Tank graveyard

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Hmm, so why is a supposedly Russian made rocket pod (#23 for example) clearly printed in English?

You know, that is curious. I would just have to guess that English was better understood by the plethora of international techs that Qaddafi had to hire to keep shit in the air.

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

Because the authors wanted it to happen that way. Simply because for all the points you mention they should have slaughtered the Russians.

.50 BMG passes right through what little armor a BTR has.

Now, back to what I said earlier...... I can't make sense of that post. I read it three times. Could you edit that and clarify it? One subject per paragraph, one sentence with the argument and main point, then supporting evidence in other sentences. Please.

Seriously, it is like an episode of drunk history. I thought I was bad about automatic writing and spilling it out as it has come to mind.

Army SGT - what I posted makes very good sense to me and there is nothing wrong with my writing style - and frankly if you are trying to bait me to break the board rules you are not going to get anywhere

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by unkated

The easiest way would be to pull the engine and replace it with a more modern truck engine of comparable power.

Now, note that I said "easiest", not that it would be easy. It would take a well-equipped garage and a knowledgeable team to do so. But it would probably be easier than to locate working antique replacement parts, or get the specs to some mechanical artist with a well-equipped machine shop to make them from scratch.

Uncle Ted

or just do a straight convert to allow it run on alcohol - if the Soviets did it with T-55's then you can do it with an M48

[CDAT]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

http://www.theatlantic.com/photo/201...rebels/100086/

Pictures #20 and #21 is guy reusing RPGs.

Yes as a HE not HEAT round.

[Olefin]

and HE is much easier to make in a backyard/small machine shop environment than a HEAT round

[CDAT]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

Because the authors wanted it to happen that way. Simply because for all the points you mention they should have slaughtered the Russians.

.50 BMG passes right through what little armor a BTR has.

Now, back to what I said earlier...... I can't make sense of that post. I read it three times. Could you edit that and clarify it? One subject per paragraph, one sentence with the argument and main point, then supporting evidence in other sentences. Please.

Seriously, it is like an episode of drunk history. I thought I was bad about automatic writing and spilling it out as it has come to mind.

With the .50 is that first hand experience or just hearsay? I ask because several things that I had been told were fact, when we got the chance to test for our self found out to be untrue. I was told that within one magazine of 5.56 you would chew through the armor of a M113, the 7.62X51 would go in and bounce around, and the .50 would make Swiss cheese out of it. When we go the chance to shoot one (OK it was an old ITV), after hundreds of rounds of 5.56 you were hard pressed to find any place that looked like it had taken any real damage. The 7.62 just left tiny little marks, and the .50 BMG left pock marks. This was with green/black tip. Right before us was some Brits and there Warriors with TP ammo did not even penetrate, it did leave nice sized dents were each round hit, had it been war stock ammo I have no doubt that it would have penetrated.


Olefin I also thought that it made sense, if you are looking at this objectively. If you are looking at it with rose colored lenses it may not.

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by unkated

The easiest way would be to pull the engine and replace it with a more modern truck engine of comparable power.

Now, note that I said "easiest", not that it would be easy. It would take a well-equipped garage and a knowledgeable team to do so. But it would probably be easier than to locate working antique replacement parts, or get the specs to some mechanical artist with a well-equipped machine shop to make them from scratch.

Uncle Ted

This is where I have major problems with the cannon (and changed my game's history accordingly). If Russia wanted to prevent the US from supplying/directing the war in Europe; They would have detonated several large nukes at altitude over the US and let the EMP destroy the computer modules present in almost all the machines (including engines) from the early 90's on (and we would have retaliated accordingly). You would need one of these newer engines (built to take the higher operating temperatures of ethanol) in order to build a motor that lasts. The EMP effect would have rendered most "soft-skinned" military vehicles "dead" as well. These vehicles were too numerous for even the US Army to "harden" the chips in their engine control module. There would be as many soft skinned vehicles left (not many) as armored vehicles (those vehicles being "hardened"). On the upside, there would be plenty of non-computerized parts for the remaining vehicles. This also speaks to the use of older vehicles (which were not computerized) by everyone. These older vehicles would still see limited use because they suffer damage from the use of ethanol (shortening their lifespan very quickly). Also, contrary to the cannon, gas powered vehicles cannot use methanol; There's not enough energy in methanol for effective combustion to occur. Methanol can be used in the manufacture of biodiesel (replacing the pint of ethanol per gallon of oil needed to enhance combustion) but it reduces the effectiveness of the fuel (biodiesel made with ethanol has the same economy as regular diesel). Diesel engines would be the true "workhorse" in Twilight because any fuel the engine can atomize, it can burn (including kerosene, methanol/ethanol & vegetable oil, fuel oil, old motor oil cut with dry gas, and even Propane or natural gas). The problem would be that newer 90's diesel engines were computerized (and are now not operational). This approach makes a vehicle a rare and valuable resource to be treasured.
If you would like more information on fuel and alternative fuels for military operations; Get a copy (you can download them) of the Petroleum Specialist's Handbook (MOS 77Fox) from the Army. The American Petroleum Institute also has information on fuels and their uses.

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by robert.munsey

Yes the tanks are! Don't listen to the "light Fighter" Hype!

We just need grunts as much as they need us.......

And when the s*** really hits the fan, who do you BOTH call.... The KING OF BATTLE... The Field Artillery! Infantry...ICM. Tanks...ICM-DP or HEAT.

1-800-REDLEG..... When it ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY, HAS TO BE DESTROYED!

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by swaghauler

And when the s*** really hits the fan, who do you BOTH call.... The KING OF BATTLE... The Field Artillery! Infantry...ICM. Tanks...ICM-DP or HEAT.

1-800-REDLEG..... When it ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY, HAS TO BE DESTROYED!

Actually I will agree with you there if you have the guns

Nothing says "Goodbye Ivan!" like several batteries of 105's and 155's doing a time on target mission

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by Olefin

Army SGT - what I posted makes very good sense to me and there is nothing wrong with my writing style - and frankly if you are trying to bait me to break the board rules you are not going to get anywhere

No. I am asking you to write it again, to clarify. I can pick the parts out of it, but it is a very confusing read. You're jumping back and forth. Editing that would make it readable and your point clear.

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by CDAT

Yes as a HE not HEAT round.

HEAT is an inverted cone with a detonator affixed in front equal to the depth of the cone. This focuses the blast like a Fresnel lens..... no magic or complicated machining.... The copper cone the HE is applied to on the back side is a stamped sheet of copper.

This is late 1930's refined bazooka or late 1940s panzerfaust technology not Javelin or Bill.

[unkated]

Originally Posted by swaghauler

This is where I have major problems with the cannon (and changed my game's history accordingly). If Russia wanted to prevent the US from supplying/directing the war in Europe; They would have detonated several large nukes at altitude over the US and let the EMP destroy the computer modules present in almost all the machines (including engines) from the early 90's on (and we would have retaliated accordingly).

This is where I have a problem with how many of you interpret the exchange of nukes:

According to cannon, the use of nukes was limited and stopped before it became large or excessively threatening to either side. Neither side launched so large or threatening a strike that the opposition felt they had no choice but massive retaliation.

Had they done so, we'd be playing Midnight:2000, which would be short, as characters would wander for a few months until they died of radiation poisoning.

So, in this case, for example, the Soviets did not launch an EMP strike out of fear of immediate retaliation - and as a power that was trying to coordinate a two front war, had more to lose from an EMP strike. Or worse, scaring the US into a major counterstrike before US communications degraded beyond the point where they could command one. You avoid that by not degrading the US communications via EMP strikes.

Uncle Ted

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by swaghauler

The EMP effect would have rendered most "soft-skinned" military vehicles "dead" as well. These vehicles were too numerous for even the US Army to "harden" the chips in their engine control module.

The control modules on HMMWVs is hardened against EMP since the beginning in the 80s. Even without the computer the HMMWV will run with its mechanical fuel pump. The 2 1/2s and 5 tons are also hardened against EMP.. big solid state component on the starters and control modules.

The computers help them to run BETTER, be more fuel efficient, and in better compliance with EPA emissions regulations. The still run without them.

[CDAT]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

HEAT is an inverted cone with a detonator affixed in front equal to the depth of the cone. This focuses the blast like a Fresnel lens..... no magic or complicated machining.... The copper cone the HE is applied to on the back side is a stamped sheet of copper.

This is late 1930's refined bazooka or late 1940s panzerfaust technology not Javelin or Bill.

You may want to look a bit more into this, in a nut shell you are right, however the angle of the cone and the stand off must be just right or it will not work well, maybe even less effective (depending on how off they are) than just basic HE. Getting the timing right so that when the round goes off by the time the jet is formed it is at the correct distance is complicated.

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by CDAT

You may want to look a bit more into this, in a nut shell you are right, however the angle of the cone and the stand off must be just right or it will not work well, maybe even less effective (depending on how off they are) than just basic HE. Getting the timing right so that when the round goes off by the time the jet is formed it is at the correct distance is complicated.

It isn't.........it is the opposite of the depth of the cone. This is why cratering charges and limpet mines have legs.

[robert.munsey]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

What do you call four tankers .......<snip>
What is closed up tight, covered in oil, and stinks to high heaven? You might have said tankers, but I meant canned fish.

You really are a Infantry troll aren't you?

[CDAT]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

It isn't.........it is the opposite of the depth of the cone. This is why cratering charges and limpet mines have legs.

Well I am done trying to help you, as you know more then those of us who this is what we did. Long live the Light Infantry they can do more than anyone else.

[robert.munsey]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

It isn't.........it is the opposite of the depth of the cone. This is why cratering charges and limpet mines have legs.

You idiot, it is not the distance outside the cone, it is the depth of the cone that has to be right. Along with the angle.
The road cratering charges are built a certain way and the legs are not part of the stand off. When was the last time you employed one? Get your facts straight.

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by robert.munsey

You idiot, it is not the distance outside the cone, it is the depth of the cone that has to be right. Along with the angle.
The road cratering charges are built a certain way and the legs are not part of the stand off. When was the last time you employed one? Get your facts straight.

Didn't I just say that? Inverted and opposite....... If the cone is 6 inches deep and 30 degrees the focus point is opposite of this ........ 6 inches in front.

Oh.........that is exactly why the legs exist.......the stand off for the plasma jet from the shaped charge.

http://pl.b5z.net/i/u/6070324/i/Iner...ped_Charge.jpg

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by CDAT

Well I am done trying to help you, as you know more then those of us who this is what we did. Long live the Light Infantry they can do more than anyone else.

My secondary MOS in 11B, my primary is 95B..... Which I think became 31B in the force restructure. Which means I had to learn to do more with even less.

No artillery, no Manpads, No mortars, AT4 and AT mines in the defense.

I got a truck and pistol though.

I support the Three, Follow Me!

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by CDAT

With the .50 is that first hand experience or just hearsay? I ask because several things that I had been told were fact, when we got the chance to test for our self found out to be untrue. I was told that within one magazine of 5.56 you would chew through the armor of a M113, the 7.62X51 would go in and bounce around, and the .50 would make Swiss cheese out of it. When we go the chance to shoot one (OK it was an old ITV), after hundreds of rounds of 5.56 you were hard pressed to find any place that looked like it had taken any real damage. The 7.62 just left tiny little marks, and the .50 BMG left pock marks. This was with green/black tip. Right before us was some Brits and there Warriors with TP ammo did not even penetrate, it did leave nice sized dents were each round hit, had it been war stock ammo I have no doubt that it would have penetrated.

Now I am talking about the BTR-60 and BTR-70. Can't say for the -80 or -90 from the side.

The M113 is rated for 7.62N AP ammo.... So that is what is supposed to happen. 7.62N in AP has black tips.

.50 BMG does penetrate especially SLAP to ricochet around the inside, still takes more than one strike at zero degrees deflection in the same place. M113s are also rated against 155mm / 152mm shell fragments though I can't remember if it is 20 meters or 50 meters from point of detonation.

Originally Posted by CDAT

Olefin I also thought that it made sense, if you are looking at this objectively. If you are looking at it with rose colored lenses it may not.

Let's stick to the discussion.

[robert.munsey]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

Didn't I just say that? Inverted and opposite....... If the cone is 6 inches deep and 30 degrees the focus point is opposite of this ........ 6 inches in front.

Oh.........that is exactly why the legs exist.......the stand off for the plasma jet from the shaped charge.

They existed for the old M3 not the current cratering charges brother. The legs on the old M3 Cratering charge did not exist for stand off.
Check your facts, it is not for the plasma jet. Ask your C-IED trainers in your unit for the real facts on EFP warheads.

[robert.munsey]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

Now I am talking about the BTR-60 and BTR-70. Can't say for the -80 or -90 from the side.

Let's stick to the discussion.

At what range is the US M61 AP going to penetrate the side of a BTR-60?

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by CDAT

Well I am done trying to help you, as you know more then those of us who this is what we did. Long live the Light Infantry they can do more than anyone else.

I have a solution!

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by robert.munsey

They existed for the old M3 not the current cratering charges brother. The legs on the old M3 Cratering charge did not exist for stand off.
Check your facts, it is not for the plasma jet. Ask your C-IED trainers in your unit for the real facts on EFP warheads.

When did Explosively Formed Penetrators (EFP)s, formerly called platter charges..... Become cratering charges?

EFPs are for attacking armor from the side by punching a slug through the armor not burning a hole in armor with a hot plasma jet.

So before you want to insult me........and tell me what is what.....

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by robert.munsey

At what range is the US M61 AP going to penetrate the side of a BTR-60?

Welded steel[2]
7 mm at 86° hull upper front[2][6]
9 mm at 47° hull lower front[2][6]
7 mm hull sides[6]
5 mm hull upper rear[6]
7 mm hull lower rear[6]
5 mm hull floor[6]
7 mm hull roof[6]
10 mm turret front[9]
7 mm turret sides[6]
7 mm turret sear[6]
7 mm turret roof[6]

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

When did Explosively Formed Penetrators (EFP)s, formerly called platter charges..... Become cratering charges?

EFPs are for attacking armor from the side by punching a slug through the armor not burning a hole in armor with a hot plasma jet.

So before you want to insult me........and tell me what is what.....

actually you have been doing that quite enough on your own - lets dial it down a little shall we?

[robert.munsey]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

Now I am talking about the BTR-60 and BTR-70. Can't say for the -80 or -90 from the side.

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

Welded steel[2]
7 mm at 86° hull upper front[2][6]
9 mm at 47° hull lower front[2][6]
7 mm hull sides[6]
5 mm hull upper rear[6]
7 mm hull lower rear[6]
5 mm hull floor[6]
7 mm hull roof[6]
10 mm turret front[9]
7 mm turret sides[6]
7 mm turret sear[6]
7 mm turret roof[6]

Wow ok, you can quote the armor thickness of the BTR. You still did not answer the question.
So I will repeat it;
What range does the 7.62mm M61 penetrate the side of the BTR-60 (we will keep it easy for you).

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by Olefin

actually you have been doing that quite enough on your own - lets dial it down a little shall we?

No. I have stuck deliberately to the subject without the name calling. Stick to the subject.

Ok, the Branch jokes I will take responsibility for. Those are unspecific to the individual.

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by robert.munsey

Wow ok, you can quote the armor thickness of the BTR. You still did not answer the question.
So I will repeat it;
What range does the 7.62mm M61 penetrate the side of the BTR-60 (we will keep it easy for you).

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

.50 BMG passes right through what little armor a BTR has.

Let me keep it easy for you. I didn't say 7.62N even AP when I spoke of hull penetrations through the side armor of BTR-60s and 70s....

So you misquoted me to begin with.