And it was retired because the fallout put the fire unit in the same risk as the target.
Nike Hercules batteries had a secondary "anti-armor" role. Being nuclear tipped, they could strike the ground to stop Soviet armor in their tracks (it was hoped). In reality it was more of the Army's I Love Nuclear Power than rational thinking.
There was a plan for a weapon that was just an anti-tank mine in a rolling ball, steered/propelled by rockets. No guidance, they would just go off on random directions then explode, and it was to be delivered by either a TBM (Probly Pershing) or an ICBM (like Minuteman). It was cheaper and the brass thought it would scare the crap out of the Rusikies. It was canceled in The '80s.
Ah the Cold War, you can't make this shit up.
edited 16th Feb '15 6:15:12 PM by TairaMai
All night at the computer, cuz people ain't that great. I keep to myself so I won't be a case on The First 48Russia's T-14 Armata Tank May Feature a Fatal Flaw
Russia is building a supertank — if the nation can afford it.
Last month, we introduced you to Russia's new Armata main battle tank. Weighing in at 55 tons, and featuring multilayered armor, an independent crew capsule, and a fully automated 125 mm main gun firing both cannon rounds and laser-guided missiles, Armata is designed to be Russia's answer to General Dynamics' (NYSE: GD ) M1 main battle tank built for the U.S. Army and Marine Corps. We also described how Russia is using Armata ("Армата") as a core chassis upon which it will build an entire family of armored personnel carriers, anti-aircraft missile launchers, armored self-propelled artillery, flame throwers, bridge-layers, and minesweepers — some operated as robots.
But as high-tech and powerful as all this sounds, the Armata contains one potentially fatal flaw: its cost.
Yay for cross posty things. Thankies.
And I'll say here what I said in the military thread. If Ivan is willing to take the plunge with the AK-12, which is Aramata in small arms form, I'm sure they're going to go for their new tank.
The T-90 is good but it's hit the end of it's life really. All the upgrades it's been getting aren't really T-90 upgrades but more upgrades to Arena, Shtora, it's ERA. Things that are somewhat modular and can be applied to many things.
Oh really when?The Comeback of Armor in the US Military
Time and again, obituaries on the world’s tank forces have been composed by analysts, who cite shifting priorities in acquisitions, shrinking defense budgets, and the obsoleteness of heavy armor in the age of cyberwar, drone strikes, and “light footprint” operations. The United States Army, while still fielding one of the largest tank forces in the world – the number of main battle tanks alone is around 6000 – cancelled its most prominent replacement for armored fighting vehicles, the Ground Combat Vehicle, at the beginning of 2014.
Army upgrades to the Abrams, PDF link
edited 16th Feb '15 8:07:25 PM by TairaMai
All night at the computer, cuz people ain't that great. I keep to myself so I won't be a case on The First 48OK, here's an idea for an APC replacement: Just build like a heavily armored trailer that you can tow behind a tank.
Like a happy little armored camper van. Will it have a bathroom and TVs?
What about shagpile carpets and leopard print bed?
edited 17th Feb '15 5:28:27 AM by LeGarcon
Oh really when?Can it detach and drive away if the tank pulling it eats an ATGM or takes a bad hit from APFSDS and is destroyed?
"Allah may guide their bullets, but Jesus helps those who aim down the sights."Sure, if they were driving uphill and some bold (probably lowest ranking) infantryman runs out to pull the hitch pin. And if nobody is driving behind them.
Trailers are silly things. Tanks should eschew them.
Schild und Schwert der ParteiLike this?
Keep Rolling OnWhat even is that? A spare fuel tank?
Oh really when?The Churchill Crocodile had something of the same sort of thing, as seen here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill_Crocodile
That was a dedicated fuel tank for the tank's main weapon, a really horribad flamethrower. Horribad for the Germans that it was used against, mainly.
There was also that very silly towed infantry sled that nutters sometimes like to remember. Sparky Warning.
Who watches the watchmen?Just finished watching the 2007 indie war film, "Rhineland", directed by Chris Grega, and it was brilliant. Pretty standard plot and so on but the actors were superb in it, everybody appearing looked the part, down to depicting everyone's small arms properly according to their role and rank - which is very rare in a Hollywood war film. But what really blew my mind was when the armor showed up - instead of Pattons of various different classes, there was at least one M3 Stuart, as used by cavalry recce units during the war in Europe and an honest to god Sd.Kfz. 251 half track with interleaved roadwheels in the tracky bit instead of the usual M3 half track dolled up with German insignia portraying them which much bigger budgeted films (like the Battle of the Bulge) used.
It helped that the film makers used the services of re-enactors, who really know their stuff as you know, and it shows.
Film doesn't have a wikipedia page, unfortunately.
Are you sure it wasn't a converted Czech OT-810?
Keep Rolling OnNope. Straight up Sd.Kfz. 251. It would have been one of those Czech thingies if they had filmed it in Europe, probably, but they filmed it in America - a very German forest looking bit but still America, and there's guys there who rent the real deal.
edited 26th Feb '15 11:41:07 PM by TamH70
According to here, there are ~30 OT-810 in the US — certainly far more are running then actual 251s.
Keep Rolling OnYeah, but the OT thingies have full armored roofs, and I doubt any collector or renter is going to let someone saw the roof off just for a film - the Hanomag in this movie was an open rear compartment one, with guys sitting in it with their heads sticking out of the top.
edit
Oops. Some of them have had their roofs cut off. You could be right, but since the OT is basically a Hanomag in drag, they're functionally identical to look at.
edited 27th Feb '15 1:32:31 AM by TamH70
Which is why they're used, funnily enough...
Keep Rolling OnCannot unsee...
"Allah may guide their bullets, but Jesus helps those who aim down the sights."Between that and the mental image of one with wheelie bars, me neither.
I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiotSo, boys and girls. Remember that pickup truck with the BMP turret welded on deployed by the Libyan militias?
They've gone weirder. Much, much weirder. And notice that front-end armor!
Charlie Stross's cheerful, optimistic predictions for 2017, part one of three.I really wonder how the truck is going to steer with that bolted on. I don't think that's going to be usable as a battering ram either...
I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiotProbaly not well, but maneuverability is what the smaller technicals are for.
I think thats supposed to be heavier fire-suport....
I gotta wonder, will that dent the tanks used over there?
This tankbusting nuke proved size doesn't matter.
"Allah may guide their bullets, but Jesus helps those who aim down the sights."