Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
#1
Old 01-08-2014, 10:10 PM
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,712
What happens if you drop a grenade down a tanks gun barrel?

Assuming it's a regular fragmentation grenade and not an anti-tank grenade (although I don't think one would fit) you managed to drop down a main battle tanks gun barrel, how much damage would it cause? Would it blow up the tank, kill the crew, render the main gun inoperable, do bugger all?

Would some tanks be more vulnerable to others - would WWII tanks have a problem but an M1A2 Abrams shrug it off?

Inspired by recent happenings in a popular show about dead people walking around
SPOILER:
where an M60 Patton is destroyed using this technique.
#2
Old 01-08-2014, 10:30 PM
Guest
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Toledo
Posts: 120
Well, I can see three cases:
1) Breech closed, not loaded.
2) Breech open
3) Breech closed, loaded.

Case 1, the grenade would go off, bunch of bits of grenade out the muzzle, might scratch up the bore a bit (The M1A2 has a smoothbore cannon, not a rifled gun.). The overpressure of a normal firing is much greater than what a hand grenade would generate.

Case 2, if the grenade made it to the inside of the tank, it would pretty much shred the crew, but would not get out of the tank (penetrate the armor). From the outside of the tank you would not be able to see anything amiss

Case 3 is a bit trickier. If the load was a sabot (APFSDS round), it would probably resemble case 1. The sabot itself is essentially a very heavy, inert dart. It's also hard and dense. If the load was HC (HE), the grenade might set off the charge, which would usually tear up the gun and probably kill the crew. Might be some damage visible from the outside, maybe somebody can chime in here on that one.
__________________
Peace

Jim
#3
Old 01-08-2014, 10:34 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Texas... Need I say more?
Posts: 2,042
I don't know if a fragmentation grenade would cause any major damage, perhaps render the gun inoperable.
I do know that thermite grenades were used for this purpose (disabling artillery) during WW2.
And apparently, they still are.
__________________
"Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will teach you to keep your mouth shut." Ernest Hemingway (1899 - 1961)

Last edited by JBDivmstr; 01-08-2014 at 10:35 PM. Reason: edited for clarity
#4
Old 01-08-2014, 10:41 PM
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 14,897
The crew would have shot the attacker with the secondary armament long before he got anyway near them.
#5
Old 01-08-2014, 11:07 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Texas... Need I say more?
Posts: 2,042
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
The crew would have shot the attacker with the secondary armament long before he got anyway near them.
I think it's entirely possible, just not survivable.
I can definitely envision a lone enemy soldier accomplishing this by lying concealed until a tank got close enough. Surviving after putting the grenade into the cannon barrel? Probably not.
#6
Old 01-09-2014, 01:16 AM
Guest
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,305
Case 1, Breech closed, unloaded. The comment so far ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toledo Jim View Post
The grenade would go off, bunch of bits of grenade out the muzzle, might scratch up the bore a bit (The M1A2 has a smoothbore cannon, not a rifled gun.). The overpressure of a normal firing is much greater than what a hand grenade would generate.
Well with no load, the grenade can go down to the firing pin area. The cartridge normally contains the pressure and mess. The grenade going off would put stuff (shrapnel ) into the firing pin mechanism.. this could be quite a job to get going again..
#7
Old 01-09-2014, 01:42 AM
Member
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 11,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toledo Jim View Post
If the load was HC (HE), the grenade might set off the charge, which would usually tear up the gun and probably kill the crew. Might be some damage visible from the outside, maybe somebody can chime in here on that one.
The grenade wouldn't set off the charge because, as you note, the overpressure of a normal firing is much greater than what a hand grenade would generate. If a grenade were able to set off the charge then the act of firing would also set it off.

Tank shells have a primer and detonator system. The primer goes off from the shock of firing the shell. This then arms the detonator in the shell, which then goes off when it hits something hard.

Dropping a grenade down the barrel would probably mimic the normal firing pressure, setting off the primer and arming the detonator. If nobody noticed, then any attempt to fire the shell would then cause it to explode in the breech. If the crew heard the grenade detonating and figured out what it was, they could presumably just (carefully) lift the shell out of the breech and load another one and carry on as normal.

IOW, a grenade will only cause trouble if the breech is open, or the crew are deaf and stupid.
#8
Old 01-09-2014, 06:55 AM
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: 127.0.0.1
Posts: 3,469
Does that mean I should toss 2 grenades down?
#9
Old 01-09-2014, 09:51 AM
Guest
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: hobgoblin of geographers
Posts: 4,246
Toledo Jim's case 2 seems to be the only situation in which the sequence in the show works. If it helps, in the show...

SPOILER:
As far as I can tell, they only have one member of the actual trained tank crew left (or at least there's only one still surviving that we see on screen before the tank drives around and blows stuff up) so I'd fanwank that the other members of the tank crew (what does an M60 need, 4 people?) are civilians who were shown what to do recently and haven't really received any training. So maybe they left the breech open when they shouldn't have, allowing Daryl to have his moment of awesome.

Armored vehicles are surprisingly useless against zombies - between the Bradley in season 1 and the M60 here, the zombie apocalypse has not been kind to the idea that tons of mobile armor protect you.
#10
Old 01-09-2014, 12:23 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Texas... Need I say more?
Posts: 2,042
Quote:
Originally Posted by wevets View Post
Toledo Jim's case 2 seems to be the only situation in which the sequence in the show works. If it helps, in the show...

SPOILER:
As far as I can tell, they only have one member of the actual trained tank crew left (or at least there's only one still surviving that we see on screen before the tank drives around and blows stuff up) so I'd fanwank that the other members of the tank crew (what does an M60 need, 4 people?) are civilians who were shown what to do recently and haven't really received any training. So maybe they left the breech open when they shouldn't have, allowing Daryl to have his moment of awesome.

Armored vehicles are surprisingly useless against zombies - between the Bradley in season 1 and the M60 here, the zombie apocalypse has not been kind to the idea that tons of mobile armor protect you.
In response to the statement,
SPOILER:
"... between the Bradley in season 1 and the M60 here, the zombie apocalypse has not been kind to the idea that tons of mobile armor protect you."

I haven't (and probably won't) watched the show alluded to in the OP, BUT... one would think that a ~50 ton - ~70 ton tank would effectively grind a zombie into a paste!

That's 'Hokeywoo...', I mean Hollywood, for you...
#11
Old 01-09-2014, 12:37 PM
Guest
Join Date: May 2000
Location: USS Obama
Posts: 1,576
There's a youtube video of a Syrian rebel dropping a grenade down the barrel of a T-72 tank. It goes up like a blowtorch.

Last edited by AtomicDog; 01-09-2014 at 12:37 PM.
#12
Old 01-09-2014, 12:53 PM
Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Orlando
Posts: 3,927
Could the grenade if it lands in the crew area set off other munitions?
FWIW I saw a tank explode in front of me once in a convoy. An unused round had been returned to the rack (against SOP) and somehow it went off. One of the crew survived but lost both legs and 1 arm.
Ft. Sill OK, around summer of 1980.
#13
Old 01-09-2014, 01:48 PM
Guest
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Houston TX
Posts: 2,751
Here is a video from Syria that shows the results of the OP in real life.

Possibly NSFW due to violence

http://youtube.com/watch?v=HrNIByobzcI

I am taking this one at face value because it seems to be what it says it is.

Capt
#14
Old 01-09-2014, 02:53 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 26,869
Quote:
Originally Posted by wevets View Post
... I'd fanwank that the other members of the tank crew (what does an M60 need, 4 people?)
A tank only "needs" one person to drive it.
If it wants to fire the main gun, it typically requires a gunner to fire it and a loader to reload (I think some modern tanks have automated the loader).
The commander sits up top in the commander's cupula where he gives orders and IIRC, can also drive some tanks or fire a secondary machinegun.

Some tanks like the Israeli Merkava or American M1 Abrams are built with an emphasis on crew survivability. One feature is to have the ammo stored behind armored doors. If the rounds were to "cook off", the explosion would be vented away from the crew through special blast plates.


As the Syria video shows, throwing a grenade down the barrel of a tank can destroy it. Possibly the breach was open or a high explosive round was chambered. Also, it's a T-72 and the Russians didn't really care about comfort of safety for their crews.
#15
Old 01-09-2014, 03:08 PM
Guest
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: hobgoblin of geographers
Posts: 4,246
Quote:
Originally Posted by msmith537 View Post
A tank only "needs" one person to drive it.
If it wants to fire the main gun, it typically requires a gunner to fire it and a loader to reload (I think some modern tanks have automated the loader).
The commander sits up top in the commander's cupula where he gives orders and IIRC, can also drive some tanks or fire a secondary machinegun.

In the TV show mentioned in the OP, the tank is shown driving and firing the main gun (no secondary armament is fired)... so a minimum of 3 people?
#16
Old 01-09-2014, 03:27 PM
Guest
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,904
Based on the intense and sustained flame in the video, would that have been a thermite grenade?
#17
Old 01-09-2014, 03:56 PM
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Challenger Deep
Posts: 11,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by TSBG View Post
Based on the intense and sustained flame in the video, would that have been a thermite grenade?
Secondary fires/explosions from the munitions that were stored in the tank (for use by the tank crew); this is a pretty common event for a tank kill.

Last edited by Machine Elf; 01-09-2014 at 03:56 PM.
#18
Old 01-09-2014, 05:05 PM
Guest
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,119
In what circumstances would the breech be open vs closed?
#19
Old 01-09-2014, 05:43 PM
Guest
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,662
I started a similar thread some time ago re a lucky shot going down the barrel when the breech was open:

http://boards.academicpursuits.us/sdmb/...ht=tank+breech
#20
Old 01-09-2014, 05:43 PM
Guest
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Orlando, Florida
Posts: 2,402
Quote:
Originally Posted by TroutMan View Post
In what circumstances would the breech be open vs closed?
The beech would be open when loading a round to be fired or removing the casing from a fired round.
#21
Old 01-09-2014, 05:57 PM
Guest
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 57,290
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronX View Post
Does that mean I should toss 2 grenades down?
Rule Two: Double tap.
#22
Old 01-10-2014, 12:23 PM
Guest
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Orlando, Florida
Posts: 2,402
Quote:
Originally Posted by obbn View Post
The beech would be open when loading a round to be fired or removing the casing from a fired round.
Beech = breech Stupid auto-correct. Hey it only took me a day to notice!

Last edited by obbn; 01-10-2014 at 12:23 PM.
#23
Old 01-10-2014, 06:56 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Texas... Need I say more?
Posts: 2,042
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toledo Jim View Post
Well, I can see three cases:
1) Breech closed, not loaded.
2) Breech open
Case 1, the grenade would go off, bunch of bits of grenade out the muzzle, might scratch up the bore a bit (The M1A2 has a smoothbore cannon, not a rifled gun.). The overpressure of a normal firing is much greater than what a hand grenade would generate.
Case 2, if the grenade made it to the inside of the tank, it would pretty much shred the crew, but would not get out of the tank (penetrate the armor). From the outside of the tank you would not be able to see anything amiss
...
Looks like you were 'spot on' with 'Case 1', that first grenade didn't seem to do diddly squat.
That second grenade? Whoo boy, I sure wouldn't have wanted to be inside of, or even close to, that turret.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
The crew would have shot the attacker with the secondary armament long before he got anyway near them.
One would think that this is true, but apparently the tank commander (the only crew member with the ability to see 360 degrees?) wasn't paying close enough attention to the surrounding battlefield.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Capt Kirk View Post
Here is a video from Syria that shows the results of the OP in real life.
Possibly NSFW due to violence
http://youtube.com/watch?v=HrNIByobzcI
I am taking this one at face value because it seems to be what it says it is.
Capt
Didn't see that one coming!
Man, that guy had some balls!
#24
Old 01-10-2014, 08:02 PM
Guest
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Toledo
Posts: 120
Hmm, I was more or less thinking about M1, which, as pointed out, has the ammo behind armoured blast doors, with blow-off panels to direct any cook-off away from the crew. If there were a live round in the crew compartment (would be briefly while loading, with the breech open) it could certainly be set off by a grenade.

I think a T-72 (in the video) has a three man crew with auto-loader. It allows for a smaller turret (smaller target), but does have issues. The russians (Soviets) have tried several variations on the auto-loader idea over the years.
__________________
Peace

Jim
#25
Old 01-10-2014, 09:05 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Texas... Need I say more?
Posts: 2,042
It looks to me as if the breech was closed when the first grenade was dropped in the barrel. My WAG is, after the first grenade went off, the breech was opened to clear out the remains of the first grenade, just about the time that the second one was dropped in.
One would've thought the tank commander would be searching the surrounding area at that point, for whoever put that first grenade in.
I know I would have been doing that. My thoughts would've been "He can't have run very far away. Maybe I can light his ass up with the machine gun."
Looks like that tank commander and I don't think alike, though.
#26
Old 01-10-2014, 10:38 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 14,257
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBDivmstr View Post
One would think that this is true, but apparently the tank commander (the only crew member with the ability to see 360 degrees?) wasn't paying close enough attention to the surrounding battlefield.
The video is not entirely clear but I think you have to assume that for the duration of the video, the tank crew or the tank were incapacitated or near so. The tank just sits stock still, the whole time. There is no attempt to use the secondary, there is no attempt to move, there is no attempt to fire the primary, all while a bunch of enemy guys stand around a few dozen yards away, standing up and not even bothering to seek cover. And after the first grenade was dropped down the barrel, the tank crew (if alive) must have known they were under close quarters attack from infantry. Yet they just sat there.
#27
Old 01-10-2014, 11:10 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Texas... Need I say more?
Posts: 2,042
I agree that something wasn't right.
The tank didn't react in any way that you would have expected, and as you've noted, it didn't show any reaction.
#28
Old 01-12-2014, 06:13 AM
Guest
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBDivmstr View Post
I agree that something wasn't right.
The tank didn't react in any way that you would have expected, and as you've noted, it didn't show any reaction.
Maybe if the first grenade went off in the barrel they didn't even realise they were under attack? A grenade explosion isn't that large.

If the tank was disabled they may not have had much situational awareness.
#29
Old 01-12-2014, 07:19 AM
Guest
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 26,869
Quote:
Originally Posted by wevets View Post
In the TV show mentioned in the OP, the tank is shown driving and firing the main gun (no secondary armament is fired)... so a minimum of 3 people?
Absolute minimum, probably two. I think the gunner, commander and loader would all be in the same compartment so the gunner could leave his station to load another main gun round if he had to.


Here's another version of the video without edits:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=rxLeekbUxTo

What it looks like is that the guy tries twice to lob a grenade down the barrel. The first time, either the grenade blast is vented out the barrel or the main gun fires.

Then he runs back, lobs in another one and a few seconds later the tank explodes from the inside.

At the end of the video, another guy with a rocket launcher is seen. A HEAT round from a rocket would also cause the tank to explode like that if it hit the ammo store, but we don't seem to see any sort of external explosion or rocket hit.


I'm thinking another possibility is that the grenade cases an obstruction in the barrel and firing the main gun afterwards would cause it to explode.
#30
Old 01-12-2014, 12:35 PM
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Running Back & Forth
Posts: 3,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBDivmstr View Post
In response to the statement,
SPOILER:
"... between the Bradley in season 1 and the M60 here, the zombie apocalypse has not been kind to the idea that tons of mobile armor protect you."

I haven't (and probably won't) watched the show alluded to in the OP, BUT... one would think that a ~50 ton - ~70 ton tank would effectively grind a zombie into a paste!

That's 'Hokeywoo...', I mean Hollywood, for you...
This is exactly why I couldn't finish reading World War Z. Max Brooks goes into a long explanation about why the Army couldn't stop the zombies, noting among other things that tank shells are mostly sabot rounds designed to destroy other tanks and would only (over)kill you one zombie. What he neglected to consider is that the Abrams also carries 900 rounds of 12.7mm and 8,800 rounds of 7.62mm for its three machine guns, and far, far more importantly the obvious use of a tank that you mention. You're in a 70 ton fully sealed tracked armored vehicle with a 1,200hp engine. If you can't figure out how to kill zombies with your tank from that sentence you deserve to be eaten.
#31
Old 01-12-2014, 01:51 PM
Guest
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dissonance View Post
This is exactly why I couldn't finish reading World War Z. Max Brooks goes into a long explanation about why the Army couldn't stop the zombies, noting among other things that tank shells are mostly sabot rounds designed to destroy other tanks and would only (over)kill you one zombie. What he neglected to consider is that the Abrams also carries 900 rounds of 12.7mm and 8,800 rounds of 7.62mm for its three machine guns, and far, far more importantly the obvious use of a tank that you mention. You're in a 70 ton fully sealed tracked armored vehicle with a 1,200hp engine. If you can't figure out how to kill zombies with your tank from that sentence you deserve to be eaten.
I understood how even a tank could be overrun a lot better after watching the WWZ movie, especially in a built-up environment. Despite all that firepower it is limited and if you didn't retreat quickly enough you could find yourself in tank covered by zombies and if you can't see where your going you could easily get immobilised on something. Sure the zombies can't get in but you can't get out, and they aren't going to just give up and go away.
#32
Old 01-12-2014, 03:02 PM
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Under a pile of books
Posts: 6,536
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBDivmstr View Post

One would think that this is true, but apparently the tank commander (the only crew member with the ability to see 360 degrees?) wasn't paying close enough attention to the surrounding battlefield.
Tanks that are 'buttoned up' tend to have a lot of trouble seeing their immediate area. That is why Tanks generally need infantry support to keep enemy infantry off them. At long and medium ranges to the enemy infantry they tend to do well, but at close range or urban conditions tanks get in trouble real fast without friendly infantry nearby.

When tanks are unbuttoned they see a lot more but snipers can take out the commanders.
#33
Old 01-12-2014, 03:03 PM
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Under a pile of books
Posts: 6,536
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dissonance View Post
This is exactly why I couldn't finish reading World War Z. Max Brooks goes into a long explanation about why the Army couldn't stop the zombies, noting among other things that tank shells are mostly sabot rounds designed to destroy other tanks and would only (over)kill you one zombie. What he neglected to consider is that the Abrams also carries 900 rounds of 12.7mm and 8,800 rounds of 7.62mm for its three machine guns, and far, far more importantly the obvious use of a tank that you mention. You're in a 70 ton fully sealed tracked armored vehicle with a 1,200hp engine. If you can't figure out how to kill zombies with your tank from that sentence you deserve to be eaten.
Running over large numbers of bodies can be a good way to throw a tread...then you have serious problems.
#34
Old 01-12-2014, 03:09 PM
BANNED
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 6,791
I can't believe nobody commented on the video I linked to, which contains SOMEBODY THROWING A GRENADE DOWN THE BARREL OF A TANK!
#35
Old 01-12-2014, 03:25 PM
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Running Back & Forth
Posts: 3,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by Disposable Hero View Post
I understood how even a tank could be overrun a lot better after watching the WWZ movie, especially in a built-up environment. Despite all that firepower it is limited and if you didn't retreat quickly enough you could find yourself in tank covered by zombies and if you can't see where your going you could easily get immobilised on something. Sure the zombies can't get in but you can't get out, and they aren't going to just give up and go away.
I'll repeat: 70 tons of tracked, armored vehicle with a 1,500hp engine (I typo'd it as 1,200hp in the last post). Forget all about the main gun and the machine guns. The tank is a weapon; 70 tons of zombie grinding weapon that can go from 0 to 20mph in 7.2 seconds. The only way you're going to get covered in zombies is if you let it happen, and it really isn't that big of a deal if you somehow do. In the book the Army chooses the ground of battle at Yonkers, NY and somehow loses because in Max Brook's view modern weapons are ineffective at stopping zombies because they have no survival instinct. His choosing to go into such detail in such a patently false idea made it impossible for me to suspend disbelief any longer; all I could do was face-palm. Human wave attacks donít work in the face of modern firepower, and havenít for a century. Lack of sufficient bravery isnít why they fail, and that zombieís lack the intelligence to seek cover just makes them that much more easily killed (or put down Ė or whatever it is you do to something thatís already dead). Infantry moving in the open is an ideal artillery target, all the more so when none of them are going to even go to ground to try to avoid being obliterated. Time on Target was developed as an artillery technique to allow shells fired from numerous artillery batteries in different locations to all arrive on a target area at the same time because most casualties in an artillery barrage occur in the first few seconds. After those first few seconds anyone not dead has taken whatever cover they can find, even if itís just lying prone and praying. Lack of the sense of self preservation to do this isnít going to be an advantage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Miskatonic View Post
Running over large numbers of bodies can be a good way to throw a tread...then you have serious problems.
Only if you consider boredom a serious problem. The crew is in absolutely no danger.
#36
Old 01-12-2014, 03:34 PM
Guest
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dissonance View Post
I'll repeat: 70 tons of tracked, armored vehicle with a 1,500hp engine (I typo'd it as 1,200hp in the last post). Forget all about the main gun and the machine guns. The tank is a weapon; 70 tons of zombie grinding weapon that can go from 0 to 20mph in 7.2 seconds. The only way you're going to get covered in zombies is if you let it happen, and it really isn't that big of a deal if you somehow do. In the book the Army chooses the ground of battle at Yonkers, NY and somehow loses because in Max Brook's view modern weapons are ineffective at stopping zombies because they have no survival instinct. His choosing to go into such detail in such a patently false idea made it impossible for me to suspend disbelief any longer; all I could do was face-palm. Human wave attacks donít work in the face of modern firepower, and havenít for a century. Lack of sufficient bravery isnít why they fail, and that zombieís lack the intelligence to seek cover just makes them that much more easily killed (or put down Ė or whatever it is you do to something thatís already dead). Infantry moving in the open is an ideal artillery target, all the more so when none of them are going to even go to ground to try to avoid being obliterated. Time on Target was developed as an artillery technique to allow shells fired from numerous artillery batteries in different locations to all arrive on a target area at the same time because most casualties in an artillery barrage occur in the first few seconds. After those first few seconds anyone not dead has taken whatever cover they can find, even if itís just lying prone and praying. Lack of the sense of self preservation to do this isnít going to be an advantage.

Only if you consider boredom a serious problem. The crew is in absolutely no danger.
And I respond again, a tank may be proof against slow zombies but you could find yourself in trouble against a sea of fast zombies. So you've found yourself beached and utterly surrounded and covered by zombies I think boredom is the least of your worries, how long are your supplies going to last for? And we were talking about tanks not a plethora of other weapon systems.
#37
Old 01-12-2014, 03:58 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Somers Point, NJ
Posts: 5,895
At the end of Saving Private Ryan, I thought that was exactly what Tom Hanks' character was trying to do: aim his Colt 45 down the barrel of the tank and try to hit the live round within.
#38
Old 01-12-2014, 04:16 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Philladelphia-Mummer city
Posts: 11,681
Another Sighting Of This Technique- Nth Man

The comic Nth Man is hard to describe. It's like a Viet Nam veteran, Rod Serling, and a fan of Jack Kirby worked together. The result is several orders of magnitude better than it sounds. I can't over stress this. Nth Man sounds cliched and stupid when I describe it. It was actually extremely good.

Anyhow, in one issue John is being menaced by some Soviet spies in a stolen American tank*. John is familiar with this model of tank and knows just when the breech will open. He is able to dodge their weapons and throw a grenade into the barrel at the right time.


* "How'd they get a tank, John?"

"They have US uniforms and false credentials. They probably just walked in and requisitioned it."
__________________
Nothing is impossible if you can imagine it. That's the wonder of being a scientist!
Prof Hubert Farnsworth, Futurama
#39
Old 01-12-2014, 06:58 PM
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,665
I hope you will accept the following reply:

What happens if you drop a grenade down a tank's gun barrel?

Bad things happen! Very bad things!

Almost certainly nothing good can happen if you drop a grenade down a tank's gun barrel.

But, thanks for asking.

Last edited by Charlie Wayne; 01-12-2014 at 06:59 PM.
#40
Old 01-12-2014, 08:58 PM
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Running Back & Forth
Posts: 3,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by Disposable Hero View Post
And I respond again, a tank may be proof against slow zombies but you could find yourself in trouble against a sea of fast zombies. So you've found yourself beached and utterly surrounded and covered by zombies I think boredom is the least of your worries, how long are your supplies going to last for? And we were talking about tanks not a plethora of other weapon systems.
1) You're talking about the Army. Trying to ignore absolutely everything else and separate out a single tank is quite silly, and Max Brooks absurdly contended that all of the firepower of a modern army would be impotent against zombies because they have no survival instinct. In fact this would just make them easier to dispose of.

2) Being beached and utterly surrounded and covered in zombies presents absolutely zero danger. They are not getting in, period. Hoping someone has a deck of cards is going to be the most pressing worry.

3) Your supplies are going to last a hell of a lot longer than the time it is going to take to radio that you've thrown a track and have another tank in your platoon drive up and hose down the exterior of your immobilized tank with its coax machine gun. The other tank will again be doing this in complete and utter safety from a zombie getting inside.
#41
Old 01-12-2014, 09:47 PM
Guest
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dissonance View Post
1) You're talking about the Army. Trying to ignore absolutely everything else and separate out a single tank is quite silly, and Max Brooks absurdly contended that all of the firepower of a modern army would be impotent against zombies because they have no survival instinct. In fact this would just make them easier to dispose of.

2) Being beached and utterly surrounded and covered in zombies presents absolutely zero danger. They are not getting in, period. Hoping someone has a deck of cards is going to be the most pressing worry.

3) Your supplies are going to last a hell of a lot longer than the time it is going to take to radio that you've thrown a track and have another tank in your platoon drive up and hose down the exterior of your immobilized tank with its coax machine gun. The other tank will again be doing this in complete and utter safety from a zombie getting inside.
Have you seen the World War Z movie? That's the scenario I'm talking about.
#42
Old 01-15-2014, 06:53 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Ottawa, Canuckistan
Posts: 2,655
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dissonance View Post
1) You're talking about the Army. Trying to ignore absolutely everything else and separate out a single tank is quite silly, and Max Brooks absurdly contended that all of the firepower of a modern army would be impotent against zombies because they have no survival instinct. In fact this would just make them easier to dispose of.

2) Being beached and utterly surrounded and covered in zombies presents absolutely zero danger. They are not getting in, period. Hoping someone has a deck of cards is going to be the most pressing worry.

3) Your supplies are going to last a hell of a lot longer than the time it is going to take to radio that you've thrown a track and have another tank in your platoon drive up and hose down the exterior of your immobilized tank with its coax machine gun. The other tank will again be doing this in complete and utter safety from a zombie getting inside.
Even better, a Beehive or flechette round fired at a friendly tank may make the crew regret that they stowed their bedrolls in the turret storage racks, but it will very effectively dispose of any enemy infantry/zombies on the tank.
#43
Old 01-19-2014, 10:31 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Texas.
Posts: 3,140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dissonance View Post
This is exactly why I couldn't finish reading World War Z. Max Brooks goes into a long explanation about why the Army couldn't stop the zombies, noting among other things that tank shells are mostly sabot rounds designed to destroy other tanks and would only (over)kill you one zombie. What he neglected to consider is that the Abrams also carries 900 rounds of 12.7mm and 8,800 rounds of 7.62mm for its three machine guns, and far, far more importantly the obvious use of a tank that you mention.
And presumably if they had been mobilized because of zombies, they'd be loaded with these instead of sabot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Miskatonic View Post
That is why Tanks generally need infantry support to keep enemy infantry off them.
The problem with having enemy infantry on a tank is that they start prying the hatches open and tossing grenades in, or sticking bricks of plastic explosive to your tracks. Zombies would be less of a threat. And as has been said, tanks generally travel in pairs or more, and can scratch each other's back, so to speak, with their machine guns. Or, presumably, get up close and fire one of those useless sabot rounds over the head of the other one, and kill the squishy stowaways with the muzzle blast.
#44
Old 04-11-2014, 06:10 AM
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1
To those saying people should use their tanks to simply run down the living dead...

Do you think they'd all of a sudden switch to ZCMA (Zombie Choreography-Crush Mode Alpha)? All tanks swerving in and out just missing each other and effectively and completely running over zombies. "Killing" them and not just turning them into "grabbers" etc? If not you might want to consider this, hell those of you with a brain will already have...do you know how much fuel a tank uses up? How much each would take to effectively "run over" and actually kill a few hundred zombies in the battle scenario described? Let alone millions upon millions of zombies?
Now add on battle panic. Ever met a zombie? Didn't think so. Now disregard the ZCMA, it doesn't actually exist. Think of all the tank drivers being directed by tank commanders screaming at them to try to get them to plough into the right set of zombies. Then BANG you just knocked one of your own tanks onto it's back or side. OOOPS, huh? Oh shit what if one of our own does that to us? I mean i can see them almost hitting each other all the time (probably already have seen it but put it down to dumb rookies) even from my tiny viewing slit. Never mind the stuff my commander seems to be describing in disbelief. So it's not just dumb rookies? It's skilled pros like me knocking our own onto their sides. If not knocking them over then simply shredding their tracks and making them either very good at circles or immobile and therefore sitting in very expensive coffins.
Ohhh no. Now, if we're still on our tracks and those tracks are still working. If we haven't had a hole blown in us by someone. If we haven't had incredibly strong zombies somehow foul up our exhaust system etc (that cripples a tank btw and makes you a sitting duck and/or poisons you if you keep the engine running) or just break in, remember the fuel stuff i mentioned? That stuff that tanks guzzle like crazy even when going in a straight line and trying to be fuel efficient. Never mind while trying to execute ZCMA, oh wait that doesn't exist. We're actually not only reversing and swerving as much as a tank can, to very little actual effect, we're also crippling each other in mad charges into what look like walls of living dead which are concealing tanks. Some are doing the same out of mad panic, some because tank drivers aren't known for their choreography skills, some because tanks all of a sudden stop when they were about to get out of our way...i could go on for hours but anyone who has been in a battle situation knows there is an infinite amount of things that can and do go wrong in the weirdest ways possible in a fight. Especially a fight against an unknown and furthermore an unknown in large numbers. SO! Who thinks the fuel trucks are gonna come and save us while we're being swarmed over by millions of living dead human beings? I don't see many hands.
BAM We're going to be left to die if we don't gtfo here. By this time you've probably managed to kill, as in completely make inoperable (not just legless or armless) 500 zombies max. And that's being hugely generous. Let's say you're unimaginably lucky and you get some insane runs, i'll give you 1000 and that's being extremely unrealistic. In order to charge down huge numbers of them you'd need one of your own not to get in your way for an extended period. And remember ZCMA doesn't exist yet. Even if the numbers were 10,000 per tank you're talking a pinch in the arm, not even a bloody nose. There's millions upon millions of them and they need to be either completely dismembered or shot in a specific space to be taken out of the equation.
So what do you think happens now? There's very few real heroes when the shit really hits the fan. This knowledge comes from personal experience. Being a true hero generally means accepting beforehand you are almost definitely not going to be around after what you're briefly contemplating doing and doing it anyway. It also means doing it to the fullest extent of your capabilities, therefore further limiting any chances of surviving. Those are the true heroes and almost none of them are still here to talk about it. Those who are don't want to or physically can't and even if they did they probably wouldn't want to.
So we're almost outta fuel having basically not even made dent in the enemy numbers. In fact infantry casualties have probably added to them if not levelled them out. Those who mention all the ammo carried, seem unaware, and this is acceptable if you haven't been part of a tank crew, that very few tanks are stocked to the maximum of their ability. Furthermore as we're executing what is meant to be, and what probably will become ZCMA, if we manage to get many shots off they'll be hugely inaccurate and as you have to be accurate enough to either destroy the brain or sever it's connection at the base of the skull very little of the machine gun rounds will have made any difference. The rounds with flechettes and other assorted anti-personnel rounds will also have done very little damage. Bigger ones unless they are bullseyes similar. Then add on the fact that there won't be thousands of tanks there, esp in the scene described in the book, and well, you've achieved nothing. Apart from knocking over a few of your own tanks, wasting a ton of fuel. Then either making a hasty get away, probably crushing more of your own on your way out than zombies who got behind you. That or standing and using the little fuel you have left to squish a few more, get into a few good firing positions then wait for the zombies to either break in or you to break out. That or sit and die of thirst. And like i said there are very few heroes, also tbqh the latter is more like stupidity than heroism.
Any heroes would be fire-teams willing to plough in and fight off the zombies while refuelling teams refuel tanks. How many of those do you think there'd be? How many of those do you think command would be willing to waste on tanks that were clearly basically of no use to them now? The army isn't exactly a loving mother unless you're an extremely competent and at the time useful son/daughter. Regardless of their culpability in your current situation and fighting ability.
#45
Old 04-11-2014, 08:36 AM
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Tel Aviv
Posts: 23,082
There's no such thing as zombies.
#46
Old 04-11-2014, 09:00 AM
Guest
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Worcestershire UK
Posts: 5,966
That's more or less what I thought - You guys are writing hundreds of words criticising the accuracy of a zombie movie?
#47
Old 04-11-2014, 09:12 AM
The Central Scrutinizer
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pork Roll/Taylor Ham
Posts: 24,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dissonance View Post
This is exactly why I couldn't finish reading World War Z. Max Brooks goes into a long explanation about why the Army couldn't stop the zombies, noting among other things that tank shells are mostly sabot rounds designed to destroy other tanks and would only (over)kill you one zombie. What he neglected to consider is that the Abrams also carries 900 rounds of 12.7mm and 8,800 rounds of 7.62mm for its three machine guns, and far, far more importantly the obvious use of a tank that you mention. You're in a 70 ton fully sealed tracked armored vehicle with a 1,200hp engine. If you can't figure out how to kill zombies with your tank from that sentence you deserve to be eaten.
To load the .50 cal you have to open the hatch and load it by hand. In fact only the older models had the remote firing from the inside of the turret with the 100 rounds loaded at a time. So that's out. So is the loader's machine gun. You have to be totally exposed to fire it. As for the coax, it would be ineffective because anything but headshots would be useless. The coax is hardly a sniper weapon. So out of all those rounds of 7.62 most would be wasted. The main gun ammo more so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dissonance View Post
I'll repeat: 70 tons of tracked, armored vehicle with a 1,500hp engine (I typo'd it as 1,200hp in the last post). Forget all about the main gun and the machine guns. The tank is a weapon; 70 tons of zombie grinding weapon that can go from 0 to 20mph in 7.2 seconds. The only way you're going to get covered in zombies is if you let it happen, and it really isn't that big of a deal if you somehow do. In the book the Army chooses the ground of battle at Yonkers, NY and somehow loses because in Max Brook's view modern weapons are ineffective at stopping zombies because they have no survival instinct. His choosing to go into such detail in such a patently false idea made it impossible for me to suspend disbelief any longer; all I could do was face-palm. Human wave attacks donít work in the face of modern firepower, and havenít for a century. Lack of sufficient bravery isnít why they fail, and that zombieís lack the intelligence to seek cover just makes them that much more easily killed (or put down Ė or whatever it is you do to something thatís already dead). Infantry moving in the open is an ideal artillery target, all the more so when none of them are going to even go to ground to try to avoid being obliterated. Time on Target was developed as an artillery technique to allow shells fired from numerous artillery batteries in different locations to all arrive on a target area at the same time because most casualties in an artillery barrage occur in the first few seconds. After those first few seconds anyone not dead has taken whatever cover they can find, even if itís just lying prone and praying. Lack of the sense of self preservation to do this isnít going to be an advantage.

Only if you consider boredom a serious problem. The crew is in absolutely no danger.
If the tank is immobilized and in a sea of zombies, starvation and dehydration. Sure you can bring food and water if you were planning on that. Stored in the bustle rack on the outside.
#48
Old 04-11-2014, 09:13 AM
The Central Scrutinizer
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pork Roll/Taylor Ham
Posts: 24,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob++ View Post
That's more or less what I thought - You guys are writing hundreds of words criticising the accuracy of a zombie movie?
Of course not. We are talking about the book.
#49
Old 04-11-2014, 09:24 AM
Guest
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: East Coast of USA
Posts: 3,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loach View Post
To load the .50 cal you have to open the hatch and load it by hand. In fact only the older models had the remote firing from the inside of the turret with the 100 rounds loaded at a time. So that's out. So is the loader's machine gun. You have to be totally exposed to fire it. As for the coax, it would be ineffective because anything but headshots would be useless. The coax is hardly a sniper weapon. So out of all those rounds of 7.62 most would be wasted. The main gun ammo more so.
If the tank's sighting system can hit another tank more than a mile away, I think it can make a headshot at 50 or 100 yards with no trouble.
#50
Old 04-11-2014, 09:32 AM
The Central Scrutinizer
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pork Roll/Taylor Ham
Posts: 24,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by thirdname View Post
If the tank's sighting system can hit another tank more than a mile away, I think it can make a headshot at 50 or 100 yards with no trouble.
The M240 used for the coax is an area effect weapon. You point at the area of the crunchies and move it back and forth. If you have never actually done this GQ isn't really the place to tell us your guesses. I have. It is not a precision weapon like the main gun.
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:20 PM.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: [email protected]

Send comments about this website to:

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

Copyright © 2017
Best Topics: electro prostate massage side tails greatschool com marion bradley baby laxative powder stephen hawking overrated swallowed glass shards wrestle tickle kinkos scan grout mix ratio rear air deflector what does grad mean in russian spring green vs trugreen convert natural gas grill to propane fubar saving private ryan vietnam war helicopter songs what is the difference between a mass and a tumor why are tourbillon watches so expensive how long does it take for a body to smell big lebowski quotes sometimes you eat the bar a penny for your thoughts origin permanent press setting on dryer why does drinking cause hiccups