Tech The Tank Discussion Thread

Axel The Englishman

Axel The Englishman

The Holy Crusader
Quite obvious what this thread is about. Assemble, my fellow Tank-obsessed brethren. Here we’re shall communicate our interests of the holy war machine known simply as the ‘tank’. From the trenches to the IEDs, let us talk about tanks, their science, their history, and their evolution.
 
Oh man, storing water is the best. Couldn't be where we are without them.
I just find it so profound how they managed to capture water within a means of storage. We really have come a long way.
 
I think the ability to store and utilise fuel in a tank has proven vitally important to the evolution of modern transport.
 
Winter_Wolf Winter_Wolf

MBT. Its designated combat role matched those of other tanks within Swedish doctrine. Pretty big disadvantage though, since the gun can only face a single direction, making it suspectible to flanking tactics.
 
Axel The Englishman said:
Winter_Wolf Winter_Wolf

MBT. Its designated combat role matched those of other tanks within Swedish doctrine. Pretty big disadvantage though, since the gun can only face a single direction, making it susceptible to flanking tactics.
Click to expand...

Well I found this essay: Stridsvagen 103 Was Not a Tank Destroyer

It seems to support what you said that the role/doctrine didn't really differ, and also contests that it was at much of a disadvantage during its day. It's interesting how they decided to move to the turreted tank after all, with the Leopard 2. I haven't looked into exactly why that happened; maybe doctrine shifted and the Leopard 2 seemed more appropriate, and/or it also made them very compatible with other European nations who use Leo 2s.

EDIT: the comment section on that essay though....one guy seems to bring in World of Tanks, War Thunder, etc as sources/proof against the 103...
 
Axel The Englishman said:
Winter_Wolf Winter_Wolf

MBT. Its designated combat role matched those of other tanks within Swedish doctrine. Pretty big disadvantage though, since the gun can only face a single direction, making it suspectible to flanking tactics.
Click to expand...

Still scary as fuck, you seen what a StuG could do to tanks? Think of that but with a massive Swedish flag plastered on it.

It's like an angry bull firing AP shells at you.
 
Arion said:
Still scary as fuck, you seen what a StuG could do to tanks? Think of that but with a massive Swedish flag plastered on it.

It's like an angry bull firing AP shells at you.
Click to expand...

Or perhaps a snake or some ambush-y creature, given that it's low profile could allow it to hide, spot you before you spot it, and take the first shot accurate shot--which IIRC per the doctrine, meant probable victory. Interestingly, the British tested it alongside their Chieftain, and didn't really see the 103's inability to fire on the move compared to turreted tanks to be a problem. In some other comparative tests like alongside the Leopard 1 or M60 Patton, the 103 seemed to have some very good points (like spotting more targets even with hatches closed compared to the Leo 1, or firing more accurately than the M60, if a bit slower) so I wonder how it would have performed in real conventional vs. conventional action alongside and against pretty much only turreted tanks. I guess it's good we don't know for sure!
 
abandoned-tanks-shikotan-island-sakhalin-russia-9.jpg

Abandoned tanks, Shikotan Island
Click to expand...
 
Axel The Englishman said:
adrian_ adrian_ Winter_Wolf Winter_Wolf

The one thing an S Tank would have to worry about is having one of its tracks disabled. Not like that’s much of a worry now, though, since it’s been replaced by Leopard copies.
Click to expand...

Yeah I guess so.

Probably not a bad move, going to the Leo 2, as it is used by all countries neighboring Sweden as well as much of Europe, so logistics and general coordination/'integration' would be easier.

Also, please tell me I'm not the only one who felt sorry for this tank...

iV2t1nT.jpg
 
Honestly, I think we have to start at the beginning of what tanks were created for and what their purpose has become.

I mean, when you look at the "land whales" of ww1 and their purpose was moving across no man's land to take out barbed wire and draw an enemies' fire.

Today, we are in a very unique situation. We have "tanks" in the forms of strykers, Bradleys, and the Abrams (at least in the US Army's inventory).

The role of the tank has definitely changed (especially when vehicles like the jeep have evolved into the MRAP), and it's curious to see where they are going.
 
20180227_113839.jpg

The first us tank destroyers were devastating weapons. Speed matched with a strong gun -- just a weak chin.
 
t90-main-battle-tank-russia_7.jpg
The T-90
"For when outliving your enemy if paramount."

I mean, you can LITERALLY survive a nuclear war inside of it.
​
 
Fuck yeah, this is a topic I can discuss.

14449344118_f665fc4fb1_b.jpg

​
This is a Leopard 2SG, a modified Leopard 2A4 upgraded with AMAP composite armour and a Rheinmetall hard-kill system. It's the main battle tank my country (Singapore) uses.

SAF-Next-Gen-30jun16.jpg

While not a tank (I consider it heresy to call tracked IFVs and APCs tanks), the Bionix II AFV looks cool as fuck, and I've heard that a its 25mm cannon can be replaced with a 105mm or 120mm turret, essentially turning it into a light/medium tank.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

Similar threads

cheeseburger90210
News Happy today; happy day! What is the best birthday gift you have ever got?
Replies
2
Views
115
Bill Nye The Octopi
Bill Nye The Octopi
Keroko
Other What’s the best Wi-Fi name you’ve seen?
Replies
12
Views
219
Alix
Alix
SpeedHunters73
Other The Grey (Vent)
Replies
0
Views
44
SpeedHunters73
SpeedHunters73
cheeseburger90210
Chitchat The Strain on Hulu??
Replies
0
Views
78
cheeseburger90210
cheeseburger90210
ExodusLite
Make A Weapon For The Person Above!
Replies
10
Views
184
Gears
Gears
Back
Top