Tankery, The Thread

[CoffeeGrunt]

I hereby inaugurate this thread for the discussion of tanks and where to find them. We'll make allowances for fictional ones as well, just remember that the Leman Russ is an awful design and Baneblades are silly. :P

To start off the discussion: Challenger II is best tank.

Official Thread Theme Song:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3e6EkNXCC0c

[eldargal]

http://miochan.net/wp-content/images/2015/03/girls-und-panzer-1.gif

[Haighus]

I'm going to second that the Challenger II is the best tank. Also, why do armies dislike HESH rounds so much? They are no less effective than HEAT rounds against modern armoured vehicles (in other words, neither is any good against Chobham armour), are very good against soft-skinned vehicles, and much better against infantry and buildings as a HE round. The only reason I can see is that they require a rifled barrel for maximum efficacy to be honest.

[Psychosplodge]

More round types complicates using an autoloader?

[Haighus]

More round types complicates using an autoloader?

Which encourages using HESH rounds, because they are very multipurpose, and only a APFSDS round is needed then to round out the combat capability to include enemy modern heavy armour.

[CoffeeGrunt]

I think it's because a Main Battle Tank is meant to be for pure anti-tank warfare, whereas HESH would make it more of an infantry support or demolition vehicle. HESH is pretty useless against modern armour because it relies on spreading force across a wider area to cause the internal parts of a tank to be broken off and flung around, damaging the tank and crew. Modern tanks are too well-built for it to work. Not to mention ERA plating makes it effectively irrelevant.

But then, it's a primarily American-led initiative to make every AFV have a set role and just make loads of different ones, rather than a generalist design.

[Haighus]

True, but HEAT rounds are proving just as ineffective vs modern armour too, with ceramic armour and ERA making them pretty useless as well. US tanks are equipped with HEAT, canister and sometimes HE rounds in addition to their APFSDS rounds, Challenger IIs have just APFSDS rounds and HESH rounds. The US tank ammunition development is apparently working on making HEAT rounds better against personnel and lighter vehicles at the expense of anti-armour effectiveness too, because they are not useful anti-armour rounds in a modern setting. So the specialisation angle doesn't really fit, when even the US tanks have a large variety of shell types they are trying to reduce to fewer general purpose shells. MBTs cannot be left without an anti-personnel option, as they can't always be operating purely against enemy armour.

[Mr Mystery]

Did anyone else see that camouflage armour the British Army were working on?

It's meant to thwart thermal imaging systems. You've basically got heat sensors and that on each side, which can read the ambient temperatures of the background, then match them precisely on the other side, neatly hiding the tank entirely.

Even better? They carry pre-programmed heat silhouettes, so they can pretend to be a jeep or something.

Check it out here!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlLqdFsMnCE

[Asymmetrical Xeno]

http://www.beastsofwar.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Bucephalus-2.jpg

http://www.beastsofwar.com/antenocitis-workshop/grav-tanks-hover-store/

this one is pretty nice :)

[CoffeeGrunt]

Hmmm, fair point, though I don't know if there's any real difference in capability between HESH or HEAT, I suppose it depends on the armour you're firing at. Given that the main things our armour takes on are knock-off Soviet tanks, APFSDS is pretty overkill. Fingers crossed we won't ever have to fight a modern army with either the Abrams or the Challenger II.

I imagine the phasing out of HESH is probably because of the perception that HE or HEAT is good enough to fulfill a similar role, and we're about the only country still advocating it, and isn't that typical of fusty, old Britain? :P

It's unsurprising given that WWII proved the best designs are the ones who do the job okay and are cranked out by the thousand. We had very capable tanks like the Churchill and the Cromwell, but it was the Sherman and the T34 that won that war.

- - - Updated - - -


Did anyone else see that camouflage armour the British Army were working on?

It's meant to thwart thermal imaging systems. You've basically got heat sensors and that on each side, which can read the ambient temperatures of the background, then match them precisely on the other side, neatly hiding the tank entirely.

Even better? They carry pre-programmed heat silhouettes, so they can pretend to be a jeep or something.

Check it out here!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlLqdFsMnCE

It looks really cool, though I imagine it's something that was let go due to cost or exorbitant maintenance demands. All those little heat sensors and the associated panels would be a real pig to maintain, especially out in a desert with a bit of sandy wind.

- - - Updated - - -


http://www.beastsofwar.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Bucephalus-2.jpg

http://www.beastsofwar.com/antenocitis-workshop/grav-tanks-hover-store/

this one is pretty nice :)

Ooooh...I'm thinking Gue'vesa Hammerhead... :D

[Asymmetrical Xeno]

Ooooh...I'm thinking Gue'vesa Hammerhead... :D

thats a good thought, it would fit that well!

[Psychosplodge]

A human designer not bound by the constraints of the mechanicus and with visible Tau influences. Would work really well.

[CoffeeGrunt]

I've got a lot of hybrid Gue'vesa stuff, but it's hard to get something that looks conceivably like an evolution born from a blend of the two.

[Asymmetrical Xeno]

I've got a lot of hybrid Gue'vesa stuff, but it's hard to get something that looks conceivably like an evolution born from a blend of the two.

Perhaps that tank is the right one then! One of the variants even had fins on it that remind me a bit of tau :

http://www.beastsofwar.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Advocatus-2.jpg

[Psychosplodge]

If you were going for the finned option I'd use them as missile hardpoints rather than guns.

[CoffeeGrunt]

If only I still played 40K. :P

Ah well, what does everyone think of the new Russian Armata tank? It seems pretty futuristic and against the historical norm for Russia to be producing a more elite, high-spec tank, rather than working en masse with mediocre ones. Russian propaganda says it's the bestest tank ever. :P

I quite like the idea of a sealed cockpit, though the autoloader might be problematic and I hope the guys can get out if the internal cockpit ends up failing. It also has a 125mm Smoothbore, which sounds pretty scary, and plenty of armour by all accounts.

Speculation abounds on whether Russia can produce enough of them to actually matter, but they're apparently deployed in Syria at the moment. The worst they'll face off against there are stolen M1A1 Abrams, though.

[Psychosplodge]

Not seen them. Is that the T90 or it's successor?

[Asymmetrical Xeno]

If only I still played 40K. :P

I can relate *stares at the armies on the shelf that have never been used*

*shame*

[CoffeeGrunt]

Not seen them. Is that the T90 or it's successor?

It's the new T-14, (http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russias-armata-t-14-tank-vs-americas-m-1-abrams-who-wins-13825) the T-90's successor.


I can relate *stares at the armies on the shelf that have never been used*

*shame*

I've started selling mine off, sadly I just don't enjoy playing the game much. All my unbuilt and unpainted stuff has been getting moved to either being sold, traded, or painted for cold storage. I'm hoping GW pull their finger out and make the game more enjoyable some time.

[Haighus]

Hmmm, fair point, though I don't know if there's any real difference in capability between HESH or HEAT, I suppose it depends on the armour you're firing at. Given that the main things our armour takes on are knock-off Soviet tanks, APFSDS is pretty overkill. Fingers crossed we won't ever have to fight a modern army with either the Abrams or the Challenger II.

I imagine the phasing out of HESH is probably because of the perception that HE or HEAT is good enough to fulfill a similar role, and we're about the only country still advocating it, and isn't that typical of fusty, old Britain? :P

It's unsurprising given that WWII proved the best designs are the ones who do the job okay and are cranked out by the thousand. We had very capable tanks like the Churchill and the Cromwell, but it was the Sherman and the T34 that won that war.
Well, Britain was pretty much the only big user of HESH in the first place! Other countries use it largely just for combat engineering purposes (which is what it was designed for originally in WWII). Having been reading a bit more on it, it seems the main argument is really whether rifled or smoothbore tank guns are used- smoothbore lends itself to more effective HEAT rounds, and rifled to HESH rounds. Rifled is a bit less effective for APFSDS rounds though, so that seems to be why smoothbore cannons are more popular currently, and hence HEAT rounds too.

I can't find if there is a difference in range between the two, although some stuff Grimmas said in another thread usggest rifled barrels have a greater range and the Challenger was intended almost as a sort of NATO tank sniper.


It looks really cool, though I imagine it's something that was let go due to cost or exorbitant maintenance demands. All those little heat sensors and the associated panels would be a real pig to maintain, especially out in a desert with a bit of sandy wind.
Well, it seems it is a pretty recent technology (the video is 2011) so I may well not have been dropped at all, but just still in development. The modular nature of the tiles makes it look surprisingly easy to maintain- broken tiles can just be swapped out, although the reliability of the system could make this very expensive if the tiles fail frequently. I don't think it will be very useful against poorly equipped foes though, as the use of thermal imaging and smokescreens was one of the big advantages of Challenger Is against Iraqi forces in the Gulf war, as they could easily cut through the smoke and target Iraqi vehicles, but the Iraqi forces were not equipped with thermal imaging. This would suggest that only advanced forces have thermal capabilities, so having thermal camo is only really useful against other advanced tanks. Being able to avoid being targeted until the enemy is within 500m would be very useful though.

[Asymmetrical Xeno]

It's the new T-14, (http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russias-armata-t-14-tank-vs-americas-m-1-abrams-who-wins-13825) the T-90's successor.



I've started selling mine off, sadly I just don't enjoy playing the game much. All my unbuilt and unpainted stuff has been getting moved to either being sold, traded, or painted for cold storage. I'm hoping GW pull their finger out and make the game more enjoyable some time.

Am hoping they come out with an Idiot Edition for people like me that suck at learning complex rulebooks and such.

[Haighus]

The T-14 is certainly interesting, I wonder if the technology is actually reliable enough to support the vehicle in combat. I guess only time will tell. The active defense systems especially look very impressive.

[Psychosplodge]

It's relying heavily on an automated weapon. I'd assume even Leopards and Abrams have some sort of way to manually bypass the autolaoder if necessary? This doesn't have crew in the same space.
I suppose if you've cracked the reliability it shouldn't matter.

[CoffeeGrunt]

It's definitely an interesting design, and if it works it'll be quite revolutionary. I might be slightly biased though, as it's a Railgun and a crane-turret away from being a UCM Sabre, and I love those tanks. :P

[Psychosplodge]

A combat effective tank mounted railgun will be interesting to see.

[CoffeeGrunt]

I think we'll have to wait and see if the Naval version is combat-effective first. Railguns are cool, so the US Navy should keep it under the Rule of Cool Treaty even if it isn't effective.

Saber tanks are awesome though. One-man piloting it, has assisted targeting, an auto-loader, the main gun is on a crane in order to fold down for transit, but it also allows it to peek over obstacles. In order to ensure the hull has a low profile the pilot lies down in it when piloting, which helps with transport to war theaters and saves resources when building. The pilot is in a hardened pod so that if the tank is destroyed they typically survive, and it runs on metallic hydrogen.

It's like the perfect sci-fi tank design for a dystopian future where Mankind is on the back foot and having to sell each life dearly.

[YorkNecromancer]

If you live in the UK and like tanks, I can strongly recommend The Muckleberg Collection. (http://www.muckleburgh.co.uk/) Spent nearly a day there, got hundreds of reference photos for painting/conversion work. :)

Oh, and to address two points in the original post:

1.) The best tank is the Bren Universal Carrier (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Carrier) and
2.) The Leman Russ and Baneblade are made of CONCENTRATED AWESOME (http://apocalypse40k.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/transformer-40k.html) and anyone who doesn't like them is entitled to their opinion, but remains, in the final, completely objective, entirely empirical and scientific analysis, wrong.

http://lovelace-media.imgix.net/uploads/25/1620b570-f175-0133-243b-0e1b1c96d76b.gif?

[CoffeeGrunt]

But if anything the Bren is a hilariously-underpowered Assault Gun! It's not a tank at all!:P

[grimmas]

It was was the Chieftan tank that was the long range "sniper" it was introduced to take out the Soviet heavy tanks at range.

HESH is better than HEAT on most things other then Spaced armour I think. It's capabilities against buildings give it excellent versatility as well. It down side is that it need a rifled gun and they are more expensive to manufacture and maintain.

The T-14 looks good pretty good but it is Russian so expect it not to live up to its claimed performance, anyone remember the T-72 auto loader that used th load the crewmen by accident!!??

The Challenger II is the nuts and quite likely the greatest tank ever made. The turret is machined out of a single block of titanium and then has the composite armour (the good stuff nut the stuff we've told everyone else how to make) fixed to it. It isn't the coolest tank though for really cool tanks you need to go for the late Great War/Interwar period, multiple turrets, sponsons, exposed tracks, landships, awesome stuff, totally inefficient and in some cases dangerous but soooooo damn cool (basically real life 40K tanks)

Like this bad boy the Independent Heavy Tank A1E1
18998

[Kirsten]

http://i1216.photobucket.com/albums/dd380/KirstenIGMB/Other/stug%20life_zpsjhcq3l5o.jpg (http://s1216.photobucket.com/user/KirstenIGMB/media/Other/stug%20life_zpsjhcq3l5o.jpg.html)

http://i1216.photobucket.com/albums/dd380/KirstenIGMB/Other/tank_zpszung3570.jpg (http://s1216.photobucket.com/user/KirstenIGMB/media/Other/tank_zpszung3570.jpg.html)

[Haighus]

The STuG is a great vehicle, looks really cool, and effective too.

A tank railgun would be taking the kinetic penetrator idea to the extreme I think, I don't know the impact on the tank's ability to fight in urban or confined environments though, I feel like firing a railgun at a building up the street could have unintended effects. Tanks suffer in close quarters terrain as it is, having essentially a sniper weapon could be an issue, they may need to have some beefy coaxial weaponry to be multirole. Perhaps a missile launcher combined turret?

Grimmas, that tank is infuriating in tier 1 in War Thunder- early in the game it is difficult to one-shot a tank, and that thing has a silly number of crew making it really resilient to picking them off. Most German tanks can have the crew taken out in 2-3 shots.

[YorkNecromancer]

But if anything the Bren is a hilariously-underpowered Assault Gun! It's not a tank at all!:P

I will have you know, sir, that the Bren is such an ABSURDLY awesome beast of a vehicle, it could PICK UP A CHALLENGER II IN ITS GIANT HANDS AND USE IT TO SMASH ANOTHER CHALLENGER II TO DEATH WITH, BEFORE THROWING THE SMOKING WRECKS OF BOTH CHALLENGERS AT A THIRD CHALLENGER, WHO'S SHOWN UP TO WORK DRUNK BECAUSE SHE DOESN'T HAVE ONE SINGLE OUNCE OF THE CHARACTER OF THE INCOMPARABLE BREN!!!

Seriously though, the Bren is the best tank.

I mean, look at her.

http://diggerhistory.info/images/tanks/bren-gun-carrier2.jpg

That, my friends, is perfection.

[Haighus]

There were some impressive (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkash_Singh) exploits (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Furness_(VC)) carried out by universal carrier crew (http://www.thehistorypress.co.uk/articles/csm-stanley-hollis-vc-d-day-hero/).

[Psychosplodge]

If you live in the UK and like tanks, I can strongly recommend The Muckleberg Collection. (http://www.muckleburgh.co.uk/) Spent nearly a day there, got hundreds of reference photos for painting/conversion work. :)


I clicked on their "drive a tank" link. Video of people driving around in an APC. That's not a tank. I've already drove a Warrior, I want to drive an actual tank.

SO wants a week in Torquay next year, I've managed to negotiate a day trip Bovington if we do :D

[CoffeeGrunt]

I don't have the cash, but next year I'm hijacking Tiger 131 and going for a joyride. :P

[eldargal]

I don't have the cash, but next year I'm hijacking Tiger 131 and going for a joyride. :P

http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/gup/images/f/fd/PorscheTigers1_zps568fdbb9.gif/revision/latest?cb=20160420085221

[CoffeeGrunt]

Needs the bit where it catches fire and dies. :P

[grimmas]

Bovington is ace Mrs G treated me for a birthday, stayed in Lulworth which is England's green and pleasant land, she even managed 2 of the guided tours on offer before bailing out to go shopping. She did pose the awesome question of "can it drive upside down" when shown the Mk III Male Tank which was fair and very amusing to watch the guide squirm.

Before we go any further a Universal Carrier ain't no tank end of. However what is the definition of a Tank. Now some will tell you that it's a tracked, turreted armoured fighting vehicle which is all well and good.

However.....

This is a tank (a MKIV not a III which caused my good lady's enquiry)

19005

But as previously mention this isn't

19006

And neither is a bloody Stug 3 or 4.

So what dear people defines a Tank?

[Rissan4ever]

dictionary.com says a tank is "an armored, self-propelled combat vehicle, armed with cannon and machine guns and moving on a caterpillar tread."

I fail to see how the second vehicle above is not a tank.

[Psychosplodge]

Cause it's a bloody APC.

[grimmas]

What Splodge said.

But does infantry carrying capacity disqualify from Tankdom? The Merkava has a troop carrying capacity and it is a tank. Of course troop carrying isn't its primary role.

The problem with that dictionary definition is that there are a number of tanks that don't possess cannon at all just machine guns (PzI, Matilda, Great Wat British female tanks). It would also classify a number of self propelled guns as Tanks and that's just wrong.

I would like to add the both Stugs and Universal carriers are cool as f*ck they just aren't tanks 😝

[Mr Mystery]

http://www.beastsofwar.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/MECHANICUM-ORDINATUS-SAGITTAR-1.jpg

Do I win £5?

[Psychosplodge]

With your self propelled gun?

[grimmas]

😂

[Haighus]

I see no reason why an APC can't also be a tank, it just means it probably isn't an MBT (although the Merkava is an odd example).

Also, I reckon the whole turret concept applies to modern vehicles, but the British WWI 'tanks' get a pass because they were built before the definitions even appeared...

[Psychosplodge]

But how many TLA can we apply to a single AFV?

I think that's a fair way to define a tank. Once you add infantry capacity I suppose it could be argued it depends on the vehicles intended role?

[grimmas]

Role and concept will surely come into it. I wouldn't disqualify just for troop carrying ability but a vehicle primarily designed to carry infantry is an APC it isn't a tank just because they stuck a turret on it.

That said Bradleys are credited with more tank kills than Abrams in the First Gulf War. That was down to The Tow missiles and poor opposition though.

It's worth considering that Allied forces didn't consider vehicles like the Hellcat, M10 or M36 as Tanks

I guess the Great War British tanks would be more correctly refered to as "Landships" as that was their correct name the Tanks bit was just to through German spies off the scent.

[Mr Mystery]

With your self propelled gun?

Your Tank has two guns.

My gun has two tanks. Which have three guns as well.

Ordinatus FTW!

Do I win £5?

[Kaptain Badrukk]

19008
I submit as an obvious omission the Edelweiss.
Obviously fictional.
Obviously awesome.
Pick one up (with resin and brass extras) from Tokyo a while back, still haven't built it tho.

[Psychosplodge]

They really should have painted it red for the extra speed though.

[Haighus]

But how many TLA can we apply to a single AFV?

I think that's a fair way to define a tank. Once you add infantry capacity I suppose it could be argued it depends on the vehicles intended role?


Role and concept will surely come into it. I wouldn't disqualify just for troop carrying ability but a vehicle primarily designed to carry infantry is an APC it isn't a tank just because they stuck a turret on it.

That said Bradleys are credited with more tank kills than Abrams in the First Gulf War. That was down to The Tow missiles and poor opposition though.

It's worth considering that Allied forces didn't consider vehicles like the Hellcat, M10 or M36 as Tanks

I guess the Great War British tanks would be more correctly refered to as "Landships" as that was their correct name the Tanks bit was just to through German spies off the scent.

So, in this case, are you equating 'tank' with Main Battle Tank then? Because I consider tank to be broader than MBT as a definition, which would include the Bradley, but the Bradley definitely isn't an MBT.

Tank shouldn't just cover vehicles which are designed primarily to take out other tanks, because that excludes many WWII tanks, including the original Sherman and Matildas designed for infantry support, as well as pretty much every light tank designed for scouting. The Bradley as an APC tank would basically be a continuation of the infantry tank concept, but bringing infantry protection to a greater level.

[Psychosplodge]

Tanks where initially for infantry support so I don't think you could really take that role away from them. Well I suppose the apache can do it but has different weaknesses and logistical requirements.

[eldargal]

http://i.imgur.com/pcNA6Kv.gif

[Psychosplodge]

http://67.media.tumblr.com/46e7bf4a29892002f93bd866e99ebcbb/tumblr_o2r2an7xGC1tq9q5vo1_400.gif

[grimmas]

Nope I wouldn't equate "tank" with MBT, especially considering that MBT have only been around since the later part of the Tank's existence.

I still wouldn't class a Bradley as a Tank though, similar but it is on a bit of a tangent and to be fair the military does classify them as IFVs. Carrying infantry isn't a tank role as soon as you design it around a troop compartment it becomes something else. Infantry tanks were a concept but they did die out with the end of WWII and that role has been subsumed with that of APC. IFVs didn't evolve from infantry tank though they are a development of the pure APCs

Then I would say a Scimitar and Scorpion are both Tanks but I've met those that would disagree.

[Haighus]

I dunno, the Bradley is pretty capable as a tank though, albeit using missiles against other armoured vehicles more than the autocannon.

What would you count the Space Marine Predator as? It is essentially a modified Bradley as it was originally constructed with a small transport compartment in the rear, but removed in later versions for increased ammo capacity. Seeing as the FW HH list is for the later Great Crusade and HH only, we don't have any rules for the transport version currently. However, the Space Marines, certainly by the 41st Millennium, treat it as a tank.

Wikipedia says a tank is:

A tank is an armoured fighting vehicle with tracks and a large tank gun that is designed for front-line combat.

Front line combat is quite a non-specific term though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank

[CoffeeGrunt]

IIRC, the defining factors of a tank are:

- Traversable turret, without this it's just an Assault Gun,
- Caterpillar tracks,
- Significant armour,

There's lots of little variations. Gun fixed forward? That's an assault gun. Turret mounted far back? Self-propelled gun. Both of those tend to be less common now, as WWII was the era of throwing designs at the wall to see what stuck. In the modern day, anything that carries troops is an APC, and most artillery is very distinct from what WWII envisioned. Tanks of today are almost all Main Battle Tanks, and thus are designed almost entirely for engaging and destroying their opposing equivalents.

So whether something is a tank or not only really applies to historical tanks, in an attempt to categorise the mad rush of development in the first half of the last century.

The role historically didn't define what a tank

[Necron2.0]

Pardon me if I missed it, but you simply cannot have a discussion like this without at least a mention of the German Maus (super heavy tank, of which I think just one was ever built):

http://orig12.deviantart.net/6e48/f/2016/204/5/6/maus32_by_necron2_0-dab59fd.jpg



There also needs to be a mention of the Ratte:
http://orig07.deviantart.net/8ebe/f/2016/204/e/6/takom_ratte__1__by_necron2_0-dab595k.jpg

This was a conjectural design (no prototypes built). Basically, after a couple bottles of schnapps, some tank designers got the brilliant idea of mounting a battleship turret on an armored mobile chassis.

[Necron2.0]

Of course, being more general in the definition of a tank, there is the Tsar Tank from WWI:

http://orig11.deviantart.net/1e4d/f/2016/204/4/0/263723_original_by_necron2_0-dab5b7f.jpg
The Russians built one. In its initial test, it quickly got stuck in mud to the point that it could never be moved again. At that point, it was torn apart for scrap. Given it was named "Tsar," that was somewhat prophetic.


Not to be outdone for silliness by their bourgeoisie predecessors, the Soviets came up with a real gem - the Antonov A-40 flying tank.

http://orig15.deviantart.net/02de/f/2016/204/2/5/19g9gunudjfmvjpg_by_necron2_0-dab5b81.jpg

In order to get it to the point where it wouldn't fall out of the sky like a rock, the "tank" had nearly no armor and next to no armaments. But hey, it looked like a tank, so maybe that would count for something.

[Kaptain Badrukk]

The 120 ton O-I , japan's forray into superheavies?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/O-I
Never made it into production. Lighter than the Maus by 68tonnes, making it easier to build an engine for.
But still packing a 105mm main cannon with rocket pods, a 47mm cannon, and a trio of 7.7mm machine guns.
200mm armout too. Not bad, but sadly like the Maus it never made production.

[Psychosplodge]

This was a conjectural design (no prototypes built). Basically, after a couple bottles of schnapps, some tank designers got the brilliant idea of mounting a battleship turret on an armored mobile chassis.

Why not just bolt tracks onto a battleship for the shiggles?

[Mr Mystery]

Can we all take a moment to consider and reflect upon the spirit of early tank designers.

Their grand invention was used in a war it was spectacularly unsuited for - yet they persevered, and gave us one of the iconic warfare developments of the 20th Century.

[Psychosplodge]

I think the ideas outstripped the abilities of the time?

[CoffeeGrunt]

Yeah, plus the roles they'd be used in. If massed tank use had been seen in WWI, we'd have broken the German lines far earlier. It was their deployment in ones and twos as infantry support which made them useful, but not overbearing.

Tank design also diverged all over the place because no-one knew what role they should fill or how they should be deployed, at least until WWII made tank vs tank battles a thing, and a thing of massive strategic importance at that.

[Mr Mystery]

That's still a helluva resolve they showed - especially for military designs.

I do like Tanks me, but I remain pretty ignorant about them. I just like the way they look!

[CoffeeGrunt]

I'm quite a fan of tanks, both from an engineering perspective as well as a childlike love of Things What Go Boom.

It's also interesting to see how various armies approached the same thing very differently. Russians? Make a solid tank, then crank it out by the tens of thousands. Germans? The most highly-engineered and probably superior tanks, though maintenance is a pig due to how complex the builds are, and they take longer to manufacture.

Americans? Make one tank, give it a load of different turret options over time, and make a lot of it. (I genuinely can't find anything that implies the Americans fielded tanks that weren't Shermans in any significant numbers.) The Japanese have tanks that are light and great at infantry support, but would lose a tank battle with almost any Western tank.

Oh, and the Italians. I.e., kinda half-*ss it because they didn't seem to really want to go to war anyway.

[grimmas]

The Sherman was an awesome military vehicle really the utility and ability to be upgraded was really stunning, in its ultimate form it totally outclassed the T34-85 in Korea. As noted by CG it's chassis was used for many other types of vehicle, tank destroyers, SPGs and the like. Say what you like about the Yanks' tactics by they totally smashed it when it came to industrial warfare.

If the Germans had concentrated resources on the PzIV with the long 75mm they might have had the numbers to beat the USSR. It's a much forgotten Tank that tends to get overlooked for the flashier German stuff.

You forgot British Tanks CG, random genius and lunacy mixed in equal measure (sounds like us in general really). I do like the Valentine though (and so did the Russians allegedly)

[CoffeeGrunt]

Yeah, when you look at the industrial capabilities of Japan vs the US, it becomes pretty obvious that a war between them could only have ever went one way. Japan is tiny, has a relatively-low population, has nearly-no native resources, and the majority of it is mountainous. Has basically no capacity for manufacturing anything. Conversely, the US is vast, has massive resource wealth, swathes of land and a large population. Their tanks weren't great, but were superior to Japanese tanks. Their navy was bigger, their airforce, everything. Even with a decisive first strike against the US Navy at Pearl Harbour the rest of the war was just a fighting retreat for the Japanese. They could never have landed in enough force to take America, and the Americans could have defended in depth much as the Russians did.

Plus we made the Sherman Firefly, which is a hilarious tank. British tanks are about as oddball as everything else we make, and the Valentine is a great, little tank by the look of it.

IIRC, it was Rommel who told the Reich command to stop making endless prototypes tanks and just produce the Panther, as it was arguably the best tank of the war. It was at the very least "good enough" to be produced en masse in the same manner the Sherman and T34-85 were. Would have massively helped their logistics in the long run, and might have allowed them to draw it out a bit longer.

Probably didn't help them that Hitler had Rommel shot. One of the few decent tank warfare commanders they had, and by the account of ol' Monty, an opponent who treated prisoners of war fairly in that, "last gentlemanly war." Rommel's refusal to fight to the, "last man and bullet," saved a lot of resources that helped in the long run. Unlike the entire Sixth Army Hitler left to rot in Stalingrad.

It's a horrible sort of irony that the worst thing you could do in history is go back in time and kill Hitler, because the man was such an egotistical, strategically-incompetent mess that they could only replace him with someone better who might have actually won the damn war. And that would be awful. :/

[Psychosplodge]

https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/kill_hitler.png

[grimmas]

It also worth remembering that the American made and supplied Tanks to all the other allies as well (including the USSR).

Yeah to be honest Hitler's stategic incompetence did the allies a number of big favours. He probably lost the War (against the USSR) as much as they won it.

Those late war German tanks inefficient as they were are truly awe inspiring. The Jagdtiger version of the Tiger II is like a building on tracks.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Oh don't get me wrong, they were damn cool. Just impractical as all-heck.

The US Lend-Lease program was a stroke of genius. That program, plus war reparations and the massive wartime investment in industry is almost definitely what made America a superpower during the 50s. Well, that and the A-bomb, but Lend-Lease got them a sweet load of money.

[Psychosplodge]

They wanted to win the war without fighting it :D

[grimmas]

Oh yeah, they neatly impoverished all their "allies" In the process leaving themselves as the preeminent power, weaponised capitalism. Worked very well too.

I was just looking a British tank production figures. We were no slouches on that front just that they were many different types so one tends to look how many in total were made. I suspect not too far behind the Germans really. There wasn't much capability to upgrade the British designs though even the mid war designs could only have a 6lb or mid length 75mm squeezed into them (the Matilda 2 could only manage a 2lb gun) so we kept having to ditch whole lines rather than keep and upgrade.

- - - Updated - - -


They wanted to win the war without fighting it :D

In Europe definitely and they would have gotten away with it, if it wasn't for those pesky Germans declaring war on them. Not that I blame them it's probably best staying out of that sort of thing for as long as possible (it worked for Britain during the Nepoleonic Wars)

[CoffeeGrunt]

Yeah, to be fair I can understand the view of, "it's a European war, let them sort it out among themselves. We'll help our allies, but we don't want to spend any lives fighting it directly." America was pretty much the only thing that kept this country alive, though it's an unpopular thing to say. People here like to say how America jumped in at the end to steal the glory, but that's ignoring the essential trade that America kept open for us despite millions of tons of shipping being destroyed every year by the U-boats. Without that oil, food and other supplies, we wouldn't have been able to hold out much longer. No fuel means no Spitfires.

Don't get me wrong, we certainly displayed the sheer power of the British will to tell outsiders to f*ck off and dig our heels in when a problem persists, and we managed to hold ground and push the attack in other areas, but there's no doubt that Britain itself was on the ropes as it was. If we hadn't had America's help, we'd have been overwhelmed.

At least we managed to finally get tanks right with the Chally II. :P

[Psychosplodge]

You can't deny they helped, but at same time they took advantage off the situation, but so did everyone at the time if they could. Sweden did the same in how it supplied Germany.

[grimmas]

Wasn't just us either to be fair, if it wasn't for the stuff shipped to Russia they'd have not held out either. I read an analysis that showed that without the Tanks shipped in from the UK and US there was a point that the Russian would have had nothing left befote they managed to get there production up to speed.

I think the saying goes "Britain provided the time, Russia provided the blood and the USA provided the money". It should probably be material for the USA but everyone was pretty essential.

Well the Comet and Centurion were pretty good we caught on in the end.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Gotta consider how terrifying it is that Germany held out for so long against all that was pressed against it.

Centurion was a beast with a properly-trained crew, as the Israelis proved in the Six Day War.

[Psychosplodge]

I think I saw something on quest or yesterday where the one that led the charge at suez was was actually the first tank into iraq in the first gulf war.

[grimmas]

In refelction might be being a little hard on British WWII tanks. The Infantry tank line were all pretty good, designed for a war that finished 20 odd years previously but they did perform well operationally and as mentioned before the whole concept has been ressurected more recently in the form of (not tanks) IFVs

[Haighus]

Yeah, it is selling British tanks a bit short to say we've only got it right with the Challenger II- pretty much every tank from the Comet onwards was decent, if not the best in the world during it's time. The Centurion was certainly an amazing tank at the time it was built, it just came a bit too late to hit WWII.

Regarding British tanks not being terribly upgradeable during WWII, both the Cromwell and the Churchill did prove adaptable, but they did arrive quite late in the war. The Churchill especially had a hell of a lot of variants, mostly combat engineering forms like the AVRE, ARK and Crocodile. The Crocodile was one of the most feared tanks in the war too, although not by other tank crews. It is worth mentioning that a Churchill was the first Allied tank to capture a Tiger I (admittedly a fluke), and was one of the few Allied tanks that could withstand hits from the 88mm gun (although it couldn't adequately fight back, more operated as a bullet sponge whilst other units made the kill).

[CoffeeGrunt]

Yeah, the Churchill capped out at a 75mm gun, and kinda got left behind as a result when it came to tank vs tank. It also had flat armour rather than sloped, so it fell behind in that regard.

Still, it wasn't a tank killer, just an infantry support. By all accounts it did an admirable job in that role.

[Haighus]

Well, they did make the 17 pounder Black Prince prototype, but it arrived pretty much at the same time as the superior Centurion. To be honest, the lack of sloped armour probably didn't make all that much difference (although it did have partly sloped armour to the front) as the later models had a whopping 6" of armour, which is thicker than on a Tiger tank. Ironically, it was the 6 pounder (57mm) gun that was the more effective gun against armour, rather than the 75mm gun. The 6 pounder was a decent gun all round, once it got the APFS ammo, but it couldn't hurt the heavier German armour.

It is in logistical and engineering support I think the Churchill really shone, just google Churchill ARK images. They are hilarious, they were pretty much just driven into a gap, sometimes on top of each other, and then left there as a bridge. There was also bridge laying and armoured recovery vehicle variants which were logistically useful.

[grimmas]

Some seriously good off road capability as well. It was a Churchill that captured the first intact Tiger Tank which ain't bad. The Russians also liked the Valentine so much they asked us to keep producing it throughout the War. And let's not forget the Matilda was the "Queen of the Desert".

It's a damn shame the Germans went for Blitzkreig rather than trench warfare 🤔

The Black Prince is another huge vehicle. Should have just gone with the TOG II if they wanted a silly heavy tank.

[Haighus]

Some seriously good off road capability as well. It was a Churchill that captured the first intact Tiger Tank which ain't bad. The Russians also liked the Valentine so much they asked us to keep producing it throughout the War. And let's not forget the Matilda was the "Queen of the Desert".

It's a damn shame the Germans went for Blitzkreig rather than trench warfare 🤔

The Black Prince is another huge vehicle. Should have just gone with the TOG II if they wanted a silly heavy tank.

Not to mention the Cromwell was rapid for the time, fastest tank of WWII. It was so fast, they had to slow it down in the Comet version to prevent it from accidentally throwing it's tracks when driven badly...

[grimmas]

Well, they did make the 17 pounder Black Prince prototype, but it arrived pretty much at the same time as the superior Centurion. To be honest, the lack of sloped armour probably didn't make all that much difference (although it did have partly sloped armour to the front) as the later models had a whopping 6" of armour, which is thicker than on a Tiger tank. Ironically, it was the 6 pounder (57mm) gun that was the more effective gun against armour, rather than the 75mm gun. The 6 pounder was a decent gun all round, once it got the APFS ammo, but it couldn't hurt the heavier German armour.

It is in logistical and engineering support I think the Churchill really shone, just google Churchill ARK images. They are hilarious, they were pretty much just driven into a gap, sometimes on top of each other, and then left there as a bridge. There was also bridge laying and armoured recovery vehicle variants which were logistically useful.

The 75mm provided better infantry support as it could get a bigger HE shell as the 6lber was only 57mm (it was better against armour though)

[Haighus]

Yeah, it was the better all-round weapon, same reason the 75mm was used on the Cromwell too, although I wonder why they didn't use a few 6 pounders in the units to provide some anti-tank punch in addition to the 75mm. They had a similar set up in Sherman units with a Firefly supporting the standard Shermans.

Speaking of Fireflies, the Achilles is another similar conversion that was very successful and pretty cool looking. It is an up-gunned Wolverine using the same 17 pounder gun as the Firefly. Although strictly speaking a turreted tank destroyer...

[Psychosplodge]

I'm pretty sure priscilla was queen of the desert. Matilda liked a waltz.

[grimmas]

They made the A30 challenger with a 17pdr to provide that role to Cromwell units mainly because they needed a Cromwell chassis vehicle to keep up.

Also I think by that point in the war the 6pdrs extra penetration didn't really provide any practical benefit as the German tanks were armoured far beyond its capabilities generally and the places that could be penetrated could also be penetrated by the 75 mm so the better HE was more useful.

[Haighus]

They had to make a lot of compromises with the Challenger to get it to fit the 17pdr though. Problems they didn't overcome without modifying the gun to make the Comet.

[grimmas]

Yeah it was just a stop gap till they got the Comet out (which was in turn a stoppag till the centurion was sorted). It was the same with the firefly which I believe mounted the gun on its side to fit it in.

- - - Updated - - -




Speaking of Fireflies, the Achilles is another similar conversion that was very successful and pretty cool looking. It is an up-gunned Wolverine using the same 17 pounder gun as the Firefly. Although strictly speaking a turreted tank destroyer...

British forces didn't even go that far they thought of it a a self propelled anti tank gun and used it as such.

The Archer takes the title for squeezing in the 17pdr in the most imaginative way, being as though is was a Valentine chassis with the gun facing backwards.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Never realised that the British were the first to field sabot rounds. Pretty interesting and apparently what made the 17Pdr so terrifying to enemy tanks.

[Psychosplodge]

https://65.media.tumblr.com/7fc8e9060402ee341889c4382391b830/tumblr_nejfkke4jN1r94kvzo1_540.jpg

Evolution of the British Tank*


*Some steps missing

[Kirsten]

lovely

[Mr Mystery]

Surprised at the relative lack of size difference.

Dunno why, always imagined modern tanks to be substantially biggerer.

[Psychosplodge]

I was actually surprised at how small the vintage model is. I had the original tank as at least as big as a modern one, with them being smaller in WW2 as they first tried turreted designs.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Huh, yeah I thought there'd be a greater difference. Then again, the modern use of composites means it isn't as necessary, as well as using more powerful engines, etc.

The difference in design is beautiful though. The Chally's a real beast.

[Denzark]

Tracks, armour and a turret doth not a tank make.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Tracks, armour and a turret doth not a tank make.

Those are the things that define a tank though...

[Denzark]

Not exclusively - the Swedish S tank has no turret, neither did Whippets, Mk I-8 (and and and).

Just a comment on the Bradley/IFV debate.

[Gotthammer]

Surprised at the relative lack of size difference.

Dunno why, always imagined modern tanks to be substantially biggerer.

A lot of it's due to logistical issues - make your new tank too big and you can't fit it through road tunnels, or on the back of a train or truck ("lorry"). Well you can get it on, it'll just be collecting poles and oncoming vehicles as you go.

For instance the Tiger 1 was very wide - so wide that they had to take the side skirts off to transport them (And later models needed outer running wheels removed too):

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/52/20/ef/5220ef2451dc931ddfdb5f46de4ed6ae.jpg

They also used narrower tracks when transporting for the same reason:

http://i58.tinypic.com/29le7p0.jpg

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/Tiger1-2002-Picz/Tiger1-towing-Tiger1.jpg

(Compare the overhang on the front sprocket wheel, and that part of the front and rear skirt is folded over for transport)

[Mr Mystery]

Good post :)

I want to say 'very informative', because it is, but worried someone might feel I was taking the piss with a 'much, very, wow' type thing.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Yeah, the Tiger was a brutal war machine, but a logistical nightmare. No commonality of parts with existing tanks, the diassembly took hours and IIRC that was the model which had the ridiculous setup on its track pins which made it incredibly awkward to retrack it. Add on the fact it couldn't travel over small European bridges and had to be entirely retracked for train transport and it's no surprise it never managed to take the offensive.

Also I think the Turret, Tracks and Gun definition is a broad strokes thing, it applies more than there are exceptions to it. The early tanks don't really count as one, they were considered Landships and tanks was merely a codeword, and two, tanks didn't really come into maturity until WWII. Like trying to define butterflies by their caterpillars.

[Gotthammer]

A good tank movie is Lebanon (http://www.moviesub.net/watch/lebanon-2009/1803.html):


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sL6_cVMimOQ

It's compared as the Das Boot of tank movies, and it's not a bad one. The film is shot entirely within the tank, so all you see is through the gunner's sight or out the top of the hatch. It's pretty grim, and a little cliche in parts, but well worth a watch.

Also The White Tiger:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24XXECv-oWw

It's the Mody Dick of tank movies (actually more the the Tiger is a metaphor for fascism but whatever)

There is also of course Kelly's Heroes, not all about tanks but they are of course important to the plot & there are some great tank battles.

And of course:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rszg66O8BjY

And never forget that Hetzers gonna hetz (https://new.vk.com/video11378954_171360477)

[Kirsten]

I enjoyed The Beast, and Battle of the Bulge has loads of tanks in too.

[Mr Mystery]

Because it's hardly a tank thread discussing movies without it...

http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMjE3ODMxNzU3NV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwOTQzMTM3NA@@._ V1_UY1200_CR84,0,630,1200_AL_.jpg

[Psychosplodge]

I prefer Ghost division


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TgPa7jmqkQ

[CoffeeGrunt]

+1 for Lebanon and White Tiger. Lebanon is intense, uncomfortable, and so damn good. White Tiger is a surprisingly unpatriotic Russian Great Patriotic War movie, with some epic battle scenes.

Also Girls Und Panzer goes without saying. I think Operation: Kill Serve is the single greatest piece of tank battle footage ever.

[Psychosplodge]

is that the film? Still need to see that.

[CoffeeGrunt]

It's in the film and it's glorious. IMO the best bit out of the whole thing.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Took a trip to a nearby Tank Museum today. They had a Scimitar, Centurion and Saladin running around an "arena" during the day. (Also had the AVRE Centurion. I pity the person loading those 165mm shells, they weight a ton!) Was pretty cool seeing the tanks running around, the Scimitar is hilariously fast, but the AVRE had a bit of trouble with her engine and wasn't running at her best.

Pics. (http://s148.photobucket.com/user/coffeegrunt/Norfolk%20Tank%20Museum/story)

They also had some living history groups with a load of German and Russian wartime weaponry, plus a few displays. Was an interesting trip, and they had a display by a P-51 Mustang at the end, which makes the most awesome noise imaginable.

They've got a lot of static displays they're attempting to refurb, including one of the very first prototype Centurions, (has the prototype number stamped on its front.) I took a lot of pictures of weathering and stuff as reference for myself, but people are welcome to use it if they want. :)

[Denzark]

CG - couldn't access the pics (work filters). Was that Muckleburgh or somewhere else? I asked because Muckleburgh has a good model collection with some high end weathering skills for reference. My favourite was a burnt-out vehicle - I have photo'd the effect to attempt to make terrain like that.

[CoffeeGrunt]

This is the Norfolk Tank Museum near Tasburgh. I'm hoping to get a group to go to Muckleborough sometime soon as I hear it has a good selection. :)

[Mr Mystery]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-37302722

[Cutter]

Does anyone know of a company producing a 28mm (1/56 scale) Challenger tank? Not the modern rubbish mind, the original A30 (Cruiser Mk VIII) Challenger.

I'd really like one for my Bolt Action/Konflict '47 Brits, and the rules are there but no one seems to be producing a model.

[Psychosplodge]

I imagine they'll get round to it eventually? Have you considered emailing their customer services?

[grimmas]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-37302722

The first tour at Bovington is all about the conditions that caused the introduction of the tank. It's really informative and its a good time to go considering it's the 100th Anniversary of the Somme this year.

[Cutter]

I don't know, the rules have been around for 4 years, but I've yet to encounter a model.

I can see the problem, it looks a bit like a Cromwell but is wider and longer (a whole extra road wheel longer) and doesn't share the chassis with anything else. So potential sales wise it's a bit of a dog, you can't make half a dozen variants out of it.

I have emailed Warlord as it happens, no response as yet.

[Psychosplodge]

Ah I see, yeah you expect them to d the ones with multiple variants first I suppose.