Jump to content


Introducing "The Chieftain's Hatch"


  • Please log in to reply
217 replies to this topic

paradat #181 Posted Sep 16 2011 - 00:02

    Major

  • Players
  • 34759 battles
  • 8,732
  • [TBW] TBW
  • Member since:
    03-24-2011

View PostLert, on Sep 09 2011 - 18:20, said:

M551 Sheridan?

Nope Sheridan had a 152 on it.

Welcome Chieftain! See you on Fiddelr's Green !

Former Airborne tanker greetings.

Nodbugger #182 Posted Sep 16 2011 - 01:24

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 6252 battles
  • 662
  • [BACON] BACON
  • Member since:
    04-20-2011
Do they pay you?

John_Paul_Pwns #183 Posted Sep 16 2011 - 02:34

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 6099 battles
  • 31
  • Member since:
    06-15-2011
How does being a modern tanker (anything in the last 30 years) have anything to do with the tanks of the 40's and 50's? If anything IFV's are closer to function and performance.

Blackhorse_Six_ #184 Posted Sep 16 2011 - 03:46

    Major

  • Players
  • 50347 battles
  • 10,030
  • [HHT] HHT
  • Member since:
    03-19-2011

View PostPanzerSchofield, on Sep 16 2011 - 02:34, said:

How does being a modern tanker (anything in the last 30 years) have anything to do with the tanks of the 40's and 50's? If anything IFV's are closer to function and performance.

How, Sir, Exactly?

John_Paul_Pwns #185 Posted Sep 16 2011 - 15:49

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 6099 battles
  • 31
  • Member since:
    06-15-2011

View PostBlackhorse_Six, on Sep 16 2011 - 03:46, said:

How, Sir, Exactly?

Relative size, armament, horse power, principle mission.

A Bradley is much similar to the Sherman in purpose and design than the Abrams.

The_Chieftain #186 Posted Sep 16 2011 - 18:00

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 13820 battles
  • 9,916
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

View PostPanzerSchofield, on Sep 16 2011 - 02:34, said:

How does being a modern tanker (anything in the last 30 years) have anything to do with the tanks of the 40's and 50's? If anything IFV's are closer to function and performance.

The fundamental principles haven't changed. I'd wager they generally haven't changed since Cambrai. Combat occurs faster, and at longer ranges, and the level of maintenance that a crewman can do today vs thirty years ago is certainly different, but what, do you submit, are the fundamental principles of fire and maneuver, and the tactics of tanks which were applicable in 1945 but are no longer applicable today?

Kapitan_War_Wizard #187 Posted Sep 17 2011 - 03:10

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 1603 battles
  • 18
  • Member since:
    08-26-2011

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Sep 16 2011 - 18:00, said:

The fundamental principles haven't changed. I'd wager they generally haven't changed since Cambrai. Combat occurs faster, and at longer ranges, and the level of maintenance that a crewman can do today vs thirty years ago is certainly different, but what, do you submit, are the fundamental principles of fire and maneuver, and the tactics of tanks which were applicable in 1945 but are no longer applicable today?


Well, to answer that question, if I may... I know I am not the poster of the question, however, I do have my own opinions on the matter.


   While tank battling may, in base principle and application be the same as back in the 40's, I would say that things would be different as a matter of technology but nothing else. I know that in WWII tank crews had crewmen that were (as example only) driver and mechanic. Today, you have more job fields, so a mechanic is a mechanic and nothing else. The Tank crews may have to do 10 shop level maintenance, but mechanics are your 20, 30, 40 maintenance shops leaving 50 level on the civilian side. As for pure combat related functionality, the only real difference between the 1940's and today is technology. Otherwise, you look at both tanks and you see the same thing : driver, gunner, commander, loader. the tank moves, it fires a cannon, and it has range finding gear. I, personally, fail to see any tactical or other difference beyond the technology of the armour in question. Like The_Chieftain said, combat is simply faster and at longer distance.

~shrug~ This is, of course, just my own opinions. I admit that I may be wrong simply because I see things from my own perspective and from that of a 20 shop mechanic and not a true tank crew member.

KnightsCross #188 Posted Sep 18 2011 - 08:38

    Corporal

  • Beta Testers
  • 11554 battles
  • 61
  • Member since:
    07-08-2010
http://cdn-frm-us.wargaming.net/wot/us/4.1/style_images/wot/snapback.pngThe_Chieftain, on Sep 17 2011 - 03:00, said:

The fundamental principles haven't changed. I'd wager they generally haven't changed since Cambrai. Combat occurs faster, and at longer ranges, and the level of maintenance that a crewman can do today vs thirty years ago is certainly different, but what, do you submit, are the fundamental principles of fire and maneuver, and the tactics of tanks which were applicable in 1945 but are no longer applicable today?


View Postdrakonniz, on Sep 17 2011 - 03:10, said:

Well, to answer that question, if I may... I know I am not the poster of the question, however, I do have my own opinions on the matter.


   While tank battling may, in base principle and application be the same as back in the 40's, I would say that things would be different as a matter of technology but nothing else. I know that in WWII tank crews had crewmen that were (as example only) driver and mechanic. Today, you have more job fields, so a mechanic is a mechanic and nothing else. The Tank crews may have to do 10 shop level maintenance, but mechanics are your 20, 30, 40 maintenance shops leaving 50 level on the civilian side. As for pure combat related functionality, the only real difference between the 1940's and today is technology. Otherwise, you look at both tanks and you see the same thing : driver, gunner, commander, loader. the tank moves, it fires a cannon, and it has range finding gear. I, personally, fail to see any tactical or other difference beyond the technology of the armour in question. Like The_Chieftain said, combat is simply faster and at longer distance.

~shrug~ This is, of course, just my own opinions. I admit that I may be wrong simply because I see things from my own perspective and from that of a 20 shop mechanic and not a true tank crew member.


Agreed, just to add to this, todays technology can be disabled and knocked out, forcing the crew to utilize there
secondary equipment or 'steam gunnery' as we call it. This is virtually the same as WWII era, and if that's
knocked out also, the good old battle bore sight is your last hope.
( battle bore sight - look through the barrel, load and fire )
If your bore sight is knock out you are probably now on foot

Golf_One_Four #189 Posted Sep 18 2011 - 17:20

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 53095 battles
  • 52
  • Member since:
    06-04-2011

View Posttanklover997, on Sep 10 2011 - 14:33, said:

I have a question. What is the biggest tank in use at the moment?

That would be the Merkava (my personal favorite)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkava.
At 66.1 tons the Merkava is not the heaviest. It is second to the M1 Abrams which is 67.6 tons. But it is "BIGGER" than the M1 Abrams. And it's crew compartment holds a total of 8 men inside, including medics or infantry that accompany the tank crew into battle.

John_Paul_Pwns #190 Posted Sep 18 2011 - 19:31

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 6099 battles
  • 31
  • Member since:
    06-15-2011

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Sep 16 2011 - 18:00, said:

The fundamental principles haven't changed. I'd wager they generally haven't changed since Cambrai. Combat occurs faster, and at longer ranges, and the level of maintenance that a crewman can do today vs thirty years ago is certainly different, but what, do you submit, are the fundamental principles of fire and maneuver, and the tactics of tanks which were applicable in 1945 but are no longer applicable today?

I engaged in a more detailed response with someone who I think is your buddy on the messenger. If you'd like I'll post it up here. I think my original statement was way to general, and I'm sorry for that. I'm not much of a forum jock. But I do have some thoughts on the matter.

Edit: its a big ole' wall of text, instead I'll be happy to messenger it too you. I'm interested in your thoughts. I realize (as I alluded to) I may have come off as a troll, not at all my intent.

Zhukov43 #191 Posted Sep 25 2011 - 15:10

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 29367 battles
  • 373
  • Member since:
    06-03-2011
I just wanted to drop by this thread and say hello to The_Chieftain and I welcome you sir. I too love tanks ever since I was a little kid but somehow I wound up in the Artillery (SP) in real life before I retired. The funny thing is though, I don't really like artillery in this game. LOL Anyway I hope that you can do some good things here.

MGElwood #192 Posted Sep 25 2011 - 15:29

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 9457 battles
  • 866
  • [DG1] DG1
  • Member since:
    03-17-2011

View Postborderrat, on Sep 09 2011 - 19:32, said:

I was with the 3rd ACR and the 11th ACR in the 70's. All Sheridans had 152mm.  Seems to me in about "78" maybe "79"
11th switched to the M60's to replace the Sheridan. Don't know why.
Of course with my memory I could be full of sh*t.

I was in the 82nd with the 3/73 and we had the Sheridan.
We were looking for a replacement for the Sheridan.

The Sheridan never had a 105, only the 152.

The MGS was what we looked at in the 80's and it had a 105...we did not like it as there were issues when dropping, LAPESing and other stuff so it never made it.

MG Elwood

MGElwood #193 Posted Sep 25 2011 - 15:35

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 9457 battles
  • 866
  • [DG1] DG1
  • Member since:
    03-17-2011

View Postdrakonniz, on Sep 11 2011 - 03:40, said:

Thank you on both posts MGElwood. Knowledge is the key, and not all of us has every answer. The deadliness of the Halon gas is the killing of oxygen it does, which is what I was referring to. I was the unit fire suppression specialist in charge of replacing Halon systems and had to have a rather annoying course on Halon. That is the only reason I know anything about it. And yes, PMCS is something all tank crews need to exercise better skill in. Had a driver in Germany give a deadline report on his tank out of laziness. Ticked me off to no end and I chewed the drivers ass. The deadline report said "tank wont start". The jackass was too lazy to flip the engine switch on the right panel. Yes, I did get chewed out as well by my SSGT. But I didn't care. Didn't help that they were laughing at me as I got chewed out -.- (I wonder if (then) SSGT Southworth even remembers that.....What I wouldnt give to have my ass chewed out by BMS Raby again... would be better than the life I live now that's for damn sure. see you all around. Hooahh!!


THAT was a good one!!  I think I would have had to give that driver some "Turret Counseling"  after a stunt like that.

As for the Halon, they changed it now and again..it wa sinitially a gas and then it when to a powder..still sucked when they went off "Accidently" but was not as bad as when it was the gas,

When I went through MAster Gunner School, a guy was testing and when he put a jumper into one of the components, he set off EVERY Halon extinguisher..it was quite funny...saw where ALL the cracks in a tanks armor was THAT day!!

Anyone on the M60A3's pull a Wham Gyro check?

I will post that story here if nobody heard of it.



Elwood

TwoSpiders #194 Posted Sep 25 2011 - 18:04

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 19372 battles
  • 29
  • [C_D] C_D
  • Member since:
    08-18-2011
First let me say THANK YOU Chieftain for contributing to these Forums. I am actually excited about reading your future posts and inputs to this community. My background is in Tank killing, I flew AH-1S, T, Full modernized Cobra's in the Army. I have enjoyed playing many Tank games in the past. This medium is a bit different from AI games in as much as you play head to head with another head. However, I see a lot of folks playing it as a one person shooter with no tactics or unit team work. The BIG difference is when you go against an opponent team that actually has a PLAN and walks all over your team. It's impressive.

I have a question about the numbers on the guns and what they represent. For example, on a German tank I see something like this... 7,5 cm KwK 45 L/100 I understand the caliber of the weapon in the first number 7,5 cm=75 mm, I think the KwK is the manufacturer or maker of that gun, 45, Does that represent year of make? L/100, does that represent length of barrel?

On American tanks it's just a simple 37 mm M6, M2M7 or M-5. The difference I see are the added M or -. Not sure what these are.

On Russian tanks I see 57 mm ZiS or F30 type designation.

Any insight you could give would be great!

The_Chieftain #195 Posted Sep 26 2011 - 00:14

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 13820 battles
  • 9,916
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

View PostTwoSpiders, on Sep 25 2011 - 18:04, said:

I have a question about the numbers on the guns and what they represent. For example, on a German tank I see something like this... 7,5 cm KwK 45 L/100 I understand the caliber of the weapon in the first number 7,5 cm=75 mm, I think the KwK is the manufacturer or maker of that gun, 45, Does that represent year of make? L/100, does that represent length of barrel?

The Germans are a blissfully rational group of people, they name things exactly what they are. KwK means "Kampfwagenkanone", translates as "Tank gun". Similarly, FlaK is Flugzeugabwehrkanone (anti aircraft gun) or PaK is Panzerabwehrkanone (Anti-Armour Gun). The L/xx does indeed represent the length of the barrel in calibres. So a 40mm/L60 (or 40mm/60) is a 40mm gun with a barrel length of 2.4m

Quote

On American tanks it's just a simple 37 mm M6, M2M7 or M-5. The difference I see are the added M or -. Not sure what these are.

The dashes tend to be inaccurately added, US Army nomenclature does not normally use it. The general rule is that a prototype device begins with "T", a standardised device with "M", and variations thereof are "E" suffixed unless themsevles standardised, in which case you get an "A". Not sure about multiple Ms, unless you're talking something like "Gun, 75mm M4 in mount M34", which could be shortened a bit, I guess. If I note the answer in my travels, I'll get back to you.

Quote

On Russian tanks I see 57 mm ZiS or F30 type designation.

Usually the name refers to the place built or design bureau which built it. ZiS is "Zavod imeni Stalina", Stalin's production plant. (In a similar veing to MiG standing for Mikoyan i Gureyvich or Mi for Mil)

Quote

The MGS was what we looked at in the 80's and it had a 105...

I believe you'd have been looking at the AGS, or one of its predecessors like CCVL.

TwoSpiders #196 Posted Sep 26 2011 - 04:43

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 19372 battles
  • 29
  • [C_D] C_D
  • Member since:
    08-18-2011
Chieftain:

Well done sir!  :Smile_honoring:

  I had it pretty much along those lines, however you have done an excellent job in clarification for me. Having spent 5 years in Germany with the 3/ID. 4th AVN BGD during the mid 80's those translations are not lost on me.

I will attempt to pose you with another challenge in the near future. Soldier On!  :Smile_honoring:

Valkeiper #197 Posted Sep 30 2011 - 22:10

    Major

  • Players
  • 8176 battles
  • 2,018
  • Member since:
    04-15-2011

View PostLert, on Sep 09 2011 - 18:20, said:

M551 Sheridan?

My guess is the Walker Bulldog. (M551 Sheridan had a Shelaleigh missile launcher converted to a low-velocity, big bore... MUCH bigger than a 105)

The Sheridan was a 'Nam era light tank much like the Ontos. Seems our guys is referring to the Korean Conflict (which some fools say wasn't a war)

Valkeiper #198 Posted Sep 30 2011 - 22:17

    Major

  • Players
  • 8176 battles
  • 2,018
  • Member since:
    04-15-2011

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Sep 09 2011 - 18:25, said:

No offence taken, and I'm not mad. You just came to the same conclusion that a lot of other people do. I'm sure I'll explain in more detail later.



I'm 1.97. Where there's a will, there's a way



Heh. That's not exactly a 'minor' request and it's not on the top of my to-do list, but I'm sure I'll be doing something of that note eventually.



Sounds like it, 152mm rifle, though.

I'd hate to disagree on that; but i think I have to. The M551's tube was designed to launch a missile and was only modified to a gun because of some foolish politician's idea it would make a great gun.

Yeah, right. a 152mm gun on a tank light enough to be airlifted. A lot of fine men died trying to shoot that tube at targets to a side.

No, I doubt very much a tube designed to launch a rocket-propelled missile would be rifled.

Valkeiper #199 Posted Sep 30 2011 - 22:21

    Major

  • Players
  • 8176 battles
  • 2,018
  • Member since:
    04-15-2011

View Postledhed14, on Sep 09 2011 - 18:45, said:

Sheridan..you guys are fast ...

I thought that would take a while ...

:blink:

Dang!

did they remove the missile tube or was I drastically wrong... again?

The_Chieftain #200 Posted Sep 30 2011 - 22:57

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 13820 battles
  • 9,916
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

View PostValkeiper, on Sep 30 2011 - 22:17, said:

I'd hate to disagree on that; but i think I have to. The M551's tube was designed to launch a missile and was only modified to a gun because of some foolish politician's idea it would make a great gun.

Yeah, right. a 152mm gun on a tank light enough to be airlifted. A lot of fine men died trying to shoot that tube at targets to a side.

No, I doubt very much a tube designed to launch a rocket-propelled missile would be rifled.

Looks like rifling to me...

http://svsm.org/albu...an/P1070563.jpg

Technically, "Shillelagh" was the name given to the entire kit and kaboodle, more completely known as the Combat Vehicle Weapon System Shillelagh. This was developed as the XM81 (eventually XM81E3), initially designed to fire four kinds of ammunition from the start: XM-409 HEAT-MP, XM410 White Phosphorous, XM411 Training and the XM13 Missile. Indeed, if they couldn't get the XM13 to work, a backup plan was to modify TOW to be launched from the gun, whilst retaining the conventional ammunition capability. What ended up happening was that the first four pilots were built without a missile control system installed at all, and tests were only carried out with the conventional ammuntion. When the missile problems were sorted out, the electronics were retrofitted into the pilot vehicles.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users