Tenk thread

Discussion in 'Boats, Planes, Other' started by The Niggar King, Jul 30, 2011.

  1. The JSS is a program I support 100%. I think you're confusing it and the Arctic Patrol Ships. The JSS is a naval logistics platform, providing sealift, replenishment at sea, command and control, and medical facilities. It's a versatile ship that fits in well with a small navy like Canada's. Its useful both for humanitarian and military roles, domestic and international.

    The Arctic Patrol Ship is another bag of worms. For something with a name like that, it would be cool if it were actually capable of patrolling the arctic. It's disappointing to be spending billions of dollars on a ship that's not capable of fulfilling its singular role.

    There are ways we could have accomplished its purpose of supporting jobs in Canada while accomplishing its namesake mission. The DHC type certificates are owned by a British Columbia-based aerospace company called Viking Air, and the use of Twin Otters in a Rangers-like role not only actually patrols the arctic, but it upholds the livelihood and supports jobs of the people actually living in the arctic. Who, frankly, need the help more than the Atlantic.
  2. Stop spamming my thread assholes
  3. #55 Baklava, Jan 20, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
  4. It's all gone now.
  5. And here I thought he was talking about Alphonse and me.
  6. No I meant the spammers

    I love it when you post

    like inappropriately love
  7. #61 The Niggar King, Apr 12, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    Nice footage about a T-72 being popped in Darayya. Crew survivability isn't one of the pros of that machine.

  8. lol that guy laying next to the tank is lucky.
  9. The guy running across the screen after the tank was hit was not next to the tank. He was in the tank, and was blown out when the propellant ignited. He has, in all likelihood, died from his injuries.
  10. you can see him move next to the tank at 0:55
  11. That looks a lot more like a piece of string or cloth in the near-side tracks than a person on the far-side. You can see him land at 1:07 after being expelled a couple frames earlier (1:06).
  12. you are right. i stand corrected.
  13. Are you sure he was blown out?

    I think he just was quick and used the bottom hatch.
  14. It definitely looks like something is blown out and lands near the location where he gets up and runs from. That, and how his clothes are damaged (his pants staying secure, but his jacket having been blown up over his head). I'm definitely willing to bet he was blown out of the commander's hatch.
  15. Ouchhhh.

    I wouldn't like to experience that.

  16. #70 The Niggar King, Sep 3, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    I can sort of understand why the British and the French built those super heavy tank prototypes during the interwar period. Their high commands hadn't really grasped the importance of modern combined arms tactics and that's why most of the tanks at the outbreak of the war (and indeed until the end of the war) made in France and the UK were infantry support tanks, designed to trundle along at marching infantry speed. However, this sort of doctrine was as obsolete as horse cavalry in WW2. The attacking Wehrmacht actually fielded LESS tanks with less armor and firepower in 1940 than the French and the British expeditionary force combined. In 3 weeks they had pretty much eliminated any credible counteroffensive capability of the French & BEF and the whole campaign was over in 1,5 months.

    The Americans had only "cavalry" tanks and they learned the motorized combined arms warfare thing quite well in Africa. They also had the industrial output to do that. However, their tanks were very light (M4 was the heaviest) and undergunned compared to their German counterparts by the time they landed in Normandy. Although they were very successful with good tactics, concentrated artillery and overwhelming airpower against the retreating Germans, the superiority of the individual German machines plagued the US campaign until the end of the war.

    Probably that's why they built this super heavy tank destroyer but like those infantry superheavies of the interwar period, this was already obsolete by the time it was fielded. Recoilless rifles, improving shoulder-launched AT weapons and the first ATGMs (portable, vehicle-mounted or aircraft-mounted) slowly made tank destroyers a niche thing in the early Cold War period. Tank design started to follow a universal Main Battle Tank pattern instead of the large repertoir of light, medium and heavy tanks of the WW2. The Germans and the Swedes tried to reinvent the tank destroyer in the 60's but those weren't very successful.

    Kinda peculiar that the British made really poor tanks before and during the WW2 but after that they pioneered tank design in several areas. The Centurion and Chieftain were very capable machines. For example, in the Indo-Pakistani war the Centurion (entered service in 1945) outperformed the American M48 (entered service in 1953). The US Cold War tank designs were mediocre at best but all that changed in the 80's with the introduction of the M1A1. How capable these machines were was very well demonstrated in the Gulf War.

    But this Maus thing I really don't understand. Even with a reliable propulsion system this would have been purely a defensive weapon (sort of like a barely mobile mini-fort). I don't think the OKW/Porsche/Rheinmetall/whatever bright guys had much to say when it came to the design principles of the Panzer 7. A cumbersome machine like this wouldn't have fared well in elastic defense/retreating front that all of Wehrmacht was everywhere after 1943. I don't know who was behind all of those German late-war delusional ideas (Hitler?) but they are all works of a madman. The Germans were the first to realize how the mobility of armour and mechanized troops + CAS should be effectively utilized and then they built useless prototypes like this. Srsly, wtf?

Share This Page