ADVrider

Go Back   ADVrider > Fluff > Shiny things
User Name
Password
Register Inmates Photos Site Rules Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 16 votes, 5.00 average. Display Modes
Old 02-01-2011, 01:27 PM   #31
No False Enthusiasm
a quiet adventurer
 
No False Enthusiasm's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2009
Location: Small Town, Texas
Oddometer: 4,217
Quote:
Originally quoted by Zodiac:

So you're saying the original machine first used by the Brits in the Great War which the was named "Tank" -
the British MK1 and German A series which didn't have turrets (traditional sense for the MK) are not considered tanks?
I'm working the through the series of double negatives...

I said the nature of the gun determines the kind of vehicle. If the gun is a direct fire weapon, aimed directly at the target with enough super elevation to offset drop, it is a tank. With a turret or without a turret, a direct fire weapon is a tank. During the latter stages of WWII, the term "tank destroyer" was applied to a lighter, faster vehicle which still used a direct fire weapon. The term became less meaningful as vehicles evolved.

In indirect fire weapon, mounted on a motorized chassis, is a self propelled artillery piece. An example of this would be the M-155. Although it has a turret, the gun is fired indirectly for the vast majority of its engagements.
No False Enthusiasm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2011, 01:59 PM   #32
Brummbär
Pathfinder
 
Brummbär's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2010
Location: ööö, here at Colonia Claudia Ara Agrippinensium
Oddometer: 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by pilot View Post
That's why the A-10 has air to ground missiles.
...which work through obstacles...Never underestimate area conditions... Each of the systems has his advantages and disadvantages...

in addition: hog tastes good/ Sauerbraten with raisins too...
__________________
“Well, you're damned if you do, and you're damned if you don't.”


XT600K ´93 89.000km
XT660Z ´09 33.333km
Brummbär is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2011, 02:59 PM   #33
Zodiac
loosely portrayed
 
Zodiac's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2001
Location: Brooklyn
Oddometer: 31,349
Quote:
Originally Posted by No False Enthusiasm View Post
I'm working the through the series of double negatives...

I said the nature of the gun determines the kind of vehicle. If the gun is a direct fire weapon, aimed directly at the target with enough super elevation to offset drop, it is a tank. With a turret or without a turret, a direct fire weapon is a tank. During the latter stages of WWII, the term "tank destroyer" was applied to a lighter, faster vehicle which still used a direct fire weapon. The term became less meaningful as vehicles evolved.

In indirect fire weapon, mounted on a motorized chassis, is a self propelled artillery piece. An example of this would be the M-155. Although it has a turret, the gun is fired indirectly for the vast majority of its engagements.

got it.
__________________
2011 Duct Tape Roll
1997 Cycle Therapy mini pump
1988 Aerostich Fleece collar scarf
1992 BMW K100 transmission housing
2014 Box of General Tso's Chicken with Xtra spice
Zodiac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2011, 03:06 PM   #34
No False Enthusiasm
a quiet adventurer
 
No False Enthusiasm's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2009
Location: Small Town, Texas
Oddometer: 4,217
The self propelled artillery piece I was referring to is actually the M109 which carries a 155mm gun in a turret.

These weapons can be direct fired at targets such as troops or armored vehicles. Things are bad if the artillery must resort to direct fire tactics.

More than 30 years have passed since I did this kind of thing... can't remember all the nomenclature...
No False Enthusiasm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2011, 03:34 PM   #35
RandyB
.
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Oddometer: 5,072
Quote:
Originally Posted by No False Enthusiasm View Post
I said the nature of the gun determines the kind of vehicle. If the gun is a direct fire weapon, aimed directly at the target with enough super elevation to offset drop, it is a tank. With a turret or without a turret, a direct fire weapon is a tank. During the latter stages of WWII, the term "tank destroyer" was applied to a lighter, faster vehicle which still used a direct fire weapon. The term became less meaningful as vehicles evolved.

In indirect fire weapon, mounted on a motorized chassis, is a self propelled artillery piece. An example of this would be the M-155. Although it has a turret, the gun is fired indirectly for the vast majority of its engagements.
Before tanks had other tanks to fight, they were Infantry support weapons in the initial attack, close fight. The general idea was to break through using Infantry to breach, tanks destroy bunkers, then Infantry hold the sides of the breach while tanks poured into the lightly defended rear areas. Hence



the big hull mounted gun with limited traverse to kill fortifications and the smaller turret mounted cannon for cooks, clerks, trucks, etc.
__________________
I've been shot, cut, burned, blown up, fired, busted, promoted, reprimanded and decorated. What are you going to do? Ban me?


Blessed be the Lord my God, who prepares my hands for war and my fingers for battle. Psalm 144:1
RandyB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2011, 06:00 PM   #36
Aurelius OP
Beastly Adventurer
 
Aurelius's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Location: Altamonte Springs, Florida
Oddometer: 22,113
Quote:
Originally Posted by No False Enthusiasm View Post
I'm working the through the series of double negatives...

I said the nature of the gun determines the kind of vehicle. If the gun is a direct fire weapon, aimed directly at the target with enough super elevation to offset drop, it is a tank. With a turret or without a turret, a direct fire weapon is a tank. During the latter stages of WWII, the term "tank destroyer" was applied to a lighter, faster vehicle which still used a direct fire weapon. The term became less meaningful as vehicles evolved.

In indirect fire weapon, mounted on a motorized chassis, is a self propelled artillery piece. An example of this would be the M-155. Although it has a turret, the gun is fired indirectly for the vast majority of its engagements.
So what's the M8 Greyhound then? It's got a turret.

__________________
Dizave opined: Why do you care where the premises come from? They are above reproach. For all intents and purposes, you can just make up all your premises, since they can't be proven anyway. That's why we need premises.

Aurelius screwed with this post 02-01-2011 at 06:08 PM
Aurelius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2011, 06:07 PM   #37
RandyB
.
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Oddometer: 5,072
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aurelius View Post
So what's the M8 Greyhound then? It's got a turret.
So does a castle.
__________________
I've been shot, cut, burned, blown up, fired, busted, promoted, reprimanded and decorated. What are you going to do? Ban me?


Blessed be the Lord my God, who prepares my hands for war and my fingers for battle. Psalm 144:1
RandyB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2011, 06:19 PM   #38
Ullr
C+ Racing
 
Ullr's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2006
Location: Anchorage Fairbanks Salcha
Oddometer: 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aurelius View Post
So what's the M8 Greyhound then? It's got a turret.

Armored car.
Ullr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2011, 06:51 PM   #39
No False Enthusiasm
a quiet adventurer
 
No False Enthusiasm's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2009
Location: Small Town, Texas
Oddometer: 4,217
The M8 was used as a recon vehicle, not designed for the attack. Its weapons were for self defense. The 37mm was originally designed as an "anti-tank" weapon, but it was not up to the job, given the armor found on German tanks.

Dad had a 37mm towed gun assigned to his recon unit. It was normally left behind, as the unit could move faster without it. Speed was everything in recon work.

Wiki spells it out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M8_Greyhound

Randy B was accurate in his discussion of the sponson gun concept. The transition from concept to reality was difficult. These vehicles (M3) had plate armor, riveted together. This was good only against smalls arms fire. Hit with anything larger, the plates deformed, and the rivets became projectiles inside the tank.

Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M3_Lee
No False Enthusiasm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2011, 06:59 PM   #40
RandyB
.
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Oddometer: 5,072
Quote:
Originally Posted by No False Enthusiasm View Post
Randy B was accurate in his discussion of the sponson gun concept. The transition from concept to reality was difficult. These vehicles (M3) had plate armor, riveted together. This was good only against smalls arms fire. Hit with anything larger, the plates deformed, and the rivets became projectiles inside the tank.

Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M3_Lee
We still have problems with reality. We haven't had an engineer vehicle with a barrier killing cannon since I was a pup.

+1 on the rivets. Wonder if they did destructive testing in those days?

Back on track, IIRC, the Soviets had problems with manufacturing turret rings accurately which is why their tanks had small/no turrets.

Modern day Swedish S
__________________
I've been shot, cut, burned, blown up, fired, busted, promoted, reprimanded and decorated. What are you going to do? Ban me?


Blessed be the Lord my God, who prepares my hands for war and my fingers for battle. Psalm 144:1

RandyB screwed with this post 02-01-2011 at 07:05 PM
RandyB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2011, 07:51 PM   #41
steelbreeze68w
Goodbye Good Girl
 
steelbreeze68w's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2007
Location: Rootless
Oddometer: 3,434
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benesesso View Post
4 words--"Jack in the box".



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xUXEm10m9s
For some reason that reminded me of something an instructor told us during trainup for route clearance: "In the neverending race between warhead and armor, the warhead always eventually wins." It was meant as a caution against assuming our armor was invulnerable. Seven IED hits later I will be eternally grateful that race wasn't concluded against the armor around me.

On a somewhat related tangent- does anyone know the etymology of the term tank? I was told what i have always assumed was an urban legend regarding the origin of the term as it relates to armor having to do with mislabeled cargo. Details are a bit hazy.
__________________
MURDER, MANSLAUGHTER, VEHICULAR HOMICIDE, DUI
WITH SERIOUS BODILY INJURY AND FELONY DUI
Anyway, no drug, not even alcohol, causes the fundamental
ills of society. If we're looking for the source of our
troubles, we shouldn't test people for drugs, we should test
them for stupidity, ignorance, greed and love of power.
P.J. O'Rourke

I hope the Hindus have it right... you will be reincarnated as a female homosexual Jew.

Pat Condell

steelbreeze68w is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2011, 08:06 PM   #42
VonHelm
soggy doggy
 
VonHelm's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2007
Location: Grapevine, TX
Oddometer: 3,968
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aurelius View Post
The file photos I used for reference reveal that fit & finish on Soviet tanks was incredibly bad - almost as if they'd been built out of mud.
There is a Sherman tank parked on the grounds of a little cemetery in Princeton, Minnesota, where my FIL is buried. I was shocked at how crudely made it appeared up close. The castings and welds looked similar to your photo.
__________________
http://www.oilandpiston.com/
Well he’s one of those who knows that life
Is just a leap of faith
Spread your arms and hold you breath
And always trust your cape (Guy Clark)
VonHelm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2011, 08:19 PM   #43
No False Enthusiasm
a quiet adventurer
 
No False Enthusiasm's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2009
Location: Small Town, Texas
Oddometer: 4,217
Quote:
Originally quoted by Steelbreeze 68W:

On a somewhat related tangent- does anyone know the etymology of the term tank? I was told what i have always assumed was an urban legend regarding the origin of the term as it relates to armor having to do with mislabeled cargo. Details are a bit hazy.
The British coined the term "tank" to describe their newly created armored, tracked weapons carrier in WWI. They chose this term to create uncertainty... to mislead the enemy that the vehicle was used to transport water.

It was a stealthy term in its day.
No False Enthusiasm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2011, 08:25 PM   #44
No False Enthusiasm
a quiet adventurer
 
No False Enthusiasm's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2009
Location: Small Town, Texas
Oddometer: 4,217
Here is Wiki's more detail discussion on the origin of the term, "tank". The first explanation is most commonly accepted...

Quote:
Etymology

The word tank was first applied to the British "landships" in 1915, before they entered service, to keep their nature secret. There are at least three possible explanations of the precise origin of the term:

One is it first arose in British factories making the hulls of the first battle tanks: workmen and possible spies were to be given the impression they were constructing mobile water tank for the British Army, hence keeping the production of a fighting vehicle secret.[16]

Another is the term was first used in a secret report on the new motorised weapon presented to Winston Churchill, then First Lord of the Admiralty, by British Army Lt.-Col. Ernest Swinton. From this report, three possible terms emerged: cistern, motor-war car, and tank. Apparently tank was chosen due to its linguistic simplicity.[51]

Perhaps the most compelling story comes from Churchill's authoritative biography. To disguise the device, drawings were marked "water carriers for Russia." When it was pointed out this might be shortened to "WCs for Russia," the drawings were changed to "water tanks for Russia." Eventually the weapon was just called a tank.[52]

The word "tank" was adopted in most of the languages, including Russian. Some countries, however, use different names. In Germany, tanks are usually referred to as "Panzer" (lit. "armour"), a shortened form of the full term "Panzerkampfwagen", literally "armoured fighting vehicle". In the Arab world, tanks are called Dabbāba (after a type of siege engine). In Italian, they're called "carri armati" (lit. "armed wagons"), without reference to their armour.
No False Enthusiasm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2011, 11:23 PM   #45
bmwhacker
Still on 3 wheels
 
bmwhacker's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2009
Location: MONTANA NATIVE from NATIVE MONTANA
Oddometer: 4,163
Great thread! The armor of WW2 has always intrigued me.

Cannon fodder for the Russians:
(From Wiki)

German "Elefant" (Ferdinand)
some info:
The two Porsche air cooled engines in each vehicle were replaced by two 300 hp Maybach HL 120 TRM engines powering two generators that drove two electric motors which in turn powered the drive sprockets. The electric motors also acted as the vehicle's steering unit. This so called "petro-electrical" drive delivered 0.11 km/l off road and 0.15 km/l on road at a maximum speed of 10 km/h off road and 30 km/h on road. Besides the high fuel consumption and the poor performance the drive system was also maintenance-intensive; the sprockets for example had to be changed every 500 km.
__________________
http://555navigator.blogspot.com

Living proof you shouldn't play with matches
ABC# 1992
bmwhacker is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Share

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


Times are GMT -7.   It's 01:15 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ADVrider 2011-2014