Non Sequitur

Shirocco · 5:59am

Copy-pasting image and text straight off another site (because they wrote it so well)

Vickers A1E1 Independent

Quote:

One of the most famous tanks never produced in the world. The Independent caused a stir everywhere. Like the famous battleship Dreadnought, this tank caused a revolution in heavy tanks with it's multi-turreted design. Not only were nations envious and wanted one of their own for prestige, but it caused panic with money conscious politicians, and a research in battlefield tactics. The idea of this tank was a coupling of heavy firepower, the ability to defend, and a total dominance of the area within it's range. The vehicle was built in 1925 and only a lack of funds stopped it from becoming part of the British army. Only one was ever built, but lessons learned from this design assisted future armored vehicles. Producers of multi-turreted tanks were Germany, USSR, Japan, and Great Britain. The USSR, who's motto could have been "just add more steel", built the monsterous T28 and T35 tanks which were nearly a virtual copy of the Independent. Nations that considered building them (had plans but stopped just short of building) were Poland, USA, and France.

Multi turret tank. Dear as hell, looked lethal on paper. The hilarity ensued for the next 10 years before all involved realised they were too hard to command. Kids, that means you have 1 guy to call targets for 5 gunners and ammo type for 5+ loaders. Remembering every gun could be choosing from 1-3 different types of shell for different targets. And the enemy could still annihilate you if you get any 1 of these commands wrong. Oh and lets not forget hearing the driver shout at you there's a crater right in front (which the commander can't see from his roost), or calls of dire warning from the mechanic as the overstressed engine trys to heave it up any slopes.

So yes, hilarity ensued for a good 10 years. Then they gave up and went single turret. So it has remained!

Shirocco · 12:38am

M48 Patton, American tank that saw many conflicts (the largest being Vietnam). Largely immune to most vietnamese ordinance, the worst Charley'd inflict being to blow a track off (usually)... at which point the crew sit & wait in there (maybe 30min) until the rest of their unit caught up, seeing as Charley didn't have the means to do much else.

Had a bunch of variants, as successful tanks tend to do... one of which was the M67 Zippo, a flamethrower tank that's seen the screens in at least a couple movies. Pretty sure there was one in Apocalypse Now, an old 'nam flick.

The MG on the right being an old .30 Browning. Don't see them much anymore.

DeaconBlues · 12:44am

Corkscrew tank:

Heard about this on Cracked.com. The Russians (surprise surprise) were looking for a more efficient way of getting big, heavy vehicles to go through snow. It actually worked pretty well too! The only catch was that it ONLY worked in snow.

Shirocco · 4:32am

Works in swamps great too. Russians have lots of snow...and swamps... hence the invention. (youtube of it)

Very cool. See some of the linked stuff in there too, also cool.

Weishan · Mar 5 '10, 2:16am

Quote:

Originally Posted by leons1701

I believe it might be theoretically capable of that kind of speed, but practically, the occupants would shaken right into the hospital on most offroad terrain.

Apparently some US tank crews remove the governors on their M1A2s to get another 10-20 kph out of their tanks. Part of the reason tanks aren't moving faster is the wear and tear on parts and fuel costs.

leons1701 · 6:30am

Well, yeah, without a darn good reason, it's far better not to drive tanks at all. The preferred way to get a tank somewhere is to put it on another vehicle, be that truck, train, boat or plane. Only in combat does it really make sense to drive tanks around.

Shirocco · 10:43pm

Yeop, same with bulldozers and cranes. "Walking" them (drive under their own power) is expensive - very heavy, fuel hungry, and tracks themselves are expensive as hell. Not to mention they wear out quite fast & damage roads.

Less chat more tanks!

M26 Pershing. Arrived in WW2 too late to make a difference. Bit like the Americans themselves.

I kid. But only a little.

Shirocco · 6:45am

Aaaand a tank that actually did something: the Centurion!

Quote:

MK V Centurion Tank

This was Australia's battle tank During the Vietnam War. Weighing 50 tons it was initially thought the tank would be too heavy for the jungles in the Republic of South Vietnam, but the tank stood the test and the men of 1st Armoured Regiment fought many courageous battles and supported 5RAR on many occasions and during the Battle of Binh Ba.

Like any tank crew in a real war they've gone with the usual tradition of hanging stuff off it that civvies can only guess at... like that pair of spare wheels on the front. Deck chairs unpictured.

British tank crews were fond of carrying a hot barrel of tea instead (got that from Andy Mcnab's first novel). We Aussies woulda no doubt gone with a cold keg of VB given half a chance! "No, sir, it's lubricant"

Edited in 03/11/11 V

Shirocco · 6:51am

Australia's very own 169041 - the "nuclear tank"!

It's actually a very lucky Centurion. This one, serial 169041 was used in the 1953 British nuclear test out at Emu plains, Australia. It was parked about 500m from the epicentre with the engine running. When the engineers got back to it the vehicle was badly burnt, scratched, some side panels had come off and it had been pushed 1.5 meters. It was driven off the site under it's own power! The only reason the engine had stopped running was it ran out of fuel waiting.

169041 went on to serve for another 21 years, including a period in Vietnam. It's now in one of our war memorials.

That's her on the big day, before the blast. The tower in the background had the nuke at it's top. I'm guessing, but i'd say the tower was to simulate an airburst (nukes are generally set off in midair, not on impact).

Quote:

During the few hours leading up to detonation on 15 October 1953, the Centurion’s main and auxiliary generator engines were started and the various electrical systems switched on. All hatches were then closed.

Surprisingly, the blast caused less damage than expected.

The tank stayed upright, but was pushed back over 5 feet and skewed slightly to the left.
Most of the heavy transmission deck covers were thrown open and ended up resting on the rear of the turret.

Surfaces facing the epicentre were all sandblasted and the glass lenses on the optical equipment were badly pitted.

The heavy side plates were all torn off and deposited up to 200 yards away, while the track guards and side bins were badly distorted but remained on the vehicle.

Lighter items such as the aerials were carried away, and canvas components like the mantlet cover were burned off.

Interestingly, the report concluded that the most vulnerable part of a Centurion tank caught in an atomic blast was the crew!

When first observed by a survey party only 60 minutes after the blast, the engine was not running, but investigations later ascertained that it had simply run out of fuel a few minutes after the blast.

- great article!

Edit in 03/11/11
I tracked down more pics and info about it. Apparently 169041 is now privately owned by a chap in the ACT (Australian Capital Territory), at a place called "Hall". Here's some pics.

Demented · Mar 24 '10, 5:29am

I recently finished volume 2 of David Drake's Complete Hammer's Slammers. I recommend the books, and the cover art for the Complete compilations is pretty awesome.

Unfortunately, thje minis they make for the wargame based off the books are less so.

Panzer with two-man jeep and dismounted infantry.

Non Sequitur

Most awesome tank pic