Page 2 of 315 FirstFirst 123451252102 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 6295

Thread: Tank porn [NSFW]

  1. #21
    Movember 2011 RazoR's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    The Motherland
    Posts
    26,907

    Re: Tank thread


  2. #22
    cyberjunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    :lolHolland:
    Posts
    25

    Re: Tank thread

    German tanks, best tanks. Shame we're all dumping them because of a 1bill euro budged cut. Fucking recession.


  3. #23
    Movember 2011 RazoR's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    The Motherland
    Posts
    26,907

    Re: Tank thread

    [youtube:ksbkqen7]G0Of0UngQ1o[/youtube:ksbkqen7]

    [youtube:ksbkqen7]Y92fWdb12i8[/youtube:ksbkqen7]

    [youtube:ksbkqen7]ql3nbUUKaBo[/youtube:ksbkqen7]

  4. #24

    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    SW Oklahoma
    Posts
    24

    Re: Tank thread

    Fucking tanks, how do they work?


  5. #25
    Donor Tellenta's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    16,062

    Re: Tank thread

    That's a lot of smoke in the turret from firing =/. Granted my tank experience goes all the way to shooting a 25mm in a Bradley in basic so my experience with tanks is limited one could say non-existent seeing how the Bradley is an APC. Also I can see what they mean by the auto loaders eating fingers and other body parts that get in the way.

  6. #26
    Movember 2011 RazoR's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    The Motherland
    Posts
    26,907

    Re: Tank thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenta
    That's a lot of smoke in the turret from firing =/. Granted my tank experience goes all the way to shooting a 25mm in a Bradley in basic so my experience with tanks is limited one could say non-existent seeing how the Bradley is an APC. Also I can see what they mean by the auto loaders eating fingers and other body parts that get in the way.
    They forgot to turn on the ventilation or the ejector's fucked.
    [youtube:du8m8u3p]t53giOyZRxs[/youtube:du8m8u3p]

  7. #27
    Donor Tellenta's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    16,062

    Re: Tank thread

    That makes sense. Being blinded by the first couple shots, and suffocated if you need to have sustained fire seemed a little odd to me.

  8. #28
    Fara's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    1,643

    Re: Tank thread

    My only experience with tanks are personel transporters... and they're not comfortable for sleeping

  9. #29

    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    263

    Re: Tank thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Fara
    My only experience with tanks are personel transporters... and they're not comfortable for sleeping
    This is what you want for sleeping in:

    You don't want people shooting at it though...

  10. #30
    Donor Tellenta's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    16,062

    Re: Tank thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Pontifex Tellanius
    You don't want people shooting at it though...
    That's true for most APC's they are usually armored against small arms fire. But heavy weapons chew through them. They're made for speed and maneuverability and ease of concealment mostly. Unless of course its designed by committee. Then you get the Bradley, a reconnaissance element that sports the tallest and most distinct profile in existence. I'll give you the lowdown on how it was developed, have a friend in my VFW hall that was on the development board of that clusterfuck.

    Start: we need something like the commies have.



    Ok but lets give it tracks.

    Oh wait here you guys go.

    [youtube:1h9oekni]pyakI9GeYRs[/youtube:1h9oekni]

  11. #31
    Dirk Magnum's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 18, 2011
    Posts
    2,769

    Re: Tank thread

    The one time I've ridden in a Bradley the thing wreaked of gas fumes that made me nauseous the whole time. Fun ride in the commander seat though with fresh air coming in from the hatch. Caiman is a surprisingly comfortable ride as a passenger even for someone of my height.


    Found this link on the supposed T-95 tank that the Russians scrapped funding for. The middle image looks like a different chassis than the others, and appears to have a higher overall profile. Anyway the crew compartment and blastwall features seem pretty neat. The story leaves me wondering though if there's ANY way to manually load the main gun in the event of an autoloader failure.

  12. #32
    Movember 2011 RazoR's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    The Motherland
    Posts
    26,907

    Re: Tank thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Dirk Magnum
    The one time I've ridden in a Bradley the thing wreaked of gas fumes that made me nauseous the whole time. Fun ride in the commander seat though with fresh air coming in from the hatch. Caiman is a surprisingly comfortable ride as a passenger even for someone of my height.

    Found this link on the supposed T-95 tank that the Russians scrapped funding for. The middle image looks like a different chassis than the others, and appears to have a higher overall profile. Anyway the crew compartment and blastwall features seem pretty neat. The story leaves me wondering though if there's ANY way to manually load the main gun in the event of an autoloader failure.
    Why "surprisingly"? Caiman is big as fuck.


    Research is always going on even if it's not funded by the gov-ment. Pretty much what was happening in 90's.

    This time it actually is and shit is being done but we are taking the low road as studies like the 08.08.08 war show T-72s are still enough to project power on neighbors.

    Object 195 (T-95) is pretty neat and future projects will surely follow it's cliff notes.

    And no, Dirk, you can't. At least not in combat.

  13. #33
    Donor Tellenta's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    16,062

    Re: Tank thread

    Quote Originally Posted by RazoR
    Quote Originally Posted by Dirk Magnum
    The one time I've ridden in a Bradley the thing wreaked of gas fumes that made me nauseous the whole time. Fun ride in the commander seat though with fresh air coming in from the hatch. Caiman is a surprisingly comfortable ride as a passenger even for someone of my height.

    Found this link on the supposed T-95 tank that the Russians scrapped funding for. The middle image looks like a different chassis than the others, and appears to have a higher overall profile. Anyway the crew compartment and blastwall features seem pretty neat. The story leaves me wondering though if there's ANY way to manually load the main gun in the event of an autoloader failure.
    Why "surprisingly"? Caiman is big as fuck.


    Research is always going on even if it's not funded by the gov-ment. Pretty much what was happening in 90's.

    This time it actually is and shit is being done but we are taking the low road as studies like the 08.08.08 war show T-72s are still enough to project power on neighbors.

    Object 195 (T-95) is pretty neat and future projects will surely follow it's cliff notes.

    And no, Dirk, you can't. At least not in combat.
    Which is primarily why the U.S. does the manual load thing. Secondary is the statistics of crew mangling of early auto loader designs.

  14. #34
    Movember 2011 RazoR's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    The Motherland
    Posts
    26,907

    Re: Tank thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenta
    Which is primarily why the U.S. does the manual load thing. Secondary is the statistics of crew mangling of early auto loader designs.
    No, U.S. does manual load because they can't engineer for shizzle

    Also show me these statistics.

  15. #35
    Donor Tellenta's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    16,062

    Re: Tank thread

    Quote Originally Posted by RazoR
    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenta
    Which is primarily why the U.S. does the manual load thing. Secondary is the statistics of crew mangling of early auto loader designs.
    No, U.S. does manual load because they can't engineer for shizzle

    Also show me these statistics.
    my google-fu is weak, but I'll try. It's not something that is probably out there easy to spot I'm sure. But it surrounds the damaging of limbs and fingers mostly, not saying that manual loading is all that better, but it does remove a point failure and nasty moving parts.

  16. #36
    Movember 2011 RazoR's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    The Motherland
    Posts
    26,907

    Re: Tank thread

    Why make a tank safe for it's crew lowering it's offensive capabalities? It is supposed to kill shit!

    [youtube:31jzvgny]SHWHjK2VsUo[/youtube:31jzvgny]
    ^A Discovery's review of T-72 now deleted (?!) from jewtube.

  17. #37
    Donor Tellenta's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    16,062

    Re: Tank thread

    This is literally the best I am willing to do.

    The T-72 autoloader differs from the T-64 and T-80 basket autoloader, in that it has both propellant and projectile stored horizontally. The carousel rotation is limited to 1 direction only. in normal operation, the cassette loader takes 6 seconds to load a round. However, it can take up to 15 seconds to load a round if the round desired is a 355 degree turn of the carousel away. There has been rumors that the autoloader has eaten the hands of gunners, and fed them into the main gun breech, but this is impossible. The gunner would have to put his hand into the breech, after pushing the gun load button. Most likely, the source of this urban legend goes back the the very first autoloader models that were integrated into the T-62 as well as the unprotected hydraulic loading mechanism of the BMP-1 where a uniform could get snagged with moving parts and the resulting injuries.

    In the case of an autoloader failure, the TC has 2 manual cranks, one of which is attached to a bicycle chain, to rotate the carousel, and hoist the ammunition elevator. However, this is painstakingly slow, taking over 1 minute to complete the loading of a single round. Fortunately the autoloader is very simple, and extremely reliable. In the Finnish army, there's usually less than 1 autoloader failure a year
    There you be, keep in mind the aversion from the auto loader in the states started early in tank development and became habit and then doctrine.

  18. #38
    Movember '11 Ginger Excellence Movember 2011Movember 2012 sarabando's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Basingstoke England
    Posts
    2,363

    Re: Tank thread

    t-90 is just a t-72 with a new turret C/D?

  19. #39
    Dirk Magnum's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 18, 2011
    Posts
    2,769

    Re: Tank thread

    Quote Originally Posted by RazoR
    Why "surprisingly"? Caiman is big as fuck.
    I think I was just sort of expecting the worst based on previous armored vehicle experience. I'm several inches taller than the maximum height recommendation for the Abrams and in boots and helmet I'm as tall as the 6'8" / 203cm height limit for the Army in general, so it was always going to be a bit of a struggle with vehicles (or so I thought.)

    Turns out my first assignment to an anti-armor company utilizing the old unarmored HMMWVs was pretty pleasant. The command soft-top especially is quite spatious. Then the MTOE was modified to support the next planned deployment, and the entire battalion transitioned to a convoy escort-specific configuration with Caimans and up-armored humvees. The up-armors are havoc on my already damaged knees anywhere but in the driver's seat. Caiman was alright though.

  20. #40
    Tordin Varglund's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    4,206

    Re: Tank thread

    Quote Originally Posted by LeonM View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by W0lf Crendraven View Post
    Im serious.
    That's the sad part.

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •