/kc/ - Krautchan

Highest Serious Discussion Per Post on Endchan

Posting mode: Reply

Check to confirm you're not a robot
Drawing x size canvas

Remember to follow the rules

Max file size: 100.00 MB

Max files: 4

Max message length: 4096

Manage Board | Moderate Thread

Return | Magrathea | Catalog | Bottom

Expand All Images

(669.68 KB 1516x1066 lil_tank1_s1.JPG)
(509.46 KB 1486x1048 lil_tank2_s2.JPG)
(509.91 KB 1474x1076 lil_tank3_s3.JPG)
Bernd 08/01/2018 (Wed) 05:29:13 [Preview] No. 18192
Tank thread reup. So.

Today I had to bury the 6th dead bird this year. Not even this year, this summer! I would say I never ever buried this much but frankly before this I had to do this only twice in my whole life. I dunno what's going on with them.
It would be easier to just dump them into the dumpster but frankly I rather spend some energy and give them an ok final rest.
During digging I came across a very interesting archaeological findings: this tank on picrels. It wasn't mine and not any of my pals owned such or even played around that spot in our childhood so I suppose one of my family members owned this there are some possibilities.
What Bernd think what type of tank is this? I think it has the Sherman looks.

Also this can be a general vehicle/weapons thread as well.

Bernd 08/01/2018 (Wed) 07:22:55 [Preview] No.18197 del
>Today I had to bury the 6th dead bird this year.

Random bird ir your bird?

>I think it has the Sherman looks.

Sherman is tall and has different hull. Although it is just a toy, it looks like something in spirit of T-34-85.

Also I don't think that Hungary made toys from non-Soviet-like tech from 1950 to 1990.

Bernd 08/01/2018 (Wed) 16:43:26 [Preview] No.18202 del
(300.56 KB 1140x764 lil_tank4_s.JPG)
A random blackbird (Turdus merula).
They are quite common here even our plot has some nests. I buried to adults, a nestling, and three nestling at one time, their nest dropped down to the ground. I dunno if they were previously dead or the fall killed them but they looked rather unhealthy and maybe a bit rotten so they might have been dead for a while. I'm out in the garden every day a bit doing this or that or just sitting around in the quiet and I always walk around so I would have noticed if they were there on the previous day.

The T-34's front is more sloped and the turret hangs over it. The front is moar Sherman-like but the Sherman's side slopes down toward the back. The side of German tanks however are not but the turret is all wrong for that.
>Although it is just a toy,
Well, yes. It also had a pair of wheels and not tracks judging by the two pairs of suspension thingy.
>I don't think that Hungary made toys from non-Soviet-like tech from 1950 to 1990.
It could be imported from somewhere.

Bernd 08/01/2018 (Wed) 20:20:02 [Preview] No.18206 del
>and maybe a bit rotten so they might have been dead for a while

In hot condition body can decompose pretty fast, especially in garden, because there are plenty of insects and bacteria around.

>The T-34's front is more sloped and the turret hangs over it. The front is moar Sherman-like but the Sherman's side slopes down toward the back.

But Sherman looks much more tall, and back side (engine section cover) looks very T-34-like. Turret is also looks more like 34s than Sherman's. Although you are right, front is strange and not from T-34. I guess it isn't really based on any model.

Btw, when everyone hear about T-34 they remember T-34/85 exterior, but T-34/76 was more numerous at war.

>The side of German tanks however are not but the turret is all wrong for that.

German tanks are too square-like. I also don't think that someone would make German tank toy in post-war Europe except for scale modeling.

Bernd 08/01/2018 (Wed) 20:26:33 [Preview] No.18207 del
(33.40 KB 352x288 050513_120005.jpg)
(39.16 KB 352x288 050513_115935.jpg)
(26.40 KB 352x288 050513_115900.jpg)
(36.88 KB 352x288 050513_115913.jpg)
Uh, also as it is tank an weapons thread, here is the training tank from university military training department (don't know how to translate this thing properly).


Photos are shitty because it is Siemens C65 and it is 2005.

Bernd 08/02/2018 (Thu) 05:29:08 [Preview] No.18209 del
(87.68 KB 700x560 hktem4.jpg)
(82.45 KB 700x428 hktem3.jpg)
(52.26 KB 700x525 hktem2.jpg)
(103.99 KB 700x560 hktem1.jpg)
>I also don't think that someone would make German tank toy in post-war Europe
Then what were defeated by the toy Soviet tanks?
I watch that Stalingrad movie Taiwanbernd wrote about btw. It feels like American war movies such as Kelly's Heroes or Dirty Dozen. I haven't seen Saving Private Ryan - for example so I dunno how it compares.

Bretty gud.
Found a blogpost about an abandoned Hangarian air-defense base and the blog itself seems to be dedicated such topics, started in 2011 and still goes on. Maybe I'll find something there to cherrypick from and post it here.

Picrel is a tank graveyard maybe in the Ukraine.

Bernd 08/03/2018 (Fri) 17:52:21 [Preview] No.18258 del
> our plot
your what?

Btw I like tanks. As cringy as it may sound, playing WoT and Warthunder have sparked in me a lot of interest in them and made me read a lot of history about them on the internet. There was even a moment when I used freshly learned trivia to beat the russian bias before Gaijin decided to rebalance stuff.
Also near town when I was born there is yearly gathering of all historical maniacs who are mostly into WW2 and they often bring lots of heavy vehicles there. I'll try to look for the photos and post them here. I think they brought a working Panther once.

Bernd 08/03/2018 (Fri) 20:37:09 [Preview] No.18266 del
(148.55 KB 1078x1650 pzV01.jpg)
(241.53 KB 1076x2704 pzV02.jpg)
>> our plot
>your what?
On our plot of land where our house stands.

>I think they brought a working Panther once.
obligatory picrel

Bernd 08/06/2018 (Mon) 07:01:01 [Preview] No.18292 del
I'd post Object 279 just because I like how crazy it looks.

Bernd 08/06/2018 (Mon) 10:33:28 [Preview] No.18297 del

Bernd 08/06/2018 (Mon) 15:46:57 [Preview] No.18313 del
Very shiplike.


Bernd 08/06/2018 (Mon) 22:29:24 [Preview] No.18333 del
(165.50 KB 662x900 nb6291-22.jpg)
>Very shiplike.

Until very long APFSDS ammo became a thing, angles of armor were a real thing. And round shape makes structure more rigid and also more stable against shockwave from large blasts (including tactical nukes). Now it doesn't really matter, but this tank is from 50-s.

Sadly, it died with other heavy tanks when Khruschev came in real power. He launched man into space but made serious damage to tank and aviation industry (especially attack aviation) because of his love of rockets.

Bernd 08/06/2018 (Mon) 22:55:47 [Preview] No.18334 del
Also a beautiful tank video:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=ABLHkJ7Izt8 [Embed]

Bernd 08/07/2018 (Tue) 16:42:59 [Preview] No.18346 del
Neat. I need a Kettenkrad in my lief. Would rule the woods, fuck those faggots with their quads.
I seem to recall a thread from KC main, some dude took his date to this(?) tank museum. She wasn't amused.

Bernd 08/07/2018 (Tue) 16:44:33 [Preview] No.18347 del
Fucking Khrushchev ruined everything.

Bernd 08/08/2018 (Wed) 15:28:20 [Preview] No.18366 del
Tank Paintball:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=rgrDFStUS64 [Embed]

Bernd 08/11/2018 (Sat) 19:21:52 [Preview] No.18425 del
I'm not sure how the history of tanks went but Hungary could have one right before WWI. The designer basically covered a Holt-Caterpillar tractor with steel plates and put a machine gun above in a turret. The second version got a flamethrower instead and was more box like. This was in 1912/13. During a military exercise - as the story goes - the tank approached His Majesty, the Kaiser und König - two in one - but his horse got scared so he judged: enough of this silliness, the K.u.K. Armee doesn't need such reckless faggotry. Next thing we know the Serbs kicking our buttocks. Great job, Your Majesty!
Depending on who tells you the story the victim of the shortsightedness of the Emperor can be an armored car of the same military inventor.

Bernd 08/13/2018 (Mon) 05:12:31 [Preview] No.18451 del
After this I think only in WWII got Hungary built tanks any role. Not sure tho.

Bernd 08/13/2018 (Mon) 19:10:33 [Preview] No.18462 del
Pic #1: the tractor itself

Bout a year previously to Lipták's tank patent, in 1912 an Austrian engineer, Oberleutnant Burstyn, too designed a tank for the Austro-Hungarian Army (pic #2, #3 and #4). He was also refused, then he turned to Berlin but found no luck there either. Supposedly his plans were stolen by British spies and were sent to Britain where Swinton used them to create his own version of a tank (patented in November 1914). However his tank was based on the Holt Caterpillar Tractor like Lipták's but Burstyn's doesn't look like it was.

Bernd 08/13/2018 (Mon) 21:47:10 [Preview] No.18463 del
(167.80 KB 700x603 zar-tank.jpg)
(296.65 KB 740x415 tmp6RNW9f.jpeg)
(299.55 KB 1024x767 Tsar_tank.jpg)
That forward wheel looks poorly defended and vulnerable.

Pre-1914 tanks were fun though. There were no proper testing in real life conditions, so people invented real crazy things (not only for tanks, but all military strategy was flawed and war proved it).

Look at that tricycle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Tank

Bernd 08/13/2018 (Mon) 21:55:07 [Preview] No.18464 del
(72.18 KB 475x278 Vezdekhod.jpg)
(268.47 KB 639x360 1456144761470.png)
>Supposedly his plans were stolen by British spies and were sent to Britain where Swinton used them to create his own version of a tank

There is also a conspiracy theory that British lobby in government damaged construction of Russian tanks and even stole design of one of them to make Mark I.


Bernd 08/14/2018 (Tue) 05:55:46 [Preview] No.18473 del
>people invented real crazy things
That's for sure. I can't imagine - from the point of view where we are now with the knowledge about tanks - that Tsar-tank running around, very unreal. If you check it out how Burstyn imagined the crossing of a trench... just wow.

Espionage was and is real so it isn't impossible the countries snatched stuff from each other. I bet a just rejected inventor could (can, still) talk hours about his super-awesome idea and how those shitheads at the military just can't recognize his and his machine's ingenuity which looks this and this and works like that and that.

Bernd 08/14/2018 (Tue) 19:06:59 [Preview] No.18482 del
(779.10 KB 1017x498 Ganz-tank.png)
(425.45 KB 1014x669 Hora-Holt-half-track.png)
Some other fun designs. I dunno how many was manufactured, I've data only on the third one, they built 7.

Bernd 08/19/2018 (Sun) 18:39:31 [Preview] No.18581 del
(554.76 KB 865x569 heli-PKZ-1.png)
(674.64 KB 861x568 heli-PKZ-2-a.png)
We also developed helicopter(s). The K.u.K. Fliegerarsenal assigned the task to Hungarian factories and engineers to build a helicopter to replace observer balloons during the summer of 1917. The PKZ-1 was a dead end as there wasn't enough manufacturing capacity to build the electric engines for that one. The PKZ-2 was more successful, it had 36 experimental flights but at the end of June 1918 it crashed and with the end of the war the project was abandoned.
Both model have several "the world's first..." titles but I'm not sure how to translate them, but for example the PZK-2 held the record of flight height and period of time, which remained unofficial as wartime achievements weren't recorded by Fédération Aéronautique Internationale.

Bernd 08/19/2018 (Sun) 18:40:53 [Preview] No.18582 del
(648.61 KB 731x611 heli-PKZ-2-b.png)
(429.89 KB 865x612 heli-PKZ-2-c.png)
(614.80 KB 865x610 heli-PKZ-2-d.png)

Bernd 08/21/2018 (Tue) 00:28:31 [Preview] No.18619 del
Some armored cars are so wonky-looking they don't feel threatening at all.

Bernd 08/21/2018 (Tue) 00:40:11 [Preview] No.18620 del
More examples: a dozen models of this kind of vehicle were designed in São Paulo when the state briefly waged war against Vargas in 1932.

Bernd 08/21/2018 (Tue) 16:45:58 [Preview] No.18629 del
It's even better. Enemy sees it, starts laughing, leaves cover, gets shot.

Retro Mad Max.
Does Vargas has a meaning? In Hungarian varga means a profession, someone who works with leather, and also used a surname.

Bernd 08/21/2018 (Tue) 17:58:36 [Preview] No.18631 del
(14.81 KB 480x360 hqdefault.jpg)
>don't feel threatening at all.

For you.

For average peasant of early 20th century, who didn't seen any machine in life, even this thing may look threatening.

Until middle-late Soviet times there were common exercise for infantry called something like "tank training", when tanks are moved over soldier laying between tracks. Main goal was to train soldiers to not be afraid of tanks and any other large machinery, because person who didn't seen that thing may be overwhelmed by fear.

Nowadays even peasants from backward places are ok with tractors and harvesters, and city dwellers sometimes don't fear cars even in situation when they need. And modern kids seen much more scarier things on TV and in games.

Bernd 08/21/2018 (Tue) 21:23:25 [Preview] No.18641 del
I looked it up and there are several proposed etymologies. A village by that name exists in Cantabria. The surname first appears in 11th-century Castille, and its oldest recorded appearences in Portugal date to the 16th century. It means hut or hillside in Castillian and floodplain in Portuguese. Genealogical records show Vargas' earliest known ancestor using that surname was António José de Vargas (1724-1792), who moved from the Azores to southern Brazil.

>Until middle-late Soviet times there were common exercise for infantry called something like "tank training", when tanks are moved over soldier laying between tracks.
Suvorov mentions this on "Inside the Soviet Army". But why was it abandoned? Did training standards get softer with time?

Bernd 08/22/2018 (Wed) 05:23:40 [Preview] No.18649 del
It's not a bad name btw has a good ring to it.

I read somewhere that the NATO fitness requirements was lowered considerable since the formation of the organization because the human material they have to work with is worse and worse.

Bernd 08/22/2018 (Wed) 07:49:27 [Preview] No.18650 del
>Suvorov mentions this on "Inside the Soviet Army". But why was it abandoned? Did training standards get softer with time?

I don't really know if it is fully abandoned - some people say that they got that exercise in 21st century too, but they are from VDV and some specific branches. Maybe it is common in army now, I couldn't easily find info. I've seen people who clearly stated that they didn't seen any tanks and they were infantry.

I've heard that modern recruit already ok with tanks and not afraid much, so many of tank-panic training exercises aren't needed today.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=x3dWTBX8JZ8 [Embed] (not Russia though but Belarus)

Bernd 08/22/2018 (Wed) 17:44:45 [Preview] No.18661 del
Why are they shooting at tank with the AK?

Bernd 08/23/2018 (Thu) 08:46:53 [Preview] No.18676 del
(35.51 KB 500x332 panther.jpg)
(35.51 KB 500x332 panther.jpg)
(33.91 KB 600x346 019_2 copy.gif)
>Why are they shooting at tank with the AK?

Because they can.

I guess, it is part of training because tanks rarely go without any infantry support (it we don't talk about Arabs of course). It also allows to shoot on evacuating crew. And it is also a psychological thing, person feels better if he has a weapon and uses it, even if it is useless.

I've read some articles about actions of modern mechanized infantry with statistics from WW2 and local wars: personal weapons (autorifles etc) and individual skills rarely matter in large "real" (not anti-partisan) battles at all. Everything is about armored vehicles, artillery, aviation, machineguns and positioning, individual weapons are rarely effective in killing and mostly good for moral of troops. People don't want to be unarmed even if their weapons do only small part of real damage.

Also this training with grenades is mostly useless - modern tanks are ok with any anti-tank hand grenade. It is also pretty hard to get to hand throwing distance. So, in most armies anti-tank hand grenades are replaced with single-use rocket launchers. They really a hand grenades of modern times (don't confuse them with large multiple-use anti-tank weapons).

Bernd 08/24/2018 (Fri) 17:05:54 [Preview] No.18716 del
>personal weapons (autorifles etc) and individual skills rarely matter in large "real" (not anti-partisan) battles at all. Everything is about armored vehicles, artillery, aviation, machineguns and positioning, individual weapons are rarely effective in killing
One more point to Lt.Col. Grossman.

>Also this training with grenades is mostly useless
Maybe they can hit someone in the heda with that hunk of metal (wood in the case of practice) if he pokes out of his from the tank.
I think those charge-bundles in pic #3 were a little bit stronger. I'm not familiar with grenades too much.

Bernd 08/26/2018 (Sun) 14:04:56 [Preview] No.18749 del
Pic #1 Different arrangements of K.u.K armoured trains.
Pic #2 The four remaining armoured trains in 1940.
Pic #3 Rába armourder car in 1927, that particular one was used by the police at that time.
Pic #4 Now this is a real armoured car for front line applications, for recon and such, the 1940M Csaba. I might write about this later.

Bernd 08/26/2018 (Sun) 18:29:08 [Preview] No.18753 del
>Armored train

They became meme weapons of October Revolution and Civil War (because it wasn't positional war like WW1).

Bernd 08/26/2018 (Sun) 19:48:22 [Preview] No.18754 del
(55.25 KB 660x428 Nepkoztarsasag.png)
During the commie era they hyped such train stories here. I kinda remember one about an attack toward north against the Czechs in 1920 by the Hungarian Soviet. They might used those trains but I've no idea how much of the story was real or made up. I suspect it was a copypasta of the stories of the war you mentioned as the leadership from the Muscovite School built the system with ready made propaganda packages they received from their masters.

Bernd 08/30/2018 (Thu) 03:01:33 [Preview] No.18838 del
Armored trains are 69 iq.

I mean if you need to attack something, just turn right or left, why the fuck you need attack a fucking armored train?

Bernd 08/30/2018 (Thu) 05:02:37 [Preview] No.18840 del
Transportation on railroad is very convenient and was even more back than. A real valuable strategic tool.

Bernd 08/30/2018 (Thu) 05:46:29 [Preview] No.18845 del
Railroad was (and sometimes is) the main method of transportation for large distances. It allows to transport large amount of people, vehicles and cargo very quickly, it gives quick reaction response.

So, it is like "why fight in cities, you can avoid them, they are big and immobile". But: 1) how you will control territory when there are hostile city 2) why even occupy something if not cities?

People also underestimate mobility problems, especially until mass mechanization. Large group of troops without vehicles couldn't easily move more than 30-50km in day. Railroad allows you to push troops at same distance in few hours (considering loading and unloading). So, while your forces slowly march through forests and swamps, enemy would move his troops to prepare defense or to strike you in back. Large regiment of troops that want to cross railroad couldn't easily avoid these trains: while they slowly gather near some point, train could easily move there.

Most of these arguments may be applied to common roads too, but until mass automobilization (~1930-1950 for armies) roads weren't so good as railroads for transportation. Transporting heavy artillery also was problematic task: even now naval artillery, for example, are much more sophisticated and effective that land-based because ships allow guns to be much heavier.

So, armored trains were a thing. Of course they weren't a superweapon, and in large scale wars (WW1, WW2) they were required, but not main part of forces. In low-intensity civil wars and anti-partisan operation they were much better because both sides didn't want to ruin rails and cities, but only to control them. And these trains provided fast response to threats and good protection against partisan forces who try to hijack trains. That is why armored train cult was formed in Russian Civil war, not in WW1 or WW2.

Bernd 08/30/2018 (Thu) 18:14:58 [Preview] No.18853 del
(414.48 KB 919x534 MÁVAG_ Héja-M.png)
(911.27 KB 1221x670 Gebauer-machinegun.png)
1. Hungarian built fighter plane, based on the Italian Reggiane Re.2000. Different engine and longer fuselage. It was also equipped with the:
2. Gebauer machinegun which was a synchronized, engine operated machine gun and was developed for airplanes at the end of WWI.

Bernd 09/02/2018 (Sun) 18:49:33 [Preview] No.18928 del
Pic #1 Batmobile. As you, Bernd, surely know even in the WWII horses were widely used to move around artillery pieces. Everyone developed towing vehicles tho so did we. This is one masterpiece.
Pic #2 Another tractor.
Pic #3 Tried to use Italian stuff as well. Between the two WW's we only had access to Italian war material.

Bernd 09/03/2018 (Mon) 22:51:17 [Preview] No.18949 del
(37.16 KB 700x382 pioner_5.jpg)
>Pic #1 Batmobile. As you, Bernd, surely know even in the WWII horses were widely used to move around artillery pieces. Everyone developed towing vehicles tho so did we. This is one masterpiece.

That thing looks cool. Artillery tractors were funny looking in interwar period, until reality decided to put designers thought back to ground and they'd started to create utilitarian vehicles.

Bernd 09/05/2018 (Wed) 20:31:51 [Preview] No.19005 del
(40.51 KB 1145x833 yacht.png)
(354.73 KB 599x422 Sopron-1941.png)
Due to lack of sea access the Hungarian military shipping was limited to riverine warfare and the developments were mostly limited to continuous upgrades of the old Austro-Hungarian units up until the end of WWII.

Bernd 09/05/2018 (Wed) 20:36:27 [Preview] No.19007 del
>landlocked country

Old Soviet joke (maybe I posted it before):
Belorussian SSR (Soviet republic) decided to create ministry of sea transport. Call from Russian SSR:
- Hello, why do you need that ministry? You don't even have a sea!
- Why do you need ministry of culture then?

Bernd 09/05/2018 (Wed) 20:42:14 [Preview] No.19008 del
(395.91 KB 598x423 PM-1-1941.png)
(345.72 KB 599x423 Tüzér-1941.png)
Different types of gunboats were used, some were heavier, equipped with the turrets of tanks, some were lighter and faster like pic #1 and #2.
The boats were used in reconnaissance, reconnaissance by force, mine laying and sweeping, and air defense.
Pic #3 Because the lack of water surface some boats patrolled on roads and rails. These two mine layers deployed anti-tank mines.
Pic #4 From Italy we got back many torpedoes of the late Monarchy. They were also used in anti-tank roles. In the picture a battery is ready to take out a T-34 approaching in the corn field.

Bernd 09/05/2018 (Wed) 20:52:21 [Preview] No.19009 del
That's not a bad joge, it's familiar, maybe you told it in previous joge thread maybe we have it as well in some version.

Bernd 09/05/2018 (Wed) 21:08:19 [Preview] No.19010 del
(21.51 KB 513x293 AntonovA40.jpg)
>They were also used in anti-tank roles. In the picture a battery is ready to take out a T-34 approaching in the corn field.

But can you use naval torpedo against flying tank?


Bernd 09/05/2018 (Wed) 21:11:41 [Preview] No.19011 del
No, but some boats were equipped with the Gebauer aircraft machinegun posted above, they are good against flying things.

Bernd 09/07/2018 (Fri) 19:36:57 [Preview] No.19068 del
Had to post this

Bernd 09/07/2018 (Fri) 19:49:15 [Preview] No.19070 del
(52.10 KB 625x411 laughing.jpg)

Bernd 09/07/2018 (Fri) 20:29:08 [Preview] No.19074 del
(291.86 KB 1200x739 5504518.jpg)
(26.12 KB 600x192 mi24a-c1.jpg)
(264.37 KB 529x720 Boevoy-vertolet-MI24.jpg)

It is also pretty interesting to see that it is uncommon Mi-24A. A helicopter that rarely depicted anywhere.

Bernd 09/08/2018 (Sat) 06:50:39 [Preview] No.19078 del
(366.00 KB 1024x270 aranyszarvas.jpg)
(447.63 KB 1200x800 csörike.jpg)
Looks like someone put armament on a MI-8 or something. Is it even tandem?

Bernd 09/08/2018 (Sat) 09:19:41 [Preview] No.19082 del
(129.64 KB 1000x750 928.jpg)
(38.88 KB 600x450 mi-24a-5.jpg)
(379.21 KB 1400x933 web.jpg)
(330.36 KB 700x933 mi-24d_14_of_28.jpg)
It is actually a true Mi-24, only front side is different. Both pilots sit like in later versions, one beside other.

Versions A and B had this type of cabin, unofficially called "veranda" (terrace) or even "stakan" (drinking glass). On next versions designers decided to do some modifications, like making pilot seats isolated with different position to make better view and do some balance tricks. They also moved tail rotor to other side and changed armament.

Also people rarely know that Mi-24 has small troop compartment, mostly for emergency reasons.

>put armament on a MI-8

Military Mi-8 are often armed, there even a special versions for this. Soviet/Russian aviation had no direct analogue of American "air cavalry" tech with light support helis, so they had no choice but to arm relatively heavy transport Mi-8.

Bernd 09/08/2018 (Sat) 12:56:39 [Preview] No.19092 del
>mostly for emergency reasons
Emergency desant reasons.

Bernd 09/11/2018 (Tue) 18:37:33 [Preview] No.19190 del
(469.72 KB 651x469 CV35-1935M-Ansaldo.png)
(305.79 KB 702x482 V-3_with-pontoons.png)
(608.38 KB 781x500 V-4.png)
Here come the panzers.
Austria-Hungary didn't build much armoured vehicles and after WWI and Trianon the little Hungary didn't have any capacity nor for developing neither for building them.
Pic #1 So to help the situation we chose to buy foreign war material, options were extremely limited. Ofc out military followed the Spanish Civil War and really wanted to acquire some German Panzers as they saw what those were capable of but at that time the Reich protected their assets tightly so we ended up buying a bunch from the Italian L3/35 tankettes. They were utter shit so they got some facelift but that didn't help. They were rebranded as CV35 or 1935 but usually is called Ansaldo which is the name of the Italian company they were built by. They saw some action here and there, participated in the invasion of the Soviet Union where they suffered 100% casualties by the end of the first campaign: not by the enemy but by mechanical failures. Oh well.
But before all this events took and unexpected turn. A Hungarian born engineer, Straussler Miklós (Nicholas Straussler) worked in Britain in the car industry was charged by the British military to return to Hungary and build experimental armored vehicles for them in cooperation with the Weiss Manfred company. He got his British citizenship in February 1930 and not long after he could start his work. They created 22 designs for the Alvis-Straussler Mechanisation Ltd. The Hungarian military kept back 4 built vehicles from the V-3 and V-4 series, 2 for each. I think in Britain they got AV markings (insted the V).
Pic #3 The V-3 was an amphibious armored car, pontoons could be attached for river crossing manouvers.
Pic #2 The V-3 during river crossing. In fact this particular one was the first ever river crossing in Europe by an armoured vehicle.
Pic #4 The V-4 got a Hungarian 40 mm gun and a version of the Gebauer machine gun which was especially redesigned for tanks.

Bernd 09/11/2018 (Tue) 18:39:03 [Preview] No.19191 del
*They were rebranded as CV35 or 1935M

Bernd 09/11/2018 (Tue) 18:40:41 [Preview] No.19192 del
Holy shit so many mistakes.
*He got his British citizenship in February 1933

Bernd 09/12/2018 (Wed) 18:47:03 [Preview] No.19210 del
(106.00 KB 880x580 39m_test.jpg)
(358.18 KB 1007x452 Hunor.png)
(201.68 KB 1097x915 Saladin-latrun-2.jpg)
(249.14 KB 1259x932 Saracen-latrun-2.jpg)
From the Batmobil here >>18928 - which proved to be a failure as an artillery truck - they developed the 1939M Csaba armoured car/recon vehicle, I posted the later version of it here: >>18749
It was a neat little car and was used in the fights but needed an upgrade soon. By 1943 the plans were ready, they named the six-wheeled replacement Hunor. The lack of producing capacity meant another unrealized project. Just after the war the plans got to Alvis via Straussler, where some (few?, many?) points of the concept were used in the making of the Saladin and later the Saracen.

Bernd 09/12/2018 (Wed) 18:49:41 [Preview] No.19211 del
(175.34 KB 1024x768 39M_Csaba_modell.jpeg)
(64.89 KB 900x282 39M_n_40M.jpg)
(301.62 KB 800x597 Csaba06.jpg)
(69.55 KB 545x584 csaba39.JPG)
More Csaba.

Bernd 09/13/2018 (Thu) 07:00:42 [Preview] No.19217 del
(104.21 KB 2554x1483 csaba_1.gif)
(60.86 KB 532x347 csaba_10.jpg)
English sources say that Csaba had crew of 3, but Russian say it was 4. What is true?

Some site says that there were 2 (!) drivers, front and back. Pic 1 shows that it has steering wheel on back too.

Bernd 09/13/2018 (Thu) 15:18:17 [Preview] No.19225 del
Yeah it had two driver seats, one in the front one in the back. It's rare but there are other examples liek Panzerspähwagen and the Italian Autoblinda 41. It also had 10 gears, 5 forward and 5 reverse.
The original intention was to operate it with a crew of four because it was uncomfortable and time consuming for the driver to crawl to the back but I guess it could function without a dedicated second driver as one of the crew members at the turret could pick up that role if needed be.
tl;dr Crew: 4.

Bernd 09/13/2018 (Thu) 20:14:26 [Preview] No.19234 del
(141.38 KB 928x572 Landsverk_L60.jpg)
(275.78 KB 675x492 Landswerk_L-62.png)
(460.55 KB 615x500 Toldi_I.png)
So the Csaba was a neet little toy with as strong armament as the PzII had. At the beginning of the war it wasn't bad however this led to overconfidence in it's abilities on the long run and the Hunor's development started too late so the troops had to use equipment which was outgunned by the enemy's. This was also true all the Hungarian build tanks as well.
The first real tank in the Defense Force's service had Swedish origin. They bought the license of the Landsverk L-60 tank and the L-62 tank destroyer/self-propelled AA gun. Modifications were made and they named them Toldi and Nimród. The Toldi I got a 20 mm heavy rifle and a Gebauer machine gun (btw that was 8 mm).

Bernd 09/13/2018 (Thu) 20:15:43 [Preview] No.19235 del
(453.86 KB 698x490 Toldi_II_40mm.png)
(360.73 KB 693x491 Toldi_II_with-skirt.png)
(660.09 KB 860x434 1943M_Lehel.png)
Pic #1 #2 The Toldi II got stronger springs but not weaponry until 1942-43 when they got a 40 mm gun finally and thicker armor (Toldi II/A). The Toldi III was never finished, I'm not sure how it would differed it was an obsolete light tank as well.
Pic #3 Another version of L-62 was turned into an ambulance tank and called Lehel.
Pic #4 They also designed a tank destroyed on the basis of the Toldi.

Bernd 09/15/2018 (Sat) 09:54:20 [Preview] No.19276 del
Found a severed wing in the gutter. One more bird.

Bernd 09/15/2018 (Sat) 20:11:14 [Preview] No.19284 del
(377.86 KB 1726x885 b-36-engineering.jpg)
>general vehicle/weapons thread


That is the real interface, not modern ones.

B-36 cabin, engineer station.

Bernd 09/16/2018 (Sun) 07:46:55 [Preview] No.19290 del
I could fly that. I grew up on The Dam Busters.

Bernd 09/16/2018 (Sun) 12:06:46 [Preview] No.19293 del
More tanks.
In 1940 we bought the license of the Skoda T-21. With that one prototype came and found to be immature. Bunch of things were redesigned and the 47 mm gun was downgraded to the 40 mm which was the standard AT gun of the Defence Force with abundant supply of ammo. The 40M Turán (I) tank was born. At that time that 40 was far from enough and they knew it. So they started to develop plans for the incorporation of a modified 75mm Böhler gun with the help of the Swedish Bofors. I think they made a short, low-velocity and a long, high velocity version of that gun. Nevertheless we produced some 41M Turán (II) with the short barrel gun and built one prototype of the 43M Turán (III).

Bernd 09/16/2018 (Sun) 12:12:32 [Preview] No.19294 del
(327.00 KB 1202x782 44M_Tas_drawing1.png)
(521.88 KB 1178x886 44M_Tas_drawing2.png)
(451.87 KB 931x439 44M_Tas_side.png)
(432.52 KB 737x440 44M_Tas_back.png)
Our military engineers planned a heavy tank as well based on their observations of the Panther and Tiger tanks. It was the 44M Tas. The main gun would have been the 29/38M 80 mm AA gun at first, but the prototype got the 1943M 75mm (long, high-velocity) gun.
The categories of medium and heavy tanks in the Hungarian army was used by the size of the gun and not by the weight of the tank. So the Turáns with the 75 guns were graded as heavy tanks, just like the Pz IV's we obtained from the Germs while those were medium tanks in the Wehrmacht.
And now that we are talking about German armament... After we moved the 2nd Hungarian Army to the Eastern Front the German high command started to give material gradually to help alleviate the urgent need of modern weapons. This way during the course of the war we got:
Pz IV F1, F2, G, H
Pz V
Pz 38t
Marder II

Bernd 09/16/2018 (Sun) 19:39:36 [Preview] No.19320 del

That feel when missed that game. But played B-17 and other DOS sims of early 90s.


I hate these dirty Czechoslovaks because I've pushed a broken Octavia at 40C for hour few years ago. Looks like they continue to work for nazis and plan to holocaust the Russian people.

>At that time that 40 was far from enough and they knew it

In 40 and maybe until 42 it was ok, not because it was actually good, but because pre-war concept of light infantry-support tank was a thing, until war brought military designers to reality and showed that it is nothing. For example, Soviet army had large amount of light tanks, and they were designed even when war was going (T-70 was created in late 41 and produced until 43 for example).

>based on their observations of the Panther and Tiger tanks. It was the 44M Tas.
>German high command started to give material gradually to help alleviate the urgent need of modern weapon

Couldn't Germans supply Hungarian industry with plans to produce clones Pz IV or Panther? How Germans and Hungarians actually cooperated in WW2? It looks strange that allied country needs to invent something on it's own when global war rages on.

There is pretty good and large article about Turan 2 on Russian wiki. It is strange that Hungarian version is much shorter. We also have one tank in Kubinka museum.

Bernd 09/16/2018 (Sun) 21:36:05 [Preview] No.19323 del
>It looks strange that allied country needs to invent something on it's own when global war rages on.
So Hearts of Iron isn't as unrealistic as I thought.

Bernd 09/17/2018 (Mon) 05:53:30 [Preview] No.19324 del
>How Germans and Hungarians actually cooperated in WW2?
They didn't.
Well, it's difficult. The German-Hungarian relations were very chilly, I'm not sure which side trusted the other less. Will write about it later.
>There is pretty good and large article about Turan 2 on Russian wiki. It is strange that Hungarian version is much shorter.
The stigma of being fascist/nazi/anit-semite in that period is still very strong so it's kind of a taboo to show interest to these stuff. In the early 2000's a military historian started to paint more objective picture focusing entirely on the military side of the events leaving out the politics, society, economy everything. Still he was attacked. Since then a few younger ones fledged and continued to correct our view on things. Still they keep away from politics (both back then and today and when it comes up anyway they are extremely careful and cover their asses, anyone can earn the stigma easily).
The average Hungarian knows nothing about WWII and our participation. Almost exclusively fascists, nazis, those who study history at uni (those who specialize in WWII are mostly have fascist and nazi view on things), a handful of assburgers and for a degree some Jews ofc. Guess who edits the wikipedia articles on this topic. I'm not saying it's da Joos but it's da Joos.
Generally speaking Hungarian wikipedia is absolute shite.
Maybe I'll write more later on this as well.

Bernd 09/17/2018 (Mon) 15:17:09 [Preview] No.19331 del
I forgot Pz VI H from the list.

Bernd 09/17/2018 (Mon) 19:58:05 [Preview] No.19336 del
So German-Hungarian relations.
Not sure where to start because there are things reaching back to the late 19th century but I don't want to ramble too much. It is also really hard to get to some kind of "truth" in this question as the post-war communist propaganda and history writing did lot to muddle the picture by demonizing the Germans and making pathetic bootlickers of the Hungarians, but the interwar and wartime propaganda of both sides did the same from the other end by painting the situation overly jovial and comradely.

Maybe I should start with the mood of the officers.
Because of the historical background there was some camaraderie and the war propaganda played this card as well. Most of the Hungarian officers were pro-Germany and very anti-communist, they very much admired the German war machine and it's efficiency so that helped oiling the wheels. However some interactions put some sands in there as well
I believe five types of German officers existed: 1. indifferent towards us, 2. hated us for previous experience, 3. loved us for previous experience, 4. hated us without previous experience, 5. loved us without previous experience.
Hungarian units were subordinated to German ones, either to a higher command in an army group or one of the neighbouring army HQ was in charge of the Hungarian army next to it (kinda). How they functioned together was largely depended upon the predisposition and the character of the German commander in charge. With zealous hardasses who frowned upon everyone cooperation was poor (I think in the case of the 2nd Hungarian Army at the Don and in the aftermath), those who had friendlier attitude things went much better (1st Hungarian Army in the Carpathians).
The lackluster equipment and underpoweredness of our units didn't make good first impression and generally the Hungarian soldiers and officers didn't find attractive the idea of dying for Herr Hitler on the say so of the OKW/OKH far from Hungarian border after the Barbarossa turned into assorabraB I mean when the front started to move toward west. In Russia some German officers labeled our troops cowards when they rather chose retreat instead of holding pointlessly ground "to the last breath". Some German officers for their own shortcomings tried to shift the blame onto the Hungarians, sometimes with success. It was quite different when the fights happened at home and the opinion of German officers changed accordingly, tho they themselves lost much from their haughtiness as well by then.

Cont. Bernd 09/17/2018 (Mon) 19:59:29 [Preview] No.19337 del
(74.21 KB 772x434 H.u.H.jpg)
Ofc for the equipment and "technology" transfers and such weren't the officers in charge. It all depended on diplomacy and the people who led the countries.
On the German side Hitler seemed to be neutral he didn't spend much time of his thinking about the Hungarians. I read that Alfred Rosenberg and Goebbels hated us but I haven't read their own words so I'm not entirely sure especially in case of Goebbels as the propaganda of the Reich wasn't anti-Hungarian (for practical reasons for sure but who knows). I don't know about any leading politicians who was particularly fond of Hungarians. Once I read Veesenmayer's report about Hungary but I don't really remember, I know it wasn't too warm in it's tone.
From Hungarian side, while they were friendly toward Germany herself, the national socialist leadership was barely acceptable. Our government and foreign ministry were full of aristocrats and the whole natsoc movement smelled like revolutionaries. The person of Hitler was parvenu to them, the beggar nobody or the "little corporal" at best. Horthy himself wasn't enthusiastic about him at all. I think there was some hidden revulsion by the fact that Horthy was a fucking admiral of the K.u.K. and Hitler ditched his duty and left for Germany instead of joining Franz Josef's Armee as a good Austrian patriot should have. I really should read his memoirs sometime.
There were more and less pro-German prime ministers and as the war went on the Germans expressed their opinion who should it be more and more. Ironically the Hungarian national socialists were even less pro-German than the whole bunch before them and the Germans only helped them to power by the end of the war because they were the only ones willing to continue leading the fight.

Cont. Bernd 09/17/2018 (Mon) 20:01:00 [Preview] No.19338 del
And ofc the high politics didn't entirely depend on the leading figures personal preferences and feelings. It was all about interests. Hungary was a special case.
Every aspect of Hungary - it's economy, politics, military, strategy, objectives etc - was influenced by the 2 years that followed WWI and culminated in Trianon. Right after the war the revolution helped liberals and social democrats into power, they disbanded the army which allowed the neighbours' troops to march into Hungary, then let the communist seize the power who not just initiated the "red terror" against their fellow countrymen but failed to repulse the foreign invaders this wasn't really their fault in that situation noone could do much.
Then basically the Entente put Horthy into power by putting the communists into flight so he and his army of officers could seize the power and him and his commissioned government was legit enough for the Entente to sit down with them in the Grand Trianon chateau and make them sign the peace dictate to finalize the end of the war.
It wasn't just territorial and population loss, the treaty destroyed the economy (with the exception of Budapest all industral centers were lost and with them almost all resources as well) and presented military restrictions: no conscription only voluntary service, 35 000 soldiers max, no general staff, no army or corp level units, 525 machine gun, 140 mortar, 105 artillery piece tops, no armoured vehicles, no planes, no manufacturing ships and planes.
They created the Little Entente to prevent the revenge Hungary would have inevitably done with her unstoppable force described above. This also isolated the country diplomatically. Maybe Austria left as a possibility but the most minor cooperation was suspected as a restoration of the Habsburg dynasty, Poland had it's own problems with her newly formed country, Germany was a chaos, Italy was still an enemy, just liek France and England. Soviet-Russia was the devil himself, every other country was too far or too insignificant or both. Wat nou?

Will be continued.

Bernd 09/17/2018 (Mon) 21:08:14 [Preview] No.19339 del
>The stigma of being fascist/nazi/anit-semite in that period is still very strong so it's kind of a taboo to show interest to these stuff

It is pretty interesting. In USSR nazis were the biggest devil in the world, and Victory slowly became a religious cult (nowadays it is truly religious). Even modern anti-Ukrainian propaganda often uses terminology from WW2 ("we only want peace and already saved world from fascism but yet again fascists going to..." etc).

But, surprisingly, studies of German war participation was common, many historians and amateur history lovers were pretty good specialists about Nazi Germany. Of course you'll need to say that "nazis were very bad", but there were even people who built only nazi scale models for example. Latent hidden German-wannabees aren't rare in war history circles.

And, now not so surprisingly, anti-nazi propaganda created a counter action, even we jokingly "threw hands to the sun" in school (and it was 90s with Soviet atmosphere in mind). Modern schoolkids often do this too, and even older average Russians, who officially hate Hitler, become less angry about him when when it is talk about refugees or roads ("at least he built good roads, not like our government!"). Although real nazis here are small minority of course, and being open nazi is no-no (I've seen guy with big swastika tattoo few months again though). I guess average German will be truly shocked if he'll visit Russia because, as far as I know, even talking about nazis could trigger guilty circle for the modern German.

Maybe this is one of the reasons why Hungarian tech has good representation in Russian internet. Especially because Hungarians aren't demonized at all.

Bernd 09/18/2018 (Tue) 00:09:55 [Preview] No.19349 del
>They created the Little Entente to prevent the revenge Hungary would have inevitably done with her unstoppable force described above. This also isolated the country diplomatically.
Reading Ernst Starhemberg's memoirs, I was amazed at how hardheaded the Little Entente was about keeping Austria and Hungary down at all costs. Even as Germany was spreading its tendrils to the Balkans in the 30s and threatening Austrian and Czechoslovak sovereignty, their foreign policy was first and foremost anti-Austrian, to the point that Yugoslavia went as far as backing the failed 1934 Nazi coup by housing the escaped Austrian National Socialists and shipping them back to Germany.
Austrian diplomats sought Balkan allies or even a Danubian economic union to ward off German pressure, but Hungary was the only nation to discuss with them on non-hostile terms, with Horthy stating to him in 1934 that "a German-Hungarian border would create an unsustainable situation for Hungary". Masaryk and Titulescu demonstrated sympathy for his desperate stand against Germany during George V's funeral in 1936 (though their countries didn't change their unhelpful attitudes), while Prince Paul of Yugoslavia gave him the cold shoulder. Legitimist circles were openly discussing a Habsburg restoration at the time and the Little Entente considered such a possibility worse than an Anschluss, even though Schuschsnigg had no intention to do it. Yugoslavia was also paranoid about a hypothetical alliance between Austria and Croatian separatists.

Bernd 09/18/2018 (Tue) 18:45:27 [Preview] No.19379 del
With a little break today I complete the topic of the Hungarian armored vehicles in WWII as you guys posted a lot and I wanna read those and can't if I write long.
Let me introduce you the Zrínyi II assault gun (105 mm howitzer) and Zrínyi I tank destroyer (75 mm AT). The Zrínyi II is earlier and I believe they only realized a prototype of Zrínyi I. Both were built on the chassis of the Turán.

Bernd 09/18/2018 (Tue) 19:16:31 [Preview] No.19380 del
The main difference probably is that we were fascists and natsoc and we are guilty in killing the Jews just the sames liek the Germans. Every fucking topic which gets open to public it has to include Holocaust and it's condemnation even if it's nothing to do with it it's just happens to be in the same interval.
Not long ago, I think about the end of last year there was an open forum/argument/debate about a fine if not the finest Hungarian historian of all time, Hóman Bálint, who was Minister of Education for a few times and was the member of the Parliament and remained that after the Hungarist takeover of the government in '44. After the war the communists arrested him, got sentenced as war criminal and basically tortured him to death. His membership of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (MTA) was suspended. Now some peeps want to erect a statue of him as few years ago he was rehabilitated and they even want to give him back of his MTA membership. I watched a good part of the argument as it was recorded maybe by some TV channel I can't remember (it also hazy where I watched the thing in the telly or online, nevermind). Apparently the problem is that he didn't object against the treatment of the Jews (deportation, forced labour, killing) so he can't get a statue and can't get back his membership either. One of the younger military historian I mentioned before who took steps to correct things chaired the debate and all he did was interjection: "but he was guilty". The whole thing was shameful, the pro-statue group gave their arguments, then a Jewish lady said: "he didn't cared about the Jews", this dude said: "but he was guilty". Rinse and repeat several times. His scientific work has nothing to do with the Jews, they made the issue into a Jewish question.
Best part: 99% of the Hungarians have never heard about Hóman Bálint, and only a handful of assburgers can really appreciate his work. So even if he got a statue it wouldn't matter for almost all of the people who would see it wouldn't know who he was.

Bernd 09/18/2018 (Tue) 19:18:50 [Preview] No.19381 del
Oh, also we don't have that guilt trip what the Germans have we "only" have to disassociate ourselves from fascists, nazis, anti-semites and everyone who labeled as such. At least those who care about their carrier.

Bernd 09/18/2018 (Tue) 19:20:17 [Preview] No.19382 del

Bernd 09/18/2018 (Tue) 19:27:07 [Preview] No.19383 del
>Masaryk and Titulescu demonstrated sympathy for his desperate stand against Germany during George V's funeral in 1936 (though their countries didn't change their unhelpful attitudes), while Prince Paul of Yugoslavia gave him the cold shoulder
There was some softening in the relations at that time. In 1938 we signed an agreement with the members of the Little Entente in Bled (Yugoslavia) in which they accepted our equal rights to armament. In return we resigned from the revision of Trianon via military action.
I will touch this topic as well.

Bernd 09/19/2018 (Wed) 21:15:26 [Preview] No.19407 del
(94.39 KB 800x545 Mussolini e Gombos.jpg)
So as I mentioned previously all our interwar politics revolved around Trianon, it's impact and the road which led to it.
Revision by all means necessary was a popular idea but the military option was too unrealistic so beside the slow buildup we looked for foreign support everywhere and took what was given. Which was actually nothing but it wasn't unimaginable to reach some kind of a revision through the foreign powers. Many people, even important and influential ones thought that the treaty was way too harsh, undeserved, misguided and inaccurate. We also tried to prove we took things seriously, the government repelled the loyalists' Royal Coup d'état twice. However between the two wars not one western power showed any interest of actually doing something, beside the sympathizers there were those who didn't like Hungary and those (probably the largest group) who didn't give a rat's ass about things that didn't benefit their country at least a bit.
The rise of the fascist movement in Italy was a godsend. Italy was a monarchy with a real king, a colonial power, a country on the winner side of WWI, the Vatican was basically a second foreign ministry and in Mussolini our regime found an empathic leader to our cause and up to 1940 he remained the main supporter despite the fact we gained not too much thanks to him. Regardless this was a definitive break of the diplomatic isolation.
Up to the second half of the '20s the Entente had a commission checking if we keep the military restrictions. It was easy as we were too busy to build the industry what could support armament. They didn't do their job too severely and out government tried to find ways to get around the rules similarly how Germany did at that time. Then everyone licked their wounds during the depression I guess. It was the '30s when things started going better, via Italy we gained access to relatively modern military tech, then the relations got a little warmer with the Little Entente thanks for the changes the new German leadership introduced to the politics of the continent. Czechoslovakia found herself neighboring a potential enemy while the Yugos and Romania got closer to the Reich. The new German ambitions put a strain on the relation with us and Italy because of Austria, Hitler had to build a friendship with Mussolini in order to execute the Anschluss and they finally found common ground and understanding. It didn't meant too much good for us tho.
Nevertheless about that time, in fact not many days before the end of Austria our government saw that finally we can do the military buildup openly. The Little Entente could do jackshit. Then few months later they accepted our right to armament in Bled in exchange we gave a promise we won't attack any one of them.

Bernd 09/19/2018 (Wed) 21:20:01 [Preview] No.19408 del
Our government tended to be realist - even tho they didn't pursued Realpolitik all the time and they could be fooled if someone played on their hopes and dreams - they didn't planned our military to face such powers as Germany or the Soviet but they knew we have to be ready to stand ground against one of our neigbours as their cooperation seemed less and less possible.
Late summer of '38 our leaders got an invitation from Hitler and they traveled to Berlin. He offered us back Northern Hungary with Kárpátalja ie. the whole region what Czechia got in Trianon. Out of friendship? No. In this case our interests overlapped he wanted Czechia in whole or just the parts of it doesn't matter. But he wanted something in return, he wanted us to initiate the war. Horthy and the other diplomats declined. Supposedly they didn't see this possible but I believe they wanted to keep the Agreement of Bled as well. So this didn't happen but our Italian connection came in handy now, in the Munich Agreement the Italian party insisted for a settlement with Poland and Hungary too. This culminated in the First Vienna Award. We got less but at least this could be called as a correction. On the other hand we got Tiso's puppet state onto our back. Oh well.
The next request of joining forces with the Germans arrived when they planned the attack against Poland. I think the bare minimum was to allow them to move their troops across our country as we had common border with Poland now. Poland however was considered a friendly state and the current government of ours was resolved to keep the country out of war on the side of Germany. This was a desperate attempt to appease the British diplomacy. It was desperate because since the end of the '20s the Brits turned less and less flexible in the question of the revision and by the middle of the '30s they supported no territorial changes. They said to London we have to go through Prague. And Prague was done by '39. Still they warned our government again and again that our declared friendly attitude toward the UK isn't enough we have to make do with our neighbours. They understood our revisionist politics but they rejected it in practice and they kept to this.

Bernd 09/19/2018 (Wed) 21:29:55 [Preview] No.19409 del
So we didn't become BFF of Germany especially after the rejections Hitler got. That was the job of Romania at that time. It was bigger than Hungary with larger population, stronger economy, larger army and - most importantly - more oil. They also had a beef with the Soviet Union which came in handy as tensions cranked up between the two countries as events went on. The Soviet stepped forward with an idea and declared they were willing to support our territorial claims as they also gave similar demands to Romania. We refused the common action, the anti-communist sentiments were too strong for this.
Nevertheless our military gained enough strength that our diplomats could operate with the threat of an open armed conflict against the Romanians. This was a great big minus in the eye of the Brits and caused much problems in Berlin too. In general the Hungarian-Romanian relations were an aching pimple on Hitler's buttcheek throughout the whole war. Not just that they had to keep some other units between the two nations' troops as they started to shoot at each other if they got near but after the Second Vienna Award which supposed to solve the enmity a constant small scale war had been going on - until the Romanians switched sides - with regular raids, small arms fire, and mortar shelling. As far as I know during the negotiation of the Award it became clear that the Italians have less and less control over the events and whatever will happen in the future the Germans will be the deciding party.

To be continued

Bernd 09/22/2018 (Sat) 16:01:05 [Preview] No.19473 del
So by the Second Vienna Award (1940 august) which divided Transylvania it became obvious that the Germans will be the deciding factor in the questions of the lands along the Danube. Italians had only South Balkan and African interests, France didn't really exist no more, Britain retreated from the continent tho she reserved for herself the right of judging other countries as if she was still a world power and the Soviet felt like lepers for the nations around here to allow them to have a say in what's going on here. So dealing with Hitler finally become inevitable for us but still tried to give way for the voice of neutrality which had even less credibility after joining the Tripartite act, the invasion of Yugoslavia and finally it become totally empty when we joined to the attack on the SU. But it was enough to make the German leadership suspicious toward us and they also knew about every diplomatic approaching of ours towards Britain. Germans also didn't like that Jews could live in relative safety on the Hungary, in comparison Romania took care her Jews between '41-43 or so.

Bernd 09/22/2018 (Sat) 16:10:31 [Preview] No.19474 del
While there wasn't any pressure from Germany which forced us to attack the SU and it was a voluntary action after that they continuously urged us to ramp up the war effort and send more troops and equipment to the front. Our leadership was cautious in this. What we had wasn't much and they tried to preserve what they could in case of an post-war settlement would need to be done so we wouldn't stand there without an army like before Trianon. It's a myth tho that we sent the 2nd Hungarian army underequipped (albeit it was highly understaffed/undersized/underpowered compared to a German army) and this event the sending of the 2nd Hun. army in '42 April-June started the process of handing over German war materials (first mainly simple AT guns not the self-propelled types and not necessarily German but French or Belgian for example, then even airplanes).

Bernd 09/22/2018 (Sat) 16:13:20 [Preview] No.19475 del
The destruction of this army in '43 January was a shock and compelled our diplomacy to probe Britain what's their opinion about a peace treaty. We openly expressed that we wouldn't fight against American, British and Polish troops if they happened to be launch a campaign towards our little corner of the world but would fight fiercely against Soviet, Romanian and Yugoslavian forces. But this compelled the Germans in autumn to prepare an occupation plan against Hungary which they executed in '44's spring. Then in October Horthy made a pointless effort to leave the war - as our troops kept fighting - which led to his abduction by the Germans and the Hungarist takeover. By this time the front was in Hungary - mostly thanks for the Romanian switcharoo during the summer - and there were no more question about stopping and relations didn't matter anymore at all. Germans gave what they could or judged they could hereafter.

Bernd 09/22/2018 (Sat) 16:15:05 [Preview] No.19476 del
(11.36 KB 161x195 25th_SS_Division.png)
So yeah. It was a bumpy ride with the Germans. From their viewpoint we weren't the most trustworthy ally and our leadership knew the Germans also were willing to go as far as their interests reached. They were an aggressively expansive force which couldn't be defied but there were points which allowed cooperation and compared to all the other powers they were the only ones present in the region, the region which we needed and wanted to change to our advantage. They had to make do with us, especially after all the other allies of theirs proved to be utter garbage. Them granting us their armament originated from more of a necessity than generous intention.

It's interesting to note that as they organised new SS units with foreign crew our two divisions couldn't even get enough SS uniforms, lot of the soldiers had to use their old ones from whatever Hungarian unit they served previously. A bunch of them applied to the SS in the hopes they get better equipment so they could actually contribute to the fighting. However most of them got nothing. Memoirs say - for example - a unit of theirs retreated to the west in Silezia (as they were transported to the area of Neuhammer) as the front approached and they went by an armory where they asked for weapons, they were denied on the basis that the counterattack soon will come and then the Germans will need those. The counterattack never came and the armory had to be blown up so the Red Army couldn't get its hands on it.

Bernd 09/25/2018 (Tue) 18:20:25 [Preview] No.19558 del
(204.92 KB 1200x858 tank-factory.jpg)
Maybe one more closing thought for this.
Up to 1942 a German "technology update" of the Hungarian military was impossible due to poor relations. After that probably the weak Hungarian war production, the lack of factories and facilities also obstructed such thing, for example the production of already ordered tanks took a while, changing to another model with foreign design, probably with different manufacturing processes would delay the equipment of the troops who were waiting impatiently and dying fast.

Bernd 09/27/2018 (Thu) 16:17:16 [Preview] No.19613 del
Saving this for reading it later. Related to topic.

Bernd 09/27/2018 (Thu) 20:52:08 [Preview] No.19624 del
(235.81 KB 1024x768 media.jpg)
>USA and Britain bombed civilians so much so even air was hot.

Now BBC need to post some article about scientific research of global warming effects of holocaust.

Bernd 09/28/2018 (Fri) 05:08:59 [Preview] No.19626 del
Why the BBC? RT can't do the same? And actually it was the Brits who wrote this, the article gives the source:
And the full paper is downloadable there.
But I agree that the title is somewhat propagandistic.

Bernd 09/28/2018 (Fri) 07:28:29 [Preview] No.19628 del
I have no objection against that research as is, although quality of ionosphere data from war times looks suspicious.

>Why the BBC? RT can't do the same?

It is more about light, unseen bias. In modern anti-West (tm) circles (includen RT) stories of Allied bombings are used as ideologic thing, like, "USA always were evil, no one in WW2 did such atrocities, even Germans didn't bomb cities fully. And remember the Hiroshima".

On other side, pro-West sources try not to talk about this, because target of bombings were nazis, and nazis are absolute evil.

With holocaust situation is different, anti-West sources rarely speak about it (except when they need to attack modern Germany), but pro-West remember it very often.

Bernd 09/29/2018 (Sat) 14:30:09 [Preview] No.19651 del
Back to weapons.
In WWI they built two gun factories. Gun as in artillery piece and not rifle or pistol. An actual one in Győr in Western Hungary, and one producing only spare parts in Diósgyőr in Eastern Hungary where they established a repair workshop as well. After WWI and the Hungarian Soviet the Romanians ransacked the factory in Győr and the site remained empty until 1942.
We wanted to buy the license of the German 10,5 cm leFH 18 but the they didn't sell it only ready made pieces. Also they only sold their Pak 40 in Dec. '42. and by the time we could produce anything out of that we didn't have the capacity anymore.

Here's a list, maybe left out some.
In WWI mainly 8, 10,5 and 15 cm guns. These were developed by Skoda.
- 1905/8M 8 cm light gun
- 1905/8M. 8 cm AA gun
- 14M./a,b,c 10 cm howitzers
In the 20's they mainly repaired, maintained the old ones, after that the development started:
31M. towed 15 cm howitzer - Swedish license
31M. towed 10,5 cm gun - Swedish license
from the 1915M. mountain gun they created the 1915/31M. horse towed gun
1929M. 8 cm Bofors AA gun
1936M. 4 cm AA autocannon
40M. 10,5 cm howitzer
40M. 21 cm heavy howitzer
39M. originally Italian -> 40M.
42M. 10.5 cm howitzer - no series produced
43M. towed 15 cm howitzer - no series produced
Tank cannons: 40 mm, 75 mm short and long, 80 mm, I'm not sure all of their model number, the long 75 was 43M.
36/39M. 81 mm mortar
43M. 120 mm mortar
43M. 15 cm multiple rocket launcher

>they continue to work for nazis and plan to holocaust the Russian people.
By forcing them to drive in a heatwave. Flawless plan.

Bernd 10/01/2018 (Mon) 21:08:23 [Preview] No.19695 del
(685.44 KB 861x573 Király_39M_soldier.png)
(218.17 KB 698x328 Király_39M.png)
(939.46 KB 1434x573 Király_43M.png)
(189.21 KB 695x327 Király_K_SMG.png)
Let's dial back the size of weapons to submachine gun size. Umm. To the XL category of the submachine gun size. This is the Király smg which was named after it's constructor Király Pál, the model numbers: 1939M (basic), 1939/A M (folding stock), 1943M (folding stock and tilted magazine), K SMG (commie version from '50s).
What can be told this guy tells it:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=JWQFtRId85U [Embed]
Some stuff he misses out tho. For example the Hungarian military didn't adapted smgs because it was thought to be a weapon of policing force. Even for them they ordered some Bergmann and that's it.
In Hungarian it is sometimes referred as a machine carbine and not submachine gun.
I've different numbers on how many of these were manufactured: 8652 piece from the 1939M and 13176 from the 1943M (the army ordered 61350 piece).

Bernd 10/01/2018 (Mon) 21:39:46 [Preview] No.19696 del
>For example the Hungarian military didn't adapted smgs because it was thought to be a weapon of policing force.

Same reason was used in post-war USSR, so there were no SMG development until 1990s. Official position was "police is the western opressive capitalist thing, we have people's militia and no big crime". For exceptional cases police used army weapons (i.e. AK, SKS, old SMGs from war etc).

When confronted with crime wave of late 80s, police used short AKS-74U as SMG replacement because there were no other choice. They use it even today, although some local made SMGs started to appear. It is pretty bad weapon for this role, because 5.45 bullets known for ricochet when used at short distance, and overall it is army weapon (designed for vehicle crews), not police.

But, if we'll go back to WW2 theme again: SMG wasn't really good weapon for mass army. For real army operation it has short range and not so good power, so it is ok only in close combat, but field battle isn't close combat for most time. Burst fire also isn't an option, it gives bad precision and uses ammo very fast. So, main weapon of infantry in WW2 was large and powerful rifle (and machineguns of course, but this is another story), although movies and folk stories give image of SMG as main weapon. Hungarian army didn't lose much.

Bernd 10/02/2018 (Tue) 05:36:31 [Preview] No.19699 del
After WWII Russian weapons were adopted widely both by the military and the police among them smgs and these were upgraded to AK variants later. Supposedly the 7.62 is too strong ammunition for the police, I watched some videos of Paul Harrell (I mentioned him in another thread, channel here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6QH13V2o68zynSa0hZy9uQ ) and in some of them he shoots targets behind cover (e.g. wooden, concrete etc) and sometimes the cover is just destroyed by a few shots, depending on the ammo (and barrel), so I guess a shootout with AK's could claim more innocent victims accidentally.

I find your remark on the usefulness of smgs in WWII inaccurate. Even in WWI rifles were outdated - from today's point of view - as they have unnecessary long range and they are only capable of single shots and the armies needed more dense fire and not more accuracy in a range where smgs were passable (but not optimal I give it you that). More on this later.

Bernd 10/02/2018 (Tue) 09:47:08 [Preview] No.19700 del
>Supposedly the 7.62 is too strong ammunition for the police,

And 5.45 too, as in AK-74. Yes, range is too long and bullet is too powerful.

>Even in WWI rifles were outdated - from today's point of view - as they have unnecessary long range and they are only capable of single shots and the armies needed more dense fire and not more accuracy in a range where smgs were passable (but not optimal I give it you that).

Yes, range was too long, but range of SMGs was too short. They were effective only on <150m because of short barrels and pistol ammo. Frontline shooting in trenches requires more range, even maneuver combat requires more. Of course in cities and close combat situation is different, but it wasn't main area of battle.

Armies tried to use shorter carbines but didn't phase them out completely even after war.

Although topic is debatable of course.

Bernd 10/02/2018 (Tue) 18:27:56 [Preview] No.19709 del
I have to circle back to the psychology of killing again.
The interviews the American historians conducted with the soldiers not just determined that only 2% of them was willing to kill but about the third of them took shots at the enemy. Not targeted shots just shots into the general direction of them. Which also means that rifle fire should proved to be less effective as it should have been compared to the fire of automatic weapons (in our case smgs) since by the law of large numbers randomly spraying a bunch of bullet at once has more chance to hit a target than a random single shot. This might be translated to the military leadership as an increased effectiveness when they viewed smgs the first time and decided it's a viable option.

Bernd 10/03/2018 (Wed) 05:16:57 [Preview] No.19712 del
All in all tho, I guess in pre-post-WWII times (before soldiers started to get shot-to-kill training/conditioning in the armies of the world or at least in the US military) didn't really matter what weapons the soldiers got - beside machine gun and grenades - as they didn't use them at all or at least how they should have.

Bernd 10/07/2018 (Sun) 12:58:47 [Preview] No.19836 del
The Panzerschreck impressed Hungarian officers and soldiers alike but the Germans didn't gave a license we could only use what they manufactured. So after studying it our engineers drew up our own version with several modifications which made the manufacturing process easier and gave a somewhat ballistically superior rocket.
The caliber was reduced to 60 mm, the maximum range was 150 m, the efficient range was somewhere between 60 and 70 meters.
It was adapted in 1944, I don't know more precise date only that it arrived too late and we could produce only a small amount and that was nowhere close to the actual demand.

Bernd 10/07/2018 (Sun) 13:00:39 [Preview] No.19837 del
(283.54 KB 332x950 1944M_AT_rocket2.png)
Fugg. Some error habbened with the second pic. Here's that drawing again.

Bernd 10/07/2018 (Sun) 16:16:14 [Preview] No.19844 del
(73.56 KB 333x950 le-turan-rocket.jpg)

Bernd 10/07/2018 (Sun) 16:50:17 [Preview] No.19849 del
Kek. Just wait until we reach Turul radar.

Bernd 10/08/2018 (Mon) 13:56:54 [Preview] No.19881 del

Bernd 10/08/2018 (Mon) 15:31:04 [Preview] No.19883 del
What do you mean?

Bernd 10/09/2018 (Tue) 11:22:29 [Preview] No.19898 del
(44.58 KB 642x350 shrek.jpg)

Bernd 10/09/2018 (Tue) 15:14:39 [Preview] No.19902 del
(29.29 KB 377x567 panzer-shrek.jpg)
Ah, I ged id.

Bernd 10/09/2018 (Tue) 17:21:35 [Preview] No.19906 del
(364.77 KB 2379x1762 KrAZ_Shrek_One.jpg)
(1.67 MB 2502x1704 Kraz-Feona-Gun.jpg)

Ukrainian automotive manufacturer KRaZ (former USSR truck plant, it was giant factory whose trucks could be found everywhere) with cooperation with some Canadians made two MRAPs and called them literally Shrek and Fiona.

Strangely but Fiona is slightly larger than Shrek.

Bernd 10/09/2018 (Tue) 17:38:55 [Preview] No.19909 del
Looked it up and not one vehicle looks familiar. We have UAZs, ZILs, KAMAZs but I can't recall KrAZs despite it would seem convenient to export those here,e specially in Soviet times.

Bernd 10/09/2018 (Tue) 17:53:37 [Preview] No.19910 del
(299.59 KB 1024x731 KrAZ_255.JPG)
(400.74 KB 1024x768 hungarian-kraz.jpg)
(371.90 KB 1024x734 east-german-kraz.jpg)
That is strange, becauze KRAZ is pretty common even today in Russia, although new KRAZes are rare because other local manufacturers (Ural, KAMAZ) replaced it.

By the way, ZIL is completely dead, sadly. Plant is fully destroyed and replaced by shitty offices and hipster flats. Government even destroyed their car museum.

Bernd 10/09/2018 (Tue) 18:52:43 [Preview] No.19925 del
That's the Hungarian Defense Force's coloring. And the logo on the board in front of it is also the HDF's. Must be the reason it isn't familiar to me.

Bernd 10/10/2018 (Wed) 12:16:14 [Preview] No.19951 del
What's that camo design on the 2nd one? Kinda looks like a pixelshit indie game.

Bernd 10/10/2018 (Wed) 14:24:14 [Preview] No.19954 del
Just some random non-standard digital camo I guess. Painted mostly for presentational purposes.

Bernd 10/10/2018 (Wed) 17:34:45 [Preview] No.19960 del
(137.53 KB 960x640 spartan.jpeg)

Bernd 10/10/2018 (Wed) 17:35:43 [Preview] No.19961 del
what is the idea behind this kind of camouflage?

Bernd 10/10/2018 (Wed) 17:50:42 [Preview] No.19962 del
All camos objective is to break the contour of the stuff they want to hide. I'm not sure these particular ones do the job well but in general digital patterns do that just the same as the "wavy" ones.

Bernd 10/10/2018 (Wed) 21:45:30 [Preview] No.19966 del
(85.67 KB 800x600 camo.jpg)

Digital camo officially called multi-scale camouflage, pattern that breaks the contour on small distances and on medium, because pattern is complex and looks different on different distances.


But it doesn't really matter, if there are pixels with square shape or classic pattern, color distribution and sizes matter. Pixels have some small benefits in production (i.e. easier coloring), but overall it is just for cool look. Technically, small pixels make border between colors less noticeable on large distances and this helps to avoid detection on moving, but small circles will do same effect.

Camo on KrAZes on photo made pixelated for displaying purposes. It is 21st century etc.

Bernd 10/11/2018 (Thu) 01:06:17 [Preview] No.19968 del
What about countershading-based camouflage?

Bernd 10/11/2018 (Thu) 05:33:13 [Preview] No.19971 del
Isn't that pointless on ground vehicles?

Bernd 10/11/2018 (Thu) 19:00:16 [Preview] No.19979 del
Now this is a curiousity.
At first the Germans didn't delivered Panzerfausts and Panzerschrecks but in '43 they gave a pair for making studies. As I said the letter inspired the 44M 60 mm handheld rocket launcher but the Panzerfaust also gave ideas to Hungarian military engineers. Luckily we could buy the Nebelwerfer's license and they used the gunpowder of it in several explosives (like in the 60 mm rocket).
The novelty was the detonation which was based on a mechanism that they later called Misnay-Schardin effect. The two researcher discovered it independently, probably the German was the first. Here you can read more about it:
The operation of the 44M 60 mm rocket, the 40 mm AT projectile, 43M AT mine and the 44M. "Macelauncher" was based on this effect.

Bernd 10/11/2018 (Thu) 19:01:52 [Preview] No.19980 del
Today's topic the the 44M. "Macelauncher" (Buzogányvető) or "Szálasi-rocket" which was a three person crew operated AT rocket launcher.
Ofc this also came late. The tests began in '44, the production went on from the summer till late December when the factory was took by the Red Army. All in all they produced maybe 6-700 pieces, two exists with the serial number of 441 and 448.
For the first test they used tripod as a mount - the soldier who fired the first shots was a convict with death penalty who got pardoned and forced to do the tests instead - then they used the Goryunov machine gun's wheeled mount as they not just find it very suitable but the army obtained many hundreds of it as spoils of war. A few was also placed on some Krupp Protze trucks and on Toldi tanks.
The rocket itself is 27-30 kg, 970 mm long and 215 mm wide at the fattest part, two was loaded into 700 mm long launcher tubes. It was capable of penetrating 300 mm armor and had a range of 500-1200 m but could fly about 2000. Ofc the effective range was much shorter, maybe about 200 m.
It only saw action around Budapest during her siege.

Bernd 10/11/2018 (Thu) 19:02:40 [Preview] No.19981 del
Oh I almost forget it, it had a fragmentation version against soft targets. It was called "Downpour".

Bernd 10/15/2018 (Mon) 20:57:50 [Preview] No.20079 del
44M Lidérc (ghost, wisp) AA rocket. Second AA rocket in the world but the first one which used an igniter activated by the target itself as German AA rockets were activated by impact or a timer. The carrier aircraft would have been the Me 210 Ca-1 - only one could be fitted on one plane - and the target would have been the carpet bombing Allied bombers flying in close formation, the planned objective was to disrupt their missions by breaking up their formations and not the destruction of individual planes.
The designer of the igniter was Pulváry Károly (in esperanto: https://eo.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%A1roly_Pulv%C3%A1ry) physicist, mechanical engineer, sound engineer who made his invention to be activated by the sound of motor of the bombers.
50 pieces were made but - as far as I know - none had the igniter as there was no capacity to manufacture them. They were used as anti-personnel rocket propelled explosives against the Red Army around Budapest.
No American bomber was harmed in the making of this rocket.

Bernd 10/15/2018 (Mon) 20:58:59 [Preview] No.20080 del

Bernd 10/20/2018 (Sat) 12:28:14 [Preview] No.20176 del
(178.97 KB 676x459 radar_Sas.png)
(254.10 KB 970x698 radar_Borbála.png)
(105.26 KB 314x388 EC-103_vacuum_tube.png)
Pic #1 Sas (Eagle) general long distance radar
Pic #2 Borbála (female name, variation of Barbara), for AA artillery, they made another one for fighter plane guidance, they name this Bagoly (Owl), these two had the same electronics, they differed in their mechanical structure
Pix #3 Turul on the built in a Me 210 Ca-1, they could create only one piece of this, it was manufactured by Philips
Pic #4 vacuum tube, well, you know before transistors these were the bread and butter of electronics, radio and such, this particular one was a 2,5 kW triode.

Similar case to the others. First we wanted to buy German stuff (the Freya), they denied it. Then we started the research and just then they were willing to give/sell radars. Ofc by late 1943 -early 1944 it was a necessity to deploy some as American strategic bombers started their campaings against Hungarian targets as well.

Bernd 10/22/2018 (Mon) 00:30:20 [Preview] No.20185 del
Niehorster's website lists locations of (what was left of) Hungarian units in March 1945: http://www.niehorster.org/015_hungary/45-03-25/hungarian_units.html

Apparently by that point the tattered remnants of every formation were completely fragmented and dispersed all throughout Germany. What a mess.

Bernd 10/22/2018 (Mon) 06:53:22 [Preview] No.20190 del
Moar liek Disorder of Battle and Disorganization, am i rite?
It was chaos. By March 25 there weren't any central leadership with considerable control over anything beside their own person. Hungarian units - or it would be more correct to call them unit fragments - attached themselves or were attached to German ones and went where they went. Those who could.
Once I spoke with an oldtimer who said they surrendered to the Reds when their company numbered barely 20 and they stood their without an officer. Were they even unit by then?
On the link you provided there are some abbreviations in red with the note they couldn't be deciphered. I read them and they really contain some mysterious shortenings, some feels like misspelling.

Bernd 10/31/2018 (Wed) 19:24:11 [Preview] No.20398 del
(131.96 KB 1200x600 WellingtonBomber.jpg)
(140.18 KB 525x350 B_24_in_raf_service.jpg)
From April to October in 1944 the Danube was the target of the RAF's Gardening operiation which ment of laying mines in the river to disrupt the most important oil supply route from the Romanian fields to the refineries of Wien and Pozsony. The missions were executed by the 205. Group (they flew Wellingtons and Liberators) and were scheduled in between the usual bombing runs against Italian, Balkanite and Hungarian targets.

Bernd 10/31/2018 (Wed) 19:25:16 [Preview] No.20399 del
(762.70 KB 836x590 Brit_naval_mine_1.png)
(654.26 KB 837x592 Brit_naval_mine_2.png)
(693.27 KB 935x589 Brit_naval_mine_3.png)
(955.39 KB 736x954 Brit_naval_mine_4.png)
The success of this Gardening varied. On the lower part of the Danube where the river is flowing slow in wide bed and where maritime de-mining methods can be used it wasn't a great problem, but on the Hungarian section with the narrower, rocky, somewhat sinuous bed both general shipping and de-mining had lots of troubles. It is estimated that over 1200 mines were deployed and I believe beside the usual explosives (bombs, shells, etc.) they still find some up to this day.
My source material gives the following markings to the mines:
A-102 and A-180
B-202 and B-208
C-303 and C-306
But the British classification doesn't seem to comply to this:
I'm not entirely sure the identification of these devices. Supposedly the Germans layed mines at the mouth of the Thames, Brits gathered, studied and perfected them. Then used it as well.

Bernd 10/31/2018 (Wed) 19:26:09 [Preview] No.20400 del
Our riverine forces was ofc nowhere near to deal with the situation so the Germans were notified who arrived a little late. They used magnetic detonating devices towed by de-magnetized ships, and a few airplanes. After a while Hungarians also pitched in with wooden rowboats and magnets attached to towed wooden beams. For some reason Germans behaved the way how such cunts they are and transported every piece of mine they could get in whole to Kiel. Despite of this an "expert" group was formed and started to pick up some in secret and kept hidden from the Germans so our own studies and development could start.
This group had minimal material backing so they used what they could acquire or make. As most of these mines were triggered by magnetic anomalies in their own field wooden and bronze tools had to be used. There were some lucky catch, when the British bombers missed or mixed up targets our boys could get their hands on. By the end of the war, in the chaos and destructions almost all documents were lost and everything had to be started from the beginning in the post-war years.

Bernd 10/31/2018 (Wed) 19:29:08 [Preview] No.20401 del
(127.04 KB 1024x667 virgin_eod_tech.jpg)
(704.22 KB 837x592 Chad_Minehunter_1.png)
(854.99 KB 702x935 Chad_Minehunter_2.png)
Pic #1 The Virgin Explosive Ordnance Disposal Technician
Pic #2 & #3 The Chad Minehunter
Pic #4 The Chad Minehunters

Bernd 11/16/2018 (Fri) 20:46:19 [Preview] No.20620 del
(979.02 KB 1199x781 D-944_PSZH_1.png)
(1.16 MB 1196x778 D-944_PSZH_2.png)
After the posting fiasco I committed last time here: >>20561 , let's continue.
So in the '60's the infantry needed an armoured transport vehicle which could support them the fights as well. They had the FUG, so they built upon it and developed it. Got a tower with a machine gun, it could transport 9 soldier (a "rifle" squad), it was still amphibious and ensured some protection against gas attacks and radiation. They called it Páncélozott Szállító Harcjármű (PSZH, = Armoured Transport Fighting Vehicle).
It was quite a success they could sell a few hundred to DDR. These were later dumped into Yemen.

Bernd 11/25/2018 (Sun) 21:26:20 [Preview] No.20754 del
(1.29 MB 1197x846 D-566_1.png)
(1.32 MB 1438x933 D-566_2.png)
(1.67 MB 1435x936 D-566_3.png)
(546.45 KB 841x570 D-566_4.png)
During the 60's another task came up, the old lorry fleet of the Army needed a rejuvenation. They acquired MAN diesel engines which became the core of the project. The government ordered the automobile factory of Csepel to realize the project which passed it on to another company, called Rába, where these MAN engines were already produced, and was a good choice for the new lorry.
The govt. ordered almost 8000 pieces, but the economical situation didn't allow to produce that much. Then it turned out the whole mechanism was too difficult for the untrained conscripts to maintain, and frankly it was more expensive than foreign trucks. So in the end all in all they produced 3006-3008 pieces.
The construction had a not small fault. The brakes were prone to break. Personally I think this shouldn't be a problem. Why would our glorious army even want to stop during steamrolling Western Europe? It's a mystery.
Then the production of parts stopped, this caused shortages and inability to repair the lorries.
Pic #1 No idea why is that red. However this has a different cabin.
Pic #2 At the entrance of the Csepel Automobile Factory. That particular piece was sent to an expedition in Africa to the Kilimanjaro and had some modifications.
Pic #3 The plate says: Test (=Próba). Also modified for the expedition.
Pic #4 Second prototype with unique cabin.

Bernd 11/25/2018 (Sun) 22:29:22 [Preview] No.20767 del

It is interesting that some Raba parts, like back axle, were pretty common in Soviet trucks and buses.

But why Hungary didn't take some truck from USSR but worked together with evil capitalists from MAN?


Very BRDM-2-like vehicle.

Bernd 11/27/2018 (Tue) 06:41:19 [Preview] No.20815 del
I guess the shape of floating body was kinda given, it was produced/designed in Romania and the looks of BRDM-1 was influenced the plans.

>But why Hungary didn't take some truck from USSR
Culture of truck manufacturing. Or bus. Look at Ikarusz, was used all over the socialist world and beyond.
And I think we did trade trucks from USSR. I mean for the military. Civilian Kamazes were all common, also UAZ. Will look it up.

Bernd 11/27/2018 (Tue) 07:40:16 [Preview] No.20817 del
(367.94 KB 697x479 vab.jpg)
(184.21 KB 1422x800 cadillac.jpg)

Yes, shape is pretty common, like on french VAB or Cadillac Commando. But it is somewhat strange that BRDM-1 looks different.

>Culture of truck manufacturing

How looks truck or bus manufacturing in modern Hungary?

I rarely see Ikaruses nowadays, and they are very old, while until early 2000s it was the most common bus I've ever seen (I guess many Russians don't even know that it was foreign bus).

Bernd 11/27/2018 (Tue) 16:53:32 [Preview] No.20824 del
>But it is somewhat strange that BRDM-1 looks different
BDRM-1 is an early amphibious recon APC. I guess design changed with time due different expectations toward these vehicles.
>How looks truck or bus manufacturing in modern Hungary?
Entirely nonexistent. Now we manufacture cars and parts mainly for German and Japanese companies.
I liked the Ikarusz, now we have MAN and whatever western monstrosities and I find them uncomfortable, narrow seats and only a few places where a standing passenger can travel securely. Tho they tend to be quieter. When new. Few years and roars louder than IFA. But they tend to be warmer somewhat.

Bernd 12/02/2018 (Sun) 20:51:23 [Preview] No.20984 del
(568.71 KB 2453x1236 ZIS151.jpeg)
(104.33 KB 776x599 Zis_150.jpg)
(181.16 KB 640x480 LKW_GAZ-51.jpg)
About the Soviet trucks here's a little piece of information, in 1951 the SU delivered these three. From later years I've not uncovered anything yet.

Bernd 12/05/2018 (Wed) 22:02:55 [Preview] No.21046 del
(281.50 KB 1700x1146 1540836_original.jpg)
(256.00 KB 1000x616 09.jpg)

I've read some about Soviet truck import/export and discovered that USSR was mostly an importer of trucks, especially in 70-80s. Local trucks couldn't fulfill economic demands.

Maybe biggest truck import contract in the world was made by USSR, it ordered 10000 Magirus trucks from evil capitalistic West Germany to build the BAM (Baikal-Amur mainline).

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-Projekt (no English version, sorry)

Bernd 12/06/2018 (Thu) 19:34:17 [Preview] No.21071 del
(12.31 KB 750x500 Flag_of_Comecon.png)
From those trucks above we got 100-100-400 pieces which isn't much. Beside that in '51 we still had what the Red Army brought with itself during WWII, mostly American stuff, like the Dodge "Vippon". I'd assume the CCCP used them the same for a while, considering she got bout 430000 jeeps and trucks, so wasn't much need to produce more quickly - however replacement parts had to be sparse in number. After that I dunno, Eastern Block countries had to produce all kinds of hardware which were transported to the SU, and of course there was the COMECON with it's exchanges of materials but I dunno how that worked. Not good I suppose.

Bernd 05/07/2019 (Tue) 21:00:26 [Preview] No.25665 del
This one I wanted to present for a while now. An Unmanned Aerial Vehicle project in Czechoslovakian and Hungarian co-production.
In the Warsaw Pact this kinda research happened on entirely Soviet field and no publication was released by them. Similar secrecy goes for the opposing NATO and related powers. But these stuffs were around from the end of the '70s, first news of them came from the Arab-Israeli wars. Officers of the engineering corps were very much interested in it and the army also had the need to have them but while we had the electronic background we lacked in aeronautics. So a neighbour was approached - the only neighbour who was approachable, frankly -, Czechoslovakia, who judged they can complement us with their aviation experience (they even had a few radio controlled planes for target practice, which could fly only in visual range due lack of on-board devices), but the electronics R&D would be too much for them. The initiative started in the late '80s.

Pics: the first modifications of the Czechoslovak target drone. One notable thing is the 4 cylinder engine.

Bernd 05/07/2019 (Tue) 21:01:47 [Preview] No.25666 del
The goal was the development a multi-purpose vehicle with modular equipment to make available for task on a wide spectrum, from visual recon to nuclear radiation measurement.
The plans drew up a fixed wing plane with pusher propeller configuration, with 145 kg maximum weight, from which 20 kg was reserved for the payload. Max speed was 150 km/h. Was launched from guide rails - 12 m in length, foldable, fixed onto a truck - with auxiliary rockets. They proposed two types of landing possibilities: to a proper field with skis, otherwise with parachute.
First thing was to create the control system with on-board navigational devices - namely: they put a cam in there (black and white, with zoom, rotatable), solved the live feed, radio connection, distance and heading measurement, also they put a GPS in there too. And ofc they built the land control devices and all the stuff that was needed to navigation.
First flights began in 1991-92 many faults in the design were revealed, motor was too heavy, the wings short, etc. By 1995 it was ready for real field trial by the troops in Czechia. But the contract expired (which was renewed previously twice) and the partners continued the development separately by then.

Pics: basically what filenames say. Not much to add.

Bernd 05/07/2019 (Tue) 21:02:33 [Preview] No.25667 del
For us the real problem was the plane itself. We had a few test-vehicles made by the Czechs but we had to be capable of building our own. Some attempts were made, among them a bigger one with 80 kg of payload, this was also tested by a real pilot. But by the end we had to revert back to the Czech design.
When my source material was written, about 2005, the tests and development were still going on, with modern electrical equipment and all kinds of gadgets on board I can't bothered to research what are them in English. Also new motor was obtained since the old Czech one was retired, new, lighter materials were used for the skeleton, fuselage and wings too.

Bernd 05/07/2019 (Tue) 21:04:42 [Preview] No.25668 del
Just the land control containers from the inside.

Bernd 05/08/2019 (Wed) 00:28:31 [Preview] No.25671 del
The originals have a nice retrofuturistic look, particularly with the glass right at the apex. On the other hand the 80 kilo model's appearence can't be taken seriously.

Bernd 05/08/2019 (Wed) 03:25:35 [Preview] No.25678 del
I know that henry ford went to ussr in the 30's and set up factories there

not to mention all the trucks in the lend lease

Bernd 05/08/2019 (Wed) 03:27:47 [Preview] No.25679 del

In the Soviet Union

In 1974 the firm was awarded a contract (called the Delta Project) for delivery in 1975-1976 of about 9,500 dumper and flatbed trucks (Magirus М232 D19 and M290 D26) to the USSR to work on the construction of the Baikal–Amur Mainline (BAM).[3][4] This order was the largest in the company's history. These models were export only options KHD products which were not offered on the domestic market in Germany. By January 1, 1975 for the first batch of Magirus trucks for BAM construction was ready to be sent to the Soviet Union. Many of these trucks are still in service today. Largely because of this single order, in 1975 export products accounted for 70% of total production Magirus-Deutz, and the firm took the second place among the German truck manufacturers.[citation needed]

In 1982 Magirus-Deutz erstwhile owners KHD sold the licensing rights for Soviet production of up to 25,000 Series 413 diesel engines. These were meant to be installed in heavy USSR trucks and other vehicles.[2]

Bernd 05/08/2019 (Wed) 18:35:18 [Preview] No.25691 del
Yeah as if it stepped forward from an old sci-fi.
>80 kilo
I dunno what were they thinking. I suspect they designed it especially for manned flight. It reminds me of gliders.
Also fuck that screenshot taking program srsly.

Bernd 10/10/2019 (Thu) 21:33:20 [Preview] No.29815 del

Bernd 12/01/2019 (Sun) 01:07:34 [Preview] No.32734 del
A Brazilian main battle tank once stood toe to toe with the Abrams. For its designers, it meant the high point in their fantastic ascension aswell as their doom and oblivion. The company behind it is long forgotten and only a few prototypes still exist.

In 1958, a group of young engineers led by José Luiz Whitaker Ribeiro founded Engesa - Specialized Engineers S.A. -in São Paulo. The entire firm only had 8 people at first. It produced equipment for the oil industry, initially just for refineries. As a large part of the industry was on shore and equipment had to be sent to faraway locations in the North and Northeast of the country through poor highways and even roadless areas, Engesa sought to fill a logistical gap and drew closer to the vehicle sector. Its first invention of note was Tração Total in 1966, a 4x4 transmission system for Chevrolet, Ford and Dodge trucks and pickups. 6x4 and 6x6 versions soon followed. They offered the highest off-road performance in the national market, and were declared "of interest to National Security" in the following year.
The military government had set its eyes on the young firm. At the time there was both a greater investment in the military and an attempt to nurture national defense companies, with manpower flowing from public to private employment in the sector. This was not just a consequence of the new regime's greater focus on defense but also a reaction to the USA's decision in the 60s to reduce exportation of high-level military technology to Latin America. As the Armed Forces were technologically backwards and greatly dependent on America, which until then had traded generously, they sought European providers and fomented a homegrown arms industry, of which Engesa become one of the big three, along with Avibras and Embraer, large enough to even export defense material. Automobile and aerospace efforts, including all of the big three, were centered in São Paulo, and naval, in Rio de Janeiro. Within the former, the city of São José dos Campos alone housed the Avibras and Embraer HQs, an Engesa plant and the Aeronautics Institute of Technology (ITA).
Engesa now tended to the Army and Navy's fleet of trucks.
It continued to produce innovations: the company was molded and centered on the personality of José Luiz, who approved research projects even at great cost, and invested on R&D more than the norm for national business. A few hundred employees were already on its rolls and it offered a "Y carrier" in which the best technical personnel rose to management-level wages rather than jusy being promoted to management. In 1969 it patented the "boomerang" suspension which allowed each of a truck's two sets of rear wheels to be at a different height, keeping all wheels in contact with the ground even while crossing holes.

Bernd 12/01/2019 (Sun) 01:09:51 [Preview] No.32735 del
(189.89 KB 1016x762 ee-3 jararaca.jpg)
(158.12 KB 502x240 EE-9_Cascavel-IV.png)
From trucks, Engesa made a leap to armored recon vehicles. The Army's fleet of vintage WWII M8 Greyhounds were growing obsolete and the 2nd Military Region (covering São Paulo) partnered with firms such as Engesa and Bernardini to find a solution. The development process included a failed 4x4 version and a successful modernization package. Engesa went beyond it and devised a whole new vehicle heavily inspired by the M8, using its same 37mm cannon but with a better engine and Engesa’s boomerang system. It was called the EE-9 Cascavel (14-ton) and entered production in 1974. A very similar design with an APC role, the 13-ton EE-11 Urutu, was launched in the same year. It had a stronger engine placed in the front-right rather than rear and could haul 12-14 men. The Urutu’s main armament was just a M2 Browning, but an IFV variant sported a 25 mm gun and an ATGM launcher.
A third 70s design, the 6-ton EE-3 Jararaca, was an armored alternative for the jeep’s niche. It was not accepted by the Army and only sold abroad.
A fourth was the EE-17 Sucuri tank destroyer, whose development proceeded late into the 80s. More on it later.
All of these were wheeled.

Bernd 12/01/2019 (Sun) 01:13:25 [Preview] No.32736 del
At the same time the Army sought a cheap light tank sourced mostly from national parts and reused frames from its aging M3 Stuarts. The result was Bernardini’s and Biselli’s X1 Carcará, the first national treaded armored vehicle. Mismanagement, corruption and import restrictions meant only a few dozen were made, finding their place just as training vehicles. At the end of the decade Bernardini derived a rocket launcher from it, the XLF-40, which did not go beyond prototype stage. Engesa had a secondary role in this, as it would originally provide the turrets for the X1 line.
Outside of armor, the company also designed and designed vehicles in the jeep, tractor and truck sectors. The latter also found their way into foreign militaries.

Bernd 12/01/2019 (Sun) 01:14:10 [Preview] No.32737 del
The real successes of the 70s were the Cascavel and Urutu. Thousands were built and hundreds are still in use today. Most notably, they found tremendous popularity abroad. An export version was made with the Panhard AML’s stronger 90 mm gun. This required shipping the vehicles to France for mounting the turret and the French, beginning to see Engesa as a competitor, gave impossibly high prices. An alternative was found in producing Societé Générale’s Cockerill cannon, also 90 mm, under licence within Brazil.
Tens of militaries in Africa, the Mediterranean and, most importantly, the Middle East, purchased Engesa vehicles and they saw combat in several conflicts such as the Libya-Egypt border clash, the Iran-Iraq war and the Gulf war. Third World clients enjoyed the company’s cheap and reliable products, its filling of gaps in Western and Soviet sales, its proximity to their problems and its aid in maintenance. The regime oversaw Engesa’s sales and sometimes blocked sales on geopolitical grounds, such as for Honduras and El Salvador, when it was claimed that arms deliveries would stimulate conflict. Yet elsewhere there was no issue selling to tense regions and anti-American regimes.
While the Cascavel and Urutu were highly successful, only 63 Jararacas were exported. It was generally not well received.
The earliest, and later, most loyal Engesa clients were in the Gulf. The first buyer was Qatar, which acquired 20 Cascavéis; the UAE then sought 200 in 1977, and Libyans and Iraqis soon followed. (Through Libya the Cascavel also found its way to rebels in Western Sahara and Chad).
Ba’athist Iraq was the closest client and had a long partnership with the company. U$ 30 billion flowed in Brazilian-Iraqi trade between 1976 and 1990, and Engesa was an important part of that. Another was Avibras which sold rocket systems.
Selling to Iraq was a complex task and the company’s organizational capabilities advanced to meet the challenge. An informal channel of connections with Iraqi military and political figures facilitated contact. Company agents worked in cross-functional teams in which technical and sales personnel shared functions. Engesa’s service was marked by flexibility. As Iraqi servicemen had difficulty handling the equipment and many were illiterate it provided instructional videos and color-coded different ammunition types. Unlike Soviet and Western providers, it was open to doing whichever modifications its clients wished, such as installing different engines or turrets that could use Soviet ammunition. It even made replacement parts for vehicles it did not design and outside of its area of expertise, such as T-series tanks and Mig jets. Company personnel were psychologically to their Iraqi counterparts: when the latter made mistakes, European providers only reacted negatively, whereas Brazilians would comment they made the same error five years earlier and call for a correction.

Bernd 12/01/2019 (Sun) 01:15:03 [Preview] No.32738 del
(229.48 KB 573x478 m3 stuart.jpg)
(118.14 KB 640x480 m3 lee.JPG)
(96.55 KB 1024x765 M41A1.jpg)
By the turn of the 80s Engesa had thousands of employees and two factories. The national arms industry was reaching new heights and both Engesa and Avibras were growing ambitious. The former was expanding its workforce, forming subsidiaries and delving into new fields. Newfound interest in tanks would seal its fate.
At the time the Army was interested in a new tank model, but not a main battle tank. This reflects its attitude to motorization in general: it took until 1973 to retire the last horse-moved units, and the central argument for their preservation was the country’s vast, difficult terrain lacking road coverage, its lack of an industrial base and the need to import fuel. By now the Army was fully motorized and those points were no longer true, but Petrobras couldn’t achive oil self-sufficiency and neither the roads nor industry were stellar. Hence, it wanted cheap and lightweight tanks.

The first wave of tanks in national service were American-provided M3 Stuarts and M3 Lees. In 1960 M41 Bulldogs were acquired, and a fleet of about 350 were kept. The Stuarts were to be reused in the failed Carcará program, while the Bulldogs were successfully modernized by Bernardini and the Army Technological Center (CTex) into the M41 Caxias version, which wasn’t much better but had 5 times the operational range. Even then it was already obsolete by the 80s. Now the military wanted the arms industry to develop a M41 successor. Its requirements took into account the country’s highways, railways and bridges: a maximum of 30 (or in some sources, 36) tons and 3,2 m of width. It also wanted something simple, compatible with existing equipment and without a great reliance on foreign parts. Bernardini took on the challenge, and, together with CTex, developed the Tamoyo. It weighed 31 tons and was 3,2 m wide and 2,5 m high – a low silloutte. It had three versions. The Tamoyo I had a nationally produced 550 hp Scania DSI 14 engine, the M41’s 90 mm gun and transmission and light armor. The Tamoyo II considered reaching foreign markets and had the M2 Bradley’s transmission. The Tamoyo III was designed with recommendations from a foreign armor specialist. Its engine was the then-incomplete Detroit Diesel 8V92TA, which had 750 hp but could in the future reach 900-1000 hp. To sustain it, the M60’s transmission was adopted. A 105 mm gun, steel-ceramic armor and modern electronics and fire stabilization systems were installed.
During tests one Tamoyo drove over a VW Brasília and killed two people in 16 January 1985.
Loss of interest, budget cuts and competition led to the project’s failure.

Bernd 12/01/2019 (Sun) 01:16:30 [Preview] No.32739 del
(355.01 KB 1280x567 MBT-Tamoyo-3.jpg)
(47.50 KB 550x430 Tamoyo III.JPG)
(465.67 KB 1280x735 Tamoyo.jpg)
But what about Engesa's competitor to the Abrams? I'll write more later.

Bernd 12/01/2019 (Sun) 07:24:15 [Preview] No.32742 del
Horey Shit Brasil! What a nice surprise. Uncle Nick brought it.

Bernd 12/02/2019 (Mon) 07:49:20 [Preview] No.32760 del

Interesting (and sad) to see that Brazil had pretty good own tank industry, but bought relatively old M60 in 90s.

Bernd 12/02/2019 (Mon) 17:11:09 [Preview] No.32762 del
I like the aesthetics of Cascavel.


I like the approach of Engesa to it's clients. They couldn't afford the luxury of being arrogant so they adapted to the situation.

Yeah. I don't get it how Sweden can get away with manufacturing fucking aircrafts.

Bernd 12/03/2019 (Tue) 00:14:59 [Preview] No.32779 del
(263.13 KB 700x378 osorio12.jpg)
It wasn't a tank industry yet, just a vehicle industry that had already succesfully designed APCs and the like. Tanks were the last leap it had to make in the 80s and it failed.
Also sad that Engesa's Osório was part of the Abrams and Leopard 2 generation and today our most advanced tank is the Leopard 1.

>Yeah. I don't get it how Sweden can get away with manufacturing fucking aircrafts.
The aircraft industry is different, Embraer is still strong and exported the Super Tucano to several countries.

Bernd 12/03/2019 (Tue) 06:49:18 [Preview] No.32784 del
>Super Tucano
I remember that one. Isn't that what's Ukraine purchased recently?

Bernd 12/03/2019 (Tue) 08:02:22 [Preview] No.32786 del
>Yeah. I don't get it how Sweden can get away with manufacturing fucking aircrafts.

Yes, it is very unusual that country with population of half of Moscow could make modern 4-gen fighter plane.

Although they will have problems with 5-gen because it is much more complex in technological and financial terms, so maybe they'll just join next big EU project (that BAE thing or something). That will be good for SAAB but bad for aircraft diversity.

Bernd 12/05/2019 (Thu) 18:05:09 [Preview] No.32866 del
Yeah. It seems to me previous generations offered a plethora of airplanes but the fifth consist only just a handful (and even those how many of them in service, one?).

Bernd 12/05/2019 (Thu) 21:03:11 [Preview] No.32882 del
(464.79 KB 2000x1331 f-22-1.jpg)
(373.71 KB 2000x1333 f-35.jpg)

Fifth generation (although all these generations are debatable) requires not only best engines and aerodynamics, but also a trade off between aerodynamics-stealth and engines-stealth. In terms of complexity, that is much harder overall. Americans could achieve everything in their F-22 (it is stealthy, fast and highly maneuverable), but looking on F-117 you may imagine long way they took. Although the later you start, the easier it will be. Creating F-22 20 years ago is much more complex task than creating this today, just because technology slowly flows into common military and civilian market.

>and even those how many of them in service, one?

One if you are strict (F-22), two if F-35 counts. Personally I think that F-35 is a great and unique plane that people hate for silly reasons, although it isn't "pure" 5th gen.

Bernd 12/06/2019 (Fri) 21:51:54 [Preview] No.32897 del
I dunno much about F-35 except it takes forever to go into service. I read it will happen til 2037... Then it will remain till 2070. That's 33 years. Considering 4gens still service and they are basically Cold War tech, they have better mileage. Tho they don't have much job, when was the last time real air fight happened (not dogfight)? Falklands errm I mean Malvinas? Lybia? Gulf? Beside it's all bombing and even A-10s had good use. But for bombing now they use targeted strikes with drones, "intelligent" systems dropped from a pigeon or whatnot, how much they wanna use 5gens for that job anyway?

Bernd 12/07/2019 (Sat) 08:49:48 [Preview] No.32911 del

No, 2037 is the planned last date of production. It is mostly combat ready even today (it was used in Syria), but of course there will be "upgrade packs" and other things, sometimes for real upgrades, sometimes just for spending money into military-industrial complex.

>Tho they don't have much job, when was the last time real air fight happened (not dogfight)? Falklands errm I mean Malvinas? Lybia? Gulf?

Ethiopia vs Eritrea in 98-2000, for example. Interesting conflict, both sides had Soviet/Russian weaponry, and there even was multiple dogfights between MiG-29 and Su-27 (Su won), air raids, strikes etc. Small scale, but pretty much real war with relatively equal forces.

But of course it is deterrent now, as almost everything in armies nowadays.

>Beside it's all bombing and even A-10s had good use. But for bombing now they use targeted strikes with drones, "intelligent" systems dropped from a pigeon or whatnot, how much they wanna use 5gens for that job anyway?

Yes, modern concept is about long-range precision strike from manned or unmanned high-tech craft. That is why every modern fighter is multirole, otherwise it will be too costly to maintain.

But reality sometimes works in other way: A-10 still in use, army wants it for multiple reasons, sometimes psychological, sometimes real, but air force want to dump it out. But army still prevails. Here is some quote, can't remember if I posted it here before:

"I told the JTAC that if he wanted to employ ordnance he needed to pass us the 9-line as I had eyes on the target – I can roll in with 30 mm in 30-45 seconds. Moments later the Predator operators called in and told the JTAC that he could have a Hellfire immediately, as the UAV was ready to take the shot. The JTAC called me off and broke contact, and in the process of aborting my strafing pass I momentarily lost sight of the target and then had to reacquire it. To me it sounded like the Predator was manned by two guys drinking coffee in a trailer somewhere who were desperate to get a Hellfire shot off. It actually took them more than five minutes to get their Hellfire off, and when it did hit the target it killed just a solitary insurgent – the others scattered."

From "A-10 Thunderbolt II Units of Operation Enduring Freedom 2002-07"

Bernd 12/08/2019 (Sun) 11:12:08 [Preview] No.32930 del
>army wants it for multiple reasons,
>air force want to dump it out.
The peculiarity of the US armed forces. Everyone branch has it's own air force beside the Air Force with different demands and expectations toward their weaponry.
While I understand why it is good to have a universal weapon, it won't fit tightly for every role. What fits everywhere will lack everywhere.

As far as I remember you not yet posted that quote here. But it reminded me something, which is actually unrelated beside it contains the narration of an air vehicle crew and it happened during a war, also the media covered it in many countries. Maybe will try and dig it out since it is interesting.

Bernd 12/12/2019 (Thu) 02:45:33 [Preview] No.33015 del
(39.04 KB 600x304 t_10.jpg)
(26.07 KB 550x371 osório turrets.JPG)
(136.84 KB 712x990 10061701t.jpg)
As the Army wanted a competing design to Bernardini’s, Engesa drafted its own plans, but it soon began to eye the overseas market. Saudi Arabia needed replacements for its 800 M-60s and AMX-30s, offering to pay several billion dollars for around 700 tanks. The UAE wanted 300 tanks. Greece, Turkey and Oman also had a demand in this area. The Saudis sought the Leopard II but as Germany would not sell to non-NATO countries they instead opened an international competition which Engesa entered with its ‘’”Osório”’’, named after the Marquess of Herval and patron of national cavalry. The Saudis called it Al Fahd after their king. From its outset the Osório broke the Army’s weight, simplicity and nationalization requirements. Nonetheless, it received official support and there was still some level of interest, to the point that two versions were made, one for export and one for internal demand.
This was now the most complex and ambitious project Engesa ever took, and it had no prior experience in the MBT field.
Its commitment now absorbed most of its financial resources and prime manpower, to the detriment of other projects, stability and ultimately its survival. Porsche was approached at first for a joint design, but the German government blocked this move. The military provided technicians and made its property available for tests. CAD-CAM was used to speed up the design process.
Engesa knew national industry couldn’t provide all of a MBT’s components and so had to resort to foreign technology. Only the chassis and the armor were Brazilian. The latter was originally discussed with Chobham but after their refusal it was made nationally (with some British help) among Engesa, CTex, Usiminas and Eletrometal; it was multi-layered and had good defensive angles at the front. The designer’s aim was to make it survivable to a direct 120 mm hit. It was tested with simulated 105 mm and 120 mm fire. Reactive armor was considered but not implemented. There was also NBC protection.

The engine was MWM GmbH’s TBD 234 V12, with an output of 1.014 hp; others from MTU or Rolls-Royce were also considered. The transmission was ZF Friederichschafen AG’s LSG3000, which was later used in the C1 Ariete. Both of these components were built within the country by subsidiaries of their foreign owners. Others were imported: Diehl BGT provided the treads and Dunlop, the same suspension used in the Challenger 1.
The most important foreign component was the turret provided by Vickers. Its design process took as its starting point previous Vickers prototypes, particularly the Mark 7/2, but had the Osório in mind and was followed closely by Engesa engineers Ricardo Schiesser and Mário Santiago. It had a French 120mm GIAT smoothbore gun and SFIM VS580 VICAS periscopes, one with a laser telemeter for the gunner and another with panoramic view for the commander. Also present were Dutch Philips UA9090 night vision views with thermal imaging for both commander and gunner. The modern fire control system included a 16-bit Marconi AFCS ballistic computer and sensors for atmospheric conditions, vehicle and projectile speed and so on. The gun was stabilized; altogether this meant the Osório could, as the newest and best tanks of its age, accurately fire at night while moving.
Another British component was Racal’s Savior radar and laser warning system, which could detect the direction and distance of enemy radiation and display it in screens for the commander and driver; complementing it were four 66mm smoke grenade launchers.
This was the EE-T2 model for export. For the Brazilian army, a simpler and cheaper alternative ($3,242 mil in 1993 dollars, compared to the T1’s $3,404, though in the Saudi contract it was sold for a third of that) was offered, the T1. Its main difference was its Royal Ordnance 105mm L7 rifled gun, more in line with what was common in tanks at the time. It also lacked thermal imaging and had overall weaker fire control.

Bernd 12/12/2019 (Thu) 02:50:02 [Preview] No.33016 del
(82.54 KB 604x416 Osorio-GIAT-120.jpg)
(117.71 KB 1000x675 ee-t1-osorio.jpg)
(48.62 KB 640x476 osorio11.jpg)
(313.67 KB 1280x1024 osorio10.jpg)
All of this added up to 41 (T1) to 43 (T2) tons, at the extreme lower end of MBT weights of the period; this is why a smoothbore gun was preferred over rifled, as it’d generate less recoil on an already lightweight vehicle. It was 10,1 m long, 3,26 m wide and 2,37 m high -like the Tamoyo, an advantageous low silhouette.
There were several proposed variants, such as a 155 mm howitzer, AA vehicle with two 35 mm guns and an armored recovery vehicle. The howitzer would require cooperation with Voest-Alpine.

The first chassis was finished in September 1984. It received a fake turret and was tested for movement, resistance and so on with some changes being made. Vickers delivered a 105 mm turret in May 1985, which was immediately equipped, and the prototype was flown to Saudi Arabia in JUly for pre-tests. There it met its formidable competitors: the M1A1 Abrams, Challenger 1 and AMX-40.
The Challenger suffered an engine meltdown during tests. This inspired a new system in the Osório: if its water and oil temperatures got too high it automatically lowered engine power.
Performance was overall reasonable, though Saudis complained about the 105 mm gun and engine deficiencies were shown, and later solved at home.

The 120 mm turret arrived in early 1986. For the Brazilian army, tests with the 105 mm turret were conducted in December – April with 3269 km of movement, among them 750 in irregular terrain, and the gun was fired 50 times. It fulfilled all of the military’s requirements.
Next came the crowning moment of Engesa’s existence, which would give the Osório an everlasting reputation and has since been the object of hearsay and controversy. The four competing tanks were once again taken to Saudi Arabia for the final batch of tests from July 8th to September 12th 1987. As Engesa’s engineers were working until the last moment there wasn’t enough time to ship by sea and the Osório was flown by Air France.
Each participant was given one month to train a team of randomly selected Saudi personnel which then had to operate their platform in:
-2350 km of movement: 200 km for training, 400 km in highways and 1750 km in the desert, with a maximum fuel consumption of 2,1 km/l on the desert and 3,4 km/l on roads.
-Overcoming 3 m wide trenches, starting up movement on a ramp with 65% inclination and other tests on an inclined plane.
-40 minute tread removal and replacement, 6 hours of engine operation with the vehicle standing still, 6 km of backwards movement and towing a 35 ton vehicle for 15 km.
-82 shots with both vehicle and target stationary and a 4000 m distance and 67 with a 1500 m distance and target/both vehicle and target in movement.
Testing grounds included Sharouah and Khamis Mushait, the former in high temperature conditions.
The Challenger suffered an engine meltdown again.
On the final gunnery test the Osório achieved the highest hit rate, followed by the Abrams, Challenger and AMX-40. It did, however, suffer some damage in the rubber of some ball bearings in the treads. It also managed to tow the Abrams which was much heavier than itself.
As the legend goes, the Osório beat all three of its competitors, proving itself as the best tank in the world. In reality, the Saudi conclusion was that both the Abrams and Osório passed all of their demands. The other two were indeed outperformed, and French and British officers praised the Osório, but for the Abrams it was more of a lighter equal.
Engesa was euphoric at the results and immediately prepared a contract. A plant would be opened in Saudi Arabia and 702 Al-Fahds delivered for U$ 7,2 billion, with a 10% increase on the price used to build one T-1 for the Brazilian army for every 10 T-2s delivered to the Saudis. One pre-series T-2 entered production. However, negotiations would take years.

Bernd 12/12/2019 (Thu) 02:57:44 [Preview] No.33018 del
Iraq and the UAE also expressed interest, and the latter held a lesser-known competition in July 1988. The Ariete, Challenger, AMX-40, Osório and a Chinese tank were present. The Osório was only tested for movement, with turret results from Saudi Arabia taken for granted. It did better than the Ariete. Ultimately the UAE settled for the Leclerc rather than any of those.

There were other projects pursued at the same time. The Cascavel/Urutu platform was used as a base for the Sucuri, a tank destroyer meant to carry on wheeled platform development, conduct reconnaissance and follow armor on the flanks. Like the Osório, CAD was used by designers. Many parts were from commercial trucks, making maintenance easy. Initially designated EE-17, the later model was named EE-18 or Sucuri II.
The 384 hp Scania DS 11 Diesel engine could speed its 18 tons to 110 km/h. Conversely, the armor couldn’t stand much more than shrapnel and small arms fire. The turret was designed by Engesa with experience from the Osório project and its rotation was stabilized. It sported an Oto Melara 105 mm L7 rifled gun capable of firing HEAT and sabot rounds. It could knock out older tanks, though by the late 80s it lacked the firepower to take on the most recent designs. Like the Osório, there was an advanced fire control system with an onboard computer and night vision aswell as laser telemetry on the periscopes.
The earlier EE-17 had a weaker engine -the 300 hp Detroit Diesel 6V53T- and an overall worse French-made turret, with a higher profile, half an extra ton of weight and no ability to use sabot rounds.
The Brazilian Army was uninterested in the Sucuri and as there wasn’t a dramatic interest in its concept it found no buyers abroad. A single prototype was built and was later scrapped, with the gun given back to Oto Melara. However, its suspension is now used in the Mercedes Benz L 1519 truck used to haul artillery pieces.

Bernd 12/12/2019 (Thu) 02:59:19 [Preview] No.33019 del
(298.17 KB 700x471 ogum.jpg)
(85.45 KB 960x720 ogum 2.jpg)
(2.32 MB 2866x1450 ogum details.png)
(69.13 KB 960x720 ogum in baghdad.jpg)
A very unusual project was the EE-T4 Ogum. A compact, ultra lightweight and air-mobile platform, its only counterpart is the Wiesel. Its name stands out: it’s an African pagan spirit of metallurgy and war, unlike the Osório, a historical figure, and the Cascavel, Urutu, Jararaca and Sucuri, which are venomous snakes. Studies began in November 1985 to fill an Iraqi demand for a 4-ton weapons carrier.
Ultimately it had a weight of 4,4 tons, much higher than the lighter Wiesel versions, a sticking point in a platform specifically designed to be light. Length and width were also greater than the Wiesel’s, though height was comparable. Later prototypes used a 130 hp BMW MD1D24WA-LLK engine, allowing speeds of up to 75 km/h. The transmission was ZF 4HP 22. Diehl treads put little pressure on the soil. The armor was all-metal and similar to the Cascavel and Urutu’s. It could resist 7,62 mm AP fire.
Weaponry and other aspects could change depending on the Ogum’s many possible roles: four-passenger APC, command vehicle, ambulance, recon, anti-tank and so on. For that it could mount one 7,62 mm machine gun or two of them in a turret, a 20 mm gun, an ATGM, a .50 cal machine gun in a rotating turret or a 120 mm mortar.
In Abu Dhabi on 1988, as the last Osório competition was being held, the Ogum and Wiesel were both tested and apparently the former performed better.
Engesa displayed the Ogum to foreign delegations in Brazil and in 1989 it was even shown to the world at the First International Military Products exposition in Baghdad. But as it filled a tiny niche it failed to find a buyer -even the Iraqis were not that interested in it.
Four prototypes were built. The last and most advanced, which was previously in the Exposition, was in Tikrit upon the outbreak of the Gulf War and has not been heard from since. The second is kept by the Second Tank Regiment and the other two are presumably scrapped.

Bernd 12/12/2019 (Thu) 03:01:07 [Preview] No.33020 del
(76.42 KB 376x500 61r7E+gkgWL.jpg)
While those ambitious projects were pursued, Engesa was in a bad shape. It reached its apex of plants and employees in the middle of the decade and then entered a state of decay in the late 80s. The winds were no longer blowing in its direction. The company’s modus operandi, once ad hoc and centered on the paternalistic and almost autocratic leadership of José Luiz, didn’t stand to the complexity of the challenges now faced, and its leader’s authority was eroded by clever subordinates.
The military was no longer in power. The national economy as a whole was falling apart with hyperinflation advancing unchecked; the 80s are known as a “lost decade” in the continent. The government’s anti-inflation measures made the exchange rate unfavorable for exports, which were the primary source of revenue. Abroad, demand for weapons was on a downwards trend. Saddam’s successful development of an Iraqi arms industry reduced his need to buy from Engesa, and after the end of his war with Iran the Gulf made less defense purchases. Shrinking demand was paired with expanding supply as Europeans and other producers entered into grinding competition for Engesa’s Third World markets. All of this happened at the same time the Osório’s development hogged a lion’s share of its resources.
Engesa fell on rankings of the most important companies and rose near the top in debt rankings. It could no longer find the credit to even maintain its production. In one case an excellent contract was signed with Venezuela but its delegation of officers came back with empty hands and no purchase after months of waiting -there was no way to produce what was agreed to. In another, at the South American Military Sports Union congress in October 1987, Bolivia’s subsecretary of Defense publicly complained that Engesa had sold them 700 trucks and failed to follow up with replacement parts, with the entire fleet grounded in three years, much to the company’s humiliation. Its stand at the 1989 Baghdad expo was barebones, while Eastern European sellers with Western marketing had showy exhibitions.

The 90s were an even more hostile environment. As President, Fernando Collor shifted focus away from national defense. Soviet goods flooded the international arms market. The Gulf War made powerful repercussions: Brazil joined the international condemnation of Saddam, cutting off the vital trade relations with Iraq. Saudi Arabia drew closer to America. Engesa’s last hope was the profit it could make from the Al-Fahd contract.
Instead, what it got was its killing blow. On November 1990 the Saudis finally decided for the Abrams, buying 315 of them for U$ 3,1 billion. The reasons for this decision are a point of much contention. It is said that it all happened due to American political pressure, and amongst other things, argued that Engesa was a supplier of anti-American militaries (such as precisely Iraq). In fact, the CIA did monitor Engesa and examined sattelite imagery of its plants in the 80s, fearful of the final destination of its products; wheter and how pressure was applied in the 90s is not clear. This, however, ignores the reasons the Saudis themselves had to make their choice. The Abrams was already in service and had well-established production lines; by picking it they knew they’d have their orders delivered and would get what they paid for. In contrast, the Osório would require a small company that never dealt in tanks before to start up production from scratch with a long and convoluted logistical chain. The Abrams was clearly the safer choice. It was also geopolitically better to grow closer relations with America than with Brazil. In fact, most likely the Abrams had already been chosen and negotiations for the Osório were merely used to force America to lower its prices.

Bernd 12/12/2019 (Thu) 03:04:26 [Preview] No.33021 del
(258.46 KB 1449x1010 EE-T1-Osorio_05.jpg)
(428.11 KB 1307x928 EE-T1-Osorio_03.jpg)
(740.76 KB 1361x951 EE-T1-Osorio_04.jpg)
(297.75 KB 1319x925 ee-t1-osorio-2.jpg)
Afterwards, Iraq defaulted on an U$ 200 million debt to Engesa. The Brazilian government gave it a U$ 1,5 billion loan to cover this and the Osório’s loss, but it was too late. The company was already dying and with the burden of years of poor management it defaulted on this debt. Engesa closed its doors in 1993.

The pre-series Osório had its foreign components sent back to pay debts and the rest sold for scrap. Two surviving prototypes were put on auction in 2002 but are now under military custody by judicial decision.
José Luiz Whitaker Ribeiro died in 30 November 2018 at the age of 88.
The Army’s last M41s left service in 2010. It currently fields Leopard 1s and M60s, old but true MBTs.
The Cascavel and Urutu are still in service. The latter has found a successor this decade: Iveco’s Guarani.
Rumors of an Osório comeback circulated years ago but were spurious. Technical documents have been lost long ago and any new production would require extensive reverse engineering and modernization of systems.

Bernd 12/12/2019 (Thu) 22:35:44 [Preview] No.33055 del
(96.40 KB 800x540 apds.jpg)
(11.03 KB 380x520 heat.jpg)
(162.06 KB 1200x837 2a46.gif)
>this is why a smoothbore gun was preferred over rifled, as it’d generate less recoil on an already lightweight vehicle

Smoothbores also are some kind of "modern trend" in MBTs, everyone used it from 70-80s. Only Brits still use rifled (but they also have special tea boiler in tank, so their opinion doesn't matter).

First reason is invention of APDS - thin and long projectile that looks like arrow and has best armor penetration. It needs to be very fast, but rifled barrel has some limitation about max speed of projectile. It also can be stabilized by arrow-like fins, so smoothbore is ideal for it.

Another reason is HEAT - projectile that forms hot jet on explosion, and penetrates armor by pressure. HEAT is less powerful than APDS in terms of penetration (mostly because it is easier to create specific anti-HEAT composite armor), but has better damage effect, so it is also widely used. But jets formed from fast rotating round work worse than jets from stabilized round. So, smoothbore gun is also better for this.

Third reason is barrel lifespan and complexity. High pressures require hard alloys, but even special materials couldn't prevent rifled barrel from faster degradation. It is also much easier to produce smoothbore barrel, so it is cheaper overall.

Bernd 12/15/2019 (Sun) 18:42:24 [Preview] No.33127 del
Moral of the story: having a good product, or even a great one isn't enough.
Quite a few reasons behind Engesa failure. Even if the mismanagement was corrected or hadn't existed at all, the wheels of history turned so the market narrowed and the company couldn't really compete for what's left.

>the Osório were merely used to force America to lower its prices.
Sounds very plausible.

Bernd 12/16/2019 (Mon) 13:59:11 [Preview] No.33140 del
>Quite a few reasons behind Engesa failure. Even if the mismanagement was corrected or hadn't existed at all, the wheels of history turned so the market narrowed and the company couldn't really compete for what's left.
Maybe better management and updating the Cascavel/Urutu instead of pursuing the Osório unicorn would've made the difference between bankruptcy and barely surviving. Avibras went through problems similar to Engesa's in the 80s but made it through rough times in the 90s, when some of its workers who built rockets were now producing paint.

Bernd 12/17/2019 (Tue) 19:18:24 [Preview] No.33178 del
>when some of its workers who built rockets were now producing paint.
Sometimes reprofiling, changing specialization helps. It seems that kept Avibras afloat, good for them. Job is a job, money is money. Maybe rockets are more prestigious than lowly paint but one cannot eat prestige. One has to be realistic with these things.

Bernd 01/02/2020 (Thu) 08:57:25 [Preview] No.33724 del
(646.71 KB 2048x1536 ENPe5AWU4AApskb.jfif)
Today I got this striker, it may not look it but it is actually to scale with the rest of the vehicles, it's huge. It seems like it would be quite vulnerable being so large.

Bernd 01/02/2020 (Thu) 16:37:55 [Preview] No.33725 del
There are some differences between that and the Teeger.
1. Strykers ain't fighting against the Red Army, while potential enemies do use AT weapons (like RPG-7), they mostly meet garage made explosives and small arm fire.
2. Stryker has other options for defense e.g reactive armor.
3. Armies using the Stryker (basically the US) have way better options to identify potential dangers (from satellites, to drones and infra cameras or just simple cameras of infantry and whatnot with GPS and shit), and they always work together with various support.

Early WWII tanks were so tiny.

Bernd 01/02/2020 (Thu) 17:30:15 [Preview] No.33727 del

Comparing Stryker to tanks isn't fair because it carries 8-9 people with equipment in addition to crew and gun.

Of course it is vulnerable, but nowadays APC/IFV tend to choose armor, not size. And even with this size Stryker is pretty badly armored compared to tank-based vehicles.

Bernd 01/02/2020 (Thu) 23:19:34 [Preview] No.33730 del
(136.60 KB 800x533 BMP-1_FI_05.jpg)
Maybe, it seems like they could have made it a lot smaller though, it's not heavily armoured or armed and contemporaries of it are much smaller.

BMP only carries one less person.

Bernd 01/03/2020 (Fri) 09:13:15 [Preview] No.33738 del
>BMP only carries one less person.

And it isn't much smaller. Dimensions from wiki:

Stryker: 6.95 x 2.72 x 2.64 m (length x width x height)
BMP-2: 6.735 x 3.15 x 2.45 m

So, it is 20cm less by height and 20cm less by length, but wider by 40cm. Comparable, especially considering that BMP-2 has no real armor (it side is penetrated by 7.62x51, so even in Afghan they quickly made more armored version). Stryker is slightly more armored (at least reports from Middle East say that).

Bernd 01/03/2020 (Fri) 10:46:52 [Preview] No.33739 del
BMP 1 is smaller and the BMP also has turret whereas the Stryker doesn't seem to measure beyond the hull(indeed the base model doesn't actually have anything but a weapons station there).

BMP 1 from Wikipedia

>Height 2.068 m (6 ft 9.4 in)
>1.881 m (6 ft 2.1 in) to turret top

Bernd 01/03/2020 (Fri) 17:04:41 [Preview] No.33746 del

And BMP-1 is older. It isn't fair to compare tracked IFV with wheeled APC. Modern wheeled ones have V-hull to be mine-resistant (at least partially) and have simply large base.

Better to compare Stryker with Patria AMV or these new Chinese ones, and they are comparable in size. Or that new Russian APC (Bumerang) that doesn't exist.

Bernd 01/03/2020 (Fri) 17:09:38 [Preview] No.33747 del
That's bout 20 cms difference. Is that big?
How about compare it with BTR-80? That's 2.41 m.

Bernd 01/03/2020 (Fri) 17:10:48 [Preview] No.33748 del
(79.75 KB 800x509 BTR-80A.jpg)

Bernd 01/04/2020 (Sat) 12:14:49 [Preview] No.33772 del
Dragoon IFVs are made on strikers without a V hull, Patria just looks like a stryker anyway.

Well the tank in front of my picture(the Chi Ha) is 2.21 cm so 40cm can make a significant difference, some of the size in the Chia Ha and BTR comes from the Turret, Striker doesn't seem to account for this so the Hull(and thus overall profile) is substantially larger than it would other wise appear.

Bernd 01/07/2020 (Tue) 03:15:26 [Preview] No.33853 del
Americans never fought Tiger tanks in France, they only encountered some damaged ones loaded onto a train.

Bernd 01/07/2020 (Tue) 06:53:03 [Preview] No.33854 del
I know they called Tiger every tank they met.
Categorically saying they weren't fought any doesn't sound right. At the minimum during the Battle of the Bulge should met some.
Or only the Bri'ish and others from the Commonwealth countries had to face them?
While the German units, in general, weren't in their best on the west, a couple of divisions, and detached battalions which could have Tigers and Tiger IIs all right.
So basically, do you have any proofs of that?

Bernd 01/07/2020 (Tue) 07:15:25 [Preview] No.33856 del
>Or only the Bri'ish and others from the Commonwealth countries had to face them?

Yes, they were only operating in that area.

>So basically, do you have any proofs of that?

It was mentioned in some Mark Felton video, it surprised me but then it does make some sense, there were not that many of them and they operate only in certain areas and for certain operations.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=0Y2-5rNENTA [Embed]

Bernd 01/07/2020 (Tue) 08:43:19 [Preview] No.33858 del
(1.37 MB 360x261 tigers.gif)

Didn't they encountered Tigers in Ardennes?

Bernd 08/31/2020 (Mon) 10:25:36 [Preview] No.39648 del
(56.36 KB 352x465 1487843530002.jpeg)
>and gave a somewhat ballistically superior rocket.
If Magyarszog kögsög :----DDD can into improving so called German engineering of rocketeery why has modern Magyarszog no Space Center? inb4 neighboring gypsies stole top sekrit spess technology

Bernd 08/31/2020 (Mon) 11:27:17 [Preview] No.39649 del
>Osorio project is of kills
What a shame, what a rotten way to die. It was interesting to read that somehow Brazilian out of all places managed to produce domestic vehicle designs with various promising contracts. In contract to various European nations that are sticking to soviet era vehicles instead with minor modifications to them.
>The Army’s last M41s left service in 2010. It currently fields Leopard 1s and M60s, old but true MBTs.
Using those 2 "tanks" in current year is fucking suicidal, as they are pretty much armored trucks with big cannons, their armor could probably be even pierced with a homemade AT rifle made in a few hours while being high on imported narcotics. The M60 does have better armor than the Leopard 1 so it was sufficient for its time. It still bugs me to this day what the fuck the designer of Leopard 1 was thinking that using paper thin non existent "armor" is a good idea and categorizing it as a MAIN battle tank and not as a light tank of what Leopard 1 is, it's pathetic a Tiger 1 tank offers more frontal protection than Leopard 1 does with barely any advancement in armor alloy/composition usage.
>>33055 (checked)
>(but they also have special tea boiler in tank, so their opinion doesn't matter).
cringe image tbh.

Bernd 08/31/2020 (Mon) 17:46:47 [Preview] No.39659 del
>nooo, not the perfect German uberweaporinooo
Why so insecure?

Bernd 08/31/2020 (Mon) 18:02:18 [Preview] No.39661 del
>The M60 does have better armor than the Leopard 1 so it was sufficient for its time
Turkey used it in Syria so it's not that out of place in Third World warfare.
This is the main opposition it can expect on the wide open plains of the Platine basin:

Bernd 08/31/2020 (Mon) 18:22:44 [Preview] No.39663 del
U wot m8, it was a fucken joge.
The TAM, heh. I have no idea how politics fare in south america, is the relationship between Brazil and Argentina even stable at all?

Bernd 08/31/2020 (Mon) 19:21:40 [Preview] No.39665 del
I doubt any of those two countries (especially Argentine) could afford a war. Maybe staring strictly a each other tops.

Bernd 08/31/2020 (Mon) 23:25:26 [Preview] No.39667 del
A war is astronomically unlikely in the foreseeable future, it's just that the bulk of military strength has always been directed to the Platine Basin and officers like or used to like to ponder on the hypotheticals of such a war. There the borders were always fluid. Even after they were consolidated (probably by the Chaco War) there was still geopolitical and military rivalry, such as the ABC dreadnought race. As late as the 1970s Argentina was seriously worried about the Brazilian threat. Nowadays relations fluctuate based on each country's ideological alignment but are never seriously hostile as everyone is happily in Mercosul.

Bernd 09/01/2020 (Tue) 03:36:54 [Preview] No.39669 del
The Leopard 1 is basically just a modern Panzer IV. I would call it a medium tank but regardless it can still be an MBT. The idea is to have a mobile and nimble tank that packs a punch, it's armour is it's mobility which also makes sense given the technology of the time where it was actually very hard to make armour suitable enough to protect from tank rounds, so why bother trying?

Bernd 09/01/2020 (Tue) 05:14:38 [Preview] No.39670 del
That's the only place where war in the conventional sense... makes sense. Who wants to war in Amazonia?

Bernd 09/01/2020 (Tue) 15:21:33 [Preview] No.39674 del
(96.31 KB 968x530 stalinum.jpeg)
(73.00 KB 450x300 T-55.jpg)
(50.86 KB 640x486 T-55 1.jpg)
>I would call it a medium tank but regardless it can still be an MBT.
>70mm of frontal armour and 52mm turret armour
>medium tank
it was paper tank tire and it was on the west germany. T-55 has much better armor with 120mm frontal armour and turret armour around 200mm. German kruppsteel is a shit compared to soviet union STALINIUM, which also got produced over 85,500 models and exported almost everywhere of the world.

Bernd 09/01/2020 (Tue) 15:52:13 [Preview] No.39675 del
If you compare L1 and T-55 the difference in armor doesn't matter, T-55 might have thicker skin, modern AT guns and rounds destroy it the same. So his >>39669 opinion is valid.
Comparing raw numbers the speed difference stands out, in favor of the Leopard.
The "user experience" also could be a basis of comparison, and a deciding factor when a countries' army decides what tanks to put into service, also possible training of the crew, or if they can produce replacement parts, or ease of maintenance, and many other factors. But I have no source any of this.
You might have a bad opinion, or made a comment just a bit too quick before considered the circumstances, but L1 might be a valid choice on behalf of Brazil. Or maybe it would be really a turd, who knows, unlikely we'll see that.

Bernd 09/04/2020 (Fri) 02:06:11 [Preview] No.39748 del
>war in Amazonia?
We've got specialized jungle warfare battalions for that.

Bernd 09/04/2020 (Fri) 15:57:56 [Preview] No.39760 del
The gun the Leopard 1 has was made specifically to counter the T-55, I think the only time a Leopard 1 saw combat was with the Danes in Serbia and Canadians in Afghanistan so it's not possible to list examples of them coming against each other, however, tanks like the Centurion and M60 have fought T-55's and even later models using the same 105mm gun the Leopard 1 has and have done very well in doing so.

Stalinium... I actually don't see that as such an issue in Warthunder, not like people all ways say it is. I know it does happen though, the real IS-2 can only penetrate 150mm of steel, not 200mmm or whatever Warthunder says it can(although I do understand why they made it do this, the balancing would be awful otherwise, either it would be up against pretty much nothing it could penetrate or it would be fighting nothing that could penetrate it).

Bernd 09/04/2020 (Fri) 16:33:34 [Preview] No.39762 del
I stopped playing that in 2014, its such a rigged game

Bernd 09/10/2020 (Thu) 18:15:15 [Preview] No.39934 del
Hungary is the first buyer of Rheinmetall's brand new APC, the Lynx (the fresher version KF41). It won't be a simple transaction, a German-Hungarian joint venture is gonna build a factory here. The whole thing will be an over 2 billion € investment.
The first batch of vehicles gonna be produced in Germany, about 40 of them, this will be an opportunity to train the Hungarian staff of the future factory. The rest, some 170 fighting vehicles will be manufactured here. A test field also will be established.
They will be put into service by 2026-27. For a while now we don't have any threaded infantry vehicles, since the BMP-1 was retired in the early 2000s. We also don't have armament industry since the privatization after the regime change liquidated the whole of it, this is an important step in rebuilding. That's how it goes, it was a good business to end it for some people, I'm pretty sure it's a good business for some other people to rebuild it. It is also important because it's a high-tech factory for high-tech armament, with robotics and shiet.
The article is in Hungarian, but the Wikipee page below writes the essentials too:

Bernd 09/10/2020 (Thu) 18:19:06 [Preview] No.39935 del
The caveat is that it's a new design, might be a little immature. So potential faults could come up to the surface.

Bernd 09/11/2020 (Fri) 02:39:00 [Preview] No.39942 del
We are probably getting them too.

Bernd 09/11/2020 (Fri) 05:13:41 [Preview] No.39947 del
Oh yeah, saw it in the Wikipee article. Maybe some of those will be produced here. They don't build that factory for just our needs.

Bernd 09/11/2020 (Fri) 05:14:27 [Preview] No.39948 del
How were the M113s, btw?

Bernd 09/11/2020 (Fri) 08:11:23 [Preview] No.39957 del
I think we will push for them to be produced here, we have our own defence industry which is actually growing, we are even exporting in some fields, there has been some interest in our Bushmasters.

Don't know.

Bernd 09/11/2020 (Fri) 10:23:35 [Preview] No.39958 del
(920.43 KB 1648x1267 Puma,_first_series.jpg)
>The caveat is that it's a new design, might be a little immature.

Lynx is pretty strange thing, because main Rheinmetall IFV is Puma that is also used as main modern vehicle in German army. For some reason they decided to make different vehicle instead of making export version of that. Maybe it is too costly, but these vehicles aren't that high-tech as other military devices (i.e. glorified tractor).

But this isn't a big problem because these vehicles would be used only for military exercises, and wouldn't see any combat for their lifetime. Also buying German tech isn't a good way to spend your money. Considering that Hungary wouldn't go into real military operation with "real" enemy (when modern tech matters) in future, buying something very modern is meaningless. Much better was buying some Finnish Patria or something, but I guess political reasons (EU, Germany, etc) were critical here.

Bernd 09/11/2020 (Fri) 11:20:56 [Preview] No.39959 del
Researching a producing new tanks seems kind of redundant to me. I mean why would anyone have a war in europe. Maybe its more for export?

Bernd 09/11/2020 (Fri) 15:08:44 [Preview] No.39972 del
Well they are a business after all, Rheinmetall and Germany.

But they need to have some capability to deter threats and to project power. Russia isn't going to invade Germany but a weak Germany gives Russia more ability to bully Eastern Europe, Germany can also use their power to intervene in other conflicts or to threaten to intervene, not that they have as much incentive to do that as say France or the US does but they have done it.

Bernd 09/11/2020 (Fri) 15:39:11 [Preview] No.39973 del
Than maybe the deal will depend on the place of production. If Rheinmetall wants a factory hereabout (and they also have those at home) maybe they will be less flexible in this question, and in the end the deal might fail because of this, and Straya will pick that Korean one.

We made some promises to increasing our military funding and our participation in NATO. So maybe it's also a good way of invest in and build something that can produce stuff, and not just simply buy whatever. Our NATO participation means overseas missions in different roles, chiefly supporting not front line combat. Lynx has an edge over the Puma if we take this into consideration (according to the Wikipee articles). The Lynx was built with modularity in mind, and parts can be swapped quick, to make it fit for various purposes. This can be one rationale for the purchase.
I've no idea what background deals were made behind the scenes, or if Germany pressured us to do so, or we want to buy favours from Germany with this or whatever. I agree the political considerations weigh lot in these questions here.
Maybe it's also good for Rheinmetall to outsource production to Eastern EU countries, most of Germany's car production is done in our countries so why not armored vehicles?
Now that I'm thinking maybe it's also part of the plan to stimulate the economy in this recession we have this year. Military spending is just as good tool to do this. Which partially replies to Sweb3rnd's question, why at all.

There always a couple of reasons, for example the previously mentioned economic stimulus, or the overseas NATO participation.
And as always, if you want peace, prepare for war.

Bernd 09/11/2020 (Fri) 19:27:50 [Preview] No.39976 del
>Maybe its more for export?

Yes. Lynx is targeted specifically for export. They also often target USA market (Puma was tested as potential Bradley replacement on that endless replacement program).

It is also safe money sink, and money sinks are precious.

>Maybe it's also good for Rheinmetall to outsource production to Eastern EU countries, most of Germany's car production is done in our countries so why not armored vehicles?

It is always good when your ware has customers, because this is encouraging others to buy it. Especially in ground vehicle market, where there are much more competition than in high-tech, because even relatively small companies still can produce something reliable.

Bernd 09/13/2020 (Sun) 11:37:37 [Preview] No.40040 del
I'm not sure how encouraging is a Hungarian purchase for other potential costumers...
I'm thinking however we are a low risk beta testers for Rheinmetall, we don't lose much with somewhat faulty equipment (we've always had these anyway, I remember we sent some troops to the Middle East in utility vehicles with machine guns on the top which only could be used against air targets but not surface ones - couldn't be pointed downward at all).

Bernd 10/14/2020 (Wed) 08:35:51 [Preview] No.40553 del
Not sure about the Lynx but we are building Boxers here and also exporting components to Hungary even. Rhinmetall just opened a facility(the Military Vehicle Centre of Excellence of all the names they could have given it) where it intents to produce vehicles here and for export.

'The Prime Minister also congratulated Rheinmetall Defence Australia for securing work to export at least 30 Lance Turrets from MILVEHCOE to Hungary.'


Bernd 10/14/2020 (Wed) 08:37:13 [Preview] No.40554 del
Oops, proxy turned itself on again.

Bernd 10/14/2020 (Wed) 17:23:21 [Preview] No.40564 del
I thought you were sarcastic. Meanwhile it's reality.
>export at least 30 Lance Turrets from MILVEHCOE to Hungary.
Those will be slapped onto those vehicles we're gonna produce.
Australia-Hungary STRONK!

Bernd 10/15/2020 (Thu) 15:55:46 [Preview] No.40570 del
(74.11 KB 558x558 ERA.jpg)
(113.22 KB 1200x675 rgw.jpg)
Besides Rheinmetall, Dynamit Nobel Defence also opens a site here, chiefly for manufacturing but it will serve r&d purposes too. Or at least d.
First they gonna start producing Explosive Reactive Armors, then a couple years later with the second phase come the RGW parts. They're gonna develop a local version for the Hungarian Defense Forces, probably based on the RGW 110.
Judging by the looks RGW is a man-portable dildo launcher into the enemy's mom's vagina.
Will be glorious.

Bernd 10/15/2020 (Thu) 23:04:03 [Preview] No.40575 del
I don't think there's any major wars going on. Who would buy it?

Bernd 10/16/2020 (Fri) 15:05:16 [Preview] No.40581 del
(125.48 KB 752x423 cz-bren-2.jpg)
That depends what counts as a major war.
But both Rheinmetall and Dynamit Nobel are established companies, probably have clientele to sell the stuff, or maybe there are already orders in place.
Apparently these investments are part of the so called "Zrínyi program" which aims to revitalize our arms industry beside modernizing the Defense Forces. We not just buy foreign products (liek Leopard 2, self-propelled artillery, airplanes), but manufacture what we can, and develop what we need, to mitigate dependence. The first one was a deal with a Czech company, bought licenses of small arms, pistol, smg, assualt rifle (I can recall the Cz BREN 2).

Bernd 10/30/2020 (Fri) 21:59:07 [Preview] No.40784 del
Youtube was useful today and recommended something relevant. The pace is a little quicker than what would be comfortable to read it all, it needs some pauses.

Bernd 10/31/2020 (Sat) 01:13:22 [Preview] No.40786 del
The KV-6 was Fake.

>The KV-VI, or KV-VI Behemoth, is one of the most famous fake tanks on the internet. A super-heavy tank project armed to ludicrous proportions, with three prototypes claimed to have been built 1941-1942, serving against the Germans near Moscow and Leningrad. This was not a hoax as many will claim, but in fact a fantasy model which was entered in a sci-fi scale model competition that has been taken out of context since it was posted on the internet back in 1997 by its creator.

>The vehicle originated as a model built by Brian Fowler in 1995 by using parts from two Tamiya KV-2 kits, two Tamiya KV-1E kits, an AER T-38, an Italeri BT-5, an Italeri Katyusha, a Zvezda T-60, and Dragon tracks. Three KV hulls were cut and welded together with epoxy glue, the central dual-KV-2 turret’s pedestal was made using a shaving cream lid, and most of the details such as the DTs, ladders, and flamethrowers were carefully scratch built.

>Photos of the KV-VI model were posted on the Track-Link website in 1997, alongside a fake history, some specifications and a set of reference books (none of which actually exist and are spoofs of real books – EG. “Dreadful Din on the Eastern Front” is a spoof of “All Quiet on the Western Front“, and “The Behemoths are Burning” is a spoof of “The Tigers are Burning“). The original page can be seen on their website.

>In recent years, the KV-VI’s popularity can largely be attributed to the cutaway illustration by VonBrrr on Deviantart in 2010, which is used very often when discussing the KV-VI. Similarly, with the proliferation of easy-to-use photoshop technology, some historical-looking photos also appear often, supposedly of the KV-VI. These photos and the originals can be found in the gallery present on this article. Some other illustrations and photoshopped images often float around the internet, and it is likely that more will appear in the future.


Bernd 10/31/2020 (Sat) 01:28:51 [Preview] No.40787 del
(20.88 KB 696x332 b_119_1.jpg)
Would this qualify as an armored train?

Bernd 10/31/2020 (Sat) 07:31:30 [Preview] No.40788 del
Nice snippet right off the bat.

Shouldn't a train run on rails?
Btw some trains are here: >>18845

Bernd 11/01/2020 (Sun) 12:22:47 [Preview] No.40820 del

Yes, that video has pretty strange selection of tanks, including fictional.

And it misses real tanks designed and made by Edward Grotte, German who worked in USSR in 30s (and then worked in Germany again), like TG (Tank Grotte) and TG-5. First one was very real and made in metal, it was pretty modern medium tank, second one was crazy project of 1000 ton tank that, of course, wasn't made.

There also were projects for 200-400 ton tanks, live VL (Vladimir Lenin).

Idea of super-heavy tank was interesting in 20s (literally mobile fortress), it died in 30s but ressurected for small amount of time after Finnish war, where problem of defense breakthrough was pretty serious.

Bernd 01/14/2021 (Thu) 15:35:40 [Preview] No.42054 del
Some treats: Engesa promotional materials for the Jararaca, Cascavel and Urutu. Just a few pages long.

Bernd 01/14/2021 (Thu) 18:56:39 [Preview] No.42057 del
Inside of a B-2 bomber.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=RndAqOJUa5g [Embed]

Bernd 01/15/2021 (Fri) 06:40:24 [Preview] No.42063 del
Breddy gud. Some of those drawings in the vehicles brochure are very convincing. I found Jararaca aesthetic.
Reminds me a Trabant promo catalog actually I seen once.

Bernd 02/01/2021 (Mon) 13:52:20 [Preview] No.42366 del
Beside the one tank encyclopedia shared here, what are good general sources on tanks and AFVs, such as books available on Libgen and elsewhere? I've found:
>Richard Ogorkiewicz — Tanks: 100 years of evolution
>Kenneth Macksey — Tank warfare: a history of tanks in battle
>Spencer C. Tucker — Tanks: an illustrated history of their impact
>Christopher F. Foss — Jane's tanks and combat vehicles recognition guide
>John Nicholas — Main battle tanks
>Marsh Gelbart — Tanks: main battle tanks and light tanks

Also leaving this .pdf with technical minutiae on the Osório, it's hard to find now.
Looked into what Argentina has and they were successful in a Tamoyo-like project i.e. a lightweight pseudo-MBT for a poor military, the TAM, a 30-ton Marder with a 105 mm gun. It competed against the Tamoyo in Ecuador and won.

Bernd 02/01/2021 (Mon) 14:15:06 [Preview] No.42369 del
I assume "armored vehicle", "tank warfare", "armored warfare", maybe "combined arms" would be good search words.
Check the bibliography of each books, they can give you lists of books which do not contain these words in the title, but still could be valuable resources.

Umm, you probably know we are looking for recruits to the global team. I thought you would be a good addition. If you are interested. No retirement plan however.

Bernd 03/04/2021 (Thu) 21:27:17 [Preview] No.42797 del
(2.25 MB 1968x1398 Armored infantry.jpg)
(3.72 MB 2592x1944 Tank cavalry.jpg)
(3.46 MB 2784x1848 Armored cavalry.jpg)
(3.00 MB 3008x2000 mechanized cavalry.jpg)
What is it with the nomenclature of AFV-using units? For instance, the Brazilian Army's battalion-level types are:
>Armored infantry, 100% tracked APC (M113)
>Armored cavalry, 50% tank (Leopard 1 or M60)/50% tracked APC (M113)
>Tank (part of the cavalry), 100% tank (Leopard 1)
>Mechanized cavalry, 50% armored car (Cascavel)/50% wheeled APC (Urutu, in the future Guarani)
>Mechanized infantry, 100% wheeled APC (Guarani)

A wealthier military would replace some of those APCs with IFVs.
Aside from the tank regiments the names aren't quite descriptive. All of them are mechanized in the sense that machines replace human labor in several tasks, more so than in motorized infantry. And all of their vehicles have armored protection, the tanks just have more of it. The clearer distinction is that armored = tracked vehicles and mechanized = wheeled vehicles. Even "tracked cavalry regiment" and "wheeled cavalry regiment" would be clearer. Perhaps those with tanks and/or IFVs could be called "heavy", APCs "medium" and trucks "light" (already the case sometimes).

Bernd 03/07/2021 (Sun) 11:43:25 [Preview] No.42830 del
Maybe in general armoured should mean a heavier weaponry.

Bernd 03/07/2021 (Sun) 13:21:52 [Preview] No.42831 del
Ignoring reserve, artillery and support units, The Australian army has two armoured regiments and a light horse regiment that each consist of two cavalry Squadrons(with ASLAVs) and a tank squadron(with Abrams). I don't know how big a squadron is but considering the Australian army only has 50 Abrams it cannot be that big.

We also have the Royal Australian Regiment which consists of three mechanised infantry battalions(M113s, three motorised infantry battalions and an amphibious/light infantry battalion.

It's pretty descriptive I think.

I think armoured infantry is a fine description too, kind of like PanzerGrenadiers. Armoured cavalry is kind of strange, unless you have unarmoured calvary too.

Bernd 03/07/2021 (Sun) 14:04:54 [Preview] No.42832 del
Still no emu mercenary company. Australia will never win a war again like this.
Brazil has armoured cavalry and mechanized cavalry.

Bernd 03/07/2021 (Sun) 23:13:17 [Preview] No.42836 del
(103.98 KB 790x619 BTR-90-Beregok.jpg)

It is interesting that "cavalry" term in western countries survived and now used for armored units (or helicopters, like USA), but completely forgotten in former Soviet bloc. Although cavalry was glorified in culture, especially in context of Russian civil war.

There was distinction between "motorized" and "mechanized" units, but after WW2 everything infantry-like was merged into "motostrelkovie voiska" (literally moto-shooter units, or moto-rifle as more proper translation). Cavalry units were disbanded or changed name. APC/IFV balance was different in different units (it is all about money of course), but didn't influence unit name.

>A wealthier military would replace some of those APCs with IFVs.

In modern times distinction between APC and IFV goes only in price. Original IFV concept died when idea of attack-without-dismounting became inefficient (it never was, actually, except in the minds of theoretics). Both classes of vehicles already have comparable weapons. Maybe sole existing difference is armor, and it is only about western-style IFVs (Soviet-made had pretty light armor by design).

Bernd 03/08/2021 (Mon) 04:55:12 [Preview] No.42837 del
That's not intuitive. It's like using "heavily armed" to mean heavily armoured.

>I don't know how big a squadron is but considering the Australian army only has 50 Abrams it cannot be that big.
Squadron is the cavalry's fancy name for a company, like the artillery calls them batteries. A Brazilian cavalry squadron or armored infantry company has 3 platoons of 4 of its main AFVs each. For 50 Abrams and 3 Australian tank squadrons that'd be 16 each, that's close.

So you have
>Armoured/light horse: 67% wheeled APC 33% tank
>Mechanized infantry: 100% tracked APC

One military opinion piece noted that our "armored infantry" (M113s) would in another country be just mechanized infantry, with armored infantry left to an IFV. But then what would the 100% wheeled APC units be called? The Portuguese-language literature I've read on the subject, reflecting the doctrine of a still robust cavalry branch, appears to have the following consensus:
>The infantry's only AFVs are for transport;
>Cavalry is defined not by the horse but by certain traits and missions;
>The tank retains its shock value, lighter AFVs retain its flanking, recon, vanguard, etc. value;
>Every infantry and armored brigade has its own mechanized cavalry squadron for recon and the like;
>The armored infantry and armored cavalry brigades are the same, two tank and two armored infantry battalions;
>The mechanized cavalry brigade has 2-3 mechanized cavalry regiments which, once engaged, can be reinforced by its armored cavalry regiment;
>Tracked and wheeled vehicles don't keep up, the former have good tactical mobility, the latter good strategic mobility.

The last point makes me wonder why the armoured/light horse regiments mix tracked and wheeled vehicles. Clearly those APCs aren't just for recon, since they're in a 2:1 ration to tanks, and yet following tanks on roads wastes their superior mobility and they can't follow in some difficult terrains. Why not mix M113s and Abrams?

>It is interesting that "cavalry" term in western countries survived and now used for armored units (or helicopters, like USA), but completely forgotten in former Soviet bloc. Although cavalry was glorified in culture, especially in context of Russian civil war.
American cavalry is more residual, it was absorbed into the armored branch. There was both a cavalry lobby and a rapid mechanization it couldn't keep the pace with. South American mechanization was very drawn out, the last Brazilian non-cerimonial horse cavalry regiment was considered mechanized in 1986, and this has allowed the branch to survive with the same strength and not face competition from an independent armored branch. And Soviet cavalry presumably had no significant lobby in the first place.

Bernd 03/08/2021 (Mon) 06:49:19 [Preview] No.42838 del

The Armoured/Light Cavalry are part of Mixed combat brigades.
There are three Brigades with the same structure.

Brigade Headquarters
An Armoured/Light Calvary regiment
A Mechanised Infantry Battalion(from the Royal Australian Regiment)
A Motorised Infantry battalion(from the Royal Australian Regiment)
An Artillery Regiment
A combat Engineer Regiment
A combat Signal regiment
And a combat service support Regiment.

The one Light Infantry/Amphibious battalion is part of a separate unit entirely that is for amphibious warfare.

>The last point makes me wonder why the armoured/light horse regiments mix tracked and wheeled vehicles. Clearly those APCs aren't just for recon, since they're in a 2:1 ration to tanks, and yet following tanks on roads wastes their superior mobility and they can't follow in some difficult terrains. Why not mix M113s and Abrams?

They were mixed with M113s until they gave them away to the Infantry to rerole them as Mechanised Infantry. I think they may be largely for recon as well, because of the mixed combat brigade nature of the deployment. The infantry battalions consist of three rifle companies, a support company, logistics company and headquarters. I tried to find the exact composition of these units but I could not, however by this composition it seems they may not have that much organic recon(but I can't say for sure). Our reserve cavalry regiments specialise in recon as well(but in light vehicles) which maybe hints at a recon role for the cavalry regements in general. Plus wheeled vehicles are probably good for the dry plains that cover much of Australia.

Also as a side note we are replacing the ASLAVS in the Armoured/Light Cav divisions with Boxers(but they are wheeled too). And the M113s in the mechanised infantry are being replaced by either Lynxs or Haniwa Redbacks(it's an ongoing competition).

Bernd 03/08/2021 (Mon) 07:09:58 [Preview] No.42839 del
(207.76 KB 3171x2256 SBCT.png)
If you compare it to the Infantry and Cavalry in a US Striker Brigade Combat Team it's actually quite similar. Just give one cavalry Company tanks.

Bernd 03/08/2021 (Mon) 07:19:03 [Preview] No.42840 del
Oh and it would be missing an infantry battalion...

Bernd 03/08/2021 (Mon) 08:29:57 [Preview] No.42841 del
It's really hard to make generalizations about the naming conventions of various military units, because practices and possibilities differs from country to country, despite there are some trends, or schools (like following German, USian, or Soviet organizational doctrines).
Originally they had the walking infantry with horse towed artillery. Let's say a division had three infantry regiment and an arty note my abstraction breaks here, for example Hungarian military was/is brigade centered not division, the division level is missing, these are/were organized into corps.
Then they invented tanks and wanted tank division and changed a full infantry regiment to a full tank regiment. The rest of the inf and the horse got trucks to roll about so they could follow the tanks, because their speed grew.
Then they saw that "wow those trucked fellas roll pretty quick, what a good way of transport", and motorized units were borned, from full divisions to squadrons. The higher levels of units might got some armour. Armour could mean tank, or some other metal boxes, like recon units with their wheeled tincans, or they added to the division's detached AT unit (eg. battalion or company) a subunit (a company or a squad) of assault guns.
Then they discovered that they could put the infantry into metal boxes too, so they did, they use/used wheeled, tracked, half-tracked vehicles with various thickness of steel platings. This they called mechanized and they switched the motorized infantry of the tank division to this. But they made divisions with only mechanized infantry, however the rest of the subunits were also changed, they could have for example fully armoured AT battalion/company, or they could add a smaller "pure" tank unit into the mix as a detachment for the division (or brigade).
The equipment depended on what they had, could acquire, produce, and even if something is named X it can have Y equipment for a long time still until they get the new stuff. And they are X only on paper.
Also the naming conventions in English for WWII tank units when all these appeared first I got the feeling they use panzer to German, tank to Soviet, and armoured to USian/British ones. In Hungarian we also have this differences, páncélos (=panzer) for German, harckocsi (=armoured car) for Soviet, and tank for Western units. Or something similar.
And I also got the feeling that the word "armoured" in the context of units (and not vehicles) means it contains tanks, or assault guns in some ratio. This is why I would say an armoured unit has heavier weaponry over a mechanized one. Liek (and now this example is pure fantasy) I wanna organize a mechanized division I'd add three regiment of mechanized infatry, a self-propeleld artillery regiment, a self-propelled AT battalion, a self-propelled AA battalion, an armoured recon company, etc etc. But for an armoured division I would add three mechanized infantry regiments but a company in all of the regminets would be a tank company instead, or an detached squadron of tanks or something like that.

Bernd 03/08/2021 (Mon) 08:39:11 [Preview] No.42842 del
This is another organizational approach, when the difference between regiments, brigades, and divisions are measured in the amount of battalions. Which means the battalion is the organizational basis.
Also NATO symbols and the logic behind them - how they combine the simpler sings into a combination of sign systems to mark modern unit compositions - also worth an investigation.

This organizational thing is very flexible. Liek a brigade can be two regiments, and a division three regiments, but then a division can consist of two brigades. It highly depends on which country and when.

Bernd 03/08/2021 (Mon) 09:22:33 [Preview] No.42843 del
It's a good idea only it doesn't seem that everybody does it. For example we have 2 divisions, 1st Division has next to nothing and 2nd Division has all of our reserve brigades and a training brigade, so six brigades and our regular Brigades are not even part of a division. It's a mess.

Bernd 03/08/2021 (Mon) 11:18:16 [Preview] No.42845 del
>it doesn't seem that everybody does it.
That was the assumption I built both posts on.
Generally division is the lowest level among the higher organizational units which can operate independently. This also isn't always true since some countries use the brigade for this. And even those countries where the division is prevalent, they also can decide to use the brigade for an operation if they want.

Bernd 03/08/2021 (Mon) 15:04:03 [Preview] No.42846 del
The Brigade is becoming more common now though. Brigade Combat Teams are what many nations are gravitating towards, even China. It makes sense for launching expeditions as they have a smaller foot print and being smaller they are also cheaper yet still able to operate independently. I think a division is still superior though, given equal factors but the BCT will be quite effective against inferior forces(though then why is China doing this? I guess they can just throw large numbers of them at the enemy). Even stacking BCTs would not give the same cohesion and support that a Division has which is why I think they are better given the same or roughly the same size.

Bernd 03/08/2021 (Mon) 15:58:41 [Preview] No.42847 del
I guess the cost just go up so they try to solve tasks with smaller units. Adding more tech which also makes the cost go up.
Besides these militaries don't face each other but they normally participate in asymmetrical wars, so they a rarely need to get organized into higher level, and never into armies and fronts.

Bernd 03/08/2021 (Mon) 18:59:05 [Preview] No.42850 del
>I tried to find the exact composition of these units but I could not, however by this composition it seems they may not have that much organic recon(but I can't say for sure). Our reserve cavalry regiments specialise in recon as well(but in light vehicles) which maybe hints at a recon role for the cavalry regements in general.
So the cavalry effectively is two wheeled recon squadrons per brigade. The tanks are a single squadron for overall brigade support. Presumably they can be employed as a taskforce together with a mechanized infantry company. Brazilian pure tank and pure M113 battalions are expected to operate by breaking down into component companies and forming mixed taskforces.

>Also NATO symbols and the logic behind them - how they combine the simpler sings into a combination of sign systems to mark modern unit compositions - also worth an investigation.
I often see unit boxes with text underneath giving further specification on what they are. That's a failure of the system which is meant for visual information.

That looks a lot like the Brazilian mechanized infantry brigade. Three battalions of infantry on wheeled APCs and a wheeled recon squadron.

But if the brigade is the main level of autonomous command with operational autonomy and a fixed composition, there's no problem in using divisions with no particular designation (like "Army Division" instead of calling it infantry, cavalry or armored) as collections of a varying number of brigades.
Choosing between brigade and division has a lot to do with army size, an understrength army spread thin among many formations will end up with brigade-sized divisions and battalion-sized regiments. Might as well drop the pretence.

Bernd 03/08/2021 (Mon) 19:02:17 [Preview] No.42851 del
>completely forgotten in former Soviet bloc.
That is mysterious, because Red Army in WWII had liek 28 cavalry divisions.
We also adopted that naming. First "shooter" battalions appeared in the 1947-48 order of battle, still in infantry divisions, but from '48 those were renamed to "shooter" brigades (with motorized infantry, mechanized artillery, AA, assault gun, and tank sub-units), then turned into divisions.

>our "armored infantry" (M113s) would in another country be just mechanized infantry
>But then what would the 100% wheeled APC units be called?
I think the naming of the Brazilian units armoured and mechanized came from the fact that they had to make distinctions between differently equipped (maybe because that equipment they had, and/or they served different purpose) units.
>was absorbed into the armored branch
Airmobile units were formed from cavalry ones too.

Bernd 03/08/2021 (Mon) 19:14:07 [Preview] No.42852 del
>Might as well drop the pretence.
Heh, in WWII we did the opposite. Since our army was brigade centered, with two regiments (infantry, not counting artillery and anything else), and contemporary modern armies (most notably German and Russian) operated with three regiment divisions there was a pressure to make our army competitive and upgrade the brigades into regiments. But that would needed plus one regiments in each, and that would meant disbanding some of the brigades and redirect their composing units, and this would resulted in less major units. The other solution would have been setting up more regiments and fill up the ranks of the existing ex-brigades (now divisions). They chose the second solution, but in practice it went slow and they ended up with a bunch of two regiment divisions, which they named light divisions and reserve divisions and such. They were used as full value divisions...

Bernd 03/08/2021 (Mon) 19:45:13 [Preview] No.42853 del

Not only naming matters, but composition. For example, in USSR there were pretty rigid difference between regiment-level additional forces (artillery, EW etc) and division-level, end even army level. In WW2 some artillery detachments with specific equipment were tied directly to armies or even higher (high command), and can't be used easily from lower levels without specific reason. But it was reasonable considering communication and planning tech on these time.

Nowadays division-level tech slowly goes "lower" (from mobile artillery to recon drones), and units that can operate "separately" become smaller too. Supply also changed, it is easier now to supply less centralized groups than in past.

Anyway, army unit layout is pretty complex and interesting thing by itself.

>would not give the same cohesion and support that a Division has

As interesting fact: in first Chechen war Russian army still had "Soviet layout", Soviet officiers and overall Soviet everything (less than 5 years passed since USSR collapse). And almost-two-million army, that was designed to be near English Channel after 10 days of big war, couldn't even find any unit to do anything. So government was forced to create some diverse group from everywhere.

Bernd 03/09/2021 (Tue) 08:58:22 [Preview] No.42854 del
So "polk" is a regiment.
MS is "motoshooter"
B is a battalion
P is a company
V is a platoon

Bernd 03/10/2021 (Wed) 07:36:22 [Preview] No.42858 del
(159.73 KB 1024x767 scale_1200.jpg)

Yes. В - взвод (vzvod, platoon), Р - рота (rota, company), battalion is almost same. There is also term that often used for artillery and related things - "divizion" (дивизион), but it isn't division (дивизия), it is something like battalion. USSR had division as main unit in MS with very small amount separate brigades (mostly created for expeditionary action like in Afghanistan).

Modern Russian brigade is almost a oversized regiment - same 3 MSB + 1 tank battalion (and symmetrical 3 TB + 1 MSB in tank brigade), just with larger overall support force.

Bernd 03/10/2021 (Wed) 15:13:38 [Preview] No.42859 del
>There is also term that often used for artillery and related things - "divizion" (дивизион), but it isn't division (дивизия), it is something like battalion
We call that a class. Like a school class.

Bernd 03/10/2021 (Wed) 21:04:35 [Preview] No.42863 del
So an artillery "group" with several batteries.

Bernd 03/11/2021 (Thu) 10:09:32 [Preview] No.42866 del
Artillery goes something like this:
platoon -> battery (company in infantry) -> battalion (or what we listed: "divizion", "class", "group") -> regiment
Red Army sometimes organized them into divisions as well. Hungarian People's Army had stuff liek "breakthrough artillery division". And "mobile AA artillery division".

Bernd 03/11/2021 (Thu) 10:10:49 [Preview] No.42867 del
Oh I think in WWII Red Army had corps level arty units too.

Bernd 03/12/2021 (Fri) 19:19:53 [Preview] No.42878 del
(5.93 MB 10500x4200 firefly-type4chito.png)

Bernd 03/12/2021 (Fri) 23:56:00 [Preview] No.42881 del
It's missing the virgin and chad face it in. Doesn't feel the same otherwise

wut is that?

Bernd 03/13/2021 (Sat) 08:01:59 [Preview] No.42887 del
It's a tank. A Bri'ish Sherman. Probably the only Bri'ish WWII tank that doesn't look weird.
In Panzer General II it's breddy gud. Otherwise I've no idea.

Bernd 03/13/2021 (Sat) 11:32:19 [Preview] No.42891 del
I remember reading about Firefly back in the day.
IIRC the big gun they mounted on it was in fact doing quite well against German tanks, except when this thing was brought on battlefields Germans didn't have that many tanks to fight them. And as the meme says the shell didnt have that much HE filler for killing enemy infantry and light vehicles so the older versions were in general doing better in battles.

Bernd 03/13/2021 (Sat) 13:00:41 [Preview] No.42893 del
Plenty of British tanks don't look weird and anyway I think the Sherman does look weird.

It was also incredibly cramped.

Bernd 03/14/2021 (Sun) 07:00:45 [Preview] No.42903 del
>except when this thing was brought on battlefields Germans didn't have that many tanks to fight them
Plus Western Allies had more options to counter, or even seek out and destroy enemy armor. For example their air forces were capable reaching behind the front and prevent German tanks to reach the fights. I wonder the ratio of destroyed armoured vehicles, who did more, the tanks, AT units, or bombers. And ofc infantry and AA had capabilities too.

>Plenty of British tanks don't look weird a
Hic Rhodus hic salta.
Well, maybe some version of the Crusader.

Bernd 03/14/2021 (Sun) 07:29:53 [Preview] No.42904 del
(759.51 KB 1200x687 Cromwell 001.jpg)
The Cromwell and Churchill don't look weird either. They look very tank like and not like they are tanks with aircraft engines in them that make them an odd shape and too tall, I would only say that rivets are out of date by then but that doesn't make them look weird. I think the French were probably the only Nation with truly weird tanks, they did not actually posses one that is not weird and unlike how a tank should actually be.

Bernd 03/14/2021 (Sun) 09:58:01 [Preview] No.42907 del
(3.86 MB 3000x2200 m3-lee.jpg)
(307.52 KB 2592x1944 Т-40.jpg)
(281.81 KB 1102x727 Т-26.jpg)

Many pre-war tanks look weird by modern standards anyway. War experience changed everything, light tanks died, mutli-gun vehicles died etc. Most countries finished war with very different (and more modern-looking) tanks than in 1939.

France just didn't made late-war tank for obvious reasons, and all that we remember was designed before war.

Bernd 03/14/2021 (Sun) 10:36:49 [Preview] No.42908 del
Yes but even for pre-war tanks they look weird. And German tanks were already quite Modern tank like pre-war, even the non-3 man turret ones don't look weird. I don't think the T26 or T40 looks that weird either and the grant has a reason to be. Tanks like the B1 Bis don't really have a reason to be how weird they are.

Bernd 03/14/2021 (Sun) 11:31:07 [Preview] No.42909 del
(356.02 KB 1182x739 CharB.jpg)
>Tanks like the B1 Bis don't really have a reason to be how weird they are.

It worth notice that Char B1 development started in 1921 (!), and it's design didn't change so much (at least from outside). It had WW1 feel.

French were slow.

Bernd 03/14/2021 (Sun) 11:42:25 [Preview] No.42910 del
Exactly, it feels like everybody else was coming up with new ideas and innovations on what the tanks would become or at least copying those that were. Everybody but the French.

Bernd 03/14/2021 (Sun) 19:12:29 [Preview] No.42914 del
Battery -> Group -> Regiment. At present only groups are in use, attached to brigades and wielding 105 mm guns. Armored brigades, however, have 155 mm field artillery. There are several other 155 mm groups as part of "divisional artillery" commands directly under divisions.

I've looked up the AFV units of other South American countries. Chile has Armored Groups, formerly Armored Cavalry Regiments, with the Leopard 2 (Leopard 1 in the low-priority south); Armored Infantry Battalions with the Marder (M-113 in the south); and Mechanized Infantry Battalions (so far only one, but in the future motorized infantry will be mechanized) with the wheeled MOWAG Piranha. It's similar to the Brazilian nomenclature, but Chile has no wheeled armored cars, instead giving the recon role to exploration platoons with Marders, pick-ups and motorbikes.

Argentina has tank cavalry with the TAM or SK-105 tank destroyer, exploration cavalry with the AML-90 (like Brazilian mechanized cavalry but 100% armored car, no APCs) and mechanized infantry with the tracked M-113.

Colombia has mechanized infantry with either the tracked M-113 or the wheeled LAV III, mechanized cavalry with wheeled armored cars and APCs: the Cascavel, Urutu and M-1117 and a medium armored group that due to the absence of tanks has to use the Cascavel.

Peru has tank battalions with the T-55, armored infantry battalions with the M-113, armored cavalry regiments with the AMX-13 light tank and some wheeled AFVs within cavalry in general.

Venezuela has its best tank units with the T-72 and mechanized infantry with the tracked BMP-3, other units have BTRs and older French vehicles. They also have motorized cavalry, not entirely clear what it uses but it's together with the BTR and French-equipped units.

So cavalry either means tanks or partial/full recon role, mechanized can either mean wheeled or tracked and armored mostly means tracked and always means tanks, poor man's tanks (armored cars, tank destroyers or light tanks filling the niche) or units following tanks (e.g. armored communications, armored engineers). Armored infantry/armored fusiliers follow up tanks (hence their vehicles better be tracked) while mechanized infantry is its own thing.

Bernd 03/14/2021 (Sun) 20:29:08 [Preview] No.42916 del
Cromwell looks weird with that boxiness (Tiger sames), and the "spoiler" at the back.
>Churchill don't look weird either
Even saying that is a weird.

Yeah, the constant feedback from the front changed lot on the papers of the engineers planning the new models.

Yeah, I thought something similar.
All these somehow reminded me the debate over the Anglo-Saxon cavalry. If they rode horses into the battle or just to the battlefield where they dismounted and fought as infantry.
That Argentine graphic is confusing, it says "Army Division" and has two "sticks" at regiment sized units.

Bernd 03/14/2021 (Sun) 22:12:42 [Preview] No.42918 del
>That Argentine graphic is confusing, it says "Army Division"
That's what it is, "División de Ejército". We use "Divisão de Exército".
>and has two "sticks" at regiment sized units
It's the other way around, they're battalion-sized regiments. The mechanized infantry regiment has a command & support company and three companies of armored fusiliers. The tank cavalry regiment has a command & support squadron and three tank cavalry squadrons. Admittedly calling the battalion-sized infantry unit a "regiment", as if it were cavalry, but refusing to call its companies "squadrons" is strange.
Though I only have one source that goes this deep on their order of battle.

Bernd 03/16/2021 (Tue) 09:23:27 [Preview] No.42947 del
(155.82 KB 960x640 v100.jpg)

>Peru has tank battalions with the T-55, armored infantry battalions with the M-113, armored cavalry regiments with the AMX-13 light tank and some wheeled AFVs within cavalry in general.

What a diversity. Although all South America looks like some weird combination of everything.

>They also have motorized cavalry, not entirely clear what it uses but it's together with the BTR and French-equipped units.

Russian sources say that 9th cavalry uses BTR-80 (91st Armored Cavalry Brigade), other sub units have AMX-VCI (AMX-13 APC) and V100. There were contract for modernization of AMXes and V100 by Russian Muromteplovoz plant (current manufacturers of MTLB) with new turret, but looks like it was partially fulfilled - only AMXes got turrets.

Bernd 03/16/2021 (Tue) 19:58:19 [Preview] No.42953 del
>9th cavalry uses BTR-80 (91st Armored Cavalry Brigade)
Wheeled armored cavalry operating on its own? So my attempt to find a pattern has already failed.

Bernd 03/18/2021 (Thu) 19:53:19 [Preview] No.42996 del
>What a diversity.
I'm interested in when they acquired what equipment/weaponry. I could point to influence changes of foreign powers. Especially the Cold War era could be potentially interesting, after that, one probably can buy arms from whoever dealer.

Bernd 03/20/2021 (Sat) 20:02:34 [Preview] No.43035 del
(407.26 KB 1122x1238 rusia-armas-tabla.jpg)
>Wheeled armored cavalry operating on its own? So my attempt to find a pattern has already failed.

I guess it is hopeless task. Surely there are some patterns in unit composition, but there also large amount of randomness, like using traditional historical names for units, money issues and other things. Especially in relatively poor South American countries that often don't even have reason to have proper tank units.

>Especially the Cold War era could be potentially interesting, after that, one probably can buy arms from whoever dealer.

Not really. Arms market still is very restricted, depending on region and politics. South America has less restrictions than Middle East, but it is still hard for non-western weapons to get in. Except for Venezuela, of course.

Bernd 03/20/2021 (Sat) 21:31:42 [Preview] No.43036 del
But "eastern" made weapons not just Russia can sell directly. There's the whole ex-eastern block, and ex-Soviet countries who could and did pass on armaments, and wherever those got those could/can be moved on to other countries. I kinda recall Hungary giving away armoured vehicles (T/BTR/BMP not sure which, maybe all) to some backwater country for a kiss.
And ofc there are those whom SU/Russia supported in the past.
And ofc the independent dealers how I saw it in that Nicholas Cage documentary, the Lord of War.

Bernd 03/21/2021 (Sun) 00:29:09 [Preview] No.43043 del
(4.64 MB 640x360 peruvian armor.mp4)
Peruvian interest in Soviet technology began in the 70s, after seeing it in action during earthquake relief. At the time it was under a left-wing military dictatorship. They bought the T-55 in 1972 and at the time it was the most powerful tank on the continent. Since then they've kept buying all sorts of Eastern Bloc armament. Chile bought Leopard 2s in 2007 and sold its Leopard 1s to Equador the next year; in response, Peru bought Kornet ATGMs. Chile&Ecuador vs. Peru must maintain the balance of power and continually respond to each other's arms purchases.

>traditional historical names for units
It's not just that but also keeping separate cavalry officers and cavalry doctrine as well as extending cavalry terminology to where it didn't exist before - tank battalions becoming tank regiments, mechanized recon becoming mechanized cavalry.
> Especially in relatively poor South American countries that often don't even have reason to have proper tank units.
They probably think they'll use them in full-on classical tank combat with neighboring countries which also organize such units. Doctrine might also be outdated, I've seen a few mentions describing Brazilian cavalry as primarily fighting embarked, which as you've said wouldn't hold ground in real combat.

Bernd 03/23/2021 (Tue) 11:34:23 [Preview] No.43067 del
(5.83 MB 3696x2456 Guarani1.jpg)
(5.06 MB 3696x2456 Guarani2.jpg)
(5.63 MB 3696x2456 Guarani3.jpg)
(194.13 KB 1500x1000 Guarani4.jpg)
Local production of the Iveco Guarani, which will replace the infantry's trucks and cavalry's Urutus. By the 2030s, that is.

The turret in action:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=5M9IK2pVUmk [Embed]

Bernd 03/23/2021 (Tue) 11:42:07 [Preview] No.43068 del
Happy Guarani is happy

Bernd 05/11/2021 (Tue) 16:26:39 [Preview] No.43569 del
So the British are modernising the Challenger. The Challenger 3 will have a 120mm smoothbore(finally) so it seems they have finally given up on that rifles nonsense. But it won't have a 130mm though I kind of thought that it would not. They are going to have 148 of them, certainly the numbers are getting low. Australia has 50.

I don't know. They say that it has fancy technological systems integrations but is it really that much of a step up? It has a gun that everybody else has been using for a while now and it is an updated version of a reasonably old platform yet they say this is future proof. It will be coming into service in 2030. 2030! By then we might be seeing autoloading 130mm tanks rolling about(the ones that India and Brazil build as they are going to be superpowers by then, surely).

https://youtube.com/watch?v=7HzhqGa2Mac [Embed]

Bernd 05/11/2021 (Tue) 18:04:03 [Preview] No.43571 del
At least it's expensive. Depression now, state spending is a must. They can't just buy vaccines.
>most lethal tank in NATO
>digital turret
The crew will be equipped with Androids. And get 5 seconds of personalized advertisements between targeting and shooting.

Bernd 05/11/2021 (Tue) 19:34:41 [Preview] No.43574 del
(104.59 KB 1024x447 british-armor.jpg)

Do UK really needs tanks anyway? They are protected by big US ally from large scale real wars, and would be in foreseeable future. For other tasks like expeditionary operations around the globe, only small amount of tanks are required. So, decision to make an upgraded version of existing tank is pretty reasonable.

>It has a gun that everybody else has been using for a while now and it is an updated version of a reasonably old platform yet they say this is future proof.

Gun may be swappable if tank size allows it. For example, initial version of T-62 had 100mm gun, but then it was replaced by 115mm. Technically even turret may be replaced in future if powertrain allows raising the weight limit.

Using same gun as everyone allows using old ammunition that was made in millions from Cold War, and also simplifies service.


At the late of Cold War most projects already included 152/155mm as future-proof gun, but looks like it is far future even today. But it is very strange that western tanks still has trouble with autoloaders.

Anyway, main feature of British tanks is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_vessel

Bernd 05/12/2021 (Wed) 02:58:56 [Preview] No.43575 del
US is useless and can't even deal with goat farmers and is a third world country that does not have the metric system and everybody is dying or the plague there and rebel groups keep launching putsches. Only Britain can defend Europe and only Britain can curtail French Aggression.

I think it would need a new turret for the 130mm, it certainly would benefit from a new turret if an auto loader was added.

!30mm will be needed to fight the Armata.

Bernd 05/12/2021 (Wed) 06:59:12 [Preview] No.43577 del
>Do UK really needs tanks anyway?
In the video they say they had liek a 1000 tanks before and now just 150. They still expecting to field tanks in the initial steps of an overseas invasion, but they recognize the conflicts Britain participates in mostly needs different forces.
I also think this might be part of the raised spending the USA demanded from other NATO members (just like us with the Lynx above >>39934 ). I heard the UK also dusts off their nuke missile program.

Bernd 05/12/2021 (Wed) 08:18:01 [Preview] No.43578 del
Yes. Also with US attention shifting towards china the UK may have to take a more active role in deterring Russia and maybe even Iran.

Bernd 05/12/2021 (Wed) 14:52:20 [Preview] No.43585 del
I thought the US was stronk? Were all those american bernds lying then?

Bernd 05/13/2021 (Thu) 14:30:04 [Preview] No.43594 del
It's all Rheinmetall upgrades. They're sure getting some juicy state contracts from left and right these days.

Bernd 05/14/2021 (Fri) 02:21:23 [Preview] No.43604 del
Yes, Rhinmetal-BAE. They are doing exactly what they are doing with us two with the Lynx. Rhinemetal gets the contract and Britain can say it's still made in Britain.

Bernd 05/14/2021 (Fri) 07:00:19 [Preview] No.43606 del
>They are doing exactly what they are doing with us two with the Lynx.
Exactly. That's why I posted it. And I'm pretty sure they have more iron in the fire.
German companies are getting some govt moneyz, probably an effort to keep economy ticking in the recession (see also Biontech). The demand of raising military spending due NATO participation can be a swell excuse.

Bernd 05/22/2021 (Sat) 16:49:37 [Preview] No.43742 del
They are replacing the Warrior with the Boxer too!!!!!! It's what all the cool kids are getting these days. I wonder where they will get them from, maybe they will be Australia-Hunagrian Boxers. It mentions that they are downsizing their army to 72,000 from 75,000 and they seem to be replacing everything with foreign made equipment or having foreign companies help upgrade their own equipment. Australia is doing the opposite and we are doing our best to get as much build here as possible and expand our capabilities, soon we will be stronger than they are and have a bigger military industry at this rate.


Bernd 05/22/2021 (Sat) 17:55:04 [Preview] No.43744 del
Now that they out of EU the British economy's gonna take a hit. Here's a chance to spend on military so their companies could benefit, but no they pay foreign ones. What's the logic in that?

Bernd 05/23/2021 (Sun) 10:18:39 [Preview] No.43752 del
(146.29 KB 851x630 brittania-ball.jpg)
>They are replacing the Warrior with the Boxer

But Boxer is wheeled and Warrior is tracked. They'd loss some of all-terrain capabilities with that replacement.

Overall this looks like another cut for already paper army. Typical UK style.

Bernd 05/24/2021 (Mon) 16:17:57 [Preview] No.43781 del
(90.94 KB 2753x1400 M1_Abrams_operators.png)
I just realised... Australia is the only non third world nation to use the Abrams. Embarrassing...

They are really the T type tanks of the west.

Bernd 06/08/2021 (Tue) 18:51:56 [Preview] No.43894 del
UK tabloids say that IFV Ajax is shit: https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1444958/uk-armed-forces-British-army-tanks-Ajax-armoured-fighting-vehicles-soldiers-health-defence

>A Government report, acquired by the Daily Telegraph, concluded the tanks must operate with “speed restrictions of 20mps”.

>The document also noted the armoured vehicles “cannot reverse over an obstacle more than 20cm high”.

>Due to internal vibrations, the report warns the Ajax vehicles are unable to fire their main guns on the move.

Bernd 06/09/2021 (Wed) 06:31:19 [Preview] No.43895 del
Posting proofs:
But I know the truth behind reality. Britain implementing new strategy based on French military theory. When attacked they surrender, their captured equipment will be reused by the enemy who's gonna have a very uncomfortable time using it, resulting in their total defeat at the end of the conflict.

Hmm. It all comes down to that Daily Telegraph article. Although in the first link some comments can be read on behalf of govt. and General Dynamics.
>It is inappropriate for us to comment further at this time
Their face must be so red of shame if they moral-highgrounding on "appropriateness".

Bernd 06/09/2021 (Wed) 06:37:41 [Preview] No.43896 del
I guess they will take the Puma now as well as the Boxer. All vehicles have issues in development and this is in development, maybe the reason they have come out with this information is to then justify abandoning it.

Bernd 06/09/2021 (Wed) 06:50:20 [Preview] No.43897 del
Yeah, sometimes they leak shit on purpose.

Bernd 07/12/2021 (Mon) 07:03:05 [Preview] No.44380 del
(61.14 KB 960x540 tfx-model-display.jpg)
(374.11 KB 2395x894 AGM-88E_HARM.jpg)

Bernd 10/20/2021 (Wed) 20:02:05 [Preview] No.45341 del
How Hungary can't afford a nuclear program? We don't even need to spend on subs and such, like North Korea has to. We could have a space program to go on with ballistic missile development, and launch our own satellites on the side.
Besides we have NPP and nuclear research facilities/institutions. So why not?

Bernd 10/22/2021 (Fri) 09:43:00 [Preview] No.45348 del
(525.72 KB 1920x944 aggressor.jpg)
(529.67 KB 1920x944 cutthroat.jpg)
(528.52 KB 1920x940 aggressor02.jpg)
Check Aggressor and Cutthroat flying.
The latter already disappeared from the radar, just about where the screenshot was made. Aggressor is still up on the radar.

Bernd 10/22/2021 (Fri) 09:51:19 [Preview] No.45349 del
(350.83 KB 1920x941 aggressor03.jpg)
And now Aggressor is stuck on the steppes. Maybe hit a mountain or something.

Bernd 05/28/2022 (Sat) 08:21:11 [Preview] No.47712 del
Insipred by the motto:
Passion for technology. Rheinmetall is a market leader in the areas of environmentally friendly mobility and threat-appropriate security technology.

I decided to look into the self-definition of some leading weapons manufacturers. I picked what they tell about themselves on their Youtube channels, since probably those have more traffic than their own websites. And since I checked, some of those websites curiously lacked of any about page and similar where they describe who they are.
I'm gonna note nationality/country of origin, although the largest ones (or maybe even all of them) will be multinational obviously. It has to be noted that many/all works on other projects than instruments of murder (or their products can be and do used both in military and civilian equipment, or has civilian applications).
I'll also add couple of product examples, what they designed, manufacture, sell, what they are known about.
Additional information: with one exception, all of 'em used their own - way more sophisticated - version of this https://www.bullshitgenerator.com/ liberally.
Two Wikipee links:

Bernd 05/28/2022 (Sat) 08:21:55 [Preview] No.47713 del
(69.01 KB 1500x705 Rheinmetall_Group.jpg)
(85.57 KB 1000x562 thales.png)
Let's start with those guys, whom I quoted above. That I found below a video, but on their channel, something else can be found.
Rheinmetall (Germany)
As an integrated technology group with more than 25,000 employees worldwide, the listed Rheinmetall AG stands for a strong, internationally successful company that operates in various markets with an innovative range of products and services. As a renowned development partner and direct supplier to the global automotive industry and a leading international systems provider for security technology, Rheinmetall draws on its high level of expertise in its basic technologies to address long-term megatrends, identify viable new markets with high growth potential and develop innovative solutions for a safe and liveable future. The focus on sustainability is an integral part of Rheinmetall's strategy. The company aims to achieve CO2 neutrality by 2035.
>develop innovative solutions
i cry everytim
Products: Leopard MBT, Challanger 2 MBT, PZH 2000 self-propelled howitzer

Thales (France)
Thales is a global high technology leader investing in digital and “deep tech” innovations – connectivity, big data, artificial intelligence, cybersecurity and quantum technology – to build a future we can all trust, which is vital to the development of our societies. The company provides solutions, services and products that help its customers – businesses, organisations and states – in the defence, aeronautics, space, transportation and digital identity and security markets to fulfil their critical missions, by placing humans at the heart of the decision-making process.
Note: 8th largest defence contractor in the world[7] and 55% of its total sales are military sales.
Products: Bushmaster armoured vehicle, F88 Austeyr assault rifle, Starstreak missile

Bernd 05/28/2022 (Sat) 08:23:00 [Preview] No.47714 del
(18.45 KB 700x350 leonardo.jpg)
(2.71 KB 924x520 Bae-Systems-Logo.png)
(107.58 KB 970x464 lockheed-martin-logo.jpg)
Leonardo (Italy)
Leonardo is a global high technology company & a key player in #Aerospace #Defence & #Security. We offer our clients continuous innovation through the capabilities delivered by our Divisions (Helicopters, Aircraft, Aerostructures, Airborne & Space Systems, Land & Naval Defence Electronics, Defence Systems, Security & Information Systems) and through our subsidiaries and joint ventures.
Note: It is the eighth largest defence contractor in the world based on 2018 revenues
Products: Eurofighter (join venture)

BAE Systems (UK)
Official channel of BAE Systems plc, one of the world's leading global defence, security and aerospace companies.
Note: It is the largest defence contractor in Europe,[7] and ranked the seventh-largest in the world based on applicable 2021 revenues.
Products: M2/M3 Bradley, Challanger 2 MBT, Archer

Lockheed Martin (USA)
Headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland, Lockheed Martin is a global security and aerospace company that employs approximately 110,000 people worldwide and is principally engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration and sustainment of advanced technology systems, products and services.
Note: Probably the biggest one of all
Products: F-117 Nighthaw, F-22 Raptor, etc etc

Bernd 05/28/2022 (Sat) 08:23:28 [Preview] No.47715 del
(15.83 KB 320x320 rafael.jpg)
(48.59 KB 600x600 SAAB-Logo.jpg)
RAFAEL (Israel)
Rafael Advanced Defense Systems Ltd develops and manufactures advanced defense systems for the Israeli Defense Forces and the defense establishment, as well as for foreign customers around the world.
Rafael is one of Israel's largest defense companies, with 2016 net profit of $123 million and record-high orders totaling $2.8 billion. We are also the largest employer in Northern Israel with approximately 7,500 employees and numerous subcontractor and service suppliers!
Products: Iron Dome

Saab is a global defence and security company with world-leading products, services and solutions for air, land, naval, civil security and commercial aeronautics. Read more at saab.com or follow us on social media (links below). Don't forget to subscribe!
Products: Saab JAS 39 Gripen, NLAW

Dutch bernd Bernd 06/03/2022 (Fri) 03:20:59 [Preview] No.47746 del
You should repost this in /k/. They'll probably go crazy over this. They're in anon cafe right now.

Bernd 06/03/2022 (Fri) 13:02:22 [Preview] No.47764 del
Tactical EVs.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=HXrCae_Z3H0 [Embed]

Bernd 06/03/2022 (Fri) 13:04:42 [Preview] No.47765 del
Are there any tactical ADMs?

Bernd 06/03/2022 (Fri) 13:08:22 [Preview] No.47766 del
ADM? I don't know what that means.

Bernd 06/03/2022 (Fri) 13:10:42 [Preview] No.47767 del
If there are tactical EV there must be tactical ADM. Eve? Adam? Adam? Eve?

Bernd 07/07/2022 (Thu) 18:26:37 [Preview] No.48193 del
(1.32 MB 1199x796 mem3072.png)
Why is this flight so important? It was ranked #1 tracked flight worldwide for couple of minutes, and even at landing it was #10. Came from Turkey, and landed in SE Polan, close to Ukraine. It was also registered in Ukraine. This type of plane was originally a military model, for paratroopers for example, but quite some countries use it in civilian air travel.

Bernd 07/07/2022 (Thu) 20:35:46 [Preview] No.48195 del
>Why is this flight so important?

It carries new Bayraktar.

Bernd 07/09/2022 (Sat) 06:36:11 [Preview] No.48223 del
That is a plausible explanation.
I wonder what kinda info can be put together by just following planes. Basically a form of OSINT. A source of OSINT.

Bernd 11/29/2022 (Tue) 22:54 [Preview] No.49344 del
The Brazilian Army has chosen the Italian Centauro II as the Cascavel's successor in the wheeled cavalry role. Usually it'd only buy foreign vehicles obsolete by a generation. Once its 120 mm gun enters service, armored cavalry will be less modern than mechanized cavalry (which has finished replacing the EE-11 Urutu with the Guarani this year). The Centauro and Guarani do fit each other, they have some parts commonality and there's even talk of some local Centauro production. Shared maintenance was one of the biggest strengths of the Cascavel-Urutu duo. Meanwhile armored cavalry is still using Leopard Is and M113s.

Bernd 11/30/2022 (Wed) 04:30 [Preview] No.49345 del
Would Leopard 1s have advantages over other tanks in some cases? Being that they are lighter and Brazil might not have very good infrastructure in the jungles and places like that.

Bernd 11/30/2022 (Wed) 14:41 [Preview] No.49347 del
Centauro and Guarani both are manufactured by Iveco? But different branches?
>armored cavalry will be less modern than mechanized cavalry
They can catch up with subsequent modernization, maybe til 2030 or something. It's not that South America will see any major conflict. Need to just match neighbours' preparedness.

Bernd 11/30/2022 (Wed) 14:54 [Preview] No.49348 del
Is there any border disputes in South Am?
I'm aware of the War of Pacific and the results, but does that matter?
A possible source of conflict could be if things in one of the countries getting out of hand and (some of) the rest would intervene on behalf of one side, "making order".
Heh, or Football War.

Bernd 12/02/2022 (Fri) 22:23 [Preview] No.49366 del
Low weight is indeed a point the Brazilian Army cares about, the competition for a new MBT has a 50 ton restriction. A friend looked into the details (it's public) and he calls it unrealistic and too conservative.
Infrastructure and jungles are irrelevant because our armored cavalry in flat terrain with good roads in the south. Only the 20th armored cavalry regiment is a bit more remote, facing Paraguay, and even then it's on flat ground.

The Guarani is by Iveco and already assembled locally, the Centauro is by Iveco + Leonardo.
>They can catch up with subsequent modernization, maybe til 2030 or something. It's not that South America will see any major conflict. Need to just match neighbours' preparedness.
It is Argentina that will have to step up their game now. But on armored cavalry we're about even, the modernized TAM isn't any better than the modernized Leopard 1. It's silly to compare the two militaries because relations have been friendly for decades, there's no way a war will break out in core Mercosul, and yet the Army's commanders still have to menacingly place all tanks facing Argentina and Uruguay.

>Is there any border disputes in South Am?
A tiny island and a piece of scarcely populated, windswept steppe are contested with Uruguay, but nobody cares. Border disputes aren't a real issue if the competing parties care more about their friendly relations. The disputes that do matter are on the other half of the continent: Peruvian and Bolivian claims on Chile, the Ecuadorian Amazon and Venezuelan claims on Guyana.
>A possible source of conflict could be if things in one of the countries getting out of hand and (some of) the rest would intervene on behalf of one side, "making order".
Could be separatism in Bolivia or an insurgent group like FARC spilling across the border.

Bernd 12/03/2022 (Sat) 13:30 [Preview] No.49368 del
50 tons is not unrealistic, the Type 10 weighs less than that.
Then what happens if somebody invades Brazil through the jungle?

Bernd 12/03/2022 (Sat) 17:18 [Preview] No.49372 del
>50 ton restriction
Get T-72.

>Let's invade Russia via Siberia
There are more convenient and expedient ways.

Bernd 12/06/2022 (Tue) 02:31 [Preview] No.49381 del
(372.00 KB 1299x1047 img-1.jpg)
Forget about it, the Worker's Party president bashed the project, a lawyer filed an objection and a regional judge suspended the 900 thousand euro bid, before Bolsonaro could sign the contract. The judge thinks there's no point in buying armored vehicles in peacetime when education and healthcare are in a dire situation. The lawyer's request was more aggressive and stated there are no threats to national security and 98 vehicles would represent only 5% of the armored vehicle fleet and hence, irrelevant to defense capabilities. None of the deal's enemies delve into any technical military considerations and they're clearly clueless, but they claim spending R$ 5 billion in our current financial and social situation is immoral and illegal. Those billions apparently wouldn't have been given upfront, but paid gradually until 2038, when the 98th vehicle would be delivered; many opponents do seem to be thinking it'll be 5 billion all in this year's budget. The Army might contest the judge's decision, but within a month Lula assumes office and it's over. Lula's base within his party has become very anti-military, moods have changed since decades ago when the left could back military spending on national sovereignty grounds.

>50 tons is not unrealistic, the Type 10 weighs less than that.
He didn't specifically criticize the weight limit, just the overall requirements.
>Then what happens if somebody invades Brazil through the jungle?
The only border area appropriate for tanks is with Venezuela, but it won't get them far. It's not just that the roads are bad, much of the Amazon doesn't have roads at all. Rivers and aircraft are the proper modes of transportation, specialized light infantry is the chief maneuver force.

Bernd 12/06/2022 (Tue) 12:13 [Preview] No.49382 del
Well, then that's it. Politics torpedoed the deal. While I raised the question of probable conflicts, it is also true if one has to do the buildup during the conflict, that is too late. As Romans said Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Hmm. I dunno. Fighting civil wars and doing coups can be done fine with whatever armament is at hand. Although in case of coup it could be a good idea to win the troops with the superior equipment.

Bernd 12/07/2022 (Wed) 01:39 [Preview] No.49384 del
>Well, then that's it. Politics torpedoed the deal.
It's baffling how easy and quick it was for a middle-ranking judge to take down a national-scale, decades-long defense project.

Bernd 12/08/2022 (Thu) 08:07 [Preview] No.49394 del
Democracy at work. Tyrants btfo-ed.

Bernd 12/09/2022 (Fri) 14:00 [Preview] No.49406 del
Japan is replacing her Type 96 wheeled APCs with Patria AMVs. Sad...
This seems to be the way the world is going, nations are not designing and making their own military hardware any more, instead they are building existing foreign designs but in their own country. I don't like it.


They are also working with Italy and the UK to build a fighter Jet. But I think that is excusable as fighters are expensive to design so sharing the cost makes sense, particularly if this stops them buying US planes.


Bernd 12/09/2022 (Fri) 17:26 [Preview] No.49408 del
Global economy with multinational companies.
How the Patria compares to Type 96?

Bernd 12/10/2022 (Sat) 14:20 [Preview] No.49428 del
It's larger so it can fit more people and is presumably more resistant to mines and other such things.
Also, AMV stands for Armoured Modular Vehicle, it's like the Boxer in that it can be configured to suit various different purposes. Like it can be given a cannon and turned into an IFV.

Bernd 12/11/2022 (Sun) 09:48 [Preview] No.49438 del
>It's larger so
Easier to hit.
Seems like the trend. It makes sense in the sense that only one vehicle needs to be maintained instead of several types. But I think this modular stuff adds a level of complexity to the vehicle itself which means harder fixing stuff on the field. I dunno.

Bernd 12/11/2022 (Sun) 19:42 [Preview] No.49439 del
(167.51 KB 1024x701 german-torpedo-wwii.jpg)
(321.59 KB 1450x928 HMS-Warspite.jpg)
(144.56 KB 410x600 Viktor_Schütze.jpg)
I found an a snippet of information I want to follow up because of the potential consequences of this fateful event.
The topic is WWII, and a faulty torpedo igniting mechanism which prevented the Germans to sink quite a few capital ships of the Royal Navy, during Operation Weserübung. The book where I found this info, is quite biased, a "pulp fiction" of the history genre, although the data itself mostly legit (or at least coming from books that are considered good sources, eg. Churchill and Dönitz), how the events are dressed up, how the events are explained, is a different matter (biased towards the Axis).
So basically it says that the German U-Boots were equipped with a new, not yet battle tested torpedo, the G-7e, which were ignited with a magnetic pistol. These torpedoes were only tried in the Baltic, and in the northern waters of Norway they don't detonated the warheads. Over hundred such torpedoes were launched, and most failed. The author estimates they could have scuttled over 20 British ships, among them such names like HMS Warspite (captain Schütze losed 3 projectiles at her).

I have no data yet, just this from Wikipee:
>Pi G7A-MZ: Combined mechanical and (faulty) magnetic igniter (replaced by Pi2)
I suspect this one is mentioned in the book. So promising start. There are many angles to take a look at this.

Maybe should have write this in the Suvorov thread, but will be fine here.

Bernd 12/12/2022 (Mon) 03:20 [Preview] No.49440 del
I heard of this, the US had similar issues with their topedos as well.

Bernd 12/12/2022 (Mon) 09:12 [Preview] No.49441 del
That's relatively easy to find:
Here's an article about the German ones:

I dl'd a handful of books, one which seems to be Dönitz's memoirs, in English. Gonna flip couple of pages.

Bernd 12/18/2022 (Sun) 20:53 [Preview] No.49492 del
(33.58 KB 595x868 Dönitz.jpg)
Dönitz in his memoirs (Ten Years and Twenty Days; The World Publishing Company, Cleveland and New York, 1959) titles the chapter about the Norwegian campaign: "The Norwegian Operation and the Torpedo Crisis"

The most notable quote:
>On April 16 at 0410 Prien reported that he had come upon transports lying at anchor in Bygdenfiord and had fired eight torpedoes at the long wall of ships, motionless and overlapping each other - but without achieving any success.
He gives an account on reported failures, among them the aforementioned Warspite accident. Some misses, some did not fire, some fired prematurely. Some events are described in detail, what was the plan, data of ranges and such.
He concludes that both contact and magnetic pistols caused malfunctions. And not just the incapability for detonation, or the early explosion, but some torpedoes run deeper than set depth, and this caused some of the misses too.
It is hard to judge - from this glance I took - the extent of possible destruction if they had adequately working torpedoes. Would be good to know what British ships were there, and in the crosshairs of the optics.

Bernd 12/18/2022 (Sun) 23:28 [Preview] No.49495 del
And a higher court reversed the decision, this contract is fully and formally justified within the state's bureaucratic logic. But I wouldn't be surprised if there's a new flip-flop on this matter.

Bernd 12/19/2022 (Mon) 15:05 [Preview] No.49499 del
>But I wouldn't be surprised if there's a new flip-flop on this matter.
That middle level judge might not acted by his own judgement but was told to do it. Then further twists and turns can be expected in the story.

Bernd 12/19/2022 (Mon) 21:22 [Preview] No.49506 del
(1.05 MB 1600x1315 two-whiskey.jpg)
I believe I found the Warspite vs Shütze incident in Churchill's book (The Second World War Vol. 1; Rosetta Books, 2002 /1948/)

This is how it looked like from the British side:
By the morning of April 10, the Warspite had joined the Commander-in-Chief, who was proceeding towards Narvik. [...] Admiral Whitworth shifted his flag to the Warspite at sea, and at noon on the thirteenth he entered the fiord escorted by nine destroyers and by dive-bombers from the Furious. There were no minefields; but a U-boat was driven off by the destroyers...
That's it. Then he goes on writing about an attack against German destroyers at Narvik.

Bernd 12/29/2022 (Thu) 02:58 [Preview] No.49559 del
For some months already, there's been talk of slapping the Centauro II's 120 mm turret on the Leopard 1. I'm not sure about it, it's still a vulnerable tank, but I guess any increased effective range will by itself augment its survivability.

Bernd 12/29/2022 (Thu) 10:23 [Preview] No.49563 del
Yeah, offense is the best defense. Except when it isn't.

Bernd 01/12/2023 (Thu) 09:56 [Preview] No.49625 del
(756.00 KB 1920x945 F-15.jpg)

Bernd 01/12/2023 (Thu) 10:50 [Preview] No.49626 del
(676.42 KB 1920x892 f-15-2.jpg)
(608.49 KB 1920x892 strato1.jpg)
(614.87 KB 1920x892 strato2.jpg)
They flew into Transylvania. I looked away for a minute and they disappeared (actually the page locked down - can't just let it run for free for the peasants - then after refresh they were nowhere).
But two Stratotankers were circling at the SE tip of the Carpathians, I assume they had rendezvous with the F-15s. They were from England, while the fighters appeared in Poland first, south of Krakow.

Bernd 01/17/2023 (Tue) 18:24 [Preview] No.49654 del

Bernd 01/17/2023 (Tue) 18:25 [Preview] No.49655 del
Sorry, not hat for you. Yet.

Bernd 01/17/2023 (Tue) 18:50 [Preview] No.49657 del
(29.93 KB 474x296 th-4242057022.jpg)
in case such times come - here's a reference

Bernd 01/17/2023 (Tue) 18:52 [Preview] No.49658 del
Thanks that helps. I've similar for Kazakhstan.

Bernd 01/24/2023 (Tue) 22:52 [Preview] No.49680 del
A 266 m long, 20-30 thousand ton chunk of hazardous waste-laden metal is floating somewhere in the Atlantic. Nobody wants the former aircraft carrier São Paulo anymore and it's too toxic to touch the coast, so the Navy will more or less abandon it to its fate until it sinks.

Bernd 01/25/2023 (Wed) 20:09 [Preview] No.49693 del
Would be perfect for a favela.

Bernd 01/26/2023 (Thu) 00:14 [Preview] No.49694 del
(96.34 KB 1600x900 712.jpg)
(109.05 KB 1400x900 ENQonCwWoAA935M.jpg)
(232.57 KB 775x694 img.png)
Happy Australia Day, cunts!

Bernd 01/26/2023 (Thu) 01:27 [Preview] No.49695 del
But what has that got to do with tanks?

Bernd 01/26/2023 (Thu) 01:41 [Preview] No.49697 del
Nothing, but I didn't want to create a new thread. There didn't seem anything appropriate in the catalogue.

Bernd 01/26/2023 (Thu) 06:37 [Preview] No.49698 del
Okay, well Happy Australia day.

Bernd 01/26/2023 (Thu) 08:24 [Preview] No.49699 del
Thank you. To you too, fella.

Top | Return | Magrathea | Catalog | Post a reply