>BMP (the Constitution)
Please, Constitution isn't some rusty cramped deathtrap with spotty and failed history. It should be at least an M113, probably even a Bradley.
M113 offers significantly less protection from fire than a BMP. BMP frontal armor protects vs .50cal fire frontally and 7.62 on sides and rear, the M113 didn't even protect against .50 cal frontally. Plus the BMP's armament was far less anaemic. Been too much BMP slander on here recently, it was great for its day.
You'll get called a vatnig but you are correct, the soviets invented the IFV and the US was scared of the BMP-1 for good reason.
I like the look of the BMP-2 but it entered service 1 year before Chadley making it outdated quickly.
Would have been cool driving around Afghanistan in one but I wouldn't want to be driving one into battle today.
>the M113 didn't even protect against .50 cal frontally
M113 is frontally protected against .50cal and has all-around .30cal protection
virtually identical to the BMP until the 90s, when the M113A3 has 14.5mm all-around resistance when using add-on belt armor
No, the M113A3 does, a variant from 1987, a full 27 years after the US began fielding the M113 and a full 21 years after the Soviets began fielding the BMP-1.
Western IFV design owes a debt to the BMP, things like the Chadley were a direct response and validation of the BMP concept.
M113 was equally protected as the BMP-1, with all-around .30 and frontal .50
the M113A3 was better protected with 14.5mm protection on the front and sides
so the BMP was not better protected than the M113
3 months ago
Anonymous
Imagine just lying lmao >Unlike the M-113A3, the Stryker vehicle was designed with
two significant capabilities: 14.5-mm armor protection and a Remote
Weapon Station. The M-113A3’s armor protection is less than the Stryker
vehicle’s and an upgrade package will cost about $73,000 per vehicle
>. The M113A3 was designed to provide protection
against a standard 7.62mm threat. The Army intended the Stryker to have
an all-around 7.62mm armor-piercing protection, plus 14.5 mm protection
on the front, sides, and rear. The top will have 7.62 mm armor-piercing and
152mm high explosive airburst protection, and protection against
antipersonnel mines through the vehicle floor. Stryker also has an
embedded spall liner. Also assessed was the vehicles’ ability to support
missions under different battlefield conditions such as nuclear, biological,
and chemical environments. Most of the technical evaluation occurred at
the Aberdeen Proving Ground test center. The Test Command concluded
that the Stryker vehicle was more survivable than the M-113A3 against both
of these types of threats.
https://web.archive.org/web/20150924045244/http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03671.pdf
Shut the frick up, Black person.
seething.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Shut the frick up, vatBlack person moron. You subhumans should all be incinerated inside a shitty BMP deathtrap you worship.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Imagine seething this hard about a vehicle from 1960 being obsolete. It's not even like the US uses the M113 in that role anymore so why let the BMP live so rent free.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Imagine shilling for a failed abortion of a worthless vehicle because your vatBlack person brain cannot stop yourself from promoting your garbage.
3 months ago
Anonymous
https://i.imgur.com/ev1bVvz.jpg
Imagine seething this hard about a vehicle from 1960 being obsolete. It's not even like the US uses the M113 in that role anymore so why let the BMP live so rent free.
>in theory, the BMP was an amazing vehicle for its time
No it wasn't, it has always been dogshit.
https://i.imgur.com/B02xpOL.gif
Shut the frick up, vatBlack person moron. You subhumans should all be incinerated inside a shitty BMP deathtrap you worship.
Yes, I would agree, in theory, the BMP was an amazing vehicle for its time, but in practice the compromises made in its design undermined its best attributes. It's why more modern IFV's like the Chadley are better, they did not undermine the best features of the vehicle for compromises.
Imagine just lying lmao >Unlike the M-113A3, the Stryker vehicle was designed with
two significant capabilities: 14.5-mm armor protection and a Remote
Weapon Station. The M-113A3’s armor protection is less than the Stryker
vehicle’s and an upgrade package will cost about $73,000 per vehicle
>. The M113A3 was designed to provide protection
against a standard 7.62mm threat. The Army intended the Stryker to have
an all-around 7.62mm armor-piercing protection, plus 14.5 mm protection
on the front, sides, and rear. The top will have 7.62 mm armor-piercing and
152mm high explosive airburst protection, and protection against
antipersonnel mines through the vehicle floor. Stryker also has an
embedded spall liner. Also assessed was the vehicles’ ability to support
missions under different battlefield conditions such as nuclear, biological,
and chemical environments. Most of the technical evaluation occurred at
the Aberdeen Proving Ground test center. The Test Command concluded
that the Stryker vehicle was more survivable than the M-113A3 against both
of these types of threats.
https://web.archive.org/web/20150924045244/http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03671.pdf
[...]
seething.
>flame war about modern russian inferiority instead of discussing consititutions painful outclassing
why can't yanks cope with their naval inferiority in the 1800s?
3 months ago
Anonymous
>6:00 AM in London >pretending to be British to stir up infighting
please Pardeep, we all know where you're posting from
3 months ago
Anonymous
>shitting on americans in 1812 era
did it occur to you i might be a leaf?
3 months ago
Anonymous
Canada is an indian colony
3 months ago
Anonymous
3 months ago
Anonymous
Shilling? Who do you think is still buying BMPs lmao, on /k/ no less, it's fricking obsolete too. You're a /misc/brained moron who sees conspiracy in everything and that everything has to be a dick-measuring contest, even measuring armor thickness of obsolete vehicles from 60 years ago that aren't even manufactured anymore. The mere mention of the BMP's design influence on the Infantry Fighting Vehicle as a concept sending you into an autistic rage as you fling your suspiciously-sanitized feces (you have been taking dangerous doses of Ivermectin for the past three years) about Katsucon, your genshin imp@ct (censoring so that you don't think I'm talking about the Warsaw Pact, wouldn't want you to have an aneurism) cosplay and MHA bodypillow stained thoroughly with cheeto dust and what bystanders hope is mountain dew.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>The mere mention of the BMP's design influence on the Infantry Fighting Vehicle as a concept
is a vatBlack person lie through and through, and you keep peddling it like a homosexual shill you are.
3 months ago
Anonymous
The MICV-70 program that led to the development of the Chadley was started directly in response to the BMP-1's first public appearance.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Jesus Christ, you have some insane level of brainrot anon. Just because someone is saying nice things about the BMP-1 in context when it was made doesn't make them a russian spy/shill. Seek some help you loser. Also that anon is correct about the BMP's influence on IFVs. The bradley program was created as a direct response to the BMP. Its well documented and a quick google search would have told you that but continue going your moronic rants and pointing fingers at russian ghosts that you claim are here to sell BMPs.
>the M113 didn't even protect against .50 cal frontally.
It can, from 200 or so yards. M113A3 was uparmored too for even more protection. >Plus the BMP's armament was far less anaemic.
GRAU in turn had no lighter, automatic cannon available and did not oversee any institute or bureau that would be capable of designing one, as most were disbanded in the early 60’s. Automatic guns were only developed by the Soviet air force and the navy, but those fell under different government officials, not affiliated with GRAU. What made the matter even worse was the fact that certain GRAU generals „fell in love“ with the 2A28 caliber, promoting it as „the most powerful gun ever mounted on an IFV“. When actual officers in charge of these vehicles complained about the gun’s poor performance and accuracy, they were accused of poor maintenance and insufficient training with all the complaints being silently swept under the rug. But the rumors slowly made their way up the Soviet ranks and in the end, GBTU forced the issue by organizing official shooting trials at Kubinka proving grounds.
A BMP-1 was to fire against an obsolete T-55 tank at 800 meters (the target was not moving). And the result of the trials? Of 50 shots, only 17 did hit the tank - others were carried off their trajectory by the wind. The shells that did hit made their impacts under different angles – some ricocheted, some did not, but in the end, not a single shell managed to penetrate the vehicle. After the trials, a driver just drove off with the undamaged tank – a fitting testament to the inefficiency of the Grom gun.
I thought the bulges in the doors were the fuel tanks?
3 months ago
Anonymous
those are the auxillary fuel tanks
they were meant to be used while on road marches so they would be empty when you arrived at the front
and you would ideally vent them before actually getting in the fight so that the fumes wont be inside
the middle gas tank was probably more dangerous than the door ones, since the door tanks would only get hit if the enemy did a full flank
the central tank was vulnerable to side-shots, which would have made up the majority of hits
While you are correct on a technical level, practically speaking the BMP-1's 76mm gun was worse at supporting its infantry element then a simple machine gun and often got replaced by a conventional HMG by whoever it was exported to, the reduction in profile made it a cramped clown car that prevented anyone from easily crawling in or out in combat conditions (hence why so many people rode on top, negating its superior armour) and hardly anyone used its amphibious features when half of the BMP's compromises revolved around keeping it buoyant, even though it was those maneuvers where the BMP-1 was most capable.
Yes, I would agree, in theory, the BMP was an amazing vehicle for its time, but in practice the compromises made in its design undermined its best attributes. It's why more modern IFV's like the Chadley are better, they did not undermine the best features of the vehicle for compromises.
This, the victory aslo has a 50% weight advantage.
The only thing the Constitution has going for it is a couple of knots more speed to run as soon as they see the Victory.
Older naval battles were often not as straight cut as that. Smaller ships that were less armed and less manned had often been able to deliver a crippling blow on much larger ships at times. Lining up the opening salvo is the most critical for the smaller ship. One example if the Fancy crippling the Ganji-i-sawaii in a single salvo. Most engagements were line engagements between small flotillas, which meant that individual ship engagements were less important. The only way the Constitution could achieve a pyrrhic victory would be a well aimed and well prepared opening shot and then it could run. It is also heavily circumstantial to the training of both crews, the circumstances of the encounter (such as one ship mistaking the other for a non-hostile or not preparing for battle fast enough etc), and the positioning and hit rate of the first shots.
Victory would spot Constitution first by virtue of being taller. Victory’s guns should also have more range by virtue of being higher up.
I think constitution’s best bet would be to somehow stumble into Victory in restricted visibility causing a panic and get a broadside off before retreating.
>I think constitution’s best bet would be to somehow stumble into Victory in restricted visibility causing a panic and get a broadside off before retreating.
Essentially, or some other similar scenario in which Victory wasn't prepared enough by the time the Constitution gets off its first salvo.
Pretty much like pic related. A very broken and fricked up Santissima Trinidad trying to retreat from battle but getting bullied by a British third rate giving chase.
Looks like the British ship was hugging the Spanish juggernaut's rear, shooting it to pieces, and corkscrewing back and forth to prevent her prey for turning around.
3 months ago
Anonymous
And it only worked because Santissima had been shot to shit a few days before, with half her crew killed or wounded and all her masts broken.
3 months ago
Anonymous
The Santissima Trinidad has a reputation as a sluggish, barely manouverable pain in the ass to sail, plus the less than stellar spanish crew who likely spent most of the previous several years cooped up in port by RN blockade.s
Constitution had a max firing range of 1.36 miles while the Victory is lower at 1.17 miles.
Victory still wins unless it somehow gets its T crossed in a fog and is never able to fire.
Victory would spot Constitution first by virtue of being taller. Victory’s guns should also have more range by virtue of being higher up.
I think constitution’s best bet would be to somehow stumble into Victory in restricted visibility causing a panic and get a broadside off before retreating.
Max firing range means squat on those ships since they'll need to close to a few hundred yards to hit each other anyway unless they're commanded by that godly British gunner.
A lighter frigate might be able to maneuver in such a way that it can damage the rigging and rudder of the opposing ship without getting in range of its guns but since both of these ships are from the late 18th century it's unlikely to happen, compared to those earlier frigates with modern rigs running circles around 17th-century rigged battleships.
You're putting a first-rate ship of the line against an oversized frigate, aka what'd be classed as a fourth-rate udner the same system. Constitution does the only thing that makes sense and immediately gets the frick out.
HMS Victory, a low-end 4th rate cannot beat a 1st rate.
Its only 2 knots faster, with a favourable wind victory may have time in gun-range before constitution makes a lead. Constitution spent a lot of time running from 3rd rates and 4th rates, and eventually just got trapped in harbour until peacetime. At this time a frigate is generally not very useful, theyre for communication and commerce raiding or protection, they wouldnt be used in actual battles.
This is a b8 thread but I found the biggest surprise from visiting the historic dockyard was how powerful HMS Warrior was compared with even an 104 gun ships of the line. It only had 39 guns but every gun was a rifled breech loading Armstrong gun firing explosive shells with even the stern chasers being 40 pounders and the biggest guns on the gun deck being 110 pounders. While being able to outpace a heavy ship of the line using steam power.
It was a 1 ship Sinope and the first all iron warship that made every wooden ship useless like HMS Dreadnought would do do the early battleships.
>Fights off fleet of ironclads >wins
I think the Italians disproved this with their incompetence. The future is clearly lots of small cheap wooden torpedo rams.
>the first all iron warship that made every wooden ship useless
wrong, that was the french Gloire who was the first ocean-going ironclad that made everything obsolete. Ironclads existed before but they had short range so they were mostly used for siege warfare and built there just like old siege engines were built during sieges in antiquity. Gloire came and showed the world that they were actually capable of replacing the old wooden ships.
anglos are always high on their own farts
Victory has been drydocked since the 1920s and no longer sea worthy without a major restoration (which means tearing out most of the wood that was on the ship at Trafalgar) and even then it might just be too old. No restoration as historically destructive as the the Constitution got in the 20s would ever be allowed today.
Britain might have done the same if it wasn't for WW2 since a 500lb german bomb landed in Victory's dry dock and sent shrapnel into the bottom of the ship. It was repaired but to have it actually be sea worthy they'd need to rip out of the keel and other extremely old parts of the ship original to the launching in 1765 which even people in the 50s understood wasn't great for historical preservation.
HMS Implacable
Originally a French ship at the battle of Trafalgar then captured by the British. Survived afloat until 1949 when the Royal Navy scuttled her.
She rests on the dock bottom in her own purpose built drydock, so no.
You could probably get her floating again like the USS constitution but then that would kind of ruin it as an awesome museum piece.
I'm no histortrician, but a lot of museum pieces that are starting to rot away get replaced by functional replicas so the real thing can be preserved under ideal conditions (where the grimy public can't breath on them or expose them to damaging lights). For something like that, the original wood could be better preserved in an actual museum if the rot got too bad. Cut it out, replace it with the closest thing available, keep all the pieces. People like looking at authentic ship bits just fine.
yeah duh
look it up on youtube
it's a pilgrimage every age of sailgay must make at least once
Victory was fast too, especially in rough seas where she could just run people down.
It’s hard to think of a comparison in ww2 ships. Perhaps something like a torpless 6 inch cruiser against a fast BB?
you could theoretically compare Constitution with HMS London I suppose
No, she’s permanently dry docked and currently undergoing heavy rebuilding to prevent rotting away; due to this rebuilding she currently lacks her masts and is covered in scaffolding (not ideal for pretty pictures atm). Victory is more genuine compared to the Constitution because the latter has been 80% rebuilt or something to allow it to be seaworthy, while Victory is land-based and therefore has had less of it’s original timbers replaced due to rot. Victory was never struck from the Royal Navy register due to sentimentality so she’s technically still in service (despite not being seaworthy) and is the RN’s ceremonial flagship.
104 guns to 44 guns. Doesn't matter how much thicker the hull of the Constitution is a fifth-rate ship while the victory is a first rate ship.
One was meant to go toe to toe at fleet level engagements and the other to interdict commercial shipping and escorts.
Constitution was a coward little commerce raider who fled like president madison from washington whenever a ship remotely in her class came over the horizon.
Victory was as ship of the line who participated in and won the most significant naval battles of her age.
>This just in: Choosing your battles intelligently is for gays.
This wasn't in question anon, the question was what the two ships are capable of. Constitution is a commerce raider, designed to flee at the first sign of trouble. Victory is a ship of the line, designed to stand and fight. If you had the two of them fight, it wouldn't even be a contest.
Constitution was built specifically to be a frigate, *not* a ship-of-the-line. Her job is to outrun ships of the line and go raid the enemy's merchant fleet until they sue for peace. She never fought against anything more powerful than she was, and that was by design and doctrine.
On paper the victory wins but if im a od chance the constitution manages to fire the first volley and gets lucky by hiting the powder storage then its gg
You are spreading falsehoods. The M113A3 doesn't have side protection for .50cal, for the front it does but the sides absolutely does not. No where is it documented or ever said that the RISE program for the M113A3 introduced .50cal protection for the side.
>my personal theory is that the A3's spall liner adequately resists at least that many rounds of 50 cal, but since the reference threat is 14.5, the Army didn't publicise that data
the 14.5mm protection comes from the add-on steel armor, which was never widely issued due to the collapse of the soviet union in the 90s
smaller add-on 25mm steel armor plates were issued during the war on terror
The Constitution's hull is comprised of 3 layers of oak and got it's nickname from some of the cannonballs bouncing off of it during battle.
They also both had guns of varying size. According to a quick google search the max range:
USS Constitution gun range = 2,400 yards
HMS Victory = 2,000 yards
I'm not going to sit here and say that this ancient ship can easily beat that ancient ship because I don't know. The USS Constitution may have been smaller with less guns but it was built like a tank and had greater range. I have respect for both of these ships and they're both important, both have victories in battle and both represent a lot to their countries. I personally do not believe either would be guaranteed to win.
>3 layers of oak and got it's nickname from some of the cannonballs bouncing off of it during battle
I don't believe it ever engaged a serious warship, just frigates with light guns and carronades.
Okay, and? It was a particularly large and well built frigate that never engaged a ship with serious guns. It would have got absolutely shreked by any ship of the line.
Constitution's broadside has 15*24-pounder long guns and 11 32-pounder carronades. (Carronades are short-barrel, low velocity guns only useful at short range.)
Victory's broadside has 15*32-pounder long guns, 14*24-pounder long guns and 21*12-pounder long guns.
Constitutions nickname came from her bouncing cannonballs from HMS Guerriere, a british frigate whose long gun broadside was made up of 18-pounders. Victory's hull was built thick enough to have a chance to resist fire from 24- or at long range even 32-pounders.
Constitution is a frigate, Victory is a ship of the line. Frigates are meant to go on patrols and scouting assignments, raid merchants and screen an underway fleet. Ships of the line are meant to be the biggest, heaviest hitters in a fleet battle against peers. This is not a fight Constitution has any business to be in.
Unlike the USS Constitution, Victory actually fought equivalent vessels and they never saw her stern. Constitution fought smaller, weaker frigates and ran from anything bigger, eventually becoming a NEET ship hiding in port.
>BTW many of Constitution's crew were British
That's meaningless in the age of sail, sailors were unironically an Internationale fraternity of everything and anything
British historians also note that the Victory's crew included Swedes, Russians, Chinamen, Spaniards, Italians, West Indians, etc. Navies were desperate for men and would take anyone in.
Sounds Kino tbh, imagine sailing the seven seas with your bizarro gang consisting of a Chinese fellow, some random African, Englishmen, probably an Arab at some point, etc.
Sailors also dropped dead like flies from banal shit like yellow fever, malaria (ravaged them in the tropics), the fricking flu, etc. Like 90% of deaths in any Napoleonic era conflict is just guys getting a bad infection from a scratched arm lol
I’m just sad we scrapped all our dreadnoughts (despite inventing the concept) and battleships (especially Warspite) before they could be preserved unlike the US, all we’ve got left from that era is dinky little HMS Belfast. Guess it wasn’t a high priority after being bankrupted by two subsequent world wars…
What are the starting conditions, support availability and objectives?
If:
i) Ships start outside the longest engagement distance,
ii) No other support is available, but both ships can deliver practically infinite salvos over long time,
iii) Both ships are committed to fight to death,
iv) No basic mistakes are made by either ship,
then USS Constitution wins after a few months of shooting and scooting.
Explanation is that a faster and lighter ship can choose how and when an engagement would occur if there's no time pressure. They can avoid getting into unfavorable engagements and only approach when they have the best chance of landing some shots without retaliation, retreat and repeat again. It would take really long time and a lot of ammunition, but in the end Constitution can win if they don't make mistakes.
Realistically though, they would never duel like you're asking. USS Constitution would never enter into a duel like this and HMS Victory would never be tasked to hunt down a frigate (if I'm not mistaken Constitution is a frigate). The only engagement would be part of a larger naval battle and in that case outside factors would determine the outcome, not the two ships themselves.
>if I'm not mistaken Constitution is a frigate
she would be classed as a heavy frigate by the british which is why they sent one of their own heavy frigates (hms shannon) after uss chesapeake.
The Constitution was designed from the start to be able to outrun such vessels. It'd be a hopeless fight if she committed. They built the original frigates to outfight any other frigate but being able to outrun ships of the line.
i got to go on board this thing when i was 12. Found a crewmember in the log with my surname. Very cool experience. the historic dockyards in Portsmouth is a solid way to spend an afternoon. My favorite one was the HMS Warrior
>American sailors tend to be of higher quality than their British counterparts though
what? the one time two ships of very similar size and firepower clashed was chesapeake vs Shannon, and that went to the british by a decisive margin.vnvw
Victory was fast too, especially in rough seas where she could just run people down.
It’s hard to think of a comparison in ww2 ships. Perhaps something like a torpless 6 inch cruiser against a fast BB?
Completely different sizes of vessels, it's like comparing a BMP (the Constitution) and a Challenger (the Victory)
>BMP (the Constitution)
Please, Constitution isn't some rusty cramped deathtrap with spotty and failed history. It should be at least an M113, probably even a Bradley.
M113 offers significantly less protection from fire than a BMP. BMP frontal armor protects vs .50cal fire frontally and 7.62 on sides and rear, the M113 didn't even protect against .50 cal frontally. Plus the BMP's armament was far less anaemic. Been too much BMP slander on here recently, it was great for its day.
You'll get called a vatnig but you are correct, the soviets invented the IFV and the US was scared of the BMP-1 for good reason.
I like the look of the BMP-2 but it entered service 1 year before Chadley making it outdated quickly.
Would have been cool driving around Afghanistan in one but I wouldn't want to be driving one into battle today.
>Would have been cool driving around Afghanistan in one but I wouldn't want to be driving one into battle today.
Maybe not after they gave the mujahedin MILAN missiles.
Eat shit and die.
>the M113 didn't even protect against .50 cal frontally
M113 is frontally protected against .50cal and has all-around .30cal protection
virtually identical to the BMP until the 90s, when the M113A3 has 14.5mm all-around resistance when using add-on belt armor
No, the M113A3 does, a variant from 1987, a full 27 years after the US began fielding the M113 and a full 21 years after the Soviets began fielding the BMP-1.
Western IFV design owes a debt to the BMP, things like the Chadley were a direct response and validation of the BMP concept.
M113 was equally protected as the BMP-1, with all-around .30 and frontal .50
the M113A3 was better protected with 14.5mm protection on the front and sides
so the BMP was not better protected than the M113
Imagine just lying lmao
>Unlike the M-113A3, the Stryker vehicle was designed with
two significant capabilities: 14.5-mm armor protection and a Remote
Weapon Station. The M-113A3’s armor protection is less than the Stryker
vehicle’s and an upgrade package will cost about $73,000 per vehicle
>. The M113A3 was designed to provide protection
against a standard 7.62mm threat. The Army intended the Stryker to have
an all-around 7.62mm armor-piercing protection, plus 14.5 mm protection
on the front, sides, and rear. The top will have 7.62 mm armor-piercing and
152mm high explosive airburst protection, and protection against
antipersonnel mines through the vehicle floor. Stryker also has an
embedded spall liner. Also assessed was the vehicles’ ability to support
missions under different battlefield conditions such as nuclear, biological,
and chemical environments. Most of the technical evaluation occurred at
the Aberdeen Proving Ground test center. The Test Command concluded
that the Stryker vehicle was more survivable than the M-113A3 against both
of these types of threats.
https://web.archive.org/web/20150924045244/http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03671.pdf
seething.
Shut the frick up, vatBlack person moron. You subhumans should all be incinerated inside a shitty BMP deathtrap you worship.
Imagine seething this hard about a vehicle from 1960 being obsolete. It's not even like the US uses the M113 in that role anymore so why let the BMP live so rent free.
Imagine shilling for a failed abortion of a worthless vehicle because your vatBlack person brain cannot stop yourself from promoting your garbage.
>flame war about modern russian inferiority instead of discussing consititutions painful outclassing
why can't yanks cope with their naval inferiority in the 1800s?
>6:00 AM in London
>pretending to be British to stir up infighting
please Pardeep, we all know where you're posting from
>shitting on americans in 1812 era
did it occur to you i might be a leaf?
Canada is an indian colony
Shilling? Who do you think is still buying BMPs lmao, on /k/ no less, it's fricking obsolete too. You're a /misc/brained moron who sees conspiracy in everything and that everything has to be a dick-measuring contest, even measuring armor thickness of obsolete vehicles from 60 years ago that aren't even manufactured anymore. The mere mention of the BMP's design influence on the Infantry Fighting Vehicle as a concept sending you into an autistic rage as you fling your suspiciously-sanitized feces (you have been taking dangerous doses of Ivermectin for the past three years) about Katsucon, your genshin imp@ct (censoring so that you don't think I'm talking about the Warsaw Pact, wouldn't want you to have an aneurism) cosplay and MHA bodypillow stained thoroughly with cheeto dust and what bystanders hope is mountain dew.
>The mere mention of the BMP's design influence on the Infantry Fighting Vehicle as a concept
is a vatBlack person lie through and through, and you keep peddling it like a homosexual shill you are.
The MICV-70 program that led to the development of the Chadley was started directly in response to the BMP-1's first public appearance.
Jesus Christ, you have some insane level of brainrot anon. Just because someone is saying nice things about the BMP-1 in context when it was made doesn't make them a russian spy/shill. Seek some help you loser. Also that anon is correct about the BMP's influence on IFVs. The bradley program was created as a direct response to the BMP. Its well documented and a quick google search would have told you that but continue going your moronic rants and pointing fingers at russian ghosts that you claim are here to sell BMPs.
Shut the frick up, Black person.
>the M113 didn't even protect against .50 cal frontally.
It can, from 200 or so yards. M113A3 was uparmored too for even more protection.
>Plus the BMP's armament was far less anaemic.
GRAU in turn had no lighter, automatic cannon available and did not oversee any institute or bureau that would be capable of designing one, as most were disbanded in the early 60’s. Automatic guns were only developed by the Soviet air force and the navy, but those fell under different government officials, not affiliated with GRAU. What made the matter even worse was the fact that certain GRAU generals „fell in love“ with the 2A28 caliber, promoting it as „the most powerful gun ever mounted on an IFV“. When actual officers in charge of these vehicles complained about the gun’s poor performance and accuracy, they were accused of poor maintenance and insufficient training with all the complaints being silently swept under the rug. But the rumors slowly made their way up the Soviet ranks and in the end, GBTU forced the issue by organizing official shooting trials at Kubinka proving grounds.
A BMP-1 was to fire against an obsolete T-55 tank at 800 meters (the target was not moving). And the result of the trials? Of 50 shots, only 17 did hit the tank - others were carried off their trajectory by the wind. The shells that did hit made their impacts under different angles – some ricocheted, some did not, but in the end, not a single shell managed to penetrate the vehicle. After the trials, a driver just drove off with the undamaged tank – a fitting testament to the inefficiency of the Grom gun.
Pic related, the white seat in the middle is an aluminum fuel tank.
I thought the bulges in the doors were the fuel tanks?
those are the auxillary fuel tanks
they were meant to be used while on road marches so they would be empty when you arrived at the front
and you would ideally vent them before actually getting in the fight so that the fumes wont be inside
the middle gas tank was probably more dangerous than the door ones, since the door tanks would only get hit if the enemy did a full flank
the central tank was vulnerable to side-shots, which would have made up the majority of hits
Wow those are rather sizable kids. What the frick do they feed them.
Jeez man the kids inside make it look even more cramped.
Also grim mobilization and conscription vibes.
There's a reason they usually ride on top.
“Bladdimir farted inside the BMP again, damnit!”
While you are correct on a technical level, practically speaking the BMP-1's 76mm gun was worse at supporting its infantry element then a simple machine gun and often got replaced by a conventional HMG by whoever it was exported to, the reduction in profile made it a cramped clown car that prevented anyone from easily crawling in or out in combat conditions (hence why so many people rode on top, negating its superior armour) and hardly anyone used its amphibious features when half of the BMP's compromises revolved around keeping it buoyant, even though it was those maneuvers where the BMP-1 was most capable.
I guess it did all right in Afghanistan.
Yes, I would agree, in theory, the BMP was an amazing vehicle for its time, but in practice the compromises made in its design undermined its best attributes. It's why more modern IFV's like the Chadley are better, they did not undermine the best features of the vehicle for compromises.
>in theory, the BMP was an amazing vehicle for its time
No it wasn't, it has always been dogshit.
Soviet BMP > M113
Putiet BMP < M113 , better specs but inferior crew, leadership, logistics, maintenance et cetera..
Victory would if Constitution chose to stay and take the battle.
The Constitution has 44 guns.
HMS victory has 104.
It’s not even close. The constitution is getting taint torn in that engagement.
This, the victory aslo has a 50% weight advantage.
The only thing the Constitution has going for it is a couple of knots more speed to run as soon as they see the Victory.
Constitution also can handle rougher seas better due to lacking gunports on lower decks and is more maneuverable.
Older naval battles were often not as straight cut as that. Smaller ships that were less armed and less manned had often been able to deliver a crippling blow on much larger ships at times. Lining up the opening salvo is the most critical for the smaller ship. One example if the Fancy crippling the Ganji-i-sawaii in a single salvo. Most engagements were line engagements between small flotillas, which meant that individual ship engagements were less important. The only way the Constitution could achieve a pyrrhic victory would be a well aimed and well prepared opening shot and then it could run. It is also heavily circumstantial to the training of both crews, the circumstances of the encounter (such as one ship mistaking the other for a non-hostile or not preparing for battle fast enough etc), and the positioning and hit rate of the first shots.
Victory would spot Constitution first by virtue of being taller. Victory’s guns should also have more range by virtue of being higher up.
I think constitution’s best bet would be to somehow stumble into Victory in restricted visibility causing a panic and get a broadside off before retreating.
>I think constitution’s best bet would be to somehow stumble into Victory in restricted visibility causing a panic and get a broadside off before retreating.
Essentially, or some other similar scenario in which Victory wasn't prepared enough by the time the Constitution gets off its first salvo.
Pretty much like pic related. A very broken and fricked up Santissima Trinidad trying to retreat from battle but getting bullied by a British third rate giving chase.
Looks like the British ship was hugging the Spanish juggernaut's rear, shooting it to pieces, and corkscrewing back and forth to prevent her prey for turning around.
And it only worked because Santissima had been shot to shit a few days before, with half her crew killed or wounded and all her masts broken.
The Santissima Trinidad has a reputation as a sluggish, barely manouverable pain in the ass to sail, plus the less than stellar spanish crew who likely spent most of the previous several years cooped up in port by RN blockade.s
Constitution had a max firing range of 1.36 miles while the Victory is lower at 1.17 miles.
Victory still wins unless it somehow gets its T crossed in a fog and is never able to fire.
Max firing range means squat on those ships since they'll need to close to a few hundred yards to hit each other anyway unless they're commanded by that godly British gunner.
A lighter frigate might be able to maneuver in such a way that it can damage the rigging and rudder of the opposing ship without getting in range of its guns but since both of these ships are from the late 18th century it's unlikely to happen, compared to those earlier frigates with modern rigs running circles around 17th-century rigged battleships.
Or catching them by surprise and boarding them
You're putting a first-rate ship of the line against an oversized frigate, aka what'd be classed as a fourth-rate udner the same system. Constitution does the only thing that makes sense and immediately gets the frick out.
They'd never fight. The Constitution would haul ass out of there if it was faced with such a large ship and the Victory couldn't catch it.
HMS Victory, a low-end 4th rate cannot beat a 1st rate.
Its only 2 knots faster, with a favourable wind victory may have time in gun-range before constitution makes a lead. Constitution spent a lot of time running from 3rd rates and 4th rates, and eventually just got trapped in harbour until peacetime. At this time a frigate is generally not very useful, theyre for communication and commerce raiding or protection, they wouldnt be used in actual battles.
You know what was HMS Victory actually doing during the American Revolution, anyway
weird how they weren't victorious.
Fighting the French at the first and second Battles of Ushant and then running convoys to Gibraltar.
This is a b8 thread but I found the biggest surprise from visiting the historic dockyard was how powerful HMS Warrior was compared with even an 104 gun ships of the line. It only had 39 guns but every gun was a rifled breech loading Armstrong gun firing explosive shells with even the stern chasers being 40 pounders and the biggest guns on the gun deck being 110 pounders. While being able to outpace a heavy ship of the line using steam power.
It was a 1 ship Sinope and the first all iron warship that made every wooden ship useless like HMS Dreadnought would do do the early battleships.
Based ironclad enjoyer.
Honestly sounds like a larger paradigm shift than the Dreadnought.
Warrior isn't an Ironclad, she's got a fully steel hull. Ironclads are wooden hulled ships with armor plates attached.
Warrior was also ridiculously overbuilt. They basically treated it as if they were building a wooden ship, but used steel instead.
>Fights off fleet of ironclads
>wins
I think the Italians disproved this with their incompetence. The future is clearly lots of small cheap wooden torpedo rams.
>the first all iron warship that made every wooden ship useless
wrong, that was the french Gloire who was the first ocean-going ironclad that made everything obsolete. Ironclads existed before but they had short range so they were mostly used for siege warfare and built there just like old siege engines were built during sieges in antiquity. Gloire came and showed the world that they were actually capable of replacing the old wooden ships.
anglos are always high on their own farts
>muzzle loading cannons
lmao. France always taking the L to the RN.
French invented the naval use of exploding shells. Much harder to come up with something new than to improve something that existed.
Is the HMS Victory even seaworthy? Does she have more than a token crew?
Victory has been drydocked since the 1920s and no longer sea worthy without a major restoration (which means tearing out most of the wood that was on the ship at Trafalgar) and even then it might just be too old. No restoration as historically destructive as the the Constitution got in the 20s would ever be allowed today.
Britain might have done the same if it wasn't for WW2 since a 500lb german bomb landed in Victory's dry dock and sent shrapnel into the bottom of the ship. It was repaired but to have it actually be sea worthy they'd need to rip out of the keel and other extremely old parts of the ship original to the launching in 1765 which even people in the 50s understood wasn't great for historical preservation.
Jesus Christ is there anything in historical Europe that the Nazis didn't find a way to ruin?
You sound ridiculous.
You'd understand his pain if you were from Poland/St Petersburg/Rotterdam
Fun fact: German soldiers tried to exterminate the only Eurasian visent population left on earth out of spite. Almost succeeded.
Rotterdam, absolutely, but it was an accident.
Poland/ St. Petersburg, commies did more damage than Germans ever could.
>Rotterdam, absolutely, but it was an accident.
they accidentally destroyed 80% of the city?
HMS Implacable
Originally a French ship at the battle of Trafalgar then captured by the British. Survived afloat until 1949 when the Royal Navy scuttled her.
She rests on the dock bottom in her own purpose built drydock, so no.
You could probably get her floating again like the USS constitution but then that would kind of ruin it as an awesome museum piece.
I'm no histortrician, but a lot of museum pieces that are starting to rot away get replaced by functional replicas so the real thing can be preserved under ideal conditions (where the grimy public can't breath on them or expose them to damaging lights). For something like that, the original wood could be better preserved in an actual museum if the rot got too bad. Cut it out, replace it with the closest thing available, keep all the pieces. People like looking at authentic ship bits just fine.
One of the problems with ships is they’re expensive as shit. In scrap steel alone old WW2 battleships are worth millions.
The Chinese are busy salvaging battleships built before the first atomic bomb was detonated, for uncontaminated steel
They just replace the wood. Only about 20% of the Victory is original wood.
Can you take tours inside?
yeah duh
look it up on youtube
it's a pilgrimage every age of sailgay must make at least once
you could theoretically compare Constitution with HMS London I suppose
by which I mean the County-class cruiser with the upgraded armour belt
No, she’s permanently dry docked and currently undergoing heavy rebuilding to prevent rotting away; due to this rebuilding she currently lacks her masts and is covered in scaffolding (not ideal for pretty pictures atm). Victory is more genuine compared to the Constitution because the latter has been 80% rebuilt or something to allow it to be seaworthy, while Victory is land-based and therefore has had less of it’s original timbers replaced due to rot. Victory was never struck from the Royal Navy register due to sentimentality so she’s technically still in service (despite not being seaworthy) and is the RN’s ceremonial flagship.
>because the latter has been 80% rebuilt
Woah there thesius, don't start that argument
she'll never be seaworthy. not since the nazis broke her back on March 10th 1941 - . a 250kg bomb broke her keel in two.
but in all honesty, she's not been seaworthy since the 1830's
What I'm getting from the replies to this is that the Constitution would win because she can move under her own power, has a crew, and isn't rotting.
No guns and no gunnery crew. What's she gonna do, try and ram the drydock?
104 guns to 44 guns. Doesn't matter how much thicker the hull of the Constitution is a fifth-rate ship while the victory is a first rate ship.
One was meant to go toe to toe at fleet level engagements and the other to interdict commercial shipping and escorts.
Victory had a devastating broadside its no contest
How do they deal with shipworm infestations with these old wooden ships?
They’re constantly drydocked, new anti fouling paint applied etc.
Constitution was a coward little commerce raider who fled like president madison from washington whenever a ship remotely in her class came over the horizon.
Victory was as ship of the line who participated in and won the most significant naval battles of her age.
This just in: Choosing your battles intelligently is for gays.
I'm sure there's openings in Russian command; seems like you'd fit right in.
>This just in: Choosing your battles intelligently is for gays.
This wasn't in question anon, the question was what the two ships are capable of. Constitution is a commerce raider, designed to flee at the first sign of trouble. Victory is a ship of the line, designed to stand and fight. If you had the two of them fight, it wouldn't even be a contest.
So you b***h about it doing its designed purpose -- one very fricking relevant in war -- then get mad at me for calling you a fricking moron.
Next thing you're gonna tell me is why ghillie suits are for cowards.
without shells either is useless
HMS Victory and it's not even close.
Let's see the ballistic tests you performed then, anon, since this is an issue you have to take up with the United States Army.
Constitution was built specifically to be a frigate, *not* a ship-of-the-line. Her job is to outrun ships of the line and go raid the enemy's merchant fleet until they sue for peace. She never fought against anything more powerful than she was, and that was by design and doctrine.
On paper the victory wins but if im a od chance the constitution manages to fire the first volley and gets lucky by hiting the powder storage then its gg
You are spreading falsehoods. The M113A3 doesn't have side protection for .50cal, for the front it does but the sides absolutely does not. No where is it documented or ever said that the RISE program for the M113A3 introduced .50cal protection for the side.
>my personal theory is that the A3's spall liner adequately resists at least that many rounds of 50 cal, but since the reference threat is 14.5, the Army didn't publicise that data
the 14.5mm protection comes from the add-on steel armor, which was never widely issued due to the collapse of the soviet union in the 90s
smaller add-on 25mm steel armor plates were issued during the war on terror
Neither. The Constitution would get away and the Victory wouldn't be able to catch up.
Victory 10 times out of 10 if she has the weather gage.
If the other way around the Constitution runs away 10 out of 10 times.
Its sort of comparing who would win in a head on collision between a freight train and a sports car.
Are you kidding? The USS Constitution NCC-1700B vs the HMS Victory? No contest, the Federation starship wins.
The Constitution's hull is comprised of 3 layers of oak and got it's nickname from some of the cannonballs bouncing off of it during battle.
They also both had guns of varying size. According to a quick google search the max range:
USS Constitution gun range = 2,400 yards
HMS Victory = 2,000 yards
I'm not going to sit here and say that this ancient ship can easily beat that ancient ship because I don't know. The USS Constitution may have been smaller with less guns but it was built like a tank and had greater range. I have respect for both of these ships and they're both important, both have victories in battle and both represent a lot to their countries. I personally do not believe either would be guaranteed to win.
>3 layers of oak and got it's nickname from some of the cannonballs bouncing off of it during battle
I don't believe it ever engaged a serious warship, just frigates with light guns and carronades.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Constitution_vs_HMS_Guerriere
The constitution WAS a frigate bongoloid
Okay, and? It was a particularly large and well built frigate that never engaged a ship with serious guns. It would have got absolutely shreked by any ship of the line.
Because it was designed to overpower Atlantic traffic vessels not slow heavy warships you park off the coast.
Did you even read the OP?
Constitution's broadside has 15*24-pounder long guns and 11 32-pounder carronades. (Carronades are short-barrel, low velocity guns only useful at short range.)
Victory's broadside has 15*32-pounder long guns, 14*24-pounder long guns and 21*12-pounder long guns.
Constitutions nickname came from her bouncing cannonballs from HMS Guerriere, a british frigate whose long gun broadside was made up of 18-pounders. Victory's hull was built thick enough to have a chance to resist fire from 24- or at long range even 32-pounders.
Constitution is a frigate, Victory is a ship of the line. Frigates are meant to go on patrols and scouting assignments, raid merchants and screen an underway fleet. Ships of the line are meant to be the biggest, heaviest hitters in a fleet battle against peers. This is not a fight Constitution has any business to be in.
IJN Yamato
The Royal Navy have some of the best ship names, and some of the worst.
Victory would also be a better frigate if you razee it.
I want to frick the botes.
Unlike the USS Constitution, Victory actually fought equivalent vessels and they never saw her stern. Constitution fought smaller, weaker frigates and ran from anything bigger, eventually becoming a NEET ship hiding in port.
BTW many of Constitution's crew were British.
>BTW many of Constitution's crew were British
That's meaningless in the age of sail, sailors were unironically an Internationale fraternity of everything and anything
British historians also note that the Victory's crew included Swedes, Russians, Chinamen, Spaniards, Italians, West Indians, etc. Navies were desperate for men and would take anyone in.
Sounds Kino tbh, imagine sailing the seven seas with your bizarro gang consisting of a Chinese fellow, some random African, Englishmen, probably an Arab at some point, etc.
Sailors also dropped dead like flies from banal shit like yellow fever, malaria (ravaged them in the tropics), the fricking flu, etc. Like 90% of deaths in any Napoleonic era conflict is just guys getting a bad infection from a scratched arm lol
Constitution sails away to bully other ships its size, Victory gets bored and chases after a French trader
Also becaue the Navy promoted based on skill, not whoever could afford the next rank like the Army.
Everyone ITT forgetting that God is on America's side.
True but God also thumbs the scale in favor of Anglos in general
what would God's intervention look like in this situation someone greentext it for me
I’m just sad we scrapped all our dreadnoughts (despite inventing the concept) and battleships (especially Warspite) before they could be preserved unlike the US, all we’ve got left from that era is dinky little HMS Belfast. Guess it wasn’t a high priority after being bankrupted by two subsequent world wars…
Yeah, it's a fricking shame we didn't keep at least one. But everyone underestimates just how economically fricked Britain was after WW2.
Unironically the last time we had Anglos migrating en masse to the Americas.
What are the starting conditions, support availability and objectives?
If:
i) Ships start outside the longest engagement distance,
ii) No other support is available, but both ships can deliver practically infinite salvos over long time,
iii) Both ships are committed to fight to death,
iv) No basic mistakes are made by either ship,
then USS Constitution wins after a few months of shooting and scooting.
Explanation is that a faster and lighter ship can choose how and when an engagement would occur if there's no time pressure. They can avoid getting into unfavorable engagements and only approach when they have the best chance of landing some shots without retaliation, retreat and repeat again. It would take really long time and a lot of ammunition, but in the end Constitution can win if they don't make mistakes.
Realistically though, they would never duel like you're asking. USS Constitution would never enter into a duel like this and HMS Victory would never be tasked to hunt down a frigate (if I'm not mistaken Constitution is a frigate). The only engagement would be part of a larger naval battle and in that case outside factors would determine the outcome, not the two ships themselves.
>if I'm not mistaken Constitution is a frigate
she would be classed as a heavy frigate by the british which is why they sent one of their own heavy frigates (hms shannon) after uss chesapeake.
The Constitution was designed from the start to be able to outrun such vessels. It'd be a hopeless fight if she committed. They built the original frigates to outfight any other frigate but being able to outrun ships of the line.
>Surviving timbers were used to build the nearby Chesapeake Mill in Wickham
Pompeyite here. I had no idea. Might try and visit over the next few days
my dick
i got to go on board this thing when i was 12. Found a crewmember in the log with my surname. Very cool experience. the historic dockyards in Portsmouth is a solid way to spend an afternoon. My favorite one was the HMS Warrior
Constitution because it can float
The victory is hands down a better ship. American sailors tend to be of higher quality than their British counterparts though
>American sailors tend to be of higher quality than their British counterparts though
what? the one time two ships of very similar size and firepower clashed was chesapeake vs Shannon, and that went to the british by a decisive margin.vnvw
Convenient for you to forget the Great Lakes wars the British lost soundly.
Uh huh. Memoryholing HMS St. Lawrence turning Lake Ontario into an uncontested british pond pretty hard there.
I have two ancestors who fought at Tralgayar. One serving in HMS Neptune, the other Britannia.
>USS Constitution
oh frick yeah now we talking
You're supposed to do that with wooden sailing ships, though. And eventually turn them into floating prisons.
kino vid
When are we adding vls to the constitution?
Victory was fast too, especially in rough seas where she could just run people down.
It’s hard to think of a comparison in ww2 ships. Perhaps something like a torpless 6 inch cruiser against a fast BB?
Constitution was probably the last time the US gave a ship a name that wasn't completely fricking gay.