Tanks (vehicle)

Jim, after reading several web sites I would have to say the opem turret came for need of speed. The more heavely armored tank could not develop the manuverabilty or speed of the less armored tank destroyer. You might like to check out this web site. http://www.dnpcorp.com/609th.htm Though the need for speed over armor was certainly a consideration in TD design, I'm more of the belief that it was the designed role of the TD that resulted in it being open topped. The design philosophy being that it was the job of TD's to engage enemy armour, as opposed to US tanks which were designed for assault, infantry support and exploitation of breakthroughs. Thus if the TD were not designed with assault or infantry support in mind, but only the role of engaging enemy armor, then top armor is superfluous. Of course when they actually got into combat they were used in almost the same roles as Tanks, and US Tanks had to perform anti-tank role themself, so the problems inherent in lack of armor on the roof become apparent. But I believe the designers actually thought that they would only be used in their intended role. Designers tend to live in "la la" land a lot of the time. Mind you they were probobly only designing what they were told to by the powers that be. Anyway there are some advantages to being open topped. Visibility is improved greatly, this helps a lot if you want to get the first shot in a fight. This also goes for all-round visability as opposed to the limits placed by Tank periscopes that tend to "tunnel vision" the crew. In the case of taking a hit from the enemy there can be increased survivability for the gunner and commander of the crew, as they can just hop over the side. Or in the case of an Achilles Gunner's story I have read you can be found next to the TD after you are blown out of it by the explosion when it gets hit. I'm sure your aware of all the negatives, i.e. snipers, artillery etc. But there must have been some value in being open topped, given the Germans had a habit of making open topped TD's like the Marders, just they wern't turreted. Another example is the British Archer, which had an open topped Valentine Chassis which a fixed rear firing 17 pounder. And they were designed with the knowledge of modern combat in mind, so there must have been some percieved benifit to being open topped. Hope this is of use. Stuart I'm not sure of the why. My Dad drove one of these. He told me when they went through towns they strung chicken wire over these openings. That way, if a gernade was dropped on them it would hit the chicken wire and roll off.

The Merkava is their primary tank

In general, no. Most howitzers had a short barrel and light powder charge, mainly to make them light and manoeverable, such as for "mountain guns". They certainly weren't designed as anti-tank weapons but a hit from a howitzer round might disable a tank.

In today's modern militaries, all field guns are now howitzers (the primary definition of a "howitzer" vs a normal gun is that a howitzer is capable of elevation about 45 degrees from horizontal). While their primary mission is long-range indirect fire, they all have direct-fire capability. They also come with a wide variety of ammunition. While they don't have the APFSDS-style kinetic penetrator typical of direct-fire guns, they do have both a variety of HEAT and HESH rounds that can be very effective, plus they are capable of firing a number of different guided weapons.

So, the answer is: YES, the modern howitzer definitely has a significant anti-tank capability, though that is not their primary mission. When used in the anti-tank role, it is almost always via indirect fire dropping a variety of specialty rounds on the tops of tanks a considerable distance away. Using a howitzer in a direct-fire anti-tank role is generally a sign that something has gone seriously wrong with the tactical situation.

They're called Tracks

Between 50 and 70 tons, depending on model.

The current-generation ATG-1500 gas turbine requires about 10 gallons of fuel to make a cold start (i.e. start from a complete cold state).

Work on a replacement LV100-5 turbine has been fitful, with halts in funding and restarts in the program slowing its progress. The earliest that it will possibly be fitted to the M1 series would be 2014. The LV100-5 uses between one third and one half the gas that the ATG-1500 requires.

ARJUN is a failure because the Indian army has clearly shown a distaste for it the few tanks they have inducted are because Indian gov wants to support the indegenious arms industry

there are quite a few problems with the mbt the accuracy engine overheating low muneverability in certain conditions being a few.

The average weight of an modern tank is about 60-65 tonnes.

The US Army had neglected its armed forces in the inter-war years because of a general isolationist attitude and the impact of the great depression. It fielded a small number of uninventive tanks copied from foreign designs (Ford 3 Ton, M1922, T2), but as Americans saw the success of the German blitzkrieg strategy, they raced to catch and ramp up its production. The US dedicated its efforts to the quantity production of the M4 Sherman cranking out 34,000 of what were scornfully called "Zippos" for their ability to light up every time they were hit, though later upgrades such as a high velocity 76mm gun and better protection for the ammo stowage made the Shermans more effective. The Sherman hull was also used in a number of vehicles like the Rocket Barrage tanks, Flame Thrower tanks, Mine clearing tanks and Self-Propelled guns. For example 4,700 M7 Priest a 105mm self-propelled howitzer were produced during the war. Another medium tank fielded during the early part of the war was the M3 Lee/Grant. It had a production run of about only 6,100 as it was an unpopular tank that quickly became obsolete. Four different light tanks also saw service. The M5 Stuart with a production run of 8,800 units mounted a 37mm gun. Other light tanks were created as air mobile weapons designed for insertion by General Aircraft Hamilcar Gliders. 730 M22 Locust were produced, along with 2,500 Hellcat M18 and 4,731 Chaffee. Late in the war the only US heavy tank made its appearance. The M26 Pershing with a 90mm high velocity gun was deployed late in the war to counter the Panthers and Tigers in Normandy. It only saw action in a few instances and proved very effective. ~2,000 were produced.

1. Physical restrictions: Besides NOT being able to take cover in a fox-hole, and being largely visible above ground 24 hours a day, 7 days a week...thus being susceptible to not only drawing enemy fire, but receiving constant "hits" as well; the tank is highly restricted to crossing over sensitive land features such as: Soft ground, paved roads (they damage streets), muddy/soft sandy river bottoms which cause the tank to sink deeper into the river, and the worst part (pertaining to weight) is they CANNOT cross the hundreds or thousands of bridges that exist in the region they are operating in. 2. War (Combat) Restrictions: Most historians, Most students, Nearly all civilians, and "some" military men normally forget or omit; the number one hardship of combat: SLEEP DEPRIVATION. During past wars, such as the Vietnam War, Korea, WW2, etc. Available for ground fighting men, there were NO hi-tech aids such as computers or Un-manned robots...laser beams, or other computerized navigational systems (GPS), UAV's unmanned aerial vehicles (although a form of UAV's certainly existed in the form of "drones" and experimental radio controlled propeller driven aircraft in WW2, Korea, and Vietnam). Technology in those wars were fairly basic in the traditional way..."Manpower." And wars were conducted by fighting them the old fashioned way; send men out to the field, search for the enemy (Vietnam) or advance into enemy lands (Korea & WW2) and/or stay there until enemy "Contact" was made (Vietnam), or the enemy was driven back (Korea & WW2). This was a 24 hours, 7 days a week, 30/31 days a month job; which REQUIRED "staying awake" 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 30/31 days a month. Men had to split their sleep time to cover those hours EVERYDAY & EVERYNIGHT. The more men you had...the less time one had to stay awake. The less men you had, the longer you had to stay awake...EVERYNIGHT. From the combat arms of Armor (tanks), Artillery (guns/cannons), and Infantry (Grunts); only Armor had the smallest amount of men...4 crewmen per tank. In the Vietnam War, it was more often than not, 3 crewmen per tank. Sleep deprivation struck those tank crews the hardest; and it was very appreciative of the tank crews when their tanks could NDP (Night Defensive Positions) with other units such as Artillerymen or Infantrymen, so that they could catch up on their sleep.

Tanks were a British invention. They were supposed to have been named tanks because when they were transported to France they were stored in huge crates and listed on the manifests as �water tanks�. I think they were used at the battle of the somme.

The term "tank" was a deliberate attempt to conceal the true nature of the weapon.

Did you know that the first operational tanks were Male and Female in design? The males had more guns and the females were somewhat faster, but faster is a relative word as the fastest WW ONE tank could only get up to 5 mph. They also had a bad habit of catching on fire.

The Battle of the Somme is correct and also tanks were first used only to break down barbed wire and breach enemy lines so troops could follow in with little resistance...

Because it is very affective.

Tanks were developed in an attempt to break the trench war stalemate.

In terms of armor i'd say the British Challenger II tank

But in terms of firepower i think it is Equal to USA's Abrams tank

Both tanks use the Chobham armor but Challenger II uses a more advance class of chobham armor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Challenger_2

well first of all i have no idea what a combushion cannon is idk if its even a word. but as for the M1a1 and a2 variants the tank has a 120mm smoothbore gun which can fire 2 types of rounds the SABOT round which is like a huge depleated uranium arrow which will destroy heavy armor and the HEAT round which stands for high explosive anti tank which is used against light armour and buildings

Wood.

You can use the stock tank, and mount the electric fuel pump outside the tank. There is no need to change tanks.

By Ships and Planes

• Bastket ball
• Netball
• soccer
• Futsol
• Cricket
• Football
• Gymnastics
• Cheerleading
• Rugby
• Tag rugby
• Bagminton
• Tennis

The M-1 Abrams tank holds 500 gallons of fuel. It can be either diesel or JP-8.

There were several ways. Tanks could destroy each other with their main guns. The US also had a type of tracked vehicle, called a tank destroyer, intended to kill tanks. It had a very big gun, but no armor at all, so this turned out to be not such a good idea. Regular artillery could hurt a tank, sometimes, if the shell landed close enough. There were purpose built cannon, a type of artillery, called anti-tank guns. The one the US used was not really big enough. They'd have to hide, and wait until the tank got really close, then try to knock its treads off. Airplanes could destroy tanks with rockets or bombs. Infantry soldiers had hand-held anti-tank weapons. The US had to "bazooka", a hollow tube, about four feet long, used to fire 2.36 inch rockets, somewhat effective at close range. Better than what British troops had, which was a PIAT - a spring loaded "projector" to lob shells at tanks. The best was the German Panzerfaust, a self-propelled shaped-charge rocket, very effective. This German weapon was the direct ancestor of the Rocket Propelled Grenade (RPG) beloved by terrorists and militants today, suppled by the Russians, copied and improved from the German WWII Panzerfaust.

Tanks typically have 3 different kinds of guns- light and heavy machine guns, and the main cannon. The exact type of shell will vary with the type (and age) of the cannon. They may include high explosive shells that detonate on impact, an anti-personnel shell with small steel darts (known as flechettes) HEAT (high explosive anti-tank) HEP (High Explosive Plastic, known in Europe as High Explosive Squash Head - HESH) and a high velocity anti-tank shell that is a very hard, very heavy dart carried in a discarding "shoe" or sleeve (known as Armour Piercing Fin Stabilised Discarding Sabot - APFSDS ammunition). Some tanks have also been capable of firing a guided anti-tank missle from their cannon. This is a very brief answer to a very complex field of study.

Current-generation main battle tanks cost anywhere between $1.5 and $10 million each to produce, depending on the specific design, options included, and country where manufactured. Upgrades to existing designs can cost up to $1 million per vehicle.

Generally speaking, Western designs (M1, Challenger 2, Leopard 2, Merkava) cost the most, as they are the most advanced. Russian and Chinese versions are significantly cheaper, especially the stripped-down "export" versions. Domestically-designed tanks in Pakistan, India, Japan, and South Korea are also very expensive, mostly due to very high design costs (as those countries are new to designing MBTs).

The "tank battalion" is no more. In the new modular heavy division (which contains three minidivisions called Brigade Combat Teams), there are two Combined Arms Battalions per BCT. Each CAB contains two mechanized infantry companies running M-2 Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicles and two Armor companies running M-1 Abrams tanks. Each armor company has fourteen tanks in it...so, a Combined Arms Battalion contains 28 tanks.