tank question

[Guest]

Archived from groups: (More info?)

Can tank drivers see what's behind them (with the turret facing
forward) and, if so, how is it accomplished and is it common among all
tanks?

Thanks.

SG

btw, what sparked this question was playing Battlefield 2. One of the
vehicles you can drive is a tank.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: (More info?)

I suppose it depends upon the tank, but the M1 Abrams (which is probably
the one you're referring to) does not give the driver the capability to
look to the rear. There are "periscopes" that they can use, but only
provides a semi-circle of visibility.

-sf.

shegeek72 wrote:
> Can tank drivers see what's behind them (with the turret facing
> forward) and, if so, how is it accomplished and is it common among all
> tanks?
>
> Thanks.
>
> SG
>
> btw, what sparked this question was playing Battlefield 2. One of the
> vehicles you can drive is a tank.
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: (More info?)

"shegeek72" <sweepster@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:1126756755.566868.18230@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Can tank drivers see what's behind them (with the turret facing
> forward) and, if so, how is it accomplished and is it common among all
> tanks?

The answer to that is NO.

Driver in M1 can do a "raised", which head slightly sticking out the
porthole, or lowered (using periscope/vision blocks only), but neither
has a rear-view.

In general, it's the tank commander's job to check to the rear. And
infantry knows never get behind a tank's fighting position. A tank will
need to displace after a few shots and it does that by backing out of
its defilade. The driver will simply have to trust there's nothing
behind
him.

--KC

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: (More info?)

"Kasey Chang (remove EATSPAM to reply)" <kschang77@eatspamhotmail.com> wrote
> The driver will simply have to trust there's nothing
> behind him.
>

I would imagine it wouldn't really matter if there was LOL.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: (More info?)

I know for a fact in Korea phones were placed on the backs of tanks to allow
infantry to communicate with tank crews. I'm pretty sure Vietnam featured
tanks w/the same phones. I'd guess this is no longer the case because of
radio?

--
there is no .sig
"Kasey Chang (remove EATSPAM to reply)" <kschang77@eatspamhotmail.com> wrote
in message news:QO7We.1018$3V6.894@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
> "shegeek72" <sweepster@ev1.net> wrote in message
> news:1126756755.566868.18230@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> In general, it's the tank commander's job to check to the rear. And
> infantry knows never get behind a tank's fighting position. A tank will
> need to displace after a few shots and it does that by backing out of
> its defilade. The driver will simply have to trust there's nothing
> behind
> him.
>
> --KC
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: (More info?)

"Doug" <pigdos@nospam.com> wrote

>I know for a fact in Korea phones were placed on the backs of tanks to
>allow infantry to communicate with tank crews.

Left a bit. Left a bit. Left a bit. Shoot.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: (More info?)

"Doug" <pigdos@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:h%fWe.810$7x4.105@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>I know for a fact in Korea phones were placed on the backs of tanks to
>allow infantry to communicate with tank crews. I'm pretty sure Vietnam
>featured tanks w/the same phones. I'd guess this is no longer the case
>because of radio?
>
Infantry can't stand behind the current US tanks, they would get roasted by
the turbine exhaust.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: (More info?)

Cardinal Fang wrote:
> "Doug" <pigdos@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:h%fWe.810$7x4.105@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>> I know for a fact in Korea phones were placed on the backs of tanks to
>> allow infantry to communicate with tank crews. I'm pretty sure Vietnam
>> featured tanks w/the same phones. I'd guess this is no longer the case
>> because of radio?
>>
> Infantry can't stand behind the current US tanks, they would get roasted by
> the turbine exhaust.

I don't know about that.. When I was in the field, I used to always get
behind the M1's to stay warm, and I'm still here to talk about it.

-sf.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: (More info?)

Except of course for Bradleys. Why don't they have the turbine exhaust go
up? Like the other poster said: "left again, left again, shoot"
they did have phones behind tanks during the Korean War. If a tank is
buttoned up how the hell are infantry supposed to communicate with them? Do
all soldiers carry radios now?

--
there is no .sig
"Cardinal Fang" <fang@spam.me> wrote in message
news:4329c8d8$0$17479$ed2e19e4@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net...
>
> "Doug" <pigdos@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:h%fWe.810$7x4.105@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>>I know for a fact in Korea phones were placed on the backs of tanks to
>>allow infantry to communicate with tank crews. I'm pretty sure Vietnam
>>featured tanks w/the same phones. I'd guess this is no longer the case
>>because of radio?
>>
> Infantry can't stand behind the current US tanks, they would get roasted
> by the turbine exhaust.
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: (More info?)

One Punch Mickey wrote:
> "Doug" <pigdos@nospam.com> wrote
>
>
>>I know for a fact in Korea phones were placed on the backs of tanks to
>>allow infantry to communicate with tank crews.
>
>
> Left a bit. Left a bit. Left a bit. Shoot.
>
>

Ah. Bernie the bolt. Them were the days. When there was TV worth
watching on a saturday. No wonder the UK & Ireland have turned to binge
drinking : I blame the plethora of B Celebrities starring C Celebrity
reality bilge and the incredibly cheap drinks in Dublin ...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: (More info?)

"Doug" <pigdos@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:h%fWe.810$7x4.105@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> I know for a fact in Korea phones were placed on the backs of tanks to
allow
> infantry to communicate with tank crews. I'm pretty sure Vietnam
featured
> tanks w/the same phones. I'd guess this is no longer the case because
of > radio?

Only on Marine's Abrahms. Not for the Army version, AFAIK.

--KC

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: (More info?)

"Walter Mitty" <mitticus@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3otv49F7o6e3U1@uni-berlin.de...
> incredibly cheap drinks in Dublin ...

Compared to Saudi Arabia they're cheap maybe.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: (More info?)

"Doug" <pigdos@nospam.com> looked up from reading the entrails of the
porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:

>Except of course for Bradleys. Why don't they have the turbine exhaust go
>up?

Sounds like a really good way to make sure the tank is visible to
infrared scans.

>Like the other poster said: "left again, left again, shoot"
>they did have phones behind tanks during the Korean War. If a tank is
>buttoned up how the hell are infantry supposed to communicate with them? Do
>all soldiers carry radios now?

The question is, why does the tank _need_ to communicate with random
infantry?

Technology has come a ways since the Korean war and the average tank
isn't going to require infantry aiming for them.

Xocyll
--
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: (More info?)

Thusly "One Punch Mickey" <fantantiddlyspan@hotmail.com> Spake Unto
All:

>> incredibly cheap drinks in Dublin ...
>
>Compared to Saudi Arabia they're cheap maybe.

Haha, you irish people need to get out more. To Stockholm, for
example. Or Madrid. £4.50 for a beer.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: (More info?)

"Mean_Chlorine" <mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:k09li19t7qspei0ekp5ejjgoi4hac33vla@4ax.com...

> Haha, you irish people need to get out more.

Impossible.

> To Stockholm, for example. Or Madrid. £4.50 for a beer.

What, 4.50 Sterling? Well, you get tapas too in Madrid, plus sunshine ...

 

[shawk]

Archived from groups: (More info?)

"One Punch Mickey" <fantantiddlyspan@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:YgBWe.15575$R5.981@news.indigo.ie...
>
> "Mean_Chlorine" <mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:k09li19t7qspei0ekp5ejjgoi4hac33vla@4ax.com...
>
>> Haha, you irish people need to get out more.
>
> Impossible.
>
>> To Stockholm, for example. Or Madrid. £4.50 for a beer.
>
> What, 4.50 Sterling? Well, you get tapas too in Madrid, plus sunshine ...

I'm guessing that's for beer imported into Spain and not for their own
home-grown lagers? I've paid that for a decent Guinness abroad (abroad
meaning the non-UK parts of Europe) but always found their own beers very
cheap (if a little weak)...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: (More info?)

Can infantry communicate w/modern tanks via radio? I would think some sort
of communication between tanks and infantry would be a good thing. There
have been instances of tanks firing on their own men. I'd also imagine when
a tank is buttoned up it's pretty hard to see anything (e.g. a camoflauged
bunker).

--
there is no .sig
"Xocyll" <Xocyll@kingston.net> wrote in message
news:n6kli1lbdqc6c6p0trp1lktpbj39bh4lse@4ax.com...
> "Doug" <pigdos@nospam.com> looked up from reading the entrails of the
> porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
>
>>Except of course for Bradleys. Why don't they have the turbine exhaust go
>>up?
>
> Sounds like a really good way to make sure the tank is visible to
> infrared scans.
>
>>Like the other poster said: "left again, left again, shoot"
>>they did have phones behind tanks during the Korean War. If a tank is
>>buttoned up how the hell are infantry supposed to communicate with them?
>>Do
>>all soldiers carry radios now?
>
> The question is, why does the tank _need_ to communicate with random
> infantry?
>
> Technology has come a ways since the Korean war and the average tank
> isn't going to require infantry aiming for them.
>
> Xocyll
> --
> I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
> a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
> Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
> FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: (More info?)

Thusly "Shawk" <shawk@clara.co.uk.3guesses> Spake Unto All:

>>> To Stockholm, for example. Or Madrid. £4.50 for a beer.
>>
>> What, 4.50 Sterling? Well, you get tapas too in Madrid, plus sunshine ...
>
>I'm guessing that's for beer imported into Spain and not for their own
>home-grown lagers? I've paid that for a decent Guinness abroad (abroad
>meaning the non-UK parts of Europe) but always found their own beers very
>cheap (if a little weak)...

It probably depends on where you go, too. That was a "trendy" place in
central Madrid; I'm sure one can find beer for £2 or so further out
(since one can do that in Stockholm, if one knows where to look, I'd
say one can ANYWHERE).

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: (More info?)

Hi,

Cardinal Fang <fang@spam.me> wrote:
#Infantry can't stand behind the current US tanks, they would get roasted by
#the turbine exhaust.

Which just demonstrates, you don't know what you are talking about.

Ken.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mail: kmarsh at charm dot net | Next quarterly reports we'll see
WWW: http://www.charm.net/~kmarsh | windfall profits from energy companies
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: (More info?)

In article <1126756755.566868.18230@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
on 14 Sep 2005 20:59:15 -0700,
shegeek72 sweepster@ev1.net attempted to say .....

> Can tank drivers see what's behind them (with the turret facing
> forward) and, if so, how is it accomplished and is it common among all
> tanks?
>


Sure, but it's not that helpful being a view of the bulkhead and turret cage...


--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: (More info?)

In article <QO7We.1018$3V6.894@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>,
on Thu, 15 Sep 2005 05:40:00 GMT,
"Kasey Chang \(remove EATSPAM to reply\)" <kschang77@eatspamhotmail.com>
"Kasey Chang \(remove EATSPAM to reply\)" <kschang77@eatspamhotmail.com>
attempted to say .....

> "shegeek72" <sweepster@ev1.net> wrote in message
> news:1126756755.566868.18230@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > Can tank drivers see what's behind them (with the turret facing
> > forward) and, if so, how is it accomplished and is it common among all
> > tanks?
>
> The answer to that is NO.
>
> Driver in M1 can do a "raised", which head slightly sticking out the
> porthole, or lowered (using periscope/vision blocks only), but neither
> has a rear-view.

Unless the turret is locked the hatch stays closed while the tank moves.

> In general, it's the tank commander's job to check to the rear. And
> infantry knows never get behind a tank's fighting position. A tank will
> need to displace after a few shots and it does that by backing out of
> its defilade. The driver will simply have to trust there's nothing
> behind him.




--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: (More info?)

In article <h%fWe.810$7x4.105@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
on Thu, 15 Sep 2005 14:59:25 GMT,
Doug pigdos@nospam.com attempted to say .....

> I know for a fact in Korea phones were placed on the backs of tanks to allow
> infantry to communicate with tank crews. I'm pretty sure Vietnam featured
> tanks w/the same phones. I'd guess this is no longer the case because of
> radio?

That and 1300 degree exhaust...


--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: (More info?)

In article <PglWe.2847$Ob2.748@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
on Thu, 15 Sep 2005 20:59:27 GMT,
Doug pigdos@nospam.com attempted to say .....

> Except of course for Bradleys. Why don't they have the turbine exhaust go
> up? Like the other poster said: "left again, left again, shoot"
> they did have phones behind tanks during the Korean War. If a tank is
> buttoned up how the hell are infantry supposed to communicate with them? Do
> all soldiers carry radios now?

Up would be bad.
Up would create a huge thermal plume.

And no, not everyone has a radio.

--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: (More info?)

"Tank Fixer" <paul.deekat.carrier@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d97c53deec16898bda6@news.west.earthlink.net...
> In article <PglWe.2847$Ob2.748@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
> on Thu, 15 Sep 2005 20:59:27 GMT,
> Doug pigdos@nospam.com attempted to say .....
>
> > Except of course for Bradleys. Why don't they have the turbine exhaust
go
> > up? Like the other poster said: "left again, left again, shoot"
> > they did have phones behind tanks during the Korean War. If a tank is
> > buttoned up how the hell are infantry supposed to communicate with them?
Do
> > all soldiers carry radios now?
>
> Up would be bad.
> Up would create a huge thermal plume.
>
> And no, not everyone has a radio.

Doesn't the 4th ID have everyone equipped with a radio? It seems they are
the testbed for the smart IFF and such.I thought they even had integrated
gps so that at least every unit can be tracked realtime if not every
soldier.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: (More info?)

In article <VXEWe.3372$Ob2.2657@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
on Fri, 16 Sep 2005 19:22:29 GMT,
Doug pigdos@nospam.com attempted to say .....

> Can infantry communicate w/modern tanks via radio? I would think some sort
> of communication between tanks and infantry would be a good thing. There
> have been instances of tanks firing on their own men. I'd also imagine when
> a tank is buttoned up it's pretty hard to see anything (e.g. a camoflauged
> bunker).

Sure.
Just enter the armor units netID and key up

--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.