[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/k/ - Weapons


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



File: cats in the snow.jpg (143 KB, 1200x827)
143 KB
143 KB JPG
last thread was a success, lets go for round 2

Snow Cats Edition

> What's this thread about?
As usual this thread is for the discussion and pics of tracked and wheeled AFVs of all kinds from MBTs to supertanks to self propelled AA guns. Please keep it civil and cite sources for statistics.

The most widespread version of the Leopard 2 family, the 2A4 models included more substantial changes, including an automated fire and explosion suppression system, an all-digital fire control system able to handle new ammunition types, and an improved turret with flat titanium/tungsten armor. The Leopard 2s were manufactured in eight batches between 1985 and 1992. While previous models only varied in detail, the Leopard 2A4 introduced a digital ballistic computer and an improved fire extinguishing system. Starting within the sixth batch tanks were fitted with an improved armor array and new side skirts. The Leopard 2A4's armor has a maximum physical thickness (LOS) of 800 millimeters (31 in) based on unofficial measurements and estimates made by former conscripts and professional soldiers of the German army. Estimated levels of protection for the Leopard 2 range from 590–690 mm RHAe on the turret, 600 mm RHAe on the glacis and lower front hull on the Leopard 2A4. The 2A4 utilizes the Rheinmetall L44 120mm smoothbore cannon, the same gun found on the American Abrams, and is capable of firing a variety of different ammunition types, inculuding APFSDS-T, HEAT, and canister shot. The fire control suite is capable of providing up to three range values in four seconds. The range data is transmitted to the fire control computer and is used to calculate the firing solution, allowing the 2A4 to engage targets up to 5000m away.

> Gun
Smoothbore 120 mm L44
> Dimensions (l w h)
7.7 x 3.7 x 3.0 m
> Weight
68 tons
> Engine
MTU MB 873 Ka-501 liquid-cooled V12 twin-turbo diesel engine 1,500 PS (1,479 hp)
> Speed
68 km/hr
>>
previous thread
>>40529689
>>
File: 26355039548_d380a05de7_o.jpg (1.37 MB, 5472x3648)
1.37 MB
1.37 MB JPG
>>40551511
+1 for snow camo

I'll post the a6 model of the Leopard 2 tank.
>>
File: DS0003-0151.jpg (335 KB, 2500x1964)
335 KB
335 KB JPG
1st for night fire
>>
File: 1453517486281.jpg (594 KB, 1800x1200)
594 KB
594 KB JPG
>>
>>40551511

Leclerc with winter camo (KFOR)
>>
File: _MG_0452.jpg (3.99 MB, 5652x3768)
3.99 MB
3.99 MB JPG
>>
File: 1548339397801.png (1.57 MB, 1600x692)
1.57 MB
1.57 MB PNG
Posting bong tanks
>>
>>40551694
>>
File: centurion.jpg (148 KB, 1024x683)
148 KB
148 KB JPG
>>40551705
>>
File: chieftain.jpg (64 KB, 800x582)
64 KB
64 KB JPG
>>40551705
chieftain has got to be one of the best looking tanks, especially mk3/5
>>
File: älli.jpg (112 KB, 896x596)
112 KB
112 KB JPG
>>
File: Vickers Mk. 3i.png (303 KB, 841x634)
303 KB
303 KB PNG
>>40551694

Always the same Britbongs tonks...


Here is the Vickers Mk. 3 i

Like the original Mk. 3, it has a cast turret, but its glacis is now cast and provides an improved ballistic protection.

Year : 1985
Combat weight : 41 000 kg
Engine : Rolls-Royce CV12 TCE (850 bhp)
Transmission : T1200 automatic gearbox (6 frwd / 2 rev)
Top speed : 59 km/h
Range : 530 km
>>
File: IMG_20180508_085924.jpg (3.18 MB, 4160x3120)
3.18 MB
3.18 MB JPG
>>
File: 1548875881953.jpg (165 KB, 1000x542)
165 KB
165 KB JPG
I'm only here for the pics
>>
File: bc4eaef9.jpg (302 KB, 1920x1080)
302 KB
302 KB JPG
>>
File: 40194619822_4288b456bc_o.jpg (1.74 MB, 5472x3648)
1.74 MB
1.74 MB JPG
>>
I've missed these threads. /thg/ was a nice dude
>>
File: 683aab57.jpg (470 KB, 1920x1223)
470 KB
470 KB JPG
>>
>BATTLEGROUP: NORTHAG possibly getting pushed back

Hold me guys.
>>
>>40552368
Explain what that is pls
>>
>>40551511
As mentioned in the other thread, if you want to revive /thg/ do not make them a continuous thread.
>>
>>40552409

Wrong thread bros. But I guess if you into 15-20mm tabletop miniature wargaming it matters here.
>>
File: 1549206388966m.jpg (141 KB, 1024x850)
141 KB
141 KB JPG
>>
Glad it was a success and glad it's back.
>>
File: 5ef10135.jpg (212 KB, 1080x1080)
212 KB
212 KB JPG
>>
File: 1548022111103.jpg (166 KB, 1600x1200)
166 KB
166 KB JPG
>>
Question. What's the next "step" of tank development? Where do we go from here?

More APS? bigger guns? What?
>>
File: 15371947286563.webm (1 MB, 640x360)
1 MB
1 MB WEBM
>>40553107
bigger and better APS
>>
>>40553107
APS that can reliably work against kinetic penetrators
>>
File: 1024454468.png (843 KB, 1000x541)
843 KB
843 KB PNG
Why is there no love for non Anglo/German tanks
>>
File: SA1.jpg (2.89 MB, 3048x2276)
2.89 MB
2.89 MB JPG
A friend of mine was conscripted to the south african army a long time ago. He was the rear AA gunner on a Ratel-20. I don't remember 100% but I believe he just missed the border war with cubans in angola but his brother saw combat. I made this comic for him from some of the stories he told me - breaking helmet wires and getting punished for things by marching around with tow bars. Anyone want me to ask him some questions?
>>
File: SA2.jpg (2.54 MB, 2848x2204)
2.54 MB
2.54 MB JPG
>>40553541
>>
File: 1480701422838.jpg (194 KB, 1200x716)
194 KB
194 KB JPG
>>
File: aapo1.jpg (453 KB, 1920x1440)
453 KB
453 KB JPG
>>40553541
>>40553553
Neat drawings. Dont have any specific questions but overall interested in cool stories he might have
>>
>>40554001
He just went to sleep. I'll ask him for some more stories tomorrow. I don't know much but I know he's got experience with R4s and the SA m1919. He also said there was basically no milsurp. People would smuggle out like a 20mm case but he came back with like an MRE and a beret iirc
>>
Any tankers or artillerymen have any recommendations for earpro? I'm going on my first tank range soon and my army doesn't supply anything more than earplugs.
>>
>>40554397
Tanker helmet is a good option. If not avaiable earplugs + Peltor 3M or something similar work just fine
>>
File: tYvaNQd.jpg (348 KB, 1440x960)
348 KB
348 KB JPG
>>
>>40554622
We just use our regular infantry helmets in our tanks. I'll check out the peltors though thanks.
>>
File: 2015-06-04-226.jpg (972 KB, 3000x1683)
972 KB
972 KB JPG
>>40554679
I really don't understand. So how are you going to communicate within the vehicle if you dont have any system for that?
>>
>>40554679
what jank-ass military are you in?
>>
>>40553107

the next step is obviously an improvement of many existing things, and the introduction of new things, and not just making 1 part of the tank bigger or whatever.
>>
>>40554161

Like what systems?
>>
File: 08644.jpg (68 KB, 1000x615)
68 KB
68 KB JPG
>>
>>40555009
Canadian lol
>>40554701
We have crew comms with headsets but the noise cancelling on them doesn't do much. My Sergeant recommended buying our own earpro to use on ranges if you value your hearing. Crew drills are all conducted by yelling anyways so you only need your crew radio if you're actually operating on a mission or trace. Might as well save the eardrums on the range.
>>
>>40555304
what in the goddamn. Also, former artillery here. we just used regular ear plugs
My hearing has also suffered
>>
>>40555183
>Like what systems?

I don't understand. Is this meant to be a reply to another post?
>>
File: 1481390413976.jpg (582 KB, 1600x1071)
582 KB
582 KB JPG
Australia likely to put Iron Fist APS on Boxer and M113 IFV replacement
>>
File: HEMP-T.webm (1.83 MB, 1280x720)
1.83 MB
1.83 MB WEBM
>>40553283
What system is that?
pic not related
>>
>>40557720
Looks like Iron Fist.
>>
>be England
>literally invent the tank
>spend the interwar period developing a special doctrine of infantry and cruiser tanks
>cruiser tanks meant to maraud behind enemy lines, where they will meet AA, AT and howitzers with armor that can be penetrated by heavy machine guns
>infantry tanks carry specialized AT gun, with no HE rounds to waste enemy infantry
>replace AT gun on some tanks with howitzer perfect for blasting enemy infantry, issue almost exclusively smoke rounds for it
>spend the entirety of the largest conflict in history sending your men to battle with inferior tanks
>field Centurion once the war is finally over

what did they mean by this?
>>
File: CV90 czech.jpg (1.4 MB, 3000x1687)
1.4 MB
1.4 MB JPG
>>40557986
Rod looks long enough for it to be Iron Fist at least
>>
File: 1492282792482.jpg (422 KB, 2048x1152)
422 KB
422 KB JPG
Post winter tanks.
>>
File: Churchill Mk II.jpg (450 KB, 2000x1485)
450 KB
450 KB JPG
>>40558029
>cruiser tanks meant to maraud behind enemy lines, where they will meet AA, AT and howitzers with armor that can be penetrated by heavy machine guns
Pretty much nobody was fielding tanks that carried heavy armor, and dedicated anti-tank weapons were still in their infancy. Of course, from lessons gathered from the Spanish Civil War, pretty much everyone saw their armor as being ideal, since the war was such a clusterfuck in terms of tank combat that you could pose pretty much any idiotic theory and something would come up to support you. As the war went on, these vehicles would continue to evolve, and tanks like the Cromwell and Comet would prove to be adequate, if not just barely so.
Also, generally speaking, the whole idea of marauding around behind enemy lines is that it's where all those weapons aren't; maybe sitting around on flatcars or being towed around by trucks, but not dug in waiting for tanks to show up.
>infantry tanks carry specialized AT gun, with no HE rounds to waste enemy infantry
The Matilda I carried only machine guns, specifically to waste enemy infantry. The use of the 2pdr was simply a matter of the British going with the most powerful tank gun they could mount on a vehicle the size of something like the Matilda II. It was far from ideal, especially for the role, but really any gun smaller than a 75mm is going to have fairly anemic HE performance. They would try mounting a 3" howitzer on the front of early model Churchill tanks, but it was quickly determined that it was a bad idea and they just carried on as before.
>>
File: Churchill AVRE.jpg (98 KB, 1160x901)
98 KB
98 KB JPG
>>40558151
>replace AT gun on some tanks with howitzer perfect for blasting enemy infantry, issue almost exclusively smoke rounds for it
The British use of the weapons is not to be confused with the use of larger-caliber howitzers on other vehicles, such as the M4's 105mm; They were never intended to blast enemy infantry, as they were never intended to get close to enemy infantry. They were not bunker-busters, so much as rolling smoke dischargers. Whether or not this, in and of itself, was a good idea is another argument entirely. I simply mean to say that that they were using the weapons as intended, if not to their fullest potential. In any case, the job of lobbing big bundles of explosives at the Germans fell to the Royal Artillery and Royal Engineers, who would be supplied with weapons more than adequate for the job.
>spend the entirety of the largest conflict in history sending your men to battle with inferior tanks
I will not argue that the British, overall, lagged behind nations like the US, Germany, and the USSR in terms of both development and production, although early British tanks were about on par with early Soviet tanks, given the fact that most early Soviet tanks were copies of British and American designs.
What I will point out, however, is Britain's uniquely unfavorable position in terms of supplies and industrial capacity. Fair enough, they chose to pursue many ideas that were, frankly, stupid beyond belief. That does not change the fact that most British armor was developed under extreme duress, manufactured in less than ideal conditions, and fielded against/along some of the most capable (or, at least feared) tanks ever developed.
>>
>>
>>40558043
i try, but i just cant get myself to like that BB-8 looking turret thingy. Normal Cv best Cv
>>
File: 1546443107792m.jpg (68 KB, 1024x484)
68 KB
68 KB JPG
>>40558332
What RWS is that?
>>
>>40559297
Looks like the new standard lower profile RWS. The bigger one got a lot of complaints due to lack of visibility and hindered situational awareness
>>
>>40555304
I just wanna say that this is maybe the most retarded thing I have ever heard. Not blaming you, but the Canadian armed forces.
>>
File: 1549209497214.jpg (133 KB, 1024x678)
133 KB
133 KB JPG
>>
File: a129f9ae.jpg (131 KB, 960x691)
131 KB
131 KB JPG
>>
File: 34534535.jpg (588 KB, 1728x1152)
588 KB
588 KB JPG
>>
File: 1547564080777.jpg (42 KB, 600x390)
42 KB
42 KB JPG
Oh God yes! Post more pics of Finnish armor. I love it
>>
File: 2557.jpg (198 KB, 1920x1280)
198 KB
198 KB JPG
>>40560739
bad at sensing irony over written language
>>
File: 1549818494698m.jpg (92 KB, 1024x683)
92 KB
92 KB JPG
>>40560861
I really like their splinter camo and the use of Western and Russian hardware
>>
File: 123908765.jpg (2.07 MB, 3648x2736)
2.07 MB
2.07 MB JPG
>>40560886
here, have a larger size at >>40551527
>>
File: IMG_0165.jpg (1.9 MB, 4032x3024)
1.9 MB
1.9 MB JPG
>>40560886
best thing about snow camo is that it is painted by the conscripts by free hand. There are rules you follow when doing it, but you don't really have a ready pattern you would have to mimic
>>
>>40561038
Do conscripts also drive tanks? Wish we had tanks. I'm a conscript myself but the only armor we have in out battalion are M113
>>
File: IMG_20180516_211143.jpg (3.03 MB, 4160x3120)
3.03 MB
3.03 MB JPG
>>40561307
Conscripts operate every position of the vehicle. Even the war-time tank platoon leader is conscript (or at that point a reservist rather). Of course there is an actual paid officer giving the training, but he will be guiding a Officer candidate conscript that will be doing the platoon commanding.
>>
>>40561416
Man, that sounds fun. Closest I've gotten to an armored vehicle was driving around invan M1114 as a turret gunner.
How accident prone are the conscripts? I've seen some pics of Leopards running over trees and getting stuck, losing tracks.
>>
File: 1545972423228m.jpg (109 KB, 576x1024)
109 KB
109 KB JPG
>>40561480
>>
>>40561416
Finn?
>>
>>40561480
A tank getting stuck in a ditch or losing a track is just a perfect oppoturnity to teach the guys on how to do some field recovery. Of course little things like that happen every year, but there has not been any reports on people being seriously injured or losing their lives for ages. Accidents happen, they are vital part of it, and you are supposed to learn from them. A 60 ton beast is not gonna break down too easy
>>
>>40561627

The Leo skipped from left to front of the MT-LB and the two crashed. Leo drove off basically unharmed (no wonder) and MT-LB crew had to do some maintenance. Afaik it was the Leo crew's fault
>>
File: IMG_20190108_142505_2.jpg (2.72 MB, 4208x3120)
2.72 MB
2.72 MB JPG
>>40561677
Are you the one who took that pic? Are you a conscript yourself or are you in the professional military? I'm planning on staying after my conscription. Lithuanian here, btw
>>
>>40561774
Just a reservist who comes here to shitpost when bored. Not sure what picture you're referring to but no I didn't take it. I've posted some of mine before but all the recent ones are stuff found from the internet. Same with the story about the crash.

I recommend staying if you feel like it. Some of my friends did and they're really into it
>>
File: _MG_0257.jpg (3.4 MB, 6000x4000)
3.4 MB
3.4 MB JPG
>>
File: 1549231787550m.jpg (172 KB, 1024x727)
172 KB
172 KB JPG
>>
>>40561677
Are all Marines 7/8 scale?
>>
>>40562522
Yes. All tankers are manlets
>>
File: 1549914330629.jpg (2.91 MB, 1960x4032)
2.91 MB
2.91 MB JPG
can i be part of the club now
>>
Not yet, you have your ticket to ride, but have not yet earned your spurs...
>>
File: img_0166.jpg (3.89 MB, 6025x2444)
3.89 MB
3.89 MB JPG
>>40562718
Gongratz for the fresh 19K!

But wait until the basic course is over
>>
>>40562632
Not true, my last driver was 6' 1" and pretty stout. Crew evac drills suuuuucked.
>>
>>40562718
Good news is you will be done at Benning before it gets REALLY hot....LOL
>>
>>40562632
Not all. I know a guy who was 6 feet 3 (190cm) and I was 6 feet
>>
File: Leopard 1.jpg (1.37 MB, 2860x1910)
1.37 MB
1.37 MB JPG
>>
File: Leopard 1 Belgium.jpg (158 KB, 980x735)
158 KB
158 KB JPG
>>
File: Leopard 1A2 Norway.jpg (132 KB, 1280x874)
132 KB
132 KB JPG
>>
File: Leopard 1A2 Norway.jpg (205 KB, 1280x838)
205 KB
205 KB JPG
>>
File: Leopard 1A5 Norway.jpg (106 KB, 1024x681)
106 KB
106 KB JPG
>>
>>40563283
Tell me about the red cross
>>
>>40563326
hostile maneuvre party (red)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_Joint_Military_Symbology
>>
File: Dcq3QowXcAA6XLT.jpg (194 KB, 1463x1484)
194 KB
194 KB JPG
>>40563342
So basically the "enemy" is marked with red crosses? Is the red thing on the gun tube same thing?

Same thing as the yellow badge in this one
>>
File: Leopard 2A4 Fin.jpg (435 KB, 1024x683)
435 KB
435 KB JPG
>>40563358
>So basically the "enemy" is marked with red crosses?
at least in NATO maneuvres
>Is the red thing on the gun tube same thing?
uncommon, never saw them with red taped German Leos.
>Same thing as the yellow badge in this one
dunno about the Finns, likely.
>>
File: Leopard 2A4 Norway.jpg (532 KB, 1024x683)
532 KB
532 KB JPG
>>
File: chaffee.jpg (152 KB, 524x302)
152 KB
152 KB JPG
>>40551511
We will never have tanks as /ccomfy/ as a chaffee
>>
File: Leopard 2A4 NO.jpg (218 KB, 1280x853)
218 KB
218 KB JPG
>>
File: 1547647147955.jpg (539 KB, 1920x1280)
539 KB
539 KB JPG
>>40563395
Yeah it is the same thing. It is even same as the yellow cloth you can see on this and this >>40561677 picture, since the USMC tank platoon was on the "Yellow side" in Arrow 18 exercise
>>
>>
File: Leopard 2A4 NO.jpg (131 KB, 1280x851)
131 KB
131 KB JPG
>>
>>40563428
that's one way to enforce traffic laws
>>
File: M24 Chaffee in Belgium.jpg (216 KB, 1200x914)
216 KB
216 KB JPG
>>40563414
>>
File: pv-litchfield005qcq11.jpg (235 KB, 1200x800)
235 KB
235 KB JPG
>>
File: Leopard 2A4 Norway.jpg (264 KB, 1280x853)
264 KB
264 KB JPG
>>40563429
I see. (yellow would be the unknown maneuvre party)
>>
File: P1030086.jpg (253 KB, 1200x720)
253 KB
253 KB JPG
>>40563429
another one with yellow color.

I checked I even have one piece of yellow cloth home as a memento
>>
File: Leopard 2A4 Norway.jpg (79 KB, 1280x738)
79 KB
79 KB JPG
>>
File: Leopard 2A4 Finland.jpg (112 KB, 1280x788)
112 KB
112 KB JPG
>>
File: Leopard 2A4 NO.jpg (227 KB, 1024x692)
227 KB
227 KB JPG
>>
>>
File: Leopard 2A4 NO -wint-.jpg (202 KB, 1280x780)
202 KB
202 KB JPG
>>
File: Leopard 2A4 Norge.jpg (96 KB, 813x500)
96 KB
96 KB JPG
>>
File: M973.jpg (171 KB, 1280x846)
171 KB
171 KB JPG
>>
File: HMMWV.jpg (188 KB, 1280x856)
188 KB
188 KB JPG
>>
File: HMMWV Norway.jpg (154 KB, 1280x838)
154 KB
154 KB JPG
>>
File: Strv.122.jpg (239 KB, 2048x1118)
239 KB
239 KB JPG
>>
>>40562632
Armor officer here. I'm 6' tall, tanks and brad's are cramped. It's definitely easier for shorter guys.
>>
File: Strv 122.jpg (177 KB, 800x1064)
177 KB
177 KB JPG
>>
File: _MG_0264.jpg (3.84 MB, 5361x4000)
3.84 MB
3.84 MB JPG
>>
File: Strv 122.jpg (554 KB, 1024x658)
554 KB
554 KB JPG
>>
File: IMG_0143.jpg (3.37 MB, 4032x2268)
3.37 MB
3.37 MB JPG
>>
File: PzH 2000 NL.jpg (132 KB, 1024x680)
132 KB
132 KB JPG
>>
File: img_4535333.jpg (845 KB, 1916x918)
845 KB
845 KB JPG
>>
>>
File: M110.jpg (84 KB, 1280x851)
84 KB
84 KB JPG
>>
>>40563745
The tank closed to the camera was destroyed by the a4 behind him, on the right. The crew is outside and contemplating on what happened. The main gun is raised up to mark them as dead. The tank commander is sitting away from his crew, maybe wondering what they could have done different.

The tank behind them, one that killed them, has also been killed. He got taken out by the tank platoon on the left side of the picture. Platoon has taken position by the cover of the trees few hundred meters forward.

all this from an exercise, of course.
>>
>>
File: M60 winter exercise.jpg (91 KB, 1199x800)
91 KB
91 KB JPG
>>
File: M60.jpg (119 KB, 1024x694)
119 KB
119 KB JPG
>>
>>
File: b654f1d7.jpg (310 KB, 1920x1440)
310 KB
310 KB JPG
>>
File: M60A3 REFORGER 85.jpg (300 KB, 1920x1294)
300 KB
300 KB JPG
>>
>>40563800

>M60A3 near Giessen in Germany 1985.jpg

That's funny, I live in that town.

My father told about how he and his friends did a good business selling burgers from McDonalds to Yanks during such military exercises. He went to see them, took their orders and came back with their food.
>>
File: K2-Black-Panther-Tank.jpg (415 KB, 2288x1062)
415 KB
415 KB JPG
>>
can it be a fake one though
>>
>>40563840
cool, do you have some older Finnish tanks with winter camo?

>>40563857
also from Hesse, I worked as a freelance tourguide for US personnel and their families, they always were incredibly friendly and generous.
>>
File: 7f0c761f.jpg (236 KB, 1920x1080)
236 KB
236 KB JPG
>>40563910
Not really but I'll check a few places if I can find some. FDF is to open their image archieve some time this year, then we may get some.
>>
File: 9090a8df.jpg (142 KB, 960x666)
142 KB
142 KB JPG
>>40563939
this one is not really a tank
>>
>>40563910

Oh that's nice! Anyways, godspeed and good night.
>>
File: 468739ae.jpg (142 KB, 900x543)
142 KB
142 KB JPG
>>40563951
>>
File: 7331ccb0.jpg (364 KB, 1920x1440)
364 KB
364 KB JPG
>>
File: a8fcfea5.jpg (305 KB, 1920x1280)
305 KB
305 KB JPG
>>
File: Leopard 2 NL.jpg (192 KB, 1024x743)
192 KB
192 KB JPG
>>40563939
cool, thanks

>>40563958
GN
>>
File: M18 winter.jpg (72 KB, 800x571)
72 KB
72 KB JPG
>>40563951
very nice. OP allows all sorts of vehicles...
>>
File: 4cfc4f68.jpg (359 KB, 1280x800)
359 KB
359 KB JPG
>>
>>
File: M1A1 USMC Leo 2A4NO.jpg (189 KB, 1280x720)
189 KB
189 KB JPG
>>
File: 972c0f72.jpg (189 KB, 720x960)
189 KB
189 KB JPG
>>40564114
>>
File: M1.jpg (69 KB, 640x514)
69 KB
69 KB JPG
>>
File: M113 Norway.jpg (493 KB, 1024x683)
493 KB
493 KB JPG
>>
File: M113 Norway.jpg (200 KB, 1024x1539)
200 KB
200 KB JPG
>>
File: 1452153925622.gif (1.65 MB, 300x200)
1.65 MB
1.65 MB GIF
>>40551511
It is fucking magnificent to see this thread revived.
Thanks to all Anons that contributed and those that supported.
>>
File: M113 panservogn .jpg (541 KB, 1024x682)
541 KB
541 KB JPG
>>
>>
>>
File: Leopard 1 Gepard.jpg (140 KB, 1280x856)
140 KB
140 KB JPG
>>
>>
>>40564215
+1. Sad that new material can be so hard to find. GN
>>
>>40551511
Poor Chally 1, he was still very young
>>
Renault FT snowblower to keep the snow off the roads for you big tanks
>>
File: Putte Colorized.png (987 KB, 861x1001)
987 KB
987 KB PNG
>>40566515
The only Swedish Renault FT, nicknamed Putte or Tiny
>>
>>40566530
The first Soviet built tank - Russkiy Reno
>>
>>40563414
>>40563452
Truly the Miata of tanks.
>>
>>40564197
That's a CV9030
>>
>>40564219
What M2 mount is that? Only see it very rarely
>>
>>
>>
File: 1533017765358.png (3.16 MB, 1533x1224)
3.16 MB
3.16 MB PNG
>>
So what literature should I consult for creating the argument that turbine > diesel engines for powerplant of a tank?

http://cset.mnsu.edu/engagethermo/systems_tank.html
is pretty good but I'd like something more.
>>
>tfw 6'2 tall tread head
Would this disqualify me from operating an armored vehicle? Can I not fit inside any?
>>
>>40568544
>6'2
I mean it wouldn't be comfortable. I can't say whether or not they would let you, but you're gonna have to weigh the benefits of being a tanker (of which I can name none) against having to spend the rest of your life feeling like you spent ten years trying to suck your own dick.
>>
>>40568066
Diesel engines = less powet, need kerosine to work in artic climates
Turbines = Work in any climate, need to have an army of fuel trucks right behind, more power
Diesel engines are better just from logistical standpoint
>>
>>40564219
>Rubber tracks
Sexy

>>40567921
I belive its a Swedish mount, we use that type on everything.
>>
File: IMG_20190123_155927_7~2.jpg (2.22 MB, 2978x3120)
2.22 MB
2.22 MB JPG
>>40568700
We use the same mount but haven't seen it used anywhere besides Denmark
>>
>>40553107
Robotic expendable tanks with remote control.
>>
My country just placed an order for 12 Leopard 2A4's and 44 Leopard 2A7+'s to replace our aging fleet of T-72M's. Was it a good idea?
>>
File: Leopard 2 Wolfpack.webm (1.12 MB, 480x360)
1.12 MB
1.12 MB WEBM
>>40568790
Hungary? I'm impressed with their recent rearmament efforts. The 2A4s are probably going to give much better results than the T-72Ms, and the 2A7s definitely will. Turks have been having some trouble with them, but don't let that dissuade you; You could give the Turks a hydrogen bomb and a green-light to drop it on the Kurds, and they'd find a way to wind up nuking Istanbul instead.
>>
>>40558211
>What I will point out, however, is Britain's uniquely unfavorable position in terms of supplies and industrial capacity.

WHAT?
How many major British tank manufacturing plants were overrun by Germans like Kharkov or Stalingrad? How many were shelled daily by artillery like Leningrad? USSR was forced to build new tank factories literally in the open fields after the German success of 1941. Britain tank factories were uninterrupted.
>>
>>40568743
Seem to only be in use in Norway, Denmark and Sweden. It has some form of recoil dampening feature
>>
File: A34 Comet.png (1.43 MB, 2008x1112)
1.43 MB
1.43 MB PNG
>>40568825
Yes, and the area of the Soviet Union occupied by German forces was a sliver of the total area available to the Soviets. German occupation also largely failed to cut off the raw materials the Soviets needed to build tanks, as these were extracted from areas largely east of the Ural mountains. Nizhny Tagil remained fully operational throughout the war.
I'll also point out that I referred to their predicament as "uniquely unfavorable", not the most unfavorable. I made no assertion that the British were worse off, in an industrial capacity, than the Soviets or Germans or anyone else for that matter. What I mean to say is that the British Isles found themselves isolated from their supplies of goods and materials of all kind, adding to the issues of a nation with an already limited industrial capacity. The British could not hope to compete with Soviet tank production on a good day, and while the Soviets certainly face mounting hardships during the early part of the war, they never really fell behind when it came to obtaining the raw materials needed to build massive numbers of tanks. Comparing the two is, frankly, idiotic, as the life of a tank in British and Soviet service, from the moment the iron ore was pulled from the earth, to the moment the completed tank rolled into battle, follow two completely different paths. One may as well be comparing Soviet and Italian tanks, or American and Polish tanks.
>>
File: tanker.png (1.03 MB, 1024x769)
1.03 MB
1.03 MB PNG
>>40568815

>You could give the Turks a hydrogen bomb and a green-light to drop it on the Kurds, and they'd find a way to wind up nuking Istanbul instead.

You made me giggle like a fucking autist when I was having a shit day. I thank you and offer you this rare picture of a happy Magyar tanker.
>>
File: 43mzrinyi.jpg (451 KB, 1000x600)
451 KB
451 KB JPG
Anyway, tanks.
>>
File: Turan II(1).jpg (121 KB, 960x720)
121 KB
121 KB JPG
>>40568871
And I appreciate that image, anon. My family actually traces its roots back to Hungary, and I've always taken pride in that. It's good to see them straightening up and getting back into the game.
>>
>>40568066
Abrams upgrade project proposals includes diesel engine.
T-14 Armata use diesel engine.

Diesel engines won.
>>
>>40568877

Come home, Magyar man.
>>
>>40568892
rightful Osterreich clay
>>
>>40568899

It is the other way around. Austria's destiny is to submit to Hungarian dominance and embrace the language and the ways of the Magyars.
>>
>>
>>40568892
I'd very much like to visit at some point, but, unfortunately, the region my family most likely emigrated from is now a part of the Ukraine.
>>
>>40568861

Look at population and industry density map. All the population and all the industry was in the western areas. Empty taiga is not a substitute for the western industrial regions like Donbass or Leningrad.

>Nizhny Tagil remained fully operational throughout the war.

Nizhny Tagil tank production is Kharkov factory hastily evacuated and put into railcar factory.
>>
>>40568936

For now, at least.
>>
>>40568887
>Abrams upgrade project proposals includes diesel engine.
only because a newer turbine powerplant hasn't been developed.
>T-14
is literally a piece of junk
>>
>>40568921
>>40568958

Is that a Nimrod?
>>
>>40568861
>while the Soviets certainly face mounting hardships during the early part of the war, they never really fell behind when it came to obtaining the raw materials needed to build massive numbers of tanks.

Aluminium for tank engines was in very short supply, competing with aircraft manufacturing.

Steel additives required to make armor were mostly lost. USSR scrambled the replacement from new sources like Norilsk.


Overall USSR was in much worse situation with industry, resource and manpower. But it was actively looking to overcome the problems. Because we had Germans as teachers who held the exams. We could not hide behind excuses like Brits, making crazy shitty tanks. Germans would kill us if we did.
>>
>>40568961
Thank you for your detailed arguments. Really a marvel for a revived THG.
>>
>>40566530

>be the only Swedish Renault FT
>no other Renault FT's to bond with
>they call you Tiny
>the tankers treat you nice, but as a little mascot, rather than a proper tank
>the only other tanks to befriend with are some Stridsvagn M21's
>be very lonely
>especially in mating season

>>40568969
Nimród. An interesting blend of Swedish technology and Hungarian tech-sorcery. Turned out to be a highly effective anti-aircraft tank.
>>
>>40568955
Nothing you're saying is wrong, anon; I just don't understand the point you're trying to make. I was posing answers to the question of why British tanks suffered design and development issues before and during World War 2, not trying start some competition of who was getting their shit kicked in the hardest.
The British suffered hard, and were falling from a position of being small both in terms of available manpower and industrial capacity. It's no coincidence that, after the fall of France, the British came to rely heavily on Lend-Lease tanks from the United States to equip their armored forces in all theaters. The Soviet suffered harder, but had the resources and manpower to bounce back; Hell, they built over 84,000 T-34s alone, and would go on to continue pumping out absurd numbers of tanks for fifty tears.
>>
>>
File: 1549423777932.png (1.33 MB, 1190x1194)
1.33 MB
1.33 MB PNG
>>40568958
For now.
>>
>>40568993
i'm not the retard bringing up the fucking T-14. It failed.
>>
File: T-80.jpg (85 KB, 1024x648)
85 KB
85 KB JPG
>>40568887
>T-14 Armata use diesel engine.
The T-14 uses diesel because after Grozny the Russians threw a shit-fit over their "best in the world" tanks getting BTFO by a bunch of ginger arabs, and instead of recognizing how clueless most of their commanders were, they threw the blame on their equipment; namely the T-80. It didn't help that the average Russian soldier had no idea that you can't just sit around idling a gas turbine without wasting fuel, so they would sit there for hours, get called into the fight, drive five feet, and realize they're out of gas.
The concept of a gas-turbine driven tank has been demonized in Russia by politicians looking to cover their own ass; it has nothing to do with efficiency or capability.
>>
>>40568790
Yes. Leopard 2A7+ is a good tank. Certainly better than what you've got. Pretty much equivalent to any completely modernized MBT. If I had to hazard a guess without looking into it, the 2A4s aren't going to primarily be in combat roles, as 44 is a full battalion of tanks in NATO style (triangular structure, four tanks per platoon, a tank for both CO and XO at company and battalion levels). They're likely going to be used for training units. They're cheaper and less capable than the more modern 2A7+, but are close enough and in good enough condition to make it worth purchasing them for the job. That's how the Germans themselves do it.

All in all, a good investment as I see it. Big jump from old T-72Ms. Should form the basis of a capable mechanized brigade. I would expect to see a purchase of a new wheeled APC/IFV to replace the BTR-80 in your service within the next decade.
>>
>>40569294
>I would expect to see a purchase of a new wheeled APC/IFV to replace the BTR-80 in your service within the next decade.
Haven't they already? I know they've already invested in the PzH2000 and some new helicopters.
>>
>>40569320
>Haven't they already?
I don't believe so. I can't recall having read anything about it in the past several years. And honestly, it'd be about the last thing I'd modernize. A BTR-80, while not fantastic, is adequate for performing its job as an APC. It can transport its infantry and keep them safe from small arms and artillery fragments as well as provide limited support to them. A T-72M cannot do its job on the modern conventional battlefield. Likewise, towed howitzers are more than a little lackluster on the modern battlefield, and ones without digital fire control and other modern conveniences are straight up obsolete.

My read on it is a comprehensive modernization of a very outdated army, saving the least needed upgrades for last.
>>
File: BMP-2.jpg (2.92 MB, 2492x1589)
2.92 MB
2.92 MB JPG
>>40569366
I suppose that all makes sense. In any case, it'll be interesting to see if they continue buying from Germany or start looking elsewhere for their modernization program. Likewise for a potential IFV; it strikes me as odd that Hungary would operate the T-72, BTR-80, BRDM-2, but not any variant of the BMP.
>>
>>40569294

>Big jump from old T-72Ms

ANYTHING is a big jump from a T-72M. Maybe except for this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvaOiwfV4lc
>>
File: 1384692222556.jpg (599 KB, 1134x709)
599 KB
599 KB JPG
>>40563706
>>
File: 620f3651.jpg (316 KB, 1920x1342)
316 KB
316 KB JPG
>>
File: 0935253b.jpg (153 KB, 1920x1205)
153 KB
153 KB JPG
>>
>>40570093
based finnposter.
>>
File: e2c7a548.jpg (424 KB, 1920x1203)
424 KB
424 KB JPG
>>
File: 927a2ad8.jpg (103 KB, 673x960)
103 KB
103 KB JPG
>>
>>40570107
>Image limit reached.
Welp, see you next time.
>>
>>40570127
Thank you anon for your dump, some of it is useful some of it isn't, but its all yours.
>>
>>40567921
It's a Vinghog AS mount, produced in Norway.
>>
>>40568838
I have seen pictures of SAS with it, as well.
>>
>>40570127
gib more finnish vehicles next thread. no specific era.
>>
>>40570101
I just found out that the finnish army decommissioned the T-55 over 10 years AFTER the T-72
Why?
>>
>>40568066
here we go.
Diesel
>mechanically simpler, cheaper to operate in terms of maintenance hours:running hours
>will pretty much only run on diesel and jet fuel, or other fuels cut with the aforementioned
>generally not suitable for cold weather, or requires modifications to be (different fuel, block heaters, etc)
>will require forced induction to handle any kind of moderate to high RPM application
>LOTS of low end torque, but that tapers off at higher RPM as evidenced by the graph
>generally slower throttle response as the engine will need to wind up, unless you have lots of boost like the MTU883
>visible exhaust without an emissions system, which adds another level of complexity. generally runs cooler, though.
>operating at high ground speeds will result in a loss in performance in terms of torque
>the traditional solution to armored vehicle propulsion

Turbine
>requires air pressure to start, provided by APU or cartridge. requires time to come up to operating RPM. far higher fuel consumption.
>mechanically complex, will be more expensive as it will require more maintenance to operate
>will run on basically any flammable liquid, including jet fuel, diesel fuel, gasoline, kerosene, etc
>suitable for cold weather operation, side effect is that it runs much hotter, creating increased thermal signature. no visible exhaust.
>performance will constantly increase with RPM, no power band as found in diesel
>minimal to no wind up in the throttle
>will require a more complex gearbox to translate the power properly.
>capable of higher ground speed operation without loss of performance.
>new solution to the problem, more suited to a force with high logistical capability requiring high performance.
>>
>>40570326
Most likely spare parts availability from other countries that made it cheaper to run them than the T-72 type. Now that you mention it though, they operated more T-72 tanks than T-55.
>>
>>40570326
Because the T-55 was also used for mine clearing and other engineer duties. Finnish T-55M was also a modernized version, having Bofors made fire control system that was top notch.

The last T-55M conscript Tank Company was in 2002. Same time the Leopard 2a4s were bought. The T-55M companies stayed in the reserve War units for some time longer, before they were replaced by Leopard units. However the armor engineers have kept using the vehicle for as late as 2017-2019, using it for tasks mentioned earlier.
>>
>>40570776
that makes sense
>>
>>40570345
>>generally not suitable for cold weather, or requires modifications to be (different fuel, block heaters, etc)
Having operated Leopard 2s and CV9040s in -45C without any issues I really dont know where people get this from, we use the same fuel as everyone else, and hasnt modified the engines in any way.

Id also want to question the idea of beeing able to use all sorts of fuel in your tanks as any meaningfull advantage. Every other vehicle in the battalion will need diesel anyway, and sending in tanks without any support because you could only find gasoline is Turkey-tier
>>
>>40570842
yeah, that's pretty fuckin' cold. I was basing that part of my post primarily off of commercial diesels that I have personal experience with, and those hate cold, so it seemed like a reasonable conclusion.
and while running on nonstandardized fuel is a "just because you can, doesn't mean you should" thing, it seemed worth mentioning.
do you guys really not have block heaters or anything to help with cold starts/cold running?
>>
>>40570788
Today the mine clearing and bridge laying tanks operated are build on Leopard platform. Leopard 2R, Leopard 2L, and Leopard 2a4 with a mine roller
>>
>>40570868
iirc the Finns also took the Marksman turrets off the T55s and put them on the Leo2s
>>
>>40570863
For cold start you preheat the vehicle with a Webasto for about an hour, if you have time (during peace time you will have the time). The tank is going to start even without pre-heating, it just doesn't really do any good for the engine. And if the engine temperature has been lifted to 100C day before, and you keep the vehicle over night with hatches closed and hydraulics turned on, it is gonna stay somewhat warm over night.
>>
>>40570897
Very true. ITPSV 90 Marksman turned into ITPSV Leopard 2 Marksman
(ITPSV is IlmaTorjuntaPanssariVaunu, AA-tank)
>>
>>40570926
yeah, at the shop we have these diesel burners you can put next to or under the truck to keep the block warm so it'll start, we also have big heating elements that epoxy to the oil pan to get the oil hot, takes about the same amount of time for us too.
all diesels are the same, pretty much.
>>
>>40570863
>commercial diesels
does any military use this? As it goes "bad" when staying in the tank for too long.
>>
>>40570957
The thing with tank engine is that it weights many tons, having such a large thermal capacity really helps you at winter.

And at summer I could use the heat of the engine to dry some wet socks
>>
>>40570973
not that I'm aware of, most use JP8, but commercial fuel takes quite a while to go to shit, and if your vehicles are sitting without running for that long you have a bigger problem
>>
>>40570235
Thanks for the info. I was wondering about them
>>
Tank T-14 "Armata" after revision went into mass production. Until the end of 2019, 12 tanks and four armored repair and recovery vehicles (BREM) T-16s will go to the troops, told Izvestia several sources in the Ministry of Defense.

According to them, the serial "Armata" differ from the previously presented experimental machines: after testing a number of components and assemblies were replaced, new systems also appeared.

On May 9, the new T-14s will take part in the parade on Red Square. After that, to check in conditions close to combat, they will be distributed in military units located in different regions.

>mass production
>>
>>40571145
so they just took out probably the most complicated parts and put in more cheaper robust shit, which changes the vehicle completly?
>>
>>40569122
What is this?
Somebody that actual thinks for himself here?!
Impossible
>>
>>40568887
>Abrams upgrade project proposals includes diesel engine.
The Abrams was going to be upgraded with the LV100-5 until the Crusader project fell through. The only dieselization for the Abrams was planned for export customers.
>>
New thread please...?
>>
>>40571251
I like having some conversation, but as someone stated before, /thg/ was good because it wasn't daily
>>
>>40571251
Let's hold off a few days, bro
>>
>>40571251
As much as I like the pic dumps, I do agree with what >>40571293 said.
>>
This is probably the only thread in a bazillion days there hasn't been shitposting. Thanks to all of you for that.
>>
>>40571345
perhaps the entire thread is just a massive in-joke shitpost by all of us.
>>
>>40568995
>be the only Swedish Renault FT
>get my 37 mm gun removed and placed on an armored car
>get radio shoved in me
>my mast to hold the wire for the radio is literally a bamboo stick
>obsolete so turned into a firing target on a range
>can't do a mfw because image limit
>>
>>40569423
>it strikes me as odd that Hungary would operate the T-72, BTR-80, BRDM-2, but not any variant of the BMP.
Eh, that's fairly common in the poorer Soviet Bloc countries. BMPs are expensive, and you do well enough with the cheaper BTRs. Hungary was on a shoestring budget.
>>
>>40568825

Britain started rearming belatedly so had far too little heavy equipment, then went into war prematurely in autumn 1939 then lost huge amounts of hardware in in a series of early war disasters in: Norway, France/Belgium, Balkans, East Africa, North Africa, Hong Kong/Malaya/Burma. In comparison, the USSR got the benefit of nearly-joint development of armored warfare with Germany in the 20s and 30s then their war only started in Summer 1941. Britain got thrown into war early with insufficient equipment and had to build something now because something mediocre was better than nothing.
>>
>>40568066
ogorkiewicz, technology of tanks
>>
>>40570973
in Norway we only use F-34 on military vehicles, but thats just diesel cut with kerosene to prevent any clogging during low temps, plus it helps prevent the fuel from going "bad" over time



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.