>no FCS >no gun stabilization >unreliable drivetrain >polished steel """"optics"""" >no spall lining >zero man portable AT weapon protection >ultra brittle armor and weak welds >barely functional radio if you even have one
i would take a AT field gun over this thing any day of the week anon what is this weak shit
>alt history bullshit
Up until at least1942 the already very shitty optical devices onboard of T-34 tanks were using polished steel instead of actual mirrors because cheap and available.
if you speak russian or at least any eastern euro language, seek out panoramic sights PT/ПT-6, ПT-7, and ПT-4-7
And I mean seek out the specific devices and their construction because there's lots of outright lying around the subject, for example soviet ***claims that the british said*** that those are the best in the world, totally.
back in that day, tanks often had a fifth crew member, the radio operator and hull machine gunner. The position is now gone, but they have kept the loader position.
how the fuck am i supposed to interface with the link16 network and pull real-time imagery from the rq-170 connected to the orbiting b-2 acting as a standoff network node linking my platoon?
This thread screams "DOD bot that fucked up and accidentally made a post on PrepHole instead of PrepHole"
Apparently officers in the US Air Force have been posting on PrepHole, which is mindblowing. I can only assume they did it from the toilet while working out a bad constipation.
Oh it has been useless for far longer than that. I had a look and left in disgust, too many basement generals extolling virtues they will never achieve. Then again it makes it easy to spot the real military people. And there are not many of them. I can only assume they are there to poke the crazy zoo.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
I won't deny that it has always been a shitty board, but the mood has definitely shifted from "poltards who have no idea what they're talking about with the occasional good post" to "actual information warfare by both the west and Russia to try and sway public opinion"
>Apparently officers in the US Air Force have been posting on PrepHole, which is mindblowing. I can only assume they did it from the toilet while working out a bad constipation.
PrepHole has some screencap I saw once of some dude in Iraq who got extraordinarily backed up from living off MREs. I can't find it but it ends "and that's how I shit on myself and seven officers".
i remember something similar, but it ends with the anon farting so much while shitting out rabbit sized turds.
then he collapses onto the floor, apparently he didn't even need to wipe?
>Apparently officers in the US Air Force have been posting on PrepHole, which is mindblowing.
Why is that mind blowing? Do you think Air Force officers are some rare breed of person? I've talked to countless helicopter pilots here, and I'm an Army officer myself.
>Apparently officers in the US Air Force have been posting on PrepHole, which is mindblowing.
There is nothing exotic in that post unless you're a tourist, nothing remotely indicating professional connection to those systems at all. That's ordinary stuff any (real) military aviation enthusiast would know. That it impressed anyone as more than that is bizarre on a WEAPONS fucking board.
What is wrong with you people? Why do supposed weapons enthusiasts have less knowledge than an average gamer?
using nukes is a paradox, if the country is too small, then its pointless, and if its too big, chances are they have nukes of their own, and will attack back.
in russia's case, since all their tech is old soviet shit, and they haven't developed much since then, they would have more deaths if they tried to nuke.
>"I wanted to film the T-34 and here he goes and blocks it... And so I filmed it, fuck... It survived the war and died here..."
The sound makes it a lot better.
russians statistics from 1944 list a casualty rate of 27% across a sample of a little over a hundred tanks in the summer of 1944, all tanks being burn outs
in the same time period, US shermans had a casualty rate of 24.5% across a comparably large sample size for burned out tanks
so shermans are slightly safer in the event of a ammo cook-off
and neither the T-34 nor the sherman were particularly dangerous in any case, 2X% means 1-2 people lost per tank per burn out which is consistent with anecdotes across all countries
at least until you remember that by 1944, wet shermans were introduced into service and ended up making up about half of all shermans
and wet shermans only burned out 15% of the time instead of 60-80% of the time for most tanks
every tank built after 1945 implemented it to some degree
even russian iron coffins have the decency to put the ammo rack at the bottom of the hull instead of the tank side walls, though this is also for mechanical reasons like having an autoloader
the centurion also has ammo in the floor rather than the side walls, though strangely has an auxiliary ammo rack next to the driver
wet ammo racks have beed succeeded by blowout panels, having a specific section of the ammo container open up and vent excess pressure into the outside rather than allowing it to expand into the crew compartment
>blowout panels
That makes sense, but in the specific case of the T-series autoloader it would seem some kind of wet jacket might have reduced the use of the turret as the blowout panel.
Maybe this technique isn't effective against HEAT.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
>That makes sense, but in the specific case of the T-series autoloader it would seem some kind of wet jacket might have reduced the use of the turret as the blowout panel.
most "wet" ammo racks dont actually have wetness in them
they found out that the water was mostly unnecessary, positioning the ammo in a metal box at the lowest point in the tank was what actually worked
the protective walls stopped hot fragments from getting in and the position in the tank was unlikely to be hit in the first place
the only safer place was the rear of the turret, which is where modern tanks like the M1 place their ammo
though this does mean that the turret can only turn left or right so far before exposing the turret bustle, but most of the time its hit even less than the lower hull
Because it doesn't actually work except vs lowest energy fragments (which have a low probability of ignition anyway)
Sherman and Chaffee had technical directives to drain wet stowage tanks in 1948 and none of the post war generation of US tanks of Patton's/Walker Bulldog/M103 had it.
Chieftain/Challenger had wet stowage, but after battle damage assessment of Chieftain tanks being held in Iraq, concluded they needed to be changed. Challenger 1 mk3 and Challenger 2 removed wet stowage for dry armoured charge bins.
If you want an example of wet stowage still in use look at Soviet tanks, where a good amount of the ammunition outside the carousel is held in fuel tanks, and you can see how effective it is (hint, it isn't)
The T-34-85 is widely regarded as the best tank of WW2. In one incident, an entire company of Tiger 2's attempted to destroy a lone advancing T-34-85 only to have all their rounds bounced by the T-34's superior angled armor. Said T-34 dispatched all the Tiger 2's with a single shot to their frontal armor that was constructed of pig iron. Wartime records indicate that the T-34-85 had a K/D ratio of 50,000,000:1. The single lost vehicle due to the crew drinking too much in celebrating their 1000th Tiger kill, and then driving their tank into a 20-feet deep river of Aryan blood. Fear of the T-34 was so great, that Germans would immediately surrender upon sight of them. The prisoners were then forced to lie down, and promptly run over by T-34's to avenge the 6 million garden gnomes. Many historians contend that the Allies only won WW2 because of the T-34-85, and by extension, the T-34 series as a whole.
since we have a tank thread, i have a question about sloped armor: would a part of armor sloped inwards be worse, better or neither than a flat face? disregard the "why"s, this is not about a boob armor tank.
Assuming you mean something like a W-shaped hull
It would make a complex shape that would be difficult to manufacture and lead to more areas for stress to build up
It would also be an inefficient use of space
>nly about theoretical pen protection characteristics.
here are some crude drawings to visualize their angle of protection
when facing towards your enemy, it provides the same protection as a pike-nose hull with hing angles
also like a pike-nose, it loses a lot of protection from even slight angling
though there are a few angles where a shot will only go through the "prongs" and potentially avoid hitting anything important
>gets hit by thermobaric weapon
>everyone inside liquified
you might want a pressurized cabin, at least
Does it really matter what you're in if you get hit by one of these? It seems pretty nasty. Not that they could ever get close enough.
True soul
Holy shit, they named a vehicle after your cock
A T-34-85 would be nice.
Yes.
I need less
>turret
bloat
You won't get far with a barrel like that. These days 120 mm is a minimum and we will probably be looking at 140 mm soon.
>no FCS
>no gun stabilization
>unreliable drivetrain
>polished steel """"optics""""
>no spall lining
>zero man portable AT weapon protection
>ultra brittle armor and weak welds
>barely functional radio if you even have one
i would take a AT field gun over this thing any day of the week anon what is this weak shit
Polished steel optics? Sounds like some alt history bullshit
>alt history bullshit
Up until at least1942 the already very shitty optical devices onboard of T-34 tanks were using polished steel instead of actual mirrors because cheap and available.
Where can I read up on that?
if you speak russian or at least any eastern euro language, seek out panoramic sights PT/ПT-6, ПT-7, and ПT-4-7
And I mean seek out the specific devices and their construction because there's lots of outright lying around the subject, for example soviet ***claims that the british said*** that those are the best in the world, totally.
Thanks a bunch anon!
Russian mass death tractor
bloat
the first thing i thought about when seeing this picture is Linux. wtf.
if you want better than a 1:12 K/D ratio to the Germans, then yes, you need more. Unless of course you don't mind "excess death"
>true story bro
one t-34
LMAO
joy
back in that day, tanks often had a fifth crew member, the radio operator and hull machine gunner. The position is now gone, but they have kept the loader position.
how the fuck am i supposed to interface with the link16 network and pull real-time imagery from the rq-170 connected to the orbiting b-2 acting as a standoff network node linking my platoon?
OK; what tanks are provided with Link-16?
It's classified...
Ah yes, a fresh take from the sigmoid then.
Apparently officers in the US Air Force have been posting on PrepHole, which is mindblowing. I can only assume they did it from the toilet while working out a bad constipation.
I wouldn't be surprised if it's a full-fledged psyop operation, PrepHole has been unusable since the gay slav war started
Oh it has been useless for far longer than that. I had a look and left in disgust, too many basement generals extolling virtues they will never achieve. Then again it makes it easy to spot the real military people. And there are not many of them. I can only assume they are there to poke the crazy zoo.
I won't deny that it has always been a shitty board, but the mood has definitely shifted from "poltards who have no idea what they're talking about with the occasional good post" to "actual information warfare by both the west and Russia to try and sway public opinion"
PrepHole has always been one of the worst boards
bump
>Apparently officers in the US Air Force have been posting on PrepHole, which is mindblowing. I can only assume they did it from the toilet while working out a bad constipation.
PrepHole has some screencap I saw once of some dude in Iraq who got extraordinarily backed up from living off MREs. I can't find it but it ends "and that's how I shit on myself and seven officers".
i remember something similar, but it ends with the anon farting so much while shitting out rabbit sized turds.
then he collapses onto the floor, apparently he didn't even need to wipe?
>Apparently officers in the US Air Force have been posting on PrepHole, which is mindblowing.
Why is that mind blowing? Do you think Air Force officers are some rare breed of person? I've talked to countless helicopter pilots here, and I'm an Army officer myself.
>and I'm an Army officer myself.
Thank you for your cervix.
>Apparently officers in the US Air Force have been posting on PrepHole, which is mindblowing.
There is nothing exotic in that post unless you're a tourist, nothing remotely indicating professional connection to those systems at all. That's ordinary stuff any (real) military aviation enthusiast would know. That it impressed anyone as more than that is bizarre on a WEAPONS fucking board.
What is wrong with you people? Why do supposed weapons enthusiasts have less knowledge than an average gamer?
don't need those to fight like real heroes, brother
Your Baofeng with the latest BDSM firmware.
Yes.
>Immediately become priority target number one for B-17/24 wings
nmgi bro
Yes.
Probably drove right to a rail station were it can be used (lost) in Ukraine.
When is this from?
Like 2018, not that a specific date makes puccians look any more competent.
Thought so. Just wanted to confirm it's not the same t-34 before I show people. Shame, would have been perfect.
you know maybe we should have suspected the Russians weren't exactly up to the hype before the special operation, cause the warning signs were there
This thread screams "DOD bot that fucked up and accidentally made a post on PrepHole instead of PrepHole"
ITT /chug/ tards laughed out of PrepHole try astroturfing here instead
believe it or not but you just need some functioning nukes to win ANY war. I wish putler wasnt a retard and nuked the garden gnomes instead
why would putin nuke his handlers?
using nukes is a paradox, if the country is too small, then its pointless, and if its too big, chances are they have nukes of their own, and will attack back.
in russia's case, since all their tech is old soviet shit, and they haven't developed much since then, they would have more deaths if they tried to nuke.
>you 'need' more
Well, I'm not saying no
>all these landcels
waterchads, check in
Let me guess...you need mo-ACK
russians are basically white chinks when it comes to any form of vehicle
>"I wanted to film the T-34 and here he goes and blocks it... And so I filmed it, fuck... It survived the war and died here..."
The sound makes it a lot better.
daaaaaaaang there goes their tank!
who will "defend" Crimea now???
>rolling-coffin
no thx pal
But that isn't a Sherman death trap
russians statistics from 1944 list a casualty rate of 27% across a sample of a little over a hundred tanks in the summer of 1944, all tanks being burn outs
in the same time period, US shermans had a casualty rate of 24.5% across a comparably large sample size for burned out tanks
so shermans are slightly safer in the event of a ammo cook-off
and neither the T-34 nor the sherman were particularly dangerous in any case, 2X% means 1-2 people lost per tank per burn out which is consistent with anecdotes across all countries
at least until you remember that by 1944, wet shermans were introduced into service and ended up making up about half of all shermans
and wet shermans only burned out 15% of the time instead of 60-80% of the time for most tanks
>wet stowage
This is brilliant, why don't all tanks do this?
every tank built after 1945 implemented it to some degree
even russian iron coffins have the decency to put the ammo rack at the bottom of the hull instead of the tank side walls, though this is also for mechanical reasons like having an autoloader
the centurion also has ammo in the floor rather than the side walls, though strangely has an auxiliary ammo rack next to the driver
wet ammo racks have beed succeeded by blowout panels, having a specific section of the ammo container open up and vent excess pressure into the outside rather than allowing it to expand into the crew compartment
>blowout panels
That makes sense, but in the specific case of the T-series autoloader it would seem some kind of wet jacket might have reduced the use of the turret as the blowout panel.
Maybe this technique isn't effective against HEAT.
>That makes sense, but in the specific case of the T-series autoloader it would seem some kind of wet jacket might have reduced the use of the turret as the blowout panel.
most "wet" ammo racks dont actually have wetness in them
they found out that the water was mostly unnecessary, positioning the ammo in a metal box at the lowest point in the tank was what actually worked
the protective walls stopped hot fragments from getting in and the position in the tank was unlikely to be hit in the first place
the only safer place was the rear of the turret, which is where modern tanks like the M1 place their ammo
though this does mean that the turret can only turn left or right so far before exposing the turret bustle, but most of the time its hit even less than the lower hull
Because it doesn't actually work except vs lowest energy fragments (which have a low probability of ignition anyway)
Sherman and Chaffee had technical directives to drain wet stowage tanks in 1948 and none of the post war generation of US tanks of Patton's/Walker Bulldog/M103 had it.
Chieftain/Challenger had wet stowage, but after battle damage assessment of Chieftain tanks being held in Iraq, concluded they needed to be changed. Challenger 1 mk3 and Challenger 2 removed wet stowage for dry armoured charge bins.
If you want an example of wet stowage still in use look at Soviet tanks, where a good amount of the ammunition outside the carousel is held in fuel tanks, and you can see how effective it is (hint, it isn't)
Yes, 10,000 more.
let me guess, you dont have more
The T-34-85 is widely regarded as the best tank of WW2. In one incident, an entire company of Tiger 2's attempted to destroy a lone advancing T-34-85 only to have all their rounds bounced by the T-34's superior angled armor. Said T-34 dispatched all the Tiger 2's with a single shot to their frontal armor that was constructed of pig iron. Wartime records indicate that the T-34-85 had a K/D ratio of 50,000,000:1. The single lost vehicle due to the crew drinking too much in celebrating their 1000th Tiger kill, and then driving their tank into a 20-feet deep river of Aryan blood. Fear of the T-34 was so great, that Germans would immediately surrender upon sight of them. The prisoners were then forced to lie down, and promptly run over by T-34's to avenge the 6 million garden gnomes. Many historians contend that the Allies only won WW2 because of the T-34-85, and by extension, the T-34 series as a whole.
I would like the modernization package
>let me guess, you 'need' more
No, but Russia does
Yes, I need the dog
>no Olgierd
>Czeresniak hidden somewhere in the back
AND FUCKING MOST IMPORTANT
>no Marusia
You are one gigantic gay, kurwa
>Marusia
Lidka was the white man's choice.
Niemirska was cute, but Pola Raksa was the sexiest chick in history of polish cinematography.
Decadent Westoid needing a whole large tank! You need less
since we have a tank thread, i have a question about sloped armor: would a part of armor sloped inwards be worse, better or neither than a flat face? disregard the "why"s, this is not about a boob armor tank.
Assuming you mean something like a W-shaped hull
It would make a complex shape that would be difficult to manufacture and lead to more areas for stress to build up
It would also be an inefficient use of space
yeah, a W-shaped hull.
no, i don't care about lack of efficiency, only about theoretical pen protection characteristics.
>nly about theoretical pen protection characteristics.
here are some crude drawings to visualize their angle of protection
when facing towards your enemy, it provides the same protection as a pike-nose hull with hing angles
also like a pike-nose, it loses a lot of protection from even slight angling
though there are a few angles where a shot will only go through the "prongs" and potentially avoid hitting anything important