#1
|
|||
|
|||
Objekt 279
|
Google Adsense |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
Interesting; but even if it survived the heat and shockwave what keeps the crew from the equivalent of being stuck in a microwave?
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
The design makes sense for the time - 1959. It was fairly obvious that any conflict between Nato and the Red Army in Europe would immediately go nuclear since Nato did not have the resources to withstand a conventional attack by the Red Army. The only outcome of a Soviet attack across the North German Plain was the deployment of low yield (tactical) warheads to stop the Soviet armour spearheads. It makes sense to explore whether it is possible to design a heavy breakthrough tank which could survive a nuclear battlefield.
Of course, it turned out that just having a nuclear defence doctrine with deployed warheads was sufficient to deter any Soviet attack. No one could devise a scenario where the use of tactical warheads did not escalate rapidly to a full nuclear exchange so the Soviets kept the Red Army tank divisions within the Warsaw Pact borders. Regards, Charlie |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
While we were practising what we called crash outs and the Americans called bug outs in the 70's the official survival expectation for our Chieftains if the Warsaw Pact crossed the IGB was between 37 and 47 seconds. This from time of first contact. Major general Sir John Hacket wrote a popular book called the Third world war but he suggested that while the Warsaw pact would win, it might take a few weeks without so called Battlefield nukes.
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
I have a buddy that spend a couple of years in the early 60's babysitting Corporals and Honest Johns in Germany. He said that if things got hot, everybody figured less then a minute survival. The other thing that always got me was what he said about the discussions they had over how many of the warheads would actually work. He said the conclusion on the ground was if 10% worked it would be amazing and probably less for the Soviet.
|
Google Adsense |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
I think our Chieftains were a bit better than that but our worst record for renewables consumption was 3 for 3 miles, engines that is. Not forgetting the famous flying Chieftain, off a hill for 175 metres and upside down in a field. Complete hydraulic failure when a fan belt failed, taking out the single system hydraulic line. No steering, changing gear OR braking. No casualties beyond minor fractures and bruising. Lucky? Or what.....
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|