(L) Girls und Panzer

[LoweGear]

Originally Posted by Znail

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.

[Znail]

Originally Posted by LoweGear

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?

[Cosmic Eagle]

Originally Posted by LoweGear

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

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

[MeisterBabylon]

Originally Posted by PzIVf3

Spoiler for City Carrier spotted at Google Earth:

Original Link http://twitpic.com/b7icds

As a late Romulan once put it, "IT'S A FAAAAAAAAKE!!"

[Znail]

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.

[LoweGear]

Originally Posted by Znail

"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".

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Znail

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.

[Cosmic Eagle]

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

Originally Posted by LoweGear

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

[Sumeragi]

Can we go back to WW2 stuff? I'm frankly starting to get tired of the old armor discussion.

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by PzIVf3

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

Originally Posted by Cosmic Eagle

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.

Originally Posted by LoweGear

So more trivia, this time from another forum who saw the post on the girl's birthdays and favorite tanks:

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.

Originally Posted by Znail

"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.

[LoweGear]

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?

[Random Wanderer]

Originally Posted by LoweGear

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...

[Chiaki_chan]

Originally Posted by LoweGear

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

[garbage]

Originally Posted by LoweGear

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

[Wild Goose]

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*

[LoweGear]

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!

[kct]

Originally Posted by LoweGear

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.

[Dextro]

Wait... There's only 1km side-to-side on that massive city-ship? Whaaa?

[Random Wanderer]

Originally Posted by Dextro

Wait... There's only 1km side-to-side on that massive city-ship? Whaaa?

The writers/artists clearly have issues with scale.

[LoweGear]

>_>

<_<

*RUNS*

[Marina2]

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.