gunnergoz Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 I suspect the TC looked "skeletal" because he'd already been instantaneously flash roasted alive before the overpressure ejected him through his hatch. As JK says, at least it was quick. A good reminder of what really happens inside tanks when the fecal matter hits the rotary oscillator. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 As far as ammunition explosions go TBH it looks kind of lame - eg - Centurion hit by RBS 56 - T-72 - not teh size of the "jet" of fire out the commander's hatch - massively larger than the Libyan one 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 Couple of reasons it could be "lame": First is that it had less ammo on board. Second, only part of the ammo (propellant) went off. Either could be the case. My initial impression was that only one propellant cartridge went off, perhaps the one being handled by the loader. There was insufficient video to show if the tank continued to burn and cook off after the first explosion. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 I've read that tanks used in weapon tests such as in those videos are typically loaded up with extra ordinance for a more spectacular result. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sublime Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 I wondered at his stick figure appearance too. He definitely looked fried. So flash burns will burn you that badly that quickly? Obviously I know they can burn you bad, but it looks like he was burned so badly that he lost half of his body mass. Soviet tanks aren't very survivable. Having ammo stowage in a ring around the turret doesnt help either. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 I'd put it down, mostly, to an artefact of a sh!tty low quality camera trying to record fast moving action. I also think it was an ammo incident/accident while loading, not the result of a enemy penetration. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 What an annoying video! I think the only semi sane people in it are the drivers of the technicals. They, at least, are positioned to leave quickly! Well when you are driving the land-based equivalent of a Bolton-Paul Defiant, there is really only one way you can be facing! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Affentitten, Bolton-Paul Defiant? Full marks for obscure military allusion! I remember thinking I was hallucinating when I first saw the picture in one of those little William Green aircraft books. And it was a fighter! Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 If anyone here is interested in seeing more Syrian AFVs in dire-dead straits, this MOUT footage should prove most rewarding. I put this up on CMSF for LLF in the Babr Amr thread, but I thought you'd like it, too. Compilation of numerous high resolution clips, to include HIND over whatever city we're seeing. Can't read Russian vid descriptions. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qclCuQyzfB4&feature=fvwrel Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Bolton-Paul Defiant? Full marks for obscure military allusion! I remember thinking I was hallucinating when I first saw the picture in one of those little William Green aircraft books. And it was a fighter! When I was still quite young—probably in my first or second year of school—I had a toy of it. It wasn't a scale model, but in spite of that it was a pretty accurate rendition. I also had a toy York transport. It was years before I found out what either of those was, but the memory of them was quite distinct. Toy makers modeled what in retrospect seems the oddest things in those days, and accurately too. Nowadays, if it isn't a scale model (with a price to match) a toy is apt to look pretty dopey. And you wouldn't be giving a scale model to a six year old kid to play with. Sic transit gloria mundi. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Toy makers modeled what in retrospect seems the oddest things in those days I wonder if it's because in at least some cases the toymakers had direct personal experience of the things, as well as the ability (financial, craft and technical) to actually make them. Then there was a long period of consolidation when companies got bigger while consumer choice got smaller (WTF was that all about :mad: ) It's more than possible, though, tat we'll see a reversal of that trend with the widespread availability of 3D printers. All it takes now is a guy who flew or drove in Afghanistan to come home and decide that he really wants a model of that particular obscure thing he rode in. Well, that and some ability with 3D modelling software, and access to a 3D printer, and the care to share what was created, either with hard goods or the CAD file. While that's not trivial, it's not wildly unrealistic either - it's not like anyone has to found the next Airfix, or Tamiya, for example. A few years ago I guy I know made himself an Hungarian Toldi tank in 1:72nd scale on his home 3D printer. It was a little rough, mainly because of the resolution available on the printer, but it was clearly a Toldi, and it was probably the only Toldi available in 1:72nd anywhere in the world. Exactly this has actually happened with beer. When I was a kid there were exactly three beers available: Lion Red, Lion Brown, and DB Draught. Now there are hundreds of craft and micro beers, made - and drunk - by folks who can't stand watery horse piss. So, cheer up Michael. It's true that your generation utterly screwed the pooch as far as consumer choice and quality was concerned, but the pieces are being picked up again. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted November 3, 2012 Share Posted November 3, 2012 JonS, If you Google "toldi, 1/72," you'll see that particular AFV deficit has now been corrected in the marketplace. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted November 3, 2012 Share Posted November 3, 2012 So, cheer up Michael. It's true that your generation utterly screwed the pooch as far as consumer choice and quality was concerned... This is only true regarding toys. Scale models on the other hand steadily improved during the years that I built them (~1950-1962) and continued to do so through the '70s as well (even though I was no longer building them, I was closely examining some built by others). It's been about a third of a century since I stopped following closely developments in the industry, but just perusing some ads it would seem that choice has continued to expand and it's not obvious to me that quality has suffered during that span. Those still active in the hobby are free to contradict me. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted November 3, 2012 Share Posted November 3, 2012 This is only true regarding toys. And beer. And cars. And fruit. And food. And music. And furniture. And journalism. And ... But not scale models, so there's that 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 Well yeah, in general terms things have been going to hell in a handbasket for the last 42 years, save for the occasional bright spot that has yet to be overwhelmed by the tides of ickyness. It's the Apocalypso, you know. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 When I was still quite young—probably in my first or second year of school—I had a toy of it. It wasn't a scale model, but in spite of that it was a pretty accurate rendition. I also had a toy York transport. It was years before I found out what either of those was, but the memory of them was quite distinct. Toy makers modeled what in retrospect seems the oddest things in those days, and accurately too. such as fighter aircraft ffrom the last war and the latest thing in passenger transport by air? yeah - I can se why you would think those are odd..... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 When I was a kid there were exactly three beers available: Lion Red, Lion Brown, and DB Draught. Now there are hundreds of craft and micro beers, made - and drunk - by folks who can't stand watery horse piss. When you were a kid? I doubt it was even that long ago. When I was a student 88-91, pretty much every bar had two beer taps: Tohheys Old and Tooheys New. Add to that a selection of maybe 6 bottled beers like VB and maybe Tooheys Lite. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 IExactly this has actually happened with beer. When I was a kid there were exactly three beers available: Lion Red, Lion Brown, and DB Draught. Now there are hundreds of craft and micro beers, made - and drunk - by folks who can't stand watery horse piss. sounds like drinking too much of that crap has accelerated your alzheimers!! There was also at least Double Brown, DB Export & Waitemata nationally, Speights/Canterbury Draught/Tui/Monteiths/Waikato in the respective areas, and also Vita-Stout - ah the days when you could buy black gold in dozen-750ml-bottle crates!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 Oh, right. My mind deliberately blanked out the rest of the watery horses piss. Gee, thanks for reminding me. But you are correct; the choice wasn't between three types of horse piss - it was between eight types of horses piss. Yay? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 ...the latest thing in passenger transport by air? The York? Are you kidding? Even the Comet was flying by then, and the DC-4 and Constellation had both been out for a while. No, the York really didn't even make the running. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 The York started flying in 1942 and was delivered in 1944. The Constellation 1943 and service with USAAF that year and 1945 with TWA. The Comet would not enter service until 1952 - a decade after the York first flew. I think perhaps your alzheimers is getting some of the dates mixed up! The Connie went on to a much more successful carreer of course - but that was not obvious in 1945 - it had 3 fatal accidents in its first 10 months of service and was withdrawn from carrying passengers!! And it sufferd so many engine failures it was nicknamed the world's best trimotor!! It was also a lot bigger than the York. Nonethless over 250 Yorks were built and it was a successful airliner and it WAS the "flagship" of British passenger transports until the Comet did, eventualy, arrive. It flew over half the British missions in the Berlin Airlift, replaced the old flying boats on many routes and BOAC used them until 1957 - the last commercial user retired them in 1964. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 The Comet would not enter service until 1952... I think perhaps your alzheimers is getting some of the dates mixed up! There's nothing wrong with my alzheimer's, it's in perfect shape. It is you who are badly in want of an attention span. I said nothing about when the Comet entered service, I observed that it was already flying, which is the case. In any event, the York was a squat, ugly loser compared to the svelte, graceful Constellation. No surprise so few of them were sold. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 259 were bult - that is not "so few" - especially not in those days - it is moer than twice as many as the number of comets that were built. but of course the only Comets that were flying while Yorks were in BOAC service weer the ones that were falling apart - perhaps the Yorks were seen in somewhat better light for not having that problem?? Sure it was ugly - but that's irrelevant to whether or not it was the cutting edge of British aviation at the time. And even if comets were flying "then" (which i cannot beleive was actualy your childhood - wasn't King Tut your playmate??) there were more Yorks flying for a long time so they were still very visible, and younger than say MD-11's are now - would you have a problem with a MD-11 model for a kid these days? Well apart from the usual problems you have with kids that is..... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 259 were bult - that is not "so few"... Compared to the 856 Constellations built? Come now, I think the numbers speak for themselves as to which was the more desirable aircraft. And according to Wiki, they were still being used in airline service in the 1990s, about 30 years after the last York was put out to pasture. That also speaks for itself. Face it, the York—whatever its sentimental value to diehard imperialists—was a loser, another sad attempt of the British aeroindustry to compete in the world market. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 The Connie was MORE successful - that doesn't make the York UN-successful. Strange you seem to only be able to see this as a zero-sum game. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.