Vanilla Ice Q&A

Discussion in 'General Chat' started by HippoCrushEverything, Aug 13, 2017.

  1. Why do weapon names always sound funny in german? Mehrzweckwaffen, flammenwerfer, panzerschreck and nebelwerfer.
  2. Jeremy Clarkson had one of those parked on his front lawn for a while.

  3. I liked the sound track. A lot.
  4. This sort of propaganda is often believed and regurgitated by individuals. And it's something that has bothered me since I was a child; how can any person blessed with a smidgen of deductive logic sincerely believe such fallacies? If the other party is totally incompetent, they are by default not a major military threat. If they were indeed dangerous, a war against them wouldn't be a walk in the park.

    I recently talked to an ex-British para who ranted about how NATO should have "nuked the USSR to pieces" because they were allegedly so threatening, yet he sincerely claimed shortly after, that the United Kingdom alone could have defeated the Soviet Union in conventional war... logic hello?

    Hitler wasn't completely wrong in his displays of the Boslhevik menace but boy did those incompetent Untermenschen stick it to him at the end.

    I find this sort of fallacies not only stupid, but dangerous. Replacing accurate assessment of the adversary's capabilities with some ideologically motivated bullshit is a recipe for starting, and quite possibly losing, dangerous conflicts.
  5. Because they have a good sense of humour?
  6. i really wanted to see it in theaters but the only person i could see it with was another guy and it seems kind of homo (as in gay)

    i guess ill watch it on a laptop screen when it hits hbo :(
  7. that is so cool
  8. One of my friends said her ear hurt when the movie ended, because it was loud.
  9. Apparently someone tried to walk into a local train station with this:
  10. It was a false alarm, but it was enough to stop half the trains for a while and bring things to a deadlock.
  11. Definitely can't say they overreacted on that.
  12. It was a British citizen of Pakistani descent. Took quite the risk there.
  13. Continuing on this topic since I have nothing better to do (and I took some pics from tenks)

    #5 hole is a frontal hit of 3BM26 on a T-72M1 turret. No penetration. 410mm RHA is the quoted penetration for said ammunition, very close to the max. RHA-equivalent thickness offered by the turret. Nothing vital would have been taken out by this hit, only the commander's infrared searchlight that was almost never used in FDF service.


    #2 is a penetrating hit from same ammunition that hit the turret ring, went trough, and left this nasty exit wound:


    This would have been a catastrophic kill, igniting the ammunition on the bustle rack and destroying the vehicle. There's another penetrating hit from 125mm APFSDS near the gun mantlet. The rest are different projectiles between 30 and 100mm, peppered around the tank turret. None penetrated.

    Here's the result of 30mm HEI-T fired from a 2A42 at the same turret:


    These scratches are only a few millimetres deep, barely visible. 30mm wouldn't be able to destroy a T-72 from any angle, at any range, but a well placed salvo of HE could blind the tank.

    This same 30mm would be very dangerous to a Stryker or a BTR-80 from any angle. The basic stryker has an all-around STANAG 4569 protection level of 2 and frontal arc is level 4. This means that anyone with a rifle-caliber weapon at close ranges is a threat (wiki states level 2 kinetic energy protection as 7.62×39mm API BZ at 30 meters with 695 m/s). Up-armoured Strykers with Mexas tiles, reactive armour packages and cages can withstand 14,5mm from any angle, but these modules add between 2-5 tons of weight.

    More modern APCs/wheeled IFVs can withstand 30mm frontal hits but they are considerably heavier than the 70's paper-thin 8x8s. For example, the combat weight of the KMW/Rheinmetall Boxer is 36,5 tons, just a small sedan away from the combat weight of a T-64.


    A tank without any armour would still be quite heavy. And combat experience hasn't favoured the tank destroyer concept during or after WW2. Perhaps instead of trying to make tanks out of Strykers, these vehicles could carry teams of infantry around on the battlefield?
  14. They should be able to make a light tank with reasonable frontal protection with modern materials. Doesn't seem to be much motivation or funding though. I get the impression they make things like the stryker MGS because bolting a cannon on some AFV is cheap.
  15. hippo whats your twitter @ ?
  16. @HippoDrivesCar
  17. Light/reconnaissance tanks occupy such niche roles in modern armies that there's indeed very little motivation for funding. The operational history of vehicles, such as the FV101 Scorpion, PT-76, M551 Sheridan, AMX-13 or ASU-85 hasn't generally been favourable.

    If a small, cheap and easily transportable ground-mobile platform with tank-destroying capability is required, a tiny missile carrier fits the role better than anything with a cannon. The ubiquitous (and aging) Rheinmetall 120mm L44 weighs in at ~3,3 tons. With proper 2-axis stabilisation, an autoloader and 20-30 rounds we're already talking closer to 8 tons of mass. The recoil from such a weapon would cause significant problems for light platforms.
  18. IG?
  19. What's IG?

  20. I talked to these guys sitting on a T-72 and they said that the Leo2 is the more mobile out of the two tanks. I believe them, given their experience with both types.

    Higher ground clearance and better suspension enable the Leopard to traverse difficult terrain at higher speeds than the T-72 that bounces and trashes around considerably. T-72 reverse speed is ~4 km/h, the Leo can do 31. Both have similar fuel consumption and power-to-weight ratios. Thanks to that moden fire control the Leo achieves a much higher hit probability while firing on the move. The T-72 has a good stabiliser and a laser rangefinder but lacks the ability to instantly calculate a firing solution and to delay the trigger action if necessary.

    I also measured the track width of both vehicles and the Leopard has slightly wider tracks (~5cm). Ground pressure caused by the tank's footprint is 8,3 kPa for the Leo2A4 and 9,0 kPa for the T-72.

  21. Instagram!
  22. I have no such things.

    I only have Twatter because CB said that it would be useful, yet I haven't made a single "tweet" so far.
  23. you dont need to tweet, use it to follow interesting things. its by far the best for news. follow reuters and you local police and your local govt and national govt and ISIS and RT and sputnik and donald trump

    i thought of you because I saw a cool video of active tank defenses the other day, an rpg getting blown up by another bomb.


    also new dan carlin hardcore history came out, celtic genocide by julius caesar
  24. Ground pressure isn't the only issue the heavier MBTs cause issues with the entire road collapsing or bridges being too weak. They had trouble with it when invading Baghdad, T-series tanks will still have the same issue in some situations but 20 or so tons difference is still quite a bit. While they may not be directly more capable off road you can run into situations where the can take routes not open to heavier western MBTs. I can't remember how the leo2 is but I recall some of the western MBTs wouldn't be able to get through the track used in the tank biathlon without the crew stopping and fitting snorkels and other equipment.

    The main issue is always going to be the number of tanks, while finland got those leo2a5 at a very low price the numbers are still limited somewhat by the initial cost as less were produced while something like 1000 T-72s have been recycled into T-72B3 already. In an optimistic scenario where Russia is heavily constrained by resources and multiple fronts they could probably field 2 T-72B3 per Leo2 if limited to similar resources to the finnish army. Even if the leo2 gets the first shot off it's not a certainty it will kill a T-72B3 if it hits the turret frontal arc possibly resulting in the leo2 being shot at by two T-72. There's other potential issues, if the T-72s are spread out the Leo2 may have to expose the side of it's turret to fire at one, if the Leo2 is hit on the side of the turret it's screwed. The T-72B3 can also pose a problem when using 9m119m ATGMs, if engaging at 2000+ meters the T-72 potentially gains an advantage.

    The leo is much nicer if you're a tank crew but if you are in charge of planning for the overall conflict I'm not sure a smaller group of Leo2 are preferable over many more modernized T-72. The leo2 also isn't really any more resistant to ATGMs and modern RPG variants, every leo2 knocked out by these hurts twice as much as a T-72 loss. If western military had kept up tank development I don't think upgraded T-72s and T-90s would be viable even in larger numbers against a modern design. Upgraded T-55 and T-62 are totally hopeless against current western MBTs, the gulf between them is too extreme to be compensated by upgrades and greater numbers.
  25. What's your point? That the FDF should acquire T-72s?

Share This Page