPIAT posted:Most Soviet export tanks were actually quite decent. They had a tiered system for exports, and as long as you're not on the bottom of the list like Iraq was, a Soviet export tank is a perfectly fine tank. The export version of the T-72A obr. 1983 was available for export as the T-72M1 at least as early as 1985, and the only major downgrade was the absence of the anti-radiation lining, IIRC. Uh yeah the T-72M and T-72M1 was what Iraq had in 1990. According to Zagola the T-72M had the original T-72 armor profile and were upgraded with applique to bring it to T-72A standard. The T-72M1 incorporated the armor improvements on the base model. Both had the upgraded laser FCS from the T-72A, and these Czech/Polish tanks were the main type of T-72 used by non-Red Army forces such as East Germany, Poland, etc. it's odd that the narrative has gone from "monkey models didn't exist" to "they only sent the bad ones to Iraq."
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 06:58
|
|
|
Splode posted:How do tank crews work anyway? Depends on the Army. ”By the book” US gunnery table 6 TC / gunner have very strict script they have to follow or points will be deducted, and the tower listens in on the intercom. After table 6 moving up to section/platoon drills when tower isnt listening in anymore Its less rigid and fire commands turn more casual. My TC usually has the driver start moving up when I call up the range as part of the fire command so we get half a second of time more- by the time he calls ”driver up” tank is already on the move. Finnish Army on the other hand (was a gunner and a loader many many years ago) has much less rigid fire commands.- the base structure is the same but you can omit more If situation warrants. If on a fire position gunner can and should double-check from the FERO (auxiliary sight on the Leo 2, on the same level as the main gun, main sight is on a higher position) that the gun is clear. On a meeting engagement all bets are off and gunner yelling ”huomio”*BOOM* vittu tankki ammuin” is a perfectly valid fire command (translation would be ”attention!” *trigger pull* ”gently caress, tank, killed it” followed by a sensing (target/over/left/right) since FDF has much less cautiousness for friendly fire- going against russians on cold war gone hot fratricide is not gonna be our #1 worry. Leo is more nimble and has less jerk on it since you can have the driver on manual rather than M1s automatic transmission. It shows on going up and down a firing position where unexperienced abrams driver has the tank upshift with VERY noticeable jerk on going up or down. FDF also places a ton more emphasis on close distance fighting due to the terrain we have. As far as authority goes, TC *is* the tank. Rest of the crew are his appendages. Its a hard thing to explain, but when it works its neat. Everyone communicates constantly through intercom. Loader is the one caring for the gun so when arming/safing/changing ammo he announces it. Something goes wrong with gun or coax he should be the first one to note it and start the resolve the issue.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 07:08
|
|
|
I watched most of an episode of Knightfall while drunk and eating a late dinner and it seemed not as terrible as I assumed???? Clear, obvious errors, but at least the fights are better than Game of Thrones’, I guess? Might watch another episode if there’s still vodka. Maybe. Or do anything else.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 07:34
|
|
|
C.M. Kruger posted:Uh yeah the T-72M and T-72M1 was what Iraq had in 1990. According to Zagola the T-72M had the original T-72 armor profile and were upgraded with applique to bring it to T-72A standard. The T-72M1 incorporated the armor improvements on the base model. Both had the upgraded laser FCS from the T-72A, and these Czech/Polish tanks were the main type of T-72 used by non-Red Army forces such as East Germany, Poland, etc. Zaloga is wrong in this instance. The T-72M did receive applique, which gave it the hull (but not turret) protection of the T-72A obr. 1983, in 1985-1986 at Polish and Czechoslovakian assembly lines. The T-72M1 is simply a T-72A obr. 1983 that didn't receive the nadboi anti-neutron cladding. The TPD-K1 sighting complex with laser rangefinder was standard on all T-72 Ural-1s made in or after 1978, a year before the T-72A becomes a thing. (Poland and Czechoslovakia actually buy a license for some kind of T-72 in 1978 and end up producing a tank rather similar to the T-72 obr. 1978 when they get their factories going in 1981-82) This website has a few clear photos showing the differences between different export tanks. You can see the Soviet and Czechoslovakian/Polish T-72s, T-72M, T-72M with applique, and T-72M1.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 10:19
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:October 3rd: Haig receives a memo from Winston Churchill, cautioning him to husband his strength for the decisive offensives of 1920. The German Government resigns.  Churchill, the unerring sage as always
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 11:05
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:
 honhonhon
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 12:39
|
|
|
Spacewolf posted:Amazing, Trin. Could we have seen an Entente advance on Austria or Hungary itself had the war continued? It's a huge and interesting irony that despite the fact that the Allied plan for 1918 was 'pressure on all fronts, but it's not so important that they're precisely time-coordinated', the Central Powers all collapse within days of each other. Sure, if the war had continued there would have been an advance on Austria-Hungary, but the reason the war ended when it did (remember A-H signed an armistice before Germany did) was that the country was in collapse. You also have to bear in mind that by the end of 1917 A-H has achieved total success! The Eastern Front has collapsed for the Entente and peace deals have been arranged, Serbia is firmly occupied, all war goals have been achieved! But the war doesn't end. And all the internal tensions the war was supposed to suppress are still there. In 1918 it all comes to the boil. The union is broken on 31st October and at that point it becomes obviously impossible for Austria to sustain the empire's armed forces for any meaningful length of time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 15:23
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:I watched most of an episode of Knightfall while drunk and eating a late dinner and it seemed not as terrible as I assumed???? That show is loving horrible. There is almost no accuracy to anything in it. So its probably because you were drukn.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 15:28
|
|
|
Cessna posted:I think it is entirely reasonable to use my experience as a tank crewman to comment on things. I assure you that I'll critique other systems with as much harshness if I think it is warranted - just ask me about the M85 machinegun, for example. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 15:59
|
|
|
Ever see the Browning M-2HB .50 cal?  It's an amazing weapon, designed in the closing days of WWI and first fielded by the USA in the mid 1930s. They used them in WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and there are still thousands in use today. It is one of those simple, straightforward designs that just works, a solid block of steel with a couple of moving parts that will run forever. Set the headspace and timing and you can just shoot all day long. I've fired my share of heavier stuff, like tank rounds, but the M-2HB is just viscerally intimidating. It makes this solid heavy "thud" when it shoots: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8nc0rlCArM It's perfect. But, of course, this wasn't good enough for some, so the Army decided to make an improved .50 cal for the upcoming M-60 tank. Never mind the fact that having a big weapon that can absorb recoil and shock is a good thing, no, we'll make it smaller and lighter - because having light weapons is somehow important on an armored vehicle... Sometimes having a solid, sustainable rate of fire is helpful - so, sure, let's make the smaller, lighter gun shoot faster. The result was the M85 machinegun:  Remember how one of the virtues of the M-2HB is its simplicity? The M-85 was a pile of pins and springs. These are just the major assemblies, most of them can (and will) break down further. That "Feed and Ejector" assembly alone is probably over fifty pieces of metal. Feed pawls, slides, levers, ramps, pins, springs, etc:  As an aside, our guns never had the Safety Assembly. Go figure. I worked on these guns for years and I never quite got the hang of assembling and disassembling them. Worse yet, when you try to mount it in the cupola of an M60 or the turret of an AAV - these were used on AAVs as well, more on them later - you can't really get to those fiddly little sub assemblies. It's get the thing into the cupola to mount it - more pins are involved - and then if you have to work on it or fix it when it is mounted, well, forget it. One of the big flaws with the design was its feed mechanism. Maybe the thing could fire well when mounted on a tripod - and, of course, you couldn't mount it on a tripod and there were no tripods anyway - but when it was in a vehicle it was fed by a twisting feed chute that pulled rounds from a hopper/magazine well below the gun. This required a strength that the gun just didn't have. This was bad in M-60s, and even worse in the mount on AAVs where another loop was added. The workaround was to use a screwdriver - stick it in the links and help pull them into the gun when you shoot. Good luck! The thing was supposed to be fired by an electric trigger. Not a fully electric firing mechanism, just push the button and snap, the trigger shoots. There was a neat controller consisting of two up/down handles on a central pivot, like that old 80's Star Wars video game. This traversed the cupola, elevated the gun, and had a little trigger to shoot the electric trigger. It looked really cool, but almost never worked. Best of all, the trigger sent a signal through a solenoid that plugged into the back-plate. It was mounted horizontally. So you pull the trigger to shoot - bang, the recoil bounces the solenoid out of the gun. You're shooting manually now. There were two chain-pulls on the gun, one to shoot, one to charge the gun. They were color coded, one red, one black. Pull the red one to shoot. Hope you don't get them mixed up in the dark. Oh, and there isn't enough room in the cupola to really pull them fully. The work-around was to tape a pair of pliers to the trigger on the gun and pull that back/down to shoot. So - rotate the cupola, if it works. Try to get the gun pointed at the target. Charge the gun, bust your knuckles on the bulkhead. Shoot by pulling the pliers, help the rounds up with the screwedriver-feed-mechanism. Adjust as needed. Good luck. I don't think I ever managed to shoot more than five rounds in a row without a misfeed, jam, or malfunction. When this was in the early LVTP-7s (the old name for the AAV) it was in the "Hydraulic Drive Weapons Station," a system that tended to break and spray flammable hydraulic fluid all over the crew chief. These were before my time, but old platoon sergeants still complained about them. Here's an Argentinian LVT with an HDWS:  These were dropped in favor of the Electric Drive Weapon Station, which worked better - too bad the gun was still garbage. Note the new smoke-grenade launchers. The vehicle underwent a major overhaul at the time, replacing the engine, transmission, and dozens of other systems as well:  When the Gulf War (I) happened they were in the middle of changing over to the Upgunned Weapons Station, which had a Browning M-2HB (yay!) and a cool Mk-19 40mm grenade launcher. This wasn't perfect, but it was a huge leap in capability:  Over in tanks, the M-60 was stuck with the M-85 and the awful cupola for its whole life:  From the 70's to the Gulf War tanks were stuck with a TC's weapon that probably wouldn't work. It is telling that when the Israelis got the M60 they quickly removed the cupola and put a pintle-mounted M2HB (or multiple .50 cals) in its place:  When the M-1s came on line - 1991 for us - they had M-2HBs. Cessna fucked around with this message at 02:50 on Nov 10, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 16:46
|
|
|
these are not particularly milhist but they are very well-written and i don't know where else to put them https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2001/11/the-crash-of-egyptair-990/302332/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2003/11/columbias-last-flight/304204/ https://www.vanityfair.com/news/business/2014/10/air-france-flight-447-crash
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 17:08
|
|
|
The M85 machine gun worked perfectly in its intended role: replacing a gun not made by General Electric with a gun made by General Electric.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 17:14
|
|
|
Cessna posted:Ever see the Browning M-2HB .50 cal? Even today the star types (and even a lot of the bird types) think they know what is best for the grunts and mudrunners... You would think after years of failures and loving poo poo they would figure it out. Nah, they will be the one that breaks the cycle... BFed by your own leadership is always a wonderful thing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 17:16
|
|
|
GotLag posted:The M85 machine gun worked perfectly in its intended role: replacing a gun not made by General Electric with a gun made by General Electric.  Which is even more of an accomplishment given the fact that the M60 was made by Chrysler and the AAVs were made by FMC.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 17:19
|
|
|
Cessna posted:Ever see the Browning M-2HB .50 cal? once the guns start looking like typewriters on the inside my eyes slide right off
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 17:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 09:34 |
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:this is juuuuuuuuuuuust about the latest piece of weaponry i can get my head around on an emotional level. Can we have a couple pages of everyone's favorite most complicated piece of weaponry? When someone explained in a video how an AN-94 works my eyes sort of glazed over:  There are less parts than I imagined, but the whole piece of cable and offset magazine have always blown my mind.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 17:30
|
|
