Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III

[Matti]

The t-72 will never go away they just keep on trying to make it a better and better fighting vehicle but not a tank.

Same with T-54 & derivatives (T-55 and whatnot)

[truetanker]

The only thing missing from making it Battetech is a green triangle with gauntlet-ed arm and a dao on the side of the turret.

Just replace the flags with the above!

TT

[marauder648]

Meanwhile in Libya



A unique AA system constructed by Libya Dawn during the Libyan Civil War. The system seen under construction here strapped two double-barreled 35mm Oerlikon GDF naval guns taken from the British-built frigate “Dat Assawari” to a trailer truck bed.

[ANS Kamas P81]

A unique AA system constructed by Libya Dawn during the Libyan Civil War. The system seen under construction here strapped two double-barreled 35mm Oerlikon GDF naval guns taken from the British-built frigate “Dat Assawari” to a trailer truck bed.

I sense a 'Dat ***' joke in the making...

[Weirdo]

...Dat Assawari...

PLEASE tell me that's the real name...

[glitterboy2098]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_frigate_Dat_Assawari

[Weirdo]

That makes me happier than it really should.

[kato]

Dat Assawari carried a GDM-A turret in which the 35mm guns aren't mounted on opposite sides but directly side-by-side. The turrets on the truck are GDM-C turrets, which were carried by the Assad class corvettes. The difference, other than how the guns are mounted, is mostly that the GDM-C was gyrostabilized (the GDM-A wasn't) and it weighed almost twice as much. The Assads were scrapped in the 90s with their armament stored in a depot landside. That depot was raided by Libya Dawn.

They also got a 76mm and some empty turrets when raiding those stores:

[ANS Kamas P81]

They also got a 76mm and some empty turrets when raiding those stores:

Stick a few pipes in an empty turret and you get a free decoy.  Still useful!

[Kidd]

Stick a few pipes in an empty turret and you get a free decoy.  Still useful!

They might stick on hillbilly plate and mount actual weapons on it.

Anyone remember the Tom Cruise movie Oblivion, and the human turret made out of M2 Brownings poking out of a drone body? Would be delicious if they did that... life imitating art  :))

[The Mighty ACHOO]

Here is a fun one! The Kalishnikov BAS-01G Soratnik drone tank. 7 tons, 25mph top speed, 250 mile range, approx. 6 mile control range. Armed with a 7.62mm PKTM machine gun and up to eight Kornet-EM ATGMs. And they are working on a 20 ton tank drone!

[The Mighty ACHOO]

And here is another Russian tank drone, the Uran-9. Armed with a turret mounted 30mm 2A72 cannon, coaxial 7.62mm PKTM machinegun and 6 Shnel-M reactive flamethrowers! (The Shnel-M can be replaced by Igla SAMs, 9K33 Verba MPADs or Kornet-M ATGMs) Top speed in about 22mph highway, 15mph cross country or 6mp truely off-road.

[Weirdo]

Reactive flamethrowers? Is this some sort of Awesomest AMS Ever that hopes to trigger missiles and RPGs prior to impact by forcing them to fly through a literal wall of fire?

[glitterboy2098]

actually they are one shot inferno rockets
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPO-A_Shmel
"reactive flamethrowers" sounds like a bad translation issue.. their name is Реактивный Пехотный Огнемет (Reaktivnyy Pekhotnyy Ognemet), which translates literally as "Jet Infantry Flamethrower" but probably was meant to be more like "flamethrower rocket"

it has either an incendiary warhead (basically napalm) or a Thermobaric one (which while it gives a powerful explosion, is classified as an incendiary warhead type due to the way it works)

[PsihoKekec]

Activist also call thermobarics ''napalm gas'' in their attempts to get it banned.

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

Switching topics back to the M4 Sherman: I had a question and I wanted to see what the take here was.

Is it possible that some of the dislike of the Sherman had to do with it's name?  I mean, there are certain parts of the country where William T Sherman is *ahem* a touch unpopular even to this day.  Could that have influenced opinions on the tank, or am I just blowing smoke here?

[DoctorMonkey]

Switching topics back to the M4 Sherman: I had a question and I wanted to see what the take here was.

Is it possible that some of the dislike of the Sherman had to do with it's name?  I mean, there are certain parts of the country where William T Sherman is *ahem* a touch unpopular even to this day.  Could that have influenced opinions on the tank, or am I just blowing smoke here?

I don't know how much it was called the Sherman by American troops as the naming was a Commonwealth thing


Alternatively, how popular was the Stewart light tank among Southerners? (Let's not get started on the Louisiana units trying to get their hands on Tigers)

[marauder648]

I'd say the Sherman got its rep because it wasn't what people now days often compaired it to, the Tiger, the Panther.  When what it was roughly equal to and more than capable of engaging was the most common German tank, the Panzer IV.  The Sherman was a good tank, it was workhorse reliable, and fairly easy to maintain (superior to British vehicles like the Cromwell in this regard.) And with its 75 or 76mm gun it was versatile. 

But it wasn't a Panther, and it wasn't a Tiger or god forbid, a Tiger II.  Those machines were far superior weapons platforms, but they were also harder to produce, maintian and keep supplied (All three were gas guzzlers and were not fun to maintain).  And the Sherman COULD and did engage Panthers and Tigers with success and not the 5 Shermans to 1 tiger nonsense.

Yes some Tigers had amazing successes, Whittman for example in Normandy.  But you know what killed him? A Sherman. 

Was it an amazing tank?  Nah, was it a good tank, yes. 

Whilst the Sherman was also a victim of some poor decisions (the delay to adopting the 76mm gun for example), a change to a different machine would have imposed too many delays.  The US was mass producing Shermans and either doing a significant overhaul to the design or even halting it to produce something bigger would have affected that production rate as well as causing issues with training and supplying them as you'd have to make parts etc for the new vehicles.

Basically the Sherman was okay, it wasn't amazing, but it did its job well enough and when it did run into Tigers or Panthers, it still didn't do too badly outside of a few very specific instances.

[Moonsword]

Ladies and gentlemen, a few recent posts in here have gotten far too close to Rule 4 for our liking.  Please drop the discussion of real world political and cultural issues and get back to the discussion of tanks.

[marauder648]

Here we see a Mark VIII Liberty tank taking a young FT-17 to the local swimming baths.  I always liked the look of the WW1 Rhomboids even if they were terrible machines to serve on.

[Feenix74]

And here is another Russian tank drone, the Uran-9. Armed with a turret mounted 30mm 2A72 cannon, coaxial 7.62mm PKTM machinegun and 6 Shnel-M reactive flamethrowers! (The Shnel-M can be replaced by Igla SAMs, 9K33 Verba MPADs or Kornet-M ATGMs) Top speed in about 22mph highway, 15mph cross country or 6mp truely off-road.

Its like a mini Battletech tank.

[HobbesHurlbut]

Its like a mini Battletech tank.

You know we have rules now for drone vehicles?  ^-^

[I am Belch II]

Here we see a Mark VIII Liberty tank taking a young FT-17 to the local swimming baths.  I always liked the look of the WW1 Rhomboids even if they were terrible machines to serve on.

Like the photo

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

Here we see a Mark VIII Liberty tank taking a young FT-17 to the local swimming baths.  I always liked the look of the WW1 Rhomboids even if they were terrible machines to serve on.

It's like an opossum or a giant anteater with its baby on its back!

[glitterboy2098]

I'd say the Sherman got its rep because it wasn't what people now days often compaired it to, the Tiger, the Panther.  When what it was roughly equal to and more than capable of engaging was the most common German tank, the Panzer IV.  The Sherman was a good tank, it was workhorse reliable, and fairly easy to maintain (superior to British vehicles like the Cromwell in this regard.) And with its 75 or 76mm gun it was versatile. 

But it wasn't a Panther, and it wasn't a Tiger or god forbid, a Tiger II.  Those machines were far superior weapons platforms, but they were also harder to produce, maintian and keep supplied (All three were gas guzzlers and were not fun to maintain).  And the Sherman COULD and did engage Panthers and Tigers with success and not the 5 Shermans to 1 tiger nonsense.

Yes some Tigers had amazing successes, Whittman for example in Normandy.  But you know what killed him? A Sherman. 

Was it an amazing tank?  Nah, was it a good tank, yes. 

Whilst the Sherman was also a victim of some poor decisions (the delay to adopting the 76mm gun for example), a change to a different machine would have imposed too many delays.  The US was mass producing Shermans and either doing a significant overhaul to the design or even halting it to produce something bigger would have affected that production rate as well as causing issues with training and supplying them as you'd have to make parts etc for the new vehicles.

Basically the Sherman was okay, it wasn't amazing, but it did its job well enough and when it did run into Tigers or Panthers, it still didn't do too badly outside of a few very specific instances.

in short.. the Sherman was a superb Early war tank.

it just didn't get made and deployed until the mid to late war, where it was just a mediocre tank.

[DoctorMonkey]

in short.. the Sherman was a superb Early war tank.

it just didn't get made and deployed until the mid to late war, where it was just a mediocre tank.

to utilise stereotyping, the Germans aimed for perfection and lacked numbers, the Allies aimed for adequacy and achieved overwhelming numbers

[HobbesHurlbut]

Sherman was also a cavalry style tank, it had speed and sufficient firepower for maneuver combats like exploiting a breakthrough or classic Blitzkrieg strategy. They weren't wrong with that as the Tiger and Panther weren't too reliable and not terribly fast. The only problem was if they ran smack into either of them.

[DoctorMonkey]

Sherman was also a cavalry style tank, it had speed and sufficient firepower for maneuver combats like exploiting a breakthrough or classic Blitzkrieg strategy. They weren't wrong with that as the Tiger and Panther weren't too reliable and not terribly fast. The only problem was if they ran smack into either of them.

It did pretty well for a vehicle not intended to take on enemy armour - it had a gun optimised for HE to kill infantry, bunkers etc and the tank killing was supposed to be done by tank destroyers and anti-tank guns. Sadly the Germans failed to get the memo about that and kept putting tanks where they weren's supposed to.


On a different note, my ex-RAMC colleague related a story from the 2003 invasion of Iraq about a M1 Abrahms that was abandoned by an American spearhead force and then found by a follow up British Army infantry battlegroup having not been destroyed. The M1 had suffered a turbine failure / problem and the battlegroup included a small detachment of REME types who were there to fix helicopters and so knew how to fix a turbine. This resulted in the battlegroup acquiring a tank for a bit which proved useful as a means of drawing fire from a place of safety to allow the infantry to actually be effective (the British Army types could make the M1 work and drive it but had no idea how to use the weapons systems). Then some boring Americans asked for the tank back and it proved tricky to hide.


In a post-deployment debrief the battalion CO apparently fed back that having a tank was very useful for infantry units and perhaps we should consider having those?

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

It did pretty well for a vehicle not intended to take on enemy armour - it had a gun optimised for HE to kill infantry, bunkers etc and the tank killing was supposed to be done by tank destroyers and anti-tank guns. Sadly the Germans failed to get the memo about that and kept putting tanks where they weren's supposed to.

As I understand it, that's a misconception of the American Tank Destroyer doctrine.  The Sherman, Lee and other thanks were intended for offensive anti-tank duty in addition to supporting infantry.  American tank destroyers were intended for defensive duty: if enemy tanks attacked an American position, lightly armored M-10s and M-18s could be brought in to fight them off more quickly than M4s, but that same light armor and open turrets meant that they weren't suited for offensive operations against dug-in infantry.

[DoctorMonkey]

As I understand it, that's a misconception of the American Tank Destroyer doctrine.  The Sherman, Lee and other thanks were intended for offensive anti-tank duty in addition to supporting infantry.  American tank destroyers were intended for defensive duty: if enemy tanks attacked an American position, lightly armored M-10s and M-18s could be brought in to fight them off more quickly than M4s, but that same light armor and open turrets meant that they weren't suited for offensive operations against dug-in infantry.

I will admit to complete bias but suspect that the US Army made the mistake of over-complicating things by creating tank destroyer units while the Commonwealth forces gave the anti-tank guns to the infantry if small or artillery if larger as one would a mortar or other gun and thus they were protected from inappropriate use and fitted into the established doctrines