[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Armor (Page 1 of 12)
Posted: 12/27/2011 9:54:29 PM EDT
|
What is the role of main battle tanks? To fight other tanks? Can they take over cities? Are they feared by infantry?
How are they used? Do they do indirect fire too? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
What is the role of main battle tanks? To fight other tanks? Can they take over cities? Are they feared by infantry? How are they used? Do they do indirect fire too? they have power hookups to plug in the coffee pot. No wonder I like them so much! 
|
|
Quoted:
Canister shells. Coaxial 7.62. Commander's .50. Loader's 7.62. Tanks are meant to kill infantry, with the ability to kill other tanks.  I liked the coffee pot plug in the best. Not sure I like the other things you just mentioned. Especially if I was on the receiving end of all of those novel ideas from the manufacturer.
|
|
Tanks are designed to be able to punch a hole in the enemy line, take some solid punishment in doing so and still show up at the enemy's house to ass rape his dog and run over his car.
Oh, and they also do a good job of countering the other guys tank from ass raping your car and running over your dog. |
|
One of my favorite clips. 
|
|
They kill everything. They make great cover for asshole helicopters in flat desert terrain. They can cover amazing amounts of land in a very short time. Shock and awe on the ground.
When did they get a coffee pot plug in? I was always setting off the fire bottles with my coleman stove... The only indirect fire is plunging fire from the machine guns. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
What is the role of main battle tanks? To fight other tanks? Can they take over cities? Are they feared by infantry? How are they used? Do they do indirect fire too? They fucking kill everything. Plus they have power hookups to plug in the coffee pot. Pretty much. They destroy everything in their path, eliminate threats so that the APCs can come in and destroy whatever shit the tanks didn't care to destroy on their own, and then blow shit up anytime the infantry need a little extra boom-boom. Plus they make a good bullet-sponge for you to hide behind when hadji is hosing down your position with small arms fire. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Depends on the military and the branch which is using them. Generally MBTs are meant to kill other tanks as they are the single most effective weapon for destroying other tanks. So what does the Air Force and Navy do with their tanks?? Stick wings on them and make them fly? 
Osan Air Show 10-30-11 -7407 by T.W Photography RF, on Flickr ETA: No idea what the navy does with theirs. |
|
Quoted:
They're great for smashing cars http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd121/Seabee_Mech/military/3IDIRAQ319.jpg And they scare the shit out of people: http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd121/Seabee_Mech/military/3IDIRAQ254.jpg Fixed it for you:
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Dude. They blow shit up. Payback is a bitch though <––––- 0351  http://youtu.be/rbIrtwItzt8
I expected to see a blackened tank on fire with a neat hole in it. There was no tank!!! |
|
Quoted:
They kill everything. They make great cover for asshole helicopters in flat desert terrain. They can cover amazing amounts of land in a very short time. Shock and awe on the ground. When did they get a coffee pot plug in? I was always setting off the fire bottles with my coleman stove... The only indirect fire is plunging fire from the machine guns. I can't remember which tank it is, but there is at least one tank out there (Merkava, maybe) that has a 60mm (breech-loaded ?) mortar installed in the turret. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Depends on the military and the branch which is using them. Generally MBTs are meant to kill other tanks as they are the single most effective weapon for destroying other tanks. So what does the Air Force and Navy do with their tanks?? They park them at the end of the runway and take pretty pictures. 
|
|
Quoted:
Great book. And I believe Steakley was an arfcommer. http://i386.photobucket.com/albums/oo309/NathanBeitler/Armor.jpg Meh. I found it to be poorly written. It was about 2 or 3 chapters of war, and then a whole bunch of WTF am I reading? Skip this book, and read David Drake instead. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Great book. And I believe Steakley was an arfcommer. http://i386.photobucket.com/albums/oo309/NathanBeitler/Armor.jpg Meh. I found it to be poorly written. It was about 2 or 3 chapters of war, and then a whole bunch of WTF am I reading? Skip this book, and read David Drake instead. Burn the Heretic! |
|
History Channel said the Abrams gets about 400 yards to the gallon for the man who asked.
My acquaintance who was (he is now getting a graduate degree to teach science at Westpoint) some sort of tank officer (in a combat role) said that the turbine engines basically consume the same amount of fuel stopped or hauling. He said they look at fuel as a run time rather than a distance estimate. This means the MPG I gave requires some sort of clarification. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Great book. And I believe Steakley was an arfcommer. http://i386.photobucket.com/albums/oo309/NathanBeitler/Armor.jpg Meh. I found it to be poorly written. It was about 2 or 3 chapters of war, and then a whole bunch of WTF am I reading? Skip this book, and read David Drake instead. Burn the Heretic! I'm getting my pitchfork and torches. |
| Ive been in Armor and Armored Infantry regiments my whole career, and the M1 main battle tank is a 72 ton honey badger with a 120mm cannon for a mouth. It does not give a fuck and kills everything in its path.You have to be on your A game to kill one, aside from the A10 its the baddest thing on the battlefield. I have rode in and qualified one and let me tell you you squeeze of a main gun round in that bad boy and every other gun fells like a red rider bb gun afterwards. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Great book. And I believe Steakley was an arfcommer. http://i386.photobucket.com/albums/oo309/NathanBeitler/Armor.jpg Meh. I found it to be poorly written. It was about 2 or 3 chapters of war, and then a whole bunch of WTF am I reading? Skip this book, and read David Drake instead. Burn the Heretic! I'm getting my pitchfork and torches. great book imho, wish he would have written more of them. |
|
Quoted:
History Channel said the Abrams gets about 400 yards to the gallon for the man who asked. My acquaintance who was (he is now getting a graduate degree to teach science at Westpoint) some sort of tank officer (in a combat role) said that the turbine engines basically consume the same amount of fuel stopped or hauling. He said they look at fuel as a run time rather than a distance estimate. This means the MPG I gave requires some sort of clarification. AGT1500 get about 9 gallons to a mile.. its a very thirsty motor.. and a very heavy bitch! 
Ive pulled many. 
|
|
In a conventional role they are meant to be massed at one point, punch through the enemy's lines as quickly as possible and continue on to whatever their objective is. Mechanized infantry will come in behind them and mop up any pockets of resistance that are left. Of course in their current role (due to our enemy's lack of tanks or really any concrete battle lines) they are used mainly as infantry support, which is what they were originally conceived as.
Check this book out: 
|
|
Quoted:
Great book. And I believe Steakley was an arfcommer. http://i386.photobucket.com/albums/oo309/NathanBeitler/Armor.jpg Steakley was not an arfcommer. He would have loved Arfcommers and shared the prevailing Arfcom view on most subjects, but he was virtually computer illiterate. |
|
now screw you guys.. thinking back to to the good old day when i was in. thanks to this thread, I'm having flash backs to turret slip ring replacement. FFFFUUUUUUUUUUU fuck you slip ring with your early bent pin connectors. and a days worth of crap i have to remove to get to it then all the soreness from having to contort to get to the connectors under the floor panel. And the FRH bath i get each time.. Its no wonder I got cancer..
AAAAHHHHHHGGGGG.. I'm having an panic attack.. |