i-identify-tanks-in-posts

[i-identify-tanks-in-posts]

!!! STRIDSWAGN SUNDAY !!!

[i-identify-tanks-in-posts]

!!! STRIDSWAGN SUNDAY !!!

[i-identify-tanks-in-posts]

Should self propelled anti air guns follow the 25hp/ton ratio?

While SPAAA is somewhat of a rarity in the modern world, with the advent of surface-to-air missile technology rendering them largely irrelevant, If they were still around today, I would not judge them on my standard of 25hp/ton, as that is specifically a standard for main battle tank performance, based on the technology available and the demands of that combat role.

[i-identify-tanks-in-posts]

I regret to inform you about hoi4's land cruisers

You should regret informing me of this. Why the hell would you bring this to my attention?

What did I do to you?

All I want is to have fun yammering about tanks, and you bring me the Ratte's shit-on-a-stick ugly cousins?

[i-identify-tanks-in-posts]

Please just let me die

!!! STRIDSWAGN SUNDAY !!!

[i-identify-tanks-in-posts]

!!! STRIDSWAGN SUNDAY !!!

[i-identify-tanks-in-posts]

contrasting to the mechanically super-complex Starcraft tank, what about the Mammoth Tank from C&C (The original, not the newer game versions) https://cnc.fandom.com/wiki/Mammoth_tank_(Tiberian_Dawn)

I've covered the Mammoth before, in the earlier days of the blog, but I'll summarize my opinion quickly here, in three points:

Double-gun tanks are bad. They will always be bad. No tank has ever been improved by doubling its main gun.

Split-track designs like the Scorpion and Mammoth are bad. They add an immense level of complexity and risk of failure to the vehicle for little-to-no benefit.

The size/weight to power ratio. It's slow. Painfully slow. Modern MBTs typically exceed a power-to-weight ratio of 25 hp/ton, and the Mammoth definitely isn't hitting that benchmark.

Those are my three main problems with the Mammoth. All fixable, with some design changes, but still poor features.

If you'd like to discuss further, I welcome you in the notes.

[i-identify-tanks-in-posts]

Having tracked down the exact origin of this photo, I belive both tanks visible in this photo to be Panzer IV H's.

This is a photo of the 5th SS Panzer division's retreat from Cherkassy, in March of 1944. According to unit records of the time, their vehicle inventory was 12 Panzer III J's, 8 Panzer IV H's and 4 Stug III G's.

Thanks to the distinctive slope on the front of the right vehicle (which I believe to be a match for the side plates of the PzIV H), I am fairly confident in declaring:

Pz.Kpfw. IV H, German medium tank, Krupp, 1943.

75% confidence

[i-identify-tanks-in-posts]

????

This one is interesting, and took me quite a while to dig up. It's a modern scale model loosely based on concepts floated at the Soviet Kharkiv Design Bureau, reportedly based on the Swedish Strv. 103, in the late seventies.

While interesting-looking, it is nigh-impossible to discern whether this model matches the designers' original intention, as the notes on the discussions were quite limited, giving only ideas of a two-man turretless tank and simplistic sketches that resemble the later Obj. 490 more than this model.

Thank you for sending it in, and I'm sorry I don't have better news for you. If you've any more questions, I'll gladly field them in the notes.

[i-identify-tanks-in-posts]

Any thoughts on the Siege Tank from SC2? Was wondering what you thought of the main cannon, which is supposed to be two guns in tank mode that combine to form one big artillery piece in siege mode.

Its bad. Really bad.

That's most of the answer, to be honest. It's like a checklist of Shitty SciFi Tank Features.

Four tracks, which apparently swivel out to become legs, for some god-forsaken reason. Why they couldn't just. Stay where they are, I have no idea. Four tracks is bad enough, but four tracks that move? And seem only to be connected to the main body by hopes, prayers, and perhaps a bit of duct tape? Absolutely not.

As far as the gun, its just stupid, frankly. How two guns, with two seperate closed systems, would combine into one bigger one? I've almost no clue. Even if this could be done, say through railguns or energy weapons or some other such sci-fi contrivance, it would almost certainly be immensely mechanically complex and more prone to failure than a Panzer V's drivetrain.

All this not even touching on the fact that it appears to be a massive metal brick, sticking up way too high and presenting a target that a stormtrooper couldn't miss.

In summary: it's bad. Very bad. Perhaps the worst fictional tank I've seen outside of battletech. It falls into the trap of most vehicles designed to fulfill two radically different roles: it tries too hard at doing both, and ends up being abysmal at either. It's a shit artillery piece, a shit tank, and a shit vehicle in general.

[i-identify-tanks-in-posts]

Leopard 2a4, German MBT, KraussMaffei

100% confidence.

Tank drives over a car at top speed | source

[i-identify-tanks-in-posts]

Wow. There are 500 of you fuckers now. Buncha' fuckin' nerds, the lot of you.

(love you guys, you're awesome.)

[i-identify-tanks-in-posts]

Aw shit, I forgot Stridswagn Sunday.

Fuck it, welcome to

Marder Monday

[i-identify-tanks-in-posts]

!!! STRIDSWAGN SUNDAY !!!

[i-identify-tanks-in-posts]

No.

cursed art dump

[i-identify-tanks-in-posts]

No.

cursed art dump

[i-identify-tanks-in-posts]

Nah don't worry about it. Engagement fuels me :3

Is there anything in particular about depleted uranium that makes it effective for use in armor? I read that because it's dense it can absorb a lot of the energy from a projectile but is there anything more to it than that? Was wondering how well it would fare against a round with high-penetration vs, I don't know, normal steel armor and if superior, why.

Well, DU armor is great for the same reason it works great as a penetrator in anti-armor rounds: It's dense as all fuck. More than twice as dense as steel of a comparable volume.

Frankly put, there's simply more stuff per stuff that any round would have to penetrate.