Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Tank Myths


Walter_Sobchak
 Share

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
 
 
 
 
Link to comment
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?

Link to comment
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. 

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.
Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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..

Link to comment
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".

Link to comment
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

Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...