>>64091045Chud McChildfuckers feelings don't care about empirical reality
Their entire being and worldview is a contravention of empiricism
>>64091154That would also be a problem with tanks
And for the time intervals that we are talking about during which force would be applied there's of course numerical difference but little practical difference between the forces imparted when being rigid with a XX ton tank chassis and being rigid through the structures in rock in xxxx tons
There are mechanisms that delay recoil impulse over a short timeframe and tank turrets would be rattling themselves out of the tank and cracking the ring if they weren't in place, so there is little difference if the turret is mounted in a tank that can *theoretically* be pushed back VS a mountainside that will only ever have slight compressions in the rock and structures
The primary make-or-break bit of the mechanical event already happens in the turret
>1.Yes, Tank barrels DO recoil. The M1-series Main battle tank has a Concentric Hydro-Spring Constant Recoil System. Basically, it uses a huge spring and Hydraulic fluid to absorb most of the recoil energy from the tank firing its main gun.https://archive.li/iopfc
It's a different tank of course but such recoil delay/time-dilation methods are present in most
For t-34 I'm afraid I'd have to reference a discussion on reddit lmao https://archive.li/V1xFy
SUMMARY: recoil will kill your system regardless of whether the turret is bolted into an infinitely rigid structure or in a tank - what makes or breaks the system is the recoil dampener
t.dangerously dillettante