|
Alchenar posted:That's my understanding of why the autoloader/human loader design split happens. The human can move faster in a pitched battle but obviously gets tired. The autoloader just keeps on going. It's often quoted as the reason but I don't think it's strictly speaking true. A M829 round weighs about 41 pounds. M1A1 Abrams can carry 40 rounds of ammunition into battle. 40 reloads with a 40 pound weight are simply not that taxing to a person in good shape. The differences would only start to show up after extended periods of heavy physical activity or (more likely) no sleep. More likely explanation is the relative inefficiency of Soviet tank engines. T-72 gets ~450 kilometers of operational range with 1200 liters of fuel @ 41.5 tons. Leopard 1 gets similar or better range with 955 liter tank @ 42 tons. Armor is one of the heaviest components of any tank. Cutting a crew member means physically smaller tanks that can still be armored relatively well. Cost issues also come up when you manufacture physically bigger tanks. Pictured: T-72 and M1 Abrams side by side. 
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2013 15:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 08:19 |
|
|
Koesj posted:Is that with or without the disposable tanks in case of the T-72? Without (although depending on the exact model, internal fuel tanks can be 1000 or 1200 liters). Range is increased to 700km or so when you account for 2x200-liter fuel drums.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2013 15:52
|
|
|
Koesj posted:VVV Yeah didn't they add some tanks above the track guards or something, I think this also happened with one of the T-64 updates. Yes, when extra weight threatened to drop the range below 450km. Incidentally West Germany was about 450 kilometers wide from East German to Netherlands border. Unopposed it's less than 10 hours drive for a T-72. VVV Oops, you're right. Here's M1 and T-72 side by side: 
Hob_Gadling fucked around with this message at 16:17 on Nov 14, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2013 16:13
|
|
|
SHISHKABOB posted:Why do we fight wars? That's an interesting question. Carl von Clausewitz tried to answer it in his book "On War", one of the all-time classics on the topic. His view was that war in itself has no purpose; it must be seen as a combination of 1) state continuation of Politik (a word that fuses the meanings of politics and policy) 2) chaos (in the sense of chance and probability) wherein creative spirits are free to roam 3) and primordial hate. These are often associated with state, commander and people. John Keegan argues in his classic "A History of Warfare" that Clausewitz was wrong and that war is cultural. We fight wars because of who we are and who we were raised to be. He makes one very interesting footnote: warfare is, and has been throughout history, an "entirely masculine activity". Both books are fascinating and well worth a read. I would recommend using a reading aid for "On War" since the style can be confusing for a modern reader. http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1946 http://www.amazon.com/A-History-Warfare-John-Keegan/dp/0679730826
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2013 16:49
|
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:There are old guys who joined someone's army when they were young men (I found one yesterday who had first enlisted in 1635--the document with his CV on it was produced in '81. Wallenstein was still alive when this man was young For an old man with little or no relatives to take care of him or significant possessions life in the regiment is the closest to pension you can get. You could try to look up family trees and see if there are any similarities (no children alive etc.) Since life in the regiment seems to be something that inherits from father to son you could also try to look up their fathers and see if they had been part of a regiment.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2013 16:05
|
|
) but the guy I found today was 70 and had enlisted in his forties, and he's not the only one who did. And I have no idea why. Can you have a middle age crisis in the middle ages?
|
Ensign Expendable posted:I just know that the Soviets developed a bicycle that carried an anti-tank rifle. Trials were a little, uh...pessimistic. French did it better.  Bicycle infantry in Finland has been normal light infantry with bikes for rapid (and relatively silent) transportation. Marches happen more rapidly and equipping large amount of troops is relatively cheap which was the main selling point for a poor country. On the flipside infantry on bikes is more vulnerable as it takes a bit longer to get into cover. You'll also have to haul it with you when terrain becomes unsuitable to drive on. Army bikes weren't know for their ergonomy, earning the nickname "ball wrangler". FDF no longer use bikes in wartime, but they are still an important part of P.E. training.   Armored forces have used trail motorbikes for scouting purposes. The plan is to drive relatively close to expected enemy positions and go the rest of the way by foot, then work as scout for the main force. Completely insane job. Wish I could have been one. 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2013 07:51
|
|
|
For practical purposes, a Holman projector Mk.2 would be best. It's a battle-proven design that can fire several packets up to 300 meters into the air in one shot. If it can ward off Luftwaffe, it can be potentially useful on the Drug Wars! 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2014 10:42
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 08:19 |
|
|
bewbies posted:Every trend/prediction I'm aware of predicts that both of these things are going to become more and more rare in the future. It is likely we'll be seeing more civil wars in the future. Arguably tanks are a huge force multiplier in Syria; having one in position prevents offensive action against whatever it is protecting unless the attacker has modern anti-tank missiles or can sneak up close without being detected. On the offensive they are impervious to small arms fires and while RPGs can take out a tank, it requires a bunch of things to go correctly. Even a partially disabled tank can be very useful if it stands in a good spot. Urban terrain limits their usefulness, but all cities need to be supplied from outside and tanks are excellent tools for surrounding and cutting off cities. Supply is only an issue if you need to cover vast tracts of land and maintaining the tank long-term is cheaper than buying a new one. In several civil wars missiles are harder to come by than old tanks; and weapons can be essentially "free" as they come from a third party that wishes to support a faction for political, ideological etc. reasons. Economics of these conflicts are often impossible to evaluate even when guns have stopped firing. This isn't quite the modern army the question was about, but I think these sorts of conflicts are where most tanks will be used up. We'll see armor for a long time to come.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2014 18:40
|
|