Main battle tanks

[quote="brum"]
Dummkopf !

That's not the world's largest tank.

That's the world's smallest soldiers ! [/quote

Seeing as TEABAG claims to be the residential shortarse he should fit in well with this lot then

Its an M1 Abrhams OK with a troop of tiny soldiers Photoshoped at the front.....

Other than that its a load of 3 - 5

Mike_2817 wrote:

Its an M1 Abrhams OK with a troop of tiny soldiers Photoshoped at the front.....

Other than that its a load of 3 - 5

That's cleared that up

"john boy" wrote:

Shelldrake wrote:

Got to agree with you "John Boy". Now if you are talking Artillery Pieces, different ball game altogether!

big enough for you Shelldrake

You did well to get this picture John.

My book only has a drawing of the gun. According to the author it wasn't possible to photograph it because it was allways camouflaged, to prevent the Allied aircraft finding it.

brum wrote:

"john boy" wrote:

Shelldrake wrote:

Got to agree with you "John Boy". Now if you are talking Artillery Pieces, different ball game altogether!

big enough for you Shelldrake

You did well to get this picture John.

My book only has a drawing of the gun. According to the author it wasn't possible to photograph it because it was allways camouflaged, to prevent the Allied aircraft finding it.

Brum quite easy really anything you want a picture of just type in PICTURES OF... then the subject matter in that case it was pictures of Heavy Artillery try it thanks anyway

brum wrote:

"john boy" wrote:

Shelldrake wrote:

Got to agree with you "John Boy". Now if you are talking Artillery Pieces, different ball game altogether!

big enough for you Shelldrake

You did well to get this picture John.

My book only has a drawing of the gun. According to the author it wasn't possible to photograph it because it was allways camouflaged, to prevent the Allied aircraft finding it.

It is indeed, John Boy. Must admit,I wouldn't like to "Pull it through".

My book only has a drawing of the gun. According to the author it wasn't possible to photograph it because it was allways camouflaged, to prevent the Allied aircraft finding it.[/quote]



Well, my book says they did find it, or them 'cos there could have been up to three, & CB (er......Counter Bombardment, not punishment, for any non-teeth armed contributors) by the French caused some disruption to normal service. But don't believe everything in books. My ref. says the MV was 5263 ft./ minute. That's a bit less than 60 mph. and a little slow....... (should be per second, I guess, which is a bit swift when you consider a 17pdr, AT fired at 2,900 ft./sec .).

It also says each shell had to be larger in diameter from the previous shot to allow for barrel wear. Shells varied in weight, therefore, from 207.25 lbs to 262.3 lbs. After 60 rounds, barrels had to be changed. I bet the Krauts loved being posted in as gun crew.

Normal way of testing for a hot barrel on an L70 was to spit on the end. ( not whilst it was firing! ) If it sizzled, you changed it......... that would have needed an acrobatic performance on the Paris gun.

whats this one then with the big gun

"john boy" wrote:

whats this one then with the big gun

So it's back to tanks, is it, after an interesting diversion !
6 Wheels a side, looks like torsion bar suspension, in Red Square or somewhere similar........... Not one of ours!

Sort of guess it's a T 90. If it's not, still keep your heads down!

Went to a reclamation yard in Somerset the other day only to find parked in a corner, one T34 tank, did not look that bad but must have been there quite a while. Typical nobody told me the Ruskies sneaked over here while we were watching the border for them!.

cartav wrote:

It also says each shell had to be larger in diameter from the previous shot to allow for barrel wear. Shells varied in weight, therefore, from 207.25 lbs to 262.3 lbs. After 60 rounds, barrels had to be changed. I bet the Krauts loved being posted in as gun crew.

I have read that some very large calibre German guns were issued with numbered shells to be fired in order, then the gun was pulled back to be serviced re-gauged or barrail changed.

British Large Calibre Shells had thicker copper driving bands that were rammed into the chamber to create the gas seal, and to engage the rifling. This would in itself allow for variances as the barrel started to wear I should think? The shell itself did not vary in it calibre.

hi there,
Can only recall changing tank 120mm barrels about twice in 23 years (19 years with hands on).
I guess we never fired enough rounds....
atb
pinky
HUSSAR