Jump to content
tanknet.org

Good Old Fashioned Tank P*rn


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 4.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Poor quality audio, especially in the wind and in the part near the T.D.S. I might not have understood what he said but here are my takes on this. Per shep854 above all ships are a compromise. It has been said the Iowas were a South Dakota class with an additional 10,000 tons to make an extra 6 knots and some officers thought this reasoning was not worth it. The Iowa class was designed in the in the late '30s and  I don't think the author mentioned this and/or stressed this in why the Iowa class was designed as it was. 
As far as hull shape goes, the fine bow was necessary for the speed requirements in the design. I may have missed it, but the author did not state that the T.D.S. near the bow was a compromise, as all bow protection in all naval ships is, for the shape of the hull. One need only to take a quick look to see you don't have the space for bow -- or for that matter stern --  torpedo protection on any ship. To be fair the T.D.S. on an earlier class, the North Carolina, survived a bow torpedo hit from a I.J.N. submarine torpedo, but had to retire to repair said damage.  The author stated R.N. battleships did not have a flared bow, but H.M.S. Vanguard  did. The Iowas did have low freeboard and this coupled with the fine bow made rough seas a challenge. 
The U.S.N. was aware of the air threat, hence the dual-purpose armament at this date. No navy was fully aware of how many a.a. guns and directors would be needed for W.W.2. Arcs of fire, I think, are a bit misleading as the U.S.N. had the money, manufacturing, and manpower to place a.a. guns on about every space it could.  This is especially true of the Oerlikons. I think the author stated that later U.S. cruisers had one more twin 5" mount than the Iowas. This is not true, as these cruisers had a broadside of 4 twin mounts vs 5 for the Iowas. 
The U.S.N., and other navies, were not aware that the need for electrical power and the topside space for future electronics would be as great as it was. The length of the Iowas helped in this regard. 
I'm not sure were the author got his Panama Canal information and I may not have heard him correctly, but all U.S. ships, except the Midways and the planned Montanas, could transit the Panama Canal. 
Good point on the refueling station, but this was not a primary concern and the attending ships would need to go slower than n normal in order to refuel from an Iowa. 
My two cents. 
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Rick said:

Poor quality audio, especially in the wind and in the part near the T.D.S. I might not have understood what he said but here are my takes on this. Per shep854 above all ships are a compromise. It has been said the Iowas were a South Dakota class with an additional 10,000 tons to make an extra 6 knots and some officers thought this reasoning was not worth it. The Iowa class was designed in the in the late '30s and  I don't think the author mentioned this and/or stressed this in why the Iowa class was designed as it was. 
As far as hull shape goes, the fine bow was necessary for the speed requirements in the design. I may have missed it, but the author did not state that the T.D.S. near the bow was a compromise, as all bow protection in all naval ships is, for the shape of the hull. One need only to take a quick look to see you don't have the space for bow -- or for that matter stern --  torpedo protection on any ship. To be fair the T.D.S. on an earlier class, the North Carolina, survived a bow torpedo hit from a I.J.N. submarine torpedo, but had to retire to repair said damage.  The author stated R.N. battleships did not have a flared bow, but H.M.S. Vanguard  did. The Iowas did have low freeboard and this coupled with the fine bow made rough seas a challenge. 
The U.S.N. was aware of the air threat, hence the dual-purpose armament at this date. No navy was fully aware of how many a.a. guns and directors would be needed for W.W.2. Arcs of fire, I think, are a bit misleading as the U.S.N. had the money, manufacturing, and manpower to place a.a. guns on about every space it could.  This is especially true of the Oerlikons. I think the author stated that later U.S. cruisers had one more twin 5" mount than the Iowas. This is not true, as these cruisers had a broadside of 4 twin mounts vs 5 for the Iowas. 
The U.S.N., and other navies, were not aware that the need for electrical power and the topside space for future electronics would be as great as it was. The length of the Iowas helped in this regard. 
I'm not sure were the author got his Panama Canal information and I may not have heard him correctly, but all U.S. ships, except the Midways and the planned Montanas, could transit the Panama Canal. 
Good point on the refueling station, but this was not a primary concern and the attending ships would need to go slower than n normal in order to refuel from an Iowa. 
My two cents. 
 

Good, thoughtful comments, but I kinda think you posted in the wrong forum... ūüėõ

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, shep854 said:

Good, thoughtful comments, but I kinda think you posted in the wrong forum... ūüėõ

 

:( Can't even come up with a good excuse. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

Hm. Not convinced that he operated the ammo door properly, cleaned out the shell basket, wiped the chamber. Maybe the latter happened between cuts, and he has such a hard back that he pressed the door switch with his waist (but not bloody likely).

Also, there's a grip welded to the roof for your left hand, and why are you staring at where the rounds go, the gunner already looks in that direction (and the commander probably too, as glued to seat and peri ocular as he appeared in this clip). Observe the rear!

(Yes, I know it's the firing range, there is no rear threat.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ssnake said:

Hm. Not convinced that he operated the ammo door properly, cleaned out the shell basket, wiped the chamber. Maybe the latter happened between cuts, and he has such a hard back that he pressed the door switch with his waist (but not bloody likely).

Also, there's a grip welded to the roof for your left hand, and why are you staring at where the rounds go, the gunner already looks in that direction (and the commander probably too, as glued to seat and peri ocular as he appeared in this clip). Observe the rear!

(Yes, I know it's the firing range, there is no rear threat.)

I wondered about the ammo door as well.  Good point about his watching the target area.  Overall, he seemed a bit awkward in his procedures; maybe he's new to the job and still getting familiar with the loading part.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ssnake said:

Yes... it's my inner drill instructor throwing hissy fits whenever I see something like that (grumble grumble mumble millenials mumble mumble)...

You should have a ball with this one--a bit more down and dirty:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

TBH, I usually avoid watching that, the secret ingredient to a reduced blood pressure. These are no longer my recruits. I can't switch off the spotting eye, and I can't do anything about what they're doing wrong, and in any case context is always missing, especially when there are cuts. So, ignorance is bliss.

I mean, given the thread title, like in a porn movie I simply don't want to watch incompetence at work..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a tank, but at least it has armor and gun :) Modernized Serbian 2S1, with new computerized FCS integrated with GPS, and increased RoF enabling (up the) 6 round MRSI..

DIMITRIJEO-CG2-A1765-EDLR1600-P-1.jpg

More pics and not just 2S1:

http://dimitrijeostojic.com/blog/sr/sadejstvo-2020-i-deo/

Edited by bojan
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Ssnake said:

TBH, I usually avoid watching that, the secret ingredient to a reduced blood pressure. These are no longer my recruits. I can't switch off the spotting eye, and I can't do anything about what they're doing wrong, and in any case context is always missing, especially when there are cuts. So, ignorance is bliss.

I mean, given the thread title, like in a porn movie I simply don't want to watch incompetence at work..

Succinctly stated...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...