|
|
|
#91
10-27-2010, 03:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Worst one that I ever saw was a stupid accident on a gunnery range. A
M-48A5 of the Texas National Guard was shooting night machinegun. The turret stabilizer system chose that moment to go balls up and started spinning the turret and the damned gunner didn't let go of the triggers until after he sprayed the bleachers with the better part of 200+ rounds. Wound up killing three men and injuring another seven. Training Accidents are such a damn stupid way of losing good men. 
|
|
#92
10-27-2010, 04:46 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Not that it matters much, but someone local bought a surplus T-54 from the Czechs. They keep it in a museum on a decommissioned base (the former CFB Chilliwack). Year before last I was out there and got to ride in the commander's hatch with a full family riding on the back, sides and front, tank desant-style. From what I recall, the gunner and TC were located on either side of the gun, but yeah, there was no turret basket. Brandon, I think one of the main concepts for the BMP/BMD was a vehicle that could allow infantry to fight buttoned-up on a nuclear battlefield. Not so good on the non-nuclear battlefield! Original tactical doctrine was to have the vehicle leading out front, followed by the infantry... after the Yom Kippur war this doctrine was reversed, so obviously a few kinks needed to be ironed out. Tony
|
|
#93
10-27-2010, 04:55 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I can't remember where I read this... but there was a 'training accident' were target computers were off, and weapons ended up killing a bunch of soldiers during a wargame. Just like i had read were two ships ran into each other due to a computer glitch that told the ships they were at a safe distance and they ended up scrapping paint when the quartermasters pulled back at the last minute and pulled out of the head on collision.
__________________
Fuck being a hero. Do you know what you get for being a hero? Nothing! You get shot at. You get a little pat on the back, blah blah blah, attaboy! You get divorced... Your wife can't remember your last name, your kids don't want to talk to you... You get to eat a lot of meals by yourself. Trust me kid, nobody wants to be that guy. I do this because there is nobody else to do it right now. Believe me if there was somebody else to do it, I would let them do it. There's not, so I'm doing it.
|
|
#94
10-27-2010, 05:37 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Nate,
Such disasters pre-date the modern computerised era, of course! In 1893 two British pre-Dreadnaught battleships (HMS Camperdown and HMS Victoria) collided while on exercises and sank. It's a somewhat complicated story but it boils down to how a reputedly brilliant admiral planned a showy maneuver, and no one questioned his calculations either through blind faith or a rigid adherence to orders: http://ahoy.tk-jk.net/macslog/Stupid...ndthenAdm.html Not exactly a "stupid GI" trick! Tony
|
|
#95
10-27-2010, 05:42 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
Fuck being a hero. Do you know what you get for being a hero? Nothing! You get shot at. You get a little pat on the back, blah blah blah, attaboy! You get divorced... Your wife can't remember your last name, your kids don't want to talk to you... You get to eat a lot of meals by yourself. Trust me kid, nobody wants to be that guy. I do this because there is nobody else to do it right now. Believe me if there was somebody else to do it, I would let them do it. There's not, so I'm doing it.
|
|
#96
10-27-2010, 08:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
when the Field Artillery started using computers, some of the firing errors would shock you.
I was doing a FTX once and we got to actually call in artillery. Now, I've never had problems figuring out where I am on a map, and on previous exercises I was always able to get the round on target with only 2-3 adjustments. Got into an arguement with out FO, who swore that our positions was five clicks from where I said we were. Needless to say, the ole E-5 got out voted by the 1st Lieutenant. And we used his grid coordinates to call for fire. As he was completing his fire mission, I had dismounted from his M-113 and stepped into an old foxhole, and was pulling on my kevlar. About the time our Lieutenant finished saying "Get your ass back on the track now Sergeant!" We heard the whistle of incoming artillery. The spotting round struck less than 40 meters from our track. As you can imagine, the FO was back on the radio screaming "CHECK FIRE! CHECK FIRE!" And I sat in the foxhole, grinning at the Lieutenant.... 
|
|
#97
10-27-2010, 09:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
The gunner/tank commander are on the left side on the Soviet tanks all the way through the T-62 series. The T-64/T-72 are the first ones with the two seated on either side of the gun. There was a running joke about the Russians cornering the market on short (5'5"), left-handed loaders! Here's a tidbit on the BTR-60 and BTR-70 series of APCs...there are two main defects on this vehicle....the fact that it uses two bus engines as a power plant, always led to maintenance problems, although you can turn off one power plant and still have half-speed...and that the armor plate beind the first two roadwheels can be penetrated by 7.62mm AP ammo...
|
|
#98
10-27-2010, 09:39 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melbour...ager_collision Two Royal Commissions were held into the incident (the only time two Royal Commissions have ever been held into the same incident) with the second focussing on allegations that the captain of the Voyager may have been unfit for command (apparently he was an alcoholic). Given the modest size of the Australian Defence Force (both then and now) we really couldn't afford to lose a destroyer that way. Now we'll probably never again see an Australian aircraft carrier sinking an Australian destroyer because we now longer have an aircraft carrier. But that's fine because our best buddies the USA has more than enough aircraft carrier to go around
__________________
 "It is better to be feared than loved" - Nicolo Machiavelli
|
|
#99
10-27-2010, 09:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Speaking of T-72s, they've even been killed by Bradleys with 25-mm AP rounds. In both DESERT STORM and OIF-1. Several OIF kills from 3rd ID took place at less than 250 meters, and they were taking flank shots. I remember seeing Walt Rogers of CNN talking about a fight between 3-7 Cav and some T-72s, and the T-72s had been killed by Bradleys-and by 25-mm. Only one who tried to flee ate a TOW, the rest....
__________________
Treat everyone you meet with kindness and respect, but always have a plan to kill them. Old USMC Adage
|
|
#100
10-28-2010, 04:01 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Well, it didn't seem like that was the layout to me, but some written material does seem to conform to what you say so I could be wrong! Tell you what, next time I'm out in the 'Wack (CFB Chiliwack) and the museum is open I'll have a look inside the turret if I can. Then we'll see who's sorry then! Eh? Eh!  (Probably, I'll still be sorry.) Tony
|
|
#101
10-28-2010, 09:05 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#102
10-28-2010, 09:19 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
The turret is removed and some superstructure added for the training version? This tank had a turret and I rode in it, although I can't say if superstructure was added.   -The tank, although not me in the turret. http://www.cmedcentre.ca/# The owner said he had a choice between a T-54 and an M48A3 Patton and decided on the former due to cost concerns and parts availability. Also, the steel tracks were replaced by rubber-shod Centurion. He was specific (and proud) of his baby and spent time talking about engine rebuilds and the boxes on the turret sides and pretty much everything, it's difficult to see it was originally a training tank not coming up. A little off-topic, here are some pictures of Cuban variants on the BTR-60, including the middle one with a modified T-54 turret. Bottom left has a BTR-1 turret. All could make an appearance in the Twilight war!   http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums...-Fortress-Cuba Tony
|
|
#103
10-28-2010, 09:27 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
There have been several posts about favorite German weapons...here are a couple that didn't make the fav list...
The MG35/36. This was a Swedish design that was sold to the German firm of Knorr-Bremse. KB was a automotive supply company that specialized in car brakes. Looking to score a nice defense contract, KB offered the MG35/36 to the expanding Wehrmacht. Das Heer was not impressed by the design and turned the weapon down. KB however, sold a few thousand to the Waffen SS, who used it as a training weapon until enough MG34/MG42 were available to replace it, and then issued the MG35/36 to the various SS Foreign Legions which were, by then, fighting in Russia. The Knorr-Bremse MG35/36 has two major problems; first was the safety catch. If it was carelessly applied it would hold the bolt 3/4 open (cocked without the sear being engaged). If the user then snapped a magazine into place and released the safety catch, the weapon would release the bolt, chamber a round and discharge....The second problem had to do with how the stock was attached to the receiver. The attachment point was too weak to withstand the vibration of firing and the butt had a tendency to come loose and fall off the gun, a bit upsetting to the user, to say the least. The second machinegun is an oddity in the weapons race, it has been produced in virtually the same form for over 50 years and has served in every war from the Russo-Japanese to Vietnam, and yet has never been officially adopted in quantity by any major power. It is a Danish design and is named after the Danish Minister of War who was particulary enthusiatic about the weapon. The Madsen machine gun was the Norwegian Army's light machine gun in 1940 and saw service against the Germans during the invasion. It was also used by the militarys of Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, and Poland, and many of them found there way into German service. The Madsen action is based on the recoil of the barrel, which moves a pivoting breechblock. Since the block is working on a vertical arc, a separate rammer is needed to load the next round and a separate extractor is needed to remove the spent casing. It's a complex mechanism, prone to frequent jams. The major innovation that the Madsen is known for is the top-mounted curved magazine, widely copied after its introduction on this weapon. Since the Germans were using captured Madsens, some bright engineer realized that the Heer used metal link belts, and to ease ammunition supply, designed an ingenious conversion kit that allowed the use of the standard box magazine as well as the standard German Army machine gun belt. Please remember that with the complxity of the Madsen's mechanism...this is the technical equivalent of operating two elevators in the same shaft. 
|
|
#104
10-28-2010, 09:35 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
The position on the right side of the turret is the loaders.
|
|
#105
10-28-2010, 04:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I'm guessing the apparent lack of ensuring the safety of its members is a reason for such a high rate of US military training deaths?!?
|
|
#106
10-28-2010, 05:35 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Sounds like it doesn't it....
The amount of safety staff and checking that's carried out on the range here in Australia makes events like that effectively impossible.
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives. Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect" Mors ante pudorem
|
|
#107
10-29-2010, 04:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
As for the training accidents, the us military does seem to have a lot of them. And most of them are sheer stupid human error.
|
|
#108
10-29-2010, 08:50 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Well, there you go. The tank was licence-built by the Czechs, and the tracks were from a Centurion. I don't know if he had problems with them or not! Tony
|
|
#109
10-29-2010, 03:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
There is a story that floats around about the difference in quaility control between made-in-the-USSR and those copies made in Poland/Czech Republic.
When the first T-54s were sold to the Warsaw Pact, the engines were blowing at fairly short intervals. The story goes that a Polish engineer, ordered to fix the problem, took apart several of the Soviet-made engines, and discovered, about 15kgs or so of metal grit, burrs, and other debris in the engines. It was reported in some engines, that it looked like the Soviet factory workers drilled holes into the metal, and instead of sweeping the debris away, simply pushed it into the interior of the engine, some of the oil lines were so blocked with debris, that oil could not flow.
|
|
#110
10-29-2010, 05:39 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Ha, the guy told me the same story, literally! Not surprising, I guess. Tony
|
|
#111
10-29-2010, 06:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I've heard similar on Soviet ATGMs -- story being that after the Wall came down US technical intelligence guys got their hands on a lot of them care of the former DDR. Test firing them yielded a surprisingly high dud and misfire rate, owing to apparently very low end quality control.
|
|
#112
10-29-2010, 06:49 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I heard the same thing as well for US-supplied M72 LAW rockets that had been stored in Egypt for over a decade. The warheads and fuses were fine but the rocket motors misfired at a high rate. Not to say the Soviet-built weapons weren't rubbish, but apparently rocket motors have a very high failure rate over time due to chemical processes. Tony
|
|
#113
10-29-2010, 07:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Strangely, I used to date a girl years ago whose mother owned a company that made pretty good money doing surveillance on warehoused rockets and missiles, mostly (from what I gathered) watching for signs that the fuels were decaying or leaking. Apparently a pretty involved process.
|
|
#114
10-29-2010, 09:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Face it, the only decent anti-tank weapon that the Soviets had was the RPG7...and it still had a high misfire rate...not to mention, since it was fin-stabilized, that cross-winds played holy havoc with accuracy!
In spite of the stated effective range and the fancy sight, most RPG users just use the iron sights and don't fire at anything more than 250 meters.
|
|
#115
11-04-2010, 07:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Back in 1895, the US Army made the decision to retire its collection of Colt and Smith & Wesson .45 revolvers, most of these weapons dated back to 1873 and there was a lot of intrest in the new smokeless powder cartridges. So Colt sold the Army on what became the M1895 .38-caliber revolver. It was a smaller caliber, it was double-action and it was easier to shoot than the old thumb-buster single action revolvers. Looked like a great weapon.
Until the Spanish American War. In the aftermath of the SAW, the US came into possession of the Phillippine Islands, and soon found themselves involved in putting down the local resistance. It was quickly discovered that the .38-caliber round just didn't have the same knock-down effect as the old .45 and the US Army scrambled to refurbish and reissue as many of the "old" revolvers as possible. It also spurred Colt to develop the M-1911 pistol, one of the longest serving, and most reliable, hard-hitting weapons of the 20th Century. Even though the M1895 emerged with its reputation in tatters, it did see a second chance during World War One, when cases of the pistol were brought out of storage and issued as training weapons for the Doughboys.
|
|
#116
11-04-2010, 08:15 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#117
11-04-2010, 11:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Anyway, the Moro story is primarily myth -- at least the idea that the 1911 fixed the problem. There were lethality complaints concerning 30-40 Krag rounds as well, and if a full power rifle round couldn't get the job done no handgun round could. The 1911 is a great design (I carry one as a duty sidearm), but the Philippine Insurrection stories are enshrined legends rather than reality.
|
|
#118
11-05-2010, 08:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
The reason I added the M1895 pistol, is it failed the acid test of combat. In contrast, the M1894 Krag-Jorgensen was noted for several deficiencies that led to its replacement by the Mauser-based M-1903 Springfield rifle. But it was never considered to be a failed design. I certainly don't consider myself to be the guru of military weapons, the weapons that I have added to the list are based on my research and are my personal opinion. I stand by my opinion of the Colt M1895 Revolver.
|
|
#119
11-23-2010, 07:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Time for another really bad idea for a weapon.
In the late 1950s the Army, in its infinite wisdom, decided to field the the M-28 and M-29 Davy Crockett. The M-28 (120mm caliber, max range of 2,000m) and M-29 (155mm caliber, max range of 4,000m) fired the M-388 round, a modified version of the W54 nuclear warhead. This particular warhead weighs in at 23kg and had a selectible yield of 0.01KT up to 0.02KT (just about the smallest possible fission warhead). On the minimum setting, this was about twice the size of the bomb used in the Oklahoma City bombing of 1995. The problem with the Davy Crockett lies in its intended usage. It was to be deployed along the border, prior to the Soviets lauching their great drive to throw NATO into the Atlantic. The theory is that the Davy Crocketts would launch their bombs and lay a belt of intense radiation (in excess of 10,000rem) that would last for 48 hours, buying NATO time to deploy forward and defeat the Soviets. Hmmmm, a short range, very dirty nuclear warhead with a promise of being non-lethal within 48 hours....nope can't see a problem!
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.
|
|
#120
11-27-2010, 08:34 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I'm going to post this picture as soon as I get my scanner back up and running.
The source is US Infantry Weapons of the First World War by Bruce Canfield... It is an experimental combination sword and pistol made from a M1913 saber blade with a handle containing a M1911 .45 caliber pistol and a sliding shoulder stock. This unusual, one-of-a-kind prototype weapon was carried in a M1913 saber scabbard. Reportedly fabricated at the Springfield Armory. Since it may be a bit before I get to a scanner....the M1913 saber is the one designed by George Patton, a long, tapering blade, used only for the thrust. It has a bell handguard and the pistol is welded to the top of the handguard, which has seven bars welded and running back and ending in a ring, protecting the hand while it holds the pistol. You basically have the choice of shooting your target as you gallop towards it and then sticking it as you ride past. THANK GAWD only one was ever produced!!!!!
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.
|
 |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
