1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. REC.ARTS.SF.WRITTEN

  • _Chicks in Tank tops_ Edited by Jason Dordova

    From Robert Woodward@21:1/5 to All on Sat Dec 16 21:52:15 2023
    This January 2023 release from Baen Books was a sequel to the Chicks in Chainmail series of fantasy anthologies, but was focused on Science
    Fiction instead. The cover has a woman wearing a tank top, but she is
    standing in the hatch of a tank; this anthology is about women as tank commanders (and sometimes tank leaders). The stories are supposed to be
    funny, but are they?

    After a forward by Esther Friesner (editor of the Chicks in Chainmail
    series) and a note from the new editor, Jason Cordova, there are 14
    stories:

    łGadreelšs Folly˛ by Sharon Lee and Steve Miller

    This is set fairly early in the Liaden Universe, i.e., much closer to
    time to the _Crystal Soldier_/_Crystal Dragon_ than to _An Agent of
    Change_. It is somewhat different than other Liaden universe story (in
    fact, I see a vague Warhammer 40K feel about it). I donšt think it is
    funny

    łHold the Line˛ by Kevin Ikenberry

    A tank leader has a role in a big battle in a bigger war - I donšt see
    the humor.

    łA Girl and her Kštšank˛ by Jody Lynn Nye

    This one somewhat stretches the definition of tank - the antics of the
    rival news casters (who are more interested in one upping each other,
    than in a successful resolution of a terrorist incident) is somewhat
    funny.

    łAirborne All the Way!˛ by David Drake

    The only reprint in the anthology, needed to set up the next story. This
    was written back in the 1990s for a _Magic: the Gathering_ anthology. An airship that was supposed to bombard the enemy with rocks, crashes
    instead, right into the enemy command group. David Drake thought this
    story was funny (it was reprinted in a collection titled _All the Way to
    the Gallows_).

    łAirborne: The Next Mission˛ by David Drake

    This sequel is original to this anthology. The wizard in chief decides
    to replicate the accident in the previous story as a battle winning
    tactic. It kinda worked. Funny in the same way the previous story was.

    łGoddess of War˛ by A. C. Haskins

    War in Europe sometime later in the 21st century. Nothing wrong with the
    story, but I donšt see the humor.

    łBarbie and Gator Ken versus the Hurricane˛ by Joelle Presby

    The setting is late in the 21st century; Hampton Roads is being
    evacuated because of a hurricane. łGator Ken˛ is a surplus light tank (a
    model that doesnšt exist yet). There is an amusing interaction with a
    motorist with a classic Tesla (from the late 2020s); however, the
    funniest part is after that.

    łJeanne DšArchitonnerre˛ by G. Scott Huggins

    Set in an alternate early 16th century Florence. Leonardo da Vinci has
    an assistant, a woman (with crippled legs) who was a much better
    engineer than he was. She was able to make one of his sketches work (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonardo%27s_fighting_vehicle). Somewhat
    funny.

    łOperation Dad Liberation˛ by Lydia Sherrer and David Sherrer

    A teenage girl hacks the AI of her fatheršs tank and rescues him from
    durance vile. Funny

    łBetween a Knight and a Hard Place˛ by Philip Wholab

    The female villain in this story also has a vehicle with armor and a
    gun. Two unrelated novels by David Weber each have a character remarking
    that he didnšt believe in Attila the Hun in spaceships. Well, I donšt
    believe in Attila the Hun in trucks. There is too much gratuitous gore
    in this story for me to consider it funny.

    łNext Question˛ by Marisa Wolf

    A woman and an AI, both designed to work with each other, are assigned
    to a tank in an interstellar war between two human nations. On a
    frontier world, they discover that their knowledge of the war was
    seriously incomplete. I believe that the novel _Beyond Enemies_, due in February 2024, continues this story. But, I donšt really see much humor (perhaps the drinking contest at the start, but that is not my type of
    humor).

    łBellešs Fantastical Mechanical Beast˛ by Jason Cordova and Ashley Prior

    I think this is set somewhere in the region of modern Belgium in the
    later part of the 18th century. Belle built a steam powered vehicle
    (there were several built in that period in our history). She also has
    an persistent obnoxious suitor (one whose attitude towards books will
    horrify any bibliophile who reads the story). Somewhat funny.

    łMother˛ by Robert E. Hampson

    Refugees from a very nasty civil war take shelter in what turns out to
    be a large war machine buried in a ruined city. Years later, the AI of
    the machine wakes up, looks over the situation, and chooses an early
    refugee as the commander. They intend to do something about the war.
    But, I donšt see very much funny about it.

    łTread Softly˛ by Esther Friesner

    The character names (and some dialogue) in this story reveals that
    _Pride and Prejudice_ is part of its DNA (heavily mutated). The story
    is, of course, funny despite being set sometime after apocalyptic events
    on the East Coast of North America.

    --
    "We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
    Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_. ‹-----------------------------------------------------
    Robert Woodward robertaw@drizzle.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Robert Woodward@21:1/5 to Robert Carnegie on Sun Dec 17 21:46:47 2023
    In article <627e60b4-2f69-4594-947e-0106aa3a7449n@googlegroups.com>,
    Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:

    Hmm. <https://www.girlgeniusonline.com/comic.php?date=20120709> ?

    That's either powered armor or a small mecha; it is not a tank.

    --
    "We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
    Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_. —-----------------------------------------------------
    Robert Woodward robertaw@drizzle.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From WolfFan@21:1/5 to All on Mon Dec 18 19:38:37 2023
    On Dec 18, 2023, Robert Carnegie wrote
    (in article<f6bddeb8-4562-4ece-9be4-96b0949a6347n@googlegroups.com>):

    On Monday 18 December 2023 at 05:46:52 UTC, Robert Woodward wrote:
    In article<627e60b4-2f69-4594...@googlegroups.com>,
    Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:

    Hmm.<https://www.girlgeniusonline.com/comic.php?date=20120709> ?

    That's either powered armor or a small mecha; it is not a tank.

    How is a tank defined?

    1. it has tracks. Wheeled vehicles are Mobile Gun Systems, and typically are not well armored. There have been attempts at wheeled tanks. The wheels meant that they weren’t as mobile cross-country as a tracked vehicle, and usually couldn’t carry as good a load. No attempt at a wheeled tank has been successful.

    2. it has good to very good armor. Tracked vehicles designed to engage tanks which lack good to very good armor are tank destroyers. They tend to be
    easily destroyed by a large variety of weapons, including tanks. Vehicles
    such as the Ontos and the Sheridan should be considered tank destroyers. The
    US Army has a version of the Stryker wheeled APC fitted with a large gun and deployed as a MGS. Strykers can take hits from 14.5mm machine guns. This is
    not survivable on the modern battlefield. There are reasons why the Ontos and the Sheridan were retired. (Quote: “Ever see a Sheridan burn?”)

    3. it is well-armed. Note that this was not always the case. Most modern
    tanks have main guns in the 100 to 135mm range. These weapons can engage
    tanks, and lesser vehicles, at ranges of up to several kilometers. Mobile Gun Systems also have weapons in that range, and can engage tanks and lesser vehicles at ranges of up to several kilometers. The difference is that light weapons, in the 20-40mm range, are of limitred use against a tank but can
    kill a Mobile Gun System at any range that they can get a hit.

    4. it does not usually carry infantry. A tracked vehicle which carries
    infantry is an Infantry Fighting Vehicle, an Armored Personnel Vehicle, or a Heavy Armored Personnel Vehicle. (A Cavalry Fighting Vehicle looks like an Infantry Fighting Vehicle, but carries dismount cavalry scouts, not infantry. There’s a difference.) Some tanks, particularly some Israeli tanks, have
    rear doors designed to access the main gun magazine for rapid reloading of
    main gun ammunition, and have space for a few troops. They don’t usually carry troops into action. In times past many tanks would be used to transport infantry ’tank riders’; the infantry would be on the outside, and would jump off when action commenced. If they knew what was good for them. Tank riders were used extensively by both sides in the European part of WWII, particularly on the Eastern Front. The Soviets had Tank Rider Battalions.
    Tank Riders are an idea whose time has passed. A Bradley IFV/CFV has a 25mm automatic cannon and TOW missile lanchers; Soviet/Russian IFVs have 23mm,
    30mm, or 73mm guns and launchers for various guided anti-tank missiles. They are not tanks. Attempts to use them as if they were tanks have universially resulted in significant casualties.

    Mechas have legs. Mechas are impractical. Mechas don’t work. Powered armor doesn’t work. Yet.


    I don't think I noticed before that this
    hardware has a draped cloth to protect
    its modesty. Which raises a lot of
    questions.

    Famously John Ashcroft, the man who lost an election for governor to a dead man, had certain statues draped ‘cause he didn’t like bare boobies. This could be more of the same.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From WolfFan@21:1/5 to Ted Nolan on Tue Dec 19 00:03:58 2023
    On Dec 18, 2023, ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan wrote
    (in article <kucl7fFh36U1@mid.individual.net>):

    In article<0001HW.2B311D8D0220B88E7000072C138F@news.supernews.com>,
    WolfFan <akwolffan@zoho.com> wrote:

    Mechas have legs. Mechas are impractical. Mechas don’t work. Powered armor
    doesn’t work. Yet.

    When powered armor works, won't it be a mecha?

    Nope. Mechas would be big. Tens or hundreds of tons. Imperial Walkers, from Star Wars, are mechas. Mechas have crews (usually). Powered armor would be
    much smaller, with just one guy. Part of the reason why mechas won’t work
    is that what happens to Imperial Walkers in Star Wars movies, particularly Empire, Return, and Rogue, is what would happen in real life: they’d be too big to use cover & concealment and would draw fire from everything in line
    of sight. Powered armor would be much more difficult to target.



    I don't think I noticed before that this
    hardware has a draped cloth to protect
    its modesty. Which raises a lot of
    questions.

    Famously John Ashcroft, the man who lost an election for governor to a dead man, had certain statues draped ‘cause he didn’t like bare boobies. This
    could be more of the same.

    That wasn't actually him, apparently.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ted Nolan @21:1/5 to akwolffan@zoho.com on Tue Dec 19 04:41:20 2023
    In article <0001HW.2B311D8D0220B88E7000072C138F@news.supernews.com>,
    WolfFan <akwolffan@zoho.com> wrote:

    Mechas have legs. Mechas are impractical. Mechas don’t work. Powered armor >doesn’t work. Yet.


    When powered armor works, won't it be a mecha?


    I don't think I noticed before that this
    hardware has a draped cloth to protect
    its modesty. Which raises a lot of
    questions.

    Famously John Ashcroft, the man who lost an election for governor to a dead >man, had certain statues draped ‘cause he didn’t like bare boobies. This >could be more of the same.


    That wasn't actually him, apparently.
    --
    columbiaclosings.com
    What's not in Columbia anymore..

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From James Nicoll@21:1/5 to akwolffan@zoho.com on Tue Dec 19 05:15:23 2023
    In article <0001HW.2B315BBE022F4BED7000020F838F@news.supernews.com>,
    WolfFan <akwolffan@zoho.com> wrote:
    On Dec 18, 2023, ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan wrote
    (in article <kucl7fFh36U1@mid.individual.net>):

    In article<0001HW.2B311D8D0220B88E7000072C138F@news.supernews.com>,
    WolfFan <akwolffan@zoho.com> wrote:

    Mechas have legs. Mechas are impractical. Mechas don’t work.
    Powered armor
    doesn’t work. Yet.

    When powered armor works, won't it be a mecha?

    Nope. Mechas would be big. Tens or hundreds of tons. Imperial Walkers, from >Star Wars, are mechas. Mechas have crews (usually). Powered armor would be >much smaller, with just one guy. Part of the reason why mechas won’t work >is that what happens to Imperial Walkers in Star Wars movies, particularly >Empire, Return, and Rogue, is what would happen in real life: they’d be too >big to use cover & concealment and would draw fire from everything in line >of sight. Powered armor would be much more difficult to target.

    One also wonders what happens when a mecha steps on soft ground.

    --
    My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
    My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
    My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
    My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dimensional Traveler@21:1/5 to James Nicoll on Mon Dec 18 21:24:04 2023
    On 12/18/2023 9:15 PM, James Nicoll wrote:
    In article <0001HW.2B315BBE022F4BED7000020F838F@news.supernews.com>,
    WolfFan <akwolffan@zoho.com> wrote:
    On Dec 18, 2023, ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan wrote
    (in article <kucl7fFh36U1@mid.individual.net>):

    In article<0001HW.2B311D8D0220B88E7000072C138F@news.supernews.com>,
    WolfFan <akwolffan@zoho.com> wrote:

    Mechas have legs. Mechas are impractical. Mechas don’t work.
    Powered armor
    doesn’t work. Yet.

    When powered armor works, won't it be a mecha?

    Nope. Mechas would be big. Tens or hundreds of tons. Imperial Walkers, from >> Star Wars, are mechas. Mechas have crews (usually). Powered armor would be >> much smaller, with just one guy. Part of the reason why mechas won’t work >> is that what happens to Imperial Walkers in Star Wars movies, particularly >> Empire, Return, and Rogue, is what would happen in real life: they’d be too
    big to use cover & concealment and would draw fire from everything in line >> of sight. Powered armor would be much more difficult to target.

    One also wonders what happens when a mecha steps on soft ground.

    If your mecha is big enough all ground is soft.

    --
    I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
    dirty old man.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Scott Dorsey@21:1/5 to akwolffan@zoho.com on Tue Dec 19 22:42:48 2023
    WolfFan <akwolffan@zoho.com> wrote:

    How is a tank defined?

    Note that the definition provided is one of exception. That's not bad, but it is interesting
    that being a tank is the default and that non-tank vehicles are excepted out. Also you missed
    half-tracks and whatever the hell a gamma goat is.

    Mechas have legs. Mechas are impractical. Mechas don’t work. Powered armor >doesn’t work. Yet.

    ARPA hired some folks at CMU to study mechas back in the sixties and there is a prototype
    on display at the Army Transportation Museum at Ft. Eustis. It is far from practical but
    it actually does walk! And over bad terrain too!
    --scott

    --
    "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Default User@21:1/5 to WolfFan on Wed Dec 20 06:49:10 2023
    WolfFan wrote:

    Famously John Ashcroft, the man who lost an election for governor to
    a dead man, had certain statues draped ‘cause he didn’t like bare >boobies. This could be more of the same.

    I voted for that dead man, but it was a Senate election. Instead of
    getting rid of him, it just spread him nationally.


    Brian

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Default User@21:1/5 to Default User on Wed Dec 20 06:53:54 2023
    Default User wrote:

    WolfFan wrote:

    Famously John Ashcroft, the man who lost an election for governor to
    a dead man, had certain statues draped ‘cause he didn’t like bare >>boobies. This could be more of the same.

    I voted for that dead man, but it was a Senate election. Instead of
    getting rid of him, it just spread him nationally.

    Er, the "him" was Ashcroft. Carnahan stayed dead and didn't get spread
    any more than plane crash did.


    Brian

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul S Person@21:1/5 to Scott Dorsey on Wed Dec 20 09:06:00 2023
    On 19 Dec 2023 22:42:48 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

    WolfFan <akwolffan@zoho.com> wrote:

    How is a tank defined?

    Note that the definition provided is one of exception. That's not bad, but it is interesting
    that being a tank is the default and that non-tank vehicles are excepted out. Also you missed
    half-tracks and whatever the hell a gamma goat is.

    I would think that tank must:

    1. have significant [1] armor plating
    2. use tracks to move about on [2]
    3. if it has one or more cannons, at least one must be in a turret
    capable of using it to fire at any target in a 360 degree area around
    the tank [3]

    [1] Sufficient, at least in intent, to protect against all threats
    likely to be encountered /at the time the specifications were drawn
    up/. By the time the tank enters production, of course, the armor may
    be ... inadequate ... due to more powerful threats having appeared.
    Note that nuclear explosions are not usually considered "likely to be encountered".

    [2] Some, if not all, track systems actually have wheels, they just
    don't contact the ground.

    [3] A cannon is not required because some early tanks, clearly and
    undeniably called "tanks" at the time, did not have them but had lots
    of machine guns, often without a turret. These were "infantry tanks"
    and intended to support the infantry by acting as a moving machine-gun position.

    As with the armor, the cannon(s), if present, should be large enough
    to pose a credible threat to other tanks.

    Tank destroyers generally are (or perhaps originally were) tanks
    without turrets. They are also good against fortifications, which
    makes them a useful engineering tool.

    One reason that the trucker's strike in Canada was doomed to fail is
    because any military that has tanks has tank recovery vehicles that
    can just as easily impound a semi.

    Mechas have legs. Mechas are impractical. Mechas don’t work. Powered armor >>doesn’t work. Yet.

    ARPA hired some folks at CMU to study mechas back in the sixties and there is a prototype
    on display at the Army Transportation Museum at Ft. Eustis. It is far from practical but
    it actually does walk! And over bad terrain too!

    Proof-of-concept.
    --
    "Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
    Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
    Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ted Nolan @21:1/5 to psperson@old.netcom.invalid on Wed Dec 20 17:20:47 2023
    In article <vf66oi5k66spgsnl0uod3sofh5iarr1116@4ax.com>,
    Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
    On 19 Dec 2023 22:42:48 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

    WolfFan <akwolffan@zoho.com> wrote:

    How is a tank defined?

    Note that the definition provided is one of exception. That's not bad,
    but it is interesting
    that being a tank is the default and that non-tank vehicles are
    excepted out. Also you missed
    half-tracks and whatever the hell a gamma goat is.

    I would think that tank must:

    1. have significant [1] armor plating
    2. use tracks to move about on [2]
    3. if it has one or more cannons, at least one must be in a turret
    capable of using it to fire at any target in a 360 degree area around
    the tank [3]

    [1] Sufficient, at least in intent, to protect against all threats
    likely to be encountered /at the time the specifications were drawn
    up/. By the time the tank enters production, of course, the armor may
    be ... inadequate ... due to more powerful threats having appeared.
    Note that nuclear explosions are not usually considered "likely to be >encountered".

    [2] Some, if not all, track systems actually have wheels, they just
    don't contact the ground.

    [3] A cannon is not required because some early tanks, clearly and
    undeniably called "tanks" at the time, did not have them but had lots
    of machine guns, often without a turret. These were "infantry tanks"
    and intended to support the infantry by acting as a moving machine-gun >position.


    As I recall, these were called "female tanks", which is somewhat appropos
    to the discussion I guess.
    --
    columbiaclosings.com
    What's not in Columbia anymore..

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul S Person@21:1/5 to tednolan on Thu Dec 21 09:04:55 2023
    On 20 Dec 2023 17:20:47 GMT, ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
    <tednolan>) wrote:

    In article <vf66oi5k66spgsnl0uod3sofh5iarr1116@4ax.com>,
    Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
    On 19 Dec 2023 22:42:48 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

    WolfFan <akwolffan@zoho.com> wrote:

    How is a tank defined?

    Note that the definition provided is one of exception. That's not bad, >>but it is interesting
    that being a tank is the default and that non-tank vehicles are
    excepted out. Also you missed
    half-tracks and whatever the hell a gamma goat is.

    I would think that tank must:

    1. have significant [1] armor plating
    2. use tracks to move about on [2]
    3. if it has one or more cannons, at least one must be in a turret
    capable of using it to fire at any target in a 360 degree area around
    the tank [3]

    [1] Sufficient, at least in intent, to protect against all threats
    likely to be encountered /at the time the specifications were drawn
    up/. By the time the tank enters production, of course, the armor may
    be ... inadequate ... due to more powerful threats having appeared.
    Note that nuclear explosions are not usually considered "likely to be >>encountered".

    [2] Some, if not all, track systems actually have wheels, they just
    don't contact the ground.

    [3] A cannon is not required because some early tanks, clearly and >>undeniably called "tanks" at the time, did not have them but had lots
    of machine guns, often without a turret. These were "infantry tanks"
    and intended to support the infantry by acting as a moving machine-gun >>position.


    As I recall, these were called "female tanks", which is somewhat appropos
    to the discussion I guess.

    I don't doubt it.

    Which is good, because Wikipedia (per Bing) apparently has the
    articles to prove it!

    There are also mentions of "male tanks" and "hermaphrodite tanks".

    But by WW II (per Bing), "infantry tanks" had developed, so-called
    because they were intended to support the infantry.
    --
    "Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
    Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
    Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From WolfFan@21:1/5 to Dimensional Traveler on Thu Dec 21 14:00:28 2023
    On Dec 21, 2023, Dimensional Traveler wrote
    (in article <um21c9$166h4$1@dont-email.me>):

    On 12/21/2023 9:04 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
    On 20 Dec 2023 17:20:47 GMT, ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
    <tednolan>) wrote:

    In article<vf66oi5k66spgsnl0uod3sofh5iarr1116@4ax.com>,
    Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
    On 19 Dec 2023 22:42:48 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

    WolfFan <akwolffan@zoho.com> wrote:

    How is a tank defined?

    Note that the definition provided is one of exception. That's not bad,
    but it is interesting
    that being a tank is the default and that non-tank vehicles are
    excepted out. Also you missed
    half-tracks and whatever the hell a gamma goat is.

    I would think that tank must:

    1. have significant [1] armor plating
    2. use tracks to move about on [2]
    3. if it has one or more cannons, at least one must be in a turret capable of using it to fire at any target in a 360 degree area around the tank [3]

    [1] Sufficient, at least in intent, to protect against all threats likely to be encountered /at the time the specifications were drawn up/. By the time the tank enters production, of course, the armor may be ... inadequate ... due to more powerful threats having appeared. Note that nuclear explosions are not usually considered "likely to be encountered".

    [2] Some, if not all, track systems actually have wheels, they just don't contact the ground.

    [3] A cannon is not required because some early tanks, clearly and undeniably called "tanks" at the time, did not have them but had lots of machine guns, often without a turret. These were "infantry tanks" and intended to support the infantry by acting as a moving machine-gun position.

    As I recall, these were called "female tanks", which is somewhat appropos to the discussion I guess.

    I don't doubt it.

    Which is good, because Wikipedia (per Bing) apparently has the
    articles to prove it!

    There are also mentions of "male tanks" and "hermaphrodite tanks".

    But by WW II (per Bing), "infantry tanks" had developed, so-called
    because they were intended to support the infantry.

    At the start of WW II US Army doctrine was that the role of "Tanks" was infantry support. Combating enemy tanks was the role of "Tank
    Destroyers". So the US went in to WW II with some armored vehicles
    vulnerable to enemy armored vehicles and some vulnerable to enemy
    infantry (the main US Tank Destroyer had an open topped turret) without necessarily having them operate together supporting each other.

    I never have understood why American tank destroyers didn’t have roofs on their turrets.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dimensional Traveler@21:1/5 to Paul S Person on Thu Dec 21 10:49:46 2023
    On 12/21/2023 9:04 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
    On 20 Dec 2023 17:20:47 GMT, ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
    <tednolan>) wrote:

    In article <vf66oi5k66spgsnl0uod3sofh5iarr1116@4ax.com>,
    Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
    On 19 Dec 2023 22:42:48 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

    WolfFan <akwolffan@zoho.com> wrote:

    How is a tank defined?

    Note that the definition provided is one of exception. That's not bad, >>> but it is interesting
    that being a tank is the default and that non-tank vehicles are
    excepted out. Also you missed
    half-tracks and whatever the hell a gamma goat is.

    I would think that tank must:

    1. have significant [1] armor plating
    2. use tracks to move about on [2]
    3. if it has one or more cannons, at least one must be in a turret
    capable of using it to fire at any target in a 360 degree area around
    the tank [3]

    [1] Sufficient, at least in intent, to protect against all threats
    likely to be encountered /at the time the specifications were drawn
    up/. By the time the tank enters production, of course, the armor may
    be ... inadequate ... due to more powerful threats having appeared.
    Note that nuclear explosions are not usually considered "likely to be
    encountered".

    [2] Some, if not all, track systems actually have wheels, they just
    don't contact the ground.

    [3] A cannon is not required because some early tanks, clearly and
    undeniably called "tanks" at the time, did not have them but had lots
    of machine guns, often without a turret. These were "infantry tanks"
    and intended to support the infantry by acting as a moving machine-gun
    position.


    As I recall, these were called "female tanks", which is somewhat appropos
    to the discussion I guess.

    I don't doubt it.

    Which is good, because Wikipedia (per Bing) apparently has the
    articles to prove it!

    There are also mentions of "male tanks" and "hermaphrodite tanks".

    But by WW II (per Bing), "infantry tanks" had developed, so-called
    because they were intended to support the infantry.

    At the start of WW II US Army doctrine was that the role of "Tanks" was infantry support. Combating enemy tanks was the role of "Tank
    Destroyers". So the US went in to WW II with some armored vehicles
    vulnerable to enemy armored vehicles and some vulnerable to enemy
    infantry (the main US Tank Destroyer had an open topped turret) without necessarily having them operate together supporting each other.

    --
    I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
    dirty old man.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dimensional Traveler@21:1/5 to WolfFan on Thu Dec 21 12:43:39 2023
    On 12/21/2023 11:00 AM, WolfFan wrote:
    On Dec 21, 2023, Dimensional Traveler wrote
    (in article <um21c9$166h4$1@dont-email.me>):

    On 12/21/2023 9:04 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
    On 20 Dec 2023 17:20:47 GMT, ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
    <tednolan>) wrote:

    In article<vf66oi5k66spgsnl0uod3sofh5iarr1116@4ax.com>,
    Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
    On 19 Dec 2023 22:42:48 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote: >>>>>
    WolfFan <akwolffan@zoho.com> wrote:

    How is a tank defined?

    Note that the definition provided is one of exception. That's not bad, >>>>> but it is interesting
    that being a tank is the default and that non-tank vehicles are
    excepted out. Also you missed
    half-tracks and whatever the hell a gamma goat is.

    I would think that tank must:

    1. have significant [1] armor plating
    2. use tracks to move about on [2]
    3. if it has one or more cannons, at least one must be in a turret
    capable of using it to fire at any target in a 360 degree area around >>>>> the tank [3]

    [1] Sufficient, at least in intent, to protect against all threats
    likely to be encountered /at the time the specifications were drawn
    up/. By the time the tank enters production, of course, the armor may >>>>> be ... inadequate ... due to more powerful threats having appeared.
    Note that nuclear explosions are not usually considered "likely to be >>>>> encountered".

    [2] Some, if not all, track systems actually have wheels, they just
    don't contact the ground.

    [3] A cannon is not required because some early tanks, clearly and
    undeniably called "tanks" at the time, did not have them but had lots >>>>> of machine guns, often without a turret. These were "infantry tanks" >>>>> and intended to support the infantry by acting as a moving machine-gun >>>>> position.

    As I recall, these were called "female tanks", which is somewhat appropos >>>> to the discussion I guess.

    I don't doubt it.

    Which is good, because Wikipedia (per Bing) apparently has the
    articles to prove it!

    There are also mentions of "male tanks" and "hermaphrodite tanks".

    But by WW II (per Bing), "infantry tanks" had developed, so-called
    because they were intended to support the infantry.

    At the start of WW II US Army doctrine was that the role of "Tanks" was
    infantry support. Combating enemy tanks was the role of "Tank
    Destroyers". So the US went in to WW II with some armored vehicles
    vulnerable to enemy armored vehicles and some vulnerable to enemy
    infantry (the main US Tank Destroyer had an open topped turret) without
    necessarily having them operate together supporting each other.

    I never have understood why American tank destroyers didn’t have roofs on their turrets.

    Because enemy tanks don't throw grenades and armored roofs cost more money.

    --
    I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
    dirty old man.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From WolfFan@21:1/5 to Dimensional Traveler on Fri Dec 22 09:47:18 2023
    On Dec 21, 2023, Dimensional Traveler wrote
    (in article <um281p$1785i$1@dont-email.me>):

    On 12/21/2023 11:00 AM, WolfFan wrote:
    On Dec 21, 2023, Dimensional Traveler wrote
    (in article <um21c9$166h4$1@dont-email.me>):

    On 12/21/2023 9:04 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
    On 20 Dec 2023 17:20:47 GMT, ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
    <tednolan>) wrote:

    In article<vf66oi5k66spgsnl0uod3sofh5iarr1116@4ax.com>,
    Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
    On 19 Dec 2023 22:42:48 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

    WolfFan <akwolffan@zoho.com> wrote:

    How is a tank defined?

    Note that the definition provided is one of exception. That's not bad,
    but it is interesting
    that being a tank is the default and that non-tank vehicles are
    excepted out. Also you missed
    half-tracks and whatever the hell a gamma goat is.

    I would think that tank must:

    1. have significant [1] armor plating
    2. use tracks to move about on [2]
    3. if it has one or more cannons, at least one must be in a turret capable of using it to fire at any target in a 360 degree area around
    the tank [3]

    [1] Sufficient, at least in intent, to protect against all threats likely to be encountered /at the time the specifications were drawn up/. By the time the tank enters production, of course, the armor may
    be ... inadequate ... due to more powerful threats having appeared. Note that nuclear explosions are not usually considered "likely to be
    encountered".

    [2] Some, if not all, track systems actually have wheels, they just don't contact the ground.

    [3] A cannon is not required because some early tanks, clearly and undeniably called "tanks" at the time, did not have them but had lots
    of machine guns, often without a turret. These were "infantry tanks"
    and intended to support the infantry by acting as a moving machine-gun
    position.

    As I recall, these were called "female tanks", which is somewhat appropos
    to the discussion I guess.

    I don't doubt it.

    Which is good, because Wikipedia (per Bing) apparently has the
    articles to prove it!

    There are also mentions of "male tanks" and "hermaphrodite tanks".

    But by WW II (per Bing), "infantry tanks" had developed, so-called because they were intended to support the infantry.

    At the start of WW II US Army doctrine was that the role of "Tanks" was infantry support. Combating enemy tanks was the role of "Tank Destroyers". So the US went in to WW II with some armored vehicles vulnerable to enemy armored vehicles and some vulnerable to enemy infantry (the main US Tank Destroyer had an open topped turret) without necessarily having them operate together supporting each other.

    I never have understood why American tank destroyers didn’t have roofs on their turrets.
    Because enemy tanks don't throw grenades

    Panzergrenidiers do
    and armored roofs cost more money.

    not as much as getting a replacement tank destroyer and crew. And the roof wouldn’t have to be heavily armored. Bullet-resistant, not even
    bullet-proof, would do fine. Yeah, it’d be vulnerable to air attack, but
    the Luftwaffe’s close support units were mostly on Ostfront and tended to
    not last long against Anglo-American air cover. And ususally attacked with something heavier than machine guns, anyway. And something simple, like
    keeping the rain out, would greatly assist the crews.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dimensional Traveler@21:1/5 to WolfFan on Fri Dec 22 08:23:45 2023
    On 12/22/2023 6:47 AM, WolfFan wrote:
    On Dec 21, 2023, Dimensional Traveler wrote
    (in article <um281p$1785i$1@dont-email.me>):

    On 12/21/2023 11:00 AM, WolfFan wrote:
    On Dec 21, 2023, Dimensional Traveler wrote
    (in article <um21c9$166h4$1@dont-email.me>):

    On 12/21/2023 9:04 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
    On 20 Dec 2023 17:20:47 GMT, ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
    <tednolan>) wrote:

    In article<vf66oi5k66spgsnl0uod3sofh5iarr1116@4ax.com>,
    Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
    On 19 Dec 2023 22:42:48 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote: >>>>>>>
    WolfFan <akwolffan@zoho.com> wrote:

    How is a tank defined?

    Note that the definition provided is one of exception. That's not bad, >>>>>>> but it is interesting
    that being a tank is the default and that non-tank vehicles are >>>>>>> excepted out. Also you missed
    half-tracks and whatever the hell a gamma goat is.

    I would think that tank must:

    1. have significant [1] armor plating
    2. use tracks to move about on [2]
    3. if it has one or more cannons, at least one must be in a turret >>>>>>> capable of using it to fire at any target in a 360 degree area around >>>>>>> the tank [3]

    [1] Sufficient, at least in intent, to protect against all threats >>>>>>> likely to be encountered /at the time the specifications were drawn >>>>>>> up/. By the time the tank enters production, of course, the armor may >>>>>>> be ... inadequate ... due to more powerful threats having appeared. >>>>>>> Note that nuclear explosions are not usually considered "likely to be >>>>>>> encountered".

    [2] Some, if not all, track systems actually have wheels, they just >>>>>>> don't contact the ground.

    [3] A cannon is not required because some early tanks, clearly and >>>>>>> undeniably called "tanks" at the time, did not have them but had lots >>>>>>> of machine guns, often without a turret. These were "infantry tanks" >>>>>>> and intended to support the infantry by acting as a moving machine-gun >>>>>>> position.

    As I recall, these were called "female tanks", which is somewhat appropos
    to the discussion I guess.

    I don't doubt it.

    Which is good, because Wikipedia (per Bing) apparently has the
    articles to prove it!

    There are also mentions of "male tanks" and "hermaphrodite tanks".

    But by WW II (per Bing), "infantry tanks" had developed, so-called
    because they were intended to support the infantry.

    At the start of WW II US Army doctrine was that the role of "Tanks" was >>>> infantry support. Combating enemy tanks was the role of "Tank
    Destroyers". So the US went in to WW II with some armored vehicles
    vulnerable to enemy armored vehicles and some vulnerable to enemy
    infantry (the main US Tank Destroyer had an open topped turret) without >>>> necessarily having them operate together supporting each other.

    I never have understood why American tank destroyers didn’t have roofs on >>> their turrets.
    Because enemy tanks don't throw grenades

    Panzergrenidiers do

    Which the tanks were supposed to take care of. Even when they weren't
    assigned to work with the TDs.

    and armored roofs cost more money.

    not as much as getting a replacement tank destroyer and crew. And the roof wouldn’t have to be heavily armored. Bullet-resistant, not even bullet-proof, would do fine. Yeah, it’d be vulnerable to air attack, but the Luftwaffe’s close support units were mostly on Ostfront and tended to not last long against Anglo-American air cover. And ususally attacked with something heavier than machine guns, anyway. And something simple, like keeping the rain out, would greatly assist the crews.

    Keep in mind the development lead time for new heavy equipment. As for
    rain the people in charge probably figured battles would be called on
    account of rain!

    --
    I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
    dirty old man.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)