Author Topic: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III  (Read 238054 times)

Euphonium

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1973
  • Look Ma, no Faction!
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #30 on: 04 January 2017, 14:50:59 »
Since we're doing Mk.III's here's the Centurion Mk.III
>>>>[You're only jealous because the voices don't talk to you]<<<<

Grognard

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1407
  • BTU.org & LotB.com Member
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #31 on: 09 January 2017, 00:26:07 »
British Lend-Lease to the USSR
Churchill III


and



and

« Last Edit: 09 January 2017, 00:28:05 by Grognard »

GROGNARD:  An old, grumpy soldier, a long term campaigner (Fr); Someone who enjoys playing tactics and strategy based board wargames;  a game fan who will buy every game released in a certain genre of computer game (RTS, or computer role-playing game, etc.)

truetanker

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9901
  • Clan Hells Horses 666th Mech. Assualt Cluster
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #32 on: 15 January 2017, 22:35:55 »
I feel right at home.

TT
Khan, Clan Iron Dolphin
Azeroth Pocketverse
That is, if true tanker doesn't beat me to it. He makes truly evil units.Col.Hengist on 31 May 2013
TT, we know you are the master of nasty  O0 ~ Fletch on 22 June 2013
If I'm attacking you, conventional wisom says to bring 3x your force.  I want extra insurance, so I'll bring 4 for every 1 of what you have :D ~ Tai Dai Cultist on 21 April 2016
Me: Would you rather fight my Epithymía Thanátou from the Whispers of Blake?
Nav_Alpha: That THING... that is horrid
~ Nav_Alpha on 10 October 2016

Fat Guy

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4983
  • I make beer disappear. What's your superpower?
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #33 on: 17 January 2017, 08:40:24 »
Japan has unveiled a prototype 8x8 to replace the Komatsu Type 96 APC.

I have spoken.


DoctorMonkey

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2583
  • user briefly known as Khan of Clan Sex Panther
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #34 on: 17 January 2017, 08:43:30 »

[sarcasm]

ooo


a box with a V hull, how innovative


[/sarcasm]


I understand that culturally and possibly legally they can't export weapons and military equipment but why not just buy plans from someone else and then manufacture domestically? Is this really so different from Stryker/Boxer/VAB/etc?


I'm guessing the main roles it is seen as being appropriate for are home island defence and peace keeping?
Avatar stollen from spacebattles.com motivational posters thread

ChanMan: "Capellan Ingenuity: The ability to lose battles to Davion forces in new and implausible ways"

ANS Kamas P81

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13208
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #35 on: 17 January 2017, 08:47:52 »
Looks pretty darn tall compared to the Stryker, based on the wheel proportion to the overall height.   And decently amphibious with that nose; that might explain the large body size.  Wonder how much the interior looks like an Aliens APC, with the kinds of electronics the Japanese have access to and the apparent roominess of the thing.

(Or else it's really just rolling much smaller wheels, and isn't all that big, but that boarding ladder seems to suggest otherwise)
Der Hölle Rache kocht in meinem Herzen,
Tod und Verzweiflung flammet um mich her!
Fühlt nicht durch dich Jadefalke Todesschmerzen,
So bist du meine Tochter nimmermehr!

marauder648

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8157
    • Project Zhukov Fan AU TRO's and PDFs
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #36 on: 17 January 2017, 09:02:54 »


The Char 1bis

The steampunkiest of tanks
Ghost Bears: Cute and cuddly. Until you remember its a BLOODY BEAR!

Project Zhukov Fan AU TRO's and PDFs - https://thezhukovau.wordpress.com/

Matti

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5085
  • In Rory we trust
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #37 on: 17 January 2017, 10:05:54 »
I understand that culturally and possibly legally they can't export weapons and military equipment
They can't? They haven't bought & imported F-4 and F-15?
You know what they say, don't you? About how us MechWarriors are the modern knights errant, how warfare has become civilized now that we have to abide by conventions and rules of war. Don't believe it.

DoctorMonkey

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2583
  • user briefly known as Khan of Clan Sex Panther
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #38 on: 17 January 2017, 10:19:08 »
They can't? They haven't bought & imported F-4 and F-15?


They import but don't export
Avatar stollen from spacebattles.com motivational posters thread

ChanMan: "Capellan Ingenuity: The ability to lose battles to Davion forces in new and implausible ways"

Sharpnel

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13414
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #39 on: 17 January 2017, 11:33:13 »
The Char-1 bis' stable mate,

Consigliere Trygg Bender, CRD-3BL Crusader, The Blazer Mafia
Takehiro 'Taco' Uchimiya, SHD-2H Shadow Hawk 'Taco', Crimson Oasis Trading Company

"Of what use is a dream, if not a blueprint for courageous action" -Adam West
As I get older, I realize that I'm not as good as I once was.
"Life is too short to be living someone else's dream" - Hugh Hefner

MoneyLovinOgre4Hire

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 25627
  • It's just my goth phase
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #40 on: 17 January 2017, 12:36:04 »
Not counting the Pershing since it was reclassified as a medium, has the US ever deployed heavy tanks in actual combat?
Warning: this post may contain sarcasm.

"I think I've just had another near-Rincewind experience," Death, The Color of Magic

"When in doubt, C4." Jamie Hyneman

Fat Guy

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4983
  • I make beer disappear. What's your superpower?
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #41 on: 17 January 2017, 13:14:40 »
Wonder how much the interior looks like an Aliens APC, with the kinds of electronics the Japanese have access to and the apparent roominess of the thing.

I have spoken.


glitterboy2098

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11991
    • The Temple Grounds - My Roleplaying and History website
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #42 on: 17 January 2017, 13:31:46 »
honestly the Aliens APC is a marvel of inefficiency compared to what is possible today. why have all those extra screens for the helmet cam and biosigns when you can put multiple windows on one big screen, and have a computer do sensor fusion between the cameras, positioning systems, biosigns, and ammo counters to track those soldiers across a continually updating map and overlay soldier status over each person?

sure we haven't seen much of this deployed IRL yet, but it is physical possible and available for civilian use. it'll just take a decade for bureaucratic inertia to be overcome regarding the upgrade to such systems.

Not counting the Pershing since it was reclassified as a medium, has the US ever deployed heavy tanks in actual combat?
technically no, although many Main battle Tanks  today have weights on the lower end of the old heavy tank scales, armor of a heavy, firepower of a heavy, while retaining the higher mobility of the medium or light tank platforms.

so really the M1 Abrams family is as close as we get at 60+ tons.

i've occasionally wondered how big you could make an MBT before having to invent some sort of new classification.
« Last Edit: 17 January 2017, 13:42:59 by glitterboy2098 »

ANS Kamas P81

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13208
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #43 on: 17 January 2017, 14:17:02 »
Found a note on the Japanese APC, it's apparently only 9 feet tall.  So I guess, "small wheels" for its size. 

honestly the Aliens APC is a marvel of inefficiency compared to what is possible today. why have all those extra screens for the helmet cam and biosigns when you can put multiple windows on one big screen, and have a computer do sensor fusion between the cameras, positioning systems, biosigns, and ammo counters to track those soldiers across a continually updating map and overlay soldier status over each person?
It was the 80s and a movie; they could easily have done such overlays with the video tech of the day but "Big Wall Of Monitors" looks cooler.  I was actually joking and hope they don't do such things - the kind of information overload that would get the Monitor Guy is insane, and micromanaging that much is disastrous to your troops.  I could totally see networked cameras for recon troops, where you're actively watching a target and sending info back about it, but live helmet/bodycams mid-firefight are going to be useless.  (See also every bodycam gunfight ever)
Der Hölle Rache kocht in meinem Herzen,
Tod und Verzweiflung flammet um mich her!
Fühlt nicht durch dich Jadefalke Todesschmerzen,
So bist du meine Tochter nimmermehr!

Feenix74

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 3026
  • Lam's Phoenix Hawks
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #44 on: 17 January 2017, 15:12:39 »
[sarcasm]

ooo


a box with a V hull, how innovative


[/sarcasm]

From the position of the radiator and exhaust grill it appears that the driver sits forward of the engine compartment with the commander/gunner sitting next to the engine compartment. If my memory serves me correctly, many of the contemporary box with a v hull APC designs have the engine compartment at the front with the crew sitting behind (engine acts as additional sacrificial armour). So they have innovated with the concept of the sacrificial driver to protect the engine compartment . . .
Incoming fire has the right of way.

The only thing more accurate than incoming enemy fire is incoming friendly fire.

Always remember that your weapon was built by the lowest bidder.


                                   - excepts from Murphy's Laws of Combat

Sabelkatten

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6952
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #45 on: 18 January 2017, 00:48:08 »
I suspect it has more to do with weight distribution than wanting to get rid of drivers... ;)

Kidd

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3535
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #46 on: 18 January 2017, 01:08:42 »
Interior of the troop bay looks like every other 8x8 out there. Would be interesting to see the driver's and commander's positions.

I suspect it has more to do with weight distribution than wanting to get rid of drivers... ;)
"Oh yeah, thats what they SAY!" -Drivers.  ;D

You want gadgets galore, try Singapore's Terrex 3


glitterboy2098

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11991
    • The Temple Grounds - My Roleplaying and History website
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #47 on: 18 January 2017, 10:58:52 »
i suspect that many of the new APC/IFV's have crew areas with tons of electronics. some more integrated than others.

the Aliens APC tried to combined headquarters vehicle with infantry fire support and infantry transport. but in real life the push is to include more of the command and control aspects onto the infantry themselves (via smartphone/tablet type systems, or more ambitiously with helmet displays and the like) rather than tie them to a specific vehicle. so i doubt that we'll get a command station built into an APC's passenger area anytime soon. why, when the infantry can use their own systems just as well back there while sitting on simple benches.

Kidd

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3535
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #48 on: 18 January 2017, 11:44:15 »
i suspect that many of the new APC/IFV's have crew areas with tons of electronics. some more integrated than others.

the Aliens APC tried to combined headquarters vehicle with infantry fire support and infantry transport. but in real life the push is to include more of the command and control aspects onto the infantry themselves (via smartphone/tablet type systems, or more ambitiously with helmet displays and the like) rather than tie them to a specific vehicle. so i doubt that we'll get a command station built into an APC's passenger area anytime soon. why, when the infantry can use their own systems just as well back there while sitting on simple benches.
We haven't got there yet. That panel in the infantry bay is all the C3 the squad commander is getting for now. In the future its well in the cards that we'll have helmet/weapon mounted cams tying the squad to the IFV and maybe even drones. If so, then its quite possible the APC will go back to 3-man crew - driver, gunner, and a squad commander who'll stay on board and co-ordinate the groundpounders and maybe drones from the tank. A setup sort of like Aliens indeed.

ANS Kamas P81

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13208
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #49 on: 18 January 2017, 13:32:50 »
And I can't help but think how well that idea was demonstrated in the film.  Pulling your local small-unit leaders out of the immediate situation is no recipe for success, right Gorman?
Der Hölle Rache kocht in meinem Herzen,
Tod und Verzweiflung flammet um mich her!
Fühlt nicht durch dich Jadefalke Todesschmerzen,
So bist du meine Tochter nimmermehr!

kato

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2417
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #50 on: 19 January 2017, 13:55:49 »
so i doubt that we'll get a command station built into an APC's passenger area anytime soon.
Puma is actually doing it somewhat as a IFV - differently of course. The vehicle includes situational awareness systems (SAS) and software that assist in pinpointing enemy positions, movement and gunfire to plan an optimal infantry egress and the required suppressing or diverting fire (or fire orders) from the vehicle, and that can technically also include information from offboard sources such as UAVs. As in 360-degree sensor systems and software that analyzes generated data to highlight e.g. enemy movement within line of sight.

The main console for this is also located such that four out of six of the soldiers in the back can view it - in addition to the gunner and the squad leader who can both access it. There were originally plans for a second monitor in the back, hardware-wise the system supports piping video feeds on a bus to any position throughout the vehicle.
The squad leader usually stays on the vehicle to monitor and support, but still has the option of shipping out with the others. If he ships out the gunner takes command of the vehicle, if he doesn't the infantry runs under his deputy as troop leader. This was already done the same way with Marder IFVs the past 30 years.

For squad leader (right) and gunner (left) it looks like this (warning: huge picture); the central monitor is for the SAS system and can be viewed by the infantry behind them.



The SAS system is being continually upgraded, and it's interestingly not that easy to find recent (less than 10yo prototype) pictures of the interior of a Puma. Above pictures are from KMW's SIAM combat simulator system using Pumas. Most recent upgrade to the SAS system - ordered a few months ago - was to include 360-degree thermal imaging.
One possible development apparently in the works at KMW is to add a full 3D environment in which the vehicle and detected own and enemy vehicles (... and other positions) are displayed along with marking out fields of fire in this 3D environment for both vehicle and other weapon systems. This would explicitly include offboard data sources to visualize positions that the vehicle has no line of sight to.
« Last Edit: 19 January 2017, 14:11:05 by kato »

glitterboy2098

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11991
    • The Temple Grounds - My Roleplaying and History website
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #51 on: 20 January 2017, 12:00:42 »
And I can't help but think how well that idea was demonstrated in the film.  Pulling your local small-unit leaders out of the immediate situation is no recipe for success, right Gorman?

well Gorman would have been just as screwed had he been with the soldiers in the facility.

Gorman's problem wasn't the C3 set up, it was the fact he was a "butterbar" with basically zero experience in the field (only one combat drop prior to LV426) and who hadn't worked with that platoon before. so he basically was out of his depth dealing with the 'xenomorphs' Ripley had found. for example, he should have withdrawn his unit to rearm with non-explosive ammo or weapons with less collateral damage potential, rather than basically disarm his men mid mission. or at the least, trusted his unit to have fire discipline and let them retain their ammo rather than have it collected in to one backpack. or just given a retreat order and allowed Sgt. Apone to decide how to provide cover. etc.

the fact they spent their transit in hypersleep, and didn't have time to train and familiarize as a unit before dropping certainly didn't help.
« Last Edit: 20 January 2017, 12:02:34 by glitterboy2098 »

Feenix74

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 3026
  • Lam's Phoenix Hawks
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #52 on: 20 January 2017, 18:26:31 »
But it was just a "bug hunt" - deploy, sweep the area, call in the all clear, re-deploy. Simple . . . perfect 2nd mission for a "butterbar" . . .

"Good judgement comes from experience, experience comes from bad judgement."
Incoming fire has the right of way.

The only thing more accurate than incoming enemy fire is incoming friendly fire.

Always remember that your weapon was built by the lowest bidder.


                                   - excepts from Murphy's Laws of Combat

ColBosch

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8647
  • Legends Never Die
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #53 on: 20 January 2017, 18:47:02 »
While the FBCB2 is next to the vehicle commander's position in the Stryker, the VC is not the commander of the embarked squad. When I was learning the machine in ~2005, I was taught to focus on my primary weapon's display, since once the squad disembarked I'd be responsible to providing covering fire.
BattleTech is a huge house, it's not any one fan's or "type" of fans.  If you need to relieve yourself, use the bathroom not another BattleTech fan. - nckestrel
1st and 2nd Succession Wars are not happy times. - klarg1
Check my Ogre Flickr page! https://flic.kr/s/aHsmcLnb7v and https://flic.kr/s/aHsksV83ZP

kato

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2417
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #54 on: 21 January 2017, 01:26:05 »
While the FBCB2 is next to the vehicle commander's position in the Stryker, the VC is not the commander of the embarked squad.
On Puma they're explicitly separating functions. There's a squad commander responsible for both vehicle and troops, a "troop-leader-(vehicle)-slash-gunner" and a "troop-leader-(infantry)".

When I was learning the machine in ~2005, I was taught to focus on my primary weapon's display, since once the squad disembarked I'd be responsible to providing covering fire.
On the Puma the "troop-leader-(vehicle)-slash-gunner" will still need that central console for some weapon functions, such as selecting ammunition type for the 30mm, switching to the missile launcher or selecting operation modes for the active protection system. Main display is the white screen above the joysticks, yellow display on the left is for selecting modes for optronics and turret.

In my opinion it's rather unlikely the weapon system as a whole (Puma) can be used to its full extent if the squad leader disembarks with the troops, mostly because you lose hunter-killer capability and the ability to effectively engage multiple targets e.g. using the secondary weapon station (indirect-firing 18-round 40mm grenade launcher independent from turret).

marauder648

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8157
    • Project Zhukov Fan AU TRO's and PDFs
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #55 on: 21 January 2017, 04:49:26 »
One of my favorite tanks of the interwar period the experimental Vickers Independent.



Only one prototype was built and only one remains, an over complicated and unique machine it MAY have been the inspiration for the Soviet T-28 and the mammoth T-35



Which despite looking impressive was crippled by breakdowns and had thin armour to save weight.
Ghost Bears: Cute and cuddly. Until you remember its a BLOODY BEAR!

Project Zhukov Fan AU TRO's and PDFs - https://thezhukovau.wordpress.com/

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 37046
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #56 on: 21 January 2017, 07:11:51 »
Is the second picture a refit of the first?  I'm not seeing any similarities beyond having multiple turrets...

Sharpnel

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13414
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #57 on: 21 January 2017, 08:01:14 »
It could be one of the Soviet tanks he mentioned. My guess would be the larger T-35 which I believe carried two 45(or 47mm) guns.
Consigliere Trygg Bender, CRD-3BL Crusader, The Blazer Mafia
Takehiro 'Taco' Uchimiya, SHD-2H Shadow Hawk 'Taco', Crimson Oasis Trading Company

"Of what use is a dream, if not a blueprint for courageous action" -Adam West
As I get older, I realize that I'm not as good as I once was.
"Life is too short to be living someone else's dream" - Hugh Hefner

HobbesHurlbut

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 3089
  • Live Free or Die Hard
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #58 on: 21 January 2017, 08:14:51 »
War Thunder has that vicker tank in game!
Clan Blood Spirit - So Bad Ass as to require Orbital Bombardments to wipe us out....it is the only way to be sure!

kato

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2417
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #59 on: 21 January 2017, 08:30:29 »
Second picture is a T-35. Probably around the Kharkov battle, most pictures in that series were taken there.

T-28, of which a whole lot more (around 500) were built:



The T-28 were mostly used in Finland in the Winter War and heavily benefitted from the fact that the factory they were built at was close by - there were around 200 mission kills of T-28 in Finland during those two years, 90% of which could be recovered, repaired and returned to the field.