Comments: 78
hoxtonsw [2023-02-26 13:22:07 +0000 UTC]
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Lilith-Crowe [2020-03-14 21:04:46 +0000 UTC]
I got a problem here! The frontal wheel should be a drive sprocket. This thing wouldn't move all that well.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Lilith-Crowe In reply to thormemeson [2020-03-14 21:27:28 +0000 UTC]
Both ends of the tracks need drive sprockets.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
thormemeson In reply to Lilith-Crowe [2020-03-14 21:35:03 +0000 UTC]
it has the rear drive wheel and drive sprocket
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Lilith-Crowe In reply to thormemeson [2020-03-14 21:36:22 +0000 UTC]
It needs two sprockets unless it's like a BT.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
artwarrior1985 [2020-01-12 00:55:05 +0000 UTC]
The M1 Abrams main battle tank vs. the T95. Who would win?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
artwarrior1985 In reply to thormemeson [2020-01-12 03:07:04 +0000 UTC]
Amen! The M1A3 is the best there is. The latest in everything. Better computer systems, aiming systems, lighter armor, and unlike its two predecessors, it's equipped with a diesel engine as opposed to the jet turbine engines the M1A1 and M1A2 used. The Russians may have tried to outdo it with the T95 which ultimately never entered service but they failed. The T90 is still the current Russian main battle tank and it's way behind the M1A3. tion to
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
jabakerwa [2018-05-30 21:19:26 +0000 UTC]
Nice looking tank
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
johnbecaro [2017-10-17 07:07:42 +0000 UTC]
woot! I love tanks as well!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Nuker850 [2017-08-06 01:34:07 +0000 UTC]
Cool! Like how you managed to do the front and upper view. Is this a successor to the M60 Patton?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
thormemeson In reply to Nuker850 [2017-08-06 01:57:11 +0000 UTC]
Yeah its sort of harkens back to the Glory days of the Patton series.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
YanuchiUchiha [2017-07-31 20:18:44 +0000 UTC]
very nice... idk why it sort of reminds me of an is tank lol
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
thormemeson In reply to YanuchiUchiha [2017-08-06 03:09:14 +0000 UTC]
Given you wish to call me an idiot fine but I won't allow you to modify any of my work.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
YanuchiUchiha In reply to thormemeson [2017-08-06 10:38:37 +0000 UTC]
I'm not doing a thing to Your work, except using it as ascale-o-meter
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
thormemeson In reply to YanuchiUchiha [2017-08-06 13:43:55 +0000 UTC]
okay wellI have a part sheet you could use
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
YanuchiUchiha In reply to thormemeson [2017-08-06 18:00:49 +0000 UTC]
Cool... [looks at the 5.000 x 5.000 pixel sheet in gimp with donor and scale tanks] lol
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
thormemeson In reply to fmr0 [2017-06-08 21:55:32 +0000 UTC]
thanks for the compliment and the favorite
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
TheoComm [2016-11-13 21:06:18 +0000 UTC]
For ammo you could replace the Frag and HEAT rounds for HEAT-MP but otherwise it's a lovely tank.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
acerr85 [2016-05-09 00:47:47 +0000 UTC]
nice work
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Goldham92 [2016-03-05 18:17:01 +0000 UTC]
nicely done, nothing can go wrong with a tank
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
thormemeson In reply to Goldham92 [2016-03-05 18:24:45 +0000 UTC]
Well unless you make something to high tech or just out right crazy
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Goldham92 In reply to thormemeson [2016-03-05 18:35:28 +0000 UTC]
I fit in one of those categories, but making high tech is not one of them x3
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
thormemeson In reply to Goldham92 [2016-03-05 20:42:38 +0000 UTC]
Well if you want to know about failed tanks look up. Thembt70
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
ACBradley In reply to thormemeson [2016-05-11 08:12:05 +0000 UTC]
Pity he's getting his ideas about...well, everything, from Mike Sparks (5.56mm is a pistol cartridge, really now?). The MBT-70's high tech-ness is somewhat exaggerated: most of the tech in it was contemporary (the T-64 already had composite armour and an autoloader by the time the first MBT-70 hulls were produced, and T-64Bs had laser rangefinders by 1976, while the T-72 would have all this tech within a decade or so: Chieftain had IR and combustable cases (that worked) in 1966, and the suspension tech, an autoloader and a turbine engine were all on the Strv 103 which had ready-for-production prototypes in 1961 and by all accounts worked wonderfully), and the rest ended up in Western MBTs, including the Abrams and Leo 2 that were developed from it. The only truly duff parts weren't related to things being too high-tech: the 152mm gun / missile launcher had never worked right in the Sheridan and so keeping it was a dumb idea, the US coax was the deeply awful M73, and the driver's position was an idea that sounded good on paper but didn't work. And the NATO multifuel requirement, obviously, but that wasn't unique to the MBT-70.
Give it a couple of block upgrades and the MBT-70 would probably have worked out just fine. It was already faster, more manoeuvrable and harder to hit than the Patton in trials, and his claims about the suspension don't stack up with the actual reliability of the S-Tank which used the same type of suspension.
He's also doing that thing of deeming parts of the vehicle unnecessary because they weren't needed in the war the US was currently fighting, which is absurd; you design tanks to take on your opponent's best tanks, not the rusty junk they've sold to a client state. You might as well say the US didn't need to design new warships during that period because North Vietnam didn't have a navy.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
thormemeson In reply to ACBradley [2016-05-11 15:21:39 +0000 UTC]
No actually the MBT70 was an over hyped junk heap also my idea was inspired by halo and the Type10. Just because I agree with one or two videos doesn't make me a fanboy. Also I take it you were trying to talk to my friend. Thanks for nothing.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
ACBradley In reply to thormemeson [2016-05-11 22:22:31 +0000 UTC]
Um, but that wasn't the problem with MBT-70, it was the lack of cooperation between the two teams that killed it. The budget was set assuming that common parts would reduce R&D costs, but the majority of the expensive components (FCS, gun, engine) were different for each version, meaning doubling of already major expenses and production costs increasing because of no longer having shared production lines. The reason the complexity of a design less complex than any modern MBT (and, adjusted for inflation, in the same price range even with the overruns) is blamed for its failure is the alternative was the two saying one of their most important allies was a bunch of obstinate assholes.
Also I wasn't saying you were getting your ideas from Sparky, rather that if Blackfaildefense isn't actually Sparks (IIRC tanknet traced his IP to the same street, so he probably is) he certainly gets all of his ideas from the guy. Sorry if that came across wrong.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
thormemeson In reply to ACBradley [2016-05-11 23:54:23 +0000 UTC]
The driver in the turret was a major mistake seriously its like putting the entire crew in the Hull. Well the MBT-70 in America was designed around that stupid MGM-51 missile so failure should have been seen coming. This tank has a missile that can be fired out of the main gun not the gun can fire a missile. Also you really should have made it clearer that is BlacktailFA, but I am sorry too. Peace? I mean he has one thing right about the M1 Abrams it eats fuel, the end. Its a turbine engine duh. Seriously he thinks its the most expensive tank ever. That would be a tie between the ROK's K2 Black Panther and the French Leclerc.
PS I'm sorry since I mistook you.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
ACBradley In reply to thormemeson [2016-05-12 15:10:21 +0000 UTC]
I can kind of see what they were going for with the driver position, it was based on the Strv-103 which had two drivers and could travel at full speed in reverse: apparently this was so much of a manoeuvrability advantage that the S-Tank could match capability with contemporary NATO tanks with turrets despite that it couldn't even fire while moving. I think that wasn't so much a bad idea as a good idea that turned out to not work. Crew in the hull isn't necessarily a bad idea since it has a host of advantages (a more comfortable gunner's station where they're not wedged in next to the breech, a smaller turret that has the same effective armour with less actual armour, the ability to use ridiculous slope angles on the turret because nobody needs to live there, lower centre of gravity which reduces rolling, etc) and now we're getting into third and fourth-gen autoloaders we're finally getting to the point where tech can make an unmanned turret a practical proposition.
Abrams has had some issues in the past like that the commander's sight was measurably worse than the one on the T-72 until the A2 upgrade, but right now it really just needs either a diesel or a modernised turbine designed for a tank, and for them to stick the L55 gun and a decent APS on it.
I think one thing we certainly can agree on is that his tank design is actually far worse than anything the MBT-70 project ever tried, what with things like the armour made of a material that currently costs something like $10,000 a gram and might be measurably worse than steel to magic the weight down despite it being larger in every direction than an Abrams, using an engine type that has never, ever been used on a production vehicle despite numerous attempts, confusing a gun for a howitzer, having a six-man crew with a dedicated engineer (!), quoting a completely false speed for the T-72 autoloader (it's 7-8 seconds including carousel rotation, not 14), claiming a 145mm round would break an autoloader (I guess nobody told the PzH2000's 155mm autoloader that), somehow carrying 85 rounds for the main weapon and oh yeah, the fact that anyone using the commander's hatch would be cut in half when the main gun fired
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
| Next =>