Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 115
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

You've seen them before; poorly edited videos with an alternating loop of John Phillips Sousa and Weird Al, purporting to tell you about the various design mistakes armored fighting vehicle designers

Dare to Compare: Arjun vs Syrian Trebuchet.

I readf it ands I'm perfecatyly finye

Hmmm, “The tanks ammo is extremely large and heavy... and would probably break an autoloader” 

1. And the proposed ammunition wouldn’t also break the backs of the poor SoaB(s) having to load this gun? 

2. I’m just going to refer you to any ship with large caliber guns, which almost exclusively used loading assistance*, but most importantly, the 8 inch Mark 16 used on the Des Moines class, and the 6 inch Mark 16 on the Worcester. 

*Warships also have a couple other problems that required machines like ammunition elevators and rammers, that the small scale of tanks don’t have to worry about. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, it is that Gavin guy? I was following his writing many years ago. I disliked his writing style, because it is ranty. He tends to ramble on and on in his own thread. He puts way too much unnecessary information to his own articles, he should had taken some writing classes.


Though, I do not understand why he is such a polarizing individual. Sure, not all of his ideas are solid and he makes mistakes. People who tend to write a lot and say a lot tend to do most mistakes, but this is only because they have courage to go out and try. In addition, military DOES indeed suffer from itself. Its tradition prioritises brawn over intellect. It strips away individuality. It makes soldier follow the herd and inhibits free thinking. In addition, a lot of military organizations are scrapping bottom of a barrel when it comes to recruit, they lack sheer talent and in general are organizations consumed by politics and weak leaders who get their positions due to political and financial considerations rather than even merit. This is why we see so much politics and people with very questionable military experience at the very top. 


Military organization can differ widely in its culture and values. I do dare to think that one day military reformists like him will come to power in major country's military and will reshape itself to something new. If anything, that would see a lot of bizarre and interesting military projects getting greenlight. A lot of risky and ambitious projects would get initiated. A lot of them would fail and I'm afraid that such people would succumb to inner infighting due to their own egos. Though personally, I would see military spending A LOT more on research and development and focusing on export of vast array of military equipment while cutting down on its operational budget and its own size to compensate for this shift in priorities. 


Btw: After reading his tank idea I'm not sure if I was reading same guy. He had poorly edited and poorly done website with a lot of endless articles. They tended to be in general a lot more serious than this mess of a tank design. 


After doing more research and actually going to forum where he had proposed his idea 13 years ago, I can claim that he is just typical armchair general whose fantasy is running wild. He defends the obvious flaws in his vehicle by imaginary substances who will be as thin as an APC armor, but will provide even more armor than modern MBT. He also has a furry logo which is a sure sign of physical, mental or spiritual deformity, sometimes all of three. I had seen this type of people, their minds are sick. Their minds are a lot more active than yours or my own, but in return they can't filter themselves out. They have  a lot of energy to talk, to defend their ideas, but they can't stop and think. They are great at generating ideas, but absolutely terrible and self critique or thinking critically over what they just thought of. This is why you see such nonsensical things as tank with 6 people, having 145 howitzer which somehow is better anti tank cannon than a dedicated anti tank cannons. Can carry 85 rounds of ammunition. Whole thing is protected by imaginarium. A paper thin and feather light substance which provides immense protection which is of course superior to protection on modern day MBT. And to top if all off, such tank would weight 40 tons! I'm honestly surprised that such people even register on your radar. Why talk about and give him more publicity? Do you debunk a random idiot in youtube comment section just as harshly? Such people are just ignored and forgotten by ones above him as they are unworthy of their time and energy. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Calicifer said:

Btw: After reading his tank idea I'm not sure if I was reading same guy. He had poorly edited and poorly done website with a lot of endless articles. They tended to be in general a lot more serious than this mess of a tank design. 


This website?


That article was my first encounter with Sparks btw, and I think it's just perfect. Repeat misunderstandings of the way equipment was/is designed and employed, endless use of buzzwords only Sparky and his ilk know, insisting that failed shit from the past was actually great and should be replicated today, childish insults and aspersions about actual officers, ranting and raving about moron historians who he knows so much more than, and the inexplicable pictures of women's cleavage at the bottom. But probably my favorite part is when he praises a U.S. Army turretless light tank concept from the 1930s and its creator, only to trash the medium tanks the U.S. Army actually fought the war with in the same paragraph... apparently blissfully unaware that Gladeon M. Barnes, creator of the conceptual light tank, also was heavily involved in designing the M3 Lee/Grant, M4 Sherman, and others.  


Try reading that article and the other ones linked in it if you want a laugh. Or a brain aneurysm. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, StrelaCarbon said:

This website?

wow.  OK, I quickly learned to look at the pictures which were quite interesting and not read any of the drool.  A deeply confused individual with no concept of context.  What was light pre-ww2 was equivalent to a pram in late ww2 terms and a paper cup now.  To describe a MkIV as "light" once again ignores context.


But, seriously, why am I wasting electrons.  It was worth a giggle, thanks :)


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, same website. I also first encountered him there and started reading some of his better articles. I was little bit confused when reading his original forum thread on his Tigerwolf. He is by far worse there than I remember reading some of his articles. Maybe I remember him wrongly or did not knew any better as I started reading him when I started to get serious about understanding warfare. So I might not had catched on his misunderstandings. I also maybe are bit more tolerant of his nonsense and are more forwards towards putting controversial ideas into experimentation and testing. After all, I too often have highly contradictory ideas than majority of people. 


Overall, I view him as functional madman. He does not know what he is talking about, but in every madman there are sparks of brilliance. I tend to view his writing more as pile of garbage with some potential gems inside which more sane and constructive individual could take and develop something from it.


For example in this article he might have a point that MBT are too large and expensive for large scale offensive maneuvers. Try to use Abrams tanks for anything than an assault or defend. Large formation of Abrams are completely incapable of performing same kind maneuvers as Pz.2-4 did during WW2 as they would run out of fuel and logistical chain would be of absolutely terrifying proportions. Maybe for deep battle operations more economical tanks with greater autonomy and mobility are required? Like some hypothetical 50 ton design of a medium tank similar to T-90 series or beefed up Leopard 1 or TAM are required? This is why I like his considerations, he might be missing point all together with 20 ton light tanks in modern combat, but there is some truth in his ramblings.


Hmm, when I had skimmed through more of his article, I see that it is me making all of this in my head as I read. He provides very few actual points in his massive article. He reminds me of an autistic person. Great with details and presenting a lot of information, but that information always miss forest for the trees. It is all just misunderstandings and taking things out of context to the point you wonder how such person can function when he disagrees with practically everything one side argues in a debate. 


Edit: I just read linked article. It is just full of ramblings, he struggles to make a coherent point. He looks like he has rabies as he viciously attacks practically everybody. Significant portion of his article is dedicated to insulting and demeaning as many people as he can name from general groups to specific people. He also wants to remove turrets from all armored vehicles, except for Gavin of course and his precious Tigerwolf. Also his light tanks will have adequate protection to take a hit, whatever what means since Pershing in his eyes could not take a hit from German and Russian 85-88 mm caliber. So I imagine his light tanks would had been protected with carbon fibers during WW2 with 100 strength than modern composite armor and half the thickness of steel. I'm just surprised that people are paying attention to him at all, the kind thing would be to ignore madman than to laugh from him as it is just sad.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sparks is the gift that keeps on giving. I thought the whole point of bicycle infantry was that it was a cheap way of getting your troops to move faster....


Kinda hard to imagine the Japanese Army racing down the Malay peninsula on bicycles like they did in '42 when each of the soldiers has to tow a trailer loaded with god-knows-what. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

One issue I have with the Tigerwolf, is that it contradicts what he has said are bad design choices, like 6 man crew, 2 loaders, new technology, fitting the largest gun possible on a chassis, etc. It makes him seem inconsistent and diminishes his argument.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 6 months later...

I did some digging about what the "Mk 75 Tigerwolf" fires. It fires:

a training round

rocket-propelled AP round

rocket-propelled thermite round

rocket-propelled HESH

rocket-propelled WP-I

rocket-propelled grenade ammunition

canister round

flechette round

rocket-propelled grenade ammunition but anti-infantry

thermobaric round

15 kiloton nuclear round

mine-laying round



Link to post
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.

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.

  • Similar Content

    • By Beer
      I haven't found an appropriate thread where to put some interesting rare stuff related to WW2 development, be it industrial one or makeshift field modifications. 
      Let's start with two things. The first one is a relatively recently found rarity from Swedish archives - a drawing of ČKD/BMM V8H-Sv tank. The drawing and a letter was found by WoT enthusiasts in Swedish archives in 2014 (the original announcement and the drawing source is here). The drawing is from a message dated 8th September 1941. One of the reasons why this drawing was not known before may be that the Czech archives were partially destroyed by floods in 2002. Anyway it is an export modification of the V-8-H tank accepted into Czechoslovak service as ST vz.39 but never produced due to the cancelation of all orders after Münich 1938 (for the same reason negotiations about licence production in Britain failed). Also later attempt to sell the tank to Romania failed due to BMM being fully busy with Wehrmacht priority orders. The negotiations with Sweden about licence production of V8H-Sv lasted till 1942, at least in May 1942 Swedish commission was present in Prague for negotiations. The tank differed compared to the base ST vz.39 in thicker armor with different front hull shape (armor 60 mm @ 30° on the hull front and also 60 mm on the turret; all sides were 40 mm thick). The tank was heavier (20 tons) and had the LT vz.38 style suspension with probably even larger wheels. The engine was still the same Praga NR V8 (240-250 Hp per source). The armament was unchanged with 47 mm Škoda A11 gun and two vz.37 HMG. The commander's cupola was of the simple small rotating type similar to those used on AH-IV-Sv tankettes. It is known that the Swedes officially asked to arm the tank with 75 mm gun, replace the engine with Volvo V12 and adding third HMG to the back of the turret. In the end the Swedes decided to prefer their own Strv/m42. 

      Source of the drawing
      The second is makeshift field modification found on Balkans. It appears Ustasha forces (and possibly some SS anti-partizan units) used several Italian M15/42 medium tanks with turrets from Pz.38(t). There are several photos of such hybrids but little more is known. On one photo it is possible to see Ustasha registration number U.O. 139.

      Few more photos of such hybrid.
      It appears that the source of all those photos to be found on the internet is this book, Armoured units of the Axis forces in southeastern Europe in WW2 by Dinko Predoevic. 
    • By SuperComrade
      I was recently looking at the Japanese wikipedia page for the Chi-Ha tank, and it had this section on the name of the tank:

      I have never heard of such nomenclature, and obviously I don't have access to such documents since I don't live in Japan. There is no reference for this part, so can anyone confirm that they actually did use "MTK" etc.?
    • By Monochromelody
      70 years ago, January the 2nd, 1951. To the North of Seoul, in the mountains and hills near Go-yang-tong(高阳洞), British 1RUR dug in and fought against advancing PVA forces. 1RUR got a task force called Cooperforce to support, this is a tank unit from Royal Tank Regiment and Royal Artillery, equipped with Cromwell tanks. 
      When Matthrew Ridgeway assigned the order of withdraw in this afternoon, the US force covering British force's left flank quickly escaped from their sector, leaving the British were completed unawared and uncovered. 
      When the night falls, was cold and dark in the valley. 1RUR had to withdraw in the darkness. All of a sudden, a US spotter aircraft flew over the valley, drop some illumination flares upon the retreating convoy. 
      Fierce battle broke out when flares fall down, PVA firing from all directions, the cold valley became deadly kill zone. Some PVA soldiers put away their rifles, assaulting with hand grenades, satchel charges and Bangalore torpedoes. They even set up mortars on the hill, laying shells with direct fire. 
      200 British soldiers and artillerymen were killed or captured in one night. 1RUR's Battalion Commander Tony Blake was believed KIA. Cooperforce was completely knocked out, all 12 tanks were destroyed or captured by light infantry. Leader Ashley Cooper were also killed. 

    • By SH_MM
      Found a few higher resolution photographs from the recent North Korean military parade. We didn't have a topic for BEST KOREAN armored fighting vehicles, so here it is.
      New main battle tank, Abrams-Armata clone based on Ch'ŏnma turret design (welded, box-shaped turret) and Sŏn'gun hull design (i.e. centerline driver's position). The bolts of the armor on the hull front is finally visible given the increased resolution. It might not be ERA given the lack of lines inbetween. Maybe is a NERA module akin to the MEXAS hull add-on armor for the Leopard 2A5?
      Other details include an APS with four radar panels (the side-mounted radar panels look a lot different - and a lot more real - than the ones mounted at the turret corners) and twelve countermeasures in four banks (two banks à three launchers each at the turret front, two banks à three launchers on the left and right side of the turret). Thermal imagers for gunner and commander, meteorological mast, two laser warning receivers, 115 mm smoothbore gun without thermal sleeve but with muzze reference system, 30 mm grenade launcher on the turret, six smoke grenade dischargers (three at each turret rear corner)

      IMO the layout of the roof-mounted ERA is really odd. Either the armor array covering the left turret cheek is significantly thinner than the armor on the right turret cheek or the roof-mounted ERA overlaps with the armor.

      The first ERA/armor element of the skirt is connected by hinges and can probably swivel to allow better access to the track. There is a cut-out in the slat armor for the engine exhaust. Also note the actual turret ring - very small diameter compared to the outer dimensions of the turret.
      Stryker MGS copy with D-30 field gun clone and mid engine:

      Note there are four crew hatches. Driver (on the left front of the vehicle), commander (on the right front of the vehicle, seat is placed a bit further back), gunner (left side of the gun's overhead mount, next to the gunner's sight) and unknown crew member (right side of gun's overhead mount with 30 mm automatic grenade launcher mounted at the hatch). The vehicle also has a thermal imager and laser rangefinder (gunner's sight is identical to the new tank), but no independent optic for the commander. It also has the same meteorological mast and laser warner receivers as the new MBT.
      What is the purpose of the fourth crew member? He cannot realistically load the gun...
      The vehicle has a small trim vane for swimming, the side armor is made of very thin spaced steel that is bend on multiple spots, so it clearly is not ceramic armor as fitted to the actual Stryker.

      The tank destroyer variant of the same Stryker MGS copy fitted with a Bulsae-3 ATGM launcher.

      Note that there is again a third hatch with 30 mm automatic grenade launcher behind the commander's position. Laser warning receivers and trime vane are again stand-out features. The sighting complex for the Bulsae-3 ATGMs is different with a large circular optic (fitted with cover) probably being a thermal imager and two smaller lenses visible on the very right (as seen from the vehicle's point of view) probably containing a day sight and parts of the guidance system.

      Non line-of-sight ATGM carrier based on the 6x6 local variant of the BTR, again fitted with laser warning receivers and a trim vane. There are only two hatches and two windows, but there is a three men crew inside.
      There are a lot more photos here, but most of them are infantry of missile system (MLRS' and ICBMs).

  • Create New...