Advertisements
Category: Historical Articles
Toilets and Modern Tanks
Source: Quora
Is there a toilet in modern tanks like the M-1 Abrams or the Challenger 2?
M1 Abrams:
„Some background first: I was a M1 tanker during the Gulf War and served from 1989 to 1997. I spent all of my time on M1IPs and M1A1s. So now on to the question.
No, there is no toilet in a tank. The simple reason is that the tank was built to fight so every space in the tank is there to support that purpose. A toilet would take up a lot of space in the hull or turret which would change the characteristics of the tank: weight, height, carrying space. So while it’s an excellent suggestion from a crew comfort point-of-view it just isn’t practical.
Your only hope is to have a bottle to wiz in, or to hope that there will be a long enough stop to hop out and take care of business.
And yes, I know of tankers who had to piss themselves because the unit just couldn’t stop!”
Challenger 2:
„The Brits win this one. As someone actually training to use the Best of British armour, I can confirm the Challenger 2 has a toilet under the Loader’s seat. It flushes the waste out under the tank, and can be used when hatches are closed. Now you understand why the Brits have the best modern Main Battle Tank. Other than the excellent tea making faculties.
Incidentally, our Warrior troop carrier also has a toilet in the troop compartment, but that only has a bag that sits and stinks up the tank. So while the option is there, I’m sure the lads sharing the tight space with you would much prefer you hold it in.
Some of the first fighting vehicles to have toilets were actually old bombers from World War 2, so why it took us this long to get one in an armoured fighting vehicle I couldn’t say. But here you gotta give to the UK. We may not have the massive defence budget of the US, but we’re the ones who can operate a radio inside a tank while relieving our bowels in a sanitary fashion. Suck on that one Uncle Sam.”
History Spotlight: Dogs of War
Source: NA WoT Portal
A Soldier’s Best Friend in Diverse Roles
Man is not the only snarling beast to take the field during times of war. In 1942 the American Kennel Association with the help of another group named Dogs for Defense began a campaign to have the American people volunteer their canine companions for active duty.
Dogs have been a part of nearly every military in history, but prior to this movement the U.S. forces had not developed this resource on such a large scale (though they did have some dogs already in service). The U.S. would train 10,000 dogs for duty during WWII, which paled in comparison to the 200,000 dogs Germany is thought to have trained by the time America entered World War II.
The American volunteer response was so swift that by March of that same year the Quartermaster Corps began inducting dogs as service animals. Their training was completed at numerous special camps across the U.S. There was some initial difficulty in structuring how and where these dogs received their training, but they were eventually schooled for duty as Sentry, Scout/Reconnaissance, Sled/Pack, Messenger, or Mine Detection dogs.
Operation Barbarossa 1941.
WoT: 20 Obscure Tank Facts
Taken from the official WoT NA portal
1. The Word “Tank”
During World War I, the British “Landships Committee” changed their title to keep their new vehicles secret and not so obvious. They went with “water carriers” and “tanks.” That’s also why tanks have so many “nautical” component names, such as bow, hatch, hull, and sponson.
2. Owner’s Manuals
Much like today’s electronics or Swedish furniture, every Tiger and Panther came with an owner’s manual peppered with cartoony illustrations.
Tanks on the maps around the world. The Gold of Klondike
Source: WoT RU portal
Do you hear the wind rocking piles in the frozen wastelands of industrial areas? This is the place where desperate adventurers and decent fathers of the family lost illusions, experienced tragedies or became fantastically rich and met happiness in the mines.
Rifts over the mouth of the river, stone hills and forest plots – the expanse of the map with many options for traveling and secluded places with a good overview gives a large set of combinations for all types of equipment. Let’s see what is hidden in the mysterious “Klondike” and move to North America during the “gold rush.”
You are waiting for six points on the map “Klondike” and five short stories about conquering Alaska.
Kennecott Mine (Alaska)
Continue reading “Tanks on the maps around the world. The Gold of Klondike”
The 120 mm T53
You have probably heard about the American experimental heavy tank T34 somewhere, maybe from World of Tanks, War Thunder or Wikipedia. It’s described as having an excellent penetration at about 247 mm from 100 m, which is a feat compared to the German 8.8 cm KwK 43 gun armed on the Tiger II. But did you know that it could do more than that?
A bit of Background
The T34 was a WWII prototype heavy tank developed in 1945 in response to the German armored threats such as the Tiger II and Jagdtiger. The T29 was considered satisfactory enough in term of performance with its 105 mm T5E1, but lacked serious firepower in contrast to the 12.8 cm cannon. The T30 was only armed with a 155 mm as a bunker buster, with sub-par anti-tank performance across the board. As such, a project was initiated to rearm the T29/T30 with a modified 120 mm M1 AA gun, the 120 mm T53 L/65. Firing a 23 kg heavy projectile at 960 m/s, the gun was able to closely match the performance of said German gun. Unfortunately for the Americans, World War II was already over by the time the T34 was assembled. Post-War development led to the T34’s engine being upgraded from using the Ford GAC to Continental AV1790. Extensive trials of the T34 as a “technology demonstrator” led to the M103 Heavy Gun Tank.
Development
The earliest known record of the requirement to develop the T34 heavy tank was from the first of February, 1945. The Army expressed concern about using the 155 mm gun with heavyweight 100 lb projectiles on the T30 (M112B1), mainly because of the effectiveness of it against enemy tank armor, with the rate of fire calculated in. It was expected to be very ineffective (the M112B1 only penetrates 170 mm of armor from point blank, while the rate of fire from the gun is only 3 RPM). Seeing the potential problem that would likely cause an unnecessary issue in the future, the Ordnance Department went to study for possible application of the 120 mm M1 anti-aircraft gun for the heavy tank.
