AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > Anime Discussion > Older Series

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2012-10-27, 05:38   Link #541
LoweGear
Device Meister
*Graphic Designer
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: 3 times the passion of the usual flamenco
Quote:
Originally Posted by Znail View Post
Modern armor go boom even more then armor did in WWII. The reason that the main battle tank concept is used nowdays is because there is no point in making heavy tanks. The Guns won the tug of war over Armor, ie there is no point in making any heavier tanks as they will still be destroyed by the standard guns of the enemy.
Actually, modern MBT's are some of the heavier tanks ever fielded in battle: The M1 Abrams weigh in at 67.6 tons, only a bit shy of the Tiger II's 69.5 tons.

Modern MBT's also have the best armor and survivability of any tanks in armored combat history. Sure, their armor didn't get any thicker, but the composite armor (ex. Chobham armor) used in today's tanks are around 10x more effective than RHA (rolled homogenous armor) of the same thickness, and this isn't getting into additional armor protection like ERA (explosive reactive armor) or active defense systems like TROPHY. In fact, modern tank guns have problems defeating the tanks they're mounted on: M1 Abrams are known to have difficulty destroying other M1's whenever they're trying to destroy abandoned tanks in the field. The biggest threat to modern tanks in straight-up combat usually come not from guns, but from ATGMs (Anti-Tank Guided Missiles) either carried by infantry or aircraft.

Main Battle Tanks are all about a balance of firepower, mobility and armor, thus why they're one of the most formidable pieces of fighting hardware in modern ground combat. Many of the losses incurred by modern armored vehicles during the last decade have been from asymmetrical warfare, usually from weapons like IED's and mines, which target vulnerable spots like a tank's underbelly.
__________________

On Simple Solutions: "I bought the airline. It seemed neater."
LoweGear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-27, 09:15   Link #542
Znail
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoweGear View Post
Actually, modern MBT's are some of the heavier tanks ever fielded in battle: The M1 Abrams weigh in at 67.6 tons, only a bit shy of the Tiger II's 69.5 tons.

Modern MBT's also have the best armor and survivability of any tanks in armored combat history. Sure, their armor didn't get any thicker, but the composite armor (ex. Chobham armor) used in today's tanks are around 10x more effective than RHA (rolled homogenous armor) of the same thickness, and this isn't getting into additional armor protection like ERA (explosive reactive armor) or active defense systems like TROPHY. In fact, modern tank guns have problems defeating the tanks they're mounted on: M1 Abrams are known to have difficulty destroying other M1's whenever they're trying to destroy abandoned tanks in the field. The biggest threat to modern tanks in straight-up combat usually come not from guns, but from ATGMs (Anti-Tank Guided Missiles) either carried by infantry or aircraft.

Main Battle Tanks are all about a balance of firepower, mobility and armor, thus why they're one of the most formidable pieces of fighting hardware in modern ground combat. Many of the losses incurred by modern armored vehicles during the last decade have been from asymmetrical warfare, usually from weapons like IED's and mines, which target vulnerable spots like a tank's underbelly.
"balance of firepower, mobility and armor"are the deffinition of a medium tank, not weight. That is why the Pather at around 50 tons are still called a medium tank as it was built with that idea in mind. The Tiger on the other hand, like most heavy tanks give up mobility to boost armor and firepower and is thus around half as fast as the not that much lighter Panther.

I am pretty sure that when scuttling a tank so do they require more then just temporarily disabling it or killing the creew, wich would normally be the requirement for a combat 'kill'. Using tank guns to try and oblitterate any usefull items on a broken tank seems very innefficient. Explosives, termite or simply burning it would be far easier.

The idea that Chobham would be 10x as strong as normal steel doesn't make sense and not only physically impossible but it would also mean that those missiles would be unable to scratch a modern tank. Missile penetration have actually progressed less since WWII then penetration for guns as the principle behind HEAT is still the same so the only improvements come from better explosive compounds and fire control (wich admittedly means they can hit weaker parts of the tank).

Of course most recent losses in tanks have been from assymetrical warfare...when was the last EVEN war fought with modern (US) tanks?
Znail is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-27, 09:19   Link #543
Cosmic Eagle
宿命に全てを奪われた少女
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: 宿命と時間の巻きに
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoweGear View Post
Actually, modern MBT's are some of the heavier tanks ever fielded in battle: The M1 Abrams weigh in at 67.6 tons, only a bit shy of the Tiger II's 69.5 tons.

Modern MBT's also have the best armor and survivability of any tanks in armored combat history. Sure, their armor didn't get any thicker, but the composite armor (ex. Chobham armor) used in today's tanks are around 10x more effective than RHA (rolled homogenous armor) of the same thickness, and this isn't getting into additional armor protection like ERA (explosive reactive armor) or active defense systems like TROPHY. In fact, modern tank guns have problems defeating the tanks they're mounted on: M1 Abrams are known to have difficulty destroying other M1's whenever they're trying to destroy abandoned tanks in the field. The biggest threat to modern tanks in straight-up combat usually come not from guns, but from ATGMs (Anti-Tank Guided Missiles) either carried by infantry or aircraft.

Main Battle Tanks are all about a balance of firepower, mobility and armor, thus why they're one of the most formidable pieces of fighting hardware in modern ground combat. Many of the losses incurred by modern armored vehicles during the last decade have been from asymmetrical warfare, usually from weapons like IED's and mines, which target vulnerable spots like a tank's underbelly.
Short of maybe a hit to the top of the turret, you won't see heavy shells having as much damage on ERA and composite armour as in those pics from 152mm hits. I wonder how Arena and similar active measures work against artillery shells though...

That's why everything now is about penetration or missiles dropping from above

Quote:
The idea that Chobham would be 10x as strong as normal steel doesn't make sense and not only physically impossible but it would also mean that those missiles would be unable to scratch a modern tank. Missile penetration have actually progressed less since WWII then penetration for guns as the principle behind HEAT is still the same so the only improvements come from better explosive compounds and fire control (wich admittedly means they can hit weaker parts of the tank).
And those missiles generally fall from the overhead. Not against the thickest parts of the Chobham or ERA.

It is possible for modern amour to withstand current KE penetrators and HEAT...you'd be hard pressed to find a WWII tank that can do so
__________________
Cosmic Eagle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-27, 09:34   Link #544
MeisterBabylon
~ Ping For Effect ~
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: The Golden Throne
Age: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by PzIVf3 View Post
Spoiler for City Carrier spotted at Google Earth:
As a late Romulan once put it, "IT'S A FAAAAAAAAKE!!"
__________________

On money: Every man has a price. For everything else, there's MakoCard.
MeisterBabylon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-27, 10:05   Link #545
Znail
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Looked up Chobham and noted that it's optimised to resisting HEAT and actually vulnerable to high velocity penetrators. So M1 Abrams would be fairly resistant to missiles, but vulnerable to modern tank guns. There are other composits that tries to solve that problem though. Also. due to exretme brittleness so would HESH be quite dangerous and even HE and old style AP would ruin the armor and make it vulnerable for future hits.
Znail is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-27, 10:24   Link #546
LoweGear
Device Meister
*Graphic Designer
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: 3 times the passion of the usual flamenco
Quote:
Originally Posted by Znail View Post
"balance of firepower, mobility and armor"are the deffinition of a medium tank, not weight. That is why the Pather at around 50 tons are still called a medium tank as it was built with that idea in mind. The Tiger on the other hand, like most heavy tanks give up mobility to boost armor and firepower and is thus around half as fast as the not that much lighter Panther.
I never used the term "Medium" tank, I said "Main Battle Tank". The reason the terms "Light", "Medium" and "Heavy" are no longer applied to modern tanks is because tanks are now defined by role rather than weight classes, since weight classes shift a lot from time to time.

Still, in terms of weight, modern MBT's are actually quite heavy, and if they were to use the terms from WW2, they'd likely be called "Heavy Tanks".

Quote:
I am pretty sure that when scuttling a tank so do they require more then just temporarily disabling it or killing the creew, wich would normally be the requirement for a combat 'kill'. Using tank guns to try and oblitterate any usefull items on a broken tank seems very innefficient. Explosives, termite or simply burning it would be far easier.
That's what they tried to do though: at times when they couldn't scuttle a tank with available explosives, US tank crews resorted to using their tank guns to do so, only that the armor on the Abrams was so strong that they had difficulty destroying one even with the Abram's 120mm gun.

This is not standard procedure mind, but it still happened nonetheless.

Quote:
The idea that Chobham would be 10x as strong as normal steel doesn't make sense and not only physically impossible but it would also mean that those missiles would be unable to scratch a modern tank. Missile penetration have actually progressed less since WWII then penetration for guns as the principle behind HEAT is still the same so the only improvements come from better explosive compounds and fire control (wich admittedly means they can hit weaker parts of the tank).
I never said Chobham is 10x stronger than normal steel, I said they were more effective. Actually 10x is an exaggeration (checking the stats I was looking at, it's actually around 2-3x), but modern Chobham armor is still far more effective a defense for similar thickness and weight than RHA.

As for missile penetration, they've progressed less because shaped-charges are so effective in the first place that any improvements would be trivial. The only improvements to shaped-charges developed recently have been tandem-charges, and these were made in mind to defeat ERA.

Quote:
Of course most recent losses in tanks have been from assymetrical warfare...when was the last EVEN war fought with modern (US) tanks?
The Gulf War, 91'. Though even this wasn't a fair fight, due to the older model of tanks that the Iraqis fielded. Even then, modern MBT's have a sterling good record at surviving modern tank guns and RPG's in the defensive aspect.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Znail View Post
Looked up Chobham and noted that it's optimised to resisting HEAT and actually vulnerable to high velocity penetrators.
Depending on the armor composition. For instance, the M1A1 had Depleted-Uranium plate added in the armor composition, improving its defensive ability against KE rounds. In the Gulf War, not a single KE round from enemy T-72's penetrated an Abrams tank in combat even at close range.
__________________

On Simple Solutions: "I bought the airline. It seemed neater."
LoweGear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-27, 11:48   Link #547
Cosmic Eagle
宿命に全てを奪われた少女
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: 宿命と時間の巻きに
Far from the truth actually

HESH is rarely used anymore because composite armour is as the name suggests, laminated.

It would work well against brittle armour only if said armour was homogenous. However, the varying layers serve to break up the shockwave.

You should not assume that homogenous material behaves the same way as one made up of layers of different ceramics.

If you want to spall a composite armoured tank you need to use so much explosive you'd crush the whole thing anyway.


M1 is not resistant to missiles. No modern tank in the world is resistant to missile hits from the top.




That's why the US direction now is towards DU armour while the Russians use Relikt and Kontakt-5....which works by using sliding explosive bricks for ERA to cut KE penetrators and HEAT jets. AFAIK, ERA direction offers better results than composite armour

As for Asian powers like Japan and ROK....they use modular composite armour. Despite the fact that it isn't proof against KE penetrators it doesn't mean they are useless. At thevery least, they flat out trump RHA

Quote:
Originally Posted by LoweGear View Post


Depending on the armor composition. For instance, the M1A1 had Depleted-Uranium plate added in the armor composition, improving its defensive ability against KE rounds. In the Gulf War, not a single KE round from enemy T-72's penetrated an Abrams tank in combat even at close range.
Myth....there are many reports of penetrations by T-72s. Just that few, if any, cooked off the target
__________________
Cosmic Eagle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-27, 11:52   Link #548
Sumeragi
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Dai Korai Teikoku
Can we go back to WW2 stuff? I'm frankly starting to get tired of the old armor discussion.
Sumeragi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-27, 13:06   Link #549
4Tran
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by PzIVf3 View Post
The Russia is here
Nyet. They're Soviets, tovarishch. They won't be the final boss though. If we go by the character page on the official website, the order of Oorai's opponents should be:

(Col ) Sanders - M3 Light tank (?), M4 Medium tank
Anzio - M14/41 (?), M15/42 (?)
Pravda - T-34/85, IS-2
Team Maho - Tiger I

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cosmic Eagle View Post
IS-2 was actually designed to be light for a heavy tank as well. Something to do with the armour layout IIRC...
I'm not sure what you mean since the IS-2 has about the same level of protection as a Tiger I.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LoweGear View Post
So more trivia, this time from another forum who saw the post on the girl's birthdays and favorite tanks:
Quote:
As for the Birth days it seems to be their taken from the start dates of...
Miho = Operation Lightfoot (AKA Second Battle of El Alamein)
Saori = Operation Barbarossa (German Invasion of Russia)
Hana = Operation Wacht am Rhein (Battle of the Bulge)
Yukari = Operation Overlord (D-Day, allied invasion of occupied France)
Mako = Operation Fall Weiss (Case White, German Invasion of Poland)
They're missing most of the good ones. I'm not expecting August 9 for a couple of obvious reasons, but you'd think that tank heads would at least remember July 5.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Znail View Post
"balance of firepower, mobility and armor"are the deffinition of a medium tank, not weight. That is why the Pather at around 50 tons are still called a medium tank as it was built with that idea in mind. The Tiger on the other hand, like most heavy tanks give up mobility to boost armor and firepower and is thus around half as fast as the not that much lighter Panther.
The tank classes are dependent on nationality and tank doctrine, but they can be summed up fairly succintly:

Light tanks - designed for recon and screening roles.
Medium tanks - general purpose AFVs designed to do a bit of everything while being inexpensive enough to field in large number.
Heavy tanks - meant to breakthrough enemy defenses by virtue of heavy armor.

The large differences between the Tiger and Panther are due to their being envisioned for quite different purposes. Although an 10-ton difference is quite large when you consider the power of the engines and all the transmission and suspension work needed for the heavier beast.

Main battle tanks made all of the other classifications obsolete because they could perform pretty much any role other tanks can. The only job you wouldn't really use an MBT for is reconaissance; and that's because it would be a waste of resources rather than for a lack of ability.

The Panther is thought of as the predecessor of the main battle tank because it has most of their attributes while the Centurion is the first true main battle tank.
__________________
The victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won...
4Tran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-27, 15:27   Link #550
LoweGear
Device Meister
*Graphic Designer
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: 3 times the passion of the usual flamenco
Since we've all been talking about the Panzer parts, here I am to provide the Girls part of this equation, including some Mako goodness:

Images
Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?
__________________

On Simple Solutions: "I bought the airline. It seemed neater."
LoweGear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-27, 16:27   Link #551
Random Wanderer
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoweGear View Post
Since we've all been talking about the Panzer parts, here I am to provide the Girls part of this equation, including some Mako goodness:

Images
Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?
Dat Mako...
Random Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-27, 17:35   Link #552
Chiaki_chan
Kubo GO TO HELL
 
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: with Maki-sama
Age: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoweGear View Post
Since we've all been talking about the Panzer parts, here I am to provide the Girls part of this equation, including some Mako goodness:

Images
Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?
ouaaaaaaaaa I like
__________________
http://forums.animesuki.com/images/as.icon/signaturepics/sigpic211239_32.gif
Chiaki_chan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-27, 18:57   Link #553
garbage
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoweGear View Post
Since we've all been talking about the Panzer parts, here I am to provide the Girls part of this equation, including some Mako goodness:

Images
Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?
more! ...girls part need more

...uh oh now it looks like i'm some kind of

...hmmm shows i'm not much of a Tank fan, i do love my machines, but i guess tanks are just too awkward and cumbersome for me
garbage is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-27, 20:26   Link #554
Wild Goose
Truth Martyr
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Doing Anzu's paperwork.
Age: 28
Regards the M1A1 Abrams, I have not been able to find a source for successful hits by Iraqi tanks; all documentation I have found so far lists 9 tanks destroyed during Gulf '91; seven by friendly fire and 2 by deliberate scuttling.

In other news: DAT MAKO. She may not have very much on top, but she knows which part of her has strong ap-

*Me is shot with a Silver Bullet*
__________________
~Speaking my mind, even when it costs me~
One must forgive one's enemies, but not before they are hanged.Heinrich Heine.

I believe in miracles.

Wild Goose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-28, 08:50   Link #555
LoweGear
Device Meister
*Graphic Designer
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: 3 times the passion of the usual flamenco
Bringing the Girls in Girls Und Panzer, this time for lineart of future outfits, including swimwear, along with other miscellaneous stuff:

Images
Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

*Yukari having military camo swimwear*

Stop that Yukari, don't make me like you more than I already do!
__________________

On Simple Solutions: "I bought the airline. It seemed neater."

Last edited by LoweGear; 2012-10-28 at 10:02.
LoweGear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-28, 08:57   Link #556
kct
Walk dat crank yo
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Kay El, M'sia
Age: 28
Send a message via MSN to kct
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoweGear View Post
Stop that Yukari, don't make me like you more than I already do!
That is only tip of the iceberg in terms of "why is she so perfect", but that is always old news now.
kct is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-28, 11:37   Link #557
Dextro
He Without a Title
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Lisbon, Portugal
Age: 27
Send a message via Skype™ to Dextro
Wait... There's only 1km side-to-side on that massive city-ship? Whaaa?
__________________

Dextro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-28, 11:40   Link #558
Random Wanderer
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dextro View Post
Wait... There's only 1km side-to-side on that massive city-ship? Whaaa?
The writers/artists clearly have issues with scale.
Random Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-28, 11:54   Link #559
LoweGear
Device Meister
*Graphic Designer
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: 3 times the passion of the usual flamenco
>_>

<_<


*RUNS*

__________________

On Simple Solutions: "I bought the airline. It seemed neater."
LoweGear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-28, 12:25   Link #560
Marina2
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
They really waste Yukari's talent&knowledge by appointing her as loader, the position that doesn't require those things at all.

BUT...maybe enthusiastic girl like her is the most suitable option. Faster load, Faster fire.
__________________
http://forums.animesuki.com/images/as.icon/signaturepics/sigpic44739_1.gif
Marina2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
comedy, gup, military, original anime, slice of life, sports, tanks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 21:33.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.