I like playing War Blunder, but that's kind of a /vx/ topic. Here's a picture of the time that I tried to apply dazzle camouflage to my Churchill mk III. The idea was to pretty much just rape the viewer's eyes to the point where it's harder to discern where the weakpoints actually are.
Also, how do you feel about armored cars?
When I played Planetside 2 people liked to come up with fun sci-fi ideas for tanks. Sadly the developers were either lazy or understaffed and didn't get why WoT was beloved at the time.>>257194
Armored cars are sorely underrated, like IFVs (which are the backbone of any modern army but don't get a lot of hype). They're better suited than tanks for conducting patrols and supporting infantry. Beware that the Jews use them too: https://www.military.com/defensetech/2018/06/04/chunky-new-armored-vehicles-mantis-look-space-buggies.html
Historically though, armored cars had fun designs.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ur3kRYAOFMc
THANK YOU MARVIN>>257143
How do you feel about heavily armored assualt trains?
THANK YOU MARVIN>all
How viable would a 150mm main cannon on a main battle tank be? What downsides would this have, what changes to accomodate the big gun would be required?
Russia and France are both considering it:https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/could-russias-152-millimeter-cannon-be-added-armata-tank-25182https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/26170/france-tests-huge-140mm-tank-gun-as-it-pushes-ahead-with-germany-on-a-new-tank-design
The bigger the shell, the more versatile it is; it can more easily destroy enemy armor as well as bunkers. 150mm might even be enough to mount a tactical nuclear warhead. The biggest downside is always ammo capacity. A gun is useful only so long as it has rounds to fire and bigger rounds mean you have a lot fewer. Consider that the .45 Colt 1911 was the standard-issue sidearm but had magazine capacities of only 7 rounds, and extended magazines are too big; nowadays the 9mm Sig-Sauer M17 is used as it has a capacity of 17(?) rounds which is a big difference. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbqNzjzJcC4
I hear the US once tested nuclear tank projectiles and found that they work excellently. How true is this?
Also who cares about ammo storage when you can just get more ammo from ammo trucks?
Steel isn't strong. Flesh is stronger>>257280
I know that we made nuclear artillery and a batshit crazy nuclear bazooka.
It's certainly possible but not really practical. In terms of "micro" nuclear devices, the "Davy Crockett" recoilless rifle, CS-style place-and-set bombs and even larger-bore howitzer nuclear shells (the U.S. produced a lot of 8-inch shells) are more efficient in yield and cost due to how nuclear physics operates. As far as I know this was the smallest nuclear shell designed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W48
As for the Russians, the smallest shell they produced was the ZBV3 shell. So technically, an up-armed Armata could fire one but it's unlikely. Not only are SPGs better suited for the task than tanks but tactical ballistic missiles are generally a better option nowadays.https://www.rbth.com/defence/2017/04/20/why-russia-can-but-will-not-fire-nuclear-shells-from-an-armata-tank_747106
Your second question is obviously from ignorance as you've never even seen a tank operation in a game like Arma 3. Logistics vehicles are vulnerable targets and you don't want to be sitting in a field for ten minutes while crew carry shells from the truck to your tank. It's like asking "on a deep patrol why doesn't one guy carry all the food and water so dedicated soldiers are lighter?" If he gets taken out then everyone else is out of supplies. An army runs on its stomach.
I will admit I'm new to all of this.
By the way, why do tanks have Compensators on the end of their barrels instead of silencers for night operations? Don't they want to be stealthy? I am joking, I know nothing about tanks but I know enough to know silencers wont help a gun that big and loud.
Muzzle brakes mitigate felt recoil. That may be useful for a number of reasons. When the gun fires, it isn't static. The recoil move it backwards into the turret. With a muzzle brake, it may not need to move back as far which can allow you to utilize a smaller turret or give the crew more room to operate. It may also allow you to use a more powerful gun that you may normally have been able to use.>>257309
The Pershing's gun has a greater diameter than Panther F's , although the panther shoots higher velocity rounds that have superior penetration.
dumping some tanks
I got 2k hours in war thunder. It is pretty bad, but I like the game too much. We should run a /mlpol/ squad someday.
As much as people say it won't happen. I bet if the west goes to auto loaders we will start to see more potential for bigger tank rounds.
Big tank rounds are cool but I think that smaller-calibre "machine cannons" aren't given the attention they deserve. In terms of raw destructive potential they are incredible. MORE DAKKAhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UolMYY7QaA
57mm with auto loader rules.
And this is the original. (Art isn't mine)
I'll make a thread in /vx/ the next time that they do some big event. What nations do you play? I've gotten as high as the King Tigers in Germany, the churchill Mk VII in Britain (although I have the Black Prince and Strv 81), and the Hellcats in USA.
I play USA, Germany, and USSR. I got up to the T-62 in USSR, all US tanks except M1a2, and up to the Leopard 2A4 for Germany.
>>257332>Muzzle brakes mitigate felt recoil. That may be useful for a number of reasons. When the gun fires, it isn't static. The recoil move it backwards into the turret. With a muzzle brake, it may not need to move back as far which can allow you to utilize a smaller turret or give the crew more room to operate. It may also allow you to use a more powerful gun that you may normally have been able to use.
Modern tanks rarely have muzzle brakes as those complicate use of sabot rounds.
Swedish Meatball goes bljööp!