8,347
edits
Glass Cannon/Real Life: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
(Rescuing 1 sources and tagging 0 as dead. #IABot (v2.0beta9)) |
No edit summary |
||
Line 9:
**** They could've at least given them a friggin' 5-dollar tarp or something to keep the rain off of them...
**** What happens if they get an airburst, dropping shrapnel on them.
** One example of the light vehicles mentioned in the first paragraph: [https://web.archive.org/web/20130510044017
** A slightly related example would be the Soviet IS-2 heavy tank from WWII. Its 122mm gun took ages to reload, but could penetrate a Panther tank - completely. One Panther was observed being hit by an IS-2 shell, with the shell ''coming out the rear of the tank'', going straight through several inches of sloped armour, and several more inches of ablative armour e.g. the crew. However, Panthers themselves, with much lighter (but still, for the era, very powerful) 75mm gun, could also penetrate IS-2 armour right back.▼
*** Another Soviet (and tank destroyer) example from [[WW 2]] is the Su-100, whose gun would later be mounted on the Cold War-era T-54/55 series. Soviet soldiers called it the "[[Precision F-Strike|fucking]] end to anything" because it could blow through any German tank's front armor (except the [[Mighty Glacier|King Tiger]]) at maximum-range.▼
▲** One example of the light vehicles mentioned in the first paragraph: [https://web.archive.org/web/20130510044017/http://www.sinodefence.com/army/artillery/type75at_105mm.asp This]. It's basically a Jeep-like vehicle with a recoilless rifle (think "bazooka") mounted on top. Or how about [[wikipedia:Vespa 150 TAP|this]]: a recoilless rifle mounted on, of all things, a Vespa scooter, designed for airborne operations.
*** And the more modern versions which have Jeep/Humvee/UAZ mounted anti-tank missiles like the TOW.
▲
▲** A slightly related example would be the Soviet IS-2 heavy tank from WWII. Its 122mm gun took ages to reload, but could penetrate a Panther tank - completely. One Panther was observed being hit by an IS-2 shell, with the shell ''coming out the rear of the tank'', going straight through several inches of sloped armour, and several more inches of ablative armour e.g. the crew. However, Panthers themselves, with much lighter (but still, for the era, very powerful) 75mm gun, could also penetrate IS-2 armour right back. And then there were ISU-152 - heavy self propelled gun on variant IS chassis. Chassis was produced faster than guns, which led to the idea to slap the same 122-mm cannon on it without a proper turret and call the result ISU-122… which ended up more popular as a tank destroyer, since it was more accurate than fun-sized cannon-howitzers, and usually powerful enough.
* The Swedish [[Thirty Years' War]] era [[wikipedia:Leather cannon|Leather Cannon]], which could well be the [[Trope Namer]]. It was basically a copper barrel wrapped on stout leather, like cow hide. The idea was to make the cannon light enough to be mobile and easily carried, which it was. It weighed 40 kg (90 lb) and could easily be carried by two men. Unfortunately it also was prone on over-heating- leather is a good heat insulator - and tended to burst if three or more shots were shot in succession without letting the barrel to cool. Purely as a weapon it was a failure, but as a concept it revolutionized the role of the field artillery. The Swedes developed then a heavier but more reliable bronze Regiment Gun, which could be considered as [[Lightning Bruiser]], as it was towed by one horse or three men, was durable enough to be towed in gallop, and could be easily moved to new emplacement.
* Suicide bombers also tend to fall into this. They don't usually pack armor or a gun, but when they explode, you're in trouble.
* [[wikipedia:Jackie Fisher, 1st Baron Fisher|Admiral Sir John Fisher]] is famous for saying "speed is armour," and was a proponent of [[wikipedia:Battlecruiser|battlecruisers]], ships with large (battleship-size) [[BFG|guns]] that traded armor for speed.
** Battle of Jutland somewhat enthusiasm in this area. Curiously, while it ended in bureaucratic [[Blame Game]]s, now it looks like the battlecruisers took beating from each other and battleships (which they should avoid in the intended use), but what caused British losses were ''not'' weak defences, but desire to squeeze the advantages combined with poor training (safety procedures were ignored to maximize rate of fire) and logistical problems (excessively sensitive powder used without brass casings). Thus hits that normally would not be crippling led to fires and magazine explosions. Germans didn't have these problems (being more paranoid about ammunition after an earlier disaster of exactly this sort), so for them battlecruisers worked adequately even in a bad situation, and most likely prevented it from getting a lot worse. See e.g. [//www.dreadnoughtproject.org/tfs/index.php/Battlecruiser this summary].
* Aircraft carriers exist to operate aircraft. Anything not related to operating aircraft, even to some extent being armed simply to defend themselves without their planes, is usually considered a waste.
* Light tanks by definition are supposed to be very mobile, protected from small arms and constitute a serious danger. E.g. Soviet BT Tanks: on most BT-5s, 45-mm longbarrel cannon, armour 10–13 mm—price of max speed 52 km/h on tracks and 72 on wheels
** Some light tanks just go over the top, however. Look at [http://epizodsspace.airbase.ru/bibl/shirokorad/ot-min/244.jpg this] experimental [[Military Mashup Machine|monstrosity]] (1936-1936). It's a launcher for two fortification-busting 245-mm missiles slapped on BT-5. Max range is 1500 m. Failed [[Incredibly Lame Pun|to hit]] production run as unfit for real assault due to its crappy accuracy, slow reload and—surprise—fragility from top to bottom. Normally light tanks have nothing to do within visual range from enemy fortification even without extra explosives strapped on top.
* Nuclear missiles without silos are arguably the ultimate example of glass cannons in real life, especially in the context of a nuclear war. Ballistic missile submarines have torpedoes, but they would still be in deep trouble if found. Mobile ground based units are even worse, with [[wikipedia:File:SS-25 Sickle in Siberia.jpg|no defenses at all]] against the inevitable enemy counterattacks. Of course, you're supposed to just leave before the counterattack anyway.
* The torpedo boat was a small but maneuverable ship that had powerful armaments that could be used to sink the much bigger battleships of the era, and relied on its speed, agility, and ability to field a lot of them to avoid not getting destroyed.
* Conventional submarines (at least up to and including [[WW 2]] vintage) also qualify—great for crippling or killing enemy surface vessels from ambush, but they have to get fairly close to do it and again their only real defense against anything that can shoot ''back'' is not to get hit in the first place.
* [
**
** They are both predated by Bomb Ketches, which where specialised to the point where they were impractical for anything other than attacking coastal targets. A floating heavy mortar and little else.
* Anything the Finnish Navy can throw in. Their ships are crammed with oversize guns and missiles, and outfitted with minelaying equipment, but have no armour whatsoever - they rather employ hiding in the archipelago as their defensive strategy.
* Humans in hunting situations. If the guns fail to bring down that bear before it closes into close quarters, prepare for a trip to the hospital. Or to funeral home.
| |||