Tank turret bunker

>>33453525
interesting
but why?

Austria

>>33453665

Use your existing production lines to save on development costs and tooling.

Although that's less useful now that tank turrets are stuffed full of expensive things a bunker doesn't really need like stabilization and datalinks and shit.

>>33453679
can you give some more details?
>>33453684
the ammo and other equipment are stored in the bunker

>>33453684
Aren't bunkers themselves fairly obsolete considering all 1st and 2nd world nations have access to recon+info systems that can spot bunkers from long distances and munitions that can eliminate them from a safe distance

>>33453795

Not exactly, placement is key. Out in an open field a bunker won't do you much good and as you said swiftly get blown up by artillery, but integrated as part of a city and it can hold its own against MBTs.

Most western militaries don't use them as they run contrary to the doctrine of maneuver warfare, but they're hardly harmless and turn up in the ME alongside blockhouses, holding up squads who lack the tools to deal with them.

File: t-55 coastal.jpg (441KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

441KB, 1200x900px

Finland used T-55 turrets as coastal batteries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_56_TK

File: IMG_1113.jpg (35KB, 533x399px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 533x399px

What the point of building it fixed in one direction?

Isn't the whole point of a turret to engage targets in any direction?

I like the Fin rock look.
> is no turret, is rock.
>pay no attention to rock.

File: IMG_1111.jpg (45KB, 535x399px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 535x399px

The Bulgarians did it best.

Just bury the whole tank and surround it with concrete.

>>33453525
Didn't France build the maginot line and lined it up with turrets to prevent germans during WWII ??

>>33453966
Yes but they were normal bunker guns not convertet tank turrents
>>33453941
Fucking eastern europeans always find a easy solution for a complex problem

>>33453665
Because in the days before widespread thermal imagers and guided weapons, the only thing that could kill one is a tank which has a very hard time seeing it. In ambush positions along terrain-constrained advance corridors, one of these could destroy quite a lot of equipment before being disabled.
Add in the fact that concrete is cheap and the obsolete turret exiats and you've got a system with pretty good RoI.

>>33453936
>What the point of building it fixed in one direction?
It's built into the mountainside with sufficient angles to engage the expected avenue of approach. And by being buried like that it can be better protected.

>>33453892
Aaah, finland and their overextensively use of concrete on top of armoured "vehicles"

>>33454636
at least they set the old tanks to good use and dont destroyed them

File: USSR_IS-4_Turret_bunker.jpg (550KB, 785x403px) Image search: [Google]

550KB, 785x403px

On the Russian border with China.

A) you can only fortify a highly limited area with turrets. Meaning they can be bypassed.
B) There are literally dozens of weapon system in any modern army that is extremely well suited for taking such turrets
C) Lateral peace agreements require the revelation of such defensive measures, making them a non-secret
D) Thousands of soldiers would be needed to man this shit. Making them non-secrets, again.
E) Supply lines, on roads, are visible on satellite maps. Non-Secrets.
F) Exercises with live ammo required.
G) Large swaths of land would be kept deforested and closed off.
Oh, what's the point.

File: T-26_Ravijoki_SL_T1_027.jpg (119KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 800x600px

>>33454636

Finnish coastal artillery used only T-55 tanks turrets, not complete tanks. Under the turret is concrete bunker with room for crew and ammunition. Story is that when the Finns wanted to buy first batch of T-55 turrets without hideously expensive & less than spectacular gun stabilizer system, the Soviets first thought that they had gone mad, only once the first turrets were installed to coastal artillery batteries did they realize that the concept was pretty damn smart. It is worth noting that 100-mm D-10 tank gun used in T-54/T-55 series was actually originally based to old naval/coastal gun of that caliber.

But this was not the first time that Finnish Army used tanks or their turrets as bunkers - there were previous experiences from World War 2. During Winter War (11/1939 - 3/1940) outdated Renault FT17 tanks were dug-in and used as ad-hoc bunkers. During Continuation War (6/1941 - 9/1944) tank turrets originating from captured BT-2, BT-5 and BT-7 tanks were installed to Salpa-line, which was the last of and most heavily fortified of Finnish fortified defense lines. Tank turrets from BT-series tanks were installed in such manner that section of tank hull below the turret was cut off from rest of the hull - and then the hull section and turret on top were installed on top of bunker structure. Attached is photo of BT-5 turret and hull section installed on that manner to bunker that is Ravijoki-sector of Salpa-line.

>>33453892
Thats a funny looking rock..

>>33454636
the concrete is to make it look like a rock

>>33455930
it's happy to see you

>>33455930
smile and wait for the flash

>>33453665

It's just a way of recycling old tanks.

You pop the turret off of your crappy old tank and you put it on some concrete blocks. Boom - instant fortification.

>>33453936

It's so you force the enemy to come straight at your gun in order to attack it.

They can't attack you through a mountain, obviously.

>>33453941
Why not just dig a hole and park the tank in when needed?

I will never understand this waste of good equipment.

what if we made a tank so low to the ground and angular that it would deflect rounds off into the unknown and be able to lower itself with hydraulics into a static position

good idea huh

File: IMG_1134.jpg (789KB, 3264x1965px) Image search: [Google]

789KB, 3264x1965px

>>33456815
concept art

do not steal

>>33456790
The Russians did it too. Allegedly to make sure that the tank crew wouldn't run away.

File: 523515123.png (108KB, 819x600px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 819x600px

>>33456815
>>33456834

Like this?

Sweden used to do that around coastal areas and air fields.

>>33456898
The mudslimes will make good use of them when american empire comes to liberate the white remnant

>>33456834

THAT'S A GODDAMNED UBO

>unidentified bunkered object

>>33456790

Well, that's usually what you do but this putting them in a permanent position thing is only done to obsolete tanks that probably don't run anyway.

>>33453525
USSR used KV-1 turrets in the 50s and 60s

>>33456790
yeah seems silly. Give them a way to drive away, or if it's permaparked just chop a door into the rear of the chassis for easier crew access

>>33456912
Ralph Peters predicted many years ago we might have to send peacekeeping forces to Europe to prevent the Euros from wiping the mudslimes out.

At the time I thought the premise was batshit crazy. Now I'm actively rooting for it.

>>33463006
>to prevent the Euros from wiping the mudslimes out


But why would we want to prevent that?

File: bAhBnoZ.jpg (826KB, 3456x2304px) Image search: [Google]

826KB, 3456x2304px

Best Korea knows what's up