Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III

[Kidd]

Damn that Goliath is big. What was its payload again?

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

Something like 60 kg of explosives, IIRC.

[kato]

The original electric engine version carried 60 kg explosives, the two later ICE models carried 75 and 100 kg respectively for one-third the cost. About two thirds of the ~7,600 built Goliaths were the ICE models.
(the cost was relevant as - unlike other planned unmanned explosives carriers - the Goliath models could not deposit the explosives and it was therefore a one-way trip for them)

[hoosierhick]

How about a Kettenkrad?   :D

[Kidd]

The original electric engine version carried 60 kg explosives, the two later ICE models carried 75 and 100 kg respectively for one-third the cost.

Whoa. BIG bada boom!!

[PsihoKekec]

And to think three people were supposed to be crammed in the Befehlpanzer I.

[kato]

Whoa. BIG bada boom!!

The far bigger Borgward IV - about the size of a tankette - with the same remote-control concept could drop a 500 kg payload next to a target and then return. 1200 built. They had a single seat for a driver since they'd be driven on their own manned towards a target, with the driver then stepping off and remote-controlling the Borgward IV until it deposited its mine and returned to pick him up.



As for the Kettenkrad, the same company also built a tracked-only unmanned version of it as a "medium explosives depositer" called "Springer" that could deliver a 330 kg payload, but would be exploded at the target like a Goliath. Was considered not worthwhile even if it could be built at the same factory with the same tooling; only 50 built in 1943 before it was aborted.

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

Question: was the tank in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade a real tank or something that was made up for the movie?

[ANS Kamas P81]

Made up, based on an extended Mark I Male designs from the brits in WWII.  The 6pdr guns on the side sponsons seem accurate to the early versions, and it's certainly got the open interior of the early models, though the overall length resembles a compartmentalized Mk VII or VIII.  The turret on top never showed up during the originals, I'm not sure what tank it might be from (if any).

[glitterboy2098]

http://indianajones.wikia.com/wiki/Mark_VII_Tank

made up design, with the prop vehicle built ontop of an old excavator. was basically a Mk.VIII type body with a rather anachronistic Cromwell type turret added.

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

I thought that might be the case, but I wasn't sure that it wasn't some bizarre inter-war experimental design.

[Fat Guy]

Much like the completely made up flying wing in the original.

[beachhead1985]

Either way, it's pretty cool!

[glitterboy2098]

I thought that might be the case, but I wasn't sure that it wasn't some bizarre inter-war experimental design.

i suspect that was the intent, to make you wonder if it was just some obscure design rather than an obvious fake. much like the flying wing in the first film, which was also unique to the film, but certainly looked rather like something the Horton brothers or Alexander Lippisch might have designed.

[Dave Talley]

http://indianajones.wikia.com/wiki/Mark_VII_Tank

made up design, with the prop vehicle built ontop of an old excavator. was basically a Mk.VIII type body with a rather anachronistic Cromwell type turret added.

Probably had a touch of the Char D2 for that turret idea
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/france/ww2_French_Tanks.php

[marauder648]

Behold the Ford M1918 3-ton tank!







https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-C_a4HpQr8&ytbChannel=null

I found it here - http://peashooter85.tumblr.com/post/171400453803/historicalfirearms-ford-m1918-3-ton-tank-when

And to quote it -

he M1918 was to be armed with a single .30-06 machine gun, but unlike the FT the M1918′s was fitted in a mount with limited traverse rather than a turret. A large front hatch was positioned in front of the driver’s position with a large cupolaon top of the tank with vision slits. On the right of the tank was the gunner’s position and to the rear wear the two Model T engines, in total the M1918 was 14 feet in length.

US Army Ordnance was eager to get tanks into production and 15,000 M1918s were ordered with an initial batch of 15 for testing. One of these was sent to France and officers that evaluated the prototype tanks found them lacking. From the available photographs the M1918 appears to have an exposed front axel just in front of the hull, this would have been susceptible to damage from enemy fire. The tank’s tracks are also extremely narrow, while the tank was light, this could have conceivably lead to issues with getting bogged down in thick mud.

The war ended before large scale production of the M1918 could begin, and as a result the first mass produced American tank was the M1917, a modified version of the Renault FT. The M1917, was delayed in production and did not reach US forces in France before the end of the war. In total Some 950 M1917s were built by Van Dorn Iron Works, the Maxwell Motor Co., and the C.L. Best Co. by 1919.

[ColBosch]

That needs a winged skull and a "for the Emperor" painted on the side.

[Empyrus]

I'm wondering. Tanks can't really navigate forests, at least thick ones. What about wheeled APCs or IFVs like Stryker?

[worktroll]

Well, there's always the Ardennes ...

Any forest adjacent to civilised/populated areas will have roads, fire trails, dirt roads etc. They may not go exactly where you want, but will probably get you there eventually. The thinner the vehicle the more such trails it can take, and the easier time it'll have. Strykers tend to be thinner than Abrams, no?

And anyone who didn't dump google map images of the ops area before movement isn't cheating ;)

But neither can go casually bumbling cross-country through old-growth forest, true.

[Empyrus]

Roads are one thing but forest proper? (Not that one has really incentive to really drive tanks through wilderness forests, if it is wilderness, the odds are there ain't no people nor anything relevant anywhere close.)
I mostly started wondering because BT rules prohibit even light forest from wheeled vehicles, though i can't find any logical reason for that. Multiple pairs of large wheels probably aren't as good as tracks in forest terrain but wheeled vehicles are also lighter usually so it probably cancels out.

[worktroll]

It's about the ability to push down bushes & small trees. Tanks can do this - greater traction due to larger surface area touching dirt, and usually greater mass & power. They can bull their way through.

I'm sure ex-trackheads on the forums will have a rule of thumb - IIRC tanks can push over a tree with 6" wide trunk (at base). MOre than that, they go "thunk".

So it's not about the ground pressure, it's about the smash-pressure.

[Kidd]

I'm sure ex-trackheads on the forums will have a rule of thumb - IIRC tanks can push over a tree with 6" wide trunk (at base). MOre than that, they go "thunk".

Easily lots of hardwood trees bigger than that in thick woods.

I'm wondering. Tanks can't really navigate forests, at least thick ones. What about wheeled APCs or IFVs like Stryker?

Even less so. Trees and undergrowth and root-grown rocks - contrary to what Hollywood thinks, tanks don't mow down trees just like that. Even navigating between them is hard. I'm told that moving through tropical jungle, protrusions like machine-gun turrets and antennae can get entangled or even ripped off - strapping packs or equipment on the hull is an excellent way to lose that stuff at best, or get your APC hung up at worst.

Then there's ridges and ravines and creeks and gullies and so on. Tanks and APCs stick to cities, road networks and farm and orchards at best. Full-blown triple-canopy monsoon jungle is the domain of foot infantry, period.

[Empyrus]

Then there's ridges and ravines and creeks and gullies and so on.

I think there was a pic in this thread earlier where a tank had fallen on its nose from a very small cliff (not sure it was large enough to be called that even).

(And this reminds me of me and my friend managing to lodge the Scorpion tank in one Halo game between a cliff and a rock nose pointing down...)

[Kidd]

Speaking of Scorpions, the FV101 Scorpion was designed to operate... no, not in jungle, but in cleared trails, palm oil and rubber estates where a small armoured vehicle might slip between the bigger trees.



Their low ground pressure made them invaluable in the Falklands War where a company of Scorpions and Scimitars were the only armoured vehicles on the island. That doesn't mean they don't bog down...



A few Scimitars are still in use in the British Army in the armoured recon role, seen here dressed up for the desert. All this stuff would never survive a trip through a jungle.

[Matti]

I'm wondering. Tanks can't really navigate forests, at least thick ones.

They did in Finland. Forests, swamps, lakes, rivers, little in the way of the roads. Because of all the swamps and waterbodies, Stalin decided to launch the war in winter so Red Army could just march over the ice. Though the roads had the heaviest concentration (which were cut off with barricades, machine guns, and artillery), good number of tanks operated in the forests. Particularly in the following Continuation War.

[edit]
I recall seeing a video (part of the news or something) where Finnish Army trains in the forests. Tracked trucks there, maybe on a dirt road (covered by snow).

[Empyrus]

Sure, i mean, one can move in forest with a tank somewhat. Hell, it is a necessity here in Finland, so i don't doubt they train that.
But there are limits to what they can do. Trees are stubborn and don't move out of the way really. Can't really rush through a forest like BT's Mechs can, yes?

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

It also depends on the forest.  Trees in boreal forests tend to be spaced out a bit more than trees i a temperate broad-leaf forest.

Then again, the Blitzkrieg succeeded because Germany was able to get tanks through a section of the French border that was undefended because it was thought to be too densely forested for tanks to navigate.

[Kidd]

Yup, and thats where advantage lies wholly with the defenders. This here bit of terrain which looks impassable and is marked as such? Might have a hidden trail where the defenders can move tanks into a position flanking the highway where an attacker's tanks have to pass.

Something like the Ho Chi Minh trail, but with an ambush in mind.

[Matti]

Yup, and thats where advantage lies wholly with the defenders. This here bit of terrain which looks impassable and is marked as such? Might have a hidden trail where the defenders can move tanks into a position flanking the highway where an attacker's tanks have to pass.

I believe Finland did just that in Winter War. But with trucks instead of with tanks: trucks hauled machine guns, mortars, and radios through small paths unknown for Red Army and thus could bring some heavy firepower where it was not expected.

[ColBosch]

I believe Finland did just that in Winter War. But with trucks instead of with tanks: trucks hauled machine guns, mortars, and radios through small paths unknown for Red Army and thus could bring some heavy firepower where it was not expected.

The Finnish "local advantage" was a massive force multiplier for the young nation. The Soviets and Germans alike were terrified of the Finns' ability to strike from seemingly nowhere and vanish again. One need only look at the casualty numbers from the Winter and Continuation Wars to see that this was far more than just wartime myth.