NationStates

Fordorsia wrote:

Paragania wrote:brum brum

(Image)

Needs a machine gun mounted in the back window

And another one in front seat, left.

Theodosiya wrote:

Fordorsia wrote:
Needs a machine gun mounted in the back window

And another one in front seat, left.

And two mounted over the engine for the driver.

The Kievan People wrote:

Gallia- wrote:i dont have the book on my desk but R. Simpkin talks about a sort of "rule of thumb" for full bore AP rounds' maximum penetration into armour in Antitank

i will find it later if kyiv doesnt snipe me first

Ur clear.

I don't have my own copy of Antitank.

Mine, along with a lot of my books, have been in a box for over a year.

I'll build some bookshelves after I move next month and maybe have them out by MGV number 12.

Gallia- wrote:

The Kievan People wrote:
Ur clear.

I don't have my own copy of Antitank.

R. Simpkin says a "yardstick" of "detonation after one caliber of penetration" for Soviet APHE presumably BR-412 or something

183mm king of the undulating terrains

Was that British 183mm gun actually intended for AT use? It always struck me as an artillery piece.

Imperializt Russia wrote:

Gallia- wrote:
R. Simpkin says a "yardstick" of "detonation after one caliber of penetration" for Soviet APHE presumably BR-412 or something

183mm king of the undulating terrains

Was that British 183mm gun actually intended for AT use? It always struck me as an artillery piece.

The British army was considering after ww2 using the 183mm as their primary anti tank weapon, as it was deemed that nothing could withstand a 183mm HESH round.

Are there any good articles on the 215 183? Wiki doesn't cite anything in the list of 215 variants.

Imperializt Russia wrote:Are there any good articles on the 215 183? Wiki doesn't cite anything in the list of 215 variants.

There's one in Russian. Possibly you could either:

1. Put it into Google translate?

2. Give me $20 to translate it.

Also, even after the 183mm idea was scrapped, some of the early plans for the chieftain had it with a semi-autoloading 155 mm gun in a cleft turret.

Novorden wrote:

Imperializt Russia wrote:Was that British 183mm gun actually intended for AT use? It always struck me as an artillery piece.

The British army was considering after ww2 using the 183mm as their primary anti tank weapon, as it was deemed that nothing could withstand a 183mm HESH round.

Well they weren't wrong, right?

Fordorsia wrote:

Novorden wrote:The British army was considering after ww2 using the 183mm as their primary anti tank weapon, as it was deemed that nothing could withstand a 183mm HESH round.

Well they weren't wrong, right?

Refer to my Rule #1.

Novorden wrote:Also, even after the 183mm idea was scrapped, some of the early plans for the chieftain had it with a semi-autoloading 155 mm gun in a cleft turret.

So what actually was it that killed the 183? I guess nothing truly "killed" it, since it didn't progress much beyond the mockup stage?

Imperializt Russia wrote:

Novorden wrote:Also, even after the 183mm idea was scrapped, some of the early plans for the chieftain had it with a semi-autoloading 155 mm gun in a cleft turret.

So what actually was it that killed the 183? I guess nothing truly "killed" it, since it didn't progress much beyond the mockup stage?

There were several firing prototypes. I'm looking at photos of them right now.

Of the gun there were, sorry, yes, I meant the combat vehicles to carry them (my limited understanding was that 4005 was a test bed for the 215 183, which never progressed beyond mockup). Was 4005 a firing prototype?

Finished set.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ff4OqL2vDT8

Imperializt Russia wrote:

Novorden wrote:Also, even after the 183mm idea was scrapped, some of the early plans for the chieftain had it with a semi-autoloading 155 mm gun in a cleft turret.

So what actually was it that killed the 183? I guess nothing truly "killed" it, since it didn't progress much beyond the mockup stage?

From what I have read, the size of the gun and the low velocity of the HESH round.

Purpelia wrote:

Transvaal Vrystaat wrote:Yes, but you can still shoot down a pigeon.

Signal flags are where it's at.

Clearly what is needed is some sort of bulletproof pigeon. Or maybe one that flies so fast that it can't be hit. The answer is clear. Steroids.

You must not be afraid to dream a little bigger darling.

Stealth pigeons are the solution.

Pigeons are already stealthy.

I'm quite sure a pigeon's RADAR signature is tiny.

Tule wrote:

Purpelia wrote:Clearly what is needed is some sort of bulletproof pigeon. Or maybe one that flies so fast that it can't be hit. The answer is clear. Steroids.

You must not be afraid to dream a little bigger darling.

Stealth pigeons are the solution.

Steroid use in pigeons is a real thing.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9055965

People apparently use it to cheat in pigeon racing.

Why is your pigeon flying over enemy lines?

I doubt very much that it is possible for a person who is not a trained skeet/pigeon shooter to shoot down a pigeon, especially with a rifle.

Imperializt Russia wrote:So what actually was it that killed the 183? I guess nothing truly "killed" it, since it didn't progress much beyond the mockup stage?

I don't know the exact reason, but it dates from the era when NATO was working itself into a frenzy over the mostly imaginary capabilities of Soviet heavy tanks.

Sanity sort of returned in the 60s.

I have read that it was killed off by the advent of ATGMs.

Paragania wrote:Finished set.

(Image)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ff4OqL2vDT8

Beautiful

tonk

Husseinarti wrote:(Image)

tonk

Looks pretty tall

Fordorsia wrote:

Husseinarti wrote:(Image)

tonk

Looks pretty tall

Its 2.3 meters tall.