Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Zardnaar, Oct 21, 2019.
I don't remember exactly was it the Germans or Russians during WW2 that "developed" sort of "Kamikaze dogs" . They strap them on with timed explosives and released them upon tanks - the main problem was that dogs got scared of all the noise and returned home .... which was very..... unhealthy for their trainers . I think it was the Germans though, maybe both sides ? I don't remember exactly although this "Anti-Panzer-Dogs" were real - for a short time , after few field "tests" project was abandoned.
That was the Russians.
Well though cruel I gotta admit an innovative approach.
It's a nation that fired live dogs into space in a one way mission and monitored their heartbeats.
Not that the west was much better come to think of it.
The dog thing worked in practice but so much in the field with engine noises, gunfire and Germans shooting them.
How' bout "little" Maus, Germany heaviest tank ?
Still the world's heaviest tank. Last one is in Kublinka rank museum.
Yup and like the guy said, no practical use for such a monstrosity. If we take into account a rapidly changing frontline , enemy's constant movement, feint attacks, redeployment etc. and the Maus lack of mobility a successful deployment of such a tank is all but impossible. Germans would be better off with 128 mm stationary fortified gun at some key location rather than this, but it shows how power crazed Hitler was.
Even in modern Russia the Abrams is to heavy for most of the bridges.
Hitler had the right idea of quality over quantity but the Maus is insane.
They did have a 128mm stand alone
Wasn't really that portable.
It's also why they don't really make AT guns anymore as you would need 120mm+.
A 100mm gun is underpowered now.
Kind of makes me wonder if tank is still main weapon of choice , wouldn't it better to invest in helicopters, missiles and air force ?
Tanks still fairly cheap and has a role.
Americans over ran Iraq in 2 weeks. Just don't expect them to do well in urban areas and rugged terrain. Without infantry support.
Tanks around 2 to 7 million dollars, a plane is around a hundred million. Missiles can cost a million dollars each.
They were key for the Israeli's.
Opposing sides don't always have anti tank weapons and even if they do it's not automatically good.
Apparently in Ukraine news got out that Ukrainian had TOW missiles and all the Russian erm insurgent tanks found better things to do in that area.
I think You have a point here. Modern Armored Units have reactive armor, counter-mesures, good targeting and can soak up some punishment untill they go down. For a long term conflict they are a good choice over the blitz US style missile+air supremacy shock and awe combo. It can really go down to ammunition. Missiles are more expensive and take longer to make than tank shells , although modern tank can sport some really fancy ammo too like specialized armor-piercing, incendiary, HEAT etc. The cost and time to manufacture of a shell will never be more than that of a good smart missile I think.
You can counter a missile in various ways, it's a lot harder to counter a kinetic impact.
Missile can be shot down, jammed, ERA, spaced armor etc.
A cannon round can only be negated by the quality of the armor.
Abrams can penetrate anything it's likely bto face in the bear future with maybe the exception of the T-14 and even then they can shoot the turret.
Obviously penetration isn't guranteed but anything Russian or Chinese tends to have weak armor and there's not anything they can do to fix that except design a new tank.
How 'bout a stealth tank ? Polish PL-01 ?
Hard to say.
Ivan sent waves of Infantry against tanks as well
They also sent out agricultural tractors with 20mm cannons, during 41, but then Red army units were increasingly under-armed as in not enough weapons. Thankfully Germans didnt hold a continuous front so Ivan infiltrated back to old battlefields to dig up weapons from their dead.
The Japanese basically used suicide weapons, soldier dash under the Allied tank and blow himself up with a satchel charge. The Allies soon deployed close in Infantry with each tank to prevent this tactic.
A puff piece but quoting German paper.
T-14 functionally doesn't exist anymore though and may or may not work.
How long did it take them to work all the bugs out of the T-64?
Never, IIRC; the T-64 was a pretty big failure that continued into the T-80, (I think the development years between fixing T-64 with new varints and a brand new T-80 design overlapped) whose only good aspect was its responsive and powerful gasoline engine.
Pretty much every Soviet tank has the same flaw. Cramped, autoloader, thin armor except the front, targeting, and gun elevation and depression. They were designed to be light, fast, ok gun and to push across Western Europe. Because of the autoloader system the ammo storage is bad hence why they tend to blow the turret off if penetrated.
They weren't that bad in the 50s or 60 relative to what they were facing.
T64 isn't in active service iirc except places like Ukraine.
Separate names with a comma.