StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Also, what about a grenade? What would happen if you chucked a grenade down a MBT's barrel in the following scenarios:

breech open, no shell

breech closed, HE shell

breech closed, sabot round


Also, what about a obstruction with rubber seals around it? With the massive pressure from the tank firing, would the barrel rupture, or would the rock get pushed out?

What about if you poured burning napalm or greek fire or of course the ever popular burning jet fuel that melts steel beams? Could one of those things set off a HE round?

Would a MBT be damaged if burning oil was poured onto it from high above, such as from a medieval castle wall? What about a rock hitting the top from a catapult or a tech bucket?

Another question is why don't enemy forces dig holes for the enemy tanks to drive into and get stuck? They could put leaves or thin dirt over the top to make the ground look solid, when in actual fact it was not? Then they could wait until the crew leave for waters and airs and capture it.

Could a lightning gun disable a tank? Not an EMP, but a lightning gun, or even just a natural lightning bolt? If so, cause the enemy prepare AT defenses by setting up "lightning stations" which would be stations that would have a very high chance of conducting a lightning strike when a enemy tank was hopefully nearby and disable it.

And why are tanks useful still? Wouldn't a toyota pickup ute with a AT missile launcher strapped to the back be much cheaper and maybe more effective? I mean, instead of just 8000 M1 Abrams, they could have 100,000s of thousands of toyota utes driving about firing missiles and disappearing. Almost every missile would be a kill, and soon the enemy tanks would be no more.

How resistant to cruise missiles and nuclear bombs are MBTs? How much damage if a missile/nuke was "detonated:

"medium cruise missile", 50 miles away

MCM, 10 miles away

MCM, 1000 meters away

direct hit of MCM (within 5 meters)

40 kiloton nuke, 30, 10, and 5 miles away

40kt nuke, 1000 meters, 500 meters, 100 meters and direct hit (within 5 meters)

Can a M1A2 Abrams survive a direct nuclear detonation? Of course the crew would die, but how badly would the tank be damaged? Would it be mostly intact, partly salvageable or completely annihilated?

Also, in the unlikely combat scenario, what vehicle would be superior? An Abrams M1A2 tank or a Arleigh Burke destroyer, say both vehicles were 500m away from each other, and the tank was on a artificial island?

I'd like a Moderator's judgement as to whether or not Archinist is spamming this forum before proceeding. There have now been multiple threads from Archinist where he has essentially refused to debate or provide information to other posters, despite frequent requests to. As one example, his "Xeelee nightfighter" thread was psoted just a couple of days ago, and he has apparently already abandoned it to start this thread even though there were specific requests for additional info. According to him he abandons a thread the moment he thinks its "boring," which IMO means whenever people start to try and debate him rather than play along with whatever scheme he came up with.

Tribble wrote:I'd like a Moderator's judgement as to whether or not Archinist is spamming this forum before proceeding. There have now been multiple threads from Archinist where he has essentially refused to debate or provide information to other posters, despite frequent requests to. As one example, his "Xeelee nightfighter" thread was psoted just a couple of days ago, and he has apparently already abandoned it to start this thread even though there were specific requests for additional info. According to him he abandons a thread the moment he thinks its "boring," which IMO means whenever people start to try and debate him rather than play along with whatever scheme he came up with.

No, I saved a draft on it and will reply to it very soon. This is on a different board and is not spam. I have not abandoned that other thread, I am just typing up a large enough reply for it to be worthwhile. The mods should be able to see the different saved drafts that have been updated over a period of 1-2 days and that continually grew larger each day as more content is added.

Archinist wrote: No, I saved a draft on it and will reply to it very soon. This is on a different board and is not spam. I have not abandoned that other thread, I am just typing up a large enough reply for it to be worthwhile. The mods should be able to see the different saved drafts that have been updated over a period of 1-2 days and that continually grew larger each day as more content is added.

(line bolded for emphasis)

What makes you think all forums work the same way?

Elheru Aran wrote:

Archinist wrote: No, I saved a draft on it and will reply to it very soon. This is on a different board and is not spam. I have not abandoned that other thread, I am just typing up a large enough reply for it to be worthwhile. The mods should be able to see the different saved drafts that have been updated over a period of 1-2 days and that continually grew larger each day as more content is added.

(line bolded for emphasis)

What makes you think all forums work the same way?

Well, I would assume they could for security reasons and ummm general modding reasons. It would just make sense that the logs would be saved to somewhere on the website where they could read all of the logs if required. I think it makes sense.

Archinist wrote:

Elheru Aran wrote:

Archinist wrote: No, I saved a draft on it and will reply to it very soon. This is on a different board and is not spam. I have not abandoned that other thread, I am just typing up a large enough reply for it to be worthwhile. The mods should be able to see the different saved drafts that have been updated over a period of 1-2 days and that continually grew larger each day as more content is added.

(line bolded for emphasis)

What makes you think all forums work the same way?

Well, I would assume they could for security reasons and ummm general modding reasons. It would just make sense that the logs would be saved to somewhere on the website where they could read all of the logs if required. I think it makes sense.

When you assume, you make an Ass out of U and Me (sorry, couldn't resist using that saying).

But seriously, maybe you should try actually engaging with your existing threads - which by now are legion - before you start spinning off into new ones again and again.

And if your MO is entirely to ask lots and lots of questions, I cannot recommend Quora http://www.quora.com enough, which is designed to literally be the social network of questions. You can even request answers from experts or respected people within each category, and the responses you get are generally quite respectful and polite, even to the wackier ones.

Chimaera wrote:

Archinist wrote:

Elheru Aran wrote:
(line bolded for emphasis)

What makes you think all forums work the same way?

Well, I would assume they could for security reasons and ummm general modding reasons. It would just make sense that the logs would be saved to somewhere on the website where they could read all of the logs if required. I think it makes sense.

When you assume, you make an Ass out of U and Me (sorry, couldn't resist using that saying).

But seriously, maybe you should try actually engaging with your existing threads - which by now are legion - before you start spinning off into new ones again and again.

And if your MO is entirely to ask lots and lots of questions, I cannot recommend Quora http://www.quora.com enough, which is designed to literally be the social network of questions. You can even request answers from experts or respected people within each category, and the responses you get are generally quite respectful and polite, even to the wackier ones.

Well, that's actually where I got the questions for this thread from. There was a thread there which about only a few hundred likes or so, and some guy had posted a reply to it saying that a tank's barrel would be badly damaged by throwing a knife down inside it, and would also be destroyed/damaged by a grenade. He had 80 likes, but I'm not sure how a knife will damage the barrel, so I asked the question on here.

Archinist, look at this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compariso ... m_software

There are literally twenty different versions of software you can use.

The fact of the matter is that you tend to post stupid topics, reply after the first few replies, and then drop the thread like a hot potato until someone calls you out specifically.

This is NOT productive forum behavior. This is like being in a restaurant, and you sit down randomly at a booth that people are already sitting at, ask a question, wait around for a while as people try to answer your dumb-ass question, and then you leave without any indication that you've learned anything whatsoever.

Does Archinist really believe we mods can see what forum members save as drafts?

Does he also really believe we have no better way to spent our time than to go through what members have saved in their draft folders?

Does he also believe drafts count as replies to a thread?

Really?


Moved to a more deserving forum.

ARCHINIST strikes again.

The other thread was more insane though.

its stupid but it does amuse me. Also edit to add this video on tank testing of the Swedish S-tank
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiWCpIJ5dBw

Archinist wrote: breech open, no shell

Very loud noise, gas and a couple fragments would enter the turret. This would probably not cause any further damage but the crew would need to open the hatches from the fumes, unless they had an NBC hose fed mask system on. Some tanks have that.

The barrel would be too damaged to be safely fired, but it might be repairable by a divisional level maintenance unit, in combat the maintenance unit would just swap out the barrel for a good one off a tank with heavier damage, and attempt to repair the barrel later or pass it up to the corps level on a returning supply truck.

breech closed, HE shell

Grenade would not detonate the HE round. The HE fuse is not live before firing, and the grenade would not even come close to being able to penetrate the shell walls at that distance. Maybe not even in direct contact.

breech closed, sabot round

No relevant damage, shell might be slightly less accurate if it was hit by a big fragment on the sabot.Only the few fragments that come off the grenade going directly down the bore will actually travel the distance, the rest are going to ricochet too much too quickly.

If you actually wanted to try this tactic a grenade is not useless, but you would really want more like a half pound block of C4 wired as a demolition charge with a short length of time fuse. This would give you a much greater blast, and actually burst open the enemy gun and wreck it for good.

Also, what about a obstruction with rubber seals around it? With the massive pressure from the tank firing, would the barrel rupture, or would the rock get pushed out?

A solid enough obstruction would make the barrel rupture. In fact one way artillery crews can wreck an artillery piece to avoid capture is to strip the driving band off one shell, and ram that into the barrel backwards. Then load another shell normally and fire it by remote method. The gun breach and barrel will both be blown apart. The Germans absurdly wrecked all their abandon coastal guns in the Flanders in 1918 like this, and it blew battleship guns and mountings apart.

What about if you poured burning napalm or greek fire or of course the ever popular burning jet fuel that melts steel beams? Could one of those things set off a HE round?

With traditional TNT/RDX types of explosives jet fuel fires will detonate them rapidly, though it might be hard to keep a fire going in the gun barrel. Very modern IM explosives would just burn, but only the US and France have gotten all that far actually fielding ammo like that in service. The tech was originally for making nuclear weapons designs safer.

Would a MBT be damaged if burning oil was poured onto it from high above, such as from a medieval castle wall? What about a rock hitting the top from a catapult or a tech bucket?

Enough burning oil might be effective. Depends on where and what tank. Tanks are not immune to sustained fires. But point of tank is tank can move to avoid standing in a pool fire. Napalm air strikes against tanks have some effectiveness but its not really worth trying on purpose.

Also I suggest watching this video of Swedish tank S-Tank live firing trials, which include napalm and simulated nuclear blast using a shock tube.

Another question is why don't enemy forces dig holes for the enemy tanks to drive into and get stuck? They could put leaves or thin dirt over the top to make the ground look solid, when in actual fact it was not? Then they could wait until the crew leave for waters and airs and capture it.

That's a valid tactic, called a tank trap.

And why are tanks useful still? Wouldn't a toyota pickup ute with a AT missile launcher strapped to the back be much cheaper and maybe more effective? I mean, instead of just 8000 M1 Abrams, they could have 100,000s of thousands of toyota utes driving about firing missiles and disappearing. Almost every missile would be a kill, and soon the enemy tanks would be no more.

The problem with 100,000 Toyotas is that they are vulnerable to 100% of weapons, at any range those weapons can shoot. You might have 100,000 Toyotas, but the enemy will also have 155mm howitzer and mortars and rocket launchers and millions of shells for them. Close to 1 billion artillery shells were fired in WW1, the war thatgave birth to the tank as a solution to machine gun-artillery defenses.

Without tanks your back to enemy being able to stop your advance with just machine guns and artillery, just as they could stop the Toyotas. And even if you armor the Toyotas they are still pretty damn vulnerable to artillery, and if immune to machine guns they are still vulnerable to a 20mm cannon that can fire hundreds of shells per minute.

How resistant to cruise missiles and nuclear bombs are MBTs? How much damage if a missile/nuke was "detonated:

MBTs are very resistant to all nuclear effects except neutrons, which will kill the crew first. Depending on the tank a 10kt nuke might kill the crew at 500-1000m, a 1kt neutron bomb produces a similar effect. Above that yield your out of the range of tactical nuclear weapons.

To physically rip apart and destroy the entire tank structure you'd need it inside the nuclear fireball for some length of time. As nuke yield go up the fireball isn't just bigger, it lasts a lot longer.

The 1940s tests indicated that US battleships would withstand low yield nuclear blasts to the edge of the fireball as well. Everyone above the armor deck would be killed by radiation though. Human technology is no joke.

Sea Skimmer wrote:

Another question is why don't enemy forces dig holes for the enemy tanks to drive into and get stuck? They could put leaves or thin dirt over the top to make the ground look solid, when in actual fact it was not? Then they could wait until the crew leave for waters and airs and capture it.

That's a valid tactic, called a tank trap.

Worth noting: tank trap won't work if the tank can simply drive out. If it's shallow enough, there's nothing to stop the loader from popping out with a spade to gouge out the front of the hole while the commander/gunner covers them with the MG's. Hole needs to be deep enough with steep enough sides that the tank will get well stuck.

Also, while nuclear blasts are pretty impressive... armour is similarly impressive, and once you get past the direct blast zone, it's only going to increase your protection from said nuke. Granted, the closer you are, the less happy you will be about it, and your vehicle won't take it very well either if it's close enough to get knocked about, but overall it's far better to have it than not.

There's a major reason the NATO and Soviets both had massive numbers of tanks on their frontiers, even though they knew those would likely be targets in initial nuclear attacks... the tanks would be very likely to survive the initial attacks and ram their way forward through the front lines, even if the crew would die sooner or later from radiation, and they would be able to hold off ground forces coming from either direction long enough for reinforcements to be brought in from further behind the lines.

Elheru Aran wrote:

Sea Skimmer wrote:

Another question is why don't enemy forces dig holes for the enemy tanks to drive into and get stuck? They could put leaves or thin dirt over the top to make the ground look solid, when in actual fact it was not? Then they could wait until the crew leave for waters and airs and capture it.

That's a valid tactic, called a tank trap.

Worth noting: tank trap won't work if the tank can simply drive out. If it's shallow enough, there's nothing to stop the loader from popping out with a spade to gouge out the front of the hole while the commander/gunner covers them with the MG's. Hole needs to be deep enough with steep enough sides that the tank will get well stuck.

Additionally, it needs to be deep enough that a second tank can't just pull the trapped one out.

Frankly with the development of combat engineering vehicles earthen tank traps simply take too much effort for their worth on any large scale. Useful for guerilla forces or logistically isolated forces, but any industrial army with the logistics to back it will find it easier and more effective to employ concrete barriers such as dragon's teeth or metal roadblocks like Czech hedgehogs.

Even of those, any well prepared force can dispose of them just as easily as earthen barriers or traps. In general land mines work much better at limiting the movement of enemy forces.

I don't see the need for the tank trap to be foolproof, the point is to delay the enemy and make the recovery team vulnerable to small arms if you don't have anti tank weapons in the first place. This is a tactic you integrate into larger plans. Certainly it is a tactic for weak forces against the strong but that was the point.

The problem generally with any mine or surface obstruction is you can clear it or demolish it with explosives remotely unless enormous in size, while ditches and holes have to be filled in which means a halt during the breach operation. It starts to eat up a lot of extra engineering capacity. And if you get a tank stuck in a mud hole recovery may be impossible in any functional sense. Holes seldom stay dry.

Hedgehogs are only good against light tanks, dragonsteeth work but to stop a modern tank each one needs to weigh about 9-10 tons, which adds up awful quickly. The biggest ones you see on famous German west well were themselves only meant to stop 52 tonne tanks. In real life these are really only a peacetime option, at which point money is the only limit. Some of the ROK's anti tank walls were 100ft thick at the base, with about six feet of frontal concrete facing. However most of the really big ones close to Seoul have now been removed, because urban sprawl has turned all the open valleys into solid apartment buildings, which is an a far better obstruction. The ones right at the DMZ all remain but average a lot smaller, 40-60ft range

Artificial flooding is also an excellent way to go, even slight increases in water levels can bring big results making boggy ground. Depending of course on where you are.

Also one problem with hole obstructions, but also the heavier duty surface obstructions like berms or heavy dragons teeth is they start to shelter attacking infantry from defensive fire. In WW2 the Germans found they had to put anti tank ditches inside their defensive positions rather then on the edges to prevent Russian infantry from taking them over as jumping off points for an assault.

Something very important to remember is that while tanks are vunerble to infantry, tanks are rarely deployed exclusively, often you have IFVs, APCs or simply guys on foot covering the tanks from infantry getting in close.

Technicals (that's the official name for toyotas with a AT weapons) have the same problem but lack the armor of a tank so you still have a vehicle you need have infantry escort to prevent enemy getting in close but now you have vehicle that has the armor and durability of a normal civilian car. It should tell a lot that technicals are popular only when the people cannot afford actual tanks and aren't seen as a viable replacement for actual tanks.

Yes if enemy infantry gets in close they can wreck a tank but guess what most militaries in the world know this so they've developed tactics to prevent the enemy infantry from getting in close.

Thanks to Sea Skimmer this thread has been saved and will now be moved back to OT.

That's the thing with some of these threads - there actually is a nugget of interesting topic buried under the bullshit. I don't know if it's worth it to try to better educate Archinist or if on balance the effort is worth it, but I'd like to see Dumber Than Parrots improve his dumbshit:interesting topic ratio.

Lord Revan wrote:Technicals (that's the official name for toyotas with a AT weapons)

I googled this after reading your post and I learned something today.

TheFeniX wrote:

Lord Revan wrote:Technicals (that's the official name for toyotas with a AT weapons)

I googled this after reading your post and I learned something today.

I looked up in Wikipedia out curiosity and I found this about their effectiveness " In direct engagements, they are no match for heavier vehicles, such as tanks or other AFVs."

Tanks have been used for a century (pretty much exactly 100 years, first tanks were used in 1916) and armored cars for even longer, if you could easily replace a tank with an unarmored car it would have been done decades ago as modern tanks are both more durable and faster then the WWI ones.

Hell armoured wagons were used in the late Middle Ages by the Hussites... it's not a particularly new concept.

Well I wanted to keep my examples restricted to modern vehicles to point out that while modern tanks are somewhat vunerble against infantry that has been known for as long as tanks have existed and thus militaries have developed tactics to counter those weaknesses and since unarmored cars were not used as tank replacements in neither WWI or WWII it's rather obvious that unarmored cars don't act as tank replacements all that well, I could also point out that tanks have not been replaced by cars in their intended role in any conflict since WWII if the force fighting could afford tanks, Technicals are used by warlords who cannot afford proper military hardware.

Now cars have a role in modern military but it's as scouts or urban patrol vehicles not as tank replacements (since you wouldn't use tanks in an urban battlefield if can avoid it anyway).

Lord Revan wrote:Now cars have a role in modern military but it's as scouts or urban patrol vehicles not as tank replacements (since you wouldn't use tanks in an urban battlefield if can avoid it anyway).

It depends on the nature of said urban battlefield. I believe they were used fairly frequently in such situations in Iraq, because a) the insurgency didn't have anything that could hurt them, b) they attracted an enormous volume of small arms fire and c) their training rounds could punch holes through walls to kill snipers/MGs/etc without flattening the whole building.