Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Tank graveyard

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by Legbreaker View Post
    Hmm, so why is a supposedly Russian made rocket pod (#23 for example) clearly printed in English
    You know, that is curious. I would just have to guess that English was better understood by the plethora of international techs that Qaddafi had to hire to keep shit in the air.

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by ArmySGT. View Post
      Because the authors wanted it to happen that way. Simply because for all the points you mention they should have slaughtered the Russians.

      .50 BMG passes right through what little armor a BTR has.

      Now, back to what I said earlier...... I can't make sense of that post. I read it three times. Could you edit that and clarify it One subject per paragraph, one sentence with the argument and main point, then supporting evidence in other sentences. Please.

      Seriously, it is like an episode of drunk history. I thought I was bad about automatic writing and spilling it out as it has come to mind.
      Army SGT - what I posted makes very good sense to me and there is nothing wrong with my writing style - and frankly if you are trying to bait me to break the board rules you are not going to get anywhere

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by unkated View Post
        The easiest way would be to pull the engine and replace it with a more modern truck engine of comparable power.

        Now, note that I said "easiest", not that it would be easy. It would take a well-equipped garage and a knowledgeable team to do so. But it would probably be easier than to locate working antique replacement parts, or get the specs to some mechanical artist with a well-equipped machine shop to make them from scratch.

        Uncle Ted
        or just do a straight convert to allow it run on alcohol - if the Soviets did it with T-55's then you can do it with an M48

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by ArmySGT. View Post
          http://www.theatlantic.com/photo/201...rebels/100086/

          Pictures #20 and #21 is guy reusing RPGs.
          Yes as a HE not HEAT round.

          Comment


          • #95
            and HE is much easier to make in a backyard/small machine shop environment than a HEAT round

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by ArmySGT. View Post
              Because the authors wanted it to happen that way. Simply because for all the points you mention they should have slaughtered the Russians.

              .50 BMG passes right through what little armor a BTR has.

              Now, back to what I said earlier...... I can't make sense of that post. I read it three times. Could you edit that and clarify it One subject per paragraph, one sentence with the argument and main point, then supporting evidence in other sentences. Please.

              Seriously, it is like an episode of drunk history. I thought I was bad about automatic writing and spilling it out as it has come to mind.
              With the .50 is that first hand experience or just hearsay I ask because several things that I had been told were fact, when we got the chance to test for our self found out to be untrue. I was told that within one magazine of 5.56 you would chew through the armor of a M113, the 7.62X51 would go in and bounce around, and the .50 would make Swiss cheese out of it. When we go the chance to shoot one (OK it was an old ITV), after hundreds of rounds of 5.56 you were hard pressed to find any place that looked like it had taken any real damage. The 7.62 just left tiny little marks, and the .50 BMG left pock marks. This was with green/black tip. Right before us was some Brits and there Warriors with TP ammo did not even penetrate, it did leave nice sized dents were each round hit, had it been war stock ammo I have no doubt that it would have penetrated.


              Olefin I also thought that it made sense, if you are looking at this objectively. If you are looking at it with rose colored lenses it may not.

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by unkated View Post
                The easiest way would be to pull the engine and replace it with a more modern truck engine of comparable power.

                Now, note that I said "easiest", not that it would be easy. It would take a well-equipped garage and a knowledgeable team to do so. But it would probably be easier than to locate working antique replacement parts, or get the specs to some mechanical artist with a well-equipped machine shop to make them from scratch.

                Uncle Ted
                This is where I have major problems with the cannon (and changed my game's history accordingly). If Russia wanted to prevent the US from supplying/directing the war in Europe; They would have detonated several large nukes at altitude over the US and let the EMP destroy the computer modules present in almost all the machines (including engines) from the early 90's on (and we would have retaliated accordingly). You would need one of these newer engines (built to take the higher operating temperatures of ethanol) in order to build a motor that lasts. The EMP effect would have rendered most "soft-skinned" military vehicles "dead" as well. These vehicles were too numerous for even the US Army to "harden" the chips in their engine control module. There would be as many soft skinned vehicles left (not many) as armored vehicles (those vehicles being "hardened"). On the upside, there would be plenty of non-computerized parts for the remaining vehicles. This also speaks to the use of older vehicles (which were not computerized) by everyone. These older vehicles would still see limited use because they suffer damage from the use of ethanol (shortening their lifespan very quickly). Also, contrary to the cannon, gas powered vehicles cannot use methanol; There's not enough energy in methanol for effective combustion to occur. Methanol can be used in the manufacture of biodiesel (replacing the pint of ethanol per gallon of oil needed to enhance combustion) but it reduces the effectiveness of the fuel (biodiesel made with ethanol has the same economy as regular diesel). Diesel engines would be the true "workhorse" in Twilight because any fuel the engine can atomize, it can burn (including kerosene, methanol/ethanol & vegetable oil, fuel oil, old motor oil cut with dry gas, and even Propane or natural gas). The problem would be that newer 90's diesel engines were computerized (and are now not operational). This approach makes a vehicle a rare and valuable resource to be treasured.
                If you would like more information on fuel and alternative fuels for military operations; Get a copy (you can download them) of the Petroleum Specialist's Handbook (MOS 77Fox) from the Army. The American Petroleum Institute also has information on fuels and their uses.

                Comment


                • #98
                  1-800-REDLEG

                  Originally posted by robert.munsey View Post
                  Yes the tanks are! Don't listen to the "light Fighter" Hype!

                  We just need grunts as much as they need us.......
                  And when the s*** really hits the fan, who do you BOTH call.... The KING OF BATTLE... The Field Artillery! Infantry...ICM. Tanks...ICM-DP or HEAT.

                  1-800-REDLEG..... When it ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY, HAS TO BE DESTROYED!

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by swaghauler View Post
                    And when the s*** really hits the fan, who do you BOTH call.... The KING OF BATTLE... The Field Artillery! Infantry...ICM. Tanks...ICM-DP or HEAT.

                    1-800-REDLEG..... When it ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY, HAS TO BE DESTROYED!
                    Actually I will agree with you there if you have the guns

                    Nothing says "Goodbye Ivan!" like several batteries of 105's and 155's doing a time on target mission

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Olefin View Post
                      Army SGT - what I posted makes very good sense to me and there is nothing wrong with my writing style - and frankly if you are trying to bait me to break the board rules you are not going to get anywhere
                      No. I am asking you to write it again, to clarify. I can pick the parts out of it, but it is a very confusing read. You're jumping back and forth. Editing that would make it readable and your point clear.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by CDAT View Post
                        Yes as a HE not HEAT round.
                        HEAT is an inverted cone with a detonator affixed in front equal to the depth of the cone. This focuses the blast like a Fresnel lens..... no magic or complicated machining.... The copper cone the HE is applied to on the back side is a stamped sheet of copper.

                        This is late 1930's refined bazooka or late 1940s panzerfaust technology not Javelin or Bill.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by swaghauler View Post
                          This is where I have major problems with the cannon (and changed my game's history accordingly). If Russia wanted to prevent the US from supplying/directing the war in Europe; They would have detonated several large nukes at altitude over the US and let the EMP destroy the computer modules present in almost all the machines (including engines) from the early 90's on (and we would have retaliated accordingly).
                          This is where I have a problem with how many of you interpret the exchange of nukes:

                          According to cannon, the use of nukes was limited and stopped before it became large or excessively threatening to either side. Neither side launched so large or threatening a strike that the opposition felt they had no choice but massive retaliation.

                          Had they done so, we'd be playing Midnight:2000, which would be short, as characters would wander for a few months until they died of radiation poisoning.

                          So, in this case, for example, the Soviets did not launch an EMP strike out of fear of immediate retaliation - and as a power that was trying to coordinate a two front war, had more to lose from an EMP strike. Or worse, scaring the US into a major counterstrike before US communications degraded beyond the point where they could command one. You avoid that by not degrading the US communications via EMP strikes.

                          Uncle Ted

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by swaghauler View Post
                            The EMP effect would have rendered most "soft-skinned" military vehicles "dead" as well. These vehicles were too numerous for even the US Army to "harden" the chips in their engine control module.
                            The control modules on HMMWVs is hardened against EMP since the beginning in the 80s. Even without the computer the HMMWV will run with its mechanical fuel pump. The 2 1/2s and 5 tons are also hardened against EMP.. big solid state component on the starters and control modules.

                            The computers help them to run BETTER, be more fuel efficient, and in better compliance with EPA emissions regulations. The still run without them.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by ArmySGT. View Post
                              HEAT is an inverted cone with a detonator affixed in front equal to the depth of the cone. This focuses the blast like a Fresnel lens..... no magic or complicated machining.... The copper cone the HE is applied to on the back side is a stamped sheet of copper.

                              This is late 1930's refined bazooka or late 1940s panzerfaust technology not Javelin or Bill.
                              You may want to look a bit more into this, in a nut shell you are right, however the angle of the cone and the stand off must be just right or it will not work well, maybe even less effective (depending on how off they are) than just basic HE. Getting the timing right so that when the round goes off by the time the jet is formed it is at the correct distance is complicated.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by CDAT View Post
                                You may want to look a bit more into this, in a nut shell you are right, however the angle of the cone and the stand off must be just right or it will not work well, maybe even less effective (depending on how off they are) than just basic HE. Getting the timing right so that when the round goes off by the time the jet is formed it is at the correct distance is complicated.
                                It isn't.........it is the opposite of the depth of the cone. This is why cratering charges and limpet mines have legs.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X