Author Topic: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III  (Read 238053 times)

Weirdo

  • Painter of Borth the Magic Puma
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 40756
  • We can do it. We have to.
    • Christina Dickinson Writes
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #990 on: 03 November 2017, 09:09:12 »
Now imagine a battlemech that's coated to the shins in that crap, and remember that most mechs have only the one crewmember, not four...:D

Sure, the nobles can probably dragoon some astechs or squires or whatever when they get back to base, but the regular guys? Or everyone when out on patrol? :)
My wife writes books
"Thanks to Megamek, I can finally play BattleTech the way it was meant to be played--pantsless!"   -Neko Bijin
"...finally, giant space panties don't seem so strange." - Whistler
"Damn you, Weirdo... Damn you for being right!" - Paul
"...I was this many years old when I found out that licking a touchscreen in excitement is a bad idea." - JadeHellbringer
"We are the tribal elders. Weirdo is the mushroom specialist." - Worktroll

ANS Kamas P81

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13208
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #991 on: 03 November 2017, 11:51:01 »
Flamers set to heat instead of damage, then just keep working the limb till it comes out.
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!

Matti

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5085
  • In Rory we trust
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #992 on: 03 November 2017, 14:35:54 »
So around the start of WWII there was the standards designations of cruiser tank, infantry tank, anti-tank "tank" (tank destroyer), assault gun. The Cruiser Tank was a modern version of the Cavalry, they would break through the enemy lines and attack the lines of communications. They were generally lightly armored but for the time fast, with some firepower but geared to taking on unarmored to lightly armored support units only. The infantry tank was generally heavily armored but slow (some with a top speed full out of 8mph) they had good firepower but was designed to support the infantry in the assault. The tank destroyer was just as you would guess from its name designed to destroy tanks, so it has a good anti-tank gun most were fast to very fast with light to very light armor (most were also open topped) intended to attack from cover and ambush. The assault gun is very much like the infantry tank, but with out the turret were generally more mobile. They also were mostly used with larger rounds and used HE rounds and could fire directly and indirectly. As the war progressed the cruiser tank became light/medium tanks, the Infantry tank became the medium/heavy tanks, and towards the end of the war you even saw some super-heavy tanks. At this point tanks started to become more multi-role but the weight class had more to do with what part of the speed/firepower/armor was on top, you still had tank destroyers and assault guns but they were being used less and less for the mission they were intended and more the same as the general purpose tanks.
I made facepalm while reading that part. Infantry & cruiser tanks are British classifications and were not used for tanks of other nations. At start of the war, significant differences between the two were speed and protection. Main armament was either machine gun (only) or 40 millimeter 2 Pounder for both of them (Matilda for reference). 6 Pounder entered to tank combat service in August 1942 on Churchill tank. I don't know did other nations re-label bought/leased/captured British tanks or did Brits themselves do that with tanks they got from elsewhere. What I have found out, USA & Germany used light-medium-heavy classifications for their respective tanks, where light tanks were fast and lightly armed.

I recall reading from somewhere that Soviet Union had wider variety of classifications depending on the weight & intended combat role. Light weight tanks of the Red Army were either slow and better protected (T-26) or fast and weakly protected (BT-5), the same as with Brits' light weight infantry and cruiser tanks. Some other weight classes could had have similar divisions. I don't remember details about reasoning behind of it, but at least lighter tanks with 37-45 mm ATG are cheaper to make than heavier tanks with bigger guns.
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.

CDAT

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 301
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #993 on: 03 November 2017, 20:05:14 »
I made facepalm while reading that part. Infantry & cruiser tanks are British classifications and were not used for tanks of other nations. At start of the war, significant differences between the two were speed and protection. Main armament was either machine gun (only) or 40 millimeter 2 Pounder for both of them (Matilda for reference). 6 Pounder entered to tank combat service in August 1942 on Churchill tank. I don't know did other nations re-label bought/leased/captured British tanks or did Brits themselves do that with tanks they got from elsewhere. What I have found out, USA & Germany used light-medium-heavy classifications for their respective tanks, where light tanks were fast and lightly armed.

I recall reading from somewhere that Soviet Union had wider variety of classifications depending on the weight & intended combat role. Light weight tanks of the Red Army were either slow and better protected (T-26) or fast and weakly protected (BT-5), the same as with Brits' light weight infantry and cruiser tanks. Some other weight classes could had have similar divisions. I don't remember details about reasoning behind of it, but at least lighter tanks with 37-45 mm ATG are cheaper to make than heavier tanks with bigger guns.

I think you missed the part at the start where I said this was a very broad stroke overview, yes the US did not use those specific terms for there classifications, but at the start of WWII we also really did not have an Armor force, what we had you are correct we used the Light/Medium class but that was more a left over from WWI than what later evolved in WWII. At the start of the war (not when we got involved, but when it really started) we had some left over WWI tanks, and what we were working on/developing was the M1 Light Tank the M2 Light Tank (later basically became the M3/M5 Stuart), and the M2 Medium Tank. However based on what I can find from the National Defense Act of 1920 (The US Military standard at the time) none of the tanks would meet the requirements for their names. The M1 Light Tank weighs in at 10 tons, the M2 Light Tank weighs in at just over 11.5 tons, and the M2 Medium Tank weighs in at just over 18.5 tons. From what I can find the National Defense Act of 1920 has light tanks must weigh at or less than five tons, medium tanks at or less than fifteen tons, so both the "Light" tanks would be medium by the standard of the time, and the medium would be a heavy. It also talks about how in just different words we were using the basic standards that the British were. This is not surprising to me as they are the original developer of the tank, and besides the Germans (who were doing so in secret) they were kind of the world tactic and deployment "experts". So yes you are technically correct we did not use those specific terms, but we were using the same standards that they were developing at the start of the war. It was only after the war started and the German influence was seen that it started to shift from the Cruiser/Infantry tank standard.

marauder648

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8157
    • Project Zhukov Fan AU TRO's and PDFs
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #994 on: 15 November 2017, 22:42:19 »


Apparently this thing is the Char 1B prototype. 
Ghost Bears: Cute and cuddly. Until you remember its a BLOODY BEAR!

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

Van Gogh

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 169
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #995 on: 16 November 2017, 02:07:06 »
More accurately, this is the SRB (Schneider-Renault type B), a precursor prototype to the B1.
It was used to test a 47mm AT gun in place of the casemated 75mm (tank SRA).
The B1 was in fact a composite tank, made out of the best parts from prototypes from constructors Renault, FAMH and FCM.

Included : a side view of the same, with an added infantry-carrying test trailer (which, surprisingly, got rejected  ::)).

marauder648

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8157
    • Project Zhukov Fan AU TRO's and PDFs
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #996 on: 16 November 2017, 03:33:23 »
oh blimey...that trailer...
Ghost Bears: Cute and cuddly. Until you remember its a BLOODY BEAR!

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

PsihoKekec

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 3088
  • Your spleen, give it to me!
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #997 on: 16 November 2017, 04:28:12 »
Old and new

Shoot first, laugh later.

kato

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2417
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #998 on: 16 November 2017, 04:30:45 »
That trailer is topped by this trailer.



Ca 1942 prototype troop-carrying vehicle based on the Raupenschlepper Ost, which were basically 1.5t trucks on tracks. The prototype in the picture is actually a semi-trailer. On tracks.

Kidd

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3535
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #999 on: 16 November 2017, 05:28:20 »
^ I thought that's a Battletech APC :D

kato

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2417
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #1000 on: 16 November 2017, 06:56:01 »
That's a militia APC.

This is a proper Battletech APC:


M44 APC, fully enclosed, fits 24 troops in the back. Armament consisted of a .30cal bow MG and a .50cal available through a hatch that could only be operated by troops sitting in the back. Engine was mounted in the front center with the crew (driver, bow gunner, commander) seated triangular around it with no contact with each other.

It was rejected as too large - only to be enlarged before it served with the USAF as the T17 Command Post Vehicle.

PsihoKekec

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 3088
  • Your spleen, give it to me!
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #1001 on: 17 November 2017, 04:32:48 »
Why should war be hell all the time?

Shoot first, laugh later.

Kidd

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3535
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #1002 on: 17 November 2017, 05:29:31 »
Indeed.


kato

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2417
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #1003 on: 17 November 2017, 11:32:01 »
The funny part about that water heater is that despite the company using that particular picture to advertise it themselves, they're instead meant for you to stick MRE packs and water in there to heat them up. For an hour. Take out the MREs and use the water that you just heated that plastic in for coffee. At least according to the manufacturer.

I am Belch II

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10106
  • It's a gator with a nuke, whats the problem.
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #1004 on: 17 November 2017, 14:06:27 »
Walking the fine line between sarcasm and being a smart-ass

kato

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2417
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #1005 on: 17 November 2017, 14:27:00 »
What the inside looked like a hundred years ago...



And a year later, after some upgrades...



« Last Edit: 17 November 2017, 14:28:50 by kato »

ColBosch

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8647
  • Legends Never Die
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #1006 on: 17 November 2017, 17:20:41 »
The funny part about that water heater is that despite the company using that particular picture to advertise it themselves, they're instead meant for you to stick MRE packs and water in there to heat them up. For an hour. Take out the MREs and use the water that you just heated that plastic in for coffee. At least according to the manufacturer.

No, don't use that water for coffee. MRE packaging is coated in all sorts of stuff that you do not want to heat and then ingest. Our heaters in the Strykers had large labels warning about that.
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

HobbesHurlbut

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 3089
  • Live Free or Die Hard
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #1007 on: 17 November 2017, 18:36:48 »
No, don't use that water for coffee. MRE packaging is coated in all sorts of stuff that you do not want to heat and then ingest. Our heaters in the Strykers had large labels warning about that.
The funny thing about that post you quoted is this; "At least according to the manufacturer." ::)
Clan Blood Spirit - So Bad Ass as to require Orbital Bombardments to wipe us out....it is the only way to be sure!

glitterboy2098

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11991
    • The Temple Grounds - My Roleplaying and History website
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #1008 on: 17 November 2017, 19:19:39 »
Old and new



always nice to see young people hanging out with their grandparents..

ANS Kamas P81

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13208
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #1009 on: 17 November 2017, 19:48:16 »
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!

truetanker

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9901
  • Clan Hells Horses 666th Mech. Assualt Cluster
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #1010 on: 18 November 2017, 14:47:32 »
Why should war be hell all the time?



Reminds me of that BOLO story about them waking up to find they're construction tools.

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

marauder648

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8157
    • Project Zhukov Fan AU TRO's and PDFs
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #1011 on: 21 November 2017, 23:08:31 »


Built by FMC in the 1970s, the LVTEX-3 mated the hull of a standard LVTP-7 with the turret of a M551 Sheridan mounting an experimental Navy 105mm low-recoil gun.


Ghost Bears: Cute and cuddly. Until you remember its a BLOODY BEAR!

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

Fat Guy

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4983
  • I make beer disappear. What's your superpower?
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #1012 on: 21 November 2017, 23:32:29 »
T92 tank:



A '50s abortive concept for an airdropable light tank. Interesting for it's twin cupolas and an arrangement which would later be copped by the Merkava: engine in front and a rear access door in back.
I have spoken.


marauder648

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8157
    • Project Zhukov Fan AU TRO's and PDFs
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #1013 on: 22 November 2017, 06:14:17 »
I like the look of the T92, it looks very modern for a 50s design.
Ghost Bears: Cute and cuddly. Until you remember its a BLOODY BEAR!

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

CDAT

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 301
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #1014 on: 22 November 2017, 15:01:00 »


Built by FMC in the 1970s, the LVTEX-3 mated the hull of a standard LVTP-7 with the turret of a M551 Sheridan mounting an experimental Navy 105mm low-recoil gun.

Made me think of the Amtank of WWII, I could not find a good photo of one, but years ago I read a book about them and some things were very interesting like them doing island hopping with out using the Navy. From what I remember they were amtracks that they put a M3/5 turret on top of.

Poor photo I could find quickly.

MoneyLovinOgre4Hire

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 25627
  • It's just my goth phase
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #1015 on: 22 November 2017, 15:17:01 »
The original vehicle was the Amtrack, an amphibious landing vehicle designed to carry troops or vehicles to shore.  The Amtank was an up-armored Amtrack with a Stewart's turret that was meant to provide support for the other landing craft, though with only a 37mm gun it was rather limited in that role.
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

glitterboy2098

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11991
    • The Temple Grounds - My Roleplaying and History website
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #1016 on: 22 November 2017, 17:39:48 »
"Up armored" being a relative term.. Their armor was pretty weak, it just was better than the 'what armor' of the transport model.

Amtanks were never originally meant to be used as tanks, more as support gun platforms for the initial landings. It just got pressed into tank type duties because there were not enough real tanks.. And even a thin skinned vehicle with a tank gun beats having no tanks at all.

MoneyLovinOgre4Hire

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 25627
  • It's just my goth phase
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #1017 on: 22 November 2017, 18:01:16 »
Yeah, I think the difference in armor level was that the Amtank was armored enough to protect the crew from German machine gun fire while the Amtrack offered no protection at all.
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

Feenix74

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 3026
  • Lam's Phoenix Hawks
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #1018 on: 22 November 2017, 18:58:40 »
An interesting "technical", I guess it is for "winning hearts and minds"  :D

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-23/bazooka-used-to-fire-drugs-over-mexico-us-border-seized/9183204

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

CDAT

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 301
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #1019 on: 22 November 2017, 20:55:47 »
Yeah, I think the difference in armor level was that the Amtank was armored enough to protect the crew from German machine gun fire while the Amtrack offered no protection at all.

Also to the best of my knowledge they were only used in the pacific (being as they were USMC).

 

Register