- Joined
- May 5, 2011
- Messages
- 12,846
- Likes
- 8,556
The French does have 1 classic tank, the baby grandpa of all modern MBTs, Renault FT.
It's actually a cutie... like a French poodle:
It's actually a cutie... like a French poodle:
First auto-loader...Bollocks, and it is clear that You have not even smallest idea about tanks development.
The first autoloader designed for a tank was in... USA, in one of T20 prototype series, the T22 if I remember correctly, also Germans were experimanting with autoloaders. But first MBT with autoloader was T-64 from Soviet Union, we can also add here Swedish Strv103 but this was more an SPG than a tank. French designs used something that we can call semi autoloader, but it was never real autoloader.
The first country that designed APFSDS ammunition and smoothbore guns was.. Oh my Soviet Union!
The first country that used thermal sights was... oh my USA!
So where are these innovations made in France? Oh yeah I get it, in French fantasions, no offence here.
It was the world's first "modern tank" with the placement of items and rotating turret that tanks share to this day. France is the pioneer of most tank technology.The French does have 1 classic tank, the baby grandpa of all modern MBTs, Renault FT.
You have absoluterly no knowledge, this is not autoloader, there is no automated process, the whole system in AMX-13 was more similiar to principles of automatic firearms reloading process, system is based on coil spring, this is not true autoloader...First auto-loader...
AMX-30 in B2 variant is using 105mm rifled gun designated CN-105-F1 You amateur, and look when AMX-30B2 was fielded.First smoothbore fin stabalised rounds and thermal night sights...
I'am at least not stupid and I do not base my knowledge on stupid movies from YT but my knwledge is based on books. From where You take information that AMX-30 use smoothbore gun, You are really from France? I do not belive, You don't have even smallest idea about tanks development history in Your own country.Sucks to be wrong = you
Another stupid myth about air superiority, air forces are not effective against land forces even today, not to mention days when there were no PGM's. Most German AFV's were destroyed due to allied or soviet armored forces or by mechanical failures, these destroyed by air forces are very small numbers.Not surprise but mass, Their is only 10% of tank loses to German during head on Armour fights, most German tanks were destroyed in Air raids..
Only on paper, in reality it was a complete failure, and proofs that Germans back then did not have even smallest idea how properly design AFV's, overweighted, underpowered, oversized, unreliabale vehicles are definetly miracle machines in popular culture, not in reality. Still PzKpfw. VI Ausf. H1/E was better design that this complete fail model Ausf. B.Tiger was a miracle machine
? There were no problems with 90mm gun of M26, there were problems with ammunition however due to weak quality control. And what have weight to protection levels? M26 weighting 41 metric tons had comparabale protection to 56 tons Tiger, so it is obvious that US machine was better designed.Abt M26 it have serious problems with its 90mm cannon which was over weighted, Also its 47tons compare 50 tons of Tiger-1, Tiger-2 was most powerful tank and carry most lethal gun of 71L, Allied had nothing to compare to it..
Outstanding?! Where do You read such BS? It was unreliabale to such level that designers of this thing should be shot for fucking up the whole design, Hitler itself should be shot by Wehrmacht high officers for demanding such useless vehicle to be fielded.Its a outstanding deign, In late period of war lack of spares and air-power were responsible of its doom..
IS-2 were destroyed by Tiger-1 in many instance in eastern front, What was dreaded is SU-152..
This will explain most i mentioned:Another stupid myth about air superiority, air forces are not effective against land forces even today, not to mention days when there were no PGM's. Most German AFV's were destroyed due to allied or soviet armored forces or by mechanical failures, these destroyed by air forces are very small numbers.
Only on paper, in reality it was a complete failure, and proofs that Germans back then did not have even smallest idea how properly design AFV's, overweighted, underpowered, oversized, unreliabale vehicles are definetly miracle machines in popular culture, not in reality. Still PzKpfw. VI Ausf. H1/E was better design that this complete fail model Ausf. B.
? There were no problems with 90mm gun of M26, there were problems with ammunition however due to weak quality control. And what have weight to protection levels? M26 weighting 41 metric tons had comparabale protection to 56 tons Tiger, so it is obvious that US machine was better designed.
But I know I know, myths, propaganda, lack of understanding how AFV's should be designed, popular culture showing Tiger and King Tiger as best tanks of WWII etc. etc. etc.
Outstanding?! Where do You read such BS? It was unreliabale to such level that designers of this thing should be shot for fucking up the whole design, Hitler itself should be shot by Wehrmacht high officers for demanding such useless vehicle to be fielded.
And yes many IS-2 were destroyed, as many Tigers were destroyed, read about Tiger tanks units losses on eastern front.
Some sort of another "brilliant" Discovery Channel series? If yes then thanks but no, I preffer books.This will explain most i mentioned:
Search for Tank evolutions, Watch all parts:
Credit Goes to:
1. David Fletcher of Royal Armored corps, Tank Museum, Bovington..
2. Prof. John Erickson of Defense Studies, University of Edinburgh..
3. Dr. Simon Trew of Royal Military Collage Sandhurst..
4. Daniel Taylor: Author- ' Villers - bocage '
5. Dr.Stephen Badsey of Royal Military Academy Sandhurst..
Ah, this is more interesting, I will try to get my hands on it and later compare with other sources.Also for more Info: PDF of Tiger call 'MBI - Tiger Tanks of World War II' , But Now it Can be Only Downloaded via torrent:
MBI - Tiger Tanks of World War II.pdf "º isoHunt "º the BitTorrent & P2P search engine
By: Micheal Green
I watched few times in my childhood Discovery Channel series about military history and weapons systems history, and these are useless, I prefer books because in books there is a bibliography and books are more credible, these programs on Discovery Channel are edited and probably even if these people have knowledge and opinions based on real facts, their words in these programs are many times complete bollocks.The people i mentioned abt are Historians of War, 'Royal Military Collage Sandhurst', 'Defense Studies, University of Edinburgh'..
Read and watch before you give your views..
WWII.Back than ?, What time line you are taking abt ?
How the hell Tiger helped western Allies build their own heavy tanks if their heavy tanks were developed with different design pilosophy in mind and they did not repeat wrong decisions that Germans made?Their is huge development in tank deign during WW2 and it was rapid too, Only After British captured Tiger in Tunisia it helped to developed Allied their own heavy tanks,
KV-1 was a very good tank for it's time. Churchil never was good tank design, it was too archaic. US relied on M4 and from initial versions they developed incredibly good medium tank, M36 was TD not tank so what the point? M46 never take any action in WWII, You confused it with M26.Where as Russian started from KV-1, British come up with Churchill and US relied on M4 Sherman & M36, until very late in War M46 appeared,
And this all because Germans completely ignored all basic principles of tanks design, they were putting more and more armor making bigger and bigger vehicles that were underpowered, overweighted etc. etc. etc. even promisive E series that were intended as replacement for used vehicles, had the same wrong design philosophy of incredibly big and heavy vehicles, while You can have smaller, more compact still well protected vehicles.By than German Armour quality dropped drastically coz of lack of specific alloys, Production facilitates were mostly out of action, Few tanks remained to face Russian advance..
Superior quality? Tiger with it's unreliability was far from the term "quality".Other wise German had superior quality tanks compare to any-other..
And? What is the point, we are not talking here about battles, operations, specific crews battles records but about specific vehicles.I have given you specific Operation names, Google abt it, Read the kills made by Tiger Crew, And do see what type of tank existed in time when most Tank battle occurred & Results..
You did not give me any PDF link.I have also given you PDF link, Documentaries which are not of fancy discovery channel but well made documentaries..
Read and observe the evolution of tanks during the era..
That is interesting, When my National Guard unit (252 Bn) first got the M1 the word was mechanics needed a secret security clearance to work on the armor.There was never such thing as Chobham armor, it is simple "codename" given to armor by journalists from mass media, proper codename is Burlington, and it was used only in the first, basic model designated M1, from the M1IP variant and in M1A1 variant, they used US designed composite armor that was different to Burlington armor but probably based on it. In 1988 US.Army fielded M1A1HA with a completely new composite armor design that is using also Depleted Uranium alloy elements in it's structure. Currently the most modern variants of M1 tank, M1A1SA, M1A1FEP and M1A2SEP are using 3rd or probably (if rumors about recent upgrades are true) even 4th generation of this armor.
Britains new answer to FRES? - Tanknet - Page 21Jane's Defence Weekly reports that the future structure of the British army is still in limbo, with even deeper cuts under consideration. This might include retaining just one AS90 regiment, equipping the rest of the artillery regiments with 105mm Light Guns, perhaps buying some M777, and retaining just one Challenger 2 regiment. As the so-called "seed corn" option, this would allow the armoured corps to retain at least a minimum level of expertise for regeneration at a later date.
The article didn't say anything about axing FRES SV, though.
They still need such security clearance, we know more or less actual armor design these days but it is still very far from complete knowledge.That is interesting, When my National Guard unit (252 Bn) first got the M1 the word was mechanics needed a secret security clearance to work on the armor.
M60 series were really good tanks at their times, with surprisingly good protection despite that it was only simple RHA and CHA armor.I was at different times a driver and a loader on the M60 tanks & was sorry to see it didn't make the top 10.
Integral smoke generators in M1's are currently disabled because of currently used fuel the JP-8, but with Diesel fuel these generators can be used again.By the time the Abrams came along I was a chemical operations NCO (impressed by smoke generation by the M1.)
Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
---|---|---|---|---|
An Indian Classics Curriculum - by Subhash Kak | History & Culture | 22 | ||
Military Of Classical India | Military History | 21 | ||
‘Super Hunter’: Classic British fighter jet to return to production in India | Members Corner | 6 | ||
Classical Indian Music ? | Members Corner | 13 |