Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Sign in to follow this  
Walter_Sobchak

Tank Myths

Recommended Posts

This thread is where to post all the stupid and annoying tank myths that fail to go away.  We shall start with two pointed out by Marsh over in the Swedish tank thread.

 

 

1. The S-Tank was designed as a tank destroyer or as a tank only fit for just defensive missions.
 
2. The Merkava was designed for asymmetric combat in an urban environment, rather than full scale armour versus armour battle.
 
 
I will add a few:
 
Any tank suspension without return rollers is a "Christie" suspension.  In particular, T-55 and T-62,
 
HEAT munitions create a molten jet that "burns" its way through armor. 
 
The French 75mm gun on the AMX 13 is a copy of the German KwK 42
 
 
 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've actually come across a fair number of decently militarily-learned people who believe tank turrets are held on solely due to gravity.

 

True of (some) ships. It's not an inherently flawed idea. I wouldn't want to have to worry about it on an incline though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apricots are bad luck on US tanks.

 

First I'd heard that one!

 

 

I'm pretty dubious about the line that the Challenger 2 is the best armored contemporary MBT.  First, how would anyone know?  If they know for sure, they're not talking.  Second, Abramses have had two armor package upgrades since chally 2 debuted (SEP and TUSK).  Third, the Leclerc is more geometrically efficient than any of the other NATO MBTs, since it has one less crewmember to defend, and is only slightly lighter.  Absent specific information about armor performance, wouldn't simply geometry tell you think that's the best armored one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First I'd heard that one!

 

 

I'm pretty dubious about the line that the Challenger 2 is the best armored contemporary MBT.  First, how would anyone know?  If they know for sure, they're not talking.  Second, Abramses have had two armor package upgrades since chally 2 debuted (SEP and TUSK).  Third, the Leclerc is more geometrically efficient than any of the other NATO MBTs, since it has one less crewmember to defend, and is only slightly lighter.  Absent specific information about armor performance, wouldn't simply geometry tell you think that's the best armored one?

I believe that myth comes from Challenger 2 not losing a tank to enemy fire in 2003 while some M1s were apparently lost. Through some sort of pseudo-logic that means the Chally 2 has better armor than the Abrams and is therefor the most armored tank. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First I'd heard that one!

 

 

I'm pretty dubious about the line that the Challenger 2 is the best armored contemporary MBT.  First, how would anyone know?  If they know for sure, they're not talking.  Second, Abramses have had two armor package upgrades since chally 2 debuted (SEP and TUSK).  Third, the Leclerc is more geometrically efficient than any of the other NATO MBTs, since it has one less crewmember to defend, and is only slightly lighter.  Absent specific information about armor performance, wouldn't simply geometry tell you think that's the best armored one?

 

Or at least that the Leclerc is the most cheaply armored one.

I have seen some compelling schematics of the Chally 2's armor collated on web forums by snoops who looked at factory photos and things (you know, like you do) and made some educated guesses. My suspicion is that it's relatively thinly armored, or perhaps very cleverly armored to conserve volume.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

General myths:

 

The British are amazing tank designers who simply couldn't keep up with the Germans (who are the all-time masters at designing tanks) in WWII. This goes hand in hand with the idea the the Americans and Soviets were terrible at designing tanks and that their armour tactics consist of simply swamping the enemy with disposable vehicles (this perception of the Americans inverts whenever anything Desert Storm-related is brought up).

 

There is also a related idea that the Israelis somehow sipped from the same cup as the Germans, making all their tanks flat-out superior to anything else in the world. The only reason the rest of the world isn't buying Israeli (or German, or British) tanks is bigotry or stupidity.

 

Specific myths:

  • 8.8 cm KwK 36/43 were some sort of superweapons that would reliably penetrate tanks even today.
  • T-55 is an awful tank.
  • Sloped armour effectiveness in WWII can be determined simply by looking at the LoS thickness.
  • German tanks in WWII predominantly used diesel engines.
  • Sabots act to accelerate the subprojectile out of the bore by somehow imparting kinetic energy.
  • German steel is extra-resistant.
  • The British keep using rifled guns due to some sort of special knowledge imparted only to them that makes rifled guns superior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

  • 8.8 cm KwK 36/43 were some sort of superweapons that would reliably penetrate tanks even today.

 

My favourite part about this one is the reasoning: It's an AA gun, so it has to penetrate a lot and be super accurate! Naturally, only the Flak 36 and Flak 41 count as AA guns, other tank guns with AA gun ballistics didn't inherit those features for some reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My favourite part about this one is the reasoning: It's an AA gun, so it has to penetrate a lot and be super accurate! Naturally, only the Flak 36 and Flak 41 count as AA guns, other tank guns with AA gun ballistics didn't inherit those features for some reason.

The USA and USSR didn't bother with AA guns because they also had swarms of inferior fighters!

85mm M1939 can't into real.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Myth: The Type90/96 and Type98/99 are based on/copied/"derivatives" of the T-72/T-80 series and use Relikt.

 

I don't even know why this one is allowed to stick considering It's completely baseless and only help up by solely on a baseless claim by the dipshits that run AAP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One I encounter with some frequency is the concept that tanks are somehow laid out like an RV, and that one can move freely about the interior, not only from position to position, but into the engine compartment and external stowage compartments as well.

 

Even after producing pics of the interiors of some WW2 era and modern armor, and explaining that "No, you may have been able to do that with very very early armor, but it was quickly corrected", some still wonder why "such a good idea" was dispensed with.

 

Right..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spaced armour is hugely effective vs HEAT warheads.

 

Yeah, heard this one a lot from RKI's.

 

Got to the point that it took actual "playing with things that go boom" to demonstrate that "spaced armor can result in optimal standoff".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Rifled guns are more accurate than smoothbore guns

Soviet monkey models had no composite armor

The Assad Babil was produced in any noticeable numbers

Leopard 1 could be penetrated by machine guns

Chobham armor is ultra secret and even the armor for US tanks is manufactured in Britain without letting any US tank designer know it's composition

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The M3 Lee was a bad tank and should never have been made.

The Comet was a good tank, better than the Sherman.

Patton killed/delayed the M26.

The Sherman's 76mm was a reaction to the Panther.

The Christie was rejected by the Army because NIH.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Similar Content

    • By LoooSeR
      Hello, my friends and Kharkovites, take a sit and be ready for your brains to start to work - we are going to tell you a terrible secret of how to tell apart Soviet tanks that actually works like GLORIOUS T-80 and The Mighty T-72 from Kharkovites attempt to make a tank - the T-64. Many of capitalists Westerners have hard time understanding what tank is in front of them, even when they know smart words like "Kontakt-5" ERA. Ignoramus westerners!
       
       
         Because you are all were raised in several hundreds years old capitalism system all of you are blind consumer dummies, that need big noisy labels and shiny colorful things to be attached to product X to be sold to your ignorant heads and wallets, thats why we will need to start with basics. BASICS, DA? First - how to identify to which tank "family" particular MBT belongs to - to T-64 tree, or T-72 line, or Superior T-80 development project, vehicles that don't have big APPLE logo on them for you to understand what is in front of you. And how you can do it in your home without access to your local commie tank nerd? 
       
       
         Easy! Use this Putin approved guide "How to tell appart different families of Soviet and Russian tanks from each other using simple and easy to spot external features in 4 steps: a guide for ignorant western journalists and chairborn generals to not suck in their in-depth discussions on the Internet".
       
       
       
      Chapter 1: Where to look, what to see.
       
      T-64 - The Ugly Kharkovite tank that doesn't work 
       
         We will begin with T-64, a Kharkovite attempt to make a tank, which was so successful that Ural started to work on their replacement for T-64 known as T-72. Forget about different models of T-64, let's see what is similar between all of them.
       
       
       

       
       
         
       
       
      T-72 - the Mighty weapon of Workers and Peasants to smash westerners
       
         Unlike tank look-alike, made by Kharkovites mad mans, T-72 is true combat tank to fight with forces of evil like radical moderate barbarians and westerners. Thats why we need to learn how identify it from T-64 and you should remember it's frightening lines!
       

       
       
       
      The GLORIOUS T-80 - a Weapon to Destroy and Conquer bourgeois countries and shatter westerners army
       
         And now we are looking at the Pride of Party and Soviet army, a true tank to spearhead attacks on decadent westerners, a tank that will destroy countries by sucking their military budgets and dispersing their armies in vortex of air, left from high-speed charge by the GLORIOUS T-80!

      The T-80 shooting down jets by hitting them behind the horizont 
          
    • By sevich
      I realize that sandbags provide little to no armor protection, but soldiers still used them on tanks. Would they mitigate the effects of HE warheads, or the blastwave of HEAT warheads?
    • By T___A
      This shall be the general thread for all things soviet tanks. I shall start by posting an article I just wrote for my blog. I would recommend Archive Awarness which is an excellent blog about Soviet tanks and their experiences with other nation's tanks.
×