The Chieftain's Random Musings Thread
Дата: 17.08.2016 19:11:42
Bronezhilet, on Aug 16 2016 - 16:48, said: (Emphasis mine) Actually BM-42M and DM53 are of almost equal
length (both tungsten based penetrators). The BM-42M projectile is
reported to be approximately 730 mm, while the DM53 projectile is
reported to be 745 mm in length. M829A1 is 780 mm, which means the
difference in projectile length between the Russian two-piece
ammunition and the German one-piece ammunition is smaller than the
difference between the German and American design, which are both
one-piece. And then M829A3 rounds the corner with a whopping
~925 mm length. So it only took about 40 years for one-piece
ammunition to properly overtake 125 mm two-piece ammunition.The_Chieftain: I never said anything about the length of the rounds being
different. The carousel design is the limiting feature, unlike
in-line rounds such as Western autoloaders use.
Mechanize, on Aug 16 2016 - 16:54, said: It's amazing how I'm the one who just told you how blowout
panels work and are not the same thing as separate storage and now
you're trying to school me on how they work, think you got this one
a bit backwards champ. I guess you still missed the part
where this isn't a feature exclusive to the Abrams and the fact
everyone in that video I posted died, like, immediately.
Catastrophic ammo rack explosions will kill anyone 100% of the
time, the Abrams is not immune to this, blowout panels can only
mitigate some of the effects of a detonation, they're not black
magic.The_Chieftain: So the Saudis have figured out how to use the undead in
their tanks? That looks a hell of a lot like the TC getting out of
the hatch at 1:08 to me. Tank in my company had an ammo rack go
off, caused by an internal fire. The blowout panels flew quite a
distance, but the ammo door to the crew compartment was fine.
Bronezhilet, on Aug 17 2016 - 14:04, said: Training isn't going to stop a crewmember from being ZSU'd as soon
as he sticks his head out, Syrian crew members learned that the
hard way. There's lots of footage from Daraa where tanks roam the
streets (without close infantry support!), and still were buttoned
up completely. Even with height requirements, the difference
in crew length will not suddenly make your tank about a
meter shorter, 20 cm lower and 10 cm wider. (T-90 vs Abrams)
You're compensating for those "fewer eyeballs" by placing
the commander and gunner on either side of the gun, so you still
have the same amount of vision. There won't be a black spot in the
vision coverage. Yet those 'lesser trained' Syrian tankers
still manage to maintain their autoloaded tanks without problems.
You mean the situation where the tank gets penetrated, a
crew member dies and the others are either dead or wounded? If they
even decide to stay in the tank. I'd get out of the tank asap,
simply because you don't know what is damaged and what isn't. For
all I know, the tank is going to blow up or burn down in the next 5
seconds. If your armour gets compromised, you get the F out.The_Chieftain: "Extra set of eyes" doesn't necessarily mean fighting
unbuttoned. Certainly the US has decided that modern warfare can be
a bit tricky for the crew, hence the addition of all the
bullet-proof glass in the TUSK upgrades, the Marines decided to go
with an RWS for the loader instead. But the loader is still capable
of independent scanning by use of, say, the RWS system or even his
rotating periscope when buttoned up. Moving the gunner to the other
side doesn't really help the visibility issue. He'd better be
looking through his really expensive stabilized vision system,
which looks forward, no matter what side of the tank he's sitting
on compared to the TC. If this extra set of eyes is worth the other
liabilities of the larger, four-man tank is arguable, but it is
certainly a factor. I don't see why smaller national crews
can't result in at least somewhat smaller national tanks. The
Type-88 as compared to the M1 is an obvious case in point. The
difference in size isn't massive, but it is noticeable.
stalkervision, on Aug 17 2016 - 14:56, said: Seriously why would I even bother. Look it up
if you like. Ask yourself this question. If
autoloaders are so superior why do so many countries
choose NOT have them in their main battle tanks? The Brits
choose to go with manual loaders. Our country uses manual loaders,
The german's use manual loaders. Lots of countries that choose
to buy german equipment use them. I am claiming manual
loaders are more reliable because they are. A person hopped up on
adrenalin in a firefight will load those rounds till they are all
gone believe you me. a manual lading system can and will
beak down. That is why so many armies do not use them.The_Chieftain: Near as I can tell, the reason that so many modern tanks do
not use autoloaders is because they're not really modern. Leopard
and Abrams are both nearing 40 years old. When the turrets were
designed, I've no doubt that autoloader technology was not entirely
satisfactory. I can't imagine what autoloading the british
three-piece ammunition would be like, which explains
Challenger. But of the tanks coming off the design lines in
the last quarter century, only Altay and Ariete, both from
countries which may have some fiscal constraints,
are particularly shouting at me as four-man tanks.
Mechanical reliability is no longer the same as it used to be.
Human loaders will slow down after the first half-dozen rounds or
so. Not out of any fatigue, but simply because the 'easy' rounds
have been taken from the 'sweet spot' in the ready rack, and the
loader now has to go hunting after rounds which are stowed in
slightly less convenient positions at the edges and corners of the
ready rack. The more weighty arguments refer to situational
awareness and other crew duties such as sentry or maintenance,
although there is an argument that the 'fourth man' can be carried
in a separate transport vehicle and brought up for those jobs
specifically. I believe the French do this. An interesting
technological solution is the Meggitt autoloader, see https://youtu.be/8rsML92PLbU?t=32 . This compromise provides
the some of the autoloading benefits without taking the fourth
crewman away. It is, however, a compromise, and probably more
interesting for its design than practicality.
The Chieftain's Random Musings Thread