sunday Posted May 16 Share Posted May 16 39 minutes ago, old_goat said: No guys, you are entirely wrong. Thats has nothing about to do with peace. It is actually a heavy bomber, now being refueled and loaded with bombs. Time to get a new exhibit, to deal with this problem: Calling this a heavy bomber could have been true 110 years ago... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old_goat Posted May 16 Share Posted May 16 20 minutes ago, sunday said: Calling this a heavy bomber could have been true 110 years ago... Ah, you dont get it. I'll illustrate below why it is a dire threat, and the Shilka is completely justified! Those bombs are extremely destructive! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunday Posted May 16 Share Posted May 16 Look up what does Taube means in German. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old_goat Posted May 16 Share Posted May 16 1 hour ago, sunday said: Look up what does Taube means in German. Ah, ok, now I understand. BTW, quite imressive little aircraft for 1910 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Sielbeck Posted May 19 Share Posted May 19 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shep854 Posted May 19 Share Posted May 19 11 hours ago, Tim Sielbeck said: Another case of sympathetic claustrophobic heeby-jeebies... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markus Becker Posted June 16 Share Posted June 16 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Sielbeck Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 (edited) Edited June 23 by Tim Sielbeck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin-Phillips Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 Just watched part 1 of the AML-60 and really enjoyed it, the humour is always greatly appreciated too. I was very surprised to learn that the 60mm could be muzzle-loaded! Did that require alot of re-design to get the 60mm ordnance suitable for both muzzle and breech loading? Fascinating stuff, keep up the great work and looking forward to seeing part 2. I must admit that even for a 3-man crew, the AML does look really cramped. No doubt a comparison between the AML-60 and AML-90 in that regard would be a very interesting one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shep854 Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 5 hours ago, Gavin-Phillips said: Just watched part 1 of the AML-60 and really enjoyed it, the humour is always greatly appreciated too. I was very surprised to learn that the 60mm could be muzzle-loaded! Did that require alot of re-design to get the 60mm ordnance suitable for both muzzle and breech loading? Fascinating stuff, keep up the great work and looking forward to seeing part 2. I must admit that even for a 3-man crew, the AML does look really cramped. No doubt a comparison between the AML-60 and AML-90 in that regard would be a very interesting one. Given the recollection of his youthful struggles, I wonder how much Nick was looking forward to Part II. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin-Phillips Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 2 hours ago, shep854 said: Given the recollection of his youthful struggles, I wonder how much Nick was looking forward to Part II. I wouldn't blame Nick in the slightest if he wasn't looking forward to it at all. Some of the tight squeezes he has put himself through to make these videos really makes me cringe at times! Utmost respect from me for continuing to do this though. I'm wondering how they even managed to fit 25 rounds of 90mm within the interior of the AML-90. 🤔 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bojan Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 IIRC AML-90 had ammo capacity of 20 rounds, and rounds were not that large since cartridge cases were pretty short and cylindrical: 8 hours ago, Gavin-Phillips said: ...I was very surprised to learn that the 60mm could be muzzle-loaded! Did that require alot of re-design to get the 60mm ordnance suitable for both muzzle and breech loading?... IIRC it used standard 60mm mortar rounds both for breech and muzzle loading. Only specialized ammo was APDSDS projectile, which is weird as hell, since it's performance was very low - only 25mm@45deg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markus Becker Posted June 29 Share Posted June 29 France defeats Ireland? This is unnatural because France and Ireland together are supposed to be working on the defeat of the perfidious English. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shep854 Posted June 30 Share Posted June 30 4 hours ago, Markus Becker said: France defeats Ireland? This is unnatural because France and Ireland together are supposed to be working on the defeat of the perfidious English. Yikes...I thought the AMLs were pretty cool little vehicles. After this, I cannot imagine operating one, let alone fighting it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markus Becker Posted June 30 Share Posted June 30 Indeed, how did this become a commercial success? Sufficient supply of dwarfs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shep854 Posted June 30 Share Posted June 30 (edited) 1 hour ago, Markus Becker said: Indeed, how did this become a commercial success? Sufficient supply of dwarfs? Maybe the reason the S. Africans were so effective with their Elands was that they were willing to kill anyone just to get out. Edited June 30 by shep854 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunday Posted June 30 Share Posted June 30 Nick is too tall. Reminds me of the fate of the Grenadier Guards when the Guards Armored Division was formed: Quote (...) the Guards Armoured Division, commanded by Major General Oliver Leese, was formed in May 1941 as a result of the shortage of armoured troops in England to face a German invasion. There was opposition to this move, as it was felt by the establishment that the height of the Guards—selected for height, amongst other criteria, as elite soldiers—would make them poor tank crew. The division originally consisted of two armoured brigades, the 5th and the 6th. These consisted of three tank regiments of Covenanter V tanks and a motor infantry battalion. A certain level of common sense was applied to these changes, with the 1st Battalion Grenadier Guards being assigned as the motor battalion, due to the presence of King's Company. This group of men were all at least 6 feet tall and were expected to struggle to fit into tanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Interlinked Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 There generally seems to be little correlation between poor ergonomics/crampedness and actual combat effectiveness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shep854 Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 56 minutes ago, Interlinked said: There generally seems to be little correlation between poor ergonomics/crampedness and actual combat effectiveness. Yep. Troops made them work, regardless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old_goat Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 (edited) 6 hours ago, Interlinked said: There generally seems to be little correlation between poor ergonomics/crampedness and actual combat effectiveness. Poor ergonomics/crampedness can be overcome to a degree (but not entirely) in some vehicles (Hetzer, T-34/85), but when the misery inside reaches a certain level, like in most french ww2 tanks or T-34/76, combat effectiveness suffers greatly. Edited July 1 by old_goat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manic Moran Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 6 hours ago, shep854 said: Yep. Troops made them work, regardless. But how well did they make them work? If memory serves, the Elands are a tad larger, must have been a reason for it. The Israelis ditched them quickly. Then again, the Israelis were in a position to obtain better. Some comments from from an Irish board. "The AML is no longer a realistic defence against enemy armour and its design makes it an ineffective recce car. Crew Fatigue plays a big part in this, though, improved crew helmets has made a difference. Driver position is only good for 50 miles max. They are of a bygone age. Remember when cars had a single bench seat in front, no reclining, and no seat belt? That generation." " " "Given the engine upgrade could have included a bigger , more powerful engine, and increased the road speed, it would compromise crew safety. Anyone who has travelled in an AML will tell you that speed on metalled roads is fine but off road the car would be far to unstable. They have a tendency to roll into corners and once or twice there were reach out and almost touch the ground moments." "We could do with medals for piloting AMLs through the city centre with questionable brakes and no power steering" "Many in Cav called them "Clown Cars"...They were better than nothing. You could write a book on their faults, their good points would fit on a post-it note." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 As my father used to say about his service in the TA driving a Daimler Ferret, 'Spam in a can' when it came to an accident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shep854 Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 Excellent points, Manic. I definitely meant 'work' with a huge qualifier. I gathered older AFVs were not really comfortable, but didn't realize how bad until you started posting your first-person videos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manic Moran Posted July 2 Share Posted July 2 19 hours ago, shep854 said: Excellent points, Manic. I definitely meant 'work' with a huge qualifier. I gathered older AFVs were not really comfortable, but didn't realize how bad until you started posting your first-person videos. Yet there were still exceptions. The Swedish L60s, for example, were astonishingly comfortable, and that's a pre-WW2 vehicle, so it could be done if they wanted. In fairness, I don't recall great issue with Panzer III either, other than the lack of driver/radioman hatches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunday Posted July 2 Share Posted July 2 (edited) 1 hour ago, Manic Moran said: Yet there were still exceptions. The Swedish L60s, for example, were astonishingly comfortable, and that's a pre-WW2 vehicle, so it could be done if they wanted. In fairness, I don't recall great issue with Panzer III either, other than the lack of driver/radioman hatches. Have you thought about writing a book on development of AFV Ergonomics? Could be an elaboration on this, for instance. Edited July 2 by sunday Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now