Canadians will pay $1.3 billion for the purchase and maintenance of new Leopard tanks being bought mostly because a group of older "tank men" within the Department of National Defence won a pitched internal battle, rather than because they are needed.
quite. tanks can survive a nuke blast and continue operation in an irradiated area. an MGS's tires would melt if the vehicle wasn't already destroyed by the explosion.
just an example of their durability... I don't think... scratch that; I hope tanks aren't placed on the nuclear battlefield. cause if and when I get into them, I'd hate to be driving around in the middle of a nuclear warzone.
"Canadian_Mind" said quite. tanks can survive a nuke blast and continue operation in an irradiated area. an MGS's tires would melt if the vehicle wasn't already destroyed by the explosion.
just an example of their durability... I don't think... scratch that; I hope tanks aren't placed on the nuclear battlefield. cause if and when I get into them, I'd hate to be driving around in the middle of a nuclear warzone.
and you know this from all the tanks you've driven in nuclear wars??
Nope, unfortunately my information about a tanks capabilities in a nuclear battlefield are for the most part intuition and what I've read about what they're designed to do. If you know differently, then please say so.
In any case, I WOULDN'T want to be driving one in a nuclear battlefield, no matter how capable they are.
"putz" said quite. tanks can survive a nuke blast and continue operation in an irradiated area. an MGS's tires would melt if the vehicle wasn't already destroyed by the explosion.
just an example of their durability... I don't think... scratch that; I hope tanks aren't placed on the nuclear battlefield. cause if and when I get into them, I'd hate to be driving around in the middle of a nuclear warzone.
and you know this from all the tanks you've driven in nuclear wars??
"Canadian_Mind" said Nope, unfortunately my information about a tanks capabilities in a nuclear battlefield are for the most part intuition and what I've read about what they're designed to do. If you know differently, then please say so.
In any case, I WOULDN'T want to be driving one in a nuclear battlefield, no matter how capable they are.
I'm really going to go out on a limb here and say that your Intuition is wrong. Even if the tanks didn't melt into a puddle, the crew would be quite overdone by even thhe standards of the most crazy Cannibals.
"sandorski" said Nope, unfortunately my information about a tanks capabilities in a nuclear battlefield are for the most part intuition and what I've read about what they're designed to do. If you know differently, then please say so.
In any case, I WOULDN'T want to be driving one in a nuclear battlefield, no matter how capable they are.
I'm really going to go out on a limb here and say that your Intuition is wrong. Even if the tanks didn't melt into a puddle, the crew would be quite overdone by even thhe standards of the most crazy Cannibals.Yeah how in hell can anyone think a tank or it's crew would survive a nuke. I mean, if a regular bomb can destroy it, and even certain bullets can pierce a tank's armour, chances are a nuke will fuck it up.
Obviously, it's not going to help if you're right below it but the post WW2 tests showed that tanks can survive. The Soviet Union pretty much staked their future on that fact.
Tanks weigh around 40 to 60 tons so their not likely to be thrown about, nor penetrated by flying debris. That thickness or armor is going to slow radiation down too.
Almost all modern tanks have an almost sealed cabin, overpressured with filtered air, as long as folks kkeep the hatches closed. It's for chemical warfare but it works against nuclear dust too. That's also going to help the crew survive the huge overpressure that moves out with the shock wave.
I'm glad to see my tax dollars "really" at work, rather than buying second hand / used British subs and ships that don't make it back to Canada.
....unless of course as tritium points out its for a leaky sub.....
just an example of their durability... I don't think... scratch that; I hope tanks aren't placed on the nuclear battlefield. cause if and when I get into them, I'd hate to be driving around in the middle of a nuclear warzone.
quite. tanks can survive a nuke blast and continue operation in an irradiated area. an MGS's tires would melt if the vehicle wasn't already destroyed by the explosion.
just an example of their durability... I don't think... scratch that; I hope tanks aren't placed on the nuclear battlefield. cause if and when I get into them, I'd hate to be driving around in the middle of a nuclear warzone.
and you know this from all the tanks you've driven in nuclear wars??
In any case, I WOULDN'T want to be driving one in a nuclear battlefield, no matter how capable they are.
quite. tanks can survive a nuke blast and continue operation in an irradiated area. an MGS's tires would melt if the vehicle wasn't already destroyed by the explosion.
just an example of their durability... I don't think... scratch that; I hope tanks aren't placed on the nuclear battlefield. cause if and when I get into them, I'd hate to be driving around in the middle of a nuclear warzone.
and you know this from all the tanks you've driven in nuclear wars??
Nope, unfortunately my information about a tanks capabilities in a nuclear battlefield are for the most part intuition and what I've read about what they're designed to do. If you know differently, then please say so.
In any case, I WOULDN'T want to be driving one in a nuclear battlefield, no matter how capable they are.
I'm really going to go out on a limb here and say that your Intuition is wrong. Even if the tanks didn't melt into a puddle, the crew would be quite overdone by even thhe standards of the most crazy Cannibals.
Nope, unfortunately my information about a tanks capabilities in a nuclear battlefield are for the most part intuition and what I've read about what they're designed to do. If you know differently, then please say so.
In any case, I WOULDN'T want to be driving one in a nuclear battlefield, no matter how capable they are.
I'm really going to go out on a limb here and say that your Intuition is wrong. Even if the tanks didn't melt into a puddle, the crew would be quite overdone by even thhe standards of the most crazy Cannibals.Yeah how in hell can anyone think a tank or it's crew would survive a nuke. I mean, if a regular bomb can destroy it, and even certain bullets can pierce a tank's armour, chances are a nuke will fuck it up.
They would survive the fallout.
Tanks weigh around 40 to 60 tons so their not likely to be thrown about, nor penetrated by flying debris. That thickness or armor is going to slow radiation down too.
Almost all modern tanks have an almost sealed cabin, overpressured with filtered air, as long as folks kkeep the hatches closed. It's for chemical warfare but it works against nuclear dust too. That's also going to help the crew survive the huge overpressure that moves out with the shock wave.
Scroll on down to the neutron bombs for a quick reference.
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq1.html