What's it like inside a main battle tank ?
539147
do not answer questions like this people. It may be our enemy trying to find a way to defeat our equipment.
980068
The Swedish S tank - its so quirky, looks like it means business, but whoever thought of designing a tank with a gun that doesn't move?
352449
There is nothing alienating about tank warfare. You would be surprised how well you can see individual soldiers, and what happens to them, through a tank's thermal sights. As far as how they help? Well, think about what a tank is. Mobile protected firepower. They send tanks to force a breakthrough wherever the infantry gets bogged down, they are often the tip of the spear for drives deep into enemy territory, and they can do more damage in 15 minutes than an infantry squad can do all day. They're not by any means perfect, but they can be a huge asset to lighter units.
774136
http://www.fike.com/products_overview_products.html\nhttp://www.ansul.com\n\nIf I knew even more specifics about the application, I could make a recommendation.  (Tank Farm?  Holding area?  Process Area?  Tanker Filling Station?)
268773
My recommendation is steel, high pressure tank, and 80-100 cu ft.\n\nSteel is negatively buoyant when empty.  This allows you to wear less weight when compared to aluminum tanks.  Avoid neutrally buoyant aluminum tanks.  These are just aluminum tanks with an extra 5#s added to it.\n\nHigh pressure because you get more capacity for the size.\n\n80-100 cu ft since these are the most versatile and will most likely match your buddy.  While 80 cu ft hp tanks are great single tanks, if you plan on doubles, then 100 hp tanks are better since these will trim out better for most people.
381053
Ok, ready for the infantry Marine's answer?  Both are a terrible experience that'll make you see how much of your body you can fit in your helmet.  Given the choice, I'd much rather be in a firefight than on the receiving end of artillery.  Arty is very very devastating and the cannons are a couple thousand meters off, so it's not like you can return fire or do much about it.  In a firefight at least you can fight back, and you'll basically know where your enemy is, so you can have something to work off of.  Both are really bad though.
246196
mrsjvb, that's the best way to explain it.  i vote you best answer. speaking from experience as spec 4 at ft riley
955521
Sure they do.  They have tanks that even have 5-speed transmissions.  4 for Reverse and 1 for forward in case they are attacked from behind!
50788
You could use a regular stock tank.  Not pretty, but will last a LONG time.
960931
Without question the Maus. One of the subjects of liveliest controversy during the Allied invasion of France was the heavy tank—the 50-ton Pershing, the 62-ton Tiger, the 75-ton Royal Tiger. Were these worth their weight? Did they gain—in protection and fire power—as much as they sacrificed in mobility? Adolph Hitler's mind was presumably made up on this point. A pet project of his, which few were aware of, appears to have been a superheavy tank that would have dwarfed even the Royal Tiger. Dubbed the Mouse, this behemoth of doubtful military value was to weigh 207 tons, combat loaded. Two were actually built, although they were never equipped with their armament. \n\nThe Mouse is an amazing vehicle, with spectacular characteristics. The glacis plate up front is approximately 8 inches (200 mm) thick. Since it is sloped at 35 degrees to the vertical, the armor basis is therefore 14 inches. Side armor is 7 inches (180 mm) thick, with the rear protected by plates 6 1/4 inches (160 mm) thick. The front of the turret is protected by 9 1/2 inches (240 mm) of cast armor, while the 8-inch (200 mm) thick turret sides and rear were sloped so as to give the effect of 9 inches (230 mm) of armor. \n\nARMAMENT \n\nFor the main armament, a pea-shooter like an 88-mm gun was ignored. Selected instead was the powerful 128-mm tank and antitank gun, which was later to be replaced by a 150-mm piece 38 calibers in length. (The standard German medium field howitzer 15 cm s.F.H. 18 is only 29.5 calibers in length.) Instead of mounting a 7.9-mm machine gun coaxially, the Mouse was to have a 75-mm antitank gun 76 calibers in length next to the 128- or 150-mm gun. A machine cannon for antiaircraft was to be mounted in the turret roof, along with a smoke grenade projector. \n\nIn size, the Mouse was considerably larger than any German tank. Its length of 33 feet made it nearly 50 percent longer than the Royal Tiger. Because of rail transport considerations. its width was kept to 12 feet (that of the Royal Tiger and Tiger). A 12-foot height made it a considerable target. \n\n\nThis German drawing shows a sectionalized elevation of the Mouse hull. The following salient features may be diingtinguished: driver's seat (20) and periscope (14 and 18); radio operator's seat (12) and radio (21); radio antenna (28); air intakes for main engine (30); main engine (3); generator (4); the right motor of the two electric motors driving the sprockets (9); auxiliary fuel tank (29). The coaxial 75-mm gun is on the right of the turret; its position relative to the 128-mm gun is shown in dotted outline. \n\n\n\nA sectionalized plan view of the Mouse hull gives another view of many of the features shown in the first illustration. The driver's and radio operator's seats (left) are flanked by the main fuel tanks. Just to their rear is the main engine, flanked by air pumps and radiators. Further to the rear is the generator, with ammunition stowage in the sponsons on either side. In the sponson on the front right of the generator is the auxiliary engine, with storage batteries to its rear. To the rear of the hull, also in the sponsons, are the motors furnishing the electric drive. The actual transmission is in the deep part of hull between the motors, behind generator. \n\n\nIn order to reduce the ground pressure so that the tank could have some mobility, the tracks had to be made very wide—all of 43.3 inches. With the tracks taking up over 7 of its 12 feet of width, the Mouse presents a very strange appearance indeed from either a front or rear view. With such a track width, and a ground contact of 19 feet 3 inches, the Mouse keeps its ground pressure down to about 20 pounds per square inch—about twice that of the original Tiger. \n\nPOWER PLANTS \n\nDesigning an engine sufficiently powerful to provide motive power for the mammoth fighting vehicle was a serious problem. Though the Germans tried two engines, both around 1,200 horsepower (as compare
735632
Tank, plus it doubles as a improvised explosive device
788694
Storekeeper!  I had the pleasure of working around these folk when I was an SH striker (Ships Serivceman).  Despite what the last poster said, you will not be doing anything with the ships store (that is what an SH does along with laundry, barber shop, etc.).\n\nSKs, depending on your command, deal with supplies and ordering those supplies and a heck of a lot of moving them.  I was stationed on the USS Seattle (AOE-3) which was one of those big darn fuel-stores-weapons supply ships (all of which are now retired and the newer AOEs were moved from the fleet to the USNS fleet).  On that ship the SKs used forklifts to move the cargo we received and sent to other ships.  Since you can no longer be on an AOE or any Auxilary ship, you will be on the 'receiving' side.  However there will be times you will be sending them off (however the BM or Boatswains Mates often do the UNREP or underway replenishment...you'll be handling all the tracking and basic moving).\n\nCan't tell you about the school since it's not my rating and I've never been there.  If you can, get with your recruiter and if you live close enough to a base or command, they can get you in there to talk with the SKs and see what they do...even if you have to drive a bit, do it.
352491
Do you like chipping paint or handling weapons that is the difference. BM though get to handle the ships that they are on, but GM deal with the weapons
802759
I can not answer your question, but if you contact some distributors or manufacturers of tanks they may be able to help you.\n\nGood luck!
915015
You would need a tank about the size of a house (55ft cube) unless you compress the air then it would be much smaller.
1012908
By far the British MBT Challenger 2, out in iraq the american equivilants couldnt keep up with the advance, although the challenger 2 had a few mods (making the challenger 2 oman) the funcionality of the tank was far superior to that of the americans. although the tank itself is by far the bast the americans have a far superiour comunications and satalite system than us brits, challenger 2 will probably adopt this in the near future.
270738
The M1A1 Abrams converted to a smooth bore from a smaller rifled bore.\n  \nWhat advantages does a smooth bore give you?\n \nMost modern anti-tank ammunition is fin stabilized rather than spun. Discarding sabot ammo is not, IIRC, especially hurt by being spun, but neither is it helped, while HEAT rounds are definitely hurt by being spun rapidly.  Since those are the main choices for tanks these days (the Brits\nstill like HESH, but they're pretty much alone in doing so) there's not much point in using rifling, while a smoothbore has some wear and velocity\nadvantages.\n\nTrue enough, but so far no-one has explained WHY the Brits prefer a rifled gun.  The answer is simple; long range accuracy with HE shells.\n\nFin-stabilised shells (as opposed to APFSDS) are inherently less accurate than spin-stabilised ones.  Also, the HESH shells are much more versatile than HEAT, being not only effective against armour but also acting as a general HE round.  Tank kills have been recorded at enormous distances using HESH (4 - 5 km IIRC; about double the capability of APFSDS, whether fired from rifled or smoothbore barrels).\n\nTo sum up, the smoothbore is the optimum choice for medium-range anti-tank work using APFSDS, the rifled barrel is more of a general-purpose weapon.  Incidentally, the performance penalty from firing APFSDS from a rifled barrel appears to be very small, judging by the published specs for the 120mm Challenger.