Sturgeon Posted June 11, 2015 Report Share Posted June 11, 2015 LoooSeR and Meplat 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeeps_Guns_Tanks Posted June 11, 2015 Report Share Posted June 11, 2015 This video thaty was linked at the end was cooler! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturgeon Posted June 11, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 11, 2015 Before 1:56 - "Why don't the crabs just play it really aggressively and use their claws out front?"After 1:56 - "Oh." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeeps_Guns_Tanks Posted June 11, 2015 Report Share Posted June 11, 2015 Heh, yeah, I felt really bad for the crabs by the end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tied Posted June 11, 2015 Report Share Posted June 11, 2015 This video thaty was linked at the end was cooler! i got something to Jeeps_Guns_Tanks 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meplat Posted June 11, 2015 Report Share Posted June 11, 2015 A much more viable light tank concept than Sheridan. Scrapping all that work over "but does it float", in exchange for $5000 a shot missiles, a 400 meter armament dead zone and an overcomplicated main armament package, was ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Collimatrix Posted June 11, 2015 Report Share Posted June 11, 2015 The T92 had plenty of its own mechanical weirdness going on, although none of it looks obviously fatal. The suspension was strange; a sort of rubber-based torsion design that I've never heard of being used anywhere else (although there is a British design study for a vehicle that amounts to a turbine-powered tortoise with a 183mm gun that was also supposed to use it). The early designs also used band tracks, which was unusual for a vehicle that heavy. Finally, it's arguably under-gunned. Compare it to an ASU-85, or even worse Object 416, and it's clear that the Soviets were the kings of stuffing big guns into small tanks. The lead engineer on T92 also worked on SPIW and ICBM designs. Small Arms Defense Journal had a really good article on him about two years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D.E. Watters Posted June 11, 2015 Report Share Posted June 11, 2015 The lead engineer on T92 also worked on SPIW and ICBM designs. Small Arms Defense Journal had a really good article on him about two years ago. That would be Irwin Barr. Sturgeon 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meplat Posted June 11, 2015 Report Share Posted June 11, 2015 The T92 had plenty of its own mechanical weirdness going on, although none of it looks obviously fatal. The suspension was strange; a sort of rubber-based torsion design that I've never heard of being used anywhere else (although there is a British design study for a vehicle that amounts to a turbine-powered tortoise with a 183mm gun that was also supposed to use it). The early designs also used band tracks, which was unusual for a vehicle that heavy. Finally, it's arguably under-gunned. Compare it to an ASU-85, or even worse Object 416, and it's clear that the Soviets were the kings of stuffing big guns into small tanks. The lead engineer on T92 also worked on SPIW and ICBM designs. Small Arms Defense Journal had a really good article on him about two years ago. Torsiolastic was/is fairly well developed concept in the automotive field, it just had not seen much use in armor. (though you found use of the concept in rubber bushed tracks) The sectioned band track also was not uncommon for automotive /industrial, and was being used in a number of projects and vehicles in that era (M114, the M50, the M49/M76, and M116 Husky amphibious transports). The 76mm choice is debatable, as there were plans for what became Sheridan to mount a similar weapon. Also, the Obj 416 was a bit larger than the T92.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturgeon Posted June 11, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 11, 2015 That would be Irwin Barr. Yep! He's mentioned in SPIW; didn't he work on Viking? He helped co-found AAI, IIRC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D.E. Watters Posted June 11, 2015 Report Share Posted June 11, 2015 Yep! He's mentioned in SPIW; didn't he work on Viking? He helped co-found AAI, IIRC. Correct on all counts. http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2005-10-16/news/0510160090_1_barr-inventor-glenn-l http://www.goordnance.army.mil/hof/1980/1985/barr.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Collimatrix Posted June 11, 2015 Report Share Posted June 11, 2015 Torsiolastic was/is fairly well developed concept in the automotive field, it just had not seen much use in armor. (though you found use of the concept in rubber bushed tracks) The sectioned band track also was not uncommon for automotive /industrial, and was being used in a number of projects and vehicles in that era (M114, the M50, the M49/M76, and M116 Husky amphibious transports). The 76mm choice is debatable, as there were plans for what became Sheridan to mount a similar weapon. Also, the Obj 416 was a bit larger than the T92.. At almost 19 tonnes, T92 was quite heavy to be using band tracks, and they did ditch the band tracks later in development. Although band tracks are apparently back in style: And at 24 tonnes, object 416 was only a smidge heavier than the M41 that T92 was supposed to replace. By Western standards it would have been a light tank or a tank destroyer. IMO, the Soviets did a much better job throughout the Cold War of making sure that their tanks had enough gun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tied Posted June 12, 2015 Report Share Posted June 12, 2015 A much more viable light tank concept than Sheridan. Scrapping all that work over "but does it float", in exchange for $5000 a shot missiles, a 400 meter armament dead zone and an overcomplicated main armament package, was ridiculous. i wouldnt even mind the Shelliegay if it work but it dosnet provided you get a function missile, its so inaccurate it makes a Malyutka (or a AT-3 Sagger for you HATO troglodyetes) look like a hellfire speaking of which, if you so much as manage to find a mark on a Soviet tank, chances are its just gonna scratch the paint. A T-55/62 crew could probably take the hit and survive rather unharmed, a T-72 crew will laugh at you, a T-64 crew will be wondering why HATO is using practice munitions, and a T-80 crew will just feel sorry for you and write your mother a letter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meplat Posted June 12, 2015 Report Share Posted June 12, 2015 At almost 19 tonnes, T92 was quite heavy to be using band tracks, and they did ditch the band tracks later in development. Although band tracks are apparently back in style: And at 24 tonnes, object 416 was only a smidge heavier than the M41 that T92 was supposed to replace. By Western standards it would have been a light tank or a tank destroyer. IMO, the Soviets did a much better job throughout the Cold War of making sure that their tanks had enough gun. Not terribly so, there were examples of industrial or mining equipment that was heavier, using that trackform. 18.5 Vs 24 is a bit of a difference, the whole point was to develop something smaller and more compact than the M41. The '92 was a step in the right direction, versus Sheridan. i wouldnt even mind the Shelliegay if it work but it dosnet provided you get a function missile, its so inaccurate it makes a Malyutka (or a AT-3 Sagger for you HATO troglodyetes) look like a hellfire speaking of which, if you so much as manage to find a mark on a Soviet tank, chances are its just gonna scratch the paint. It had a decent sized warhead, it's sole selling point. IIRC all it saw shots in anger against were fixed emplacements. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tied Posted June 12, 2015 Report Share Posted June 12, 2015 Not terribly so, there were examples of industrial or mining equipment that was heavier, using that trackform. 18.5 Vs 24 is a bit of a difference, the whole point was to develop something smaller and more compact than the M41. The '92 was a step in the right direction, versus Sheridan. It had a decent sized warhead, it's sole selling point. IIRC all it saw shots in anger against were fixed emplacements. good luck hitting anything that isnt and RPG range and dont get me started on its armor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T___A Posted June 12, 2015 Report Share Posted June 12, 2015 And at 24 tonnes, object 416 was only a smidge heavier than the M41 that T92 was supposed to replace. By Western standards it would have been a light tank or a tank destroyer. While a few years older I think the PT-85/90 is a better comparison as they have the same roles. Still, the PT-85/90 packed a serious punch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meplat Posted June 12, 2015 Report Share Posted June 12, 2015 good luck hitting anything that isnt and RPG range and dont get me started on its armor Oh no, that's the really -good- part... You couldn't hit anything at less than 800~900 yards with the MGM-51. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tied Posted June 12, 2015 Report Share Posted June 12, 2015 Oh no, that's the really -good- part... You couldn't hit anything at less than 800~900 yards with the MGM-51. i was talking about the HE shell i think i would of felt alot better in a SU-152, ISU-152, or Su-122-54 or any 20th century Eastern European infantry support vehicles Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meplat Posted June 12, 2015 Report Share Posted June 12, 2015 i was talking about the HE shell i think i would of felt alot better in a SU-152, ISU-152, or Su-122-54 or any 20th century Eastern European infantry support vehicles Ahh. That had it's own well known foibles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tied Posted June 12, 2015 Report Share Posted June 12, 2015 well, lets just say if i want to play 20 questions with the range markers i atleast want to be ethier a zip code away from any RPG-7s or have more armor than a Toyata Tercel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meplat Posted June 12, 2015 Report Share Posted June 12, 2015 well, lets just say if i want to play 20 questions with the range markers i atleast want to be ethier a zip code away from any RPG-7s or have more armor than a Toyata Tercel More like "playing twenty questions" persuading the FCS and that wacky CBSS to function in a timely manner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tied Posted June 12, 2015 Report Share Posted June 12, 2015 please rename this thread T92 Light Tank Video: M551 Sheridan hating circlejerk editon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeeps_Guns_Tanks Posted June 12, 2015 Report Share Posted June 12, 2015 please rename this thread T92 Light Tank Video: M551 Sheridan hating circlejerk editon Alternate name: The Peacock Mantis Shrimp kicks crab ass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meplat Posted June 12, 2015 Report Share Posted June 12, 2015 please rename this thread T92 Light Tank Video: M551 Sheridan hating circlejerk editon The 551 is one of those U.S. "eternal experiment" projects, that the more I learn about it, the less I like it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Priory_of_Sion Posted June 12, 2015 Report Share Posted June 12, 2015 What I can't understand is the project to mount the 76 mm gun onto the M551, that was basically a worse M41. Why do this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.