BattleTech - The Board Game of Armored Combat
Off Topic and Technical Support => Off Topic => Topic started by: God and Davion on 03 January 2017, 14:37:44
-
Now for part III. Go for it!
-
lurking
-
Here's the captured body of the German Panzer E-100 super-heavy tank.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/66/E-100.jpg)
Unlike the Maus, this boondoggle never actually reached the functioning prototype stage.
-
Tagged for posterity.
-
A curiosity:
(http://i1131.photobucket.com/albums/m550/JimWarford5/SU-122-54_BMR_5.jpg)
It's an SU-122 chassis, converted to mine roller. Not sure if Egyptian or Israeli - it's definitely a BTR APC to the right, but that looks like an Alvis Stalward to the rear left. And the soldiers have that rough edge I wouldn't necessarily associate with Egyptian armoured corps.
-
lurking
-
Soviet BIS-1.
http://engineering-machine.ru/spz/brm/21-bmr-bronirovannaya-mashina-razminirovaniya.html
You'll have to run it through a translation rig but it's an interesting read. According to the source, they didn't get developed until 1980, and spent their time in Afghanistan. No mention of export. I'm guessing perhaps that's where that photo's from, if there's western vehicles present - perhaps captured as the Soviets invaded, and put to local use.
-
This needs a real Mk III.
(https://abload.de/img/mk_i_iii_37y0jak.jpg)
Which is oddly damn hard to find as a picture btw.
-
This needs a real Mk III.
(https://abload.de/img/mk_i_iii_37y0jak.jpg)
Which is oddly damn hard to find as a picture btw.
Well played.
-
found some more Mark IIIs
Crusader Mark III
Valentine Mark III
Vickers Mark III MBT
-
Oooo! the Vickers made it in!
-
Tag! You're it.
-
a Mk.III that would have existed by now had we followed a different timeline..
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v228/glitterboy2098/references/bolo_03_small-1.jpg)
-
Have some camo rather.
(https://abload.de/img/743352knj38.jpg)
Indian Sherman Mk III in 1944.
Not as rare, was mostly used in Lend-Lease with Commonwealth and Soviet forces. The different Sherman Marks mostly differ in their engine - the Mk III had a (not really reliable) General Motors diesel engine, the main reason why the US Army did not use it. The only US use was with the USMC and - after taking over a few from Allied troops - in Tunisia by 1st AD.
-
that looks like an Alvis Stalward to the rear left
That looks to me like a BTR-60 parked between the trucks.
-
Panzer III in Afrika Korps colors
-
tagged
-
Tag, now cover as the arrow IV comes in.
-
This needs a real Mk III.
(https://abload.de/img/mk_i_iii_37y0jak.jpg)
Which is oddly damn hard to find as a picture btw.
But is it male or female, I can not tell.
-
You have to peek under the treads...
-
My suspicion is it's female, based on the size of the hole in the left-hand-side barbette.
-
I've always liked that picture of the Crusader III, one of my absolute favorite tanks of the war. It was quick but not overly fast and well armed (for all its flaws, the 6 pdr had good penetration and a helluva rate of fire), though it had unfortunately thin armor and some, uh, mechanical issues thanks to the desert in which it found itself. I think that with its predatory look and sleek lines, it is one of the best looking tanks of the war.
-
Merkava 4 hit by a friendly HE round during training. Even though the crew were unharmed, the blast peeled away a large surface of the outer spaced armour (shades of CBT ablative protection? :P)
(http://i.imgur.com/8hAk7vL.jpg)
Another Merkava 4, this one a turret that survived a frontal hit from a Kornet ATGM showing details of the spaced armour
(http://img4.hostingpics.net/pics/30857515149962.jpg)
New German Puma IFV's partially undressed, showing some of the armour layers
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-rE_3DK09Mbg/V_Khwz4lnMI/AAAAAAAAAPY/r0QsgTuxAE4SrrztaMunSlEDD6wNvdCygCLcB/s1600/Panzer.jpg)
-
You realize that the Armor on the Merkava is actually a NERA array...you can see the layers if you look closely.
-
Merkava 4 hit by a friendly HE round during training. Even though the crew were unharmed, the blast peeled away a large surface of the outer spaced armour (shades of CBT ablative protection? :P)
(http://i.imgur.com/8hAk7vL.jpg)
The crew survived, their underwear did not. :P
-
It's an SU-122 chassis, converted to mine roller. Not sure if Egyptian or Israeli - it's definitely a BTR APC to the right, but that looks like an Alvis Stalward to the rear left. And the soldiers have that rough edge I wouldn't necessarily associate with Egyptian armoured corps.
Hats on soldiers near camera are typical for Soviet troops in Afganistan.
-
a Mk.III that would have existed by now had we followed a different timeline..
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v228/glitterboy2098/references/bolo_03_small-1.jpg)
yes much, much heavy armor and weapons
-
You realize that the Armor on the Merkava is actually a NERA array...you can see the layers if you look closely.
Whoops, I always get the two mixed up. Space is usually pretty important to NERA arrays too #P
-
My suspicion is it's female, based on the size of the hole in the left-hand-side barbette.
It's a female, although not just based on the size of the hole, but instead the shape of the entire sponson. Male sponsons on the Mk I, Mk II and Mk III had a single barbette set within a sponson that sloped back at about 20° angle all the way from the hull to the outer edge; the female sponsoon as seen instead was more rectangular, also since it accomodated two barbettes (which can also be guessed in the picture).
On the Mk IV and following models it's even easier to differentiate simply for the size of the sponson. Females got a lot smaller sponsons.
-
yes much, much heavy armor and weapons
It's ...It's...SUPERHETZER.... :P >:D ;D
-
Since we're doing Mk.III's here's the Centurion Mk.III
-
British Lend-Lease to the USSR
Churchill III
(http://www.armchairgeneral.com/rkkaww2/galleries/Lendlease/churchill/churchill29.jpg)
and
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-tffaCdQXSg0/TgLxUy-GD6I/AAAAAAAAAZw/CMPJvu6GjmY/s1600/Churchill+Mk+III+011.jpg)
and
(http://www.worldwarphotos.info/wp-content/gallery/uk/british-tanks/churchill-a22/Churchill_Mk_III_Victory_Parade_In_TunisTunisia12_05_1943.jpg)
-
I feel right at home.
TT
-
Japan has unveiled a prototype 8x8 to replace the Komatsu Type 96 APC.
(http://www.janes.com/images/assets/989/66989/1692757_-_main.jpg)
-
[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?
-
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)
-
(http://68.media.tumblr.com/34ad12af43690b622376b0332af1b480/tumblr_ojvtoiaNFX1rc7erjo1_540.jpg)
The Char 1bis
The steampunkiest of tanks
-
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?
-
They can't? They haven't bought & imported F-4 and F-15?
They import but don't export
-
The Char-1 bis' stable mate,
(http://worldoftanks.com/dcont/fb/image/somua_s35.jpg)
-
Not counting the Pershing since it was reclassified as a medium, has the US ever deployed heavy tanks in actual combat?
-
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.
(http://www.janes.com/images/assets/989/66989/p1692758.jpg)
-
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.
-
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)
-
[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 . . .
-
I suspect it has more to do with weight distribution than wanting to get rid of drivers... ;)
-
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
(http://www.janes.com/images/assets/107/54107/p1638883.jpg)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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 (https://abload.de/img/img_2549zqx4q.jpg) (warning: huge picture); the central monitor is for the SAS system and can be viewed by the infantry behind them.
(https://abload.de/img/img_2545bfza4.jpg)
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.
-
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.
-
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."
-
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.
-
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).
-
One of my favorite tanks of the interwar period the experimental Vickers Independent.
(http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/A1E1-Vickers-Independent-2.jpg)
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
(http://www.worldwarphotos.info/wp-content/gallery/ussr/tanks/t-35-tank/T-35_soviet_heavy_tank_5.jpg)
Which despite looking impressive was crippled by breakdowns and had thin armour to save weight.
-
Is the second picture a refit of the first? I'm not seeing any similarities beyond having multiple turrets...
-
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.
-
War Thunder has that vicker tank in game!
-
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:
(https://abload.de/img/t28_20srl2.jpg)
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.
-
Thanks for the clarification!
-
Yes sorry for the confusion, the second tank is indeed the T-35 heavy tank.
-
Multiturret tanks, a blunder in which Stalin served as the voice of reason, telling Kotin to star building tanks instead of mobile houses with living room for every occasion.
-
Indeed that gave the Soviets the KV-1 which was originally the T-100;
(https://forum.warthunder.com/uploads/monthly_2016_07/i_109.jpg.6d4f72943a729e8d655a234b496c809c.jpg)
Legend goes that stalin saw model of the tank and removed the front turret and said that was better, the result was the KV-1.
-
And suddenly 30 years later someone got the idea to put some more guns on something of the same weight again. ::)
(https://abload.de/img/016gffoep.jpg)
main turret
- 20x139 double-belt+magazine-fed
- 7.62x51 belt-fed
- Milan ATGM
rear remote weapon station
- 7.62x51 belt-fed
firing ports, two each side
- 9x19 magazine-fed
(and yeah, i know, the BMP came with four firing ports each side five years earlier)
-
(http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/warthunder/images/d/d1/%D0%A1%D0%9C%D0%9A.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20151215131425)
The SMK was a rival tank design to the T-100 and both were essentially the same. The SMK was actually used in Finland but it got disabled by a mine and had to be abandoned when the Soviets found they had nothing that could recover her.
-
(https://abload.de/img/t28_20srl2.jpg)
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.
I don't think Finnish Defense Forces used that many of them. In 1944, StuGs with long guns were the backbone of the Finland's sole Armoured Division.
T-28 was also called Postijuna = mail train. It has many wheels like a train, and one of the captured ones was carrying mail.
-
They were used by the Soviets in Finland.
Finland captured around seven and operated around two.
-
It still amazes me that the Finns could hold back the much larger Soviet forces.
Since the StuG III was mentioned, here's an Ausf F/F.8/G in Finnish service
(http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/nazi_germany/Panzerjagers/STUG-III/photos/StuG_III_Ausf_G_Finnish_Sturmi.jpg)
-
They were used by the Soviets in Finland.
Finland captured around seven and operated around two.
Oh, you mean the 90% was recovered by the Red Army, not Finnish Defense Forces?
-
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:
(https://abload.de/img/t28_20srl2.jpg)
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.
I don't think Finnish Defense Forces used that many of them. In 1944, StuGs with long guns were the backbone of the Finland's sole Armoured Division.
T-28 was also called Postijuna = mail train. It has many wheels like a train, and one of the captured ones was carrying mail.
They were used by the Soviets in Finland.
Finland captured around seven and operated around two.
Oh, you mean the 90% was recovered by the Red Army, not Finnish Defense Forces?
the 90% figure is likely for the T-26 Light tank, which the Soviets deployed in large numbers during the Winter War, and lost in large numbers during said war. since the T-26 was similar to the Vickers 6 ton the Finns were using as their main tank prior to and during the war, they were able to repair and redeploy even damaged T-26's. considering their preferred tactics for dealing with tanks were the Molotov Cocktail (which wrecked the engines and cooked the crews) or destruction of the tread system with satchel charges, there were a lot of mostly intact but not mission capable tanks left behind by the soviets on many battlefields. the T-26 would continue to be a main tank for the Finns even into 'the continuation war' that occurred concurrent with WW2. though their german allies did supply them with more modern vehicles like the StuG's as a supplement.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/24/Ex-Finnish_T-26_Model_1933_light_tank_in_the_Bovington_Tank_Museum_2.jpg)
-
It's the Mk III thread, but let's have some Mk V Female action ... in Berlin! In 1945!
(https://68.media.tumblr.com/37892c8cd96095ef161ef187ed70ca36/tumblr_o384u4Xq7n1r94kvzo7_540.jpg) (https://68.media.tumblr.com/0e241ad9e6de74b414a7a879a09a3e80/tumblr_o384u4Xq7n1r94kvzo4_540.jpg)
(https://68.media.tumblr.com/ac6b1c7a9b742aa41613fd4cac4d21ac/tumblr_o384u4Xq7n1r94kvzo5_540.jpg) (https://68.media.tumblr.com/01077ce123f53b7cb986dbb6890abe2b/tumblr_o384u4Xq7n1r94kvzo6_540.jpg)
I kid you not. WWI Mk Vs sold to Estonia, captured by the Russians and used, captured by the Germans, and used (mainly as roadblocks, admittedly). MOre info to be found here (http://panarectomy.tumblr.com/post/155897984250/enrique262-british-mark-v-female-tanks-found)
-
what What WHAT!? :o
-
You'd think a Battletech player wouldn't be as surprised by salvage... ;)
-
You'd think a Battletech player wouldn't be as surprised by salvage... ;)
Or retrotech.
-
This is like an Age of War Mackie being used as a roadblock in the Clan Invasion.
-
Well, Age of War tech level mechs were used as roadblocks during the Jihad.
-
Eh, that's nothing.
(https://abload.de/img/top73ynp.jpg)
This is an FT-17, originally designed and introduced in 1917.
The country is Afghanistan, which got their FT-17 in 1923; most of their FT-17 were retired during the late 50s. The eight FT-17 originally were built for France, transferred to Poland to fight in the Polish-Soviet war, captured by the Soviets and then donated to Afghanistan.
The second soldier to the left holds an AK-47, which dates the above picture to the Soviet Invasion of the 1980s.
According to Soviet claims, the communist afghan army still operated at least one FT-17 during this time, likely to have been destroyed at some point before 1992.
-
Hey, there's probably someone somewhere still using a Mosin-Nagant from the 1890s.
-
Hey, there's probably someone somewhere still using a Mosin-Nagant from the 1890s.
...the poor bastard.
-
It's the Mk III thread, but let's have some Mk V Female action ... in Berlin! In 1945!
... snip ...
I kid you not. WWI Mk Vs sold to Estonia, captured by the Russians and used, captured by the Germans, and used (mainly as roadblocks, admittedly).
wow!
surprising & impressive.
being born in Berlin (actually less than half a mile away from the place these pictures were taken) i have seen a lot of pictures and films about Berlin during the war time and - of course - i did read a lot about WWII, Third Reich and so on when i was younger, but i cannot remember reading or seeing anything about WWI tanks in Berlin.
so thanks a lot for these pictures Worktroll!!
-
IIRC, they were "gate guards" of the Reichstag, captured in Smolensk Russian during the Nazi Invasion. there are no accounts of their use during the battle, but the wrecks were found quite away's from where they'd been parked, and shot up pretty bad, suggesting that they'd been thrown into the fighting in some fashion.
odds are they were driven off and used as roadblocks and bunkers, but it is possible some desperate unit reactivated them figuring any tank is better than no tank.
-
odds are they were driven off and used as roadblocks and bunkers, but it is possible some desperate unit reactivated them figuring any tank is better than no tank.
If you ever find yourself in such a situation, please note that this is incorrect. If things are that desperate, better to throw away your rifle and uniform and head west.
-
some of the sources (largely unconfirmed sadly) suggest it might have been a platoon of Hitler Youth that reactivated them, so i suspect that 'rationality' was not high on the German military's priorities at that point.
-
wow!
surprising & impressive.
being born in Berlin (actually less than half a mile away from the place these pictures were taken) i have seen a lot of pictures and films about Berlin during the war time and - of course - i did read a lot about WWII, Third Reich and so on when i was younger, but i cannot remember reading or seeing anything about WWI tanks in Berlin.
so thanks a lot for these pictures Worktroll!!
Being born in Canada, these pictures rocked me. I can only imagine their impact to someone who has been on that spot.
(Does that count as my 'good deed' for 2017? I can go back to sleep now!)
W. :)
-
wow!
surprising & impressive.
being born in Berlin (actually less than half a mile away from the place these pictures were taken) i have seen a lot of pictures and films about Berlin during the war time and - of course - i did read a lot about WWII, Third Reich and so on when i was younger, but i cannot remember reading or seeing anything about WWI tanks in Berlin.
so thanks a lot for these pictures Worktroll!!
Sadly I've never been to Berlin (I want to go) but I am a Londoner and the Second World War touches a lot of our city too - the streets with random post-war buildings where a bomb destroyed the Victorian ones (at the end of my parents' back garden) as well as all of the museums
I am about to move away from London (again) to Dorset where I will be very near the Tank Museum (of the famous and real signs about Tank Museum and Monkey World which really are very close to each other!) so I will try to get lots of photos
For now, here is a picture of a cat in a cardboard tank
-
...the poor bastard.
ummm. Hardly. the 91-30 Mosin has been given new life.
(http://truthaboutguns-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Archangel-Mosin-9130.jpg)
https://www.archangelmanufacturing.com/archangelaa9130mosinnagant
https://youtu.be/BBy83B5fV9s
-
;D
At first I thought Tapco had lost their damn minds, but I see this is *snort* Archangel Manufacturing? Are you kidding me!? Is that for real? Oh man, that is ****** hilarious.
Thanks for the laugh.
-
At first I thought Tapco had lost their damn minds, but I see this is *snort* Archangel Manufacturing? Are you kidding me!? Is that for real? Oh man, that is ****** hilarious.
http://www.cbrps.com/Mosin-Nagant.html
I'm just gonna leave this here and get me some plastic sheeting, Gallagher-style. Make sure you scroll down to check out the Cossack version at the bottom.
Oh hey Czech T-72s for sale. Running but the gun's demilled and the rooftop MG's removed. Only 50K out the door!
(http://www.mortarinvestments.eu/assets/images/products/42/2341.jpeg)
-
Nothing beats a T-72 when your cruising through your local downtown on a Saturday morning. However, getting through the drive thru at McDonald's is a bitch.
-
Nothing beats a T-72 when your cruising through your local downtown on a Saturday morning. However, getting through the drive thru at McDonald's is a bitch.
Forget the drive-through, just drive into the building and give your order at the counter?
-
Shame it's illegal to import tanks into U.S. anymore.
Not that I'd want one of those Soviet deathtraps anyway.
-
http://www.cbrps.com/Mosin-Nagant.html
I'm just gonna leave this here and get me some plastic sheeting, Gallagher-style. Make sure you scroll down to check out the Cossack version at the bottom.
Oh hey Czech T-72s for sale. Running but the gun's demilled and the rooftop MG's removed. Only 50K out the door!
(http://www.mortarinvestments.eu/assets/images/products/42/2341.jpeg)
i can't believe there isn't anybody in Ukraine, Yemen or Syria waiting to snap that up and put the MGs back on.
-
i can't believe there isn't anybody in Ukraine, Yemen or Syria waiting to snap that up and put the MGs back on.
Not much of a point without a working 125mm, I suppose. Not to mention transport's a PITA.
-
the Israeli Achzarit says "hi"
-
Doesn't even need to be that extensive a rebuild. When armed groups are reduced to tooling around in Toyota pickups and various Madmaxesque contraptions with flimsily tacked on armour and machine guns...
Its almost as if those Dark Age writers opened a time window into 2015 :D
-
the Israeli Achzarit says "hi"
I would hate to be the gropo riding in the back. Sardines probably have more room in their tin cans than an Israeli soldier has in one of these.
-
I would hate to be the gropo riding in the back. Sardines probably have more room in their tin cans than an Israeli soldier has in one of these.
I commute on the London Underground... I lack sympathy
On a more serious note though, my thought was more about using something like this as more of a WW1 "female" tank as there's probably less need for the tank killing 125mm smoothbore than there is the mobile machine gun armed pillbox
-
I don't know about that... the last picture I saw from the conflict in the news was of a Russian tank:
(http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/cf_images/images-magazine/2017/02/04/EU/20170204_EUP004_facebook.jpg)
-
question.. if you had the kind of computerized aid systems that make piloted robots?mecha/mechs work in fiction, could you build a tank like vehicle with a single pilot?
-
Sure, although - like with mecha - it doesn't make much sense given the multitasking would be pretty stressful on the pilot.
-
RPG related concerns. main reason why Tanks are rarely used in certain RPG's i write for is the issue of crew. few GM's want to give a player control of 2-4 NPC's just so they can use a tank, and few player groups want to all serve as tank crews. Piloted robots/mecha and powered armor is thus more common a player choice. i'm considering sticking in a light tank or tankette type vehicle designed using mecha style control tech so one person can operate it. give people an actual option of using tanks instead of mecha, and maybe open up some new avenues in the game.
-
In real life I don't understand the drive for single-seat aircraft - surely two heads are better than one? I can't see the benefit of a single seat armoured vehicle at all and 3 seems the minimum number for optimal efficiency (commander, gunner and driver) and actually more than 3 often works well if you count the infantry carried by IFVs as part of the crew.
-
In real life, the drive for single seat aircraft is underlain by the drive for everything else: money. People are expensive.
As a GM, I have no problem using NPCs to fill out tank crews. I don't see it as giving a player "control" of the NPCs any more than making PCs the officers of a unit gives them "control" of the rest of the unit.
-
In real life, the drive for single seat aircraft is underlain by the drive for everything else: money. People are expensive.
Yet a UAV may have an effective crew of half a dozen to make best use of the systems on board as well as fly the thing and command the mission
I wonder if more sensors on AFVs might mean a dedicated sensor operator might be added even as the loaders are replaced
-
RPG related concerns. main reason why Tanks are rarely used in certain RPG's i write for is the issue of crew. few GM's want to give a player control of 2-4 NPC's just so they can use a tank, and few player groups want to all serve as tank crews. Piloted robots/mecha and powered armor is thus more common a player choice. i'm considering sticking in a light tank or tankette type vehicle designed using mecha style control tech so one person can operate it. give people an actual option of using tanks instead of mecha, and maybe open up some new avenues in the game.
BOLOS
-
"Effective" crew is a slippery slope. And if you want to talk about the kinds of things those UAVs do that require that number of people, you have to look back at the EC-121 and like aircraft, which had crews rather larger than half a dozen. Of course, now we're drifting into the territory of that OTHER thread... ::)
-
In real life I don't understand the drive for single-seat aircraft - surely two heads are better than one? I can't see the benefit of a single seat armoured vehicle at all and 3 seems the minimum number for optimal efficiency (commander, gunner and driver) and actually more than 3 often works well if you count the infantry carried by IFVs as part of the crew.
In manned aircraft? Weight. Fuel. Space. All are at a premium in combat aircraft, especially small ones.
For drones? Once your crew expands past a certain size (I'm guessing anything 3+) , managing them starts becoming more and more of a full-time job, like in an AFV
-
IIRC the French navy cancelled the single-seat version of the navalized Rafale because the two-seater was more effective...
On topic the S tank carries 3 crew because the Swedish army decided that "another set of hands can't hurt" - with its fixed main gun and autoloader the driver is also the gunner.
-
Yet a UAV may have an effective crew of half a dozen to make best use of the systems on board as well as fly the thing and command the mission
I wonder if more sensors on AFVs might mean a dedicated sensor operator might be added even as the loaders are replaced
Yes, but one thing to remember. Those people don't need anywhere near the level of high level training I suspect. You could probably do the same with one person... if you trained em up to a higher level. With half dozen people, you can have them specialize in one particular thing I betcha.
And yes, once you reach a particular number, you need another guy to run everything because now its getting too many people to coordinate.
On topic the S tank carries 3 crew because the Swedish army decided that "another set of hands can't hurt" - with its fixed main gun and autoloader the driver is also the gunner.
Primary driver you mean. IIRC the S-Tank had Forward Driver/Gunner, Commander and Rear Driver/Radio Operator?
-
Not much of a point without a working 125mm, I suppose. Not to mention transport's a PITA.
Ukrainians have a bunch of spare 2A46 guns.
-
Did this thread become a Twilight 2000 topic at some point?
-
Primary driver you mean. IIRC the S-Tank had Forward Driver/Gunner, Commander and Rear Driver/Radio Operator?
Yes. The rear driver/radio guy was added because the army wanted a 3rd crew, not because he was actually needed to fight the tank.
Of course it wasn't a bad thing to have a 3rd guy aboard! :)
-
Yes. The rear driver/radio guy was added because the army wanted a 3rd crew, not because he was actually needed to fight the tank.
Of course it wasn't a bad thing to have a 3rd guy aboard! :)
I can only imagine the joy of breaking track with only two crewmen...one of whom has to pull overwatch.
-
Did this thread become a Twilight 2000 topic at some point?
Try running a civilian car with a Small Still on a Cargo trailer. Good times.
TT
-
eh, you'd get better results from a Wood Gasifier.
(http://krisdedecker.typepad.com/.a/6a00e0099229e888330120a7d2440d970b-600wi)
(http://krisdedecker.typepad.com/.a/6a00e0099229e888330120a7d21beb970b-pi)
(https://cdn.instructables.com/FXC/3P64/I5GN7DCY/FXC3P64I5GN7DCY.MEDIUM.jpg?width=614)
(http://piroliz.org/upload/image/232.jpg)
(http://krisdedecker.typepad.com/.a/6a00e0099229e8883301a73dcf8196970d-580wi)
(http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/fahrschulepanzerwagen-VI-tiger-holzgasantrieb.jpg)
(https://taboodada.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/panzer15-4.jpg)
-
Obscure tank time!
Objekt 500-8. I think it's meant to be a tank with the ability to reduce ground pressure, and/or gain limited amphibious capability. But ...
(https://thechive.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/hover-tank-500-6.jpg)
(https://thechive.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/hover-tank-500-7.jpg)
(https://thechive.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/hover-tank-500-9.jpg)
(https://thechive.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/hover-tank-500-5.jpg)
(https://thechive.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/hover-tank-500-3.jpg)
(https://thechive.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/hover-tank-500-2.jpg)
(Why the Capellans never picked this one up ... ??? )
W.
-
Fallout 4 needs this!
TT
-
That's actually Object 760, designed for project BRDM-MIC. The project was evaluating hover technology for recon combat vehicles between 1959 and 1963. Object 760 was a partial-hover vehicle - the vortex fans provided lift, but the tracks were still on the ground.
-
Yes. The rear driver/radio guy was added because the army wanted a 3rd crew, not because he was actually needed to fight the tank.
Of course it wasn't a bad thing to have a 3rd guy aboard! :)
That and the doctrine called for the tank to retreat from overwhelming contact and withdraw back to the next line of prepared defensive positions. Its significantly faster to do that by simply putting the vehicle in reverse and letting the guy looking backwards drive it.
-
Is that Le Duck's son? (Shame on you if you don't get the WoT reference XD)
-
Are you mocking the AMX 40?
Well good, because that tank is completely silly.
-
Are you mocking the AMX 40?
Well good, because that tank is completely silly.
Le quack! ;D
-
Its significantly faster to do that by simply putting the vehicle in reverse and letting the guy looking backwards drive it.
German Cold-War recon vehicles had a rear driver for the same reason.
It makes sense in particular for the modus operandi of the Strv-103 as pretty much a tank destroyer; you ambush from prepared positions, then switch positions generally driving out of it backwards instead of forwards straight into the fire zone.
-
So it's like an Archer?
-
I wish this were possible in WoT. I'd set this as permanent camo in a heartbeat. Duck tank is for trolling and trolling is good.
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Bumy6ZE2L-Q/U9S2hCw6mwI/AAAAAAAAAHA/WvKQG9zZirI/s1600/amx40duck.jpg)
-
I wish this were possible in WoT. I'd set this as permanent camo in a heartbeat. Duck tank is for trolling and trolling is good.
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Bumy6ZE2L-Q/U9S2hCw6mwI/AAAAAAAAAHA/WvKQG9zZirI/s1600/amx40duck.jpg)
The loudspeakers must play this.... loudly!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sd5ZLJWQmss (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sd5ZLJWQmss)
TT
-
That reminds me. Ever since I first saw one of the Japanese heavy tanks in WoT, I've been saying that their urban camo should be to just paint the tank to look like a convenience store.
-
That reminds me. Ever since I first saw one of the Japanese heavy tanks in WoT, I've been saying that their urban camo should be to just paint the tank to look like a convenience store.
A fan WoT cartoon series on youtube depict the Japanese heavy tank as a sumo wrestler. ;D
-
That's because they basically are in the game.
-
That's because they basically are in the game.
Huh?
-
Japanese heavies are huge, have hefty frontal armor, and are capable of surprising speed. Slamming into opponents is a perfectly valid tactic.
-
I wish this were possible in WoT. I'd set this as permanent camo in a heartbeat. Duck tank is for trolling and trolling is good.
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Bumy6ZE2L-Q/U9S2hCw6mwI/AAAAAAAAAHA/WvKQG9zZirI/s1600/amx40duck.jpg)
Mon canard est en feu!
-
Does your Minecraft have this?
(http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/West_Germany/photos/Leopard2_PSO_front.JPG)
-
In all seriousness, the first time I saw digital camouflage, it was across a dimly lit auditorium, and I wiped my glasses twice thinking they were dirty. The guy was that blurry in the low illumination at that distance.
-
is it digital or "dazzle"?
-
A new Jordanian heavy APC design, looks rather cool
Experienced heavy APC KADDB MAP (Multi-purpose Armored Platform) (Jordan)
The crew - 2 people. The troop compartment accommodates 11 fully equipped soldiers that can leave the machine through the front or rear hatches. There are also hatches in the roof for observation, firing personal weapons, or the emergency evacuation of the machine. As the power plant used diesel turbo engine Continental AVDS-1790 power 900 HP Engine is paired with automatic transmission Allison. Maximum speed - 60 km/h. Maximum power reserve is small - only 200 km, And this is a shortcoming of this machine. Based on the BTR MAR also developed self-propelled 120-mm mortar.
(http://68.media.tumblr.com/ad759e5766a5f1cfcd309579fb60b9e4/tumblr_olmwjgjsSj1rqpszmo1_1280.jpg)
(http://68.media.tumblr.com/0f6b5870dbbdd57d99398b6233267706/tumblr_olmwjgjsSj1rqpszmo2_1280.jpg)
(http://68.media.tumblr.com/d98356a0cebee9448e2091b2268a6eb7/tumblr_olmwjgjsSj1rqpszmo3_1280.jpg)
-
The fast trench-digging vehicle BTM-3 is designed to dig defensive and communication trenches in soils of up to IV type. The BTM consists of the basis vehicle and digging equipment. A heavy artillery prime-mover was used as the vehicle basis. When the vehicle is moving in transport mode, the gear box provides five gears for forward movement and one for backward. As soon as the vehicle starts digging trenches speed is decreased.
The BTM can dig trenches in curves with a minimum radius of 25 m. The vehicle can switch from transport mode to operating (digging) mode in 10 minutes. When digging at 3rd gear, the BTM can approximately dig an 800 meter long man-sized trench in one hour.
(http://68.media.tumblr.com/bb8690205ba30252551fc4be14c005bb/tumblr_ojh9sm9UEo1vdqfjoo1_1280.jpg)
(http://68.media.tumblr.com/39c85df331297a1e2b5e5160507bbd45/tumblr_ojh9sm9UEo1vdqfjoo2_1280.jpg)
(http://68.media.tumblr.com/14d1ea2836ca9ccbda0479702f16c37a/tumblr_ojh9sm9UEo1vdqfjoo3_1280.jpg)
(http://68.media.tumblr.com/83189d54651bd7b2e850f0dc51732c03/tumblr_ojh9sm9UEo1vdqfjoo7_1280.jpg)
-
Question. In the (sci fi) game Centurions, IIRC the various anti-grav APCs had "cratering charges" on the hull, for creating instant foxholes. Was this ever a thing in the real world, and do people still use them?
W.
-
Cratering charges exist, but not on vehicles - and are generally used by combat engineers for quick generation of obstacles to enemy forces.
Typical layout is using a relatively large shaped charge to generate a set width and depth (thin, long) well into which you fire a rocket with a second, standard explosive charge that explodes at a preset depth. Creates a hole between 10 and 20 feet diameter.
The only "vehicle" equipped with a cratering charge is Hayabusa 2, which will fire it at Ryugu to scoop up sub-surface material. Uses a moderately large EFP shaped charge.
-
A new Jordanian heavy APC design, looks rather cool
http://68.media.tumblr.com/ad759e5766a5f1cfcd309579fb60b9e4/tumblr_olmwjgjsSj1rqpszmo1_1280.jpg
http://68.media.tumblr.com/0f6b5870dbbdd57d99398b6233267706/tumblr_olmwjgjsSj1rqpszmo2_1280.jpg
http://68.media.tumblr.com/d98356a0cebee9448e2091b2268a6eb7/tumblr_olmwjgjsSj1rqpszmo3_1280.jpg
closest we'll ever get to a Warhammer 40K landraider. odd that they went with a forward troop hatch, seems like that would be a big compromised bit to the armor up front.
-
Question. In the (sci fi) game Centurions, IIRC the various anti-grav APCs had "cratering charges" on the hull, for creating instant foxholes. Was this ever a thing in the real world, and do people still use them?
I think it was US airborne troops in the Ardennes, or Russian Spetsnaz, who first learned that using a small charge of C4 on frozen ground punches an admirable hole through the ice into the sod beneath. Then you outs with your spade and widen the crater for your foxhole/scrape.
Otherwise, the standard-issue tank trench-maker would be, well:
(http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/West_Germany/photos/Leopard2_PSO_front.JPG)
closest we'll ever get to a Warhammer 40K landraider. odd that they went with a forward troop hatch, seems like that would be a big compromised bit to the armor up front.
That has been a noted disadvantage of this design over the IDF Achzarit.
-
Question. In the (sci fi) game Centurions, IIRC the various anti-grav APCs had "cratering charges" on the hull, for creating instant foxholes. Was this ever a thing in the real world, and do people still use them?
W.
Not to my knowledge, as Kato said, Combat Engineers will happily use shaped charges to produce the same result but often it is better to use proper excavation equipment and save the shaped charges for demolition/counter mobility work.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/HMEE-with-slat-armor-001.jpg)
(http://www.military-today.com/engineering/terrier.jpg)
(http://www.military-today.com/engineering/wisent_2.jpg)
Even without a combat engineering vehicle with an appropriate excavation bucket, you can improvise:
(http://img.directindustry.com/images_di/photo-g/31379-4487877.jpg)
While a dozer blade is not the most efficient way to build trenches, it will allow you to push up an embankment for the infantry to use as a prone firing position. Not ideal because the earth will not be well compacted so will not give much protection against small arms fire but still better than nothing and quicker than trying to do it with entrenching tools.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/US_Navy_030209-N-5319A-006_Construction_Electrician_3rd_Class_Justin_Vizcarrondo_assigned_to_Naval_Mobile_Construction_Battalion_Seventy-Four_(NMCB-74)_uses_an_entrenching_tool_to_dig_a_hasty_scrape.jpg)
-
The Jordanians are noted for having a pretty competent military so I figure they see a good reason for the front hatch. My guess is that they expect most fighting in the near future is going to be against irregular forces in urban areas, and the front hatch seems like a good way to deliver infantry into buildings.
-
A new Jordanian heavy APC design, looks rather cool
I feel the urge to unfurl the black flag of the Imperium of Man and wave it while screaming For the Emperor!
-
Yeah, putting a hatch in your frontal armor seems like a really bad idea.
-
Yeah, putting a hatch in your frontal armor seems like a really bad idea.
In fairness to the Jordanians, that is a pretty damn thick hatch. And it does make entry into buildings much easier (or anything else) when the driver can actually SEE where the hell they're going and not trying to back up and align a hatch that way.
So why are tanks described like ships anyway? Hull, deck, hatch, compartment, etc. Not door, roof, body, etc. like a regular vehicle. Who started the naming trend?
-
In fairness to the Jordanians, that is a pretty damn thick hatch. And it does make entry into buildings much easier (or anything else) when the driver can actually SEE where the hell they're going and not trying to back up and align a hatch that way.
So why are tanks described like ships anyway? Hull, deck, hatch, compartment, etc. Not door, roof, body, etc. like a regular vehicle. Who started the naming trend?
The Landships Committee of the Royal Navy under Winston Churchill in World War 1
-
The Landships Committee of the Royal Navy under Winston Churchill in World War 1
And the navy got the committee because the navy had the armored car units prior to/early in the war. Which it had due to the navy being less reactionary regarding new tech. though they were initially created as a communications and S&R force, early on they showed they had promise as combatants, and got expanded into a full unit. in no small part because they'd be the only force able to hit certain Austrian bases. (Specifically, the Airship sheds, which were outside the range of the Navy's Aircraft of the time.) technically the Armored Cars were under the Royal Navy Air Service. a ground force, under the command of an airforce, under the command of the navy. it made sense at the time. :)
ironically though their biggest use was when they were loaned out to the Whites in the Russian Civil war.
-
Even the word 'tank' was maskirovska; early hulls were listed as "water tanks" on cargo manifests, and shipped shrouded in tarpaulins.
-
Before the Dark age, there was an age undreamed of ...
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/8c/74/f2/8c74f2fb284b95607c95316767c9244a.jpg)
-
a front mount MG, with an AC-5 with 4 one-shot LRM-10 pods.
-
I don't know... they look like RL-11's to me... :D
-
Before the Dark age, there was an age undreamed of ...
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/8c/74/f2/8c74f2fb284b95607c95316767c9244a.jpg)
A rare pic of an M1 Marksman MBT O0
-
I don't know... they look like RL-11's to me... :D
Does that mean it's deadlier? Is it any deadlier?
Well, it's one more rocket, isn't it? It's not ten. You see, most blokes, you know, will be firing at ten. You're on ten here, all the way up, all the way up, all the way up, you're on ten on your rockets. Where can you go from there? Where?
I don't know.
Nowhere. Exactly. What we do is, if we need that extra push over the cliff, you know what we do?
Put it up to eleven.
Eleven. Exactly. One more rocket.
Why don't you just make ten rockets and make ten be the top number and make that a little bigger?
[pause] These go to eleven.
-
Spinal Tap FTW! ;D
-
O0
-
Captured German tanks:
http://i.imgur.com/YB873Ts.jpg
http://wio.ru/tank/capt/sov-pant.jpg
Captured Soviet tanks:
https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2579/33029852126_e8f4bc6b20_b.jpg
I read in Otto Carius' book Tigers in the Mud that the Germans did initially use captured T-34s, but there were just too many blue-on-blue (feldgrau-on-feldgrau) fire incidents, so the practice was discontinued.
-
Didn't Germany mock up some Panthers as M10 Wolverines at one point?
-
Captured Soviet tanks:
https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2579/33029852126_e8f4bc6b20_b.jpg
Dammit, Worktroll.
-
https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2626/4040767098_605d00fe1f.jpg
-
I believe that qualifies as "rare form" around here... O0
-
Captured German tanks:
http://i.imgur.com/YB873Ts.jpg
http://wio.ru/tank/capt/sov-pant.jpg
Captured Soviet tanks:
https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2579/33029852126_e8f4bc6b20_b.jpg
I read in Otto Carius' book Tigers in the Mud that the Germans did initially use captured T-34s, but there were just too many blue-on-blue (feldgrau-on-feldgrau) fire incidents, so the practice was discontinued.
at Kursk, Das Reich had an entire battalion of T34s
the mocked M10s were during the Bulge
-
I read in Otto Carius' book Tigers in the Mud that the Germans did initially use captured T-34s, but there were just too many blue-on-blue (feldgrau-on-feldgrau) fire incidents, so the practice was discontinued.
Maybe his division, but T-34s served in German forces to the end, there was even standardised refit program for them, just like Soviets had refit program for captured StuGs.
-
Didn't Germany mock up some Panthers as M10 Wolverines at one point?
Yep they were called the Ersatz M10s and used on the western front. Crewed by Germans dressed like Americans. The tanks were modified and painted to look like an M10 Wolverine. All were discovered and destroyed. The crews were found and executed for espionage.
IIRC, only about 10 - 12 Panthers were modified to look like M10s.
Google "ersatz M10 images" to see what they look like.
-
I read in Otto Carius' book Tigers in the Mud that the Germans did initially use captured T-34s, but there were just too many blue-on-blue (feldgrau-on-feldgrau) fire incidents, so the practice was discontinued.
Very good book. Carius is one very hardcore Nazi though.
-
yep, first thing that pops up for me is the Bolt Action article
http://www.warlordgames.com/history-ersatz-panther-m10/
-
So while we're on the subject of modified German tanks, the StuG III and Panzer IV are both known for the distinctive sideskirts that later models sported. What precisely was the point of them? They look too thin to have a significant effect on an anti-tank round that already had the power to punch through the tank's normal side armor. Given that it wasn't something that seems to have been adopted by any other country I'm guessing that it wasn't particularly successful at whatever it was supposed to do.
-
Intended to protect the tracks from infantry-carried AT weapons like the bazooka and PIAT, if I recall correctly.
-
Could they stop 2-pounders (40mm)? The Russians would still have been relying on those and .50-ish caliber antitank rifles for organic infantry battalion antitank support.
-
your referring to the Schürzen? it was an early form of spaced armor. wasn't much good on its own against the shaped charge warheads of the early infantry antitank weapons like the PIAT, Bazooka, or the german's own panzerfaust and panzershreck, but it did give a bit of a boost to the weaker side armor of those german tanks, gave extra protection from anti-tank rifle shots and light cannon, helped against HESH type antitank grenades (and other forms of contact HE grenades), and greater protection of the motive system in general.
quite a few tanks today have an evolved version of it built into the design of the tank itself, or have mountings for add-on 'skirts', to help protect the wheels and track of the treads from enemy fire, as they are far more fragile than the hull itself, and can mission kill a tank fairly fast.
-
Could they stop 2-pounders (40mm)? The Russians would still have been relying on those and .50-ish caliber antitank rifles for organic infantry battalion antitank support.
I cannot attest to their effectiveness, only to their intent.
-
Skirt armor of that nature are intended to cause HESH and Shaped Charge warheads to set off BEFORE they contacted the main side armor in order to reduce their effectiveness.
-
Mostly it was for the AT rifles and light AT guns, which were still plentifull on the Eastern front and could penetrate their side. The idea was that the round would tumble after penetrating the Schürzen, hiting the armor at greater surface area.
-
Ladies and gentlemen, may I present the Churchill ARK:
(http://u0v052dm9wl3gxo0y3lx0u44wz.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Churchill-Ark-Mk-II-bridging-vehicle-UK-pattern.jpg)
The Churchill was a superb cross-country and obstacle-crossing tank, thanks to its length, its low-slung mass, and it's suspension. So much suspension:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d0/Churchill_Tank_tracks._%2831558728656%29.jpg/800px-Churchill_Tank_tracks._%2831558728656%29.jpg)
So it was a logical choice for bridge. Warning: Rule 34 for tanks:
(http://www.strijdbewijs.nl/tanks/churchill/ch15.jpg)
And versatile!
(http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h174/stevesas007/Churchill%20Ark/ark2italian_001.jpg)
That's a Churchill crossing a Churchill ARK, on top of another Churchill ARK.
W.
-
Yo dawg, I heard yo-
(http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h174/stevesas007/Churchill%20Ark/ark2italian_001.jpg)
(http://68.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m650qwKne51r7cs8z.gif)
-
Churchills all the way down!
-
Yet another of Hobart's Funnies on a Churchill chassis: the Churchill AVRE (Armoured Vehicle Royal Engineers). The AVRE's main gun was replaced by a Petard Mortar that fired a forty-pound HE-filled projectile (nicknamed the "Flying dustbin") 150 yards.
(http://www.ww2shots.com/gallery/d/8830-3/CHURCHILL+AVRE-ww2shots-army.jpg)
-
And which required some poor gunner's mate to jump outside to reload, I believe ...
-
The barrel would flip straight up, and some poor bastard would load it from underneath through a hatch on the hull.
-
Considerably better!
-
Yet another of Hobart's Funnies on a Churchill chassis: the Churchill AVRE (Armoured Vehicle Royal Engineers). The AVRE's main gun was replaced by a Petard Mortar that fired a forty-pound HE-filled projectile (nicknamed the "Flying dustbin") 150 yards.
(http://www.ww2shots.com/gallery/d/8830-3/CHURCHILL+AVRE-ww2shots-army.jpg)
150 yards? I guess it's not quite Davy Crockett level of bad idea, but still. Firing something that large would be a lot more comforting if I was farther away from where it was going to land.
-
HESH charge - plastique in a mesh bag, inside a thin metal casing. Could be worse.
-
Yo dawg, I heard yo-
A whole Church Hill.
-
Petard mortar and mortar round
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/aa/The_29cm_Petard_spigot_mortar_on_a_Churchill_AVRE_of_79th_Squadron%2C_5th_Assault_Regiment%2C_Royal_Engineers%2C_under_command_of_3rd_Infantry_Division%2C_29_April_1944._A_40lb_bomb_can_be_seen_on_the_right._H38001.jpg)
150 yard range is much preferable to having the poor sappers approach the fortification on foot and under fire, place and set a demolition charge and fire it.
One of the joys of combat engineering is having both sides firing at you while you are trying to do a delicate engineering task.
-
Tiger killer in Steel Panthers and Close Combat II.
-
Bunker buster in Company of Heroes ::)
Fittingly, Hobart's 79th Armoured was the largest British tank division in WW2. Real experts of their craft.
-
Then there's the Crocodile of course...
http://www.dday-overlord.com/eng/churchill_crocodile_tank.htm
-
(http://oi43.tinypic.com/11ip9n9.jpg)
(http://arcaneafvs.com/fv4004_5/fv4005d.jpg)
(http://arcaneafvs.com/fv4004_5/fv4005a.jpg)
The FV4005 "Conway" - a Centurion chassis mounting a 183mm autoloading gun, sans turret armour.
That's a 7.2" howitzer, heavily modified, and intended for use as a tank destroyer. Only one was built.
W,
-
}:) when you absolutely have to say "**** you and your IS-7" in the most definitive way a tanker can...
-
They took a look at ISU-152 and said: ''That's cute, now watch this''.
-
Stug III Ausf G:
(http://www.achtungpanzer.com/images/stugg.jpg)
Has to be F or later with the longer gun, and the vertical back of the fighting compartment makes it a G for sure. A most unusual shot; presume this was for training/gunnery purposes.
-
That looks vey uncomfortable
-
That looks vey uncomfortable
especially if you get flanked by someone on the open side
or just drive through some mud
I am now working near Bovington and so will get signs like this nearby (when I go to the Tank Museum I will take lots of pictures for you all)
-
Stug III Ausf G:
(http://www.achtungpanzer.com/images/stugg.jpg)
Has to be F or later with the longer gun, and the vertical back of the fighting compartment makes it a G for sure. A most unusual shot; presume this was for training/gunnery purposes.
The Army Ordnance Museum had several captured German AFVs that had cut-aways like these. In WW II the Army did that as a training aid to familiarize the troops to enemy vehicles. Unfortunately, many of them have been stored outdoors since then and the interiors are thoroughly destroyed. On some of the other vehicles with smaller cut-aways, they at least welded metal patches over the holes.
-
"And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people:
and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks:
nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."
(https://68.media.tumblr.com/c121eefa3a8368c70b0ce629f6829439/tumblr_om7at5nhDg1rqpszmo1_1280.jpg)
Chelyabinsk, late 1940s.
-
That's beautiful :-)
-
for those who use Facebook
try https://www.facebook.com/groups/1702825809944254/
many albums of stuff plus many experts on the board, not that we dont
have plenty here, we just dont have 548 albums of stuff
-
Syrian Army T-72s
(http://68.media.tumblr.com/c3e6911caf5f00784aebc7365a2543dc/tumblr_oixyefWdu61rqpszmo1_1280.jpg)
Armoured for the environment. Serious armour spacers.
W.
-
What's that strapped on stuff? Looks almost like they've got concrete blocks attached to the turrets.
-
Interesting, but if the guy with the camera had and anti-tank weapon, they're all toast. No top cover at all...
-
Interesting, but if the guy with the camera had and anti-tank weapon, they're all toast. No top cover at all...
That was my thought too
-
Maybe the improvised stuff that's been thrown at them has been too heavy to lug up stairs?
Just a thought, but yeah, I agree that's one hell of a weakness.
-
An image from the ground of the Syrian T-72 armor "upgrade". Note the height of the slats:
(https://southfront.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/tankkk.jpg)
Similar upgrade to a Shilka:
(http://www.armyrecognition.com/images/stories/news/2016/january/Syrian_army_uses_local-made_armour_cage_to_increase_protection_of_T-72_tanks_and_ZSU-23-4_640_001.jpg)
Those are the good upgrades. There have been even more primitive attempts too...
-
Just a thought, but yeah, I agree that's one hell of a weakness.
There were originally supposedly attempts to cover up the top as well, but this was abandoned as it hindered crew egress.
They're not throwing improvised stuff around in Syria. The tanks are endangered by man-portable anti-tank rockets and guided missiles of about every kind fielded over the last fifty years world-wide, and the cage armour does protect against the HEAT warheads on these.
Operationally, that cage armour isn't cobbled together either, it's industrial production that's generally considered to be based on Iranian designs.
-
The next question is "Are these pics showing the tanks in their operational environment, or were they parked in 'safe' territory, out of sight, while the crews rested/repaired?"
Because those addons look great for fighting in the approaches to enemy territory, but pretty much any MBT is limited in tight urban conditions. The slats, etc also look like they'd interfere with use of pintle-mounted MGs by the tank commander, too.
Consider the Iraqi Army's methods in Mosul. MBTs were used in the approach to occupied towns - they were particularly useful for picking off suicide bomb trucks at range, although I did read about one tank commander who's crew missed their first shot. The truck rammed them & exploded ... the tank crew shook themselves down, and potted the next one. Tank was a T-72 IIRC.
But now that they're in Mosul, it's infantry supported by Hummers & the like, all with protected MG turrets on the roof. I suspect the MBTs are kept somewhere, out of the way near a major arterial road, in case of need.
Side thought - I was just reading an article on War is Boring about "the little tank that could" - the PT-76. The article mentioned that it was common for the M-48s used in Vietnam to fire high-angle as artillery support (there often not being enemy tanks in action). Do modern US or other tank forces train in this sort of thing these days?
W.
-
The next question is "Are these pics showing the tanks in their operational environment, or were they parked in 'safe' territory, out of sight, while the crews rested/repaired?"
looks like a leaguer. so no real threat of attack from above.
Consider the Iraqi Army's methods in Mosul. MBTs were used in the approach to occupied towns - they were particularly useful for picking off suicide bomb trucks at range, although I did read about one tank commander who's crew missed their first shot. The truck rammed them & exploded ... the tank crew shook themselves down, and potted the next one. Tank was a T-72 IIRC.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1yrOqzm4YA this?
that don't look survivable. the shockwave alone must have jellied the crew.
The article mentioned that it was common for the M-48s used in Vietnam to fire high-angle as artillery support (there often not being enemy tanks in action).
USMC M60s too. I have a book about it. Main-gun wise, more often than not they'd be using HE and beehive rounds on enemy weapons teams, bunkers, buildings (during Tet), and yes often included in artillery defensive fire plans when assigned to outposts/firebases. The machine-guns found the most use naturally.
-
that don't look survivable. the shockwave alone must have jellied the crew.
Agreed. May come down to how much HE/ANFO/etc was aboard each truck. If you're lucky, they may only have a couple of bags. if you're not ...
-
The next question is "Are these pics showing the tanks in their operational environment, or were they parked in 'safe' territory, out of sight, while the crews rested/repaired?"
All the tanks are buttoned up, which in my non-expert opinion would indicate that the crew are not resting and repairing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1yrOqzm4YA this?
Again with my non-expert eyes, they look like APC/IFV may be BMP-2 with a couple of armoured HMMVs more than MBTs in that video.
-
Side thought - I was just reading an article on War is Boring about "the little tank that could" - the PT-76. The article mentioned that it was common for the M-48s used in Vietnam to fire high-angle as artillery support (there often not being enemy tanks in action). Do modern US or other tank forces train in this sort of thing these days?
We didn't train on it in the Army, but we were told it was theoretically possible to fire indirectly from the Abrams. Not well, mind you, but possible.
-
I think it'd be a bit easier with a tank mounting a rifled gun.
-
A nice gif here of a BTR and some kind of APC
http://imgur.com/gallery/kiKX5D1
-
A nice gif here of a BTR and some kind of APC
http://imgur.com/gallery/kiKX5D1
Looks like an armored limo.
-
it's the new Russian "special forces" APC/armored car. the ZiL Karatel (“Punisher”)
seems to be a humvee equivalent vehicle, based on a truck chassis
there seems ot be some variation on door design, i suspect the Grey one was the prototype, and the black one is a newer version with improvements.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/88/b4/76/88b4761649e9a2c00f52a7a6aaf2666e.jpg)
(http://defence-blog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/K4-4BcS9VTw.jpg)
(http://www.autorevue.cz/getthumbnail.aspx?q=100&height=100000&width=100000&id_file=743372904)
(http://icdn5.digitaltrends.com/image/abcedasd-720x720.jpg)
(http://rusvesna.su/sites/default/files/styles/orign_wm/public/broneavtomobil_karatel.jpg?itok=9yr5QcuV)
-
It's the ZIL Punisher. Russia's version of the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle.
Dang, beat me to it!
-
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/88/b4/76/88b4761649e9a2c00f52a7a6aaf2666e.jpg)
Why does it have an angry red mouth?
-
that don't look survivable. the shockwave alone must have jellied the crew.
I'm gonna go with 'mulch' on that one, but that's also one hell of a bang. A (much) smaller one could quite easily have been survivable, especially if it was on the front. I'm thinking of the darkly hilarious airborne carbomb...that wasn't all that big.
That said, damn, that's a huge failure for protecting your force, where's the infantry/mass machine gun fire on that truck? At least one (two?) get off 125mm rounds at it, so it's not like they weren't under ROE not to shoot...Why does it have an angry red mouth?
It's Bane's version of the Tumbler from Batman Begins.
-
I choked at the ****-mobile name given in the imgur link
-
it got nicknamed the Batmobile by the internet, because of the Tumbler Batmobile from the Nolan trilogy.
-
We didn't train on it in the Army, but we were told it was theoretically possible to fire indirectly from the Abrams. Not well, mind you, but possible.
I once heard the Soviets used to use tanks that way but the ballistics never made sense to me. Modern cannon rounds have a high muzzle velocity (1000m/s to a howitzer at 350m/s) and that doesn't translate well for effective indirect fire (i.e., huge probable error in range).
-
Given Soviet doctrine & equipment numbers, think of it as musketry gone big :)
-
I once heard the Soviets used to use tanks that way but the ballistics never made sense to me. Modern cannon rounds have a high muzzle velocity (1000m/s to a howitzer at 350m/s) and that doesn't translate well for effective indirect fire (i.e., huge probable error in range).
Marine M-26 Pershings were used for indirect fire in Korea. They even went so far as to prepare 45 degree ramps for them to park on in order to give them proper barrel elevation.
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ3ywRizNuNRU7Ctc46ytinN41hoSiGMyThdqkSpDiaB9Tt4Rtd)
(http://koreanwar-educator.org/memoirs/servais_dean/mem_servais_15_720x489.jpg)
Desperate times call for desperate measures.
-
I have seen pics of shermans in ww2 and korea in the same conditions,
ramped and banging away
-
IIRC, M-10s, M-18s, and M-36s were also used for the same purpose.
-
given the relative lack of High Explosive rounds for the M1's 120mm cannon (APFSDS and HEAT are it's main loads) i suspect that they'd suck as improvised artillery. the Vietnam examples still used conventional High Explosive rounds as a main loadout, making it work a lot better in the indirect fire role.
-
Why does it have an angry red mouth?
It's an early prototype for the AS7 Atlas series of battlemech cockpits.
-
A nice gif here of a BTR and some kind of APC
http://imgur.com/gallery/kiKX5D1
Another one (http://i.imgur.com/4Hi9YBZ.gifv)
-
I once heard the Soviets used to use tanks that way but the ballistics never made sense to me. Modern cannon rounds have a high muzzle velocity (1000m/s to a howitzer at 350m/s) and that doesn't translate well for effective indirect fire (i.e., huge probable error in range).
Perhaps instead of saying, "never made sense," I should have said I never thought it to be effective. To put another way, there are gunnery tables for firing machine guns indirectly but that doesn't mean the effort will result in accurate, precise, and effective fires.
Given Soviet doctrine & equipment numbers, think of it as musketry gone big :)
That was my understanding: a hub to hub sort of thing. Simply getting directional control via a magnetic compass ought to be disaster given how much and the variety of metals with that many tanks in one spot.
-
I once heard the Soviets used to use tanks that way but the ballistics never made sense to me.
Timing-wise as an explanation: Back in 1954, the Soviets retired effectively all remaining WW2 self-propelled artillery (except ISU-152), primarily SU-152 still used back then. The dual purpose fire support capability of these guns was transferred to the coming-into-production T-54A the same year by simply adding a fixed-installation azimuth indicator for exact gun-laying as well as a porthole for an add-in panoramic telescope and a gunner's quadrant for the crew; both of which were rarely actually carried. The same installation was carried over the T-55, T-62 and T-72.
By the late 60s, i.e. around the time the T-72 was designed, they finally decided to reintroduce dedicated self-propelled dual purpose fire support capability on a far enlarged capacity base - expanding the previous towed howitzer batteries in motorized rifle regiments to SPH battalions. This was realized by the early 70s in the form of the 2S1 that had both indirect fire and direct fire support roles with its 122mm gun.
given the relative lack of High Explosive rounds for the M1's 120mm cannon (APFSDS and HEAT are it's main loads) i suspect that they'd suck as improvised artillery.
For the same reason the T-72 generally only has an indirect fire range stated for HE-FRAG (9.4 km, if anyone wonders). It achieves this range at maximum gun elevation without a ramp btw.
Desperate times call for desperate measures.
Supposedly one of the last known applications of indirect fire by tanks were some Type 69-QM using indirect fire against AAVs in Iraq in 2003; they were trained for it too, Iraq purportedly also used it aplenty in the Iraq-Iran war and during the '91 invasion.
-
Well, if you don't have enough artillery, you might as well misuse the rest of your military!
-
Silly bit more on topic than many of my posts
-
Finally!
TurboTrtle😉😉😉😉😉😉
TT
-
Clearly this is the "Great Turtle" mech prototype... ;)
-
It's a Schildkröte (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Schildkr%C3%B6te) ! ;D
-
In the category of "Anything can be airdropped ... once", I present:
(http://i.imgur.com/VJ349Lq.jpg)
Actually, the Mk IV was being used as a tug, but ... "we've got a rule for that!" ;)
-
Silly bit more on topic than many of my posts
Well played, Dan.
-
Another interesting juxtaposition:
(http://68.media.tumblr.com/7fc8e9060402ee341889c4382391b830/tumblr_nejfkke4jN1r94kvzo1_1280.jpg)
-
Challenger 2 and... Mark IV?
-
Geriatric wheeze "now just you listen up, son, I was crossing trenches and blowing shit up before you were a twinkle in your designer's eye"
Younger voice "yeah, at walking speed, grandad, and I go at to tear up fields in Germany (albeit while training)"
-
The size comparison is interesting. I'd always thought the WWI tank were huge behemoths, with loads of room inside(crew of 8, after all). And I suppose they were, by the standards of the day, but it's still odd to see that they're not as big as a modern tank.
-
yeah. the fact that the Mk.IV over there had 8 crew, while the Challenger is 4 seems a bit hard to reconcile too.. no wonder the conditions for the WW1 crews were so hellish. no safety features ,and 8 people crammed into such a small box..
-
Starved for oxygen, poisoned by carbon monoxide, hit by molten lead from bullets splashing on the poorly assembled armour, deafened by exposure to the engines, blinded by almost no visibility for all but the commander, and crippled by the absence of a tea spigot.
-
IIRC, they had exceedingly cramped interiors that further suffered from a lack of ventilation. The heat and fumes would sicken crews.
-
Also speaks to the volume taken up in a modern tank by armour, systems, etc.
-
In fairness, the A7V was pretty damn big.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/55/86/d0/5586d076b2df58adb85d5dd1cefc8550.png)
-
The WW1 tanks had much much thinner armour - few millimetres at most whereas the Challenger 2 has [redacted]
-
The WW1 tanks had much much thinner armour - few millimetres at most whereas the Challenger 2 has [redacted]
Tease
We all know Dorchester armour takes up 21 internal slots
Thats where the bulk comes from O:-)
-
Tease
We all know Dorchester armour takes up 21 internal slots
Thats where the bulk comes from O:-)
As I am currently at work in the town of Dorchester, about 10 miles from Bovington home of tanks and the Tank Museum (and the well-placed-for-Planet-of-the-Apes Monkey World) I will see if I can get photos before too long but don't actually have a convenient day off for a few weeks
-
Tease
We all know Dorchester armour takes up 21 internal slots
Thats where the bulk comes from O:-)
It's a combat vehicle, not a mech. The armor takes up three slots.
-
crippled by the absence of a tea spigot.
An oversight resolved on most modern British AFVs ...
-
Didn't some of the first British tanks Mark 1's and others have problems with exhaust that was going in the crew compartments and affecting the crews.
-
Engine was in the crew compartment, so it was not as much matter of going in as not going out.
-
Can I direct you all to the Reuter's War College podcast released yesterday all about Tanks!
Interesting so far (I'm still only part way through) and pointing out the early tanks only had a half inch of armour
-
As I am currently at work in the town of Dorchester, about 10 miles from Bovington home of tanks and the Tank Museum (and the well-placed-for-Planet-of-the-Apes Monkey World) I will see if I can get photos before too long but don't actually have a convenient day off for a few weeks
I was at Bovington on Saturday (been so many times over the years lol), and also work in Dorchester! Sometimes it's a small world...
If anyone would like to see photos from there, l will definitely be back in a fortnight for Tiger Day (if not before with the kids in the school holidays) so can take requests!
-
If anyone would like to see photos from there, l will definitely be back in a fortnight for Tiger Day (if not before with the kids in the school holidays) so can take requests!
I'd like to see armoured vehicles of First World War. Close ups of Rolls Royce would be nice. Did Britain have anything else besides that and various Marks?
-
I'd like to see armoured vehicles of First World War. Close ups of Rolls Royce would be nice. Did Britain have anything else besides that and various Marks?
Britain also had the Medium Mark A Whippet, Bovington has the only surviving one in the UK (the other four are around the world), but I don't remember seeing it out on display last visit; either I was being blind, it's been moved or is having restoration/maintenance work carried out.
-
Very much AFV related, but I want to give you a mental picture (https://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2017/04/09/guy-buys-tank-ebay-finds-2-5-million-gold-hidden-inside/) for a change ...
W.
-
Given that the gold was stolen, can he keep it?
-
International law, proceeds of crime, etc etc.
The logical outcome would be to return it to Kuwait, and for them to give him a 10% finders fee or suchlike.
Or for him to donate it to Kuwaiti charity, or suchlike.
-
i believe in such cases the gold would be returned to Kuwait. though hopefully the guy gets a suitable reward from their government for being so honest and forthright.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_of_stolen_goods
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handling_stolen_goods
basically, if something was stolen in a way that amounts to a crime anywhere, the person finding said item becomes an accomplice automatically if he attempts to make claim to the items. the guy was wise to call the cops right away.
-
Three Kings springs to mind :D
-
Depending on how much they know about the origin for certain, it might count as Treasure Trove for which we have exciting ancient laws in the UK
-
And now for something ludicrous:
(http://i.imgur.com/8ab9thp.gif)
-
Was trying to figure out what's ludicrous about it until I saw the main gun designation.
-
40 or 400 tons?
-
I backtraced the source and then instantly regretted it
-
Was trying to figure out what's ludicrous about it until I saw the main gun designation.
I stopped at the "Fullerine".
-
bah! The so-called "Tigerwolf" lacks more guns and bombs, and spikey bits!
Fortunately the Spetznatz Tank has all the answers!
(http://media.moddb.com/images/mods/1/13/12793/Project_Tank.jpg)
-
The T-100 Ogre from EndWar.
Brings back some good memories.
-
So what is that exactly? A Long Tom Artillery Cannon, two LAC/5's and a MG?
-
So what is that exactly? A Long Tom Artillery Cannon, two LAC/5's and a MG?
You forgot the missiles. There's a box launcher mounted next to the MG. Looks like maybe an SRM4 for close-in defense?
-
I did miss those... I wonder if Thunderbolts can be done as OS launchers...
-
If it's so Spetznatz, can it do a backflip tomahawk throw? :P
-
More like a Gauss Rifle, two RAC-2s, and a Magshot.
With more spike!
-
Not that amazingly far-fetched, considering the MBT-70 that could have been also mounted an autocannon secondary weapon...
(https://aw.my.com/sites/aw.my.com/files/styles/news_body_image_1/public/u183517/koblenz.png)
If it's so Spetznatz, can it do a backflip tomahawk throw? :P
Yes, but only after it transforms into this guy:
(http://tfwiki.net/mediawiki/images2/thumb/3/32/Brawl_Mission_City.JPG/800px-Brawl_Mission_City.JPG)
-
Strv2000 (T140/40) (page in Swedish) (http://www.ointres.se/strv_2000.htm) was a serious project (if not really economically realistic...). 140mm main gun, 40mm secondary gun.
The 40mm gun was added partially for AA duties but primarily because it could only fit ~30 main gun rounds.
-
I think there are some Western but non-British or American post-WW2 tanks that have had a 20mm cannon as a secondary weapon and some Israeli ones have had a 60mm mortar
The ability of British rifled cannon to offer a greater variety of ammunition types for engaging lightly armoured or unarmoured vehicles has meant they do not need a secondary cannon and the American tanks use a .50cal heavy machine gun instead
There are lots of compromises and what works for one doctrine will not be ideal for another
-
As a former tanker, I like the idea of the Coax being a 20/25mm. Using the M1 (what I have experience with) if you swapped the 7.62mm Coax for the 25mm (as I understand the original plan was for), this give you something to take out the light armored vehicles with and saves you main gun ammo (that is the most limited) for use on major targets. If you have to deal with crunchies you still have the loaders 7.62mm, and the commanders 12.7mm (.50 BMG) in addition to the 25mm and/or main gun with anti-personnel rounds. So the only draw back that I see is you will have less ammo for the loaders MG and Coax as right now they share the same. And if you go with the wrong size it is a new round in the inventory. I would go with the 25mm so it would use the same ammo as the Bradley, and think it would improve the effectiveness of the tank, but that may just be me and the issues we had of running out of main gun ammo.
-
I think there are some Western but non-British or American post-WW2 tanks that have had a 20mm cannon as a secondary weapon and some Israeli ones have had a 60mm mortar
AMX-30 had a coax 20mm, though it also doesn't have much in the way of armor plating - it'll use that cannon at much longer ranges against air and soft targets than a typical tank would with its machineguns. Independent elevation up to 40 degrees IIRC, it seemed like a pretty useful setup and would have utterly minced infantry attacks...
T-72M2 Moderna also had two Oerlikon 20mm autocannon, one on each side of the turret that were independent from the main gun, for AA work when you didn't have available support. Also, more infantry mincemeat.
(https://i2.wp.com/tanknutdave.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/t-72m2-moderna.jpg)
Slovak setup, never got bought or went into production past a few prototypes with ERA as well as the guns.
-
That looks like something Hasbro would design.
-
T-72M2 Moderna also had two Oerlikon 20mm autocannon, one on each side of the turret that were independent from the main gun, for AA work when you didn't have available support. Also, more infantry mincemeat.
(https://i2.wp.com/tanknutdave.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/t-72m2-moderna.jpg)
Slovak setup, never got bought or went into production past a few prototypes with ERA as well as the guns.
actually, that is the T-72M1 version. the M2 version downgraded to a single 30mm with a better turret mount.
(http://media.moddb.com/images/groups/1/3/2074/t72m205.jpg)
IIRC, both are based off field mods the soviets tried during the early Chechnya conflicts.
-
(https://68.media.tumblr.com/6aaaac41c5e64e6c3de5aec7fb006feb/tumblr_oo8pmftT9Q1rqpszmo1_500.jpg)
A Matilda I Infantry Tank next to its last evolutionary descendant the Black Prince Infantry Tank, itself based on the Churchill.
-
Wasn't the Black Prince just a Churchill VII with a Centurion turret?
-
Wasn't the Black Prince just a Churchill VII with a Centurion turret?
Oh no. The Prince was based on the Churchill VII hull, sure, but they had to widen and lengthen the hull in order to fit the turret and ammunition. They also up-armored the hell out of it without re-engining it, which resulted in a max speed somewhere around 10-12 mph. The turret was a unique development not associated, as far as I'm aware at least, with any other tank; the Centurion I's turret (which was in parallel development) had a longer overhang at the back and mounted that ridiculous 20mm coax. In terms of pure aesthetics, the Black Prince's turret looks exceedingly similar to the Comet's turret.
-
Later in the War, the British tank design focus seemed to be mostly focused on putting a 17 pounder gun on... everything/anything
I think the biggest change soon after the war was a shift to better engines for tanks, with diesel rather than lighter fuels and ones designed for the work rather than adapted aero engines
-
British WW2 tanks seemed to have been built with providing the option of having no armor or having no speed.
And, ironically, it was an American rather than British tank that they were the most successful at fitting a 17 pounder on.
-
Wasn't the Black Prince just a Churchill VII with a Centurion turret?
The Eagle and Money Loving beat me to it but yeah the BP whilst based on the Churchill was longer and wider and with thicker armour. The turret was entirely new and built to take the 17lber gun. Sadly the tank was about 3 years too late and was not produced as the Centurion outclassed it.
-
Speaking of Centurion tanks, here is the one on display at the Australian War Memorial in Canberra.
(https://www.awm.gov.au/sites/default/files/centurion-tank-small1.jpg)
(http://www.spiritland.net/galleries/aust_war_memoial/awm017.jpg)
-
Didn't the Auzzies nuke one of their tanks and then keep it in service afterwards?
-
British WW2 tanks seemed to have been built with providing the option of having no armor or having no speed.
Yep, that was a conscious design decision - the concept was that either they were Infantry tanks (intended to roll slowly along as a heavily armoured mobile pill-box to support an infantry advance) or Cruiser tanks (which would charge gallantly like the mounted cavalry of old, protected solely by bravado and derring-do). Notably, in the traditional armour/speed/firepower triangle, both tended to forget the firepower, too ...
-
Didn't the Auzzies nuke one of their tanks and then keep it in service afterwards?
http://io9.gizmodo.com/the-atomic-tank-survived-a-nuclear-test-then-went-to-w-1542451635?IR=T (http://io9.gizmodo.com/the-atomic-tank-survived-a-nuclear-test-then-went-to-w-1542451635?IR=T)
-
Notably, in the traditional armour/speed/firepower triangle, both tended to forget the firepower, too ...
I have to disagree here, for the time the 2lber gun was a very very good AT weapon. What was lacking was a broad view of doctrine. They seemed to forget that anti-tank guns were a thing. And whilst the Matilda was near immune to German AT guns until the 88 started getting used, it was, as was said, designed to support the infantry. Thus have chaps with it who could shoot at the gunners of an AT gun, or better yet, have artillery support to flatten any AT gun positions.
-
I have to disagree here, for the time the 2lber gun was a very very good AT weapon. What was lacking was a broad view of doctrine. They seemed to forget that anti-tank guns were a thing. And whilst the Matilda was near immune to German AT guns until the 88 started getting used, it was, as was said, designed to support the infantry. Thus have chaps with it who could shoot at the gunners of an AT gun, or better yet, have artillery support to flatten any AT gun positions.
What the 88 gave the german was long-range penetrative power. Tanks with light armor were getting taken out at much longer range when the 88 could get a line of sight of them.
-
Indeed but until then a Matilda II (hell even the Matilda I) was very very tough to kill frontally, being near immine to the 37mm gun at all but point blank range.
It was more a doctrinal myopia that affected the UK's AFV programme. A case of;
"This tank will do this and ONLY this. "
"But what if we need it to do that?"
"um..well....keep calm and carry on I guess."
And thats why we used Cavalry tanks against troops and AT guns and Infantry tanks were often used as an assault tank or to engage other tanks. The Germans also KIND of did this. The Panzer IV started off as an infantry support vehicle with its short 75mm being a HE lobber. The Panzer III was designed to engage hostile tanks, the IV was built as infantry support.
-
Indeed but until then a Matilda II (hell even the Matilda I) was very very tough to kill frontally, being near immine to the 37mm gun at all but point blank range.
It was more a doctrinal myopia that affected the UK's AFV programme. A case of;
"This tank will do this and ONLY this. "
"But what if we need it to do that?"
"um..well....keep calm and carry on I guess."
And thats why we used Cavalry tanks against troops and AT guns and Infantry tanks were often used as an assault tank or to engage other tanks. The Germans also KIND of did this. The Panzer IV started off as an infantry support vehicle with its short 75mm being a HE lobber. The Panzer III was designed to engage hostile tanks, the IV was built as infantry support.
And because of the bigger turret ring on IV, they started using it more than III when they keep upgunning them.
-
Aye the III's growth wasn't quite so much as the IV which was far more adaptable. :)
-
I have to disagree here, for the time the 2lber gun was a very very good AT weapon. What was lacking was a broad view of doctrine. They seemed to forget that anti-tank guns were a thing. And whilst the Matilda was near immune to German AT guns until the 88 started getting used, it was, as was said, designed to support the infantry.
uh... IMHO the 2lber did well against the 2nd-line Panzer IIs and IIIs of the Afrika Korps, and Italian tankettes, but it was definitely obsolete before '44.
Practically none of the WW2 tanks would be considered "good" by modern standards - even the vaunted Sherman and T-34, lets face it, inflicted death by zergling swarm.
-
I have to disagree here, for the time the 2lber gun was a very very good AT weapon.
Fair point.
-
uh... IMHO the 2lber did well against the 2nd-line Panzer IIs and IIIs of the Afrika Korps, and Italian tankettes, but it was definitely obsolete before '44.
Practically none of the WW2 tanks would be considered "good" by modern standards - even the vaunted Sherman and T-34, lets face it, inflicted death by zergling swarm.
The 'vaunted' Sherman? Everything I've ever heard is that the Sherman was a deathtrap, and only ever accomplished anything in Europe by dint of numbers. The Pacific went better for it, but only because Japanese tanks were even more awful.
-
yeah, but the guy who wrote the death trap book only worked in a repair depot, all
he saw was the bad cases, anything field repairable wasnt sent to the depot
the russians loved it for its dependability, its armor was decent, speed was decent, but it always ran
-
The 'vaunted' Sherman? Everything I've ever heard is that the Sherman was a deathtrap, and only ever accomplished anything in Europe by dint of numbers. The Pacific went better for it, but only because Japanese tanks were even more awful.
And yet the Sherman wasn't actually as bad as it is made out to be. Its only real, glaring flaw was its high profile, the result of using an aircraft engine. Its armor in its initial version might have been of only mediocre thickness, but the entire front of the tank was well-sloped to improve protection. It brought a pretty good dual-purpose 75mm gun to Allied side when the British were still relying on 6 pdrs (~ 57mm, if memory serves), and those were never issued HE rounds to deal with infantry -- even when mounted on infantry tanks like the Churchill III! Now, when up against 88s or the Panther's long-75, the Sherman (even in its later, up-armored marks) would be penetrated more often than not, but fighting against Mk.IIIs in the desert and Mk.IVs in France, it fought them on a reasonably even playing field.
Our half-tracks were indeed "Purple Heart Boxes" because they had serious issues with spalling and being penetrated by MG fire, and the M3 Lee/Grants were clumsy to drive and had armor too thin for their time. At Alamein, the British got around the Grant's horrendous flaws (weak armor, limited traverse for the 75mm) by deploying them in firing lines and providing long-range support to squadrons of Sherman IIIs and Crusader IIIs that were engaged at the sharp end of things.
-
IIRC, wasn't the first model of Sherman actually pretty dangerous to crew due to having riveted armor and the way the ammo was stored (making it prone to ammo explosions)? But both of those flaws were fixed quickly.
Speaking of Churchills, here's another experiment the British tried: taking off the turret and sticking a 3'' AA gun on it for use as a tank destroyer. Didn't work so well.
Churchill 3'' Gun Carrier:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/The_British_Army_in_the_United_Kingdom_1939-45_H28352.jpg)
-
Cruiser tanks (which would charge gallantly like the mounted cavalry of old, protected solely by bravado and derring-do).
Cruiser tanks were supposed to do breakthrough AFTER infantry tanks (and infantry) had already broken through of the enemy line. Objectives of cruiser tanks were to engage supply centers, communications centers, and whatnot behind the main line of resistance. Unfortunately many of those objectives were defended by ATGs and 20-88 mm AAGs.
The 'vaunted' Sherman? Everything I've ever heard is that the Sherman was a deathtrap, and only ever accomplished anything in Europe by dint of numbers. The Pacific went better for it, but only because Japanese tanks were even more awful.
Check this out (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACqzevjK2DQ)
-
For certain degrees of "armoured"... the sandbox continues to astound, astonish and bewilder ::)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C9J5aYQUAAAs2zy.jpg)
-
If that's an active fighting platform......the recoil....
-
I swear, it was right there when I parked it, and even had the hand brake engaged.....
If that's an active fighting platform......the recoil....
-
Those are actually bunkers waiting to be transported to their final location, and buried up to their turret rings.
-
Those are actually bunkers waiting to be transported to their final location, and buried up to their turret rings.
That makes slightly more sense...slightly.
-
Not even a new concept, such things were used in World War II for airfield defence
-
On the issue of autocannon secondary armaments. The Centurion originally had prototypes using both the then-standard BESA 7.92mm MG (Yes, the British armoured corps used guns chambered in 8mm Mauser instead of .303 because of the logistics of late -30's rearmament - they didn't have time to redesign Czech ZB-53 for .303 like they did the ZGB-33/vZ.26 to Bren) and a variant using the 20mm Polsten cannon (Polish derivative of the Oerlikon).
One of the supposed arguments against the secondary cannon (aside from much reduced ammo capacity) was that troops almost invariably used the main gun against vehicular targets anyway.
-
Not even a new concept, such things were used in World War II for airfield defence
The Panther Ostwallturm:
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-FbHsXKIs4cQ/UHqlodVOqMI/AAAAAAAADko/twWEPYlw1FU/s1600/panther+turret+bunker.jpg)
-
Here you go. Tank Turret Fortifications by Neil Short
An entire book of them.
Good book on how they were/are constructed and used.
Enjoy
Removed link. Was just trying to help is all. Unintentional.
-
Hey hey, what are the forum rules regarding posting links to merchandise?
-
What did they say when you clicked on the rules and read them?
-
Thanks for the heads up. Removed the link.
-
Doesn't that look so very Battletech?
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C9cblxjXgAAZMld.jpg)
-
No matter how much tat they glue onto the turret you still can't disguise that's a T-72
-
No matter how much tat they glue onto the turret you still can't disguise that's a T-72
It's not tat, it's applique armour
Admittedly it is a "soft" defence, those facing it fall about laughing so much they can't aim their weapons straight to punch holes in it
-
I've wondered in the past, if some of the less-economically-robust states that manage to acquire Russian tanks don't just make some boxes out of wood or plastic, glue them to the tanks, and hope a nice camo paint job hides the fact that they aren't, in fact, armor of any sort. Seems like it would be pretty easy to do, and ought to look just fine in a parade.
-
What are those missiles attached to those tanks? SAM's?
-
On a high mount like that, my guess would be ATGMs meant to be fired while the tank stays behind cover.
-
I thought the ATGM was the bigger tubes next to the machine gun mount.
-
Yeah, pretty small for an ATGM but the right size and shape for a light SAM like a Stinger. You want a nice long, thin body on those for a continuous-rod penetrator, and well...I wouldn't count on North Korea's air force to do much in the field of air superiority, so you're likely to be advancing under hostile skies.
-
You can put twin MANPADs, twin machineguns and twin ATGMs on your T-62, but it's still outdated tank.
-
Quantity does have a quality of its own ... and having tanks where the other guy doesn't is also useful
-
What are those missiles attached to those tanks? SAM's?
This is believed to be a new variant of Pokpung-ho ie a gussied up North Korean T-72. From left to right the tacked-on guns are a pair of Chinese knockoff Igla SAMs, twin automatic grenade launchers, and two Konkurs ATGMs.
-
It also appears to have reactive armour on the front of the hull and extra armour added to the front of the turret (possibly spaced?).
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.
-
a gussied up North Korean T-72.
Technically it's based on a Ch'onma-ho Ba hull - a stretched T-62-derived hull with some reverse-engineered T-72 technology, especially regarding armour.
-
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.
-
Wait thats a T-62, even 'better' considering how god aweful that things breech and unloading system were, not quite the arm eater of the T-64 but not much better.
-
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)
-
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
-
Meanwhile in Libya
(http://68.media.tumblr.com/99647bc8bed8b59230f668919f396cee/tumblr_oo7hbb2iuS1w636mro1_1280.jpg)
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.
-
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...
-
...Dat Assawari...
PLEASE tell me that's the real name...
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_frigate_Dat_Assawari
-
That makes me happier than it really should.
-
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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assad-class_corvette) 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:
(https://abload.de/img/cckcji0xiaahqncvoqwp.jpg)
-
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!
-
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 :))
-
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!
-
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.
-
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?
-
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)
-
Activist also call thermobarics ''napalm gas'' in their attempts to get it banned.
-
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?
-
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)
-
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.
-
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.
-
(http://www.wwiivehicles.com/great-britain/vehicle/heavy-tank/mark-viii-heavy-tank/mark-viii-heavy-tank-liberty-03.png)
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.
-
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.
-
Its like a mini Battletech tank.
You know we have rules now for drone vehicles? ^-^
-
(http://www.wwiivehicles.com/great-britain/vehicle/heavy-tank/mark-viii-heavy-tank/mark-viii-heavy-tank-liberty-03.png)
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
-
(http://www.wwiivehicles.com/great-britain/vehicle/heavy-tank/mark-viii-heavy-tank/mark-viii-heavy-tank-liberty-03.png)
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!
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
hadn't heard that one, but i had heard that one of the only M1's lost during Desert Storm was lost to an engine problem, and the crew got ordered to abandoned and disable it.. and they amost couldn't, because their 105mm's just couldn't punch through the armor, and when they finally did (half a dozen shots later), all that happened was the ammo storage blew. the tank was eventually towed out a few weeks later and got refurbished for further use.
-
hadn't heard that one, but i had heard that one of the only M1's lost during Desert Storm was lost to an engine problem, and the crew got ordered to abandoned and disable it.. and they amost couldn't, because their 105mm's just couldn't punch through the armor, and when they finally did (half a dozen shots later), all that happened was the ammo storage blew. the tank was eventually towed out a few weeks later and got refurbished for further use.
The version of the story I heard was that it got stuck in a mudhole and they couldn't pull it out so they tried to destroy it instead.
-
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.
Well, you know what happens when doctrine meets the enemy. In any case the German massed armour formations were destroyed in Russia and the tank battles that took place in the ETO were more fragmented than expected.
I don't think any tank in WW2 can lay claim to being 'good'... the Sherman wasn't called the Tommy Cooker for nothing. At the end of the day the battle was won frankly by the side with the greater production and logistic support, rather than any specific qualitative strength of the hardware itself.
Contrast with the tank battles in Gulf War 1, where M1s and Challys objectively outclassed the Iraqi armour in most every way.
-
hadn't heard that one, but i had heard that one of the only M1's lost during Desert Storm was lost to an engine problem, and the crew got ordered to abandoned and disable it.. and they amost couldn't, because their 105mm's just couldn't punch through the armor, and when they finally did (half a dozen shots later), all that happened was the ammo storage blew. the tank was eventually towed out a few weeks later and got refurbished for further use.
The Abrams only mounted the 105mm until Rheinmetall finished the 120/L44, which was well before Desert Storm; I believe all the US Army tanks in that conflict were the M1A1 variant with the larger cannon. The tank in question bogged down in oil-soaked sand and was indeed ordered to be destroyed in place. The crew did not have thermite grenades, so instead they pulled a couple rounds from the ammo rack, left a couple in said rack, and another tank fired on it. The rounds inside did explode, wrecking the interior of the turret, but most of the blast was directed out the blow-out panels. Since the tank was effectively disabled, it was left in place, and recovered later. It did need some repairs to the hull and was fitted with an entire spare turret, and returned to service.
While it's awesome that the tank was put back into use, if this had happened from enemy fire then the entire crew would've been killed and the Abrams would've been considered a total casualty. of course, under normal conditions you don't have loose rounds kicking around the turret and the ammo rack open, so...
-
I don't think any tank in WW2 can lay claim to being 'good'... the Sherman wasn't called the Tommy Cooker for nothing.
My understanding was that the "Tommy Cooker" nickname was something that applied exclusively to the first M4 variant, which had riveted armor and ammo stored in a way that made it prone to cooking off. By the time the M4A1 was put into production, they'd switched to cast armor and safer stowage practices and the tank was no more dangerous to its crews than a Panzer or T-34.
-
The tank in question bogged down in oil-soaked sand and was indeed ordered to be destroyed in place.
And before friendly forces caught up with it, 3 Iraqi T-72s happened to find it. In the resulting engagement the T-72s scored several direct hits that did no real damage, while the M1 only fired 3 rounds - all resulting in kills. The third kill was particularly interesting as the last T-72 ran and hid behind a sand berm but the M1 crew found it's exhaust plume on the thermal sight and fired through the berm for the kill.
-
You can run, but you can't hide! I shoot you!
Gotta love that capability.
-
Speaking of American tanks, behold one of the more...interesting vehicles to come out of the Cold War The M60A2 'Starship'
(https://68.media.tumblr.com/8ff92da1d8088d5596e43a2fbc2bb14c/tumblr_op007fa5k51tj31v2o1_1280.jpg)
-
You can run, but you can't hide! I shoot you!
Gotta love that capability.
If my memory serves me correctly, it does pose some interesting problems as well in that it is difficult to find a large enough firing range (with a big enough safe zone down range) to allow the US/UK units to fire live APDS rounds in the UK. I think I remember reading an article about how on one of the UK army firing ranges they actually have to fire it facing out to sea, after publishing no-sailing zones and broadcasting warnings to all sailors.
-
My understanding was that the "Tommy Cooker" nickname was something that applied exclusively to the first M4 variant, which had riveted armor and ammo stored in a way that made it prone to cooking off. By the time the M4A1 was put into production, they'd switched to cast armor and safer stowage practices and the tank was no more dangerous to its crews than a Panzer or T-34.
The Shermans indeed benefited from a good upgrade program. I read that almost all Shermans in the ETO after Normandy were the upgunned 76mm variants, in order to improve their chances with Panzer IVs, Vs and Tigers.
The third kill was particularly interesting as the last T-72 ran and hid behind a sand berm but the M1 crew found it's exhaust plume on the thermal sight and fired through the berm for the kill.
British Challengers managed the same feat. I wonder if there are English language reports on the feats of the French 6th Division during Gulf War 1... be interesting to know if they also performed well.
-
The ZAK-57 Derivatsiya:
(http://www.janes.com/images/assets/809/69809/1486121_-_main.jpg)
The anti-aircraft artillery system is based on a modified BMP-3 infantry fighting vehicle fitted with a brand new turret. The 57 mm gun uses "special shrapnel" ammunition.
-
And before friendly forces caught up with it, 3 Iraqi T-72s happened to find it. In the resulting engagement the T-72s scored several direct hits that did no real damage, while the M1 only fired 3 rounds - all resulting in kills. The third kill was particularly interesting as the last T-72 ran and hid behind a sand berm but the M1 crew found it's exhaust plume on the thermal sight and fired through the berm for the kill.
I have done a bunch of research on the subject - because, well, former tanker - and I can find no reports of an Abrams ever being destroyed by enemy fire. Disabled (broken tracks or blown powerpack) or bogged-down and destroyed in place, a handful of times. Blown up by enormous IEDs, once or twice. Crewmen sniped while outside their hatches, depressingly often. But not once in actual combat by enemy fire. Here's one that looks like it chewed its way out of hell.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/de/44/33/de4433b8a49c835c32e8b76ec0808f0f.jpg)
-
I think I remember reading an article about how on one of the UK army firing ranges they actually have to fire it facing out to sea, after publishing no-sailing zones and broadcasting warnings to all sailors.
You're probably thinking of Lulworth Ranges, part of the AFV Gunnery School, but there are several other ranges in the UK that have a significant Sea Danger Area. You can walk the cliff paths when the range is not in use, and park up and watch the firing from a couple of vantage points as well.
-
Bosch: It definitely says something about the durability of the Abrams that to my layman's eyes that tank looks untouched but for a good coat of road dust, but your experience sees it as a severe beating. I do NOT want to know what it takes to actually make one look hurt. :o
-
Did that tank take a lot of gunfire? I don't think these are road dust on it.
-
Was the commander named Jefferson?
Speaking of American tanks, behold one of the more...interesting vehicles to come out of the Cold War The M60A2 'Starship'
(https://68.media.tumblr.com/8ff92da1d8088d5596e43a2fbc2bb14c/tumblr_op007fa5k51tj31v2o1_1280.jpg)
-
Bosch: It definitely says something about the durability of the Abrams that to my layman's eyes that tank looks untouched but for a good coat of road dust, but your experience sees it as a severe beating. I do NOT want to know what it takes to actually make one look hurt. :o
Ha! No, that is just road dust. I just meant that the plow on the front looks like a nasty set of teeth. No, when an Abrams has been rendered combat-ineffective, it is very clearly done for. I will not link pictures, for obvious reasons.
-
I have done a bunch of research on the subject - because, well, former tanker - and I can find no reports of an Abrams ever being destroyed by enemy fire.
There were a limited number of Saudi M1A2 destroyed by Houthi Tosun ATGM (Iranian version of 9K33 Konkurs).
-
i guess it is telling that no American M1's have been lost to enemy fire, but when we give them to others the survivability goes down.
-
Many American armor commanders credit training and doctrine alongside the tank itself. We treat tanks like giant infantrymen: move quickly from cover to cover, scan high and low, have a buddy watching your blind spots, drill until you can react instantly. A tank without proper support or training is a coffin. Remember that video of the latest Russian notness getting whacked with a TOW? Sure, the vehicle survived, but that was luck; there should've been infantry and cannon fire on that crew two seconds after launch.
-
British Challengers managed the same feat. I wonder if there are English language reports on the feats of the French 6th Division during Gulf War 1... be interesting to know if they also performed well.
re: chally 2, there's reports of one that took over 60 RPG hits and came out of it looking like "a very angry hedgehog" but I've never seen pictures of it. I'd love to see what that looks like...
As far as the French, Operation Daguet worked just fine. They were on the far west edge of the battle, taking on Iraq's 45th infantry division and routing it with air support, taking their second operational objective on day two, and then the As-Salman airbase. They had the AU-F1 in mobile artillery support as well, the 155mm SPG built on the AMX-30 chassis. T-72 vs AMX-30B2 went very lopsidedly in the French's favor, a little more detail's available here.
https://weaponsandwarfare.com/2016/07/29/amx-30b2-and-the-gulf-war-1991/
Frankly I like the AMX-30; it's got a nice mix of weight, speed, and gun. It's maybe light on armor but it's also small and fast, and reactive add-on helps with that. Plus, Bosch, how much difference in ease of handling is there between a 105mm and 120mm round? 15 millimeters isn't much, but isn't the 105 shorter as well? And yet they're still quite deadly in a modern fight, it seems...
-
i guess it is telling that no American M1's have been lost to enemy fire, but when we give them to others the survivability goes down.
Well, the M1A2s we sold to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia didn't have full-up Chobham armor packages like our own do. I'm guessing the Iraqi ones don't either.
-
re: chally 2, there's reports of one that took over 60 RPG hits and came out of it looking like "a very angry hedgehog" but I've never seen pictures of it. I'd love to see what that looks like...
"For obvious reasons", as above. However here's a somewhat recent pic from testing of the Indonesian Leopard 2RI's armour with an RPG-7VL (the tandem HEAT round). You will still have to use your imagination a little unfortunately ;D
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-8GpR7h6sUbc/WCtmUnLkjzI/AAAAAAAAATc/4ZyE-Kt223gtTSH92nApDqXJ7IImLZYJgCLcB/s1600/Panzerung%2BAMAP%2Bgegen%2BRPG.png)
-
Plus, Bosch, how much difference in ease of handling is there between a 105mm and 120mm round? 15 millimeters isn't much, but isn't the 105 shorter as well? And yet they're still quite deadly in a modern fight, it seems...
I have no hands-on experience with the 105mm. I was in well after the change-over to 120mm on the Abrams, and out before the Stryker MGS actually arrived to troops. But I will say that even a moderately practiced loader wouldn't take more than 3-5 seconds to get a round in the tube, especially once the adrenaline starts pumping. Since that's about the minimum time it'd take a gunner to acquire and lase a target, it worked out fine.
-
This M1 was lost to a fire.
-
This M1 was not actually destroyed. It was disable and stripped by the Army, then later recovered and returned to the US and repaired.
-
This is the turret of an M1 hit by an overkill IED. No ammo explosion, the force of the IED blew the turret off.
-
Here is an M1, the infamous Cahone Eh. Disabled by an RPG hit to the engine, abandoned and stripped during the first Thunder Run. The crew threw incendiary grenades into the ammo bay when they abandoned it and it was shot by another M1. After the Iraqi forces towed it off and used it for propaganda purposes the US decided to really take it out themselves. Shot by two Hellfire missiles, one Maverick missile and hit by at least one JDAM.
-
About Sherman
It did pretty well for a vehicle not intended to take on enemy armour
That claim (not intended to take on enemy armor) was made by one general. It didn't make it to doctrine manuals. Source (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNjp_4jY8pY)
-
About ShermanThat claim (not intended to take on enemy armor) was made by one general. It didn't make it to doctrine manuals. Source (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNjp_4jY8pY)
Yep, interesting talk - the key bit is from about 8m15s
-
Ok guys, i summon your expertise. Is this a Sherman Firefly? If positive, it is one of the argentinian "Sherman Repotenciados"?
(http://i.imgur.com/gNc7bEY.jpg)
Location: Entry of a military neighborhood, Villa Martelli, Buenos Aires Province, Argentina.
-
Ok guys, i summon your expertise. Is this a Sherman Firefly? Is positive, it is one of the argentinian "Sherman Repotenciados"?
(http://i.imgur.com/gNc7bEY.jpg)
Location: Entry of a military neighborhood, Villa Martelli, Buenos Aires Province, Argentina.
I believe it's a Sherman Repotenciado. My google search suggests all of those were converted Fireflies.
-
Picture isn't working for me.
-
Wrong turret for a Firefly. Might be an Easy 6.
-
I have no hands-on experience with the 105mm. I was in well after the change-over to 120mm on the Abrams, and out before the Stryker MGS actually arrived to troops. But I will say that even a moderately practiced loader wouldn't take more than 3-5 seconds to get a round in the tube, especially once the adrenaline starts pumping. Since that's about the minimum time it'd take a gunner to acquire and lase a target, it worked out fine.
Back when I was in tanks I started with the IPM1 and the slowest we could load and still pass muster was five seconds, a good loader could get the first round in about two, and keep up a rate of one every three tell the ready rack was dry. I remember when we got our A1's and we had so much time to load (I was no longer a loader), it was upped to eight seconds.
-
Back when I was in tanks I started with the IPM1 and the slowest we could load and still pass muster was five seconds, a good loader could get the first round in about two, and keep up a rate of one every three tell the ready rack was dry. I remember when we got our A1's and we had so much time to load (I was no longer a loader), it was upped to eight seconds.
Eight seconds would've been unacceptable by the time I was in. I left OSUT averaging about 4.5 seconds, and am sure I could've gotten it down to 3 seconds reliably if I had gone to a tank unit. I didn't see anyone do two seconds; they started doing times by the ammo door opening and closing.
-
Eight seconds would've been unacceptable by the time I was in. I left OSUT averaging about 4.5 seconds, and am sure I could've gotten it down to 3 seconds reliably if I had gone to a tank unit. I didn't see anyone do two seconds; they started doing times by the ammo door opening and closing.
Our time stopped when "UP" was called.
-
Our time stopped when "UP" was called.
Oh yeah, rack to UP! in two seconds is still fully doable with 120mm, if you don't care about the ammo door. The big rounds are heavy, but you get used to them. Everyone had to find their own "groove;" me, I'd bounce my knees a little right as the weight of the round hit me, and sort of spring back up as I'd flip it into the breech. It's not something I'd want to do a hundred times in a row, but it worked through a full ready rack.
-
I believe it's a Sherman Repotenciado. My google search suggests all of those were converted Fireflies.
After some questioning, researching and digging it looks like its one of the Sherman "Repotenciados", with a (locally produced) french 105 mm FTR L44/57 gun and a diesel engine. I am not sure if this is one of those adapted to use the URDAN mineroller. Next time i visited ADACAS y will try to get some more photos.
Edit: A guy in an argentine military forum identidied the tank as an Argentine Sherman Repotenciado, 1978 upgrade with the 105mm gun, diesel engine, radio and smoke grande launcher. Apparently it was a Hibrid M4 Chasis made by Chrysler USa in the 40´s.
-
so it is basically an independently developed M-51 super-sherman
(http://www.armyrecognition.com/europe/Belgique/exhibition/Tanks_in_Town_2006/pictures/Tanks_In_Town_2006_ArmyRecognition_001.JPG)
(http://i631.photobucket.com/albums/uu38/kilomuse/Tanks/m51_10.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/9Q8sSov.jpg)
speaking of shermans.. can anyone tell me which model this one is?
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/84/246252955_dcb9112342_z.jpg)
https://www.flickr.com/photos/fun_flying/246252955/in/pool-18887211@N00/
if i had to guess, one of the flamethrower mods, but i'm not sure.
-
The turret on that Argentine tank just looks like an early mark Sherman not a late one though. Which amazes me that they managed to fit that gun in there.
And that would be a British modified M4 "Crocodile".
-
i was under the impression that the Sherman Croc's replaced the hull MG with what was basically a modified infantry flamethrower, with superior tankage. the same as the Churchill Croc's. as seen here:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/Churchill_Crocodile_03.jpg)
not the large main gun looking system.
it isn't the M4A3R3 "Zippo" used on iwo Jima though:
(http://www.slitherine.com/forum/download/file.php?id=30691)
that replaced the 75mm gun with a heavy duty flame thrower unit.
it looks rather like a regular sherman fitted with a "zippo" style flame thrower as an add on. maybe the post-war Indian "Adder" refit?
-
That second barrel doesn't look like it's attached to anything, and there's no fuel tanks. My money is on "reenactment prop;" for whatever reason they can't or won't fire pyros through the original barrel, so they added another above it.
-
I can find pictures of it from Company of Heroes(a video game) that call it a M4 Crocodile but yeah nothing from any other source.
-
I can find pictures of it from Company of Heroes(a video game) that call it a M4 Crocodile but yeah nothing from any other source.
COH is a great game but the units are slightly tweaked for balance; the M4 Croc had a functioning tank gun, shot flames from the hull MG position and IINM had a fuel trailer behind
-
That is kind of the tricky part to me. The images have that second barrel on the turret and video games tend to at least get visuals right if using real world stuff but I do suspect that it isn't a M4 Crocodile.
-
That is kind of the tricky part to me. The images have that second barrel on the turret and video games tend to at least get visuals right if using real world stuff but I do suspect that it isn't a M4 Crocodile.
My experience is the exact opposite: video game often get things wrong. For one egregious example, if you look closely at the M4s in the Call of Duty games, their magazines are usually short and straight; that is, the visual model is of the old, not-widely-used-since-Vietnam 20-round magazine.
(https://www.callofduty.com/content/dam/activision/callofduty/mw3/master/screenshots/mw3-image-2011-012.jpg)
It's very clear in this in-engine shot, along with the lack of any sort of rear or optical sight.
-
You folks might like this massive collection of pictures from an arms expo.
http://imgur.com/gallery/2Eg6n
-
disclaimer: I do not imply any link between the below pic and anything happening in the world at all. nopity nope O:-)
now that's out of the way...
the next time you read MOTWs complaining about paper for armour, show em this :D allegedly stopped an RPG, but I figure it was a dud.
(https://s7.postimg.org/4zsrdpaa3/e_Tz_FSw_SKs29hi_o_Rb3_Ln_I5-ghx_Nd_Tt_Wo_NRam_Xt2_Xy_U.png)
-
Whipple shields, not just for NASA! :D
-
73 years ago today, my maternal grandfather made his attempt on Fortress Europe, while commanding one of these...
(http://www.theshermantank.com/wp-content/uploads/cmh-12-3-M4-DD-tanks.png)
unfortunately, his 'swimming' tank sank from under his crew less than 200 yards from the LCT.
the entire crew managed to swim back to their 'mother' LCT.
by 7 June, he and his crew were back in England, looking to draw a replacement.
the vast majority of the American DD Shermans shared the same fate...
(http://m1.paperblog.com/i/264/2647954/el-cementerio-submarino-del-dia-d-L-IKdxYt.jpeg)
-
Thats why Omaha beach was such a mess :o
-
Thats why Omaha beach was such a mess :o
Yep, most were dropped too far out, and at Omaha the current hit them from the side and swamped them easily
-
Thats why Omaha beach was such a mess :o
Yep, most were dropped too far out, and at Omaha the current hit them from the side and swamped them easily
I think the whole of Operation Overlord was a surprisingly successful event and it could have been far worse. A lot of elements worked which individually weren't vital but the overall outcome was a massive success with only a few notable areas of high casualties or something other than immediate success.
-
Yeah
Much of what happened cat Omaha can only be described with the word cluster
Lousy visibility, cross currents and a whole new German division added to defenders were just the start, lots of first and second wave boats landed several hundred yards out of place, and just like Saving Private Ryan showed, a bunch of boats landed directly in front of multiple mg nests and of course bombardment hadn't provided any shell holes to take cover in etc
-
Didn't a historian say it was a near thing for the Allies on that day for the first wave?
-
It was. There were successful and fairly easy landings further west, but that still left a major bottleneck of the Cherbourg peninsula to fight out of. With Omaha and Dog beaches, the defenses were thickest. Air cover was not very capable, and much of the shelling had landed long - I understand it was expected that there would be tanks and artillery stored in the target zones. The biggest factors in the German defensive failure was the decoy operation with Patton's nonexistent army drawing their attention and planning further northeast. The second biggest was once the main thrust became clear to the local commanders, the "command-inertia" from Germany took far too long to bring up reserves.
As it was, it was close indeed - had the Germans been able to repulse successfully at the American beaches in the east, and had there been enough reserve support units, they could have moved up and driven the western beach-head into the sea. Too many of their forces were focused on the Dover-Calais route, and they didn't have the ability to shift that force by over 300km required to reach Caen and begin closing the door. A lot more could have been done with the naval gunfire to drop closer to the beaches, prior to the assault, but that would have also made the beaches that much more difficult to traverse - the same problems the infantry faced crossing the artillery's destruction in the first World War.
-
Dog beach?
As far as I know they were: Utah, Omaha, Gold, Juno and Sword beaches.
-
It was. There were successful and fairly easy landings further west, but that still left a major bottleneck of the Cherbourg peninsula to fight out of. With Omaha and Dog beaches, the defenses were thickest. Air cover was not very capable, and much of the shelling had landed long - I understand it was expected that there would be tanks and artillery stored in the target zones. The biggest factors in the German defensive failure was the decoy operation with Patton's nonexistent army drawing their attention and planning further northeast. The second biggest was once the main thrust became clear to the local commanders, the "command-inertia" from Germany took far too long to bring up reserves.
As it was, it was close indeed - had the Germans been able to repulse successfully at the American beaches in the east, and had there been enough reserve support units, they could have moved up and driven the western beach-head into the sea. Too many of their forces were focused on the Dover-Calais route, and they didn't have the ability to shift that force by over 300km required to reach Caen and begin closing the door. A lot more could have been done with the naval gunfire to drop closer to the beaches, prior to the assault, but that would have also made the beaches that much more difficult to traverse - the same problems the infantry faced crossing the artillery's destruction in the first World War.
Didn't they have to get the personal authorization of the Fuhrer to move forces and he was still asleep, or something like that?
-
Yep, most were dropped too far out, and at Omaha the current hit them from the side and swamped them easily
The British managed their 'Hobart's Funnies' a little better, and/or were luckier, and they were more useful on their beaches.
Still, it's a hell of a thing to drive a perfectly good tank into water over its head. Getting out of a sinking tank probably is on par with getting out of a burning tank - hell of a thing. Grognard, so glad to hear your granddad & all his crew made it out. Did he talk about that bit, ever?
(My father was RN, my father-in-law was a machine-gunner in the Greek Civil War. Neither talked much about it; one of my father's more relevant comments was "A life on the ocean wave, is the key to a watery grave" ...)
W.
-
Also iirc on areas where the surf was rough or combat seemed light, a lot of the boats said to hell with it and drove on in to drop on,
or very near the beach as opposed to 2km offshore
-
While yes, the old Soviet Union was probably not the nicest place in the whole world, there were at least a few perks to being a kid there:
(https://scontent.fapa1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/18920436_10154879906387991_7837955505130062387_n.jpg?oh=4cf96d09d54eaa7efc9e647132deab18&oe=59D94FE2)
Now that's one way to get kids off the internet and out in the fresh air! I make then in order:
- T-34/85
- JS-1 (note: no pike bow)
- another JS-1
- possibly a JSU-152
- and an SU-100 at the back?
Love the effort that went into making them unique and with accurate running gear!
W.
-
Turret looks more like standard T-34 to me. The rest as best I can tell you are spot on.
-
Didn't they have to get the personal authorization of the Fuhrer to move forces and he was still asleep, or something like that?
IIRC, it was because he was fully convinced that Patton would be leading the real assault and anything else must be a feint.
-
The British managed their 'Hobart's Funnies' a little better, and/or were luckier, and they were more useful on their beaches.
Still, it's a hell of a thing to drive a perfectly good tank into water over its head. Getting out of a sinking tank probably is on par with getting out of a burning tank - hell of a thing. Grognard, so glad to hear your granddad & all his crew made it out. Did he talk about that bit, ever?
(My father was RN, my father-in-law was a machine-gunner in the Greek Civil War. Neither talked much about it; one of my father's more relevant comments was "A life on the ocean wave, is the key to a watery grave" ...)
W.
Just a guess but most of us do not talk much about our time to people who have not been there, as it is hard for most to understand.
-
Just a guess but most of us do not talk much about our time to people who have not been there, as it is hard for most to understand.
Some choose to write books about it, or assist professional writer on it. I've got & read Heavy Metal: A Tank Company's Battle to Baghdad and bunch from David Drake (all of Complete Hammer's Slammers and some more). How well do they deliver?
-
Some choose to write books about it, or assist professional writer on it. I've got & read Heavy Metal: A Tank Company's Battle to Baghdad and bunch from David Drake (all of Complete Hammer's Slammers and some more). How well do they deliver?
Watch the beginning of Saving Private Ryan. I've read a number of accounts when I was younger from soldiers who were there, apparently the producers did as well because some of those incidents are retold on the big screen.
-
Folk I've talked to would not rate Drake high on the realism scale; admittedly, it was an ex-SAS gent I met at a BBQ who said something like "There's real events in there, but the outcomes are how he'd have liked them to come out, not how they tend to in real life".
( I encountered him when he was critiquing my sons & nephew playing one of the "Call of Duty" games, about why in-game tactics wouldn't work in the real world. This guy worked with my BiL, and apparently did kendo in the loading bay during lunchtime at work to keep loose ...)
-
I'm quite certain that veterans of the 7th Cav consulted on We Were Soldiers. Years after I first saw the movie, I saw an interview with a veteran of the Ia Drang, and his description of one particular scene (the friendly fire incident shown here (https://youtu.be/13kdMg9E9aI)) was so close that I could literally see the scene in the movie as he was describing it.
-
But the ending was absolutely fantasy, battalion conducting shoulder to shoulder Hollywood charge, crushing all enemy resistance.
-
Some choose to write books about it, or assist professional writer on it. I've got & read Heavy Metal: A Tank Company's Battle to Baghdad and bunch from David Drake (all of Complete Hammer's Slammers and some more). How well do they deliver?
From what I have see (adding to what others have said) most of the best are where they get groups, and so they are not really telling their story, they are telling stories about their buddy. Most of the real hero's that I have meet did not like talking about them self, but wold go on and on about their buddies, even when their buddies were saying that it was not them, but the one telling the story. There are lots of reasons why, but I kind of feel that the end of Saving Private Ryan where he asks if he has been a good man kind of sums it up for lots. Was their sacrifice worth it?
-
Now that's one way to get kids off the internet and out in the fresh air! I make then in order:
- T-34/85
- JS-1 (note: no pike bow)
- another JS-1
- possibly a JSU-152
- and an SU-100 at the back?
Love the effort that went into making them unique and with accurate running gear!
I'm pretty sure that is a picture of what several of my old game books refer to as a 'Category III Tank Division'.
Meow Liao
-
IIRC, it was because he was fully convinced that Patton would be leading the real assault and anything else must be a feint.
Yup. He insisted - and the General Staff agreed - that the invasion would land at Calais. Rommel complained, but he had already fallen out of favor by then. Hitler was still awake as the invasion started, but there was a lot of confusion among the staff as to exactly what was going on, and given the moods he had been in, nobody wanted to tell him anything. By the time they realized that this was the Big One, ol' stupid mustache had taken a bunch of sedatives and gone to bed. So the reserves sat, the Allied forces linked up, and the Western Front was practically lost the same day it opened.
-
The amount of preparation that went into Overlord was so insane that it takes in-depth reading into the actions of each unit - land, air, sea and otherwise - to really appreciate it all. Tiny factors upon factors building up to create an overwhelming advantage for the Allies.
For example, D-day was by no means over on the first day, a well-organised counterattack could still have contained and crushed the beachhead. The primary tank unit responsible for this was Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler, and the popular 'delay until the Fuhrer was awake' story would only have accounted for a matter of hours. But the Allies didn't depend on luck and the vagaries of Hitler's sleeping habits; they had the Maquis disrupt much needed comms and transport railways to Normandy and sent the Dam Busters to precision bomb a critical railway tunnel that held up LSSAH for 2-3 more days.
And now, because this is an Armoured Vehicle thread, presenting an "alternative" kind of armour ::D
(http://pop.h-cdn.co/assets/17/23/980x490/landscape-1496863183-pinoyengineering1.jpg)
(http://pop.h-cdn.co/assets/17/23/768x572/gallery-1496863340-pinoyengineering2.jpg)
You can just about make out who's to blame in the pic below ::D
(https://assets.nst.com.my/images/articles/08marawi_1496842816.jpg)
-
Yup. He insisted - and the General Staff agreed - that the invasion would land at Calais.
*snip*
That assessment was largely based on "firm" information that was fed to the Abwehr by Operation FORTITUDE. Interviews with General Staff officers after the war indicated they never caught on. The termination story for FORTITUDE was that the "feint" at Normandy went so well, the main plan for the invasion at Calais was abandoned. They backed this up by logically "dismantling" FUSAG as if it were a real formation.
The principal double agent feeding the Abwehr (codename: GARBO) was so well regarded by his German handlers, they wanted to give him an Iron Cross.
I highly recommend the book "Fortitude" by Roger Hesketh (he was a Lieutenant Colonel in the section responsible for FORTITUDE).
-
You can just about make out who's to blame in the pic below ::D
Mosque in tropical location (south-east asian setting), advertising sign with what appears to be bahasa writing but road warning signs in english . . . hmm . . . and dodgy military equipment that the soldiers have to improvise wooden armour to make them safer . . . got to be Philippines.
-
Mosque in tropical location (south-east asian setting), advertising sign with what appears to be bahasa writing but road warning signs in english . . . hmm . . . and dodgy military equipment that the soldiers have to improvise wooden armour to make them safer . . . got to be Philippines.
Apologies for the low res pic, couldn't find better.
Actually theres no tagalog in there, its all english; sign says Slow Down School Zone, and on the APC is "MAD MAX" and an angry smiley in case you didn't get it ::D
-
Actually theres no tagalog in there, its all english; sign says Slow Down School Zone, and on the APC is "MAD MAX" and an angry smiley in case you didn't get it ::D
The satellite dish on the right has a sticker advertising "Cignal" - a filipino DTH sat TV subscription service. The sign in the back on the left is an ad for a midwife, in English.
The town is Marawi on Mindanao, in case anyone wonders. Which people might want to plug into Google News these days.
-
it is rather sad that some parts of the world look like they stepped right out of a post-apoc film.
-
No offence meant, really, but I've been outside the "white businessman tarrif boundary" on some of my business trips, and I've probably seen less than 10% of what our fellow posters in the military have seen ... most of the world, Glitterboy, looks post-apocalyptic to the white suburban eye.
When someone points out "that's the bridge that the orphan kids missing limbs sleep under", you know you aren't in Melbourne any more. Let alone Kansas.
-
The satellite dish on the right has a sticker advertising "Cignal" - a filipino DTH sat TV subscription service. The sign in the back on the left is an ad for a midwife, in English.
what the...
Okay I posted that from my phone, and in my phone that pic looks super small, and I thought that was the problem... :o
-
The satellite dish on the right has a sticker advertising "Cignal" - a filipino DTH sat TV subscription service. The sign in the back on the left is an ad for a midwife, in English.
The town is Marawi on Mindanao, in case anyone wonders. Which people might want to plug into Google News these days.
The midwife sign does not appear to be in written in the Queen's English (it uses the English alphabet). In Mindanao then it is probably Bisaya (the local dialect used in Mindanao).
it is rather sad that some parts of the world look like they stepped right out of a post-apoc film.
I have been to parts of Australia (Woomera testing range, remote indigenous communities in Far North Queensland and the Northern Territory) and even parts of USA (downtown Richmond, Virginia in the early 2000s) which were post-apocalyptic.
Improvised armour kits have been around for a while, it is just a matter of what materials you have handy. Here is the British Army Daimler-Guinness improvised armour lorry from 1916
(http://easter1916.ie/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/BMH_p_16_Armoured-Car1.jpg)
-
The midwife sign does not appear to be in written in the Queen's English (it uses the English alphabet). In Mindanao then it is probably Bisaya (the local dialect used in Mindanao).
The part that you can read is part of her name (Nasripha Macabuat Lawi). The sign is better visible here (https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/LGh23iA.gO6hFOfRIB.Zbg--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjt3PTEwMjQ7aD04MTE7c209MTtpbD1wbGFuZQ--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/afp.com/482544d4df21c691eb3960782c4eea01e12877a6.jpg) - technically it's more a congratulatory message to her from her family for passing the exam, akin to the kind of things you'd see in newspapers at least over here. In English - "Alhamdulillah & Congratulations!". They speak predominantly Maranao in Marawi, not Bisaya/Cebuano (which on Mindanao is literally everywhere outside the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao).
This one, i guess, is just as much visual camouflage:
(https://abload.de/img/2-437bjdk.jpg)
-
Cool O0 I learn something new every day. Unfortunately, my knowledge of Philippines is very limited, we generally trained with Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia more that the Philippines.
-
Prototype Italian 155mm SPH on Freccia IFV chassis (insert overcompensation joke of choice here)
(http://forum.tanktastic.org/uploads/monthly_02_2015/post-3240-0-99302500-1424032078.png)
and more impromptu armour...
(http://imgur.com/v2H1IHx.jpg)
-
If the intent is to disrupt RPG-type attacks, then doors work O0
-
If the intent is to disrupt RPG-type attacks, then doors work O0
what really?! how, by sliding 'em off?
-
Spacing. Shaped charges work best when detonated at fixed distances from the surface they intend to penetrate, which is built into the warhead. The WW2 German "schurzen", existing mesh armour, and the like all work by detonating the warhead standing off from the armour, reducing the effect of the explosive jet.
Does the door in the pic stand off enough? Unknown. Fortunately it wasn't tested at that point.
Plus there's a lot of psychological safety from improvised armour. All those allied tanks in WW2 draping their bows in spare track? Perceived protection. In fact, I've read it added no value, and increased the likelyhood of broken spare track when needed. Similar issues with sandbags I've seen on Shermans.
-
It's M-113, you could weld another M-113 onto it and it still wouldn't be enough.
-
It's M-113, you could weld another M-113 onto it and it still wouldn't be enough.
For what? To stop an anti-tank round no. But to stop up to heavy machineguns the armor it has is good enough for that as it is. Even some light cannons (depending on the rounds) can be stopped.
-
Even some light cannons (depending on the rounds) can be stopped.
Uh... yeah, if you weld another M113 inbetween and fill it with sand maybe.
The M113's armour is defeated by 7.62x51 AP.
-
The A3 has built in mounting points for a very nice supplemental armor kit.
(http://www.combatreform.org/M113a3paintingretty.jpg)
-
Uh... yeah, if you weld another M113 inbetween and fill it with sand maybe.
The M113's armour is defeated by 7.62x51 AP.
Does it even count as armored at that point?
-
Does it even count as armored at that point?
well it'll stop standard 7.62mm, 5.56mm, pistol rounds, and light shrapnel. considering it was originally meant as a "battle taxi" to deliver troops to the battlefield and not actually engage in fighting itself they probably figured it was enough. certainly was an improvement over the trucks they'd been using, which only put a little canvas between the passengers and the enemy.
though most 113's i understand carry various uparmoring nowadays, to the point it will sometimes stop rifle fire and light MG's. and that is before the various hillbilly armor's. the uparmoring killed its amphibious ability though, which to my mind is a fair trade off.
-
well it'll stop standard 7.62mm, 5.56mm, pistol rounds, and light shrapnel.
As-is, the M113 only stops 7.62 on the frontal glacis, not the side aspects.
-
the uparmoring killed its amphibious ability though, which to my mind is a fair trade off.
I swam an M113 once, and I'd be quite happy to never do it again. It was on a man made lake which was smooth as glass, and we went in a perfectly straight line from one side to the other. The water line was only a few inches from the top deck. As the driver, I was the only one actually inside the vehicle. Everyone else was on top wearing life vests. Anytime anyone moved too much it started listing side to side and/or back to front.
I remember having to apply a pretty heavy coat of grease to the ramp seals beforehand to prevent leakage.
-
The sad thing is, the M113 swims a hell of a lot better than the M2/M3 Bradley ever did!
-
I once saw a lieutenant order his Stryker driver into a "deep ford" point at Ft. Lewis.
The Stryker is not amphibious.
-
One nice thing about the Soviet МТЛБ is the big, flat hull design. Looks like an airboat's body and tends to do well in floatation; it's also very low. Good for target profile, probably a pain in the rear for interior ergonomics.
-
I once saw a lieutenant order his Stryker driver into a "deep ford" point at Ft. Lewis.
The Stryker is not amphibious.
to paraphrase Schlock Mercenary: everything is submersible. Once.
-
We had a sergeant who managed to wreck three Fuchs APCs.
First : rammed backwards into a building on base.
Second : sunk in river during exercise.
Third : broke off wheels "running over rocks" on deployment.
The first one he drove backwards himself without the required lookout (... and, as far as i know, a driver's license for it), the second he ordered his driver to enter the river before making sure the guys in the back had closed all their hatches (which also meant they got out okay pretty fast - the driver didn't), and for the third he apparently charted a path that ran downhill to shortcut the serpentines of the perfectly fine road running that way.
-
How the heck did they let him within shouting distance of a vehicle after the second incident?!? :o
Incidentally one of my friends managed to get 2/3rds of his SPG platoon stuck in a swamp on an exercise... ::)
-
How the heck did they let him within shouting distance of a vehicle after the second incident?!? :o
That's what you get when you have brigades in a conscript army scraping together enough professional soldiers to form a separate, new battalion for deployment. They were using everyone who didn't suddenly break a leg. Literally. In an all-new structure with all-new command structure and soldiers who were posted to whatever their MOS allowed...
They did give him a fourth APC after that, back from deployment. He had to sit in that one in the commander's seat while another guy (... of "coincidentally" the same rank ...) was driving some 1200 km to Bosnia in a convoy. They managed to arrive safe-and-sound.
-
I'm proud to say I never damaged a vehicle under my control, either as driver or TC.
-
I'm proud to say I never damaged a vehicle under my control, either as driver or TC.
During the '03 Invasion of Iraq, one of my 7-ton drivers clipped a M101 trailer and snapped the bed off the frame. When the battery Main Body caught up to my position my XO told me, "all present and accounted for; one trailer destroyed," to which I looked up to see my Btry Gunny's HMMWV drive by towing the frame with plywood strapped on it with ammunition straps. Fortunately, the serial number for the trailer is next to the tow hitch and not on the bed.
Btry B, on the other hand, had a Pvt with two confirmed windshield "kills" by driving a 7-ton into the muzzle brake of the howitzer section to his front during convoy operations. With the 5-ton, you could "tuck" under the towed howitzer in front of you but the 7-ton is a few feet taller. Most of us understood this by looking at the trucks but this kid didn't for some reason.
-
to paraphrase Schlock Mercenary: everything is submersible. Once.
actually the pertinent maxim (http://schlockmercenary.wikia.com/wiki/The_Seventy_Maxims_of_Maximally_Effective_Mercenaries) is #32. Anything is amphibious if you can get it back out of the water.
which caused the response "that maxim usually results in the recovery team deciding their material is not amphibious"
-
During the '03 Invasion of Iraq, one of my 7-ton drivers clipped a M101 trailer and snapped the bed off the frame. When the battery Main Body caught up to my position my XO told me, "all present and accounted for; one trailer destroyed," to which I looked up to see my Btry Gunny's HMMWV drive by towing the frame with plywood strapped on it with ammunition straps. Fortunately, the serial number for the trailer is next to the tow hitch and not on the bed.
Btry B, on the other hand, had a Pvt with two confirmed windshield "kills" by driving a 7-ton into the muzzle brake of the howitzer section to his front during convoy operations. With the 5-ton, you could "tuck" under the towed howitzer in front of you but the 7-ton is a few feet taller. Most of us understood this by looking at the trucks but this kid didn't for some reason.
Oh, Private Can't-Get-Right was a Marine before he joined my Army regiment? ;D
-
Oh, Private Can't-Get-Right was a Marine before he joined my Army regiment? ;D
Likely.
-
I'm proud to say I never damaged a vehicle under my control, either as driver or TC.
The worst thing I ever did was I snapped the whip antenna off of an HMMWV. The antenna was tied down, but the tip was just a few inches higher than the clearance of a Burger King drive through. :-[
-
What were you doing at the Burger King Drive-Thru? I would have gotten my ass chewed up one side and down the other if I caught in military vehicle at the on base BK.
-
What were you doing at the Burger King Drive-Thru?
Lunch.
I would have gotten my ass chewed up one side and down the other if I caught in military vehicle at the on base BK.
Not on post. Out in the real world during my Reserve time.
And there was a First Lieutenant in the vehicle who suggested hitting said drive through. ;) Fortunately our commo guys had a buttload of spares, so other than our platoon leader getting some occasional ribbing from the other company brass that was pretty much the end of it.
-
actually the pertinent maxim (http://schlockmercenary.wikia.com/wiki/The_Seventy_Maxims_of_Maximally_Effective_Mercenaries) is #32. Anything is amphibious if you can get it back out of the water.
which caused the response "that maxim usually results in the recovery team deciding their material is not amphibious"
Another person who got the annotated version? :-)
-
Uh... yeah, if you weld another M113 inbetween and fill it with sand maybe.
The M113's armour is defeated by 7.62x51 AP.
It is clear you have never shot at one. Green tip 5.56, black tip 7.62 and .50, TP ammo out of the Warriors (combined training Brits and us). After shooting them we were able to go down range and look, the 5.56 left very little dimples, the 7.62 pock marks, the .50 nice gouges, and the 30mm put large dents into it. Nothing penetrated! Now the 5.56 it could have taken that all day with out much issue, the 7.62 my squad put about a 100rd belt into the side and maybe if they were all really close it would have gotten through in a nether couple of belts but our gunner was not that good and with him gunning it would have taken thousands of rounds. The .50 again with a good gunner could probably gotten through in the first or second belt. The 30mm I have no doubt that non-target practice ammo would have gone through first round even as it was they only fired about five or six rounds and even with target practice they did more damage than the rest of the "squad" combined. Now if full disclosure it was not a M113 but the ITV that we were shooting at, to the best of my knowledge it is just a slightly modified M113 body but it does not have more armor added.
-
Now if full disclosure it was not a M113 but the ITV that we were shooting at, to the best of my knowledge it is just a slightly modified M113 body but it does not have more armor added.
Improved TOW Vehicle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M901_ITV). M113 with TOW (2) missile launcher.
-
It is clear you have never shot at one. Green tip 5.56, black tip 7.62 and .50, TP ammo out of the Warriors (combined training Brits and us). After shooting them we were able to go down range and look, the 5.56 left very little dimples, the 7.62 pock marks, the .50 nice gouges, and the 30mm put large dents into it. Nothing penetrated! Now the 5.56 it could have taken that all day with out much issue, the 7.62 my squad put about a 100rd belt into the side and maybe if they were all really close it would have gotten through in a nether couple of belts but our gunner was not that good and with him gunning it would have taken thousands of rounds. The .50 again with a good gunner could probably gotten through in the first or second belt. The 30mm I have no doubt that non-target practice ammo would have gone through first round even as it was they only fired about five or six rounds and even with target practice they did more damage than the rest of the "squad" combined. Now if full disclosure it was not a M113 but the ITV that we were shooting at, to the best of my knowledge it is just a slightly modified M113 body but it does not have more armor added.
I've heard some anecdotal evidence from the invasion of Cambodia that 14.5 will go through M113s the long way, but 14.5 is a whole 'nother kettle of fish from even a .50 BMG.
-
I've heard some anecdotal evidence from the invasion of Cambodia that 14.5 will go through M113s the long way
David Drake might have written something about that as part of the (Complete) Hammer's Slammers. Story Butcher's Bill is based on attack through town on Cambodia where Drake could have taken part as tank crewman (my memory could fail here).
-
Just returned from a trip to Finland. They had this little scooter on display at the Seinajoki airshow. Can I get an ID on it please?
http://imgur.com/a/liBgT
-
Turret is wrong for a Puma but the rest looks right. So maybe a modified Puma with a different turret? Not entirely sure.
-
Austrian Saurer SPz A1 (aka Saurer 4K 4FA-G2) with 20mm MK66 automatic gun.
A Puma is like twice the size of that thing, in about every direction ;)
-
In my defense the pictures of the Puma I was looking at didn't give a good size reference to judge by.
-
Austrian Saurer SPz A1 (aka Saurer 4K 4FA-G2) with 20mm MK66 automatic gun.
A Puma is like twice the size of that thing, in about every direction ;)
Nice, Thanks for the info, and yes, it was very small, Like BMD small.
-
I was actually first thinking Wiesel 2 (number of roadwheels fits) or Hotchkiss TT (engine grills at the front side are right) - then noticed the little plaque in one picture saying "2cm Mk66" :P
-
So, not sure if tank, armoured machine gun post. Or awesome mobility scooter.
(http://68.media.tumblr.com/b7e52df47f850066443ea2f3462f4681/tumblr_inline_orr205IJzl1r4iznv_500.jpg)
(http://68.media.tumblr.com/6e45e679034c21499e06a027f5f8d733/tumblr_inline_orr1znVz3j1r4iznv_500.png)
(http://68.media.tumblr.com/cab3788fd3f1908ee555831f850e739a/tumblr_inline_orr1zdiNYU1r4iznv_500.png)
(http://68.media.tumblr.com/ef5f7fd2bb46484adb7848493063c169/tumblr_inline_orr20ktayx1r4iznv_500.png)
Ladies and gentlemen, the Ansaldo MIAS/MORAS 1935
-
So, not sure if tank, armoured machine gun post. Or awesome mobility scooter.
Man, if medicare would cover that, I'd be much more likely to use a scooter...
-
(http://defence-blog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/DErvcWWXsAIIHvW.jpg)
Prototype of the French Griffon VBMR (multi-role armoured vehicle) unveiled at Bastille Day parade.
-
(multi-role armoured vehicle)
Do we have an explanation what does that one mean?
-
It is a direct replacement for the old VAB (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Véhicule_de_l%27Avant_Blindé) vehicle (Véhicule de l'Avant Blindé, armoured forward(-deployed) vehicle).
Basicly, a wheeled armoured vehicle that can be adapted for several uses: battlefield taxi, light support, field ambulance, armoured supply carrier, ATGM carrier...
I dare say, a wheeled M113.
The Griffon is the result of the Scorpion program, detailed here (http://www.defense.gouv.fr/terre/equipements/a-venir/scorpion/presentation) with a couple of additional pictures. One can note that the future standard light wheeled tank (successor to the EBR and AMX-10RC) shares the same chassis.
-
It is a direct replacement for the old VAB (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Véhicule_de_l%27Avant_Blindé) vehicle (Véhicule de l'Avant Blindé, armoured forward(-deployed) vehicle).
Basicly, a wheeled armoured vehicle that can be adapted for several uses: battlefield taxi, light support, field ambulance, armoured supply carrier, ATGM carrier...
I dare say, a wheeled M113.
Patria AMV (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0q0rM4RV1AQ) for comparison.
-
I dare say, a wheeled M113.
They also plan to use them for as long as the M113 (and, nearly, the VAB) has been around. I've heard planning reaching till the 2070s. In addition they do plan to acquire them in numbers comparable to how the M113 was fielded in the Cold War. Around 1400 units to enter service with France until ca 2028 as an initial procurement package plus another 400 with Belgium.
To a very limited extent it won't just replace the VAB APCs but also the VLRA trucks with light units where used as troop transports.
-
looking at images online.. i'd say the Stryker is probably a better comparison. it looks to be basically an armored truck, but it is too big to be a Humvee equivalent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VBMR_Griffon
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/Griffon_VBMR.jpg)
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/24/65/8d/24658da73104aeccabf9492a707ed672.jpg)
they are apparently going to use the same chassis to make a wheeled "Armored Reconnaissance and Combat Vehicle" with an anti-tank gun, the Jaguar EBRC. to replace the multitude of older wheeled recon and support vehicles with a single design.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EBRC_Jaguar
(http://www.armyrecognition.com/images/stories/europe/france/wheeled_armoured/jaguar_ebrc/pictures/Jaguar_EBRC_6x6_Reconnaissance_and_Combat_Armoured_Vehicle_France_French_army_defense_industry_003.jpg)
-
the Jaguar EBRC. to replace the multitude of older wheeled recon and support vehicles with a single design.
Only:
- the AMX-10RC (which similarly shared components with the AMX-10P main IFV),
- the ERC-90 Sagaies (bought because they were air-transportable in C-160s unlike the AMX-10RC)
- and the VAB in HOT launcher configuration aka Mephisto as anti-tank missile vehicles.
Although in my opinion the VAB-HOT replacement is more to bring up numbers and due to functional overlap than to directly replace them.
i'd say the Stryker is probably a better comparison.
The Stryker comparison is apt in another way too: France is planning "Scorpion Brigades" - replacing the current light armoured brigades first and establishing a new brigade by 2025. Belgium will effectively field a fourth "Scorpion Brigade" around the same time.
Both Griffon and Jaguar are STANAG 4569 Level 4 armored btw, i.e. 14.5mm / 155mm HE-FRAG / 10 kg mines. The Stryker is armored to Level 2A in basic protection (7.62mm AP or 6 kg mines non-central) and Level 4 if fitted with MEXAS-2C ceramic applique armor.
Planned versions for Griffon are:
- 1033 troop transport (split into: troop carrier, 81mm mortar team carrier, sniper team carrier, anti-tank team carrier)
- 333 C3
- 196 ambulance
- 117 artillery observer
- 54 engineer (split into: engineer/recovery, response team carrier, refueling)
There are plans for an additional VBMR-L, a lighter 12-ton version of the Griffon. These would replace most VLRA and some P4 trucks and PVP uparmored jeeps in Scorpion Brigades; about 3,800 unarmored P4 trucks throughout the forces are planned to be updated instead of replaced. Tender for VBMR-L was expected mid last year, but to my knowledge postponed.
-
Doesn't a "sniper team carrier" AFV seem a little counterproductive? Hard to sneak into an area undetected when you're tooling areound in a big armored box. Also, rather a niche concept, hard to see why it needs its own variant.
-
It's probably designed to get them to the rough area of their mission, then they hoof it on foot. Probably a lot quieter than a helicopter.
As for the variant, I've got no clue. It's designed to carry less people than a normal AFV, so you've got a bit of room to play with. Were I tasked with this, my completely uneducated guess would be to try and extend the vehicle's driving range, and improve comm gear so that the sniper team can get mission updates before going out on foot.
-
The three special variants of the troop carrier are for the company "support" platoons which are present with all French infantry companies.
These platoons currently have 4 VAB and are used to transport:
- Mortar Squad (2x 81mm mortars / 11 men)
- Sniper Squad (2x .50cal Hecate II anti-material rifle + 2x 7.62mm FRF2 sniper rifle / 7 men)
- Anti-tank Squad (2x Milan / 6 men)
plus a 4-man command section and the 4 drivers and 4 gunners on the vehicles.
The specialized variants - which are only subvariants of the troop carrier and reconfigurable - probably have racks and such specific for the weapons used by these teams.
VABs similarly come in a variety of variants and subvariants - the target of Scorpion is actually to cut down on those; there are only 11 subvariants of Griffon compared to 33 for VAB today.
-
It's probably designed to get them to the rough area of their mission, then they hoof it on foot. Probably a lot quieter than a helicopter.
As for the variant, I've got no clue. It's designed to carry less people than a normal AFV, so you've got a bit of room to play with. Were I tasked with this, my completely uneducated guess would be to try and extend the vehicle's driving range, and improve comm gear so that the sniper team can get mission updates before going out on foot.
If you're using scout-sniper teams, they also make great recon units that can nestle in and watch an area for a while. Having extra radios and power for them could mean several teams operate from one vehicle and act as some impressive observers. Probably also an asset you'd at least give some access to artillery and FAC radios.
-
(https://scontent-amt2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/20228381_1395131633868523_417670006523629610_n.jpg?oh=09090734c59c1299a82174f60e4d6b6c&oe=5A036A7C)
41st AIR halftracks at Catz (Normandy)
(https://scontent-amt2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/20108407_1396107210437632_5953771059599845458_n.jpg?oh=143f9ea9493c91d18cbc11c591f740d0&oe=59FF8E11)
A small section of a vehicle column parked up in Carentan.
Worth noting - pictures taken last week. About 200 re-enactors and 45 vehicles ranging from M8 Greyhounds to Harley WLAs spent 10 days following the route of CCB of the 2nd Armored division during Operation Cobra. Photos taken with WW2 cameras using WW2 lenses, and WW2-equivalent film stock.
-
What's that vehicle in the foreground of the lower pic? It reminds me a lot of BT's Chevalier.
-
What's that vehicle in the foreground of the lower pic? It reminds me a lot of BT's Chevalier.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M8_Greyhound (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M8_Greyhound)
-
(https://scontent-amt2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/20228381_1395131633868523_417670006523629610_n.jpg?oh=09090734c59c1299a82174f60e4d6b6c&oe=5A036A7C)
41st AIR halftracks at Catz (Normandy)
How'd that line in Patton go?
"Is it true that German machine gun rounds go straight through our half-tracks?"
"Naw, they just go through one side, then rattle around a bit."
-
How'd that line in Patton go?
"Is it true that German machine gun rounds go straight through our half-tracks?"
"Naw, they just go through one side, then rattle around a bit."
Do we know what veterans have said about it?
-
Well, American half-tracks were intended to be used primarily for transportation, not combat, so they weren't heavily armored.
-
Do we know what veterans have said about it?
My home town fire department had an old M16 Half Track that they got surplus from the US Navy, the cab is still armored, it is about 1/2 inch of steel plate. My guess (to the best of my knowledge that vehicle has never been shot at) is that it would stop .30-06 ball but not AP (and the German equivalent), but that is just my best guess.
Long story as told to me, the US Navy pulled it off the assembly line and took the turret off put a water tank and painted it red, used it as a dock fire engine. After the war they surplussed it out as no longer needed, my home town (all four by six blocks of it) got it for free as one agency to another transfer. Used it as one of their main rigs for years, and in the late 80's put it into reserve duty, now it is the department mascots vehicle that they take to the town parades and such. Back when I was a volunteer in the department I think we only had three trucks that were not military/CD hand me downs.
-
(https://scontent-amt2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/20228381_1395131633868523_417670006523629610_n.jpg?oh=09090734c59c1299a82174f60e4d6b6c&oe=5A036A7C)
41st AIR halftracks at Catz (Normandy)
(https://scontent-amt2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/20108407_1396107210437632_5953771059599845458_n.jpg?oh=143f9ea9493c91d18cbc11c591f740d0&oe=59FF8E11)
A small section of a vehicle column parked up in Carentan.
Worth noting - pictures taken last week. About 200 re-enactors and 45 vehicles ranging from M8 Greyhounds to Harley WLAs spent 10 days following the route of CCB of the 2nd Armored division during Operation Cobra. Photos taken with WW2 cameras using WW2 lenses, and WW2-equivalent film stock.
I have to say thats astonishing and well done to the people involved in pulling all that together
-
My home town fire department had an old M16 Half Track that they got surplus from the US Navy, the cab is still armored, it is about 1/2 inch of steel plate. My guess (to the best of my knowledge that vehicle has never been shot at) is that it would stop .30-06 ball but not AP (and the German equivalent), but that is just my best guess.
Long story as told to me, the US Navy pulled it off the assembly line and took the turret off put a water tank and painted it red, used it as a dock fire engine. After the war they surplussed it out as no longer needed, my home town (all four by six blocks of it) got it for free as one agency to another transfer. Used it as one of their main rigs for years, and in the late 80's put it into reserve duty, now it is the department mascots vehicle that they take to the town parades and such. Back when I was a volunteer in the department I think we only had three trucks that were not military/CD hand me downs.
Funny; I just got a copy of Hunnicut's "Halftrack" and it specs the armour as 1/4" overall, with 1/2" on the drop-down for the windshield.
No, That would not stop very much, would it? But nor is it much better than a Universal Carrier at 7-10mm overall.
-
the bit about bullets "entering one side and rattling around" came from comments the crews made during the war. the first one actually came from an after action report in Tunisia. the line in Patton was a minor reworking of that report.
partly the issue was like with the M113 post war.. the M3 halftrack was designed as a 'battletaxi', meant to move troops to the fighting, where they would disembark to actually fight. but since it was more mobile than foot troops and had a machinegun, it tended to get used as a support vehicle and fighting platform in practice, meaning the lack of armor was an issue.
-
The also fact that the M3 and many other Battle Taxis didn't have some type of protection from the top was very dangerous to the passengers in side.
-
The also fact that the M3 and many other Battle Taxis didn't have some type of protection from the top was very dangerous to the passengers in side.
canvas roofing not a great way to save weight for armoured fighting vehicles, see also helmet versus beret
-
Astros II MLRS firing - sure we've seen a lot of these but I think this is 1 of the really few if not the first view from a pretty unique angle - all hail drone photography!
(https://s12.postimg.org/40cmnt9f1/20214629_Indonesian_Army_1st_Field_Artillery_Bat.jpg)
-
Meanwhile fear the pre WW2 Danish mechanised forces!
(http://68.media.tumblr.com/c6977e97ba7bf8d3f00598a19484e954/tumblr_ohiytu5I2c1rjbqwno1_1280.jpg)
A Danish Defence Citroen 10CV Type B2 Autochenille ‘1921
-
Well, it's got a shovel. That makes it Tactical...right?
-
Well, it's got a shovel. That makes it Tactical...right?
The more important question is this. Does it have one of those 'Honk-honk!' squeezy horns or does it have the 'ol fashioned 'Awoogah!' type?
-
Looks like a Honky horn... bulb in the left side window.
TT
-
Looks like a Honky horn... bulb in the left side window.
TT
Speaking of horns, have you guys ever heard the Mercedes Grosser's horn? Its a compressed air type, more akin to a boat horn than a car.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMNlAbUeTuk
-
The Metaltech Anti-Terrorist Assault Cart:
(http://www.coolthings.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/armoredcart1.jpg)
Yes, it's actually an armored golf cart!
-
Where's that supposed to fight, Hilton Head?
-
Mumbai actually.
-
Note the firing ports, it is not just an armoured golf cart, it is an infantry fighting golf cart.
-
Looks like terrorists can still take out the wheels with a golf club.
-
They are probably run-flat tires ^-^
-
Love that armored golf cart. Golf Wars!!!
-
Where's that supposed to fight, Hilton Head?
Well now we know what happened to the place at the end of the Jihad. Head of security was given a stockpile of those cars and told to form a mechanized infantry force; the gigantic blast that engulfed the place was actually just the poor guy's head exploding from shock.
-
It actually makes some sense considering the narrowness of streets in many old world cities, but it better have a decent engine or its not going to be able to force its way thru
-
The Metaltech Anti-Terrorist Assault Cart:
(http://www.coolthings.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/armoredcart1.jpg)
Yes, it's actually an armored golf cart!
I know Metaltech from one other thing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaltech%3A_Earthsiege).
-
It actually makes some sense considering the narrowness of streets in many old world cities, but it better have a decent engine or its not going to be able to force its way thru
That does make sense. Though I agree, I hope they seriously soup up the engine and rough terrain capabilities.
-
I know Metaltech from one other thing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaltech%3A_Earthsiege).
I wonder which Metaltech the golf cart is from.
I mean, for me Google - aside from the 1994 game - brings up a Canadian company that claims to have a trademark on the term since 1960, along with (separately) its subsidiaries in Germany and Poland that apparently were all founded in 1992. And a trade exhibition in Malaysia. And - on page 2 - a company in Oregon that manufactures parts for off-road Toyotas. And an Italian company specializing in gold and silver jewelery. And a more generic metalworking company in Wisconsin that does custom CNC manufacturing. And a British company that does the same. And an Israeli company that sells tungsten carbide and other specialized metallurgic powders.
P.S. It's apparently from an Indian company and was designed around 7-8 years ago. Battery powered with 25 km/h top speed.
-
So that's what TW Mechanised Infantry use.
Well yknow what they say, if it works it ain't stupid. If that's the only thing other than PBI that can go down a tight back alley and it's bulletproof, then it's the king of that particular battlefield.
-
So that's what TW Mechanised Infantry use.
I thought Wheeled Mechanized Infantry would use equivalent of Humvee ::)
-
Where's that supposed to fight, Hilton Head?
Nah, that would have to be an armored rental bicycle...in the summer anyway!
Seriously though, I worked at a golf course/driving range in my youth...Those tires look almost exactly like the tires our carts used. They were most certainly NOT run-flat, or all that accomodating of larger weight loads. We would absolutely chew through tires on the work carts that actually got used to haul tools and materials around. I don't see the good 'ole ez-go as a good chassis to start with for any sort of tactical vehicle. You strap on a couple hundred pounds of weight to one, and I'd be worried about ripping a wheel off if I needed to jump a curb!
Oh well, I guess you work with what you've got.
-
BT Motorized platoon field guns?
(http://u0v052dm9wl3gxo0y3lx0u44wz.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/All-Terrain-Mobility-Platform-1-ATMP-towing-a-Light-Gun-02.jpg)
-
Question for tankers - this can't be good news for a tank gun, surely?!
(https://s1.postimg.org/vu01bhg4f/DGKKVL9_WAAEvs_E4.jpg)
BT Motorized platoon field guns?
(http://u0v052dm9wl3gxo0y3lx0u44wz.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/All-Terrain-Mobility-Platform-1-ATMP-towing-a-Light-Gun-02.jpg)
Supacat ATMP looks weird, but is one of the more unsung heroes of the British arsenal...
-
I will go with, what's out of boresight for $600, Alex?
-
I will go with, what's out of boresight for $600, Alex?
BT Motorized platoon field guns?
(http://u0v052dm9wl3gxo0y3lx0u44wz.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/All-Terrain-Mobility-Platform-1-ATMP-towing-a-Light-Gun-02.jpg)
we managed to flush out Charlie 6 with a toy-sized howitzer!
-
Since there's only six troops there, I'm going with it being an AC/2...
-
Since there's only six troops there, I'm going with it being an AC/2...
I was thinking 105mm so more like an AC/5?
-
So the next vehicle has the ammo, autoloader and remaining two crew?
-
So the next vehicle has the ammo, autoloader and remaining two crew?
Actually it will need to as I can't see a limber or anything else to carry more than a round or two of ammunition on the prime mover
-
Light AC/5 would be my take...
-
we managed to flush out Charlie 6 with a toy-sized howitzer!
I was 504'd and couldn't follow-up. I think they could man the weapon with a few rounds if folks were holding them in their laps. I trained on the US version back in '96. Good times.
-
Question for tankers - this can't be good news for a tank gun, surely?!
(https://s1.postimg.org/vu01bhg4f/DGKKVL9_WAAEvs_E4.jpg)
It's fine. These things happen. Just give it a once-over with FireClean and shoot the dirt away. ;D
More seriously, the gun is probably not damaged. Off zero, as Charlie6 said, but between the high-end steel used for guns and the recoil mechanism, it likely did just need a cleaning and boresighting. Tank gun barrels are tough.
-
This one bent.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e9/fa/2a/e9fa2a98354a9b9291baef60b4a03561--funny-accidents-military-humor.jpg)
-
Oh, the poor little Merkava.
-
A kick-stand!
-
What do you do when the target's too close and modern tanks don't get hull-mounted MGs no more? Well, this is 1 way to solve it: step on the gas!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WqAQnABnCY
What is that round antenna on the MRAP/APC in front by the way, anybody know?
-
Could be CREW Duke antennas (https://www.srcinc.com/what-we-do/ew/crew-duke.html (https://www.srcinc.com/what-we-do/ew/crew-duke.html)) but hard to tell due to distance and low-res.
-
What do you do when the target's too close and modern tanks don't get hull-mounted MGs no more? Well, this is 1 way to solve it: step on the gas!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WqAQnABnCY
What is that round antenna on the MRAP/APC in front by the way, anybody know?
Good work by that crew! We used to joke about having a "driver's table" when going to the range ("Driver! Infantry! Right track, engage!") but sometimes it really does help to be in a giant armored beast of a vehicle.
-
What do you do when the target's too close and modern tanks don't get hull-mounted MGs no more? Well, this is 1 way to solve it: step on the gas!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WqAQnABnCY
What is that round antenna on the MRAP/APC in front by the way, anybody know?
You use the Claymores that you 100mph taped to the front and sides of the tank.
-
You use the Claymores that you 100mph taped to the front and sides of the tank.
Ooh! That's like, straight from the scifi stuff: Hammer's Slammers
-
Ooh! That's like, straight from the scifi stuff: Hammer's Slammers
Or Battletech. But I think they'd work better than A-Pods.
-
Ooh! That's like, straight from the scifi stuff: Hammer's Slammers
Or Vietnam.
-
What a terrible idea. Remember that proper doctrine is to support your armor with infantry. Strapping anti-personnel explosives to your tanks is Doing It Wrong.
-
What a terrible idea. Remember that proper doctrine is to support your armor with infantry. Strapping anti-personnel explosives to your tanks is Doing It Wrong.
So the best anti-infantry weapon an armoured fighting vehicle can have is to be part of a well trained all-arms team with infantry and artillery and air and everything else supporting them
In the same way for infantry the best weapon is the same team
We have a culture that still makes us look for the individual and the hero but so many of our best work is done though good team-working - it's the same in my field as I am sure it is in fighting
-
Or Vietnam.
From where David Drake draws his military experience, having served there in his military career. IIRC.
-
So the best anti-infantry weapon an armoured fighting vehicle can have is to be part of a well trained all-arms team with infantry and artillery and air and everything else supporting them
In the same way for infantry the best weapon is the same team
We have a culture that still makes us look for the individual and the hero but so many of our best work is done though good team-working - it's the same in my field as I am sure it is in fighting
So the cultural ideal is the Clan Warrior, the actual ideal is the FWLM? :)
-
So the cultural ideal is the Clan Warrior, the actual ideal is the FWLM? :)
I'd have said a Davion RCT :P
-
What a terrible idea. Remember that proper doctrine is to support your armor with infantry. Strapping anti-personnel explosives to your tanks is Doing It Wrong.
Speaking of which, what's the average infantry soldier's opinion of reactive armor?
-
What a terrible idea. Remember that proper doctrine is to support your armor with infantry. Strapping anti-personnel explosives to your tanks is Doing It Wrong.
Sometimes things go wrong, no matter what is strapped on the tanks. Also when things are expected to go wrong, tanks are at the point. Not just in Hammer's Slammers, but also in Vietnam & Cambodia, where David Drake was temporary gunner on a tank in thunder run through town.
-
No joke, I used to drill at an armory used mainly by a Cav Scout Squadron, and they had fliers pinned to one of the cork boards with pictures of a claymore zip-tied to the front bumper of a deuce-and-a-half, a message to the effect of DON'T DO THIS! and a paragraph or two on why it was a terrible idea.
-
Speaking of which, what's the average infantry soldier's opinion of reactive armor?
I know *I* don't want to be anywhere within 100 ft of it!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXvKS7U3mWw fast forward to 1:00 for instant action.
-
Sometimes things go wrong, no matter what is strapped on the tanks. Also when things are expected to go wrong, tanks are at the point. Not just in Hammer's Slammers, but also in Vietnam & Cambodia, where David Drake was temporary gunner on a tank in thunder run through town.
You've read about these things in books. Some of us have lived them. Bear in mind that, whatever Mr. Drake's qualifications, his stories are fiction - anti-war fiction, no less. Furthermore, just because something was done in the Vietnam conflict does not mean that it's a good idea now, or even necessarily at the time. Strapping command-detonated mines to the outside of your vehicle might be useful in a desperate moment, but it will be a danger to your crew and supporting elements all the time.
-
In every thing there is a season (turn, turn) ...
(http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Apc+evolution_6aafdd_5569405.jpg)
-
You've read about these things in books. Some of us have lived them. Bear in mind that, whatever Mr. Drake's qualifications, his stories are fiction - anti-war fiction, no less. Furthermore, just because something was done in the Vietnam conflict does not mean that it's a good idea now, or even necessarily at the time. Strapping command-detonated mines to the outside of your vehicle might be useful in a desperate moment, but it will be a danger to your crew and supporting elements all the time.
It is not any more dangerous then any other weapon on the tank, or the tank itself. Is it a threat to the infantry? Yes, and no. Yes if they are in the path, but no if the crew and infantry are working together, same as using the WP smoke grenade launchers, or even firing the main gun. All of them can cause injury or even death to the infantry, but none of them really cause any concern to the crew itself.
-
All of them can cause injury or even death to the infantry, but none of them really cause any concern to the crew itself.
That approach soon leads to absence of protective infantry cover. I suggest watching "The Beast" to see how much fun that can be.
-
That approach soon leads to absence of protective infantry cover. I suggest watching "The Beast" to see how much fun that can be.
Let me see if I can clear up what I was trying to say. I was not saying that you just do it willy nilly, but more in reply to
...Strapping command-detonated mines to the outside of your vehicle might be useful in a desperate moment, but it will be a danger to your crew and supporting elements all the time.
I was saying how the Claymore is no/zero/nada danger to the crew or the tank (paint excluded) but just saying that you can not use it due to the fact that it may put the infantry in danger is also not a valid reason to not do it if it works (it does) and can be done safely for your side (it can), as right now if you pop off your WP smoke grenades from the vehicle that puts the troops in danger as WP burns troops very good/bad depending on the side you are on, and also when the main gun is fired the Sabot that flies off can kill a troop if it hits but again you are not going to not use it. So like the other items it is not the only tool, but is a tool and can be used very effectively if both the tank crew and the troops on the ground know what to expect, and how to deal. I see it more like one tank scratching the back of the other (spraying it with MG fire to take care of bad guys on top of the vehicle).
-
That approach soon leads to absence of protective infantry cover. I suggest watching "The Beast" to see how much fun that can be.
This one (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beast_(2009_TV_series))?
-
I'm pretty sure he means this one (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beast_(1988_film)).
-
Let me see if I can clear up what I was trying to say. I was not saying that you just do it willy nilly, but more in reply to I was saying how the Claymore is no/zero/nada danger to the crew or the tank (paint excluded) but just saying that you can not use it due to the fact that it may put the infantry in danger is also not a valid reason to not do it if it works (it does) and can be done safely for your side (it can), as right now if you pop off your WP smoke grenades from the vehicle that puts the troops in danger as WP burns troops very good/bad depending on the side you are on, and also when the main gun is fired the Sabot that flies off can kill a troop if it hits but again you are not going to not use it. So like the other items it is not the only tool, but is a tool and can be used very effectively if both the tank crew and the troops on the ground know what to expect, and how to deal. I see it more like one tank scratching the back of the other (spraying it with MG fire to take care of bad guys on top of the vehicle).
I think you're just flat wrong here. I've never been a tanker, and therefore don't know the qualities of tank armor the way someone like Bosch does, but I do know that the claymore has quite substantial backblast, enough to kill infantry a number of meters behind it. I suspect that the backblast is substantial enough to do nontrivial damage to the tanj's armor, and possibly even harm the crew and/or other delicate components inside the tank.
-
In every thing there is a season (turn, turn) ...
(http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Apc+evolution_6aafdd_5569405.jpg)
All the way back to the First World War, people were trying to get around this - the light tanks were little more than a machine gun with rifle-round resistant armour and people tried extending the heavy tanks to put an infantry section in (the Mark V*)
PS yes, I am trying to divert attention away from the discussion about mines on tanks/vehicles etc
-
I think you're just flat wrong here. I've never been a tanker, and therefore don't know the qualities of tank armor the way someone like Bosch does, but I do know that the claymore has quite substantial backblast, enough to kill infantry a number of meters behind it. I suspect that the backblast is substantial enough to do nontrivial damage to the tanj's armor, and possibly even harm the crew and/or other delicate components inside the tank.
Well you can think what you want, but you are just wrong. I was a tanker (for about 12 years), and then went to be EOD, it works.
I'm pretty sure he means this one (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beast_(1988_film)).
Now it has been quite some time sense I last watched this movie, but if I remember correct it was not really the lack of infantry support, but more the crew not working well together. Still if you have the chance to see it I would say you should, it is not a great movie, but it a good one.
-
Indeed. DARPA's future tank
fantasy wet-dream outlandish cartoon monstrosity concept seems to bring us from Stage 6 (M1A2 SEP TUSK) back to Stage 3/4 of that comic...
(https://abm-website-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/ecnmag.com/s3fs-public/6910934-ground-x-vehicle-technology-643-385.jpg)
(http://media.moddb.com/images/groups/1/3/2074/darpa_GXV.png)
-
Sherman "Tulip" of the 1st Coldstream Guards - mounting 60-pound Tulip HESH (I think) rockets
(http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/sherman-rocket-firing-tank-bridge.jpg)
Closeups, and more Tulips on Shermans, Firefly and Cromwell
(https://s2.postimg.org/eeg0lkjyh/Gad1_CGrocket-_Ground_Power2.jpg)
(https://s2.postimg.org/k3w95vq4p/Tulip_rocket-600x465.jpg)
(https://s2.postimg.org/597nrpgjt/North-west_Europe_1944-45_rare_firefly_Tulip.jpg)
(https://s2.postimg.org/f7sme6pzd/cromwell-tulip-tank.jpg)
-
what are those assemblies on either side of the turret?
-
what are those assemblies on either side of the turret?
British 60-pound rockets - updated post with more pics
-
Big rockets on a angry tank. Awesome looking .
-
Rockets look like they're best used against stationary objects and not enemy tanks.
-
They intrigued me so I did some googling. Supposedly they were useful in breaking up German ambushes.
-
Also likely pretty good against concrete bunkers, going through the Siegfried Line's fixed defenses. HESH does a nice job on concrete.
-
Absolutely, the concrete spall does an even better job on the squishies inside the bunker.
-
The backblast is murder though. We also tested those on Staghound armoured cars and it beat the hell out of every external fitting and battered the fenders into scrap.
Had it worked though; light, fast unit with a LOT of firepower.
Difficult to hit anything smaller than a geographic area though.
-
The book "Men Against Tanks" covers this. The rockets were being discarded by RAF due to cracks in the rocket motors; a tank crew saw the pile of discards, and hurriedly "salvaged" them. The first tank to use them apparently lucked out & wiped out a German tank with it's salvo. Every tank unit immediately began raiding RAF bases on the off-chance; apparently the initial result was rarely, if ever, duplicated.
But boy, did those tankers feel safer!
W.
-
For laughs, the final stage in reloading the Sagger on a BMP-1:
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-LjQHDmoT3v0/VcAT_dLuP6I/AAAAAAAADD8/EH2xXfEsyF4/s400/iw_atgw_at3_m07.jpg)
Unfolding the fins. Not visible - the stick the gunner's using to do so. The BMP-1 apparently has a stock bracket, just under the hatch, to hold the essential stick.
And edit to show something I think a lot of us forget:
(http://www.portierramaryaire.com/imagenes/bmp2_3.jpg)
The BMPs are indeed low and sexy ... very low. Would not want to have to unass from that while under fire. Oh, and yes, the fuel tanks in the rear doors are well highlighted too.
-
(http://www.portierramaryaire.com/imagenes/bmp2_3.jpg)
The BMPs are indeed low and sexy ... very low. Would not want to have to unass from that while under fire. Oh, and yes, the fuel tanks in the rear doors are well highlighted too.
there is a reason the first Battle of Grozny went so badly for the russians..
-
****** all of that. With a brick.
-
Unfolding the fins. Not visible - the stick the gunner's using to do so. The BMP-1 apparently has a stock bracket, just under the hatch, to hold the essential stick.
We laugh, but then our western industrial complex would instead go and spend hundreds of millions of dollars to develop a Sagger equivalent that has self-unfolding fins. Reminds me of the old urban legend about the Fisher Space Pen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writing_in_space)
-
To be fair, Sagger was basically Gen1 ATGM, and came as a hell of a shock during the Yom Kippur war, killing over 800 tanks & vehicles.
And to be fairer, the Sovs did eventually come up with this:
(http://68.media.tumblr.com/04c41b8d9e506b05b2e7528ca781dc33/tumblr_oew2u4ZvrI1qbpemno1_400.gif)
-
Bangbangbangbangbang!
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/aa/FLAK-Panzer_Gepard_%C3%9Cbungsschie%C3%9Fen_Todendorf_1987.jpg/220px-FLAK-Panzer_Gepard_%C3%9Cbungsschie%C3%9Fen_Todendorf_1987.jpg)
-
To be fair, Sagger was basically Gen1 ATGM, and came as a hell of a shock during the Yom Kippur war, killing over 800 tanks & vehicles.
And to be fairer, the Sovs did eventually come up with this:
(http://68.media.tumblr.com/04c41b8d9e506b05b2e7528ca781dc33/tumblr_oew2u4ZvrI1qbpemno1_400.gif)
What wepaon is that? Besides being a strangely fascinating .gif
-
Bangbangbangbangbang!
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/aa/FLAK-Panzer_Gepard_%C3%9Cbungsschie%C3%9Fen_Todendorf_1987.jpg/220px-FLAK-Panzer_Gepard_%C3%9Cbungsschie%C3%9Fen_Todendorf_1987.jpg)
Needs more death blossom!
(https://68.media.tumblr.com/51c77fd1d420feea77a74b1694a942db/tumblr_o24064blJI1r94kvzo1_400.gif)
-
Needs more death blossom!
(https://68.media.tumblr.com/51c77fd1d420feea77a74b1694a942db/tumblr_o24064blJI1r94kvzo1_400.gif)
I know that in the end it was declared a failure, but I always though that the Sgt. York was a cool looking vehicle.
-
That's a awesome action shot of the Sargent York.
-
I think it'd be easier to unass a BMP through those doors than a BTR through it's clown car doors.
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-zcl_HXBMKhY/VGPO60F9bBI/AAAAAAAAAgU/1NDXxfkbEps/s400/Btr-80_in_Serbia.jpg)
Every time I see guys stumbling out of one of those, I immediately think "clown car".
-
My understanding is that is why it is so popular for the troops to ride on top as opposed to inside a BTR . . . it is safer
(http://allswalls.com/images/russian-red-star-russia-vehicle-military-army-combat-armored-btr80-troops-soldiers-rifle-battalion2ndguardstamanskayamotorrifledivision-4000x2667-4-wallpaper-1.jpg)
-
same reason troops in vietnam rode on top of M113's. because they felt it made them safer from mines and IED's.
though in Grozny (1994) the russian troops didn't want to leave the inside of their BMP's and BTR's because the amount of gunfire being sent their way was so massive, any armor was seen as better than no armor. which actually screwed over the MBT's they were supposed to be supporting, because the Chechans were using teams of MG's paired with RPG-gunners.. the MG's would pin down the infantry while the RPG's got in position for top-shots.
the russian lack of experience in Urban warfare really messed them up.
-
Man, just the pictures of those russian APCs is enough to trigger claustrophobia. Everything about them screams "horrible way to die".
-
Agree with you LG.
(http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/USSR/photos/MSPO2004_Polish_BWP1_rearcomp.jpg)
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wj-qgtxdo4A/UehQNnBkbeI/AAAAAAAAAlY/lnuyboQD5as/s1600/int.png)
The idea that they have firing ports so that three of you on each side are firing your assault rifles at close proximity with exhaust gas and spent brass flying everywhere give me the sweats. Let alone trying to evacuate in the event the BMP is hit (so if your are the first man of of three you have to figure a way to squeeze over/climb out over the other two guys if they are injuried then open the molotov cocktail of a backdoor and disembark under fire . . . or open the top hatch and try to squeeze out of that under fire . . .)
-
Man, just the pictures of those russian APCs is enough to trigger claustrophobia. Everything about them screams "horrible way to die".
Agree
same reason troops in vietnam rode on top of M113's. because they felt it made them safer from mines and IED's.
though in Grozny (1994) the russian troops didn't want to leave the inside of their BMP's and BTR's because the amount of gunfire being sent their way was so massive, any armor was seen as better than no armor. which actually screwed over the MBT's they were supposed to be supporting, because the Chechans were using teams of MG's paired with RPG-gunners.. the MG's would pin down the infantry while the RPG's got in position for top-shots.
the russian lack of experience in Urban warfare really messed them up.
First mistake - they engaged in a land war in Asia (well, borders of Asia)
Second mistake - they fought in a city, urban warfare basically grinds up troops and leaves casualties in pretty much any scenario I've heard of
Third mistake - poor doctrine and training (it sounds like) for the fight they shouldn't have engaged in, in the war they shouldn't have engaged in*
*this is a generic and humorous point not specifically related to that war but making reference to The Princess Bride
-
Inconceivable! :D
-
Inconceivable! :D
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
-
Agree with you LG.
(http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/USSR/photos/MSPO2004_Polish_BWP1_rearcomp.jpg)
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wj-qgtxdo4A/UehQNnBkbeI/AAAAAAAAAlY/lnuyboQD5as/s1600/int.png)
The idea that they have firing ports so that three of you on each side are firing your assault rifles at close proximity with exhaust gas and spent brass flying everywhere give me the sweats. Let alone trying to evacuate in the event the BMP is hit (so if your are the first man of of three you have to figure a way to squeeze over/climb out over the other two guys if they are injuried then open the molotov cocktail of a backdoor and disembark under fire . . . or open the top hatch and try to squeeze out of that under fire . . .)
I will give the Russkies some credit... At least the soldiers are facing outward so they can actually see what's going on around them a little; M113s had the soldiers facing inwards. That central column in the troops area though, that also houses the batteries. Gotta be lotsa fun with the fuel from the doors splashing on you as you're bouncing around under fire. The normal 73mm gun-armed BMP-1 doesn't have turret screens, either. Watch your limbs when the turret rotates.
-
At least all 11 guys could unass an M113 in a couple of seconds.
We had it down to where the first two guy's boots hit the ground before the ramp did.
-
The MTLB is actually a little better. The BMP-1 is the infamous shortstack; the -2 got itself a roof increase by a good foot and change. BMP to the turret roof is 6'2" and the MTLB is 6'1" to its roof, which has no turret section. It's shorter overall, but it's a little tiny bit roomier inside.
(http://footage.framepool.com/shotimg/796942657-highlights1624-mt-lb-frenata-di-emergenza-repubblica-popolare-di-doneck.jpg)
I also like the low profile, I admit. You can sneak them around behind terrain much easier than an M-113, which is two feet taller than the MT-LB. There's also the reduced target profile, so getting hit - at least in the 70s and 80s - was a little less likely overall. Not having your gasoline storage in the troop doors is also a plus, even if it theoretically provided a little more radiation protection.
-
compared to the MRAPs and APCs of today, they ALL look like they've been flattened with a giant rolling pin ;D
-
Most claustrophobic troop compartment of any vehicle today: the BMT-72.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CklA6ZWUkAApkPC.jpg)
The BMT-72 uses a more compact, yet more powerful engine that the original T-72. Vehicle has an extended hull with an extra road wheel added on each side. The new troop compartment is located between the turret and engine compartment. Troops enter and leave the vehicle via three separate hatches. Depending on the situation soldiers can dismount and fight on foot or deliver fire from the opened hatches. ::)
I'll walk thanks. ;)
-
Most claustrophobic troop compartment of any vehicle today: the BMT-72.
The BMT-72 uses a more compact, yet more powerful engine that the original T-72. Vehicle has an extended hull with an extra road wheel added on each side. The new troop compartment is located between the turret and engine compartment. Troops enter and leave the vehicle via three separate hatches. Depending on the situation soldiers can dismount and fight on foot or deliver fire from the opened hatches. ::)
I'll walk thanks. ;)
If you need me, I'll be in the foxhole over there. Hell, I'd prefer a Mk5* or whatever the WW1 British tank with a troop compartment was called
-
Close up of the troop compartment (which holds five!):
(http://morozov.com.ua/images/bmt72-04l.jpg)
I like the rubber bladed fans in a vain attempt to combat heat from the adjacent engine.
I don't know what they were smoking at the Kharkiv Morozov Machine Building Design Bureau, but at least no one was stupid enough to place a production order.
-
Russian designs never really cared about comfort for the crew and people to use the equipment.
-
It's not that small.
I mean, i've done an extraction exercise on a Fuchs APC. One guy going through the crawl space around the running engine fighting off the "shocked" guy in the commander's seat until he could get around him to open the hatch above. Of course the vehicle driven halfway down a hill standing at a cant so that a) the access to that crawl space within the troop compartment was at two feet height and b) when going through the crawl space head first you had to crawl upwards through it. And because that wasn't fun enough they got the great idea of simulating the engine being on fire by setting off smoke pots.
-
Russian designs never really cared about comfort for the crew and people to use the equipment.
Food shortages lead to shorter troop means smaller tanks are possible means less resources spent building tanks = win for everyone (except peasants growing up hungry)
-
Food shortages lead to shorter troop
Isn't that just a myth?
-
Isn't that just a myth?
No.
-
Isn't that just a myth?
It was actually observed along the North Korean border following the massive famine that struck the country in the 90s.
-
APCs for the more mature figure ...
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/Namer_in_US.jpg/1920px-Namer_in_US.jpg)
Israeli Namer, under evaluation in the US. Converted from Merkavas being withdrawn from service. I reckon nine of me could fit in that.
-
And for us Battletechers, they make perfect Korvins right out of the box! :)
-
Isn't that just a myth?
Malnutirion is a thing. ::) It's there was a stereotype of people of Japan being "short" in early-mid 20th century, has to do with the available food for the people at large. Or that on average people are taller today than in past because we have better access to food.
-
The more developed Asian countries in particular are seeing a certain change in physique as diets change from the traditional carb-heavy standard to incorporate more protein. Of course its still bounded by genetics, but we're just seeing now the changes that Europeans experienced a couple centuries ago: I believe the "Napoleon was short" myth came from the fact that his stature was modest compared to the modern standard, but then so were most people back then.
-
It's actually been quite conclusively linked to rumors that were spread about him by his enemies. Calling him short was a way of mocking him.
-
APCs for the more mature figure ...
Israeli Namer, under evaluation in the US. Converted from Merkavas being withdrawn from service. I reckon nine of me could fit in that.
A beautiful machine. Too bad it is also sixty tons. Good luck transporting that in a C-130 or A400.
-
Israeli Namer, under evaluation in the US. Converted from Merkavas being withdrawn from service. I reckon nine of me could fit in that.
actually they are building Namer's directly now.
and that one was just on Loan to the US army during 2012. the army wasn't considering buying it, just taking it through its paces alongside the CV-9035, the M2A3 Bradley, a turretless Bradley prototype, and the M1126 Infantry Carrier Vehicle. trying to decide what features to include in the "Ground Combat Vehicle" program designs.
basically so the Army could finalize the specifications for the two competitors in the program to start getting actual designs in place.
sadly it is starting to face design issues now.. meeting all the requirements has resulted in all of the offerings being heavier than the M1 Abrams, mainly due to heavy armor protection. the armor is modular so if they equip lighter armor they can come in under the weight.. but only by not meeting the protection requirement.
haven't heard if the requirements will change, or if the design teams will be able to pull a new generation of armor tech off in time.
currently the teamups are:
BAE Systems, Northrop Grumman, QinetiQ North America, Saft Group, and iRobot
vs
General Dynamics Land Systems, Lockheed Martin, and Raytheon
-
It's actually been quite conclusively linked to rumors that were spread about him by his enemies. Calling him short was a way of mocking him.
I've also heard that it has to do with the pre-Metric variance in units; a French inch was slightly longer than an English inch, so when the English were told he was 5'2", they took that as him being short, not realizing that if you translated the units that worked out to about 5'7".
-
I've also heard that it has to do with the pre-Metric variance in units; a French inch was slightly longer than an English inch, so when the English were told he was 5'2", they took that as him being short, not realizing that if you translated the units that worked out to about 5'7".
This is the truth here.
-
Certainly explains the February 1812 decree from him! "I am not short, and when we all use my measuring system, we will prove it unconditionally!" ...I will refrain from punning on a man concerned over a measurement of five inches...
-
It's actually been quite conclusively linked to rumors that were spread about him by his enemies. Calling him short was a way of mocking him.
It was the Imperial - Metric conversion snafu. When they translated his height number into British system, it was done wrong and showed him being shorter than he actually was.
-
On top of the French inch thing, Napoleon's bodyguard unit consisted of big guys. It made him look small in comparison despite him being pretty much the average height for the day.
-
The reason I learned long ago was the difference between a french foot (13 inches) and an English one (the now standard 12 inches), like AW said. It's also good propaganda to make your enemy an unstable dwarf. #P
I think the introduction of the metric system came later when he decided to optimize the logistics of ''la grande armée''.
-
Historically inaccurate as it would be, I would like to see Peter Dinklage cast as Napoleon in a movie, especially if it was a more comedic take. That'd be pretty funny.
-
Historically inaccurate as it would be, I would like to see Peter Dinklage cast as Napoleon in a movie, especially if it was a more comedic take. That'd be pretty funny.
in the vein of timebandits? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Bandits
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_AxTHxZLsJY/Tj0y1H4aYSI/AAAAAAAAAG8/uH4uEQkBv0E/s1600/time-bandits--terry-gilliam--napoleon-9707787.jpg)
-
(https://68.media.tumblr.com/df33fc719a75621c29c7599410f69ce5/tumblr_ouxuh9Kp6z1rqpszmo1_1280.jpg)
(https://68.media.tumblr.com/b029cfdb5f755208fefa2bdd62886746/tumblr_ouxuh9Kp6z1rqpszmo2_1280.jpg)
(https://68.media.tumblr.com/9a397246d2819ff11a428ccf8fc4a03c/tumblr_ouxuh9Kp6z1rqpszmo3_1280.jpg)
Armored Light Infantry Light Tank and Supply Tank (UK) Apparently. Never seen it before today.
More info about it here - http://weaponews.com/weapons/12396-armored-light-infantry-light-tank-and-supply-tank-uk.html
-
Ugh, I wish the guy who wrote that article knew English grammar...
-
There's a fine line between camoflauge, and ... something else.
(http://www.worldwarphotos.info/wp-content/gallery/ussr/tanks/kv-2/early_production_KV2_tank.jpg)
-
I believe with hight that is the only way to get cam on that. Burry it up to the top of the hull.
-
More stuck Ruskies:
(https://thechive.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/photo-day-05_07_14-920-0.jpg?quality=85&strip=info)
(http://i.imgur.com/a9cw7bC.jpg)
(http://cl.jroo.me/z3/h/_/-/d/a.baa-Stuck-in-the-mud-tank.jpg)
-
Would hate to be the one "volunteered" to explain that to their CO.
-
"Sir, with all due respect, you orders were clear for us to take a hull-down position. We were merely following your orders, sir."
-
Would hate to be the one "volunteered" to explain that to their CO.
"Sir, with all due respect, you orders were clear for us to take a hull-down position. We were merely following your orders, sir."
"Petrovski, you just transferred from the Navy, remind me which branch?"
"Submarines, Sir"
"Ah, we don't do 'hull down' quite as much here in the Guards Tank Division..."
-
(http://i.imgur.com/a9cw7bC.jpg)
"Vadim! Put mop away, no need for silly thing. Clean mud off with ERA!"
-
"Vadim! Put mop away, no need for silly thing. Clean mud off with ERA!"
;D
-
"Vadim! Put mop away, no need for silly thing. Clean mud off with ERA!"
....wouldn't the mud tamp the explosion? Not sure that's all that great for the tank...
-
Does an elephant's hide count as "armoured,"?
-
Does an elephant's hide count as "armoured,"?
'Elephino!
-
More stuck Ruskies:
(https://thechive.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/photo-day-05_07_14-920-0.jpg?quality=85&strip=info)
(http://i.imgur.com/a9cw7bC.jpg)
(http://cl.jroo.me/z3/h/_/-/d/a.baa-Stuck-in-the-mud-tank.jpg)
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
There aint no party like a wash rack party!
Cause a wash rack party is *MANDATORY!*
Yeah, break it down!
O0
-
The Russian mud has been swallowing tanks since late 1941 hasn't it? There are lots of photos from WW2 of the same situation
-
If you want to consider 'anyone wearing armor' then the Russian mud's been slorping down invaders since before they had writing.
-
If you want to consider 'anyone wearing armor' then the Russian mud's been slorping down invaders since before they had writing.
do we consider an armoured horseman (or woman) an armoured fighting vehicle? what about Leonardo Da Vinci's conceptual drawings of a "tank"?
anyway, here are some stuck Panzers
-
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
There aint no party like a wash rack party!
Cause a wash rack party is *MANDATORY!*
Yeah, break it down!
O0
"First Sergeant, aren't parties supposed to be fun?"
"Aren't you having fun, Private? If you're not, let me know, and I'll give you more fun!"
-
"First Sergeant, aren't parties supposed to be fun?"
"Aren't you having fun, Private? If you're not, let me know, and I'll give you more fun!"
(http://www.spotlightreport.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/mandatory-fun.jpg)
-
Oh look, a new addition to my avatar collection!
-
(https://68.media.tumblr.com/9ef660a3b1b1533fafa5cbf428550e0d/tumblr_ovivi9kvun1ummjd5o1_1280.jpg)
-
Still more elbow room than a T-34....
-
(https://68.media.tumblr.com/9ef660a3b1b1533fafa5cbf428550e0d/tumblr_ovivi9kvun1ummjd5o1_1280.jpg)
I like how the officer is poking out the top because he literally has nowhere else to go.
Also, I'm pretty sure the gun's recoil takes the face off the gunner with every shot. Also, where the heck is the ammo for that gun? That's thunder levels of non-euclidian geometry.
-
The empyrean power op the Emperor, you mean!
And one has to include this: it's mandatory
(https://ci.memecdn.com/9383605.jpg)
(I have done this with an Epic Rhino as a Davion APC ...)
-
I like how the officer is poking out the top because he literally has nowhere else to go.
Also, I'm pretty sure the gun's recoil takes the face off the gunner with every shot. Also, where the heck is the ammo for that gun? That's thunder levels of non-euclidian geometry.
Is the commander sitting on the gunner's shoulders?
-
I'm pretty sure they're offset horizontally.
-
they are on that model.. the standard kit has the hatch directly behind the gun, so that the commander's hips and the gun breech occupy the same space. i suspect the maker of the model above did some customizing.
(https://www.games-workshop.com/resources/catalog/product/600x620/99120105048_LemanRussBattleTankNEW01.jpg)
-
A person wouldn't have to suspend quite as much disbelief if not for that commander and hatch. Then you could just assume the undersized turret houses an autoloader for the oversized gun.
Ooh! Maybe the breech of the gun is flush with the front of the turret and the entire gun is contained in the visible barrel! :P
-
honestly with the offset hatch it would work even with the breech partially or wholly inside the turret.. there would be room to load it, then the loader could duck down while firing.
the problem is the various fluff books put the crew at commander, gunner, loader, driver, and 2 sponson gunners. which suggests that it is a 3 man turret.. ouch.
the cutaway model looks ot have made the gunner sitting at a console in the hull, presumably controlling the turret remotely.
-
If the gun fires gyrojet shells or something similar, maybe it doesn't recoil. The back of it could be designed more like a torpedo tube; you just shut and lock the door and that's that.
-
Everyone here realizes that the internal arrangements of most BattleMechs would be equally preposterous?
(http://cfw.sarna.net/wiki/images/thumb/7/7f/WarhammerInternalSchematics.jpg/541px-nv1bc2qou50l0pi5tg0brm69u3l9nuj.jpg?timestamp=20091113205421)
Just where is there room in the torso for the other 84 SRMs? And how do those missiles move through that tiny strut to the launcher? ???
-
What was it about taking reality to fantasy/fiction?
-
Everyone here realizes that the internal arrangements of most BattleMechs would be equally preposterous?
(http://cfw.sarna.net/wiki/images/thumb/7/7f/WarhammerInternalSchematics.jpg/541px-nv1bc2qou50l0pi5tg0brm69u3l9nuj.jpg?timestamp=20091113205421)
Just where is there room in the torso for the other 84 SRMs? And how do those missiles move through that tiny strut to the launcher? ???
It's not a competition. We can admire the ridiculousness of both universes. :P
EDIT: Though if it were, I'd point out that that art is no longer valid. :P
-
The Warhammer has a special machine that enlarges the SRMs from the size they have in storage (about the same as a 5.56mm round) to the approximately Javelin anti-tank missile size they are when fired
Obviously
-
The Warhammer has a special machine that enlarges the SRMs from the size they have in storage (about the same as a 5.56mm round) to the approximately Javelin anti-tank missile size they are when fired
Obviously
It's an air compressor. A lostech air compressor. Missiles are rocket powered balloons.
Random ballistic missile carrier to get things back on task
(https://images.cdn.circlesix.co/image/5/999/524/1/67/1200/630/uploads/posts/2015/12/military-566aedf223fc7.jpg)
-
i have seen at least one fanfic where they had the 'volleys' in BT be sub-munitions.. the launcher fires a single large missile, which then splits into sub-missiles partway to the target.
sorta like
(http://i.makeagif.com/media/12-15-2015/mGbIyk.gif)
-
ah, Iron Man of House
Stark Marvel, the First of His Name, Father of the MCU and Bringer of the New Age of Superhero Movies...
-
The Warhammer has a special machine that enlarges the SRMs from the size they have in storage (about the same as a 5.56mm round) to the approximately Javelin anti-tank missile size they are when fired
Obviously
I thought they stored them dehydrated, then spray water on them in the launch tubes.
-
Swarm munitions are described like that.
i have seen at least one fanfic where they had the 'volleys' in BT be sub-munitions.. the launcher fires a single large missile, which then splits into sub-missiles partway to the target.
-
T-72 recaptured from ISIL, with ineresting ERA placement and painted over driver's periscope. They probably found it stuck in a ditch.
(https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/yuripasholok/765139/5372846/5372846_original.jpg)
-
"Well ... there's your problem!"
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-0eGEBdv43uc/WarcHTjQSNI/AAAAAAAChlg/gsjktNj4MbUqql6dXTE1CLpsPBB7vL9NwCL0BGAs/w530-h330-p-rw/17%2B-%2B1)
-
I like how the officer is poking out the top because he literally has nowhere else to go.
Also, I'm pretty sure the gun's recoil takes the face off the gunner with every shot. Also, where the heck is the ammo for that gun? That's thunder levels of non-euclidian geometry.
I love that someone tried to make the Leman Russ make sense. That's awesome.
-
T-72 recaptured from ISIL, with ineresting ERA placement and painted over driver's periscope. They probably found it stuck in a ditch.
Not really sure what the point of painting the periscope is for, but that looks like a pretty hard focus on counting top-attack munitions. Wonder how effective it'd be.
-
(https://68.media.tumblr.com/7fc07335fbe881aa87789395e6707f81/tumblr_ous3pqaB1U1wsbn2ao1_500.jpg)
Guys we've been doing it all wrong!
-
i have seen at least one fanfic where they had the 'volleys' in BT be sub-munitions.. the launcher fires a single large missile, which then splits into sub-missiles partway to the target.
sorta like
(http://i.makeagif.com/media/12-15-2015/mGbIyk.gif)
Makes sense to me, I've always though of LB-X AC sub volleys as being explosive buckshot. The shell has a radar seeker and detonates either on command from the computer or its own seeker head and fills the area in front of it with explosive submuntion pellets
-
I believe that's exactly how LB-X cannons are fluffed to work. It's why the cluster roll doesn't change based on range, unlike HAGs.
-
I believe that's exactly how LB-X cannons are fluffed to work. It's why the cluster roll doesn't change based on range, unlike HAGs.
I thought that was just a speculation by Cray on how LB-X cluster rounds must work due to their not have range modifiers on the cluster roll. I certainly don't recall actually seeing that in any canon sources.
-
(http://68.media.tumblr.com/b4f2bd3859b5c3590b9eb601a1b21989/tumblr_n8i58nepBv1tw5cx9o1_1280.jpg)
(http://68.media.tumblr.com/c99d895e16846255d0ba9e90de325d31/tumblr_n8i58nepBv1tw5cx9o2_1280.jpg)
(http://68.media.tumblr.com/d5d28ddacf58dbc817d915bd340dc2ca/tumblr_n8i58nepBv1tw5cx9o3_1280.jpg)
Canadian armoured cars of Motor Machine Gun brigade in 1918.
After the German offensives early in 1918 pushed the Entente armies back the fighting on the Western Front took on a new form. The mobile warfare of the beginning of the War re-emerged, tempered by the technological and tactical advances of the past three years. Cavalry came back to the field along with its new armoured counterpart and the War became once more, about movement.
-
a throwback to the early days of WW1 those.. before WW1 and in the early days of WW1, Armored cars were a new enough concept that there were relatively few purpose built ones, so many were basically regular cars and trucks with some armor plate and guns bolted on. by the time the trench warfare really got bogged down, you started seeing more purpose built combat cars.. but by then there was less need.
-
One wonders about the significance of the Doll in the second image.
-
(http://68.media.tumblr.com/7ca063643894c62831af466576feb3e6/tumblr_meulbgZ3aD1r6y3vao1_500.jpg)
-
One wonders about the significance of the Doll in the second image.
I'd guess either a mascot or an attempt to throw off guesses about the range to the thing in the same way that the tiny paratrooper models were dropped as a distraction for Operation Overlord
-
One wonders about the significance of the Doll in the second image.
The first time Barbie's "Ken" went to war?
Didn't realize Ken was a veteran...
;)
-
One wonders about the significance of the Doll in the second image.
(https://s26.postimg.org/vyhjm4yft/1388128478437784903.jpg)
-
I thought that was just a speculation by Cray on how LB-X cluster rounds must work due to their not have range modifiers on the cluster roll. I certainly don't recall actually seeing that in any canon sources.
Proximate fuses. We had them since WW2 (working fuses wise). I believe the first use of said fuse in ground combat was at Battle of Bulge for Allied Forces with the artillery weapons.
-
Yes, I know what a proximity fuse is. But there isn't any mention of LB-X ACs making use of them from any canon source that I recall.
-
(https://68.media.tumblr.com/76eb05781e5ace35f1738efd6ed4faf9/tumblr_owb0exKaao1rqpszmo5_540.jpg)
I don't know what it is, but its oddly cute!
-
101 years since the first deployment of a tank in action
http://www.historyhit.com/first-use-tanks/
-
(https://68.media.tumblr.com/76eb05781e5ace35f1738efd6ed4faf9/tumblr_owb0exKaao1rqpszmo5_540.jpg)
I don't know what it is, but its oddly cute!
according to the only site i find on a reverse image search (https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&prev=search&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=ru&sp=nmt4&u=https:%2F%2Fandrei-bt.livejournal.com%2F603721.html&usg=ALkJrhhU3_I3mH8GQtHXnmjBZwl3TCmrOw#cutid1), some sort of mock up with training systems and/or display purposes.
-
(https://68.media.tumblr.com/0898526a4ac97ee04cc8f30751396d34/tumblr_owb98r2khz1rqpszmo1_1280.jpg)
A Bishop 25lber SPG.
-
AAVs awaiting Irma in Tampa last weekend.
-
Thinking about it, y'know, if you replaced the turret with something like a lightweight turntable ladder that would make a fantastic flood-rescue vehicle. Something that can take the deep water, get close to a building, and provide a catwalk to let people reach the vehicle itself. How high-maintenance are those AAVs anyway?
-
(https://i.imgur.com/ZexsVWL.png)
A KV-1 heavy tank shot to hell and back. But not one of those rounds seems to have penetrated.
-
Thinking about it, y'know, if you replaced the turret with something like a lightweight turntable ladder that would make a fantastic flood-rescue vehicle. Something that can take the deep water, get close to a building, and provide a catwalk to let people reach the vehicle itself. How high-maintenance are those AAVs anyway?
There's a couple firefighting/rescue departments that operate or used to operate LARCs for that kind of amphibious thing (for the US: Milwaukee for example), in Germany they've built firefighting systems based on M2 Alligator military amphibious rigs. In either case these were retired by the 80s and rarely ever saw any kind of use until then.
As for turntable ladders, they're pretty much useless on floating watercraft. And as for flooding: For low waters up to 2 feet or so you can use standard rescue trucks, for deeper you'll want boats with as little draft as possible so you don't get stuck on underwater obstacles.
-
As for turntable ladders, they're pretty much useless on floating watercraft. And as for flooding: For low waters up to 2 feet or so you can use standard rescue trucks, for deeper you'll want boats with as little draft as possible so you don't get stuck on underwater obstacles.
You seem to know what you're talking about. What do you say about hovercraft for that job? Would skirt get in the way in the urban environment?
-
(https://i.imgur.com/ZexsVWL.png)
A KV-1 heavy tank shot to hell and back. But not one of those rounds seems to have penetrated.
Not really, look at some of the "holes" if you can't see nothing but pitch black, it's a sure bet it went through.
-
You seem to know what you're talking about. What do you say about hovercraft for that job? Would skirt get in the way in the urban environment?
There's a couple places that do use hovercraft, mostly when there's also swamp/mud/ice/intertidal areas to cover year-round. The British Red Cross has used their single rescue hovercraft effectively in flood rescue too, similar to some US local departments during hurricanes in recent years.
They're of course not ever gonna replace boats since a simple flat-bottomed aluminium rig that sits in a corner doesn't take any maintenance at all.
-
The hull doesn't take any maintenance, but the outboard motors sure do. They can be a pain.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/ZexsVWL.png)
A KV-1 heavy tank shot to hell and back. But not one of those rounds seems to have penetrated.
The 37mm anti-tank gun that was the standard used by Germany at the start of the war was quite useless against the KV-1's thick armor.
-
The 37mm anti-tank gun that was the standard used by Germany at the start of the war was quite useless against the KV-1's thick armor.
How that gun managed against T-28 and T-34?
-
Just as badly against T-34. Against then-known heavy tanks T-28 and T-35 the 37mm could penetrate only at under 100m distance. The assumption at the beginning of Barbarossa was that the Soviets only had BTs, T-26 and such plus a handful T-28/T-35, with the already introduced T-34 and KV-1/2 completely unknown and unexpected (but encountered on Day 2, with devastating results in favour of the Soviets).
It's somewhat more interesting with the 50mm KwK39 on the Pz III, since this is always claimed to have been equally ineffective against current Soviet tanks - however, the 50mm KwK39 accounted for 54% of all T-34 losses within the first year, giving it some credit in that regard.
-
the T-34 and the KV-1 had comparable armor protection. the T-34 used sloped armor, making its lighter mass of armor more effective. (the first to use sloped armor as a production model), while the KV-1 was two boxes just loaded down with as much armor as they could fit. its sheer thickness made up for the lack of slope.
-
Actually it was the KV-1S variant that had comparable armor to the T-34, since it shed a great deal of its armor in an attempt to fix some of the tank's other problems. The standard KV-1 had armor that was decidedly superior to any other tank that was in service when it first arrived. The KV-1S was discontinued when Soviet command realized that it was effectively identical to the T-34 in speed, firepower, and protection but was heavier and more expensive to build. After that, the stopgap upgrade to the KV-85 was used to give it more firepower (again proving to be nearly identical in effectiveness to the T-34-85) until the IS-2 was ready.
-
Is the Armata in trouble?
(https://cdn1.img.sputniknews.com/images/104005/29/1040052957.jpg)
http://www.janes.com/article/74263/russian-plans-to-upgrade-t-80-and-t-90-jeopardise-armata-programme (http://www.janes.com/article/74263/russian-plans-to-upgrade-t-80-and-t-90-jeopardise-armata-programme)
-
just the usual issues facing nations today.. the cost of producing all new designs vs upgrading existing hardware, relative to how well a nation's economy and budget is looking.
-
Soviet industry (and I use the phrase advisedly) is in trouble, yes.
-
Is the Armata in trouble?
(https://cdn1.img.sputniknews.com/images/104005/29/1040052957.jpg)
http://www.janes.com/article/74263/russian-plans-to-upgrade-t-80-and-t-90-jeopardise-armata-programme (http://www.janes.com/article/74263/russian-plans-to-upgrade-t-80-and-t-90-jeopardise-armata-programme)
The much-touted plans from certain sources, notably Russia Today, have always been at odds with more sober Western assessments of Russia's economic capacity to carry out said plans in almost all areas, whether its RuAF Su-57s, the various Armatas, Project Lider-class destroyers, etc.
And that was before the unanticipated expense of fighting in the sandbox, Russia has basically had to recapitalise the majority of their ally's armed forces both monetarily and in kind.
-
The Russians have made multi versions of tanks and can't seem to pick one.
-
See, the issue Russia is facing is... <RULE 4 VIOLATION! RULE 4 VIOLATION!> ...which is why the monkey had to be painted blue.
-
The Russians have made multi versions of tanks and can't seem to pick one.
well to be fair, most of them date to back when they were "the soviet union", and given how that one collapsed, and the condition russia was in in after it (and up to today), i'm not surprised they've just kept using what they had on hand, regardless of the logistics headaches it has to be causing. in many senses they are like the rest of the ex-soviet republics.. they inherited a logistical mess called "part of the soviet army", and have had to wing it since.
-
Article has it backwards. The beancounters realised that Armata won't be ready for mass production right away and will be much more expensive than originally thought, that is why they cut down orders and greenlit the T-90 and T-80 upgrade programs.
-
Basically, the Russians repeated every mistake we made with the MBT-70. They wanted to make the best tank in the history of the world, which required them to make a buttload of advances simultaneously to get everything they wanted out of it - just like us! And much like us, they wound up with something hideously expensive and completely unreliable.
-
Over here, though, the MBT-70 led to the Abrams, because in the 70s and 80s the Americans had the budget to build umptythousand tanks of new high tech armor and capabilities anyway. The Russians have been cutting back on their defense spending, and don't quite have the same scale of economy even if they'd been building their tank forces upwards like the Americans did.
-
Key difference: The MBT-70 was meant to be the best tank in the world, the M1 was meant to be the best tank that could be built for it's budget. The Army did not want a repeat of the MBT-70 debacle with the Abrams.
-
Might as well post a picture of the piece of crap:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5e/MBT-70_1.JPG)
-
Talk about the MBT-70, and I always think about its secondary cannon, and the much-later prototype T-72M2 and its secondary cannon(s)... so Battletech-y, ah what could have been...
MBT-70
(https://s26.postimg.org/vnqasca9l/Ehm01_Ww.jpg)
T-72M2 Moderna, with two 20mm or one 30mm cannon
(https://s26.postimg.org/ttdgaln95/t72m2_moderna.jpg)
(https://s26.postimg.org/9n9ybprll/t72m2_moderna_l1.jpg)
-
Interestingly enough, early concept art of the Armata shows it with a completely different turret with a pair of mismatched light cannons.
(https://img.rt.com/files/news/39/37/b0/00/armata-tracked-armored-platform.jpg)
Then again, I have yet to see any Russian concept art that winds up even remotely looking like the finished product.
-
(http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/USSR/T-72/comparison-T55-62-64-72.png)
At 217cm, the T-64 is shorter than many cars ...
-
Players of any 4x or RTS with resource gathering know... It's about booming the economy.
China's military budget is twice as much as India's in absolute terms, but is still a smaller proportion of national GDP. One of the benefits of having an economy 4x the size.
-
The Russians don't believe in "crew comforts" even in a little bit. The tanks have only a 3 person crew and that can keep a tank small.
-
The Russians don't believe in "crew comforts" even in a little bit. The tanks have only a 3 person crew and that can keep a tank small.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krp2y88nNCo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krp2y88nNCo)
Makes you wonder how much time the tank crews were expected to be IN the tank versus just hanging around waiting for the Big Push. Granted, the crews for T-72s were specifically capped at, IIRC, 5'8" so you've got less demand for interior room, but still the crew comfort leaves a huge amount to be desired. At least the gunner has a little fan...
-
Makes you wonder how much time the tank crews were expected to be IN the tank versus just hanging around waiting for the Big Push. Granted, the crews for T-72s were specifically capped at, IIRC, 5'8" so you've got less demand for interior room, but still the crew comfort leaves a huge amount to be desired. At least the gunner has a little fan...
I think an awful lot were expected to spend the rest of their lives in/around their tanks in the event of the Big Push
-
How bad was the MBT-70? I recall reading that the driver was in a independently rotating cupola which sounds....pointless and complex, and its gun was used on the M-60 'Starship' variant which was mad complex.
-
The Wiki article was quite informative. The driver's positioning was necessary - the hull was so low he had to go in the turret, and he needed to be able to look forward.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/taiiiCU.jpg)
-
Hilarious!
-
I'm guessing that he was in a Grant?
-
I'm guessing that he was in a Grant/Lee?
Fixed and I would agree with you.
-
Actually, the Brits used the Grant (bigger turret) while the Yanks used the Lee - so he was right the first time.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/62/M-3Grants-E_014053.2.jpg)
-
Actually, the Brits used the Grant (bigger turret) while the Yanks used the Lee - so he was right the first time.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/62/M-3Grants-E_014053.2.jpg)
It may just be semantics, but my understanding is that even though it was common usage officially the US never adopted the nick names for the tanks both versions were just M3's.
-
And that was kind of a problem since the US had two different tanks in usage at the same time that were both designated the M3- the Lee and the Stuart.
In fact, I think that that was one of the main reasons the British started naming the American tanks, so they could tell them apart over the radio.
-
The illustrated version.
(https://i.imgur.com/m94TadQ.jpg)
-
The illustrated version.
*snip*
Is that the tanker's version of the Tiger and the Strawberry story?
-
Is that the tanker's version of the Tiger and the Strawberry story?
it is attributed, rightly or wrongly, to a Lt Ken Giles in Africa 1942.
A little more recently, the Household Cavalry Regt's CO quoted this (apocryphal?) story when being interviewed by the press about Prince Harry's posting to the unit. He added that Prince Harry would learn to deal with similarly chaotic circumstances.
So it seems it has attained the heights of a British armour regiment Aesop, at least.
-
We all know about the importance of recycling. So what do you do with a perfectly good engine, when your T-55 tank has gone stale?
(https://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/photo/2017/03/photos-of-the-week-22533/w14_RTS10A84/main_1200.jpg)
-
What is the turning radius on that thing!
But it's an interesting use of an old engine, but I think a generator or ship power plant would be more appropriate.
-
And can it do wheelies?
TT
-
What is the turning radius on that thing!
Poland.
And can it do wheelies?
Just as well as a T-55.
-
Front suspension on that thing REALLY reminds me of Roadog. Wonder how much of it was directly copied and scaled up.
-
That's so crazy! If you didn't know it was real you'd swear it was photoshoped!
-
Man, I bet just driving that thing gives you a full upper-body workout.
-
Couldn't think of a more appropriate thread for this ...
(http://www.rootsimple.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Pig.jpg)
-
Couldn't think of a more appropriate thread for this ...
(http://www.rootsimple.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Pig.jpg)
There's no pic
-
Odd; must be blocked by something out there. It shows in your quote, here. So here's the image as an attachment:
-
Filepic of dwarf cavalryman and war pig mount at Battle of the 5 Armies.
-
Couldn't think of a more appropriate thread for this ...
(http://www.rootsimple.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Pig.jpg)
Cry havoc! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=930KadF_78Q)
-
Filepic of dwarf cavalryman and war pig mount at Battle of the 5 Armies.
Naw, that's a young Tyrion Lannister and the boar that killed Robert Baratheon. Cersei had the image doctored to implicate Tyrion in Robert's death.
-
Couldn't think of a more appropriate thread for this ...
(http://www.rootsimple.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Pig.jpg)
Warpig Cavalry!
-
T-90M and BMP-T at Zapad 2017
(https://s26.postimg.org/ozrk0iocp/gallery-1506458458-gettyimages-849029694.jpg)
TASS reports a $400m contract has been placed for unstated number of BMP-T vehicles, and doctrine is to have 1 BMP-T escorting 1 tank when facing ATGM teams, 2 BMP-Ts per tank when in heavy urban combat. (Take that with the requisite amount of salt, yeah.) Algeria is purchasing some, Syria and Israel of all people have expressed interest.
Looks like the Russian Army learned its lessons from Grozny etc.
-
This is Uralvagonzavod lobbying at work, Russian armored forces didn't want any, it had to be forced upon them, you can see that they didn't even bother to repaint the BMPT after it returned from Syria. The real defense against AT teams is not niche vehicles but proper combined arms tactics.
-
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/dbd38d6179e817d940ae72a653acf28d/tumblr_ox148lip8e1rqpszmo1_1280.jpg)
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/6c1bb48c6f4e7f2410cf3fa3998ffac8/tumblr_ox148lip8e1rqpszmo2_1280.jpg)
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/5c7f01e6e10135430c332886527b4774/tumblr_ox148lip8e1rqpszmo3_1280.jpg)
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/0c1cc4008edd51021cfc238133997fdd/tumblr_ox148lip8e1rqpszmo4_1280.jpg)
M1A2 Abrams that took a mud bath during the exercise, Aurora 17 in Sweden.
-
:)) Almost feel sorry for the grunt that had to hose those off.
-
:)) Almost feel sorry for the grunt that had to hose those off.
You should feel very sorry for them. I've had to chisel frozen Kentucky mud out of the Abrams's track guards. It sucks.
-
how often does the US military do those kinds of training exercises in sweden?
-
You should feel very sorry for them. I've had to chisel frozen Kentucky mud out of the Abrams's track guards. It sucks.
Sucks to be the poor soul who was stuck cleaning the mud out of the interior (pic #2). At least you can use a hose or a pressure washer on the outside. Don't think the electronics and whatnot on the inside would take to water very well.
-
how often does the US military do those kinds of training exercises in sweden?
IIRC it's been once per years for the last few years. Technically it's NATO plus neutral countries invited.
-
what all branches are usualyl involved? Army, obviously, but marines, airforce, special forces?
and how long do they usually run for?
-
The BALTOPS I participated in two years ago involved both Swedish and Finnish Marines. The Swedes used a battle axe as their guide-on. And yes, they were ALL huge.
-
asking because i might need to incorporate such ops into one of the RPG books i am writing.. if the non-scandinavian forces would still be present in say, december, they'd have been caught in events leading to the setting, which would effect some of the background and fluff. (and would certainly make a good excuse for classes from the game's main setting to be present in the wrong part of the world, with their gear)
-
Sorry, I don't know more than I've read in the papers. :(
But from what I've heard and read there were navy, air force, and special forces involved. I expect they'll all go home pretty soon, thought.
But while I don't think there will be any exercises in December THIS year, there wouldn't be anything strange with a late-year exercise next year. And IIRC the US now have a small unit stationed permanently in Norway again.
-
The last multinational maneuver in Sweden was Aurora 17 (http://www.forsvarsmakten.se/en/activities/exercises/aurora-17/) running between mid and end of September, involving about 20,000 Swedish and 1,000 US soldiers.
BALTOPS generally takes place in June and is mostly a naval exercise. ACE (Arctic Challenge Exercise) usually precedes it, as a mostly air force maneuver.
There's a MoD-sponsored defence industry business expo in Sweden in early December. Could rewrite that for a hook with some stretching, including say possibly reasoning for non-standard gear even...
-
It's only a prototype, but yes, this is a 105mm howitzer mounted on a HMMWV chassis. The stranger news is they think they can get a 155mm down to a size that will fit on a truck not much bigger...
(http://www.janes.com/images/assets/363/64363/p1691893.jpg)
And from the back:
(http://brightcove.vo.llnwd.net/e1/pd/2429522474001/2429522474001_5176547075001_5176520833001-vs.jpg?pubId=2429522474001&videoId=5176520833001)
-
now that looks like something from GIJOE.
-
Needs a few extra machine guns and a spring-fired missile launcher for that.
-
now that looks like something from GIJOE.
God I'd hate to see what the chassis stress from a 155mm fire mission or three is like.
-
God I'd hate to see what the chassis stress from a 155mm fire mission or three is like.
They would have to build a NEW chassis from scratch just to handle the 155mm.
-
The trick is supposedly some kind of "soft recoil" system. I'm not sure how it works.
-
Not sure what a HMMWV 105mm gets you in all honesty; it isn't enough range, rapidity, or boom in an age where those things are proliferating.
Here's a video of another approach: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPSZ71-YqC8&t=7s
-
Aside from the UGV aspect, I think that's what Jane's was talking about. I have to remember to bring that issue home...
-
That is a lot of firepower on such a small unit. I think it was just a proof of concept. Let's see if we can put a 105 on a jeep. Ok we did now what?
-
They would have to build a NEW chassis from scratch just to handle the 155mm.
Meh, just built an overcarriage that you mechanically uncouple from the vehicle chassis for firing.
That is a lot of firepower on such a small unit. I think it was just a proof of concept. Let's see if we can put a 105 on a jeep. Ok we did now what?
The 105mm on a 4x4 chassis idea isn't that unusual. Germany around 1960 bought a couple hundred Faun GT8/15 4x4 light trucks that had a simple hydraulic arm to lift the howitzer off their back for firing and back up for transport.
That 4x4 "light" truck also turned out to be far bigger than they'd look in the model owing to basically just oversizing everything and betting on optical illusion (unless you see someone standing next to it you could mistake it for HMMWV-sized based on relative size of windows, wheels etc) - and it also ended up at 15 tons weight, 2.5-ton 105mm gun included. They were retired in the 70s due to "maintenance problems".
-
Anyway, since we're on the topic of portees:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/Wiesel_on_MAN_truck.jpg)
-
I would love to see a side by side comparison of those German Wessel tanks and a WWI French Renault FT.
-
such a cute widdle tankette :D
-
Not sure what a HMMWV 105mm gets you in all honesty; it isn't enough range, rapidity, or boom in an age where those things are proliferating.
Here's a video of another approach: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPSZ71-YqC8&t=7s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPSZ71-YqC8&t=7s)
Charlie 6 and others - what would be the sort of range one would get from the lighter weight 23 calibre 155mm gun-howitzer?
The larger one would, I am sure, be of equal range to the similar units in use but the shorter barrel must come at a cost?
The concept is very interesting
Probably the best way to get a 105mm on a HMMWV chassis would be to lock the suspension and rely on out-riggers to take all of the recoil force?
-
Charlie 6 and others - what would be the sort of range one would get from the lighter weight 23 calibre 155mm gun-howitzer?
The old 155mm M185 howitzers with 23-caliber barrels on the M109 (up till A4) had a maximum range of 18 km with standard and 23.5 km with rocket-assisted projectiles.
-
ok, thank you
here are 4 images of the AS-90 while we're in the mood for artillery
-
and some mortars, because anything that lobs indirect "love" is basically the same thing, right?
and something French
-
The Jane's article mentioned some kind of "soft recoil" system, but seeing as how they put outriggers on the HMMWV, it must not absorb too much. I think the "soft recoil" system is still proprietary, so who knows who they're doing it? The apparently hydraulic cylinders paralleling the barrel probably offer a clue, but if it's just hydraulics, what took people so long to think of it?
-
if it's just hydraulics, what took people so long to think of it?
Hydropneumatic soft-recoil systems have been played around with for a century.
Here's the (early 1970s) XM204 for an example explained in detail (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duee1V0aiJc), as can be seen in this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZ0IxAGsUjo) that Hawkeye thing works exactly the same. The problem of the XM204 and other designs like it was always timing the ignition of the ammunition within the counter-recoil cycle, which lead to massive dispersion of the fired shells and thus completely intolerable inaccuracy for an artillery weapon.
This can in modern designs likely be mitigated somewhat using e.g. radar and other sensors to measure shell velocity, then using a fire control computer to adapt the firing cycle to the microsecond to optimize the flight path towards intended results.
-
the first to use one of these was the "French 75" from 1898 with hydro-pneumatic recoil compensation and here's a photo of one mounted on a truck in AAA mode
photos and info from Wikipedia
it's also a cocktail - link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_75_(cocktail)
photo of sort-of-ex-wife with one, photo taken yesterday
-
Hmmm... I think I'd go for one made with cognac, but gin has been off my list for years. It was involved in my sole hangover.
Back on topic, using electronics to better time the recoil system makes perfect sense.
-
and something French
action shot against ISIS
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C5XjUr2WYAA2dMw.jpg)
-
So Charlie6 and the other artillery-experienced forumites, could you elaborate a bit more on the move away from towed arty towards self-propelled?
I assume it is because with the advent and availability of counter artillery radar, the idea is to be able to "shoot and scoot"?
-
Behold the T-55E-1 3" gun carriage!
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/1394fa83e48163277df70a1adfd0f57e/tumblr_oigbz5woIn1r94kvzo5_1280.jpg)
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/8e5d8269267b251a99e625ee499cd7b7/tumblr_oigbz5woIn1r94kvzo1_1280.jpg)
Carrying a 3" cannon, it was designed based on African campaign experience, but did not go into production, as tracked TDs were seen to be more useful in Europe. It was powered by two engines in the rear, also carried a machine gun in front, and it's only pure chance we didn't see this in MW:DA!
It's ancestor, the T-55
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/7aa562273ce3c5716c86da0166cc7908/tumblr_oigbz5woIn1r94kvzo3_1280.jpg)
carried the same gun, and shows a certain Priest influence. Notably, each pair of bogies was driven by its own, separate engine. Only the front two wheels steered, though.
-
So Charlie6 and the other artillery-experienced forumites, could you elaborate a bit more on the move away from towed arty towards self-propelled?
I assume it is because with the advent and availability of counter artillery radar, the idea is to be able to "shoot and scoot"?
I don't know that anybody is going whole hog on the self-propelled bandwagon. However, the popular argument is that towed artillery can't "keep up" with mechanized forces. As a towed battery commander in '03 I found myself waiting for the mechanized forces to get a move on.
Anyway, aside from increased protection the two biggest advantages of self-propelled systems are quickness in transitioning from firing to moving and the advent/proliferation of auto-loading rapid fire systems. The quick transitions help to maintain tempo and mitigate some of the counter-battery threat. The problem is that those capabilities make the self-propelled systems heavy.Charlie 6 and others - what would be the sort of range one would get from the lighter weight 23 calibre 155mm gun-howitzer?
The larger one would, I am sure, be of equal range to the similar units in use but the shorter barrel must come at a cost?
As mentioned by someone else previously, something less than 25km when all is said and done. It is definitely more of a direct support weapon than the all-mission system that the 39 caliber guns try to be (M109 and M777). The shortfall with that approach is that you lose the ability to outrange the folks that decide to field 52 caliber guns unless you want to use rocket and missiles.
-
I don't know that anybody is going whole hog on the self-propelled bandwagon. However, the popular argument is that towed artillery can't "keep up" with mechanized forces. As a towed battery commander in '03 I found myself waiting for the mechanized forces to get a move on.
Anyway, aside from increased protection the two biggest advantages of self-propelled systems are quickness in transitioning from firing to moving and the advent/proliferation of auto-loading rapid fire systems. The quick transitions help to maintain tempo and mitigate some of the counter-battery threat. The problem is that those capabilities make the self-propelled systems heavy.As mentioned by someone else previously, something less than 25km when all is said and done. It is definitely more of a direct support weapon than the all-mission system that the 39 caliber guns try to be (M109 and M777). The shortfall with that approach is that you lose the ability to outrange the folks that decide to field 52 caliber guns unless you want to use rocket and missiles.
Is the protection offered by (most) self propelled artillery particularly strong or is it just to keep the elements out and away from the sensitive bits of auto-loader and ballistic computers?
While self propelled artillery seems superficially appealing, I can see that from a gunner's point of view it probably doesn't make a great deal of difference and having a towed system would allow easier upgrading of components - from tractor to gunnery computer to... etc. It also allows breaking down for transport more easily.
I had understood that in a conflict against an organised opposition with their own artillery etc one of the priorities for all supporting fires was suppressing the enemy's artillery, so you would see the Grid Square Removal System, strike aircraft etc all being focused on their guns before the first rounds from their salvo had landed? In an asymmetric warfare situation I can see that protecting one's artillery is going to be more about avoiding infiltration so a fire base and good all round protection of the artillery position takes more of a priority.
-
Self propelled artillery is usually armored well enough to keep the small arms fire and shrapnels out. The lesons from Donbass war is that towed artillery is very voulnerable to counterfire, once enemy shells start landing, the crews won't be limbering up their pieces but run for cover. While towed pieces still have a role, especially in counterinsurgency, but in peer to peer (or near peer) fighting the self propelled artillery has the advantage.
-
Self propelled artillery is usually armored well enough to keep the small arms fire and shrapnels out. The lesons from Donbass war is that towed artillery is very voulnerable to counterfire, once enemy shells start landing, the crews won't be limbering up their pieces but run for cover. While towed pieces still have a role, especially in counterinsurgency, but in peer to peer (or near peer) fighting the self propelled artillery has the advantage.
All artillery is vulnerable to counter-battery fire because DPICM, or whatever its follow-on, doesn't discriminate between armored and unarmored forces. Also, this shows the importance of engineers and their bulldozers. Not much will stop a top-down attack but dirt does a heck of job on horizontal fragmentation. Against an area effect weapon that's important.
I had understood that in a conflict against an organised opposition with their own artillery etc one of the priorities for all supporting fires was suppressing the enemy's artillery, so you would see the Grid Square Removal System, strike aircraft etc all being focused on their guns before the first rounds from their salvo had landed?
Pretty much, yeah all of that and a kitchen sink as soon as the enemy unmasks its position.
-
All artillery is vulnerable to counter-battery fire because DPICM, or whatever its follow-on, doesn't discriminate between armored and unarmored forces. Also, this shows the importance of engineers and their bulldozers. Not much will stop a top-down attack but dirt does a heck of job on horizontal fragmentation. Against an area effect weapon that's important.
...
Pretty much, yeah all of that and a kitchen sink as soon as the enemy unmasks its position.
Yay for engineers!
Now to look up photos of kitchen sinks being fired in counter battery action...
-
can't find a combat kitchen sink but could find one possible answer to counter battery fire (unless someone uses an airburst or similar I guess...)
-
can't find a combat kitchen sink but could find one possible answer to counter battery fire (unless someone uses an airburst or similar I guess...)
That CIWS looks so large on that Centurion. The CIWS look so small on the ships.
-
That CIWS looks so large on that Centurion. The CIWS look so small on the ships.
R2D2 STRONK
I wonder if anyone's done the same with Goalkeeper. Isn't it about the same size?
-
R2D2 STRONK
I wonder if anyone's done the same with Goalkeeper. Isn't it about the same size?
Its bigger. Goalkeeper has a below-decks magazine just like a gun turret, and IINM a separate FCS radar.
-
Yay for engineers!
Now to look up photos of kitchen sinks being fired in counter battery action...
You forgot the most important bits of the Combat Engineer's (aka Assault Pioneer's) tools of the trade:
(https://static1.squarespace.com/static/55f09087e4b0ddb92049ebcd/568e887dcbced69fdc77f348/568e8afd9cadb636e25f7d3a/1452182271517/DFKtLVU.jpg?format=1000w)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/29/Pionnier-legion.JPG/1200px-Pionnier-legion.JPG)
Ubique
-
You forgot the most important bits of the Combat Engineer's (aka Assault Pioneer's) tools of the trade:
(https://static1.squarespace.com/static/55f09087e4b0ddb92049ebcd/568e887dcbced69fdc77f348/568e8afd9cadb636e25f7d3a/1452182271517/DFKtLVU.jpg?format=1000w)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/29/Pionnier-legion.JPG/1200px-Pionnier-legion.JPG)
Ubique
the beard?
I understand that in the British Army, the Assault Pioneers are members of the infantry with limited skills/training and it is the Royal Engineers who are the actual combat engineers
I guess the difference is a mortar platoon and a "real" artillery unit?
-
Yes the beard (which in the British tradition is only worn by the Pioneer Sergeant), and the axe and the apron.
In the Australian Army, the Assault Pioneers are also infantrymen. They are trained by the Royal Australian Engineer Corps to be combat engineers but are not trade qualified (ie they are generally not qualified carpenters, plumbers or electricians). The Assault Pioneers are equipped as combat engineers, ie light earthmoving equipment for mobility and counter-mobility tasking (such as preparing entrenched positions) but not heavy earthmoving equipment for construction taskings.
Australian Assault Pioneers
(http://resources1.news.com.au/images/2014/04/28/1226898/122045-9737434a-ce6d-11e3-8fbf-4c17b85df1c4.jpg) (http://i31.tinypic.com/3340qa0.jpg)
Canadian Assault Pioneers (aka Lumberjack Commandos ;) )
(http://pioneercrew.yolasite.com/resources/lumberjack-commandos.jpg)
-
Geez, those beards must get their own entry in the TO&E...
-
It's true. Australian soldiers will steal anything that's not nailed down! O0
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/7ab29d7258e02806c7c68f939c588d0a/tumblr_ox4o3yqnBG1s7e5k5o1_1280.jpg)
-
And why jet boosters are illegal on a tracked chassis.
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/f3a73c80c04b7f28bb8ef0d5e5d20c91/tumblr_o23zbwO9IO1r94kvzo1_250.gif)
-
They painted it red, didn't they...
-
They painted it red, didn't they...
On the outside. Inside, it's entirely painted brown.
-
Rockets on a tank, how would that help.
-
I think they got at least two extra miles per hour out of that thing! ::)
-
"Nyet, comrade! To crush capitalists under the weight of good proletarian steel, we must point the boosters down!
-
I keep thinking they could just use the rocket boosters to face melt swarming infantry away from their tank.....
-
Those vehicular jump jets are pointed in the wrong direction.
-
I vaguely remember reading about using rockets to get tanks across swamps, might that be it? It sounds like something the Russians might try. ;)
-
Sounds like something the Dukes of Hazzard might try...
-
After years of evaluations and experimentation with active protection systems (APS) technologies, the US Army is finally moving to equip its M-1A2 SEPv2 main battle tanks with lifesaving APS – Israel’s TROPHY was selected, realizing it is the only system of its kind that has proved its worth in real combat.
(http://defense-update.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/M1A2_leonardo.jpg)
(http://defense-update.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/M1A2Trophy_outline.jpg)
-
ah, the M1 Abrams, speaking of hot jet exhausts to burn off clingy, needy infantry types...
-
ah, the M1 Abrams, speaking of hot jet exhausts to burn off clingy, needy infantry types...
All fun and games till they start throwing flaming liquids into your air intake.
-
They painted it red, didn't they...
No, they need "Go Fasta" red stripes...
-
hmm
have some photos of Challenger 2s and things
-
and some more
-
I really want to know who's insurance is going to cover that last one...
-
Nice Chally pics Doc!
-
I really want to know who's insurance is going to cover that last one...
"And next on the village council agenda, the proposal of the AFV Right of Way traffic ordinance..."
-
All fun and games till they start throwing flaming liquids into your air intake.
I've been reliably informed that Molotov cocktails are not effective against the Abrams, thanks to its incredibly air-hungry and hot-burning turbine. The air is sucked in so quickly that any flames go out, you're just not going to get enough fluid in there to drown the engine, and the turbine is far hotter than anything likely to be tossed on the rear deck anyway.
-
I've seen at least one source claiming that that was one of the factors that was considered when selecting the M1's engine.
-
I've been reliably informed that Molotov cocktails are not effective against the Abrams, thanks to its incredibly air-hungry and hot-burning turbine. The air is sucked in so quickly that any flames go out, you're just not going to get enough fluid in there to drown the engine, and the turbine is far hotter than anything likely to be tossed on the rear deck anyway.
This is what they taught us at OSUT. Now there is one case of a Abrams (that I know of) having an engine fire that destroyed it, but in this case it was when the insurgent ran up and fired the RPG with the nose toughing the rear grill, my understanding is that the on-board fire extinguisher (that is Halon) was unable to put out the RPG fuel that provides its own O2.
-
I'm not an aerospace engineer, but I know a little bit about turbines. The worst that throwing a bottle of flamable liquid into the intake air stream would do would be to cause a surge, or maybe a compressor stall if too much combustion happens before it gets inside the combustor. However, given the rather small amount of liquid, its unlikely to affect combustion long enough to matter. The burning liquid will expand in the compressor stages and reduce the pressure ratio, and when that air hits the combustor, it will probably run rich and rise the turbine inlet temp a little bit. However, there is so much mass flowing through those turbines, that a gallon of just about anything is going to get sucked in, burnt/heated, and blown out the exhaust in less than a second.
I know it isn't a high-bypas turbofan, but in general they do try to design turbines to reject solids and liquids from the intake air, and to safely ingest whatever makes it in. I know it's not the same, but here is a nice water ingestion test (and a couple other fun tests!):
https://youtu.be/_PR0Ka_J2P4?t=42s
Again, a power turbine is not going to be as good at this as a high-bypass turbofan, but it can still suck a good amount of liquid and not really care. Oh, and I take no responsibility for the horrible narration in that video.
-
This is what they taught us at OSUT. Now there is one case of a Abrams (that I know of) having an engine fire that destroyed it, but in this case it was when the insurgent ran up and fired the RPG with the nose toughing the rear grill, my understanding is that the on-board fire extinguisher (that is Halon) was unable to put out the RPG fuel that provides its own O2.
I would imagine that at least a one component of that fuel was portions of said insurgent.
-
I would imagine that at least a one component of that fuel was portions of said insurgent.
:) except that people do not really burn all that well.
-
:) except that people do not really burn all that well.
wiggle-waggle hand
depends, if you have a hot enough fire then the fat will catch light quite nicely; it's a difference between whether the person is fuel or "food" being cooked
-
I've been reliably informed that Molotov cocktails are not effective against the Abrams, thanks to its incredibly air-hungry and hot-burning turbine. The air is sucked in so quickly that any flames go out, you're just not going to get enough fluid in there to drown the engine, and the turbine is far hotter than anything likely to be tossed on the rear deck anyway.
I recall seeing a piece of footage about S-tank, where fighter drops huge bomb of napalm (or other burning liquid) on it, and the vehicle just keeps moving under remote control. Another bombing run dropped some kind of burning gel, which stick on the tank and didn't fall off. Inside it got "only" up to 40 degrees of Celcius. Good number of recent tanks seem to be quite resistant to the fire attacks and can survive through burning woods much better than their BattleTech equivalents.
-
The tank may be fine, but the crew is another question. Humans have an innate fear of fire, especially when they know they are surrounded by explosives and know history of firetraps in confined spaces.
I recall seeing a piece of footage about S-tank, where fighter drops huge bomb of napalm (or other burning liquid) on it, and the vehicle just keeps moving under remote control. Another bombing run dropped some kind of burning gel, which stick on the tank and didn't fall off. Inside it got "only" up to 40 degrees of Celcius. Good number of recent tanks seem to be quite resistant to the fire attacks and can survive through burning woods much better than their BattleTech equivalents.
-
The tank may be fine, but the crew is another question. Humans have an innate fear of fire, especially when they know they are surrounded by explosives and know history of firetraps in confined spaces.
Western tank crews are trained to trust in the armor of their tank, and will button up and sit tight even in a disabled tank under fire. Some, uh, other nations' tank crews however do indeed have such a tendency to abandon their tanks, and that is usually how those crews lose their lives and intact tanks get captured...
-
Western tank crews are trained to trust in the armor of their tank
Considering modern western composite-armored tanks, that's trust very well-earned. And considering the fact that we don't deploy tanks in any small numbers at all, with plenty of infantry to support them, buttoning up and letting your friends deal with the local threat is your best option.
The other thing is, how many opposing armed forces are going to continue to fire on a mobility- or mission-killed tank when there's plenty of other healthy and really pissed-off tanks next to it?
-
Considering modern western composite-armored tanks, that's trust very well-earned. And considering the fact that we don't deploy tanks in any small numbers at all, with plenty of infantry to support them, buttoning up and letting your friends deal with the local threat is your best option.
The other thing is, how many opposing armed forces are going to continue to fire on a mobility- or mission-killed tank when there's plenty of other healthy and really pissed-off tanks next to it?
There isn't really a scenario where I want to be taking on modern first world latest generation MBTs and their friends without... more tanks (ideally of better quality) and the rest of the associated combined arms team including artillery and air support
-
The tank may be fine, but the crew is another question. Humans have an innate fear of fire, especially when they know they are surrounded by explosives and know history of firetraps in confined spaces.
Not Abrams crewmembers. We are, if anything, an overconfident lot, due to trust in our machines. We've all seen the armor casualty numbers from the '93 Gulf War and the current conflict. We know that more M1s have been lost to rollovers in canals and ditches than to enemy fire.
A little fire? Please. Chobham II can defeat plasma jets, so you think we're worried about some burning gasoline?
-
Considering modern western composite-armored tanks, that's trust very well-earned. And considering the fact that we don't deploy tanks in any small numbers at all, with plenty of infantry to support them, buttoning up and letting your friends deal with the local threat is your best option.
The other thing is, how many opposing armed forces are going to continue to fire on a mobility- or mission-killed tank when there's plenty of other healthy and really pissed-off tanks next to it?
I do recall an Abrams in Iraq that was immobilized taking hits from over 100 RPGs and the crew eventually coming out unscathed.
-
I do recall an Abrams in Iraq that was immobilized taking hits from over 100 RPGs and the crew eventually coming out unscathed.
I'm pretty sure that was a Chally 2
-
there was a well reported incident of a Challenger 2 but I have also seen a History Channel or similar show about tanks where I think I heard about similar things happening to an M1
Is it weird that I find the cultural background to the differences between the different top level MBTs to be fascinating:
M1 Abrams - "the bestest" but the turbine uses different fuel to other AFVs but the huge level of air support the US Army has means this isn't an issue for the logistics system
Challenger 2 - solid, tough, a bit more conventional than the M1 and the ongoing fondness for the rifled gun
Leopard 2 - essentially a Challenger 2 with a smoothbore
Merkhava - crew protection as the prime consideration, close anticipated areas of operation so things like needing to cross bridges etc not such a worry
Leclerc - opted for the speed as armour rather than slow and solid (carved from something stronger than steel) because... France so often takes a different doctrinal route to the other Western Powers
Japanese Type 10 - totally just for self defence, honest...
Indian Arjun - torn between needing huge numbers and wanting high tech, wanting indigenous design and manufacture versus recognising that someone else has done the hard work
T-72/T-90 - crew ergonomics? what's that?
-
Thanks all for the information, not something I'd know, only being a casual military buff. :)
-
there was a well reported incident of a Challenger 2 but I have also seen a History Channel or similar show about tanks where I think I heard about similar things happening to an M1
Is it weird that I find the cultural background to the differences between the different top level MBTs to be fascinating:
M1 Abrams - "the bestest" but the turbine uses different fuel to other AFVs but the huge level of air support the US Army has means this isn't an issue for the logistics system
Challenger 2 - solid, tough, a bit more conventional than the M1 and the ongoing fondness for the rifled gun
Leopard 2 - essentially a Challenger 2 with a smoothbore
Merkhava - crew protection as the prime consideration, close anticipated areas of operation so things like needing to cross bridges etc not such a worry
Leclerc - opted for the speed as armour rather than slow and solid (carved from something stronger than steel) because... France so often takes a different doctrinal route to the other Western Powers
Japanese Type 10 - totally just for self defence, honest...
Indian Arjun - torn between needing huge numbers and wanting high tech, wanting indigenous design and manufacture versus recognising that someone else has done the hard work
T-72/T-90 - crew ergonomics? what's that?
Only one and a kind of to add about the M1, first it does not use a special fuel from all other AFV's, it uses any fuel (I remember my Drill Sergeant telling me how it could work on any high proof spirits, but just remember it is "one bottle for the crew, and two for the tank"). It is just the US Military deciding to use JP over DF (the M1 works better with the DF like other AFV's), and second the kind of. I read a report about the XM-1 where before they accepted it they took one of them to the firing range and let them test it with live fire for the day, at the end of the day after having been shot with everything from 155 and down (top attack was not a something that manpad AT missiles did at that time) the tank was able to start and drive out on it own power (it did run a bit rough but ran).
-
M1 Abrams - "the bestest"
It is my understanding that Abrams is getting outdated despite of upgrades. Gun is shorter and therefore less powerful than other tank guns of equal caliber. And it consumes so much of fuel that number of Abrams have been exchanged to less thirsty Strykers.
-
It is my understanding that Abrams is getting outdated despite of upgrades. Gun is shorter and therefore less powerful than other tank guns of equal caliber. And it consumes so much of fuel that number of Abrams have been exchanged to less thirsty Strykers.
The swap to Strykers is driven more by their ease of deployability than anything. There are more airframes that can move Strykers than there are that can move Abrams, which gives your medium mechanized forces greater ability to respond to various points on the globe than the heavy armored forces.
-
That was my understanding: the Abrams was designed to fight massed Soviet tank divisions in Eastern Europe. The current hotspots the US military has been deployed to don't really call for that as much.
-
The swap to Strykers is driven more by their ease of deployability than anything. There are more airframes that can move Strykers than there are that can move Abrams, which gives your medium mechanized forces greater ability to respond to various points on the globe than the heavy armored forces.
And get more GI's killed, the stryker is a terrible vehicle. I never responded to a single post blast that involved one that it did not catch fire (has so much electronics and the wire are everywhere). Now having said that I have never used one, but know guys who did, one of my old co-workers was the only suriver from his squad when they got hit and the rest burned to death (he got away with only burns on 90% of his body).
-
Sorry, the list was intended as facetious
The Stryker isn't really a replacement for the Abrams - one is a tank and the other is an APC.
Sadly the Stryker doesn't seem to have been designed as an "MRAP" or similar but for a more conventional battlefield; the British Army had a similar problem with the Snatch Land Rover.
-
And get more GI's killed, the stryker is a terrible vehicle.
Oh, I'm aware. It's list of flaws is long and unfortunate, and I feel the Army is making a mistake trading heavy forces for mediums. They're falling into the trap of expecting tomorrow's wars to be fought like today's wars. Our conventional warfighting capability is deteriorating in both the tactical and materiel realms, and that's going to bite us in the ass eventually.
-
Back to pictures. Here's one of the Chinese Type 99A
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/27/ZTZ-99A_MBT_20170716.jpg/800px-ZTZ-99A_MBT_20170716.jpg)
Typical Eastern bloc fare with 125mm gun with missile capability and coming in at hefty 58 tons
-
O, the other hand, armored forces in the US army are still present in huge numbers (compared to contemporary armies), and expeditionnary forces need something lighter than a M1 right now.
It feels a bit like the generals would love to have both heavy armor AND light cavalry unit (like what the French try to do with their AMX-10/Leclerc combo, on a much different scale) but due to budgetary reasons are forced to trade some for the other.
Of course, the traded-off Abrahms may not be dismanteled, mothballing and squirrelling in the desert are possible.
-
Yeah a nice 35-40 ton tank with 105mm gun and fancy armor would be a godsend for a LIC environment.
EDIT: Or something like the failed US Army M8 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M8_Armored_Gun_System)
-
Yeah a nice 35-40 ton tank with 105mm gun and fancy armor would be a godsend for a LIC environment.
(https://abload.de/img/argentinski-srednji-t7yqam.jpg)
TAM 2IP with composite add-on armor and new fire control. 74 upgrade packages bought by Argentina from Israel.
Armor is a bit crappy though. Assumption is for 30mm APFSDS protection for KE only, but very good performance against HEAT and EFP warheads especially for assymmetric scenarios.
-
Therein lies the problem. The moment you go "medium tank" you give up a lot of protection, at which point you wonder... why do you want a medium "tank" then? Yet here in Southeast Asia a lot of countries are going for them - Thailand has its Textron Stingrays, Singapore intends to develop a medium tank on its Bionix IFV chassis, Philippines is also looking around, and Indonesia is now taking delivery of this:
FNSS Kaplan Medium Tank, 35 tons, 105mm rifled gun in a Cockerill turret, STANAG 5 armor.
(https://s1.postimg.org/1enm8yxc1r/Endonezyada-_Ulusal-_Silahl_-_Kuvvetleri-_G_n_-haz_rl_klar_-25.jpg)
-
It seems to me that the big issue is that nobody really wants to deploy things as heavy and expensive as 70-ton MBTs against asymmetric enemies that you know are highly unlikely to have tanks of their own.
On the other hand, 100mm+ guns are REALLY useful, and the amount of firepower a single trooper or squad can deploy without needing a tank of their own keeps going up.
-
Yet here in Southeast Asia a lot of countries are going for them
That's because for the most part these countries do not have the territory for traditional duel situations. Thailand sticks with 52-ton Chinese VT-4 replacing their M60 as their main armoured force and both Indonesia and Singapore maintain a sizable Leo 2 component in their armoured forces though.
Brunei, the Philippines and Malaysia only maintain token armoured forces at all (1, 2 and 6 companies respectively, mostly light fire support units rather than tanks). Indonesia, despite considerable numbers, doesn't even consider armour a combat arm but a combat support element much like artillery.
-
That's because for the most part these countries do not have the territory for traditional duel situations. Thailand sticks with 52-ton Chinese VT-4 replacing their M60 as their main armoured force and both Indonesia and Singapore maintain a sizable Leo 2 component in their armoured forces though.
Brunei, the Philippines and Malaysia only maintain token armoured forces at all (1, 2 and 6 companies respectively, mostly light fire support units rather than tanks). Indonesia, despite considerable numbers, doesn't even consider armour a combat arm but a combat support element much like artillery.
Malaysia has 48 Polish T-72s. Indonesia has got 100 Leopard 2RIs, which for the region is considerable. Brunei is a non-starter really :D and the Pinoys can't afford zip.
Actually the prospect of facing insurgents is exactly why I think heavy tanks are de rigeur; we haven't seen firepower greater than RPG-7s in the hands of non-state actors here, so why invest in heavy Leo 2RIs AND Pandur IIs (see below) AND medium tanks? In the "hi-lo mix" we have the Leos which are invincible to RPGs and Pandur-30mms for cheap but crunchy firepower, why add what are basically tracked crunchies with 105mm guns? Why add a tank that CAN'T "tank"...?
Pandur II with Ares 30mm turret
(https://s1.postimg.org/3dzdfv6adb/9_XRw_Hq4.jpg)
-
M1A2 Sep v3 Abrams, now with Trophy APS
(http://pop.h-cdn.co/assets/17/41/980x490/landscape-1507655548-m1a2sepv3abramstrophy.jpg)
This is SAIC/STK's model of their entry for the latest US Medium Tank program (yes, here comes Singapore again). Same Cockerill turret as the FNSS-Pindad Kaplan above.
(http://www.monch.com/mpg/images/news/20171012/IMG_9147.jpg)
-
Therein lies the problem. The moment you go "medium tank" you give up a lot of protection, at which point you wonder... why do you want a medium "tank" then? Yet here in Southeast Asia a lot of countries are going for them - Thailand has its Textron Stingrays, Singapore intends to develop a medium tank on its Bionix IFV chassis, Philippines is also looking around, and Indonesia is now taking delivery of this:
FNSS Kaplan Medium Tank, 35 tons, 105mm rifled gun in a Cockerill turret, STANAG 5 armor.
I believe T-55 medium tank is still going strong (with upgrade kits) in Middle East, parts of Eastern Europe, and Africa. It just sticks around like Vedette medium tank (with and without upgrades).
-
Looks like you put a 105mm gun turret on a M2 Bradley....and call it a tank.
-
I believe T-55 medium tank is still going strong (with upgrade kits) in Middle East, parts of Eastern Europe, and Africa. It just sticks around like Vedette medium tank (with and without upgrades).
In (South-)Eastern Europe T-55 are in reserve depots in Serbia and Romania, with Romania actively fielding the derivative TR-85M1 - which were only built in the late 80s, are considerably heavier at around 50 tons and better-armored.
In the Middle East it's pretty much Syria (they had 2,000 still only a decade ago!) and Iran (a few hundred, upgraded) that use them with a small number (two batallions) remaining in Iraq.
-
I have personally laid eyes on at least two T-55s in Iraqi Pershmerga service, too. They had Kurdish flags painted onto the sides of the turrets and were dug into laagers watching the road north from the Kirkuk/Hawijah area towards Irbil. Probably looted from Iraqi Army stocks circa 2003, but I never could find a Pesh willing to talk about it.
-
Romanian TR-85M1:
(https://abload.de/img/romunski-tank-tr-85m1g8qsy.jpg)
The 14 tons (40% !) extra weight in comparison to the T-55 went into two things: lengthening the chassis slightly to fit a new 860 hp engine and additional applique armor. The armour is broadly on par with a T-72B.
Despite other internet rumours there is no effort underway to upgrade them in any way btw.
-
Actually the prospect of facing insurgents is exactly why I think heavy tanks are de rigeur; we haven't seen firepower greater than RPG-7s in the hands of non-state actors here, so why invest in heavy Leo 2RIs AND Pandur IIs (see below) AND medium tanks? In the "hi-lo mix" we have the Leos which are invincible to RPGs and Pandur-30mms for cheap but crunchy firepower, why add what are basically tracked crunchies with 105mm guns? Why add a tank that CAN'T "tank"...?
because for the most part, the countries interested in medium tanks are looking to increase the numbers of tank type guns they have to work with.. but either don't want to or can't spend the budget to get full blown MBT's in the numbers they need. Medium tanks are more affordable (because they lack the heavy armor and other systems of an MBT), are still somewhat survivable against the typical man-carried light antitank weapons, and give you the firepower you need.
much like the high-low mix with aircraft, getting a small number of full MBT's and supporting them with a large number of medium tank's works out better for them. they can afford it, in conventional war the MBT's can carry the main weight of the fighting, with the medium's supplying some extra firepower. in counter insurgency and/or peacekeeping duties, the medium tanks can provide tank firepower for the roles where it is useful, without having the risk of losing a full MBT, or the expense of having to ship a full MBT overseas.
it is also worth noting that a lot of the nations going in for them right now are nations that built combat doctrines around medium tanks.. be they old M-48's the US sold them during the cold war, or the T-55's the soviets did. switching to full MBT's would require a major overhual of their combat and training doctrines.. easier to just get a new medium tank design to replace those aging ones, and change only what is required to handle the newer capabilities.
-
the countries interested in medium tanks are looking to increase the numbers of tank type guns they have to work with..
For the most part they're straightforward replacements of previous light tanks with big guns, in South East Asia in particular (there isn't really much of a market elsewhere) models like AMX-13, Scorpion and M41 Walker Bulldog.
Along with some rather specialized systems, such as the AMX-10PAC90 as amphibious IFVs with 90mm guns used in single-batallion-strength by the Indonesian Marines, since replaced by - pretty obscure - amphibious 6x6 AFV with 90mm guns bought from South Korea (Hanwha Tarantula, derived from the Doosan Black Fox which was developed for a Korean tender but not procured there).
-
Indonesia, despite considerable numbers, doesn't even consider armour a combat arm but a combat support element much like artillery.
Less about Indonesia and more about a fictional country's military I'm writing up, this one struck me. General attitudes towards combat is "infantry is the core of warfare, everything else supports them" from what I understand, but what if you end up with a different mindset? Treat the tank as the descendant of the medieval armored knight, take the 'heavy cavalry' as the core of the army, and use the infantry as a support unit for the tank.
Hardware wise, I was playing in the 1970-1972 timeframe; the tanks I've been conceptually playing with are M26 Pershings as an 'older generation' primary MBT, Conquerors as the 'ultimate MBT' idea that got a moderate production run (and diesel upgrades) and still stick around in some numbers, while the Pershings are being replaced with AMX-30 style 'fast cavalry' units. I suppose that would push the development of APCs to haul the infantry around fast enough to keep up with the tank, with that mindset. The tank is the key of warfare, so you have to find a way to let the infantry keep up; same with the artillery but SPGs are at least a pleasant thing. (Nice thing about the AMX-30 is that 155mm AU-F1 arty turret)
So...outside of the obvious myopic focus on the armor, what kinds of mindset, doctrine, and whatnot would this engender in a military? I'd also say there's still an aristocracy in the country, so 'bluebloods enroll as officers and go armor' is a thing as well. How does that affect formations and such?
Meanwhile, have a video game M26 Pershing with a T99 rocket launcher set (44 4.5" rockets is gonna hurt)
-
Why not use AMX-VCI as your basis APC, after all it is a AMX-13! Or a AMX-10P at the vary least...
TT
-
because for the most part, the countries interested in medium tanks are looking to increase the numbers of tank type guns they have to work with...
...are still somewhat survivable against the typical man-carried light antitank weapons, and give you the firepower you need...
...it is also worth noting that a lot of the nations going in for them right now are nations that built combat doctrines around medium tanks.. be they old M-48's the US sold them during the cold war, or the T-55's the soviets did. switching to full MBT's would require a major overhual of their combat and training doctrines.. easier to just get a new medium tank design to replace those aging ones, and change only what is required to handle the newer capabilities.
Previously nobody here could afford any heavy tanks at all, so they bought light tanks like Scorpion and AMX-13 to train up their armour capability (also because the countryside was less developed and more marshy). The moment they could afford it they bought better tanks.
There are loads of RPG-7s and LAWs in the region, though non-state actors here are much less likely to get their hands on ATGMs. To me it makes very little sense to get medium tanks with the armour of IFVs just for the sake of that 105mm gun.
So really that is the crux of the whole thing - how handy is it to (arguably) sacrifice some numbers of 120mm and 30mm gun-carriers, to spend some bucks kitting out a 105mm capability?
-
Why not use AMX-VCI as your basis APC, after all it is a AMX-13! Or a AMX-10P at the vary least...
TT
Not a bad idea, though I was actually half thinking of using the MT-LB as an APC and tracked prime-mover - I like the low slung looks of it, and the amphibious capacity is nice. Then again, sticking with purely NATO gear is probably best; it was an original setting to begin with so I was less worried about cherrypicking things at the time. AMX-VCI certainly works; I suppose prior to that there'd be something similar for the 1940s era to follow the Pershings and Conquerors into battle with its crunchies. Maybe even some Kangaroo Pershings, especially as the AMX-30s come online to replace them?
Dopey ideas.
-
I was actually half thinking of using the MT-LB as an APC and tracked prime-mover
Just use the M39/T41 as prime mover and APC, or even its originally-rejected derivative M44. These were basically M18 Hellcat hulls rebuilt as APCs; the M39 simply removing the turret and placing 7 infantry in the open-top compartment, and the M44 rebuilding the same hull with a superstructure, rear doors and benches for 24 soldiers.
The M44 was rejected by the Army as too large and not fitting its squad-based infantry carrying needs, but if one obliterates infantry as the hinge of battle and reduces it say to e.g. security functions and such then a half-platoon vehicle would fit the fluff.
-
I can't imagine that too many infantry were that enthusiastic about riding in a no-armored Hellcat.
-
Less about Indonesia and more about a fictional country's military I'm writing up, this one struck me. General attitudes towards combat is "infantry is the core of warfare, everything else supports them" from what I understand, but what if you end up with a different mindset? Treat the tank as the descendant of the medieval armored knight, take the 'heavy cavalry' as the core of the army, and use the infantry as a support unit for the tank.
Don't forget that in South-East Asia, there are not sweeping plains for "heavy cavalry" to play set piece maneuver warfare against each other. If you look back a WW2 and Vietnam experiences, the tanks are very much there to support infantry who are fighting hand-to-hand to hold or take ground, much of which is jungle or overgrown, even the developed areas have built in "tank traps" such as rice patty fields or palm-oil plantations or dense urban areas with very narrow streets. Much of the infrastructure such as roads and bridges simply cannot support a 70-ton tank which then channels and funnels your heavy cavalry into choke/ambush points and kill zones.
-
IMO a lot of SEasia's lack of emphasis on cavalry forces is just the terrain.. a lot more jungle, forests, rugged mountains, swamps, wetlands, and other terrain where armored cav just doesn't do as well as the main offensive force.
-
There are some difficulties, but not impassable. From what I hear a lot of the problem is snagging on bits of trees and a slower progress than normal, making the tanks more like lumbering assault guns rather than nimble strike units.
Leopard 2RI on exercise. The Indonesian army has also invested heavily in LSTs to enable deployment to the innumerable islands they have to secure.
(https://s1.postimg.org/8ecwhx7z3j/f1p_TSk_T.jpg)
-
Forgive my ignorance here, but a couple questions:
1) I thought a large part of the 'problem' with the big M1 was that it kept outgrowing the landing craft that were supposed to get it to shore when you need to take it some place where you were not invited. Basically, the weight kept creeping up, and the landing craft either didn't have the structural support, engine power, or bouyancy to deal with an 80-ton lump. I didn't think the raw cost of an M1 was really what was making folks look at 'medium' tanks.
2) What are you getting out of a medium tank that an IFV with a 20mm cannon and a couple box launchers of TOW's or Hellfires doesn't get you? Armor? Mobility? Destructive capability? We seem to be able to stick quad-packed Hellfires of just about anything these days, and they ought to generally be able to kill anything a 105mm gun will kill. Plus, you can use a much smaller and less complicated turret with something like a 20mm cannon for all those jobs that you don't really need something as big as a 105mm to do. So, why down-size a MBT instead of slapping missiles on an IFV?
-
Actual tankers, I have a question:
On another forum, someone inexplicably started talking about throwing hand grenades down the barrel of a tank as a tactic. Is this as dumb as it sounds or is there somehow some validity to it?
-
2) What are you getting out of a medium tank that an IFV with a 20mm cannon and a couple box launchers of TOW's or Hellfires doesn't get you? Armor? Mobility? Destructive capability? We seem to be able to stick quad-packed Hellfires of just about anything these days, and they ought to generally be able to kill anything a 105mm gun will kill. Plus, you can use a much smaller and less complicated turret with something like a 20mm cannon for all those jobs that you don't really need something as big as a 105mm to do. So, why down-size a MBT instead of slapping missiles on an IFV?
A cannon gets a lot more than four shots, and armies use those shots for a lot more than killing other AFVs. There's a lot to be said for knowing that the known sniper position, machine gun nest, RPG team behind a cinder block wall, or technical with a TOW launcher in the bed is down with one shot and NEVER getting back up again.
-
2) What are you getting out of a medium tank that an IFV with a 20mm cannon and a couple box launchers of TOW's or Hellfires doesn't get you? Armor? Mobility? Destructive capability? We seem to be able to stick quad-packed Hellfires of just about anything these days, and they ought to generally be able to kill anything a 105mm gun will kill. Plus, you can use a much smaller and less complicated turret with something like a 20mm cannon for all those jobs that you don't really need something as big as a 105mm to do. So, why down-size a MBT instead of slapping missiles on an IFV?
partly cost. a single tank shell is a couple hundred bucks. even an early generation ATGM is hundreds of thousands. you have to fire a certain number of shots each year in training, stockpile a certain larger number in case of war.
you can also carry a lot more shells.. shells are relatively small, and the gun can be loaded inside the turret. and can be used with an autoloader. missile are large, and have to be fired from boxes on the outside of the vehicle.. reloading has to be by hand by a crewmember who is forced to expose themselves to do it.
also partly versatility. with a tank gun you can load HE and blow in walls. load canister, and clear streets. you also can load APFSDS and defeat composite and/or reactive armor that will stop a ATGM's HEAT warhead cold.
-
Therein lies the problem. The moment you go "medium tank" you give up a lot of protection, at which point you wonder... why do you want a medium "tank" then?
In the case of Argentina with the TAM? Basically the weight. At 30.5 tns its light enough to use all the bridges in the national road system, and be capable of cross country in a country full of rivers. Also cheaper to produce than a heavy tank.
-
There is definitely something to be said for knowing where an invader's heavy tanks will be slowed down or stopped while yours will be just fine. Same philosophy as vibrabombs. :)
-
The Indonesian army has also invested heavily in LSTs to enable deployment to the innumerable islands they have to secure.
Technically, it's more that they had to buy new ships capable of beaching with Leopards on board. So they're now building the Teluk Bintuni class, carries 10 Leos max, first one commissioned 2016. Two further ones building omitting the helo hangar, with three more planned after that. Their older US-, East-German- and Korean-built LSTs (and even the Korean-designed LPDs) aren't strengthened for that kinda load - the shipyard that built the Teluk Bintuni even highlights the fact that no previous Indonesian landing ship could carry the Leos.
On another forum, someone inexplicably started talking about throwing hand grenades down the barrel of a tank as a tactic. Is this as dumb as it sounds or is there somehow some validity to it?
There's been videos from Syria of people doing that for the past couple years, possibly that's why people talk about it. Was already used in WW2 too, and is supposedly taught as a last-ditch anti-tank tactic having nothing else available - and even then you preferably should use thermite grenades so you at least damage the barrel.
As a tactic it's as dumb as it sounds mostly because it will put you straight in the sights for secondary armament provided the crew maintains close-in awareness. And with normal hand grenades you then either depend on an open breech or a round in the chamber to actually have any success at all with that; plus of course a slightly elevated barrel so it will slide down. In the most common video from Syria a first grenade has zero effect while apparently afterwards the tank crew chambered a round to fire it off and then had that hit and explode in the chamber from a second hand grenade.
-
Forgive my ignorance here, but a couple questions:
1) I thought a large part of the 'problem' with the big M1 was that it kept outgrowing the landing craft that were supposed to get it to shore when you need to take it some place where you were not invited. Basically, the weight kept creeping up, and the landing craft either didn't have the structural support, engine power, or bouyancy to deal with an 80-ton lump. I didn't think the raw cost of an M1 was really what was making folks look at 'medium' tanks.
Yes, no, maybe. The follow-up to the LCAC and LCU should mitigate the lift issue. They will still land one and two vehicles per craft but won't be in an overload situation doing so.
-
Playing with doctrinal stuff. French tank platoons run four LeClercs and four VBLs for security and infantry support. Compared to the American style of pure tank units, what would the advantages and disadvantages be to having your support infantry right there in the platoon with the armor?
IMO a lot of SEasia's lack of emphasis on cavalry forces is just the terrain.. a lot more jungle, forests, rugged mountains, swamps, wetlands, and other terrain where armored cav just doesn't do as well as the main offensive force.
This does dictate what kind of terrain my fictional army clearly fights in, namely 'it's almost all tank country' - so lots of rolling open terrain, farmland, low hills, that sort of thing. Relatively light on the mountains and forests, so...Nebraskansas.
-
While American armor units are mostly organized as pure formations -- there are a few examples of "Combined Arms Battalions" in some divisions; I used to drive past one from 4th ID at Fort Carson every day -- at the operational level, American armor goes nowhere without some sort of attached infantry, and they don't normally deploy to a combat theater without first conducting integration training with the unit they've been task-organized with first. So tactically, there won't be a huge difference between American and French platoons in this instance.
-
While I'm certain American training leads to good coordination in combined-arms missions, I'd imagine keeping them together like that means French troops would merge together seamlessly. (I wonder if the infantry are trained to help their tankers break track and such, get the job done faster?)
The downside would be that if one half is ever forced to deploy without the other(likely the infantry), they may run into trouble if their instincts lead them into situations that they could handle easily...when supported. I'm not implying that French infantry are always going to fight as if there's a tank behind them, just that instinctual reactions can be hard to break out of, especially in stressful situations like combat.
-
French tank platoons run four LeClercs and four VBLs for security and infantry support.
French tank companies used to run a socalled "peloton d'appui direct" which consisted of a single VBL and three VAB with 20mm turrets used for limited air defense carrying three anti-tank rocket and three FRF2 sniper teams with a total of 15 dismounts. Secondary function of these 15 men was to be able to function as a replacement crew for the Leclercs. These were not at all infantry, even if they were running in infantry carriers. No infantry or VBL in the tank platoons btw.
They're apparently currently in the process of rearranging that concept towards one where the tank companies - expanded to four platoons of four, i.e. 16 tanks - are escorted by only VBL (8 total) with ATGM, HMG and such. Instead each armoured regiment receives two dedicated infantry companies (in VBCI). Target for full conversion of all armoured regiments is by 2018.
-
French tank companies used to run a socalled "peloton d'appui direct" which consisted of a single VBL and three VAB with 20mm turrets used for limited air defense carrying three anti-tank rocket and three FRF2 sniper teams with a total of 15 dismounts. Secondary function of these 15 men was to be able to function as a replacement crew for the Leclercs. These were not at all infantry, even if they were running in infantry carriers. No infantry or VBL in the tank platoons btw.
They're apparently currently in the process of rearranging that concept towards one where the tank companies - expanded to four platoons of four, i.e. 16 tanks - are escorted by only VBL (8 total) with ATGM, HMG and such. Instead each armoured regiment receives two dedicated infantry companies (in VBCI). Target for full conversion of all armoured regiments is by 2018.
So noted for the future, re: part 1
As far as the rest, so that's each regiment of four tank companies (64 tanks) or are they introducing a battalion system? Two companies of infantry along with four companies of armor?
Also, there's another question. What's the 'minimum' you'd want for infantry to tag along with a tank "lance" anyway? Using the battletech definition since there's too many names in the real world. If you had tanks on the advance, or providing security, what do you really want to have around? (besides the obvious "as many as I can get/trade/beg/borrow/steal/kidnap/blackmail")
-
There is definitely something to be said for knowing where an invader's heavy tanks will be slowed down or stopped while yours will be just fine.
Indeed. Here in the SEA we also spend a lot of time looking at the local terrain, and figuring where foreign attackers may be bottle-necked... and how we can ambush them by putting OUR tanks in "impassable" terrain where they wouldn't be expected. Placed well, a few tanks can do wonders - wire-guided ATGMs can get snagged in undergrowth, top-attack ATGMs and Apache-launched Hellfires might strike jungle canopy.
Fascines date all the way back to pre-medieval castle sieges but still have a use today...
(https://s1.postimg.org/17a88m1win/Off-the-beaten-track.jpg)
(https://s1.postimg.org/2ds4hguakf/AVRE_Carrying_Fascine_MOD_45149257.jpg)
While I'm certain American training leads to good coordination in combined-arms missions, I'd imagine keeping them together like that means French troops would merge together seamlessly.
They apparently train to work very 'modularly' - they try their best to ensure any infantry, armour and support battalion should be capable of working with any other French battalion they are paired with, so they can pull scratch brigades together on the fly. I'm sure we can all tell the pros and cons of that. But its impressive to me nonetheless.
Instead each armoured regiment receives two dedicated infantry companies (in VBCI). Target for full conversion of all armoured regiments is by 2018.
I always love reading about this stuff, and I especially want to read more about the French methods which IMVHO seem bluntly practical. Got any web sources you can point me to?
-
As far as the rest, so that's each regiment of four tank companies (64 tanks) or are they introducing a battalion system? Two companies of infantry along with four companies of armor?
Standard French armoured regiment under 2018 target:
- Command and Staff Company (2 Leclerc + about a dozen VAB)
- Tank Company (16 Leclerc + 8 VBL)
- Tank Company (16 Leclerc + 8 VBL)
- Tank Company (16 Leclerc + 8 VBL)
- Mechanized Infantry Company (12 VBCI + 4 VPC command version + several VBL + 2 81mm mortars + 2 Milan/MMP)
- Mechanized Infantry Company (12 VBCI + 4 VPC command version + several VBL + 2 81mm mortars + 2 Milan/MMP)
- Mixed Engineer and Artillery Company (about a dozen VAB GENIE for two combat engineer platoons and VAB VOA for a artillery observer platoon)
- Reconnaissance Company (13 VBL - omni layout, 2-4 variable-sized platoons set up as required for recce or antitank)
- Reserve Company (security forces)
For the tank companies that means the fourth company was dissolved and reattached as platoons to the other three companies.
Infantry Regiments are moving to a similar five-combat-company-plus-combat-support layout, with 82 VBCI/VPC in those regiments overall (or similar numbers of VBMR for the future Scorpion brigades). The VBCI for the armoured regiments apparently come from those left over after the remaining 8 mechanized infantry regiments are filled, with 98 extra ordered.
What's the 'minimum' you'd want for infantry to tag along with a tank "lance" anyway?
Most default layouts attach as minimum one infantry company to three tank companies.
-
And the artillery company is observers, not actual tube/rocket units inherent to the regiment.
I suppose the 3-2-3 format would work pretty well, you'd have a pretty big regimental command staff though. So from this they're keeping the VBL 'escorts' for the armor with the extra HMGs and ATGMs, integral to each company, with two separate mechanized infantry companies to back that up. It's a lot of mixed capability, and I suppose if it's a train-together-deploy-together force it'd work, but it seems pretty heavy on the coordination requirements.
With an older timeframe (as stated, maybe 1972) would similar arrangements of forces be effective? You're not dealing with the modern communications and control, so would such a mixed "do it all regiment" make sense or should it be more homogenous, and not having the armor bring their pet infantry along?
-
I suppose the 3-2-3 format would work pretty well, you'd have a pretty big regimental command staff though.
It's basically a 3-4-5 concept. They even rearranged the reconnaissance company to fit the "3 combat section" principle, which nearly halved its numbers.
What should be notable is that at company level they're forfeiting the usual command section with its own tanks or infantry carriers. The tank companies really only consist of 4 platoons with 4 Leclerc, the infantry companies of 4 platoons with 1 VPC and 3 VBCI.
Each of course has a command section, the infantry also a platoon-sized heavy weapons section (with those 81mm and MMP); these sections however now ride around in VBL, P4, VLRA trucks and a couple leftover VAB. There's plans to switch these over to VBMR-L (4x4, armoured, around 10-14 tons), yet to be procured, sometime in the first half of the next decade in line with a required VBCI update planned for 2023.
So from this they're keeping the VBL 'escorts' for the armor with the extra HMGs and ATGMs, integral to each company, with two separate mechanized infantry companies to back that up. It's a lot of mixed capability, and I suppose if it's a train-together-deploy-together force it'd work, but it seems pretty heavy on the coordination requirements.
It's really based around the French GTIA (Tactical Combined Arms Group) concept - under which the regiment would not deploy in full anyway. Compared to previous concepts it's a train-as-you-fight constellation insofar as the GTIA would no longer have to be mixed from multiple battalions. Heavy GTIAs usually number two infantry and one tank company (example: Lebanon) or three tank and one infantry company (example: GTIA4 for Mali, serving as heavy response force, not deployed) and are thus more battalion-sized.
The left-over staff of the regiment's command element after formation of a GTIA would take the remaining forces under command.
With an older timeframe (as stated, maybe 1972) would similar arrangements of forces be effective? You're not dealing with the modern communications and control, so would such a mixed "do it all regiment" make sense or should it be more homogenous, and not having the armor bring their pet infantry along?
It's basically a 3-4-5 concept, 3 combat sections each in 4 combat platoons each in 5 combat companies each per regiment.
They did already try to run it quite similar back in the early 80s, although restricting themselves to a 4-4-4 layout back then (typically with a single infantry company attached to three tank companies as tank battalions, or the other way around as mech inf battalions). That was dropped sometime in the 90s.
-
I'd go as far as to say I would like to attach an armour squadron (company strength unit) to an infantry battalion (of three "rifle" companies, a support company of recce troops, mortars etc and an HQ).
I'd divide up the armour regiment (battalion strength unit) into a squadron per infantry battalion in the brigade and use the armour regiment HQ as either a "spare" battlegroup HQ or to lead the recce/"cavalry" forces.
I see armour as mainly being a support to the infantry and a force like the above can always detach some of the infantry to form a rear guard or a screen or just to rest.
I'd also like quite a lot of artillery and am tempted by the self propelled 120mm mortars that are floating around now, like the AMOS.
-
And the artillery company is observers, not actual tube/rocket units inherent to the regiment.
It's named an artillery platoon since in the French Army, artillery observers always used to be a recce component of artillery battalions. Basically, each artillery battalion had a company of 12 VAB VOA which, in platoons of 4, would be reattached to the three combat battalions of a brigade; these are now embedded under permanent command instead.
-
I'd also like quite a lot of artillery and am tempted by the self propelled 120mm mortars that are floating around now, like the AMOS.
AMOS was buried around 2008.
The only comparable system actually realized is NEMO (of which the Saudi Arabian National Guard has 36; Slovenia cancelled its contract). Sweden itself is instead now procuring Mjölner - the 1990s forerunner concept to AMOS -, which is basically a CV90 with a rather weird looking superstructure with two regular manually-loaded mortars built into it.
-
AMOS was buried around 2008.
The only comparable system actually realized is NEMO (of which the Saudi Arabian National Guard has 36; Slovenia cancelled its contract). Sweden itself is instead now procuring Mjölner - the 1990s forerunner concept to AMOS -, which is basically a CV90 with a rather weird looking superstructure with two regular manually-loaded mortars built into it.
Boo
120mm mortar makes sense - lots of bang because it's low velocity - but it needs to be vehicle mounted
Back to hoping the British Army gets some M777s
-
Playing with doctrinal stuff. French tank platoons run four LeClercs and four VBLs for security and infantry support. Compared to the American style of pure tank units, what would the advantages and disadvantages be to having your support infantry right there in the platoon with the armor?This does dictate what kind of terrain my fictional army clearly fights in, namely 'it's almost all tank country' - so lots of rolling open terrain, farmland, low hills, that sort of thing. Relatively light on the mountains and forests, so...Nebraskansas.
I was a tanker before I went EOD, so my information may be a bit dated (when I left tanks we had M1A1's) but the US Army pure tank units is mostly a peace time training thing to make it easier to train them all the same. When you go to combat you swap units with the others in your Brigade (BDE) and make the Battalion in to Task Force, and most companies will become teams. So using my old battalion as an example. Peace time we had (only talking combat equipment/major support units) four Line companies (A-D) and a Headquarters and Headquarters Company (HHC). Each line company had three tank platoons (four tanks each) and a headquarters section (two tanks each) giving them fourteen tanks. HHC had the S shops, Scouts (we had ten turtle back Hummers, but some had six M3 brad's), Mortars (six mortar tracks 120mm is the current standard), Medics (one M577 battalion aid station, and four M113 ambulances), and Battalion Headquarters (one tank section of two). This gave them fifty eight tanks, six to ten scouts, six mortars, and the medical section.
When we went to War we traded from A and C Companies one tank platoon for one infantry platoon, and B company two tank platoons and the headquarters section for two infantry platoon and a headquarters section. In addition we got added to us one Engineer company, one artillery battery, and one scout troop. The Engineer company had three line platoons and an Assault and Obstacle (A n O) Platoon, the line platoons were made up of three squads and a headquarters team each in a track (M113A3's), The A n O platoon had two sections Assault made up of two Combat Engineer Vehicles, and four Armored Vehicle Launched Bridges (AVLB) normally two of them had bridges and the other two had Mine Clearing Line Charge (MICLIC), and Obstacle that had two dozers, two M548 with volcano mine dispensers in the back, and four small emplacement excavators (SEE Truck). The artillery battery had three platoons of guns but as I never saw them (saw their handy work, and it is impressive) I can not say for sure how many (I think six, as I heard that number but is that for the platoon or for the battery I do not know). The scout troop had one command section of one M1A1, and one Brad, also two hunter killer team of four M1A1's and six M3 brads each. So this gave them fifty one tanks, twenty nine brads (a mix of infantry and scout versions), ten scout hummers, six to eighteen? M109's (as I said I am not sure on the numbers here as this is the only part I never directly work with), six mortars, twelve engineer tracks, fourteen engineer vehicles, and the medical section.
My BDE at the time had two tank battalions, two infantry battalions, one scout squadron, one artillery battalion, one engineer battalion, one transport battalion, one support battalion, one MASH, one MP platoon, and one ADA platoon. When deployed the artillery, engineer, and scouts were broken up and tasked out to the combat battalions.
-
Fascinating stuff. Thanks guys.
-
i've found this book a handy reference. it is dated and probably was a bit inaccurate on some details when written, but it would probably be a decent foundation for further research, at least if you are writing fiction.
Armored Cav: A Guided Tour of an Armored Cavalry Regiment (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/111301.Armored_Cav)
-
I remember reading that in high school.
-
i've found this book a handy reference. it is dated and probably was a bit inaccurate on some details when written, but it would probably be a decent foundation for further research, at least if you are writing fiction.
Armored Cav: A Guided Tour of an Armored Cavalry Regiment (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/111301.Armored_Cav)
I've got that book
The information is quite dated as the unit was still really there to be a gap-plugger for the Fulder Gap while the larger (Division+) forces got up to speed
It was very tank heavy
-
Unfortunately, it's no longer applicable. Both the 2nd and 3rd ACR have been swapped over to Strykers, and lost their integral aviation squadrons in the process.
-
In number of posts on past 2 pages have been mentioned heavy tanks. Haven't main battle tanks replaced them all by now?
-
For purposes of this discussion, you can probably use the two terms interchangeably.
-
Matter of preference, but here's my take: "Main battle tank" is a role, and an ill-defined one at that. "Heavy tank" is a weight class. Also one man's meat is another's... appetiser I guess; different countries' "MBTs" are of different weight classes. So I prefer using the latter :D
-
In number of posts on past 2 pages have been mentioned heavy tanks. Haven't main battle tanks replaced them all by now?
My own take on it is that there are several things to bear in mind about this
I don't think there's been a heavy tank in use since the 1960s
Going back a looooooong way, the first tanks were pretty heavy and were first deployed by the Heavy Battalions of the Machine Gun Corps of the British Army
People then made smaller tanks and these got called light tanks so then you have a Heavy/Light split
Time ticks along and then by WW2 you have two ways of dividing tanks - by weight or by role. The role classification was something done due to the lack of either mechanical capability or balanced weapons to all a fast, adequately armoured vehicle with a gun that could both act as an effective anti-armour and anti-infantry (ie high explosive) weapon. You ended up with infantry tanks which were slow and heavily armoured and had machine guns or guns optimised for high explosive shells (low velocity, high calibre) and cruiser tanks which were fast, thinly armoured and had guns optimised for anti-armour work (high velocity, small calibre like 40mm). The other division was into light (often paper thin armour and machine guns only), medium (generally the cruiser tanks) and heavy (generally the infantry tanks) tanks.
There was a great deal of "inflation" in size over the course of the war and then afterwards the M26 Pershing was reclassified as a Medium Tank from being a Heavy Tank. The first MBT also came along towards the end of the war, the Centurion which combined good all terrain mobility, strong armour and a top-notch gun capable of both HE and AP work. There were still some heavy tanks in use in the late WW2/early Cold War era but their extra weight made them less useful than an MBT as they were so limited in terms of logistics, how few bridges they could actually use etc (eg the British Conqueror tank).
In the modern era, a medium tank is one which is lighter than an MBT but also less capable; a light tank is harder to differentiate from a medium tank to be honest and a heavy tank is non-existent (although at 70 odd tonnes for a full combat load Challenger 2 or M1A2 one wonders what something heavier would look like!). I guess the Merkeva might be a heavy tank but really it's an MBT.
First World armies would tend to have MBTs and light tanks (even if they aren't called that like the Scimitar CVR(T) or M3 Bradley).
-
Let's see what Wikipedia says.
M103 heavy tank (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M103_(heavy_tank)), in service up to 1973, and weight isn't much different from Abrams
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c8/M103A2_museum.jpg/300px-M103A2_museum.jpg)
T-10 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-10_tank) heavy tank, in service up to 1996
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c4/T-10_tank.jpg/300px-T-10_tank.jpg)
Centurion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centurion_(tank)); a MBT as said
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a1/Centurion_cfb_borden_1.JPG/300px-Centurion_cfb_borden_1.JPG)
T-54 & T-55 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-54/T-55), as I understand it, are officially medium (weight class) tanks, but also fill the criteria for main battle tank (role)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/60/T-55_4.jpg/300px-T-55_4.jpg)
PT-76 amphibious light tank (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PT-76) is still in service
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/28/Verkhnyaya_Pyshma_Tank_Museum_2012_0181.jpg/300px-Verkhnyaya_Pyshma_Tank_Museum_2012_0181.jpg)
FV101 Scorpion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FV101_Scorpion) looks whole lot like a light tank, but is officially a reconnaissance vehicle
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2f/Scorpion_CRVT_%284119399295%29.jpg/300px-Scorpion_CRVT_%284119399295%29.jpg)
And then are whole lot of wheeled armoured fighting vehicles that could be argued to be tanks with wheeled motive system...
-
King Tigers of German Army in WW2 were more massive then Tanks today, with the Tank Destroyers based off the King Tiger were larger still, with a 128mm gun.
-
oh, in terms of organisation, here are some links to British Army details
http://www.armedforces.co.uk/army/listings/l0013.html - the British Armoured Infantry Brigade
http://www.armedforces.co.uk/army/listings/l0014.html - the British Armoured Battle Group and Company Group
-
oh, and I can dig out and photograph/scan some of the org charts from the Tom Clancy Armored Cav book if anyone is interested
also, I was clearly wrong about the heavy tanks being from a long past era
-
Not Exactly the same thing, but here is a cool infographic of your average US Marines MEU. It's from 2016 so it doesn't have the F35 anywhere, but they pretty much just replace the Harriers.
(https://mj7npa.bn1302.livefilestore.com/y4mTuy8WfiTCIzUnyu-kVmQrVHE7paWgBBG2rbHe9V_BecmxTukBKsUkJjCVcCIjW4280oicpG1Pd1bm-xzmAY8DNmeewBq5zVCBDJBrReCrZfZlFwScjzr-JuLppmQRSMxqCmA-xE-4BHphGXXbQo8Whpph4gi8q6TlsXvEgFZgYCkVv_okkkbCBFXAxi9kpidjqmlVRaB9jzs9HZ_Vw5RXQ?width=1426&height=791&cropmode=none)
Also, if you really love the minutae of military organization and doctrine, go seach for "Commander's quick reference Amphibious Warfare Handbook". It is the source for that image and has a whole mess of information on the US Marine's organization and equipment. You should be just about ready to manage an amphibious invasion if you manage to read through the whole thing!
-
King Tigers of German Army in WW2 were more massive then Tanks today, with the Tank Destroyers based off the King Tiger were larger still, with a 128mm gun.
One of the main reasons for that is the steel armor. Modern armors enabled tanks like the Abrams to bring down the mass without compromising protection.
-
King Tigers of German Army in WW2 were more massive then Tanks today, with the Tank Destroyers based off the King Tiger were larger still, with a 128mm gun.
I think the Western tanks of today can match them once fully-loaded with ERA blocks, armour inserts, etc.
-
From an Adeptus Mechanicus lecture on the pre-history of Imperial Armour (https://regimental-standard.com/2017/10/25/the-history-of-the-imperium-tanks-of-old-terra/):
While the Sherman superficially resembles Imperial designs, it has several disadvantages compared to the Leman Russ. Sloped plating is likely to deflect small arms munitions into nearby soldiers while proving ineffective at dispersing las-fire. Attacking the enemy with a cavalry sabre from the turret hatch would be all but impossible due to its awkward position, even if the crew drove the officer very close. Similarly, field simulations suggest that the treads would quickly become clogged after running over even a smallish squad of Aeldari Guardians.
-
"Relatively rare" ;D
-
I confess, if I did join my nephew and slip over to the dark side, I'd be modding a Lee/Grant, imperial-style ...
-
King Tigers of German Army in WW2 were more massive then Tanks today, with the Tank Destroyers based off the King Tiger were larger still, with a 128mm gun.
The 75.0t Leopard 2 PSO is (considerably) heavier than a 69.7t Tiger II - and cancelled after some prototypes built in favour of the current 62.5t Leopard 2A7V.
-
I think the Western tanks of today can match them once fully-loaded with ERA blocks, armour inserts, etc.
Maybe for the Tiger II, but at a listed mass of 71.7 metric tons the Jagdtiger tank destroyer is regarded as the heaviest land combat vehicle ever put into production.
-
Let's see what Wikipedia says.
M103 heavy tank (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M103_(heavy_tank)), in service up to 1973, and weight isn't much different from Abrams
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c8/M103A2_museum.jpg/300px-M103A2_museum.jpg)
T-10 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-10_tank) heavy tank, in service up to 1996
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c4/T-10_tank.jpg/300px-T-10_tank.jpg)
Centurion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centurion_(tank)); a MBT as said
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a1/Centurion_cfb_borden_1.JPG/300px-Centurion_cfb_borden_1.JPG)
T-54 & T-55 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-54/T-55), as I understand it, are officially medium (weight class) tanks, but also fill the criteria for main battle tank (role)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/60/T-55_4.jpg/300px-T-55_4.jpg)
PT-76 amphibious light tank (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PT-76) is still in service
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/28/Verkhnyaya_Pyshma_Tank_Museum_2012_0181.jpg/300px-Verkhnyaya_Pyshma_Tank_Museum_2012_0181.jpg)
FV101 Scorpion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FV101_Scorpion) looks whole lot like a light tank, but is officially a reconnaissance vehicle
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2f/Scorpion_CRVT_%284119399295%29.jpg/300px-Scorpion_CRVT_%284119399295%29.jpg)
And then are whole lot of wheeled armoured fighting vehicles that could be argued to be tanks with wheeled motive system...
The Panther 'medium' tank is just shy of the JS-2 in weight, and heavier than the M26 Pershing which was originally intended to be a heavy tank.
-
Maybe for the Tiger II, but at a listed mass of 71.7 metric tons the Jagdtiger tank destroyer is regarded as the heaviest land combat vehicle ever put into production.
I wish a tread-head like CDAT could weigh in on this, but I suspect quoted figures are net of armor inserts. Wikipedia lists a fully loaded Challenger 2 at over 70 long tons though I can't find the source for this figure. And I'll lay odds that the M1A2 Sep V2 TUSK 2 is no lighter... just look at the amount of stuff hanging off it!
(https://s1.postimg.org/7gz559erwf/maxresdefault.jpg)
-
The "Heavy" tank of the US was less then a medium tank of the Germans.
I wonder if the Sherman tank would of had a different reputation if they just would of put the 76mm gun on it first vs the short 75mm from the start.
-
The "Heavy" tank of the US was less then a medium tank of the Germans.
I wonder if the Sherman tank would of had a different reputation if they just would of put the 76mm gun on it first vs the short 75mm from the start.
Well good old "The Burning Grave", "Ronson" and "Tommycooker", got the reputation of catching fire most of all. Which was a product of Inadequate Armor and too much Ammunition.
-
Well good old "The Burning Grave", "Ronson" and "Tommycooker", got the reputation of catching fire most of all. Which was a product of Inadequate Armor and too much Ammunition.
And much of those problems were fixed in later production runs (I presume M4A2 and later ones). Also Sherman has good number of hatches with springs for assist and those are located directly above the crew members. See yourself how fast Nicholas Moran, The Chieftain gets his ass out of it (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACqzevjK2DQ). Can't do that on T-34.
-
I just always thought that about the M4 Sherman. With the US not putting on the larger gun earlier for the Sherman following the Tank Destroyer Battalion doctering. The Sherman was great for the advance and moving forward thru Europe, the Gasoline engine over the diesel engine is a big flaw.
-
...And I'll lay odds that the M1A2 Sep V2 TUSK 2 is no lighter... just look at the amount of stuff hanging off it!
Welp, the Marine's LCAC is allowed to operate in an 'overloaded' condition up to 75t for some percentage of its lifetime. The LCAC is also listed as capable of carrying a single M1, and nothing else, as one of its optional load configurations. That allowable overload is the only thing that lets it carry an M1 these days. I would take that to mean an M1 is likely not more than 75 tons, fully kitted out...at least US Marines-style. No idea how their add-ons and loadout might compare to other users, like the US Army. Either way...I'm pretty sure it is safe to call them 'heavy' tanks!
BTW: this picture is actually of a very nice model...but I think it looks fantastic, and the scale is accurate.
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/72/a0/15/72a015a3631c240e31899f88107db714--landing-craft-war-machine.jpg)
-
I just always thought that about the M4 Sherman. With the US not putting on the larger gun earlier for the Sherman following the Tank Destroyer Battalion doctering. The Sherman was great for the advance and moving forward thru Europe, the Gasoline engine over the diesel engine is a big flaw.
Once the Shermans were switched over to wet ammo storage, the fire issues were largely fixed, so the gasoline engine doesn't seem to have been that big of a design flaw (Soviet tanks used diesel because it was better in sub-zero temperatures, not because of its reduced fire hazard).
As far as the 75mm vs the 76mm, the 76 was superior for anti-tank usage, but it had an inferior HE shell for use against bunkers and infantry formations. By the time the Jumbo and Easy Eight rolled around, the 76mm was the standard but apparently it was common for several tanks in a platoon to replace them with 75mm guns in order to maintain anti-infantry capability. And given that the most commonly encountered German vehicles were still Panzer IVs and Stugs, the 75mm's AP round was sufficient most of the time. With Allied air superiority, they could also radio in a Thunderbolt on Tank Buster duty if they ran into something heavier.
-
Well good old "The Burning Grave", "Ronson" and "Tommycooker", got the reputation of catching fire most of all. Which was a product of Inadequate Armor and too much Ammunition.
Entirely untrue, actually. Yes, they were petrol powered, but as far as armor goes the M4s were equal to their contemporary tanks and actually have the lowest deaths-per-crew in the war - impressive with five guys stuffed in that little thing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNjp_4jY8pY
-
(http://www.janes.com/images/assets/201/75201/1711957_-_main.jpg)
Ukraine’s Zhytomyr Armored Plant unveiled its new Strazh (Sentinel) fire support vehicle at the Arms and Security Exhibition 2017 in Kiev.
Strazh is based on a T-64 main battle tank and is designed to provide armoured forces with close-range support and overwhelming firepower against infantry units employing hand held anti-tank weapons. The design leverages experience gained by Ukrainian defence forces operating in the Donbass region, where significant numbers of T-64s have been lost in urban combat.
Its primary armament is a pair of 30 mm ZTM-2 automatic cannons mounted side-by-side, with two KT-7.62 machine guns in between them. Mounted on the top of the turret is a 30 mm KBA-117 automatic grenade-launcher as well as two pods of Bar’er-212 anti-tank guided missiles. The ZTM-2 cannons are Ukrainian produced versions of the 2A42, which have a dual-feed configuration and are said to be capable of defeating lightly armoured targets (such as a BTR-70) at 1,500 m and personnel at 4,000 m.
-
They even put the BMPT moniker on their BMPT-turret clone?
Doesn't Uralvagonzavod have some sort of trademark for that?
-
Entirely untrue, actually. Yes, they were petrol powered, but as far as armor goes the M4s were equal to their contemporary tanks and actually have the lowest deaths-per-crew in the war - impressive with five guys stuffed in that little thing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNjp_4jY8pY
Will disagree with "equal to their contemporary tanks". This may have been true in 1941-42 - the M4A1 was certainly comprable in terms of protection and firepower with the short-barreled Panzer IVs used in Africa - but by 1944 they were considerably inferior to designs which had evolved in the crucible of the Ostfront.
The Sherman's "brew up" reputation came more from the usual consequences of any AFV being massively penetrated. The US (and largely the British too) had ignored the rapid pace of AFV development the Germans and Russians had been making, and performance in North Africa was considered to be more than adequate. But the short-barreled 75mm gun was incapable of penetrating Panzer IVs except at point-blank range or from the flank/rear, and in most cases incapable of penetrating Tigers at any range.
The American refusal to consider more powerful AT guns was foolish, but ultimately irrelevant - the British 17pdr was a superb gun, enhanced when the first HVAP rounds were issued, but towed guns ain't so useful in attack. The 17pdrs did contribute magnificently whenever a German counter-attack happened in front of them.
Which then leads to the Sherman Firefly with the 17pdr, and the "Easy Eight" models with the high-vee 76mm guns. They then had firepower equalling the Panzer IVs and Panthers, and more protection. The Sherman Jumbo had massive protection, but wasn't used primarily for tank killing. All Shermans had several significant advantages over enemy designs - superior reliability, better ergonomics, improved periscopes, and towards the end of the war and in Korea better optics. Of course, superior numbers too.
The "Easy Eight" Shermans fought well in Korea - in many cases far more usefully than the "superior" Pershings - and were easily equal to T-34/85s in terms of protection & firepower, while superior in most other factors. But the Shermans rolling into Normandy were not "equal to contemporary designs" at that time & place, which is where they faced the most equal opposition.
IMHO, of course - happy to have a good, respectful debate O0
W.
-
to be fair, America did invest in better guns.. they just put them on dedicated Tank Destroyers like the M10 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M10_tank_destroyer) and the later M18 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M18_Hellcat) and M36 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M36_tank_destroyer), and left the M4's in a more Infantry Support role. The M4 wasn't originally designed for that role, but they proved reasonably adept at it.
-
And the propensity for Shermans to catch fire has always been a bit overstated as well as how ineffective even the 75 was supposed to be against other tanks. Even the Tiger.
-
Yeah, the Tiger's flat body meant that penetration was relatively easy. It was the Tiger II's improved, sloped armor that the 75mm couldn't pen, and the US strategic response was to (correctly) assume that German didn't have the industrial capacity to churn out Tiger IIs in enough numbers to make a difference. Sucked for American tank crews that encountered them, though.
-
I wish a tread-head like CDAT could weigh in on this, but I suspect quoted figures are net of armor inserts. Wikipedia lists a fully loaded Challenger 2 at over 70 long tons though I can't find the source for this figure. And I'll lay odds that the M1A2 Sep V2 TUSK 2 is no lighter... just look at the amount of stuff hanging off it!
The term "heavy tank" is obsolete, and the entire class of heavy tanks have been replaced with MBTs. In this case, it's because doctrine and classification followed technological advances. Improved armor, weapons, computers, and power plants meant that armies could have a one-design solution to their tank needs: a single well-armored machine, with a powerful cannon and bristling with machine guns that could engage and destroy anything else on the battlefield from infantry to other tanks, and mobile enough to set the pace of combat.
The sheer mass and cost of these tanks was irrelevant for the roles they were intended. NATO and the Warsaw Pact had plenty of time to position their forces, and could use leisurely methods - trains and ships, near-suicide in open warfare - to get them in place. The burgeoning wealth of the mid- to late-20 Century meant that the big nations didn't have to compromise with lighter tanks to fill out their forces, and could concentrate on producing thousands of cutting-edge MBTs.
Things have changed. There is still tension among the major nations, but it is considered unlikely to erupt into full-scale warfare. Modern battlefields are sharply asymmetrical, often pitting rich, professional militaries against poor, barely-trained opponents. Conflict is most likely to erupt in underdeveloped, often isolated, regions. While MBTs are no less effective than ever, it is difficult to deploy them without quite some advance warning.
Into this new paradigm, lighter armored vehicles are finding a new lease on life. They don't have to mount the armor and guns of a true MBT, as they will not be facing other tanks. Ideally, they will also be easier to move using fast assets like jumbo jets. I don't know if they will be classified as "light" or "medium" tanks or given a new classification. I suspect the latter, to more properly embrace their new roles.
-
I wish a tread-head like CDAT could weigh in on this, but I suspect quoted figures are net of armor inserts. Wikipedia lists a fully loaded Challenger 2 at over 70 long tons though I can't find the source for this figure. And I'll lay odds that the M1A2 Sep V2 TUSK 2 is no lighter... just look at the amount of stuff hanging off it!
(https://s1.postimg.org/7gz559erwf/maxresdefault.jpg)
According to http://www.army.mod.uk/equipment/23236.aspx
Combat weight of Challenger II is 62.5t
-
Into this new paradigm, lighter armored vehicles are finding a new lease on life. They don't have to mount the armor and guns of a true MBT, as they will not be facing other tanks. Ideally, they will also be easier to move using fast assets like jumbo jets. I don't know if they will be classified as "light" or "medium" tanks or given a new classification. I suspect the latter, to more properly embrace their new roles.
Anyone want to guess on the silly name(s) that will be generated? Do people think they will go with a "sexy" acronym name? Probably with the word "expeditionary" in it.
-
The term "medium forces" is what we were using when I left the service in 2012, in this case specifically meaning Stryker-equipped brigades.
-
Anyone want to guess on the silly name(s) that will be generated? Do people think they will go with a "sexy" acronym name? Probably with the word "expeditionary" in it.
The US program is named Mobile Protected Firepower ::)
And the project head said this: “I don’t want to say it’s a light tank, but it’s kind of like a light tank."
-
Germany and France call their Leopard/Leclerc successor "Main Ground Combat System" (MGCS) - although that won't be a light airmobile tank ;-)
Neither of us do light tanks in the future interestingly. France is replacing its current big-gun light carriers with a 25-ton "Armored Reconnaissance and Combat Vehicle" (EBRC) armed with a 40mm CTA gun and anti-tank missiles that will keep filling their "light cavalry" role. The name oddly harks back to an equivalent "Armored Reconnaissance Vehicle" (EBR) from the 50s that despite lacking that "C" in the designation still carried a 75mm gun...
-
as Britain is only just getting around to replacing their 1960s CVR(T) not-a-light-tank-really-it's-just-like-a-tank-but-lighter they don't seem to be investing thought in a replacement for the Challenger 2
-
The US program is named Mobile Protected Firepower ::)
And the project head said this: “I don’t want to say it’s a light tank, but it’s kind of like a light tank."
And here's a prototype unveiled last year:
(https://breakingdefense.sites.breakingmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2016/10/Screen-Shot-2016-10-03-at-5.58.41-PM-1024x640.png)
-
Meh, we don't even have vaporware artwork for MGCS yet - so far they've been using a Leopard Revolution as a stand-in in pictures.
(which oddly enough is a Rheinmetall upgrade - but KMW is designing MGCS with Nexter, not Rheinmetall)
-
Into this new paradigm, lighter armored vehicles are finding a new lease on life. They don't have to mount the armor and guns of a true MBT, as they will not be facing other tanks. Ideally, they will also be easier to move using fast assets like jumbo jets. I don't know if they will be classified as "light" or "medium" tanks or given a new classification. I suspect the latter, to more properly embrace their new roles.
How about:
MRAP = Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected (vehicle)
ICV = Infantry Carrier Vehicle
IMV = Infantry Mobility Vehicle
AMV = Armoured Modular Vehicle
Reconnaissance vehicle
-
The official term we're talking about is Battle Tanks and Heavy Armament Combat Vehicle:
A Battle Tank is any tracked or wheeled armoured vehicle with at least 16.5t weight and at least a 75mm direct-fire gun that does not fulfill a primary troop transport function.
A Heavy Armament Combat Vehicle is any armoured vehicle with at least 6.0t weight and at least a 75mm direct-fire gun that does not fulfill a primary troop transport function or, while wheeled or tracked, weighs more than 16.5t.
And yes, the 16.5t is not a typo. The weight differentiation at that point was chosen to include vehicles such as French (e.g. AMX-10RC) or Soviet (e.g. PT-76) light recce tanks as HACVs while firmly setting traditional "light tanks" and "medium tanks" (such as the 22t M41 Walker Bulldog or the 26t T-34/76) in the Battle Tank category. The limit was set at around the weight of a ASU-85.
A hover vehicle of any weight above 6t with at least a 75mm gun is always classified as a HACV btw.
Joint definition by NATO and Warsaw Pact under the CFE treaty.
-
Heavy? Light? All I want to know is, could you do this with it?
(http://f1.media.brightcove.com/8/77374810001/77374810001_4573143681001_video-still-for-video-4573139961001.jpg?pubId=77374810001)
or this?
(https://www.dailydot.com/wp-content/uploads/634/6b/05278b7853c3cf2e4569495123be3a25.jpg)
-
Heavy? Light? All I want to know is, could you do this with it?
(http://f1.media.brightcove.com/8/77374810001/77374810001_4573143681001_video-still-for-video-4573139961001.jpg?pubId=77374810001)
or this?
(https://www.dailydot.com/wp-content/uploads/634/6b/05278b7853c3cf2e4569495123be3a25.jpg)
I guess the only questions I'd have, are "can it take a hit when you do that?" when the Stryker was adopted, they had to get add-on packs to get the armor up to where the contract spec said it should be-which made both those activities you've pictured impossible with it installed.
-
I guess the only questions I'd have, are "can it take a hit when you do that?" when the Stryker was adopted, they had to get add-on packs to get the armor up to where the contract spec said it should be-which made both those activities you've pictured impossible with it installed.
That seems to be the problem - a vehicle is made light enough to deploy easily generally means it lacks the armour to withstand impacts from the sort of things that may be thrown/fired at them. This has only been exacerbated in the last decade and a half where the threat of IEDs/mines as well as the proliferation of RPGs has been shown which are hard for hard-kill active protection systems to protect against and impossible for soft-kill ones.
In many ways I think the direction of travel might have been better if the same solution as was reached with the Centurion (allegedly) that it may be better to improve the transportation assets to allow faster transportation of suitably heavy and armoured units rather than try to cut corners to fit the transport assets.
I do find the shift from tracks to wheels interesting though.
-
Last week the Italian Leonardo group unveiled its upgrade for the M-60A3 in Bahrain, at the local international defense exhibition (BIDEC). The upgrade is based exclusively on Italian subsystems. Notable changes include additional protection for the frontal arc (turret, hull, and skirts), 120/45 mm cannon and Hitrole Remotely controlled system replacing the commander’s HMG.
(http://defense-update.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/body_M60A3_leonardo_725.gif)
-
Honestly, IEDs are too hard to defeat with armor alone. It's just too easy to wire in yet another artillery shell (or 100kg of other explosives). Soft kill is really your only option for those.
-
I guess the only questions I'd have, are "can it take a hit when you do that?" when the Stryker was adopted, they had to get add-on packs to get the armor up to where the contract spec said it should be-which made both those activities you've pictured impossible with it installed.
Oh absolutely. Didn’t mean to imply anything HAD to be air transportable, just that the weight limit for doing so is more of a meaningful difference than the bore of the gun, or whether it has wheels for deciding if an armored vehicle is light or not. Logistically speaking, once you are too heavy to be deployed by air, it makes no difference if you are 30t or 60t; your only option to get into hostile territory is to drive there on your own, or have a boat drop you off. You need a road (or at least fairly navigable terrain) or a nice, flat beach to get where someone doesn’t want you to be. If a helo can drag you around, your options are significantly greater.
However, as you pointed out, given the current limits of air transport and armor, that usually means a vehicle that isn’t all that well protected. Is it worth it to get the flexibility of air deployment? I can’t say for sure, but the answer is probably, “Sometimes.”
-
Hmm... Hypothetical question; how heavily armored can you make a vehicle and still keep the weight "air-droppable" (~15 tons?)?
If you make it as small as possible, two-man crew, keeping the top speed to just 30-40 kph and arm it with a MG plus and AGL.
Would it be possible to bring the armor up to the point where the enemy would need to bring heavy anti-armor weapons to take it out?
-
depends on the motive system (and speed) your using and the gun you mount, i'd suspect. and the type of armor plate your using. like any combat vehicle, it would be a balancing act between mobility, protection, and firepower.
one of the reasons that non-armor protections are catching on now. active defense systems liek Trophy, and Explosive Reactive Armor blocks can boost the protection against certain threats at a lower mass cost than just more armor.
-
The US MPF will not be air droppable.
(http://defense-update.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/body_M60A3_leonardo_725.gif)
Friend of mine called it a "halal Magach" ::)
-
Halal? Shouldn't that be 'kosher'?
-
Halal? Shouldn't that be 'kosher'?
not if you're selling to the non-Israeli middle-east.
-
Hmm... Hypothetical question; how heavily armored can you make a vehicle and still keep the weight "air-droppable" (~15 tons?)?
For a C-130, the typical measure of a 'tactical transport' you've got clearance for a box 8'6" tall and 9 feet wide, which gives 5-6 inches on each side and the top as extra wiggle room. That doesn't include any kind of drop-sled or whatever you park your vehicle on, I should note. Lengthwise, 40 feet or 55 on the -30 extended model, so if you build stubby you can park two onboard. Masswise, 22 tons is a very hard limit, so either you get two stumpy 20,000 pound vehicles or one big 42,000 pounder.
Something like the Sheridan does fit those criteria - just past 9 feet wide, 7'6" tall, not quite 21 feet long, and 17 tons. You're gonna want spare weight to account for ammunition, gear, crew, fuel, and other such things, and I'm not kidding about that hard limit of 22 tons on the Hercules. Then again, it's hard to call the Sheridan armored...
It comes down to how likely you are to encounter enemy armor or fixed hardened positions. Do you go with a 90-105mm gun, with a primary focus of defeating tanks and bunkers, or do you go with a lighter autocannon like a 30mm for anything short of a tank, with a couple hellfires or TOWs for the occasional hard target? How much armor protection do you want onboard - and how much active protection can you fit in that physical space?
-
But Magach is a Hebrew word and is used for Israeli updates to the M48/M60
-
Hmm... Hypothetical question; how heavily armored can you make a vehicle and still keep the weight "air-droppable" (~15 tons?)?
If you make it as small as possible, two-man crew, keeping the top speed to just 30-40 kph and arm it with a MG plus and AGL.
Would it be possible to bring the armor up to the point where the enemy would need to bring heavy anti-armor weapons to take it out?
anything is air-droppable...once.
-
anything is air-droppable...once.
giggle
-
But Magach is a Hebrew word and is used for Israeli updates to the M48/M60
Exactly. A Muslim equivalent therefore would be a halal Magach :D think "kosher bacon" :D
-
For a C-130, the typical measure of a 'tactical transport' you've got clearance for a box 8'6" tall and 9 feet wide, which gives 5-6 inches on each side and the top as extra wiggle room. That doesn't include any kind of drop-sled or whatever you park your vehicle on, I should note. Lengthwise, 40 feet or 55 on the -30 extended model, so if you build stubby you can park two onboard. Masswise, 22 tons is a very hard limit, so either you get two stumpy 20,000 pound vehicles or one big 42,000 pounder.
Something like the Sheridan does fit those criteria - just past 9 feet wide, 7'6" tall, not quite 21 feet long, and 17 tons. You're gonna want spare weight to account for ammunition, gear, crew, fuel, and other such things, and I'm not kidding about that hard limit of 22 tons on the Hercules. Then again, it's hard to call the Sheridan armored...
It comes down to how likely you are to encounter enemy armor or fixed hardened positions. Do you go with a 90-105mm gun, with a primary focus of defeating tanks and bunkers, or do you go with a lighter autocannon like a 30mm for anything short of a tank, with a couple hellfires or TOWs for the occasional hard target? How much armor protection do you want onboard - and how much active protection can you fit in that physical space?
I was just musing on the difficulty of transporting a heavily armored vehicle. Generally light AFVs (logically) put mobility and transport capacity/armament first. Which means they have to be pretty large and thus lightly armored to keep the weight in check.
So my idea was to make something about the size of a Wiesel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiesel_AWC) but with much wider tracks and a bit larger engine. I guesstimate you could add about 5 tons of armor to the frame which would be quite thick given the small size.
Essentially a modern version of the old infantry tanks to "assault" towns or other places where you can expect to be ambushed.
-
Hmm, I am trying to figure out what the problem is?
(https://media.defense.gov/2013/Sep/26/2000909142/670/394/0/130926-F-ER750-047.JPG)
A M1A2 being loaded into a C-17
You cannot parachute them or LAPES them but a C-17 can pretty much land on any airfield that a C-130 can. So just seize a small/medium GA airfield as your airhead and away you go O0
-
a C-17 can pretty much land on any airfield that a C-130 can
Mmm, don't be so sure about that...
(http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/history/c130/carrier_01.jpg)
Hmm, I am trying to figure out what the problem is?
So just seize a small/medium GA airfield as your airhead and away you go O0
Also, just because you can bring in one M1 by C-17 doesn't mean you can bring ENOUGH in. Globemaster IIIs are big damn aircraft; your airport is going to fill up extremely fast with aircraft that are trying to offload cargo - which is going to take a while. Then you have to clear your transports out and bring in new ones, each aircraft bringing one(1) M1 Abrams.
Good thing you won't need fuel or ammo! Oh wait...
-
You cannot parachute them or LAPES them but a C-17 can pretty much land on any airfield that a C-130 can. So just seize a small/medium GA airfield as your airhead and away you go O0
That IS the problem - C-17s are expensive and rare. The UK has eight, the rest of NATO THREE.
A medium transport like the A400M, which is about half the size/capacity of a C-17, is a little more common, and that's what NATO has been working around: a single Puma IFV at basic STANAG Level 4 protection (14.5mm proof all-around) can fit in one A400M. A flight of 4 A400Ms can carry 3 Puma IFVs and armour kits to upgrade them to STANAG Level 6 (medium caliber AC proof all-around).
But put a 105mm gun on top of a Puma (as was suggested by some US military lobbyists) AND make it air-transportable by a medium airlifter? You are probably gonna have to thin the armour down even more, and that ain't gonna work. That ain't a medium tank.
Air-droppable, in the immortal words of the Book of Armaments, "is right out."
P.S. And not C-130s neither. Basic Strykers are C-130 transportable, the double-v-hull Strykers (enhanced IED survivability) not.
-
So my idea was to make something about the size of a Wiesel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiesel_AWC) but with much wider tracks and a bit larger engine. I guesstimate you could add about 5 tons of armor to the frame which would be quite thick given the small size.
A Wiesel is not built to carry any sort of armour. It's pretty much a - underpowered - car with some sheet metal slapped on it to the full extent that the frame allows without breaking down. You'd need to redesign the entire frame and suspension, basically a new vehicle. A Wiesel outsized to 7-8t weight probably would break down before you could roll it off an aircraft...
Successor model in Germany will likely be a 4x4 armoured vehicle either in the 7-8t or in the 10-12t region, armed with ATGM and/or a 40mm AGL, somewhat comparable to either Eagle IV/V or Fennek respectively; introduction around/after 2025. Design Armour would probably be STANAG 4569 Level 2 or 3, much like those named. Depends a bit on which new helicopters they'll buy.
You cannot parachute them or LAPES them but a C-17 can pretty much land on any airfield that a C-130 can.
Not with a M1 onboard.
-
And of course, there's the nontrivial task of doing all that offloading and mustering at a recently captured airbase, with the other guy doing his level best to shut down what is essentially a spawn point for main battle tanks. I wonder how many artillery shells you have to drop on a runway before it's no longer part of a C-17's comfort zone?
Let's just say there's a lot of reasons why even modern first-tier armies still march/drive for most of their movements.
-
I wonder how many artillery shells you have to drop on a runway before it's no longer part of a C-17's comfort zone?
(https://larryfire.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/egribglymti_o_tootsie-blow-pop.jpg)
He said one.
-
(https://larryfire.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/egribglymti_o_tootsie-blow-pop.jpg)
He said one.
You only need to hit one fully fueled air lifter on the runway to make one heck of a mess
-
...I wonder how many artillery shells you have to drop on a runway before it's no longer part of a C-17's comfort zone?
Any hole is disruptive but most NATO fuzes are set to "super quick" detonation which means they will go off by hitting anything short of water density. Unlike the shells that altered the landscape of Verdun today's rounds don't make much of a dent. Moving earth that way is inherently ineffective and easily fixed with a quick setting concrete if you are trying to breakup an airfield. Making a lot of holes is a pain to fix but blowing up aircraft, ordnance, or fuel has a bigger impact. A case of "hit the right thing" vs. "hit anything".
Note, that doesn't make armor immune to artillery. Armor and dirt are two different things.
-
Also, just because you can bring in one M1 by C-17 doesn't mean you can bring ENOUGH in. Globemaster IIIs are big damn aircraft; your airport is going to fill up extremely fast with aircraft that are trying to offload cargo - which is going to take a while. Then you have to clear your transports out and bring in new ones, each aircraft bringing one(1) M1 Abrams.
Good thing you won't need fuel or ammo! Oh wait...
But those are exactly the same problem if you have a lighter airmobile Armoured Fighting Vehicle which is short of an M1 or another MBT. Ok you might get one in a C-130 or a A400M or even two into a C-17, but you will run into the same logistics issues at the airhead which make the M1 on a C-17 an issue. So back to my original question, what is the problem?
I.E. What is the scenario that you are planning for? What is the objective you are trying to achieve and what forces do you need to achieve them? Is it a contested airhead or an uncontested airhead? If contested, what are the OPFOR equipped with? Are the OPFOR insurgents armed with technicals, IED and RPGs? Are the OPFOR special forces armed with 50-cal anti-materiel rifles? Are the OPFOR conventional forces with MBTs and SP 155mm Arty? How strong and long is the runway? How much air movement areas do you assume you will have to work with? What do you need to secure the airhead?
No point in designing a new hammer if the problem is a screw not a nail.
-
as Britain is only just getting around to replacing their 1960s CVR(T) not-a-light-tank-really-it's-just-like-a-tank-but-lighter they don't seem to be investing thought in a replacement for the Challenger 2
Won't be replacing Challenger II for decades
But are updating it
http://www.baesystems.com/en/product/challenger-2
-
Won't be replacing Challenger II for decades
But are updating it
http://www.baesystems.com/en/product/challenger-2 (http://www.baesystems.com/en/product/challenger-2)
Now that I've followed that link, do you think my Facebook targeted ads are going to get a bit more interesting? the last thing I have got slammed with is ads for those sunrise/SAD lamps. Now I might get offers on refurbished T-55s or a brand new Leopard 2A6?
-
Sooo...pastrami?
Exactly. A Muslim equivalent therefore would be a halal Magach :D think "kosher bacon" :D
-
I'm a bit worried that we may spill over into Rule 4 or otherwise unpleasant chat if we dig too deeply into the "kosher bacon" / Halal Magach thing
I do think the upgraded M60 looks very pretty, given the lineage back via the M48 etc does this make it a bit like a ground based B-52?
(yes, I am deliberately trying to change the subject or at least steer it in a different direction)
-
that infographic tho... isn't that a Po in Davion Guard colours?
-
A Wiesel is not built to carry any sort of armour. It's pretty much a - underpowered - car with some sheet metal slapped on it to the full extent that the frame allows without breaking down. You'd need to redesign the entire frame and suspension, basically a new vehicle. A Wiesel outsized to 7-8t weight probably would break down before you could roll it off an aircraft...
Is it (Wiesel) any better than Universal Carrier or Sonderkraftfahrzeug 250?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4f/Universal_carrier_%28mortar_carrier%29_9-08-2008_14-53-48_%282%29.JPG/300px-Universal_carrier_%28mortar_carrier%29_9-08-2008_14-53-48_%282%29.JPG)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/de/Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-236-1036-31%2C_Russland%2C_Sch%C3%BCtzenpanzer_auf_Feld.jpg/300px-Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-236-1036-31%2C_Russland%2C_Sch%C3%BCtzenpanzer_auf_Feld.jpg)
-
Neither of those can make the back of the vehicle lift half a meter off the ground when doing a full stop brake, so i'd go with "it's better" ;)
-
Weiel provides some fragmentation protection, so it's better than the UC in that respect.
You can't fit an infantry squad in the back of a Weisel (without surgery); but the Weisel's suspension is both considerably simpler, and massively more reliable.
-
Not to interrupt the current line of discussion, but I was wondering if anyone had noticed that the title of the thread is "Armored FightNing Vehicles?" It's been bugging me ever since I noticed it. . . . about three months ago!
-
Not to interrupt the current line of discussion, but I was wondering if anyone had noticed that the title of the thread is "Armored FightNing Vehicles?" It's been bugging me ever since I noticed it. . . . about three months ago!
I had not, but now that you mentioned it...I can't stop looking at it!
-
The post titles can be edited (like I did above)... All we need to fix it in the forum is for the OP to edit the first post...
-
The post titles can be edited (like I did above)... All we need to fix it in the forum is for the OP to edit the first post...
You're right: you can
-
Eh, it's like Lightning with more fight!
-
Matter of preference, but here's my take: "Main battle tank" is a role, and an ill-defined one at that. "Heavy tank" is a weight class. Also one man's meat is another's... appetiser I guess; different countries' "MBTs" are of different weight classes. So I prefer using the latter :D
Just some very broad stroke background info on tanks, when they first came out you had male and female tanks (depending on if they had cannons or MG for their main guns). Later they started calling them light (some called them tankettes) and heavy but if you ask me that was more to do with size/role then truly weight based. After WWI they keep working of different tank designs and roles for them.
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.
Post WWII up to modern time the trend of multipurpose tanks with the weight classes being used less and less eventually medium and larger being replaced with Main Battle Tank (MBT). Just some interesting numbers light tanks lightest that I could find came in at 1.5 tons combat loaded, to heaviest at 35 tons. Medium tanks lightest 14 tons, heaviest 42 tons. Heavy tanks lightest from 28 tons, heaviest 76.9. And just for fun super-heavy tanks lightest from 60 tons, heaviest produced (Maus) 188 tons, heaviest that had plans drawn up (Landkreuzer P. 1000 Ratte) at 1000 tons. So as can be seen there is a fair amount of cross over when using weight as the classification, I think this is mostly as technology improved you can get better performance so you can go bigger and still have the same performance that you had with more armor and/or firepower. Now using the MBT term weight does not come into it as it is based on the role it is designed to do.
-
Infantry tanks were largely built with the expectation that it would be similar to the trench warfare of World War One. Many of them, like the Matilda and Churchill, didn't actually have particularly powerful guns (though the Churchill I had a howitzer on the body, as did the French Char B1 Bis).
-
100 years ago today, the 4th Light Horse Brigade of the Australian Mounted Division conducted a cavalry charge with bayonets in hand to capture the wells at Beersheba.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/81/f1/d1/81f1d17ac8d998fbae1f9e2a106b4309.jpg)
More information:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Beersheba_(1917)#Beersheba (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Beersheba_(1917)#Beersheba)
https://www.awm.gov.au/articles/blog/the-charge-of-the-4th-light-horse-brigade-at-beersheba (https://www.awm.gov.au/articles/blog/the-charge-of-the-4th-light-horse-brigade-at-beersheba)
For those who prefer visuals:
https://youtu.be/p7dm_nbjNjE (https://youtu.be/p7dm_nbjNjE)
Lest we forget
(http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/2668132-3x2-940x627.jpg)
-
Now using the MBT term weight does not come into it as it is based on the role it is designed to do.
Fair enough.
Conversely, the argument school of thought against using the phrase "Main Battle Tank" is that the emergence of clear needs for "Mobile Protected Firepower" and "Mobile Gun System" and "Armoured Gun System", to use 3 American examples (but by no means is the phenomenon solely American), indicates that "MBT" is not the general-purpose tank it is made out to be, and essentially armies are going back, once again, to the light-medium-heavy paradigm, with "MBTs" mainly in the heavy class.
In my mind it is a matter of preference, and either form is correct. When I first heard this argument I dismissed it. But of late I am increasingly coming round to the idea.
-
I suspect that calling something an MBT or medium tank or AGS is a lot like deciding to call a warship a destroyer or frigate or whatever: There is no true universal classification, and he who fills out the forms in triplicate, makes the names.
-
I suspect that calling something an MBT or medium tank or AGS is a lot like deciding to call a warship a destroyer or frigate or whatever: There is no true universal classification, and he who fills out the forms in triplicate, makes the names.
It's more like "he who survives the JCIDS process makes the names".
What? It's Halloween, so I figured the full dose of evil was appropriate...
-
... JCIDS process...
While I can guess, I'm gonna file that under "Things Man was not Meant to Know"...
-
It's more like "he who survives the JCIDS process makes the names".
What? It's Halloween, so I figured the full dose of evil was appropriate...
Way too inside, my friend.
-
You're both right... ::)
-
Fair enough.
Conversely, the argument school of thought against using the phrase "Main Battle Tank" is that the emergence of clear needs for "Mobile Protected Firepower" and "Mobile Gun System" and "Armoured Gun System", to use 3 American examples (but by no means is the phenomenon solely American), indicates that "MBT" is not the general-purpose tank it is made out to be, and essentially armies are going back, once again, to the light-medium-heavy paradigm, with "MBTs" mainly in the heavy class.
In my mind it is a matter of preference, and either form is correct. When I first heard this argument I dismissed it. But of late I am increasingly coming round to the idea.
This is totally true we Americans (at least as much maybe more than others) like our acronyms. Having said that I think a lot of it is the different carer fields trying to get there hooks into it (looking at you infantry). Also neither the Armored Gun System (AGS), Mobile Gun System (MGS), or the Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF) are multi purpose combat systems they are AGS a replacement for a light tank, MGS and at least to me MPF are solutions looking for a problem, but as I said none of them are truly multipurpose as they can not really even go toe to toe with them self, let a lone a real main battle tank.
-
Reasons why to stay buttoned up:
(http://www.novate.ru/files/u35075/3armyfun.jpg)
-
I guess that is the fast and easy way to apply camo face paint ;D
-
Face, neck, sinus canal... all of it gets its own coating of
mud camo paint
-
"Ivan, is not mud! Is not mud at all!"
"Vladimir, is trick! Smell as you do, enemy tanks run in fear!"
-
Reasons why to stay buttoned up:
(http://www.novate.ru/files/u35075/3armyfun.jpg)
"Is good for complexion, da?"
-
In Soviet Russia, mud drive through tank
-
As I understand it, that's universal to all tanks... :)
-
Thai Norinco VT-4
(http://www.thaipost.net/sites/default/files/s_17006606.jpg)
As I understand it, that's universal to all tanks... :)
yeah of course ;D
-
Reasons why to stay buttoned up:
(http://www.novate.ru/files/u35075/3armyfun.jpg)
the lengths a Tanker will go to play in the dirt like an infantryman!
-
Reasons why to stay buttoned up:
(http://www.novate.ru/files/u35075/3armyfun.jpg)
You call that mud? Try Middle-of-Nowhere Kentucky in the ass-end of winter. I watched a tank get so stuck that it took two other M1s, a recovery vehicle, about five hundred feet of cable, and an advanced mathematics degree to get it moving again. I was afraid that if I got off the tank, the mud would just suck me right in and they'd never find me. My crew, in fact, never did get off the tank during the mud course, and we STILL got muck everywhere. I got tasked with cleaning out the subfloor - a hatch in the base of the turret that opened to reveal various components - and there was noticeable amounts of mud in there, where by all rights it never should've gotten. But at least I was still better off than the poor bastards who got to chisel compacted mud out of the skirts.
Kentucky mud disproves the meme that everything is worse in Russia.
-
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? :)
-
Flamers set to heat instead of damage, then just keep working the limb till it comes out.
-
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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matilda_I_(tank))). 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 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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matilda_I_(tank))). 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.
-
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/5686434caa71ea906d089cf06e85453d/tumblr_ozhlcgEMNK1uqsolso1_500.jpg)
Apparently this thing is the Char 1B prototype.
-
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 ::)).
-
oh blimey...that trailer...
-
Old and new
(https://i.imgur.com/Pd6uOtr.jpg)
-
That trailer is topped by this trailer.
(https://abload.de/img/f8bdcb8b026429b20a812bcu63.jpg)
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.
-
^ I thought that's a Battletech APC :D
-
That's a militia APC.
This is a proper Battletech APC:
(https://abload.de/img/m44noun1.png)
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.
-
Why should war be hell all the time?
(https://i.redd.it/b4mzjwi7y3kx.jpg)
-
Indeed.
(http://wearethemighty.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/electrothermal-rak15-water-ration-heater-l.jpg)
-
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.
-
Old and new
(https://i.imgur.com/Pd6uOtr.jpg)
Such a nice photo.
-
What the inside looked like a hundred years ago...
(https://abload.de/img/sac03szkzv.jpg)
And a year later, after some upgrades...
(https://abload.de/img/char-saint-chamond-insvk67.jpg)
-
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.
-
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." ::)
-
Old and new
(https://i.imgur.com/Pd6uOtr.jpg)
always nice to see young people hanging out with their grandparents..
-
Old and new
(https://i.imgur.com/Pd6uOtr.jpg)
"Ready....set...GO!"
-
Why should war be hell all the time?
(https://i.redd.it/b4mzjwi7y3kx.jpg)
Reminds me of that BOLO story about them waking up to find they're construction tools.
TT
-
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/378d91e2e4b6743e3d52582dc4a0c445/tumblr_oshtciVktH1w636mro1_1280.jpg)
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.
-
T92 tank:
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/d6/4a/b3/d64ab386586b3a2c3edff75288f70f9f.jpg)
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 like the look of the T92, it looks very modern for a 50s design.
-
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/378d91e2e4b6743e3d52582dc4a0c445/tumblr_oshtciVktH1w636mro1_1280.jpg)
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.
-
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.
-
"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.
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-23/bazooka-used-to-fire-drugs-over-mexico-us-border-seized/9183204)
-
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).
-
Also to the best of my knowledge they were only used in the pacific (being as they were USMC).
The British Army used them in Europe, just not on D Day.
http://www.pegasusarchive.org/varsity/Photos/Pic_Buffalo1.jpg
http://www.pegasusarchive.org/varsity/Photos/Pic_Buffalo2.htm
-
The British Army used them in Europe, just not on D Day.
http://www.pegasusarchive.org/varsity/Photos/Pic_Buffalo1.jpg
http://www.pegasusarchive.org/varsity/Photos/Pic_Buffalo2.htm
My bad, I was talking about the Amtanks, my understanding is that they were a creation of the USMC and only used by them. But I would not put money on that as I have spent very little time studying them.
-
The LVT(A)-1 was an amphibious tank based on LVT-2 but had the turret and 37mm M6 gun (or occasionally a flame-thrower) of the M3A1 tank. Two M1919A4 machine guns were mounted in man-holes behind the turret and armor ranged between 6-12mm. These vehicles were intended to provide fire support in the early stages of establishing a beachhead. The 37mm gun was found to be ineffective, which led to the introduction of the LVT(A)-4. This had more armour (driver's cab had 125mm of armour and the rest of the hull 65mm) and used the turret of the 75mm M8 Howitzer Motor Carriage instead. The British Army received a number of LVTs that were used for river-crossings in the final stages of the war in Europe, most notably the Rhine.
-
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.
Would love a reference for the T17!
-
found a few pics of the M44 "in action" deploying troops..
(http://www.combatreform.org/m44humongous2.jpg)
(http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/pics/auvm442.jpg)
no luck finding a pic of the command post version so far. i'm guessing they raised the roof so you could (just barely) stand up inside, the way they turned the M113 into the M577:
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/62/72/18/6272183689f1d967f53df381e92bd67e.jpg)
-
All these emoticons and none that raises the roof?
-
I'd settle for just having the "thumbs up" one back...
-
I'd settle for just having the "thumbs up" one back...
O0
The issue may be on your end.
-
Nice sunglassed thumb 'fro!
TT
-
This is a proper Battletech APC:
(https://abload.de/img/m44noun1.png)
Looks like Space Marines APC to me
-
There are only so many shapes an "armored box on tracks" can take before they all start to visually blend together, you know.
-
O0
The issue may be on your end.
???
I see the same thing truetanker sees... an afro with sunglasses. If you know how to fix that, I'm all ears...
-
Isee the thumbs up emoji O0
-
I'm using Edge under Windows 10... what OS/browser are you using?
-
Windows 8.1 with Google
-
Hmmm... ColBosch/Sharpnel, I'm going to take this to the Forum Support board to end the thread drift here... Everyone else, please return to posting awesome pictures of armored vehicles...
-
i see Afro as well. (windows 10, firefox)
on the vein of command vehicles and oversized APC's..
Bradley based command vehicle prototype.
(https://www.armyrecognition.com/images/stories/north_america/united_states/light_armoured/bradley_bcp/pictures/Bradley_BCP_Command_Post_tracked_armoured_vehicle_United_States_American_defence_Industry_Military_technology_001.jpg)
was part of a series of turretless bradley based vehicles to replace the M113.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-OgBWYvQrUJk/UclpekIqoeI/AAAAAAAACSo/teK0PfJwggo/s1600/Turretless+Bradley+.JPG)
-
i see Afro as well. (windows 10, firefox)
It's dependent to the forum theme you choose. The faction themes have an afro, Battletech 2.0 has a thumbs up.
(Similarly, the drool icon is an over sized picture of homer simpson drooling when using the faction themes).
-
Not quite armoured, and not quite fighting, but at least its a vehicle... this is a Fennek scout car with its radar mast up. In BT terms, one might say it has Beagle Active Probe and the Low Profile quirk.
(https://s18.postimg.org/dr32z4n8p/1200px-_Fennek-highres.jpg)
-
Isn't there a quirk or special equipment for having "mast" on a BT vehicle?
-
Isn't there a quirk or special equipment for having "mast" on a BT vehicle?
my memory says mast mounted sight for VTOLs but not sure about other vehicles
-
The ill fated Future Scout had a mast-like structure as well.
(https://www.militaryimages.net/media/us-armys-future-scout-calvary-system.14067/full)
-
Not quite armoured
It's actually armored, and quite well - it's the size of a HMMWV and weighs over 10 tons. GVW is 12 tons with full uparmoring.
Spall liner works pretty well too, the dozen or so that have been hit by RPG only had casualties if the jet directly hit someone. Kinda have a problem with larger IEDs down there, but we're talking the size that would mission-kill medium to heavy AFV too. Well, and with 14.5mm - but they don't really encounter those in AFG.
That thing on the mast is electro-optic, not radar. Radar is active and therefore evil.
The module can also be taken off the mast and placed on the ground up to 40m away from the vehicle for even more stealth. Other than that a German two-vehicle reconnaissance group with Fennek also carries Aladin mini-UAVs (15 km range), Mikado micro-UAVs (1 km range) and six sets of BOSA, a networked ground sensor suite which can be placed in a surveillance area up to 10 km from the vehicle semi-buried and (upon IR/audio/seismic/magnetic detection) will alert when encountering enemy vehicles or personnel based on signature data - with a learning algorithm. Notionally since about the introduction of Fennek there are also plans to add some UGVs to the mix.
Probably should add a Remote Sensor Dispenser to the mix.
-
Interesting snippet from the Wheatcroft Collection on this side of the pond:
"Following a lead, the Wheatcroft Collection has recently unearthed a cannon buried in Berlin. It was located by a metal detector, and revealed itself to be a 7.5cm KwK 37 L/24 Close Support Gun. It appears to have been removed from a STuG III or a SdKfz 251 and converted into a festungspak during the street fighting in May 1945. The gun is now back in the UK undergoing restoration after being deactivated. When permission is granted by local land owners, a further expedition is planned later this year to recover what promises to be the remains of a heavily destroyed Tiger I."
-
CV90 with 120mm AMOS mortars, not sure its in service, I think it's a prototype? but what struck me was the visual similarity of the photo...
(https://uklandpower.files.wordpress.com/2017/12/amos.jpg)
(https://s18.postimg.org/chi6g66bd/800px-cjc5vnaoufnq5g05pxvxr3lhk936kks.gif)
-
AMOS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMOS) was cancelled back on 2009, sadly enough.
here is a CV90120 showing off (prototype) Vehicular Stealth Armor..
(http://topwar.ru/uploads/posts/2012-02/thumbs/1328323146_170112_CV90_01.jpg)
(https://img.newatlas.com/adaptiv-7.jpg?auto=format%2Ccompress&ch=Width%2CDPR&crop=entropy&fit=crop&h=347&q=60&w=616&s=003e4bed302124ca3f4c487f52f5a5cb)
specifically, the ADAPTIV active stealth system (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptiv).
-
The Swedes are now building Mjölner instead of AMOS. It's basically the same thing except the two mortars aren't breech-loaded from an autoloader but instead semi-manually muzzle loaded. Also no direct-fire capacity. And they're pretty ugly.
(https://abload.de/img/1434590988255xbrey.jpg)
The loading procedure for Mjölner apparently has the loaders place the rounds on a tray which moves them forward to the muzzle and automatically drops them into the barrel for firing. The same concept was originally considered for AMOS, possibly with an autoloader placing the rounds on the tray.
-
That is some good stuff from the Netural Sweden. Stealth Tank I wonder how that helps on a battlefield.
-
That is some good stuff from the Netural Sweden.
Swedish company Hägglunds was sold to British company Alvis in 1997, and currently is part of British company BAe under its US subsidiary BAe Systems Land and Armaments, formerly itself known as US company United Defense.
The stealth system for CV90 is called Adaptiv and costs more by itself than the vehicle it's mounted on. It basically consists of around 750 plates per chassis side that can be heated or cooled to mimic an infrared signature other than a IFV.
-
That is some good stuff from the Netural Sweden. Stealth Tank I wonder how that helps on a battlefield.
the add on plates help diffuse IR and make it harder to see on IR and thermal sights, and have IR emitters built in so they can actually act as pixels for a display that lets the tank hide/change its apparent shape in thermal/IR. blend into the background, or display a false image to make it look like something else.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxC3ecGVIgo
-
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/a5ecdbed20ad0ed51b22cdebb8aac6f8/tumblr_p0ly77f6mX1w636mro1_1280.jpg)
Caption: "A Swedish tank crew discovers that the Centurion, is not in fact, buoyant."
-
We do have some lovely terrain around here... ;)
-
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/a5ecdbed20ad0ed51b22cdebb8aac6f8/tumblr_p0ly77f6mX1w636mro1_1280.jpg)
Caption should have said: Muppet's Swedish Chef learns how to drive.
TT
-
wow that must be a pretty old photo.. the swedes haven't used Centurions since (IIRC) the early 90's (having obtained them in the 50's)
-
Denmark just got their first Leo 2A7DK prototype:
(https://abload.de/img/leo2a7dkqiufy.jpg)
They're planning to modify 16 of their 38 Leo 2A5DK to A7 standard, with the remaining 22 getting only minor modifications.
-
Interesting how they are taking the bullet trap route with the extra armour on the turret.
-
Interesting how they are taking the bullet trap route with the extra armour on the turret.
It's not a trap. What you see there is just a spaced off piece of (heavy duty) sheet steel; the real armor is vertical behind it. It's a system primarily designed to defeat sabot, where the armor's microscopic structure is actually strongest in a perpendicular strike. You see the shape of the turret better on the earlier Leos, see below. The spaced stuff is just a HEAT standoff, really. Any incoming fire, even lighter caliber stuff, will just tear through the outer steeply angled layer and impact the turret face rather than bounce downwards into the turret ring.
-
Russia's latest attempt to polish a turd: the T-90MS
(http://www.janes.com/images/assets/369/76369/MAIN_p1710712.jpg)
I'll take my chances on foot, thank you.
-
What's with the tower on the turret?
-
What's with the tower on the turret?
Looks like remote controlled machine gun.
-
So, like... how do Russia's legacy upgrades rank again?
T-72B3, T-80U, now this T-90MS... is that the best of their respective lines?
-
Seeing how the T-90 is just a renamed 72, why even count them separately?
-
Seeing how the T-90 is just a renamed 72, why even count them separately?
it has enough physical changes to quantify for a new designation. plus export marketing concerns. this is not unusual.. the M-48 Patton was originally just a variant of the M-47 Patton, but got a new designation. the M-60 tank was itself a heavily modified M-48. the designation changes were made for simplification of record keeping. the F-20 Tigershark was originally the F-5G, but was granted the F-20 designation to make it more attractive to potential buyers (to seperate it from the less capable twin engine F-5's many of those would already have)
-
it has enough physical changes to quantify for a new designation.
So it isn't just a change of cover plating and hoping nobody notices?
-
uprated engine. more advanced gun. more advanced fire control. more advanced optics. more advanced communications. upgraded armor. active protection system standard. and yes some hull and turret shaping changes. it is definitely a different beast than a T-72.
-
Yes, it's a highly modified and updated T-72 - but it's not a completely new tank.
That would be like calling the F-15E (highly modified and updated over the C/D) the F-24.
Curiously, the Russians like doing this. The latest version of the MiG-29 is the MiG-35, and the newest Hind is the Mi-35.
Don't even get me started on all the different Flanker numbers...
-
Well, Americans did do similar things occasionally (though fortunately their system is mostly consistent).
F-5 Tiger to F-20 Tigershark for example, though in this case the designation was a marketing trick really, and the plane ended up staying mostly on drawing boards with no buyers.
And then there's the Super Hornet, though it is is more like a new plane with old designation.
Keeping track of Russian designations is difficult for sure. I assume it is marketing ultimately, higher number is usually more advanced so...
Like, the PAK-FA got Su-57 designation. Though i guess part of the reason could be that the first number is "generation".
For example Su-27 updated to more capable Su-33/35 (or whatever it was), then there's the more advanced but never produced Su-47 from 90s, and PAK-FA/Su-57 represents another entirely new generation.
-
Yes, it's a highly modified and updated T-72 - but it's not a completely new tank.
That would be like calling the F-15E (highly modified and updated over the C/D) the F-24.
Curiously, the Russians like doing this. The latest version of the MiG-29 is the MiG-35, and the newest Hind is the Mi-35.
Don't even get me started on all the different Flanker numbers...
considering the prototype T-90 was the T-72BU, that would mean the current production versions would probably be something like the T-72BU2A4, or something.. after awhile just tacking on more letters and numbers is counter productive.
-
Unsure about the veracity of the identification, but it's supposedly an M-60 that survived a Kornet missile and was still mission-capable. Interesting to see how much damage it took to the soft bits, how much of that is the ERA versus the warhead?
Proof an old warhorse still has a place on the battlefield, as well!
-
Don't even get me started on all the different Flanker numbers...
::facepalm::
I hear ya on that one.
-
::facepalm::
I hear ya on that one.
There was a running joke around the turn of the century that Suhkoi was producing more designations than actual airframes!
Back on topic:
(https://img.memecdn.com/infantry-armor-so-stronk_o_6199899.jpg)
-
Back on topic:
(https://img.memecdn.com/infantry-armor-so-stronk_o_6199899.jpg)
Use Battlearmor, then it actually works! ;D
-
Unsure about the veracity of the identification, but it's supposedly an M-60 that survived a Kornet missile and was still mission-capable. Interesting to see how much damage it took to the soft bits, how much of that is the ERA versus the warhead?
Proof an old warhorse still has a place on the battlefield, as well!
It was a glancing hit (https://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.si/2016/05/about-that-m60t-which-survived-kornet.html), if it was direct it would go through armor despite ERA.
-
Back on topic:
(https://img.memecdn.com/infantry-armor-so-stronk_o_6199899.jpg)
It was a glancing hit (https://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.si/2016/05/about-that-m60t-which-survived-kornet.html), if it was direct it would go through armor despite ERA.
It isn't nice to refer to the infantry as ERA even if they are carrying a lot of grenades
-
It isn't nice to refer to the infantry as ERA even if they are carrying a lot of grenades
esp. since the primary purpose of Armored vehicles is to get so hopelessly mired and boxed in that it triggers a "rescue" reaction from the infantry...
-
esp. since the primary purpose of Armored vehicles is to get so hopelessly mired and boxed in that it triggers a "rescue" reaction from the infantry...
I thought everyone was one big friendly team these days. Except the Air Force. Screw those guys*.
*except RAF Chinook crews, they seem to be universally loved by the Army and RN types I know.
-
Side question that came up else where, I know that the US uses two tank sections and four tank platoons, with one command section and three platoons per company for a total of fourteen tanks, my understanding what that most of NATO was the same. My understanding of the former USSR was a one tank sections and three tank platoons, with one command section, and three platoons per company for a total of ten tanks per company. So the question is what real world factions use different formations?
-
Side question that came up else where, I know that the US uses two tank sections and four tank platoons, with one command section and three platoons per company for a total of fourteen tanks, my understanding what that most of NATO was the same. My understanding of the former USSR was a one tank sections and three tank platoons, with one command section, and three platoons per company for a total of ten tanks per company. So the question is what real world factions use different formations?
My understanding is that the British Army organises heavy armour (Challenger 2s) into 3 tank troops (ie 3 tanks in each troop) with 4 of these making up a squadron of 12 tanks plus a 2 tank squadron command section for a total of 14
For light armour (CVR(T)) in armoured units the organisation was reportedly 4 tank troops (ie 4 tanks in each troop) with 3 or 4 of these making up a squadron but I am not sure whether they had a separate squadron command section and I think there was a different organisation for the light armour units of armoured infantry and heavy armour units for recce
-
Side question that came up else where, I know that the US uses two tank sections and four tank platoons, with one command section and three platoons per company for a total of fourteen tanks, my understanding what that most of NATO was the same. My understanding of the former USSR was a one tank sections and three tank platoons, with one command section, and three platoons per company for a total of ten tanks per company. So the question is what real world factions use different formations?
British Type 56 armoured regiment as below
(http://www.armedforces.co.uk/army/listings/army41.gif)
Elsewhere I've seen a very straightforward 48-tank regiment - 4 companies of 12 tanks each.
The French tank regiments used to have 2 "squadron groups" of 40 tanks each totalling 80 tanks per regiment. Each squadron-group had 3 squadrons and 40 tanks so probably 3 squadrons x 12 tanks each plus a 4-tank command element.
After the 2009 reorg the French now have 60 tanks per regiment. Since there are now 4 combat squadrons I'd hazard a guess that is 4 squadrons of 12 tanks each, and another 12 tanks dotted around in command and support elements.
-
British Type 56 armoured regiment as below
(http://www.armedforces.co.uk/army/listings/army41.gif)
Elsewhere I've seen a very straightforward 48-tank regiment - 4 companies of 12 tanks each.
The French tank regiments used to have 2 "squadron groups" of 40 tanks each totalling 80 tanks per regiment. Each squadron-group had 3 squadrons and 40 tanks so probably 3 squadrons x 12 tanks each plus a 4-tank command element.
After the 2009 reorg the French now have 60 tanks per regiment. Since there are now 4 combat squadrons I'd hazard a guess that is 4 squadrons of 12 tanks each, and another 12 tanks dotted around in command and support elements.
Kidd has given you a far better answer than mine
-
Side question that came up else where, I know that the US uses two tank sections and four tank platoons, with one command section and three platoons per company for a total of fourteen tanks, my understanding what that most of NATO was the same. My understanding of the former USSR was a one tank sections and three tank platoons, with one command section, and three platoons per company for a total of ten tanks per company. So the question is what real world factions use different formations?
Japan Ground Self-Defense Forces have typically tank battalion in each division. Each tank battalion consist of 60-75 tanks, divided into 15 tank squadrons with three 5 tank platoons each. In combat conditions, tank battalion would be divided up and each squadron would be attached to infantry regiment. I recall reading from somewhere that one division may have more tanks than this.
-
my understanding what that most of NATO was the same.
Not really. The [3 platoons x 4 tanks + 1 command tank = 13] model was also widespread in Europe with e.g. Italy still using it and Germany having switched from it to 3x4+2=14.
Denmark has tried the ten-tank model and - like Norway - apparently currently runs 3x4+0=12 (or 4x3?) without a command tank; the Netherlands run 4x4+0=16 currently, with either two German tanks to be added or two Dutch tanks subtracted for a standard model in deployment.
After the 2009 reorg the French now have 60 tanks per regiment. Since there are now 4 combat squadrons I'd hazard a guess that is 4 squadrons of 12 tanks each, and another 12 tanks dotted around in command and support elements.
A bit more complicated than that. France used to split into 52-tank regiments with four squadrons of 13 (each squadron 3x4+1). The remaining 8 tanks were spares.
They're currently reorganizing the armoured regiments again under "horizon 2018" though. Under that, the regiments will have:
- Command & Logistics company
- 3 squadrons with each 4 platoons of 4 Leclerc (+4 VBL) + 1 Leclerc (+2 VBL) as command section (17 tanks + 18 VBL per squadron)
- 2 squadrons with each 4 platoons of 4 VBCI VCI + 4 VBCI VPC as command section (20 IFVs per squadron)
- Mixed Support Company of artillery observers (one platoon of 4 VAB VOA) and light combat engineers (one platoon of 4 VAB GEN)
- Reconnaissance Company with 4 platoons of 4 VBL + 4 VBL Milan + 2 VBL as command section (34 VBL per squadron).
- Reserve Company
Overall 51 Leclerc, 40 VBCI, 52 VBL and 8 VAB (plus some VAB in the command company) for the regiment.
One regiment (5e RD) has fully transferred to the new structure, one has at least restructured its tank squadrons, the other two are due for changes next year.
I recall reading from somewhere that one division may have more tanks than this.
Hokkaido has a "proper" armoured division.
-
Heh. I was just about to ask where I could find some current TO&Es for an Ogre-related project I'm noodling around with, and here they are, falling right into my lap.
-
It looks like T-90s Russia sent to Syria are equipped with groundbreaking jamming equipment.
(https://pp.userapi.com/c840234/v840234569/5d140/P3RRFExP2ik.jpg)
-
Hokkaido has a "proper" armoured division.
I take it as "proper" in most JGSDF "divisions" having manpower equivalent of a brigade. Big words for small numbers.
-
It looks like T-90s Russia sent to Syria are equipped with groundbreaking jamming equipment.
Groundbreaking? Probably not. New, sure.
-
Groundbreaking? Probably not. New, sure.
I think he's joking about the pixelating.
-
Ah, I thought he was talking about the canvas covers on the turrets. My internet is very spotty today, so I've been responding quickly.
-
So that is why certain military forces use digital camouflage - for the modern digital battlefield ^-^
-
I take it as "proper" in most JGSDF "divisions" having manpower equivalent of a brigade. Big words for small numbers.
The Northern Army, responsible for Hokkaido, consists of:
- 7th Division
- 3 Tank Regiments of 5 squadrons each (225 Type 90 tanks total)
- 11th Mechanized Infantry Regiment with 6 squadrons (45 Type 89 IFV plus 45 Type 73 APC)
- 7th Artillery Regiment (40 Type 99 SPH)
- 7th Air Defense Regiment with six squadrons (Type 81 SAM and Type 87 SPAAG)
- 2nd Division
- Tank Regiment with 5 squadrons (75 tanks, mixed Type 74/90/10)
- Motorized Infantry Regiment with 4 squadrons (60 Type 96 APC)
- 2 Light Infantry Regiments with 4 squadrons each (30 Type 96 APC total, six infantry squadrons light)
- 2nd Artillery Regiment (40 Type 99 SPH)
- 2nd Air Defense Regiment with three squadrons (Type 81 SAM and Type 87 SPAAG)
- 2 motorized infantry brigades with identical outfit
- Tank Battalion with 3 squadrons (45 Type 90 tanks)
- 3 Motorized Infantry Regiments with 3 squadrons (135 Type 96 APC)
- Artillery Battalion (15 Type 99 SPH)
- 1st Artillery Brigade (only one in the JGSDF)
- 4 howitzer artillery battalions (60 M110)
- 3 rocket artillery battalions (45 MLRS)
- 3 anti-ship missile battalions with 4 squadrons each (Type 88 AShM)
-
Now THAT puts the dearth of forces on BattleTech worlds in perspective... Three DIVISIONS for a small island on one planet!
-
Eh, if you want concentration look at Singapore. A single city with a standing army of 8 infantry battalions, 1 tank battalion, 3 mechinf battalions and 3 artillery battalions. In wartime branching out to a planned ... uh... around 29 brigades.
-
Yeah, almost 10 divisions for a single city is pretty intense... 8)
-
Now THAT puts the dearth of forces on BattleTech worlds in perspective... Three DIVISIONS for a small island on one planet!
in BT terms that's about 4 tank regiments, 5 mechanised infantry regiments and 4 artillery battalions (not really counting the SAM units)... a good RCT or planetary militia size.
Yeah, almost 10 divisions for a single city is pretty intense... 8)
as it would be, if you signed up every able bodied man in Chicago into the army. most of that is infantry.
-
Now THAT puts the dearth of forces on BattleTech worlds in perspective... Three DIVISIONS for a small island on one planet!
Tell me about it. Even when Capellan Confederation conscript 14 years old to service (after Fourth Succession War), garrisons of entire planets may fall short of that.
-
Tell me about it. Even when Capellan Confederation conscript 14 years old to service (after Fourth Succession War), garrisons of entire planets may fall short of that.
And then you realize that a single CCAF tank battalion circa 3025 would tear through that force like tissue paper (Barrier Armor Rating and Rifles vs 'Mech grade armor).
-
You mean while they're funneling the CCAF into the ground that the 170 artillery guns are pounding?
-
Again, 'mech grade armor vs pre-spaceflight weapons.
-
Again, 'mech grade tin foil thick slab armor vs pre-spaceflight weapons.
Fixed.
TT
-
Hey, what matters is stuff like a modern tank round does 1-2 points of damage at best to a Vedette
-
Hey, what matters is stuff like a modern tank round does 1-2 points of damage at best to a Vedette
If it's lucky. The armor ratings and damages listed in the 1945 TRO only applies to those weapons shooting each other, if they start shooting at 'Mechs then most tank guns for the era behave like recoilless rifles from the infantry heavy weapons. They don't do well against 'Mech armor, at that point. Also they have the no fire control penalty compared to 3025 baseline gear, while their BAR5 armor means anything hitting harder than a plain medium laser rolls a crit at +2 no matter what else happens to the vehicle. Compared to the near 1100 year advantage that 3025 has on those WWII tanks, I'd daresay there's been little improvement in the last 70.
-
Right how about some pictures then. JGSDF Type 90 MBT, Type 89 IFV, and Type 96 APC.
Very... blocky aren't they?
(https://s13.postimg.org/wwixeaad3/type_90.jpg)
(https://s13.postimg.org/drfo4j3ev/type-89-armoured-infantry-fighting-vehicle-of-the-japan-ground-s.jpg)
(https://s13.postimg.org/yobw9795j/type_96_apc_l1.jpg)
Also not quite armoured, nor fighting, nor vehicle, but interesting kit nonetheless... a field kitchen!
(https://s13.postimg.org/akl4kwyef/JGSDF_Field_kitchen_-_panoramio.jpg)
(http://l7.alamy.com/zooms/d07c6675065143ec940ef6e76ed4513d/cooking-on-a-military-field-kitchen-in-field-conditions-ej1156.jpg)
-
Are those batteries?
-
Are those batteries?
nah, those look more like baffles and paneling wrapped around generators.
-
nah, those look more like baffles and paneling wrapped around generators.
Are those batteries?
field kitchen, pardon me.
-
if they start shooting at 'Mechs then most tank guns for the era behave like recoilless rifles from the infantry heavy weapons.
Light/Medium/Heavy Rifles with their damage values are standard BT heavy weapons by the rules.
Beyond crits at BAR5 a 60-ton primitive combat vehicle should run pretty well on armour. And BAR5 isn't exactly the upper limit at Tech Level B...
-
Light/Medium/Heavy Rifles with their damage values are standard BT heavy weapons by the rules.
Beyond crits at BAR5 a 60-ton primitive combat vehicle should run pretty well on armour. And BAR5 isn't exactly the upper limit at Tech Level B...
I was going to respond, but then I realized this has nothing to do with armored vehicle pictures.
Here's one of my favorite armored vehicles instead
(https://www.armyrecognition.com/images/stories/asia/japan/light_armoured/type_60/pictures/Type_60_106mm_anti-tank_tracked_armoured_vehicle_Japan_Japanese_Army_009.jpg)
-
Are those mortars or recoilless rifles?
-
Twin 106mm recoilless rifles. It only carried six rounds for them, though, so I presume it's something that waits behind a corner for those pesky ruskies, pops a tank, then runs like cheap paint.
-
or is used for ranged infantry support with a reloading team.
-
or is used for ranged infantry support with a reloading team.
light anti-tank vehicle says Wikipedia. Or: tank destroyer.
[edit]
What comes to modern main battle tanks against Vedette's armour: if weapons don't do it, then ram it >:D
-
106mm recoilless rifles were quite popular for a while
106mm on a MUTT
(https://s13.postimg.org/av1tvhrpj/M151_A1_CMutt_Recoilless_Beltring2005_Trowbridge1.jpg)
British Army Wombat
(https://s13.postimg.org/cmusqe3cn/655_Wombat.jpg)
The "Thing" of course
(https://s13.postimg.org/o0hc1eb8n/m50-ontos-tank-destroyer.jpg)
And an under-armour option, some US Army XM-something-or-other
(https://s13.postimg.org/ftpca1inr/106mm_RRon_T114frontview.jpg)
(https://s13.postimg.org/6yohzim5j/106mm_RRturreton_T114tn.jpg)
-
Wombat on a Snow Trac (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_Trac), in Norway
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/Wombat-carrier-variant.jpg) (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/WombatL6-on-Snow-Trac.jpg)
-
106mm on a MUTT
(https://s13.postimg.org/av1tvhrpj/M151_A1_CMutt_Recoilless_Beltring2005_Trowbridge1.jpg)
The terror of Fulda for a while. The one way the Americans could outproduce tank destroyers enough to turn the Red Army at its peak. Or just spam enough Davy Crocketts to plug the gap with plutonium.
Light/Medium/Heavy Rifles with their damage values are standard BT heavy weapons by the rules.
Reread the TRO. Only the largest tank guns for the 1945 era count as Light Rifles. All the rest are Light/Medium Recoilless Rifles, which are from the BT infantry section. Basically the point is "all the modern stuff dies horribly and the mechs wonder what the 'thunk' noise was" as an end result.
Meanwhile, something that happened A LOT with these poor glorious monsters.
-
The terror of Fulda for a while. The one way the Americans could outproduce tank destroyers enough to turn the Red Army at its peak.
Germany just did it like this:
(https://abload.de/img/p-1970-00881rcp.jpg)
(https://abload.de/img/p-1970-004fupf3.jpg)
Sorta the German answer to the BMP. Just stick a 106mm recoilless rifle on those HS30 APCs. One 106mm in each mech inf platoon. Turreted gun on those is 20mm.
Casemate tanks in the background in the second pic are Kanonenjagdpanzer. 90mm gun. Each mech inf batallion would have eight of those in two anti-tank platoons. Both those and the 106mm on HS30 were introduced at the same time in 1966, the same year the Soviets introduced the BMP-1.
Those pictures were taken in 1970, the same year the HS30 were replaced - only four years after the above modification. Base HS30 were replaced with Marder, the 106mm with Milan ATGM. The Kanonenjagdpanzer were moved to dedicated anti-tank battalions with infantry divisions and later - in the 80s - moved to serve as infantry fire support in individual 7-tank platoons supporting territorial army infantry regiments.
While there were 106mm on Munga jeeps for light infantry at some point, they were replaced even earlier - starting in the early 60s. Original trials were for Munga jeeps with SS.20 ATGM, what was later introduced was a platoon of Cobra ATGM for every light and medium infantry battalion. That freed up the 106mm for mounting on the HS30 instead.
-
@Kato - verrrry nice. The early Cold War stuff is fascinating in how far removed they are technologically from the late 80s gear. Always liked the retro look of the HS30.
-
Also not quite armoured, nor fighting, nor vehicle, but interesting kit nonetheless... a field kitchen!
(https://s13.postimg.org/akl4kwyef/JGSDF_Field_kitchen_-_panoramio.jpg)
A fancier modern version of the mobile field kitchen:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cq7pToMXEAA_3l-.jpg)
Army cooks are "fitters and turners" (aka "machinists") - the fit perfectly good food into pots and turn it into . . .
-
@Kato - verrrry nice. The early Cold War stuff is fascinating in how far removed they are technologically from the late 80s gear. Always liked the retro look of the HS30.
Marders with the same unit (!) only two years later:
(https://abload.de/img/1972-323xrun.jpg)
Note that these original Marders still had the rather futuristic looking remote-control MG setup on the back deck, as well as the gun ports on their sides for the troops to fire through. The remote-control MG was removed with the A2 upgrade around 1984 (for more armour on the roof of the back deck), the gun ports with the A3 upgrade around 1988 (for more armour on the sides).
The quirky looking boxes on the turret are dual white/IR searchlights, which still strongly show the 1970s heritage of the whole system. They were replaced by a IR sight for the gunner in the A2 upgrade.
-
What always gets me about the early Cold War APCs is the way it always looks as if the troops are being squeezed out of the top hatches.
-
Also not quite armoured, nor fighting, nor vehicle, but interesting kit nonetheless... a field kitchen!
(https://s13.postimg.org/akl4kwyef/JGSDF_Field_kitchen_-_panoramio.jpg)
A fancier modern version of the mobile field kitchen:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cq7pToMXEAA_3l-.jpg)
Army cooks are "fitters and turners" (aka "machinists") - the fit perfectly good food into pots and turn it into . . .
i beleive that first one is configured for the heating of modern B-ration's (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-ration).. basically MRE's on a large scale.
the latter one i suspect is more like a foodtruck style set up for making fresher food.
-
i beleive that first one is configured for the heating of modern B-ration's (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-ration).. basically MRE's on a large scale.
the latter one i suspect is more like a foodtruck style set up for making fresher food.
Nope, full A-ration capability it seems. Check out a brief writeup and more pics below.
https://en.rocketnews24.com/2013/09/12/the-amazing-disaster-relief-equipment-of-japans-self-defense-force/
-
I agree with that article: "And it is awesome." O0
-
You just made me watch videos about the German Tactical Field Kitchen 250.
And it actually explained how regardless of whether you can use it to actually cook in all kinds of ways, at least in regular army service you can forget about the pretty pictures of food that Kärcher advertises them with - everything that comes out of it is effectively freezedried feed mixed with just the right amount of hot water.
TFK250 being used in Kosovo:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmSD0lYVk_0
(audio in German, it's basically just a sliiiightly sarcastic commentary on what you see there)
Shorter video on training Kurdish Peshmerga with a TFK250 - this time with actual fresh food:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRNAVQ2ykig
-
I have to wonder... why do I find the random Bundeswehr videos so much more entertaining than the American ones? :D
-
Germans are known for their humorous and entertaining nature?;-)
-
I personally like what the French Ministry of Defense puts on Youtube (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0Y9vEv67BYRhgbRwJGj35w). And the French Army (https://www.youtube.com/user/armee2terre). Behold: The Secrets of Fabricating Military Socks (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBY29e-qMSg).
More seriously though, in particular their Journal de la Defense (https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=%23JDEF) series is great.
The Army, for Bastille Day, did a rather nice series of short videos presenting army equipment - see this playlist (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxFyVsaOZQ6_RbY86hAz02S8jn0-p8piH). They can even be funny, see e.g. here (https://youtu.be/7YzUbceu-30?t=1m00s). ;)
Seriously, those are some of the best such videos i've seen on military equipment - having the soldiers that serve on them do a professional walkaround explaining about everything interesting about it in 90 seconds.
-
Ma français n'est pas trés bien, mais je trouve les videos trés amusé (sans Google).
Very interesting, thanks! I'll say you're making me miss my SIXTH Fleet days tremendously. All the more since I just found out I lost the opportunity for orders back there...
-
I have to wonder... why do I find the random Bundeswehr videos so much more entertaining than the American ones? :D
Germans are known for their humorous and entertaining nature?;-)
Watch the safety training video "Forklift Operator Klaus" and you will never doubt the (dark, twisted) humor of Germans again.
-
You just made me watch videos about the German Tactical Field Kitchen 250.
And it actually explained how regardless of whether you can use it to actually cook in all kinds of ways, at least in regular army service you can forget about the pretty pictures of food that Kärcher advertises them with - everything that comes out of it is effectively freezedried feed mixed with just the right amount of hot water.
TFK250 being used in Kosovo:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmSD0lYVk_0
(audio in German, it's basically just a sliiiightly sarcastic commentary on what you see there)
Shorter video on training Kurdish Peshmerga with a TFK250 - this time with actual fresh food:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRNAVQ2ykig
1st video, 3rd cook looks like he's living well ::)
Yeah I can sort of tell the subtext of the video from the soundtrack ;D
Watch the safety training video "Forklift Operator Klaus" and you will never doubt the (dark, twisted) humor of Germans again.
dear god, what did I just watch :D
-
This one's pretty funny too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Z5KLO9kz18
It's a comparison between the Leopard and VW Beetle from 1972... :D
-
Watch the safety training video "Forklift Operator Klaus" and you will never doubt the (dark, twisted) humor of Germans again.
My British colleagues are often stunned of my unsuspected dry, dark and twisted jokes despite me showing them that video ;-)
-
Watch the safety training video "Forklift Operator Klaus" and you will never doubt the (dark, twisted) humor of Germans again.
I love it. I laughed loudly. I love good splatter comedies like that. ;D
-
With the JLTV program confirmed and underway lots of ideas have come up for kitting out the shooty bits of the US Army's shiny new MRAP:
Rafael Samson remote turret with 30mm cannon and machine gun
(https://s13.postimg.org/ussxjhklj/Oshkosh_JLTV_GDA_2017_925_001.jpg)
Another Rafael offering centers on the Trophy APS system
(https://s13.postimg.org/qjo7hbwrr/JLTV_Rafael.jpg)
Boeing proposes its Avenger turret with any 2 combinations of .50-cal machine gun, or 4 anti-tank Hellfire missiles, or 2 AIM-9X Sidewinder SAMs (latter not seen here)
(https://s13.postimg.org/4khsu487r/Oshkosh_JLTV.59db79080e1cc.jpg)
and also a Boeing anti-drone laser and 30mm chain gun combo
(https://s13.postimg.org/843qjxqd3/IMG_5241-840x630.jpg)
....So the question is what real world factions use different formations?
on a tangent to this question - do you guys know of any current real world militaries which use "square" or "base four" battalions, i.e 4 manoeuvre companies to a battalion? not counting weapons/support and HQ elements of course.
-
Rafael Samson remote turret with 30mm cannon and machine gun
It's kinda funny that Orbital ATK is still trying to sell the M230LF chain gun for ground-based applications to the US Army. Various companies - them too - have been unsuccessfully trying that in various derivative versions of the M230 since the 80s.
-
A very angry Hummv with Hellfire missles.
-
It's kinda funny that Orbital ATK is still trying to sell the M230LF chain gun for ground-based applications to the US Army. Various companies - them too - have been unsuccessfully trying that in various derivative versions of the M230 since the 80s.
Which is really odd, considering the commonality with the AH-64 and the now decades of proof the thing works just fine. Even if the Bradleys (and everyone else) keep their Bushmasters, the idea of "Super-HMMWV" (whatever the hell they're gonna call its upgrade/replacement) with 30mm burp guns tickles me to no end.
-
Which is really odd, considering the commonality with the AH-64 and the now decades of proof the thing works just fine. Even if the Bradleys (and everyone else) keep their Bushmasters, the idea of "Super-HMMWV" (whatever the hell they're gonna call its upgrade/replacement) with 30mm burp guns tickles me to no end.
Without a good targeting system, is that really much more use than a lot 40mm automatic grenade launcher and/or .50cal?
-
as i understand it, between the need for a lower powered round to keep the recoil within the lightweight mount's tolerances and the way the bursts spread around, it really isn't an improvement over the standard 25mm guns.
-
There's a number of reasons:
- The performance of 30x113B M789 HEDP against armour is virtually the same as 40x53 M430 HEDP.
- the lethal radius of the same ammunition as above against soft targets is considerably smaller for the M789 (4m vs 15m) due to the smaller projectile weight (240g vs 350g) and thus explosive load delivered.
- the M230 weighs twice what a Mk19 does, which prohibits tripod or manpack operations dismounted from vehicles.
- the initial procurement cost is considerably higher.
- there is considerably less ammunition variants available in 30x113B (pretty much only HEI and HEDP) whereas 40x53-firing systems can also be used for e.g. illumination, smoke, tear gas etc. In particular the lack of airburst ammunition is glaring in 30x113B.
The straight-up only benefits of the M230 are:
- its direct-fire trajectory at range (which can also be a drawback though depending on operational use - and yes, the Mk19 is used for indirect fire too)
- its higher muzzle velocity imparting more immediate effects (we're talking 2-3 vs 10 seconds for the same range, which is rather significant)
-
on a tangent to this question - do you guys know of any current real world militaries which use "square" or "base four" battalions, i.e 4 manoeuvre companies to a battalion? not counting weapons/support and HQ elements of course.
Prior to the 2016 restructure the US Army's Armored Brigade Combat Teams had their main maneuver battalions consisting of two companies of mech infantry in Bradleys and two companies of Abrams tanks. (The 2016 restructure cut a company from each battalion, with two battalions with 2 tank/1 mech infantry and 1 battalion with 1 tank/2 mech infantry and the spare company of tanks moved over to the cavalry squadron making it a 3 recon troop/1 armored troop squadron).
-
Prior to the 2016 restructure the US Army's Armored Brigade Combat Teams had their main maneuver battalions consisting of two companies of mech infantry in Bradleys and two companies of Abrams tanks. (The 2016 restructure cut a company from each battalion, with two battalions with 2 tank/1 mech infantry and 1 battalion with 1 tank/2 mech infantry and the spare company of tanks moved over to the cavalry squadron making it a 3 recon troop/1 armored troop squadron).
As I understand the initial ABCT idea was to create 3 manoeuvre battalions of 4 companies each, evenly split between tanks and mechanised infantry.
Why was the change made?
Are there any other armies these days which operate square mech/motor/foot infantry battalions? I believe the Indian Army does.
-
There's a number of reasons:
The straight-up only benefits of the M230 are:
- its higher muzzle velocity imparting more immediate effects (we're talking 2-3 vs 10 seconds for the same range, which is rather significant)
I suppose that last factor especially, along with the significantly greater range, is why the Apaches use it. The M230 does reach out, supposedly, to 4000 meters compared to the Mk 19's 2200 max. I do wonder, though, how the Mk 19 would fare against the 25mm Bushmaster, if we're comparing guns. I'd like to see how they all line up alongside each other.
-
As I understand the initial ABCT idea was to create 3 manoeuvre battalions of 4 companies each, evenly split between tanks and mechanised infantry.
Why was the change made?
Are there any other armies these days which operate square mech/motor/foot infantry battalions? I believe the Indian Army does.
originally it was only two battalions. But yeah, I have no idea.
Probably budget because it results in dropping something like 20 mech infantry companies across the entire US army.
-
I suppose that last factor especially, along with the significantly greater range, is why the Apaches use it.
Need the muzzle velocity to combat wind speed primarily... the US used to put 40mm AGLs in chin turrets experimentally (only ones to do that), but pretty quickly abandoned that.
The M230 does reach out, supposedly, to 4000 meters compared to the Mk 19's 2200 max.
That's just the maximum fire range in either case. The effective targeted range is 1500m for both.
-
Found this adorable thing on tumblr.
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/0e355f0b5982792207a6456a6107d49e/tumblr_p29fnx2gl91rwjpnyo1_1280.jpg)
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/9cce0f6a427b647d2c943c16925d1cb6/tumblr_p29fnx2gl91rwjpnyo2_1280.jpg)
http://peashooter85.tumblr.com/post/169486452578/the-skoda-mu-2-designed-by-the-czechoslovakian
And to quote the source.
The Skoda MU-2
Designed by the Czechoslovakian company Skoda in 1931, the MU-2 was the first Czech attempt to get into the tankette market. These small tracked vehicles were popular in the 1930′s but quickly phased out in early World War II because of their lack of armor and armament. The Skoda MU-2 wieghed only two tons with armor around 4-5mm thick. It’s 33 horsepower engine could produce a road speed of 30 kmh, although speed was severely limited by rough terrain. With a two man crew (a driver and gunner) it was 1.44m in height, 3.2 meters long, and 1.7m wide. It’s only armament was an 8mm machine gun.
The MU-2 was tested in 1932 and immediately discontinued after it was found severely deficient in several areas. It’s armor offered little to no protection for the crew, which was jammed into the tank like sardines in a can. It’s small 33 horsepower engine was not enough to propel the tank across rough terrain, and in combat conditions it could easily become stuck in mud, or trapped by obstacles. Most MU-2′s produced were demolished and sold for scrap metal in 1933.
-
4-5mm? Are you even allowed to call that armor? I'm not sure exactly what the state of armor steel was back in those days, but I'm guessing we have managed to produce notably better steels since then. Even now, 5mm of some of the best steel out there isn't going to stop an armor-piercing rifle round unless it's several hundred yards away. 4-5mm is fine for pistols and most non-armor-piercing rifle rounds, but that is about it. Heck personal body armor plates often have thicker steel than that!
Also, if you are bored and want a quick read about a modern armor steel test: www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA493654
-
They put two people in that thing?!
-
Two people who really liked each other, apparently.
The thing that scares me the most is that the forced perspective in that photo is making it look bigger compared to the men in the background than it really was.
-
*mentally runs through possible jokes* Nope, that'd be a warning...another warning...that one would get me banned...
Ahem. "It's not the size tha..." you know, never mind.
-
*mentally runs through possible jokes* Nope, that'd be a warning...another warning...that one would get me banned...
Ahem. "It's not the size tha..." you know, never mind.
Let's just say
(http://24.media.tumblr.com/da8b7108584dbbb011dcf9649ffd2147/tumblr_moyn2gASD91rm1xhko9_r1_500.gif)
and call it good. :)
-
It even looks like a coffin with tracks.
-
Found this adorable thing on tumblr.
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/0e355f0b5982792207a6456a6107d49e/tumblr_p29fnx2gl91rwjpnyo1_1280.jpg)
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/9cce0f6a427b647d2c943c16925d1cb6/tumblr_p29fnx2gl91rwjpnyo2_1280.jpg)
http://peashooter85.tumblr.com/post/169486452578/the-skoda-mu-2-designed-by-the-czechoslovakian
Okay, that's adorable all right. It's like it shrunk in the wash
-
1st pic, left chappie: "Um, yes, well... it looked bigger on paper."
-
Found this adorable thing on tumblr.
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/0e355f0b5982792207a6456a6107d49e/tumblr_p29fnx2gl91rwjpnyo1_1280.jpg)
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/9cce0f6a427b647d2c943c16925d1cb6/tumblr_p29fnx2gl91rwjpnyo2_1280.jpg)
http://peashooter85.tumblr.com/post/169486452578/the-skoda-mu-2-designed-by-the-czechoslovakian
And to quote the source.
Apparantly soldiers in the chechoslovakian army don't keep secrets from each other.
....was there ever REALLY a "tankette" market?
-
I think Japan was the only country that widely used them in combat.
-
The Italians used a lot of these guys.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f1/Carro_Leggero_3_35-001.jpg)
They called them light tanks, but they were 3.2 tons and carried two machineguns.
-
Oh how I recognize that thing.
-
I think Japan was the only country that widely used them in combat.
a lot of nations used them in late ww1 and interwar, though their combat effectiveness was debatable.
by WW2 most nations had realized they were not 'tanks' at all, and aside from a few desperate attempts to throw obsolete interwar models into battle early in the war, and the japanese, most nations had basically rebranded the class as 'gun carriers' or "universal carriers" or the like and were basically using them as mobile machinegun nests to support the infantry units.
-
The problem with the tankette concept isn't so much that they're so wee ickle, it's that they're still heavy, both in mass and required maintenance. As others have said, they were also barely armored and very vulnerable to anti-tank rifles and even certain heavy machine guns. The US practice of sticking an M2HB on anything that could take the recoil - and a few things that really couldn't - was the final nail in their coffin. Plenty of Japanese tankettes were destroyed by USMC .50-caliber rounds.
Mmm, the Ma Deuce. We're going to be using those for another century, I'm sure.
-
most nations had basically rebranded the class as 'gun carriers' or "universal carriers" or the like and were basically using them as mobile machinegun nests to support the infantry units.
British Universal Carrier
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/03/Universal_Carrier_Mk_II_pic-10.JPG/1280px-Universal_Carrier_Mk_II_pic-10.JPG)
What I could quickly check on Wiki, it wasn't a tankette to begin with anymore than M10 is a tank. It [Universal Carrier] is an utility vehicle.
-
The M10 was built on a modified Sherman hull, though.
-
the Universal carrier was a redesign of the Carden Loyd Tankette (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carden_Loyd_tankette). thus why i called it a rebranding. same fundemental hardware, different terminology and role.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/Carden-Loyd_Mk.VI_Str%C3%A4ngn%C3%A4s_12.08.11_%283a%29.JPG)
-
Mmm, the Ma Deuce. We're going to be using those for another century, I'm sure.
Hard to improve upon near perfection.
-
*snip*
Mmm, the Ma Deuce. We're going to be using those for another century, I'm sure.
Honestly, I think a good argument can be made that the "Support Machine Gun" in AToW/Tech Manual IS the Ma Deuce...
-
the Universal carrier was a redesign of the Carden Loyd Tankette (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carden_Loyd_tankette). thus why i called it a rebranding. same fundemental hardware, different terminology and role.
That's why I made M10 to tank comparison ;)
-
Somebody made diorama of my favorite tank fail.
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/8c45cad02cb0ddf50545f71609e0b736/tumblr_omogbkLqNv1uh80vpo1_540.jpg)
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/4d5f2367122d29d36b31273bf9844b29/tumblr_omogbkLqNv1uh80vpo2_1280.jpg)
-
Awesome work, but I think they have way too much spare time on their hands.
-
Awesome work, but I think they have way too much spare time on their hands.
Depending on the subject, you can get paid commissions for those kinds of things.
-
Awesome work, but I think they have way too much spare time on their hands.
He says, on a game company's forum for a single product line. ::)
-
Somebody made diorama of my favorite tank fail.
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/8c45cad02cb0ddf50545f71609e0b736/tumblr_omogbkLqNv1uh80vpo1_540.jpg)
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/4d5f2367122d29d36b31273bf9844b29/tumblr_omogbkLqNv1uh80vpo2_1280.jpg)
every time I see that pic, I wind up wondering weird stuff, like how that 120mm Rhinemetall mount is holding it up at that angle, and what in heck was going on with the crew that they ended up doing that (and HOW they ended up doing that.)
-
Depending on the subject, you can get paid commissions for those kinds of things.
My retired father-in-law builds model ships. One of the guys that he knows through his model ship building club has a business building models for Dept of Defence and defence industry:
(http://defencemodels.com.au/images/DSC02299lrg.jpg)
(http://defencemodels.com.au/images/Land/DSC03433lrg.jpg)
He says, on a game company's forum for a single product line. ::)
Fair point, well made . . . I am only jealous, as I sigh and look at my ever expanding collection of unassembled and unpainted BT minis :-[
-
Fair point, well made . . . I am only jealous, as I sigh and look at my ever expanding collection of unassembled and unpainted BT minis :-[
I've really got to get back to my BattleTech backlog one day. I've got over a grand in plastic, pewter, and lead sitting in Tupperware, waiting its turn. The main problem is the thousand or so Ogre miniatures I'm planning on painting this year. The nice thing is when the two collections overlap, like the old-school "giant" Demolisher I'm converting into a Chinese cybertank.
-
I'd guess they were driving buttoned up with low illum, and the driver and TC didn't notice the cut for the road. Light amplification is a wonderful thing, but the viewers can be deceiving when conditions are poor.
every time I see that pic, I wind up wondering weird stuff, like how that 120mm Rhinemetall mount is holding it up at that angle, and what in heck was going on with the crew that they ended up doing that (and HOW they ended up doing that.)
-
As some Israeli guy explained on Militaryphotos ages ago, there is a curve on a serpentine road few meters above the picture site and newbie driver badly misjudged the curve.
-
As some Israeli guy explained on Militaryphotos ages ago, there is a curve on a serpentine road few meters above the picture site and newbie driver badly misjudged the curve.
I'd guess they were driving buttoned up with low illum, and the driver and TC didn't notice the cut for the road. Light amplification is a wonderful thing, but the viewers can be deceiving when conditions are poor.
Um, I guess I wasn't really clear. The cause of the accident is explained, but what's got me kind of going "Whut" isn't the cause, it's the ability of the tank's main gun to hold up that much weight, and specifically the gun's MOUNT and the balancing act involved. It didn't flip over, it didn't tilt, it didn't de-balance with the 'live weights' of the crew inside, and they were able to get out again.
To me, that's like a feat, you know?
-
supposedly, this Leopard 2A4 was hit by an ATGM. if true, I think it was only a glancing blow.
What with improving armour and APS protection, tanks are almost approaching BT levels of tough-to-crack these days. I hear some have resorted to 'platoon fire' with 4 tanks firing on a single enemy tank.
(https://s17.postimg.org/rhnv2b18f/DUEm_V3-_WAAAHFc2.jpg)
-
I had a friend (haven't heard from him in over ten years) who designed AT weapons for a living. His complaint was that tanks were getting so tough it soon wouldn't be practical to lug around AT weapons - anything powerful enough to hurt a tank would be too heavy!
-
At that point, you might as well go for an excellent ability to incapacitate the tank (by aiming at the track if they're exposed or attacking the engine deck from above, or by messing the tank's ability to observe situations around itself.
-
I had a friend (haven't heard from him in over ten years) who designed AT weapons for a living. His complaint was that tanks were getting so tough it soon wouldn't be practical to lug around AT weapons - anything powerful enough to hurt a tank would be too heavy!
It practically already IS that way. It takes powerful ATGMs like Konkurs, Javelin or Spike-MR to destroy a modern MBT from any appreciable distance and these missile systems are barely man-portable.
-
supposedly, this Leopard 2A4 was hit by an ATGM. if true, I think it was only a glancing blow.
A penetrating hit in that sector of the turret would have at least blown up the hydraulics tank (on an A4) and the blow-out panels above that would be pretty visible.
Damage looks like something moderately light and HE. Possibly a direct mortar strike.
What with improving armour and APS protection, tanks are almost approaching BT levels of tough-to-crack these days.
That A4 is 20 years old and not particularly posing much of an obstacle to halfway modern AT weapons.
-
I had a friend (haven't heard from him in over ten years) who designed AT weapons for a living. His complaint was that tanks were getting so tough it soon wouldn't be practical to lug around AT weapons - anything powerful enough to hurt a tank would be too heavy!
Have any of those tanks (from 10 years ago) been in combat, and how tough those are compared to older Abrams (1980), Challenger 2 (1998), and Leopard 2 (1979)? And yes, I know tanks I named have got newer armour and kit.
-
A penetrating hit in that sector of the turret would have at least blown up the hydraulics tank (on an A4) and the blow-out panels above that would be pretty visible.
Damage looks like something moderately light and HE. Possibly a direct mortar strike.
That A4 is 20 years old and not particularly posing much of an obstacle to halfway modern AT weapons.
Indeed. I mean come on, even the grenade launchers are relatively intact ::)
I was talking about more modern tanks... such as T-90s with Relikt ERA 8)
-
Speaking of AT weapons... I went to the Invalides museum in Paris this week-end and managed to get a shot at the last (and original), famous and infamous 75mm recoilless rifle Vespa (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vespa_150_TAP).
The mannequin on top of it (in a 1960's para battledress) shows the scale...
(sorry, it's dark, no flash allowed to protect all the uniforms on display)
-
Ahh, I wish Car Wars had allowed you to pack a Blast Cannon on a light bike. As is you had to go all the way to a HD-sized bike to fit one... ^-^
-
Would that be a Bumper Trigger or remote firing?
Good times, as long as you weren't wearing plastic boy body armor!
TT
-
you actually removed it from the scooter and stuck it on a tripod before firing. the scooter mount was for transport only.
the Vespa 150 TAP (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vespa_150_TAP) was meant for use with paratroops, since the scooter could be airdropped more easily than a jeep could.
(http://s20.postimg.org/qk4f3u30t/TP008.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/Vespa_militare2.JPG)
(https://pm1.narvii.com/6406/1d529d3cbdc4bf4d7a2b7887b526f48667116978_hq.jpg)
the scooters were also meant to be dropped in pairs.. one 75mm Recoilless rifle, two scooters carrying the gun, the ammo, the tripod, etc. as well as the two man firing team.
-
However mental picture of firing the AT recoilless between your legs much more manlier.
-
Looks bloody uncomfortable to ride. Hitting bumps must be murder on the family jewels.
-
I don't think it was rode on any other surface than a good road. No Vespa should anyway, rifle or not. In cross-country, walk beside it and use the engine for extra power.
-
Ever wonder where that ridiculous over-under look of the Demolisher came from? Wonder no more.
(https://s18.postimg.org/57vjvsuvd/T-100.jpg)
-
Yeah, a lot of countries experimented with multi-turreted monstrosities in the period between WW1 and WW2.
They all sucked.
-
However mental picture of firing the AT recoilless between your legs much more manlier.
I can picture Duke Nukem doing it ;D
Yeah, a lot of countries experimented with multi-turreted monstrosities in the period between WW1 and WW2.
They all sucked.
T-28 served to the end of Second World War, and I understand it was better than some of the single turret light tanks with 37 mm gun or smaller.
[edit]
Or let's put it this way: would you rather be in 6 ton Vickers (or T-26) armed with 37 mm gun than in T-28?
-
Would that be a Bumper Trigger or remote firing?
Good times, as long as you weren't wearing plastic boy body armor!
TT
The guy who used it against me was just being nasty, between the targeting computer and high gunner skill... Fortunately I was able to get a much bigger engine on my bike and outran him! :D
Trying to get back to the real topic, what other armed motorcycles have there been? The Germans used MG-armed sidecars, but have there been any other?
-
T-28 served to the end of Second World War, and I understand it was better than some of the single turret light tanks with 37 mm gun or smaller.
The T-28 was show to have serious design flaws during the Winter War. During WW2, the majority of the Soviet's T-28s were lost in the opening months of the war. By the end of 1941, the T-28 had become an exceedingly rare vehicle, with nearly as many captured tanks seeing service enemy forces as the Soviets were still using.
-
T-28 served to the end of Second World War, and I understand it was better than some of the single turret light tanks with 37 mm gun or smaller.
i'm not sure the finnish ones should count. (by the 40's most active T-28's were in finnish hands, not russian.)
and i'd question the 'better' claim.. the T-26 might have been poorly armored, but the T-28 had terrible suspension, Engine and Transmission that were a never ending source of problems even when well maintained, and unlike most of its contemporaries, it didn't have much room for upgrades and improvements. (would have had to redesign the whole tank)
it also was overcramped inside, and the hatch layout was borderline suicidal, especially if you were in one of the secondary turrets.
-
Trying to get back to the real topic, what other armed motorcycles have there been? The Germans used MG-armed sidecars, but have there been any other?
IIRC the French tried a 25mm AT gun on a sidecar. Just prototypes.
Otherwise, bikes and sidecars were widely used by everyone in 1939. Then the Jeep was found to be superior in mobility, capacity and ease of repairs.
-
Trying to get back to the real topic, what other armed motorcycles have there been? The Germans used MG-armed sidecars, but have there been any other?
The Matchless-Vickers 8B2/M Russian Military model of 1916:
(https://laststandonzombieisland.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/matchless-vickers-3.jpg)
(https://laststandonzombieisland.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/matchless-vickers-1.jpg)
(https://laststandonzombieisland.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/matchless-vickers-2.jpg)
And a whole buttload of others in WW II.
-
(https://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/9e88faf219e53f0600fb70f4387d7977)
-
Yes, the Special Forces amongst others found quad bikes very useful in the sandbox.
(https://s18.postimg.org/ipoo2rfp5/Quad-_Bike-_Armament-740x250.jpg)
(https://s18.postimg.org/j2g28y5op/Quads-740x310.jpg)
-
Trying to get back to the real topic, what other armed motorcycles have there been? The Germans used MG-armed sidecars, but have there been any other?
Soviets used DP-28 armed motorcycles for reconissance in their armored brigades in WWII.
-
And then there is the future of motorised infantry:
(https://media.treehugger.com/assets/images/2011/10/china-segway-olympics-security.jpg.600x315_q90_crop-smart.jpg)
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/3c/8d/85/3c8d8547342207fa8db59533446b296d--military-vehicles-cal.jpg)
-
Ever wonder where that ridiculous over-under look of the Demolisher came from? Wonder no more.
(https://s18.postimg.org/57vjvsuvd/T-100.jpg)
Thats a SMK which would evolve into the KV-1 tank. As folks pointed out the Soviets seemed to like the multi-turreted tank, they produced several, both of which were differing levels of bad (the T-28 and T-35). The SMK was meant to be the successor and a true heavy tank. And, unlike the T-35, it was heavily armoured and they tested one in the Winter War against Finland.
But there it lost a track due to a mine, and the Soviets had nothing that could recover it so they had to abandon the tank.
There's also a bit of a 'legend' about the birth of the KV-1 tank, where Stalin was looking at the model of the SMK and said it was too complex and expensive to produce, and then he removed the smaller sub-turret and basically said "Now make that instead."
The KV-1 does use the SMK's hull, its just a shortened version of it, and not as broad, but the armour was near the same. And when the germans encountered the KV-1 they had very little that could counter it. So whilst the SMK was a bad idea, its 'child' wasn't a bad tank.
-
At the risk of not adding photos, from a 1920s-1930s point of view, I can see the reasoning behind multi-turret tanks... bear with me and I would like to explain. The most successful tanks of WW1 were the British concept/line of tanks which had sponson mounted main armament and numerous machine guns. They moved slowly and foot infantry were the main rate limiting step in terms of speed, which was understandable due to the destroyed ground.
Looking at warship development, sponson or similar mountings gave way to turret mounted armament but secondary armament was mounted in their own turrets - in this case machine guns to suppress infantry to support your own infantry moving forward while the larger guns take out machine gun nests and other strong points. A large crew was not seen as a problem and the lack of direct fire anti-armour weapons and anticipated terrain meant that size was less of an issue.
You also had the tankettes with a crew of 2 and were essentially a mobile lightly armoured machine gun nest or similar.
The other problem was that until fairly late in WW2, you didn't have a decent gun that could fire HE for anti-personnel and AP for anti-tank so you either had to choose one or the other or mount two guns (such as the M3 Grant).
-
Thats a SMK which would evolve into the KV-1 tank.
"Close, but no cylindrical smoking thing."
That is the T-100. This (below) is the SMK. It seems the T-100, SMK and KV-1 were all competitors for the same tank program, so of course to pick the winner, the prototypes were sent into battle under the son of a Party boss. The KV-1 prototype was adjudged the winner.
The SMK hit a mine, and that was the end of it.
(https://s10.postimg.org/ywmdzg0m1/SMK_August_1939.jpg)
-
Also keep in mind that a significant number of proto-futurists really believed that land ironclads would be a thing. There were even those who thought that, in the not-to-distant future, actual warships would be equipped with wheels or tracks to allow them to come ashore and conduct assaults. Of course now we find the very idea risible, but at the time materials science and engineering were advancing at a breakneck pace, and without the following decades of research and trials, people just didn't know the practical limits.
So we can poo-poo multiple-turret tanks now, but at the time they were viewed as valuable prototypes of times to come, and nearly everyone at least drew up plans.
-
Yes, the Special Forces amongst others found quad bikes very useful in the sandbox.
(https://s18.postimg.org/ipoo2rfp5/Quad-_Bike-_Armament-740x250.jpg)
(https://s18.postimg.org/j2g28y5op/Quads-740x310.jpg)
Descendants of the LRDG and SAS
http://www.m201.com/sasjeep.htm
-
Descendants of the LRDG and SAS
http://www.m201.com/sasjeep.htm
They use motorbikes too. As for their famous cannoned-up jeeps...
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/0d/e0/5e/0de05e0dba80eb02f10d93109c47ae67.jpg)
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/66/52/26/6652266683cda63777b131b132a502b4.jpg)
Quite sure those are Javelin ATGMs in the 1st pic, but the one up top in the 2nd pic...?
-
Swap 'em round actually :)
On the 1st pic those are LAW's. And in the 2nd one, that's a Javelin.
-
Swap 'em round actually :)
On the 1st pic those are LAW's. And in the 2nd one, that's a Javelin.
Oh the NLAW?
2nd pic I mean the one mounted rear of the jeep. Rear end cap doesn't look big enough for Javelin. I have an inkling its Spike 8)
-
Spike? That's a bog standard Milan.
While Javelin notionally replaced Milan in British service (that's a Land Rover WMIK) it is unsuitable for on-vehicle use, and as - like with other Cold War Milan users - there were tens of thousands of missiles laying around and Milan is perfectly suited for guided anti-personnel use it soon became the main NATO weapon of choice in Afghanistan for the European NATO nations.
-
i actually had to find reference images for the javelin again, since it's missile tubes and the AT4 looks fairly similar when see far enough away. but yeah, those are javelins in the first pic, based on size.
-
This is the Australian version:
(http://military-vehicle-photos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/3220.jpg)
A Land Rover Perentie 6x6 Long Range Patrol Vehicle armed with either a M2 Browning heavy machine gun or a Mk 19 automatic grenade launcher on the central ring weapon mount plus a A MAG 58 machine gun fitted in front of the passenger's (left-hand) seat.
-
This is the Australian version:
(http://military-vehicle-photos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/3220.jpg)
A Land Rover Perentie 6x6 Long Range Patrol Vehicle
Nothing much in the way of protection, not even from the rain.
-
Spike? That's a bog standard Milan.
While Javelin notionally replaced Milan in British service (that's a Land Rover WMIK) it is unsuitable for on-vehicle use, and as - like with other Cold War Milan users - there were tens of thousands of missiles laying around and Milan is perfectly suited for guided anti-personnel use it soon became the main NATO weapon of choice in Afghanistan for the European NATO nations.
Oops. Sad to say I didn't even know Milan was still around, i thought they were just passing them out to the Kurds and stuff these days.
i actually had to find reference images for the javelin again, since it's missile tubes and the AT4 looks fairly similar when see far enough away. but yeah, those are javelins in the first pic, based on size.
I really can't tell. The Brits have a new NLAW that looks bout the same.
-
Nothing much in the way of protection, not even from the rain.
Yep, I almost feel sorry for the OPFOR who have to face the full force of the SASR operators without any protection getting in the way :D
-
Yep, I almost feel sorry for the OPFOR who have to face the full force of the SASR operators without any protection getting in the way :D
mere rain is far too scared of SASR operators to dare to get them wet
and here's a Challenger 2 playing hide-and-seek in Estonia (image taken from Facebook I think)
time for the old Cold War plans to be brushed off and just shift the maps a bit further East?
-
and here's a Challenger 2 playing hide-and-seek in Estonia (image taken from Facebook I think)
(http://www.thetick.ws/images/ninjahedge.jpg)
-
time for the old Cold War plans to be brushed off and just shift the maps a bit further East?
*pointed Don't-Get-Into-Rule-4-Territory cough*
Yep, I almost feel sorry for the OPFOR who have to face the full force of the SASR operators without any protection getting in the way :D
Unfortunately, I can't find my go-to cartoon for comments like this.
-
Here's the US of an unarmored patrol vehicle with a MK19 in the passenger seat and what looks to be a M2.50 MG up top
(https://broeder10.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/desert-patrol-vehicle-33.jpg)
-
Here's the US of an unarmored patrol vehicle with a MK19 in the passenger seat and what looks to be a M2.50 MG up top
(https://broeder10.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/desert-patrol-vehicle-33.jpg)
.....where have I seen that kind of vehicle before? It was a show or movie I think.
-
Pauly Shore had a movie where it featured.
-
(http://www.thetick.ws/images/ninjahedge.jpg)
We want..... a shrubbery!
-
.....where have I seen that kind of vehicle before? It was a show or movie I think.
Chenowth FAV knockoffs have been in a few movies, the biggest is probably Delta Force. Find anything in a desert in the 80s, or sift through GW1 footage, you'll see 'em. They really made their name in Iraq in '91.
-
hiding, hiding in plain sight and just messing with anyone trying to get a visual only range/heading to launch torpedoes at you
I was looking for, and couldn't find, a cartoon or animation of a tank getting up on tiptoes to sneak past someone, ideally it would be a video or strip so that you have the hidden tank wait for someone to go past and then "sneak" off behind their backs
-
.....where have I seen that kind of vehicle before? It was a show or movie I think.
GI Joe had a vehicle like that, back in the days before they started shifting over to stuff that wasn't based on real combat vehicles.
-
Here's the US of an unarmored patrol vehicle with a MK19 in the passenger seat and what looks to be a M2.50 MG up top
(https://broeder10.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/desert-patrol-vehicle-33.jpg)
Firing the Nifty Fifty from such a light vehicle must be an experience. I've had Humvees feel like they were trying to shake themselves to pieces from the recoil. The Stryker, on the other hand, barely vibrated.
-
Firing the Nifty Fifty from such a light vehicle must be an experience. I've had Humvees feel like they were trying to shake themselves to pieces from the recoil. The Stryker, on the other hand, barely vibrated.
Driver: "we've lost the brakes!"
Gunner: "i got this" DAKKA-DAKKA
-
Firing the Nifty Fifty from such a light vehicle must be an experience. I've had Humvees feel like they were trying to shake themselves to pieces from the recoil. The Stryker, on the other hand, barely vibrated.
The YouTube video of the GAU-19 firing shows it visibly rocking the Humvee back on its shocks.
-
Meanwhile from France in the 20's.
And to quote the article
Chenillette Saint-Chamond Mle1921 armored car
Manufactured by the Cie des Forges and Acieries de la Marine & d’Homecourt c.1920′s.
15 horsepower engine, tracks for off-road drive, retractable wheels, two-seater, 6mm riveted steel armor.
Hotchkiss Mle1914 machine gun, 8mm Lebel 30-round feed strip, gas operated automatic fire.
A small vehicle born from the experiences of WW1, the Chenillette combined the speed of pre-war armored cars with the off-road capability of light tanks.
(http://78.media.tumblr.com/b6fcc67e598305df2b30bff2db6703ea/tumblr_ozihvh5UJT1tevf1do1_r1_400.jpg)
(http://78.media.tumblr.com/a92d067dc3dcc917264f2a1cb7bb70c1/tumblr_ozihvh5UJT1tevf1do2_r1_400.jpg)
(http://78.media.tumblr.com/82ea28168054aad771a7418659390416/tumblr_ozihvh5UJT1tevf1do5_r1_400.jpg)
(http://78.media.tumblr.com/1b630aa071a679ac284fdd29bca874b7/tumblr_ozihvh5UJT1tevf1do4_r1_400.jpg)
-
The Germans tried the wheel/track approach with the SdKfz 254. Didn't work worth a damn most of the time and production ended after only 140 vehicles.
(http://forum.valka.cz/attachments/796/032.jpg)
(https://www.aviarmor.net/tww2/photo/austria/saurer_rr7/sd.kfz.254_13.jpg)
-
2 Stryker variants going to be equipping US forces in Europe, 1 with a 30mm cannon and another with the Javelin missile.
(https://s18.postimg.org/sdngm0ikp/maxresdefault.jpg)
(https://s18.postimg.org/86a0tpddl/strykerataberdeen.armyphoto.jpg)
Meanwhile the Bundeswehr are adding Spike to their Pumas.
(https://s18.postimg.org/n3ihu7y6h/Puma_MELLS_1.jpg)
-
I'm doing that Thing. You know, where you sigh really loudly and obviously and wait for someone to ask you why you're sighing so loudly and obviously.
SIGH.
-
So why you're sighing so loudly and obviously? :)
-
So why you're sighing so loudly and obviously? :)
Well, if you have to know... ;D
Back when I was in the Army, the Stryker was the new Hotness - at least with the brass, if not with the Joes. We kept asking for an autocannon-equipped model, but always got the response that the .50-cal, 105mm, and TOW models were enough and there was no tactical role for a 25mm or 30mm gun on the Stryker.
Welp.
-
It did seem odd that that wasn't a config option from the start, given how ubiquitous the autocannon is in US military forces.
-
There are good reasons for that - bye bye (C-130) air transportability. The 30mm turret adds 2 tons and obviously quite some height to the Stryker. Plus the Stryker was supposed to be an armoured bus, but is turning into a wheeled IFV. These changes are happening because the threat picture has changed.
The bright side is that the US Army has a ready fleet of 8x8s which can be tooled up for the new job or left as-is accordingly.
-
Uh, if the AC weights two tons, how much does the 105mm gun weight? Is that thing air-transportable?
Or is that a case of "you can have a gun or troop compartment, not both"?
-
Uh, if the AC weights two tons, how much does the 105mm gun weight? Is that thing air-transportable?
Or is that a case of "you can have a gun or troop compartment, not both"?
The original Strykers were supposed to be transportable by C-130. Stryker MGS, 30mm and the Double-V Hull upgraded variants all need C-17s.
Okay I guess I should say "easy" air transportability...
P.s. the Stryker 30mm turret is an unmanned RWS. It retains its 9-man troop bay. The Stryker Javelin likewise uses the existing RWS for machine guns or GMG.
-
Somehow i'm imagining that easy air transportability is more and more an issue for all kinds of armored vehicles.
-
How much work and equipment does it take to change out a turret on the Striker?
-
Well, if you have to know... ;D
Back when I was in the Army, the Stryker was the new Hotness - at least with the brass, if not with the Joes. We kept asking for an autocannon-equipped model, but always got the response that the .50-cal, 105mm, and TOW models were enough and there was no tactical role for a 25mm or 30mm gun on the Stryker.
Welp.
Which I find interesting because the Australian Army got its ASLAVs (LAV-25 with "Australianised" bits on it) armed with an M242 dual-feed 25 mm Bushmaster cannon and two 7.62 mm FN MAG 58 machine guns from the outset. This was for our reconnaissance/cavalry version with only a crew of three (which was the first model delivered). The later ASLAV Personnel Carrier had a crew of two, 7 troops in the back and was originally armed with a pintle-mounted .50 BMG M2 machine gun (since Afghanistan, replaced with a Kongsberg Protector remote weapon station which can accommodate either a 12.7 mm machine gun or a Mk 19 40mm automatic grenade launcher).
So we managed to find a tactical role for an autocannon version . . .
-
The Stryker's air transportability was always bullshit. It requires a special setting for the air suspension, that is absolutely useless for anything else, and requires the vehicle to be guarded while it's so insanely vulnerable. Oh, and the infantry complement has to be dropped separately. Except the Stryker wasn't designed for airmobile operations, so the Joes aren't paratroopers.
If I sound bitter about the Stryker, it's because I have every right to be.
-
The Stryker's air transportability was always bullshit. It requires a special setting for the air suspension, that is absolutely useless for anything else, and requires the vehicle to be guarded while it's so insanely vulnerable. Oh, and the infantry complement has to be dropped separately. Except the Stryker wasn't designed for airmobile operations, so the Joes aren't paratroopers.
If I sound bitter about the Stryker, it's because I have every right to be.
raise your hand if you remember how it was supposed to be the best thing since sliced milk-right up to when GM had to rework it because it didn't meet (in real world testing) the specifications of the original contract...
-
The Stryker's air transportability was always bullshit. It requires a special setting for the air suspension, that is absolutely useless for anything else, and requires the vehicle to be guarded while it's so insanely vulnerable. Oh, and the infantry complement has to be dropped separately. Except the Stryker wasn't designed for airmobile operations, so the Joes aren't paratroopers.
If I sound bitter about the Stryker, it's because I have every right to be.
raise your hand if you remember how it was supposed to be the best thing since sliced milk-right up to when GM had to rework it because it didn't meet (in real world testing) the specifications of the original contract...
I can't help but wonder if what was needed was the same approach as was taken with the Centurion tank, allegedly that it was decided not to hamper the design of a great tank by making it fit with the current transporter trailers but instead to invest in new trailers. Squeezing the Stryker to fit on a C-130 was always a limiting step in terms of size and weight. Sadly, it is now "fixed" as that so can't be re-run.
I'm still not convinced about the medium vehicle concept except as the infantry carriers for a heavy mechanised force.
Anyway, on a different note, I am planning to visit the Tank Museum at Bovington in the next couple of days - any thoughts on where to upload the photos to share with you all (apart from Facebook)?
-
Anyway, on a different note, I am planning to visit the Tank Museum at Bovington in the next couple of days - any thoughts on where to upload the photos to share with you all (apart from Facebook)?
I like using Flickr. It gives you good control over your photos - i.e., who can and can't see them - and allows for the creation of photo albums. See my signature for my Ogre album, as an example.
-
The Stryker's air transportability was always bullshit.
Germany is facing similar problems with Puma. Too heavy for its carrier aircraft.
As a result a Puma in Protection Level A - airtransportable - at twice the weight of a Stryker is only barely about as armoured as the previous Marder IFVs and only carries its own crew (no infantry), a half-full fuel tank and pretty much no equipment beyond the ammunition for its guns. A Puma in Protection Level C - combat-ready - adds about half a Stryker worth in add-on armour panels, ERA packages, troops, fuel and carried equipment to that.
The plan for air mobility is to simply use five flights to deploy one platoon - four to bring the vehicles that can be used to reinforce security on the airfield, then a fifth to bring in the add-on packages (about 8t per vehicle) which supposedly can be installed without heavy equipment. And the troops and their equipment would go on a sixth flight...
Our wheeled APCs also have that problem. For them it's only about one ton that has to be shaved off though to fit onboard. And that's pretty much the weight of the troops in the back.
-
raise your hand if you remember how it was supposed to be the best thing since sliced milk-right up to when GM had to rework it because it didn't meet (in real world testing) the specifications of the original contract...
Yes, I remember seeing the show on the Military Channel about how it was OMG Bestest Tank+IFV Ever.
-
The Stryker's air transportability was always bullshit. It requires a special setting for the air suspension, that is absolutely useless for anything else, and requires the vehicle to be guarded while it's so insanely vulnerable. Oh, and the infantry complement has to be dropped separately. Except the Stryker wasn't designed for airmobile operations, so the Joes aren't paratroopers.
If I sound bitter about the Stryker, it's because I have every right to be.
It was not meant to be tactically airmobile let alone parachuted into combat. The air transportability driver is for strategic mobility - ie to enable quick reinforcement by C-130 air bridge of a friendly (Read: EU) country with motorised infantry. Stryker was supposed to arm infantry units which were getting around by truck and Humvee and therefore a definite improvement in capability.
Along the way however, what was supposed to be a bus for footsies got sold into a wheeled IFV capable of taking fire and giving it back, then an MRAP capable of resisting IEDs, then a poster boy to say "no we're not really cutting armoured formations, look at these snazzy things we've got", all at the expense of what it was first meant to be.
-
If it had been a simple box on wheels with a universal weapons mount on top, we all would've been much happier. Still, I was less than enthused when I got to my duty posting and discovered that the 2nd ACR had become the 2nd CR (Stryker).
-
If it had been a simple box on wheels with a universal weapons mount on top, we all would've been much happier. Still, I was less than enthused when I got to my duty posting and discovered that the 2nd ACR had become the 2nd CR (Stryker).
Maybe harking back to the dragoon origins (mounted infantry) was taken in the wrong direction?
-
The bright side is that the US Army has a ready fleet of 8x8s which can be tooled up for the new job or left as-is accordingly.
The sad part is, before Stryker the Army already had a family of vehicles in inventory that could do everything the Strikers could (in many cases better) in the M113 series.
-
The M113 was getting pretty long in the tooth by the 90s.
The couple thousand we had bought around the same time mostly were forcibly retired five to ten years later, after having heavy restrictions imposed on them for technical breakdowns due to age (e.g. around 2002 they got limited to 25 km/h on public roads since the mechanics for locking the tracks to rapidly brake were considered to have a 50/50 chance of working...).
We upgraded a few hundred M113 for some functions not immediately replacable, of which the "just tiding over" monkey model has since been donated to various places in the Baltics. Local replacement here were entirely wheeled AFV too btw, from MRAP (Dingo) to heavy APC (Boxer) in a few dozen subvariants.
-
Yeah, the M113 was obsolete. An upgraded version was floated as a competitor to the Stryker, but (probably rightly) turned down. Going to wheels saves money and maintenance time.
Maybe harking back to the dragoon origins (mounted infantry) was taken in the wrong direction?
Yeah, that's what I said back then. The biggest issue was that we lost our heavy armor. I think replacing the Bradleys with Strykers would've been a solid move, as long as we had kept the Abrams.
-
Meanwhile the Bundeswehr are adding Spike to their Pumas.
There's some rumours that we might soon bolt them onto some of the 200 or so leftover Marder 1A5 and 1A5A1 as well.
I wonder when we'll finally see TSWA mounted on the Pumas. Will probably - planned for 2020-2023 - be the last effector to be integrated, short of perhaps a later hardkill system. Current TSWA design consists of a steerable 18-24 round drum laucher firing both lethal and non-lethal 40mm standard grenades (LV and MV) out to 400m - and is apparently secret enough that not even pictures exist on the internet. Intended primary use is for clearing out the area before booting out, secondary use is for turret-independent fire in urban combat (as in covering multiple vectors in parallel with turret and TSWA).
-
I wonder when we'll finally see TSWA mounted on the Pumas.
If it's OK to ask, what's TSWA? (Google-fu failed me. Thanks!)
-
The M113 was getting pretty long in the tooth by the 90s.
Your M113s maybe. In the mid '90s our A2s were replaced with brand spanking new (OK, they were probably rebuilds - but that's pretty much the same thing) A3s. New features included a turbocharger, RISE powertrain (A steering yoke and break pedal instead of sticks), spall liners, external fuel tanks, provisions for supplemental armor, SINCGARS radios and other improvements. At the time of it's introduction it set the world record for fastest ever tracked vehicle (78MPH), later broken by the Future Scout prototypes (over a hundred).
The M113 had lots of life left in it.
-
If it had been a simple box on wheels with a universal weapons mount on top, we all would've been much happier. Still, I was less than enthused when I got to my duty posting and discovered that the 2nd ACR had become the 2nd CR (Stryker).
I now have this permanent mental image of Bosch grabbing on to the last lowboy trailer out of the yard screaming GIVE ME BACK MY TAAAAAAAAAAAAAANKS.
This pleases Gaga.
The M113 had lots of life left in it.
Considering what the Israelis manage to get out of the bloody things, they're the land-based version of the C-130. It does damn near everything. The Machbet is especially juicy, and the Urban Fighter supposedly can take on modern EFP weapons and IEDs.
The bloody thing's a metal box with decent movement and range, and enough room to cram a lot of things into. Comfortably, no, but noone buys an AFV for the heated leather chairs. (Well, maybe the Lyrans)
-
We have upgraded ours from the original M113A1 standard (as they were when fought in Vietnam) twice now to A2 then AS3/AS4 standard. AS4 being a stretched version with additional 6th pair of road wheels, a new engine, new drive train, new electrical and fuel systems, and a redesigned internal layout. The APC version has a new electrically operated turret with day/night weapon sights.
We are currently planning to keep them in service until at least 2025 (60 years of service).
(https://www.armyrecognition.com/images/stories/oceania/australia/light_armoured/m113as4/pictures/M113_light_armoured_personnel_carrier_Australian_Army_003.jpg)
-
If it's OK to ask, what's TSWA? (Google-fu failed me. Thanks!)
Turmunabhängige Sekundärwaffenanlage. "Turret-independent secondary weapon system". Otherwise as described.
-
Going to wheels saves money and maintenance time.
The Mobile Light Tactical Vehicle had a lot of good points, but yeah, money, maintenance and the ability to travel far and fast on roads gave it to the Stryker.
Yeah, that's what I said back then. The biggest issue was that we lost our heavy armor. I think replacing the Bradleys with Strykers would've been a solid move, as long as we had kept the Abrams.
Mixing wheels and tracks in a force designed to operate together?
-
The British Army is still getting plenty of use out of the FV432
Turmunabhängige Sekundärwaffenanlage. "Turret-independent secondary weapon system". Otherwise as described.
Ah, German, such a poetic and beautiful language to the ear of native speakers of other languages... I must confess that I am actually just rubbish at learning/speaking other languages as is sadly a common trait of the English :'(
-
Hell, Paraguay's reactivated a trio of Shermans and fourteen Stuarts to work as some form of training vehicles; I can't imagine they'd be useless in a COIN scenario - maybe not all that great against mid-tier RPG/ATGMs but I dare anyone to get into a Sherman with anything remotely defined as a machine gun, and that 75mm with explosive rounds will still do a number on whatever hideouts you can run across. And in all honesty, what WON'T a big enough IED kill?
I'm not suggesting Paraguay use them as such; they only have three of the things. But could an M4 handle itself in a modern LIC somewhere, fighting technicals and improvised stuff? Sure, and as old as the technology is, there's nothing you honestly couldn't fix in a decent garage for most things. Throw it against a more serious and equipped group and it's in trouble, but I wouldn't kick it out of bed if it was all there was.
-
What will an RPG-7 do to a Sherman? And technicals come in 23mm flavours these days.
-
What will an RPG-7 do to a Sherman? And technicals come in 23mm flavours these days.
I suspect an RPG-7 will do nasty things but a 23mm would probably be stopped by at least the frontal armour as I doubt the penetrating power or most 23mm rounds has changed all that much from WW2's light to medium autocannon unless you get to some serious specialist ammunition for armour piercing.
But how many RPG-7s or technicals with light autocannon are Paraguayan tanks likely to encounter?
-
None, they're just using them for training purposes. I fired off a hypothetical as far as a COIN situation, not anywhere specific. 23mm autocannon, probably not gonna get through the front armor at least, not so sure on the other sides or the rear end. Machineguns and small arms, obviously not a chance. RPGs that don't bounce from a bad angle (the M4's usually got a 56 degree slope on the nose, and you're almost never face-on) are gonna poke a hole clean through the whole tank, because when you are made of steel you are Monroe's ***** and have no say in it.
-
Ayup. The times they are a-changin'. "Super" technicals used to be those with multi-barrel .50-cals or Dushkas, but now they range from 23mm all the way up to 57mm.
ATGMs too are proliferating, never mind RPGs. NK, Iran and Pakistan will sell Bulsae-2 (AT-4 Spigot), Toophan (TOW 1) and Baktar-Shikan (HJ-8) knockoffs respectively to anybody with the right amount of cash.
And even with basic TNT non-state actors are starting to appreciate their tech weenies and putting their learning about Munroe, Schardin et al to deadly effect - remember when explosively-formed penetrators became a global media buzzword for a while?
So sometimes to do COIN "really" right these days it migh need a big wheeled patrol MRAP with APS, Boomerang, ECM and a big long range autocannon... hence the attraction of 8x8 and 6x6 APCs, or the JLTV with all the bits...
-
I now have this permanent mental image of Bosch grabbing on to the last lowboy trailer out of the yard screaming GIVE ME BACK MY TAAAAAAAAAAAAAANKS.
I'm still on that trailer.
And by the way, I meant "American obsolete" when talking about the M113.
-
TNT? It's far simpler just to wire in another modern artillery shell or two into your IED... #P
-
Mixing wheels and tracks in a force designed to operate together?
take it old skool...
(https://wallscover.com/images/halftrack-9.jpg)
-
take it old skool...
(https://wallscover.com/images/halftrack-9.jpg)
(http://cfw.sarna.net/wiki/images/1/14/Rock_Rover.jpg?timestamp=20100722193933)
TT
-
I will never not love Doug Chaffe's work
-
Are there any modern uses for half-tracks?
-
Are there any modern uses for half-tracks?
Not really. The half-track's main reason for being was invalidated by improvements in control technology for tracked vehicles by the late 1940s.
-
(http://www.righttracksystemsinc.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Case-465-Front-View-1024x768.jpg)
(https://www.mclarenindustries.com/uploads/images/skid-steer-tracks-category.jpg)
This probably would be the closest thing to a modern half-track - you can get track systems that can be installed over the tyres of a skid-steer loader. Generally used for snowy/icy/muddy conditions to increase traction and flotation.
-
This might more affordable for the rest of us...that can't afford a Cat
-
I can guarantee you that a used Cat tow motor is cheaper than a Segway. Also, you'll look like less of a berk driving it.
-
American Track Truck makes this track conversion system.
(http://www.americantracktruck.com/uploads/images/Gallery/TrackTrucks/Hummer-H3-American-Track-Truck-snow-tracks-dominator-track-kit-track-system.jpg)
-
Leo 2a4 meets a Fagot or Konkurs side-on.
(https://s14.postimg.org/i02zk14q9/DVIJr_B0_Xc_AEmhix-961x516.jpg)
-
Watched the vid on youtube. It was Kurdish female soldiers fighting Turks. I'm wondering where the infantry support and other tanks as there was no returning fire directed at the missle launch site.
-
There wasn't any. The Leo 2s are basically operating alone, and they're getting slaughtered for it. They don't train or practice close infantry support with armor, so...not much you can do.
-
This probably would be the closest thing to a modern half-track - you can get track systems that can be installed over the tyres of a skid-steer loader. Generally used for snowy/icy/muddy conditions to increase traction and flotation.
Also available for tractors. One man here in Finland had a backhoe installed at the rear of a tractor, tracks in the hoe on roads, and put them over the tires when he entered the field to dig a ditch.
-
There wasn't any. The Leo 2s are basically operating alone, and they're getting slaughtered for it. They don't train or practice close infantry support with armor, so...not much you can do.
So much for NATO common operating doctrine. Or, you know, reading out the Russians in Chechnya.
-
So much for NATO common operating doctrine. Or, you know, reading out the Russians in Chechnya.
They're not NATO.
-
I assume you mean the Russians and the Chechans when you say that because if my memory serves me correctly, Turkey joined NATO in the 1950s.
-
For some reason, I thought he'd said Kurds vs. Syrians. My apologies.
-
So much for NATO common operating doctrine. Or, you know, reading out the Russians in Chechnya.
obviously we can see who was paying attention in class-seeing Turks behave like an arab army (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZk4Yu42g0I)...
-
As someone who trained as a meteorologist, and works in an office job ... I assume that proper infantry/armour operations requires a lot of trust, and the expectation of initiative & intelligence on behalf of the infantry. The armour crew, after all, are probably buttoned up, and can hardly see what the infantry can.
It would then follow that volunteer armies, which tend to train heavily and encourage the benefits of cooperation, would perform such combined-arms operations more fluidly, and with both sides looking down on the other ;)
-
I don't think it's really about volunteering but rather about trust and motivation.
Nations with a mix of populations tend to have lower trust between people. Stands to reason this would transfer to the military.
If people think being in the military is something "good" and the general attitude towards the military is positive it's easier to motivate them to take risks for each other, which is a basic requirement for combined arms.
And not to get too political, but the middle east isn't too high on either of those two factors... :(
-
IMHO, partly training and partly experience. The US and leading NATO countries train extremely hard compared to most of the rest of the world. SOME Russian, Chinese and in particular from ASEAN, Indonesian troops also are known to train intensely. The rest of the world... just honestly doesn't understand the need to practice doing exactly this in exactly that way a bajillion times a year. Or they don't have the funds to do it.
And then there's experience. Not just individuals but institutional experience. Some countries literally haven't been to war at all. Some haven't even fired a single shot in anger (Singapore, discounting police operations).
Anyway... we were talking about buggies. Dutch Long Range Recon Patrol task group, Mali, 2018.
(https://s9.postimg.org/ezp2gb3hr/DVSUVtu_W4_AIOAhk.jpg)
-
Nations with a mix of populations tend to have lower trust between people. Stands to reason this would transfer to the military.
So how come did some American say: "We're kicking ass"?
-
Have you met Americans? It's best not to read too much into what we say, especially if we're under the influence of stuff like caffeine, adrenaline, sleep deprivation, alcohol, donuts, bacon, traffic, emotions of any kind...you get my drift. :)
-
So how come did some American say: "We're kicking ass"?
It's organizational culture, which is really what the vid I embedded was about-in modern warfare, you can't play power-politics in the ranks as organizational culture and produce an effective or even competitive army.
(this was actually a problem with the Austro-Hungarian empire as well, and with the Russian Empire during the first world war, and contributed to the disintegration of the Ottomans.)
The problem is that your military culture is influenced heavily by your domestic culture. If the way up the ladder is stepping on the faces of your inferiors and sucking up to your superiors, your army's going to have significant problems developing the skills, initiative, and communication necessary to perform even the most basic training mission effectively, particularly against a less...political? force that values it's neutrality. this was also visible in the Panamanian forces' performance during Operation Just Cause, as well as several other failures (the RVNA suffered from similar problems until 1972, largely because the military of South Vietnam was treated as a domestic political player, rather than as a tool of the state.)
IOW, armies (effective armies) tend be effective because they foster a level of selflessness combined with the necessary ambition and aggression. Armies that don't do well, tend to foster the Ambition to a severe degree, while permitting it to be directed inward, rather than outward.
funny enough, this is why the Clans lost in Battletech-they act like Third World Armies with First World firepower, and it's also why certain states in the Inner Sphere can't seem to win wars in spite of massive investment in materiel and even training.
If your soldiers have to keep an eye out lest they be accused of threatening the State, they can't focus wholly on defeating the external enemies of the state,and it really doesn't matter how good the goodies you give them are, because if they can't function as a WHOLE with command integrity, initiative, and intelligence, they're not going to perform adequately on the battlefield, particularly against foes who CAN.
Even when those foes have inferior equipment, funding and numbers.
To wit:(http://live.warthunder.com/uploads/1f/fed4104391823daa8d0dfd1637ab34535a4ef7/m-51type.JPG)
and: (https://www.bnamodelworld.com/bmz_cache/1/1c116ee265d8f4b5c1cfcae6caa0dd50.image.950x608.jpg)
In 1967 and 1973, the Israelis were largely dependent on inferior, obselete, 'hot rodded' designs against arab armies armed with
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-VbrTXhIMC3c/Ux_IQNEUR-I/AAAAAAAAB0U/42n1IoKSk04/s1600/Project2.jpg)
(http://www.avalanchepress.com/SixDay_files/JordM48.jpg)
and
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/86/T-54-.jpg)
The israeli forces in both wars were severely outnumbered in terms of manpower and 'tank power', as much as 5 to one in some situations, but defeated whole alliances, and the reason is their doctrine and organization, which was steeply influenced by the martial values and virtues they embraced while their foes did not (even though said foes had significant technical and advisory support from the Soviet Union, and in the case of Jordan in 1967, the USA as well.)
Soldiers work better when they're conditioned and trained to work together, rather than competing for position or political advantage.
By most objective measures (force size, force composition, level of support and supply, logistical factors and even economics) the Israelis should not have been able to overcome so many armies so much larger and so much better armed...but they did, and it's fair to say that the victory was more or less due to the inherent defeat of their opponents, BY their opponents, beginning with organizational culture and working up from there.
-
Have you met Americans? It's best not to read too much into what we say, especially if we're under the influence of stuff like caffeine, adrenaline, sleep deprivation, alcohol, donuts, bacon, traffic, emotions of any kind...you get my drift. :)
aw, come on now, to paraphrase that classic of Cinema ("Stripes") WE are the WORST of the worst, which makes us really good in a fight, and really bad at anything requiring tact, class, manners, politeness, discretion, or humility.
-
aw, come on now, to paraphrase that classic of Cinema ("Stripes") WE are the WORST of the worst, which makes us really good in a fight, and really bad at anything requiring tact, class, manners, politeness, discretion, or humility.
I think you'll find that was Wellington's description of his own army a bit over 200 years ago...
-
I wonder how many forum rules have been violated on this page by now... ::)
-
aw, come on now, to paraphrase that classic of Cinema ("Stripes") WE are the WORST of the worst, which makes us really good in a fight, and really bad at anything requiring tact, class, manners, politeness, discretion, or humility.
And most of those things stand in the way of honesty.
-
Someone tell me about the Tetrarch
(https://s9.postimg.org/v5couxavj/U5z_BYSh.jpg)
-
Someone tell me about the Tetrarch
(https://s9.postimg.org/v5couxavj/U5z_BYSh.jpg)
itsy bitsy tiny tank
developed as a light tank
found to be light enough for air mobile operations
by the time it was developed enough to deploy the British Army doctrine had shifted away from light tanks in armoured formations
deployed a few times in small numbers
unimpressive in combat and withdrawn
-
Someone tell me about the Tetrarch
(https://s9.postimg.org/v5couxavj/U5z_BYSh.jpg)
Well, the short description is that a sanity-challenged individual decided they needed a tank that could be deployed from a glider.
So they built a tank that had badly insufficient armor and firepower.
-
So they built a tank that had badly insufficient armor and firepower.
40 millimeter 2 pounder, so at least firepower isn't insufficient for the time. Was replaced by this:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e0/M22_Locust_light_tank_at_Bovington.jpg/250px-M22_Locust_light_tank_at_Bovington.jpg)
Locust (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M22_Locust) with 37 millimeter gun ::)
-
I'm not sure the firepower was all that good - the 40mm gun was inadequate for many uses by 1944 and lacked a decent HE round. The BESA machine gun was probably more use for (mildly) protected anti-infantry use. A low velocity HE-centric main gun would have been more my preference.
-
Actually, it was the Cromwell that was used as the Tetarch's primary replacement.
-
So how come did some American say: "We're kicking ass"?
Well, money helps... But notice the "tends to" - the British have done quite well with even wilder mixes, after all. ;)
But it's a fairly well known psychological effect that "different" people are seen as less trust-worthy. Add in nations where said "different" people might have been actively fighting "your" people not too long ago and even a volunteer army is likely to have problems. If the infantry happens to be mostly people from group A and the tankers are mostly from group B - or you don't know them well and just THINK they are! - cooperation gets hurt because deep down you "know" the other guys will sacrifice you first...
-
Well, money helps... But notice the "tends to" - the British have done quite well with even wilder mixes, after all. ;)
But it's a fairly well known psychological effect that "different" people are seen as less trust-worthy. Add in nations where said "different" people might have been actively fighting "your" people not too long ago and even a volunteer army is likely to have problems. If the infantry happens to be mostly people from group A and the tankers are mostly from group B - or you don't know them well and just THINK they are! - cooperation gets hurt because deep down you "know" the other guys will sacrifice you first...
that 'other' ness is emphasized where Clan or Tribal loyalties trump other relationships (IOW where Nepotism isn't merely common, but treated as a virtue instead of a vice).
-
Someone tell me about the Tetrarch
They make fantastic popcorn in low levels of War Thunder.
-
Someone is selling a M42-A1 Duster on evilbay! Not only that, but I saw one for an Oshkosh M1070 HET Prime Mover/Winch Truck!!
Wow... talk about spending your tax returns.
TT
-
HEMTTs show up regularly on there. I am very tempted to buy one with a self-loading crane for specialized delivery jobs in my area.
-
Someone is selling a M42-A1 Duster on evilbay! Not only that, but I saw one for an Oshkosh M1070 HET Prime Mover/Winch Truck!!
Wow... talk about spending your tax returns.
TT
like this one? (Not the Evilbay ad)(http://data3.primeportal.net/artillery/ulrich_wrede/m42_duster/images/m42_duster_06_of_31.jpg)
-
Yeah, like that one.
TT
-
not really the climate for a convertible round here
I'd prefer a proper turret with a roof please
-
not really the climate for a convertible round here
I'd prefer a proper turret with a roof please
Picky picky...(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/30/M247_%22Sgt_York%22_Division_Air_Defense_Gun.jpg)
-
it's wet here in the birthplace of the Tank - Dorset
my trip to Bovington Tank Museum is pencilled in for tomorrow
-
Pics or it didn't happen!
TT
-
Pics or it didn't happen!
TT
Didn't make it
Maybe tomorrow...
-
Pretty much as the filename says, not so sure about the 'heating' issue since you'd have to dump a huge amount of ammo fast to get a destructive level of heat in the gun. That said, damage to the barrel from transport/accident/incoming fire is always a possibility too.
Still, can't help but think that capping the thermal sleeve and recrowning the barrel, then loading nothing but canister, would be awesome in an urban environment. Sawed-off tank shotgun anyone?
-
I suspect a rabbit.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-7nrA0Lygf3M/UI1nEPMmeLI/AAAAAAAAIJg/Ko1UJNUvL5M/s1600/Rabbit+Fire+%2844%29.jpg)
-
I'm not sure the firepower was all that good - the 40mm gun was inadequate for many uses by 1944 and lacked a decent HE round. The BESA machine gun was probably more use for (mildly) protected anti-infantry use. A low velocity HE-centric main gun would have been more my preference.
Some Tetrarchs were fitted with Littlejohn squeezebore adapters for their 2 pdrs, which gave them equivalent firepower to a 6 pdr; it wasn't going to bother a Panther or Tiger, but could penetrate a Pander IV from the side easily enough and from the front if your angle was good. Others had their 2 pdrs replaced with a 76.2mm howitzer, so there's your HE rounds.
Still though, they were armored like beer cans and only had a three man crew, so the commander was also the loader. I love mine in WoT - it was free, but it's quick and has good firepower for its tier - and I'd be tempted to run them in Flames of War or Bolt Action for giggles, but they were simply not that good in real life.
-
I went to Bovington today
For some reason I can only find a few of my photos >:(
I will add to the album when I can
Oh and the tiny videos are the automatic things the iPhone shoots around when you take a photo
https://flic.kr/s/aHskBX9BWB
-
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/02b727636eedc65c2a783e62faec9617/tumblr_p44g4kKKMH1rqpszmo1_500.jpg)
According to Tumblr this is
Soldiers of the Wehrmacht in occupied Belgium artillery tractor “Vickers-Carden-Loyd Utility Tractor”.
-
at Bovington (see link above for my photos) I think this shows the scale quite well, especially thanks to the passing random person
the front one is a Goliath, the middle one is a Panzer 1 and the third is a landing craft thing
-
Damn that Goliath is big. What was its payload again?
-
Something like 60 kg of explosives, IIRC.
-
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)
-
How about a Kettenkrad? :D
(https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/22875/2018-02-14_10_17_39-452108.jpg)
-
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!!
-
And to think three people were supposed to be crammed in the Befehlpanzer I.
-
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.
(https://abload.de/img/6431452727_99ae593fc9qppay.jpg)
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.
-
Question: was the tank in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade a real tank or something that was made up for the movie?
-
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).
-
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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_Mark_VIII) with a rather anachronistic Cromwell type turret (http://=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cromwell_tank) added.
-
I thought that might be the case, but I wasn't sure that it wasn't some bizarre inter-war experimental design.
-
Much like the completely made up flying wing in the original.
-
Either way, it's pretty cool!
-
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 (http://indianajones.wikia.com/wiki/Flying_Wing) in the first film, which was also unique to the film, but certainly looked rather like something the Horton brothers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horten_brothers) or Alexander Lippisch (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Lippisch) might have designed.
-
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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_Mark_VIII) with a rather anachronistic Cromwell type turret (http://=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cromwell_tank) added.
Probably had a touch of the Char D2 for that turret idea
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/france/ww2_French_Tanks.php
-
Behold the Ford M1918 3-ton tank!
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/0084dafaa8c3e311afa0169a9182d69c/tumblr_p42776O9e11s57vgxo3_1280.png)
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/d66082f17d4c05c831931cbc77c91b66/tumblr_p42776O9e11s57vgxo1_1280.jpg)
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/8e1e149c4ae67ca1fe2af7c401d63c2e/tumblr_p42776O9e11s57vgxo2_1280.jpg)
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.
-
That needs a winged skull and a "for the Emperor" painted on the side.
-
I'm wondering. Tanks can't really navigate forests, at least thick ones. What about wheeled APCs or IFVs like Stryker?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...)
-
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.
(https://s13.postimg.org/7lngijfav/Scorpion_90_CVRT_90mm_gun_light_tracked_armoured_vehicle_Indones.jpg)
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...
(https://s13.postimg.org/6w4o66u6v/CVRT-_Stuck.jpg)
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.
(https://s13.postimg.org/i8h9nzalj/CVRT-_Scimitar-2-in-_Afghanistan.jpg)
-
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).
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
We have chosen to go with the Boxer CRV
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/2GFmIVhKhCU/maxresdefault.jpg)
This is an interesting photo:
(http://www.contactairlandandsea.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/afvs_abrams_aslav2.jpg)
Boxer CRV, Patria AMV, M1 Abrams, LAV side-by-side gives you a good idea of just how much bigger these up-armoured APC/IFV/CRVs are in size
-
She's a fearsome beast alright. The Boxer CRV offered to the Australian Army includes 2 Spike ATGMs in the box mount on the left and Rheinmetall's Active Defence System hard-kill APS embedded in the armour modules - the visible 'dents' in the armour.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c9/Boxer_Land_400.jpg/1024px-Boxer_Land_400.jpg)
-
German Boxers in Lithuania along with a AMX-10RC up front:
(https://abload.de/img/2gpen.jpg)
-
She's a fearsome beast alright. The Boxer CRV offered to the Australian Army includes 2 Spike ATGMs in the box mount on the left and Rheinmetall's Active Defence System hard-kill APS embedded in the armour modules - the visible 'dents' in the armour.
Most importantly, our new Boxer CRV appear to come with their very own verandah https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veranda (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veranda), which is why it won against the Patria ^-^
(http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/9545210-3x2-700x467.jpg)
(http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/9545218-3x2-940x627.jpg)
I feel sorry for the first "Lighthorseman" who straightens up to quickly on exiting the Boxer and bashes there head on the verandah.
-
We have chosen to go with the Boxer CRV
Poking around online, it looks like that array of viewports for the driver can elevate some and there's a set of windows underneath. Is this a standard feature or a one-off?
-
Standard feature on all Boxers.
Basically, the driver can open his hatch partway and a window set - attached to the inside of the hatch - slips into place.
(https://abload.de/img/hatch-boxersvomt.gif)
Not standard on other vehicles to my knowledge. It's basically a compromise for improved visibility for the driver when driving in secure areas while maintaining protection mostly from weather.
-
(https://boxercrv.com.au/images/_galleryImage/Boxer-CRV-2.jpg)
These were the demo units that Rheinmetall brought over for the drive-off testing, so I assume that it is a standard feature.
edit - roosterboy-ed by kato
-
So a halfway between buttoned up and completely out?
I imagine they make a point of telling the drivers repeatedly that those windows are not bulletproof..
-
(https://abload.de/img/hatch-boxersvomt.gif)
that's.... kinda neat.
-
Fully open hatch for the driver:
(https://abload.de/img/001gw2uax.jpg)
There is also has a little weather protection screen on the commander's hatch on the German APC and C3 versions*, though only for the front. That screen apparently primarily protects the combat management system computer that's mounted behind it in this picture against splashes, and folds under the protective cover in front of the hatch when not used. The - mobile - computer is usually carried inside but can be mounted there if the commander prefers to ride up and out.
(https://abload.de/img/003gncur5.jpg)
* differentiation here since the commander's hatch is part of the dismountable payload module, not the core vehicle. Dutch APC versions have an entirely differently configured APC payload module, with the commander's hatch replaced by a large ring mount and a sizable hatch, also carrying a HMG. German APCs apparently got this screen with the A1 upgrade.
-
The "casing" around the gun barrel - it's just a "ding protector", isn't it, with holes to allow air through to cool the barrel?
-
The "cage" stabilizes the gun, reducing vibration by bracing the barrel on a stable platform.
The system was developed for the Puma after testing in 2009 showed that the accuracy can be further improved that way, in particular when firing during dynamic movement of both vehicle, turret and target. Offhand it's ultimately derived from the GDM-008 35mm anti-aircraft gun.
-
Looks like that second viewport still has a nice tight seal on it. NBC-capable, with rather improved visibility? Granted it's not bulletproofed, but against airborne threat it seems solid enough.
-
Most importantly, our new Boxer CRV appear to come with their very own verandah https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veranda (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veranda), which is why it won against the Patria ^-^
(http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/9545210-3x2-700x467.jpg)
(http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/9545218-3x2-940x627.jpg)
I feel sorry for the first "Lighthorseman" who straightens up to quickly on exiting the Boxer and bashes there head on the verandah.
I know all British Army AFVs have a boiling vessel to allow the brewing of tea under combat conditions while buttoned up but wonder how long until someone clever tries to attach a bbq to the rear of their AusBoxer.
The photo next to the M1 Abrams is crazy - it's huge! I've not seen an M1 in the flesh but have seen the Challenger 2, Challenger 1 etc and they aren't tiny tankettes
-
I know all British Army AFVs have a boiling vessel to allow the brewing of tea under combat conditions while buttoned up but wonder how long until someone clever tries to attach a bbq to the rear of their AusBoxer.
The German APC version of the Boxer not only has the British teakettle onboard (same model even) - but also a toilet.
The photo next to the M1 Abrams is crazy - it's huge!
It's not that big. Compare in this video: https://youtu.be/waK7EbxavzQ?t=1m10s
At linked point: SLT56 with Leopard 2 followed by Eagle IV followed by Boxer followed by Dingo.
On a side note: At about 4:00 at the very end you can see the driver hatch being hydraulically lowered on the Boxer to button up.
-
Not standard on other vehicles to my knowledge. It's basically a compromise for improved visibility for the driver when driving in secure areas while maintaining protection mostly from weather.
The Stryker has a similar set-up, though it's not used much.
-
The German APC version of the Boxer not only has the British teakettle onboard (same model even) - but also a toilet.
It's not that big. Compare in this video: https://youtu.be/waK7EbxavzQ?t=1m10s (https://youtu.be/waK7EbxavzQ?t=1m10s)
At linked point: SLT56 with Leopard 2 followed by Eagle IV followed by Boxer followed by Dingo.
Interesting - thank you
The long nose of the Boxer - I assume contains the engine? or just very short infantry troops?
-
The Stryker has a similar set-up, though it's not used much.
I guess this thing in combination with setting the hatch to the 25° position?
(https://abload.de/img/pr_stryker_luy_kariz2qyuxe.jpg)
(https://abload.de/img/9_right_front_closed7uus5.jpg)
Looks like a horrible hindrance on the vision blocks when the hatch is closed.
-
The Stryker has a similar set-up, though it's not used much.
Why's that? Is there a problem with it or is it just unpopular?
-
might just be lack of opportunity.. in combat using that feature would put the driver at greater risk, i'd imagine. and in training you try to do everything you would in combat.
-
The long nose of the Boxer - I assume contains the engine? or just very short infantry troops?
The core vehicle only consists of the drive train, the module bay and in the front the driver compartment and the engine compartment.
Engine compartment on a Boxer with Driver School module:
(https://abload.de/img/032g4tuu9.jpg)
Engine:
(https://abload.de/img/640px-gepanzertes_tra83udv.jpg)
-
might just be lack of opportunity.. in combat using that feature would put the driver at greater risk, i'd imagine. and in training you try to do everything you would in combat.
Exactly. I used it once, as part of my training, for about an hour. The only other times I can recall seeing them used was when civilian contractors were conducting administrative movements, and even then only if the weather was bad or they were going on a highway. The rest of the time they'd just pop the hatch and wear sunglasses.
-
Exactly. I used it once, as part of my training, for about an hour. The only other times I can recall seeing them used was when civilian contractors were conducting administrative movements, and even then only if the weather was bad or they were going on a highway. The rest of the time they'd just pop the hatch and wear sunglasses.
To be honest, that sounds like it is going to be the main use for the Boxer but the places I would expect them to deploy may be wetter (or sandier) than where US tanks tend to hang out and there may be even more kit that would probably prefer not to get too sandy or wet
-
To be honest, that sounds like it is going to be the main use for the Boxer but the places I would expect them to deploy may be wetter (or sandier) than where US tanks tend to hang out and there may be even more kit that would probably prefer not to get too sandy or wet
What, on a highway? The Aussies intend these things to be Outback-capable. I expect them to have vetted Boxer's performance on pretty hard going...
-
I understood it got quite wet in / around Darwin when it wasn't just too hot
I was also thinking of Germany and cold wetness
If the Boxer has air con (for the computers if not personnel) then being able to keep a seal but see better than being buttoned up
-
From pictures of the two deployments we've sent them on so far (Afghanistan and Lithuania), the default force condition on German - and Dutch - Boxers is:
- "down" when deployed on mission outside base
- "down" when parked at deployment base
- "up" when driving inside base
- "up" during domestic deployment movement (e.g. loading on trains or road travel)
Down meaning hatch fully closed, up meaning hatch in that position where the driver has the sealed windows to look out.
Open hatch driving apparently isn't done with the Boxer. Ever. Not even when e.g. moving them into a garage for maintenance where an open hatch and even more visibility would be useful.
-
just found this on the Wikipedia page, seems very Davion Guards
-
Darwin is tropical weather - there is a wet season (which is hot and wet) and a dry season (which is just warm/hot).
I would assume that the drivers windscreen would be helpful on the highway here in Aus as it would mean that the driver does not have to spend the next hour pulling flies and other flying insects out of his teeth and nostrils after having driven down the highway in an open hatch. It would also help keep the bulldust out of the interior and make it easier for the aircon to keep the electronics and cabin at a reasonable temperature.
-
"Keep it latched. Even if you're just in transport somewhere, the hatch never opens. Friggin drop-bears."
-
"Keep it latched. Even if you're just in transport somewhere, the hatch never opens. Friggin drop-bears."
(http://dustygamer.mcmuumio.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Drop_Bears_Dive_Poster_2_by_KodiakDestroyer.png)
;D
and as penance for going off topic..
(http://media.indiatimes.in/media/content/2015/Apr/7_1429004281.gif)
(http://www.gmhummer.com/gallery/data//509/medium/potw05_1422.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/C-130_airdrop.jpg)
-
No drop-bears in Darwin, the mosquitoes got them all. We breed them big:
(https://i.redd.it/dtx6dg2sis801.jpg)
That is an Australian one dollar coin, which is 25 mm in diameter (or 0.984252 inches for the imperial types).
To make this post more topical, Boxer undergoing blast testing:
(http://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/c25032de50181e022c58121eabdef94a?width=1024)
-
Are you sure that's not fumigation? ;)
-
The core vehicle only consists of the drive train, the module bay and in the front the driver compartment and the engine compartment.
Engine compartment on a Boxer with Driver School module:
Driver school module?
Also, Wiki says that the power pack can be swapped out in as little as 20 minutes, in the field. I presume that they a field depot or FOB.
Wiki's photo of a mission module on blocks shows a cutout in the bulkhead. Does that connect the driver's compartment to the mission module?
-
Are you sure that's not fumigation? ;)
That would not even dent a mosquito ;)
-
Driver school module?
For some reason Germany has dedicated variants of armoured vehicles that are designed to teach fresh drivers driving. For vehicles with a dedicated, closed-off driver compartment, these come with a large glass canopy where the instructor sits (with controls that can override the driver). For the Boxer this is realized as a module that holds both the canopy and a passenger compartment (... with actual side windows), mounted on a regular Boxer core vehicle.
Also, Wiki says that the power pack can be swapped out in as little as 20 minutes, in the field. I presume that they a field depot or FOB.
Field swap-out times for engines in Germany are generally using the crane on an armoured recovery vehicle, typically a Büffel, and while located literally in the field - assuming the Büffel is on site, a spare engine is present (can be carried there by the Büffel) and the tank/vehicle where the engine needs to be changed has been dragged into a somewhat stable, upright position.
Pretty much all German armoured vehicles are built for such hot engine swaps in 20-30 minutes. The Büffel itself is designed such that it can also swap its own engine without assistance.
Wiki's photo of a mission module on blocks shows a cutout in the bulkhead. Does that connect the driver's compartment to the mission module?
Yeah, the driver's compartment is open to the back. This video shows a module switch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mn_WblYc4xk
-
Pretty much all German armoured vehicles are built for such hot engine swaps in 20-30 minutes. The Büffel itself is designed such that it can also swap its own engine without assistance.
That's cute... How do they power the crane once the engine gets disconnected? Electrics?
I've heard that an engine swap on a F/A-18 can be done in about 40. When I asked members of a Hornet ground crew if that was accurate, they all laughed.
-
That's cute... How do they power the crane once the engine gets disconnected? Electrics?
Yep, running on battery. Was the big switch from the BPz2 to the BPz3 model, on the BPz2 the crane apparently still ran mechanically powered by the engine.
Rapid engine swaps on Leopards are a common demonstration exercise for maintenance companies on e.g. open days for the public, often as a timed "we can do this faster" thing - you can find a couple videos on Youtube from that. On a Leo you need to first unscrew the cover plate on top of the engine manually and have the crane remove it to get to the engine; offhand the fastest in those videos take around 9-10 minutes to remove the cover and old engine and around 6-10 for installing the new one to the point where the Leo starts the new engine.
The more realistic field time for swaps i've heard is around 35 minutes on a Leo instead of those 15-20 minute speed runs.
-
This video shows a module switch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mn_WblYc4xk
Very nice, I can see why we selected the Boxer CRV-O 8)
-
The more realistic field time for swaps i've heard is around 35 minutes on a Leo instead of those 15-20 minute speed runs.
Yeah, I thought "20 minute engine swap" smelled a bit like a spherical chicken.
-
Still, under an hour is pretty impressive in itself.
-
Dont know why the front of the Boxer makes me remember of the Battletech Striker vee.
-
That would not even dent a mosquito ;)
So the Australian mosquito is a slightly smaller and less aggressive relative of the Alaskan mosquito, then.
-
And once more the Herky-bird demonstrates the truth that "everything is air-droppable, once."
-
So the Australian mosquito is a slightly smaller and less aggressive relative of the Alaskan mosquito, then.
the midwestern mosquito might be small, but they've got numbers on their side. and lately, biowarfare..
-
Several of my friends did their military service in northern Sweden. We used to joke that the best way to handle our mosquitoes was to drench one guy in insect "repellent", put him in a convenient field, and line up the AA brigade nearby. :D
-
Just have me around. I'm mosquito bait. Designated donor. Just like my father before me. The family love that aspect ;)
-
Several of my friends did their military service in northern Sweden. We used to joke that the best way to handle our mosquitoes was to drench one guy in insect "repellent", put him in a convenient field, and line up the AA brigade nearby. :D
North Sweden is harmless. I've been to lakeside cabins in central Sweden, and you basically about notice them there when they start blocking out the sun during their swarm-divebombing...
Around these parts here along the Rhine, we use actual biowarfare by the way. Precision-bombing their breeding grounds, then sending in the infantry to get rid of those that survived that. 300 men and a couple helicopters.
-
Just have me around. I'm mosquito bait. Designated donor. Just like my father before me. The family love that aspect ;)
Me and you both. Type O blood will do that.
-
Huh.
-
If they bring back the Hetzer or StuG, I will be so happy...
-
looks like a StuG III by way of a Leopard II, with a bit of Stridsvagn 103 tossed in.
-
I've heard that an engine swap on a F/A-18 can be done in about 40. When I asked members of a Hornet ground crew if that was accurate, they all laughed.
It has been done for a foreign military sale demonstration, but it was super artificial. We had all the tools/working engine stands/O Rings/Gaskets/and spare engine lined up. Things that in reality never happen.
We started with a fully closed jet, they started the stopwatch. Time was called once the motor was up and running. It was 40 minutes. Almost as realistic as having a T-90 jump off a ramp and fire the main gun.
Back on topic:
(https://i.imgur.com/vmYesH8.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/zcAinKe.jpg)
-
World of Tanks fan-art. What would be the utility? Now I'm as much of a Jagdpanther fanboy as you'll find, but even I can't see the point.
Now if you had say a 150mm main gun, two part ammo, cassette autoloader, and more sloped armour ... you'd have an expensive but fundamentally useless assault gun.
-
World of Tanks fan-art. What would be the utility? Now I'm as much of a Jagdpanther fanboy as you'll find, but even I can't see the point.
Now if you had say a 150mm main gun, two part ammo, cassette autoloader, and more sloped armour ... you'd have an expensive but fundamentally useless assault gun.
There were considerations for a heavy tank destroyer as a Leopard successor back in the 70s (VT1-2/GVT; below is one of the GVT models). Mostly early concepts with regard to developing a 4th generation tank.
(https://abload.de/img/bw_kpz_leopard_3_vt_2mfp1a.jpg)
It was basically a casemate tank using twin fixed-forward 120mm guns with autoloaders and a targeting computer which could automatically fire the guns when a designated target would reach the point where it would be ballistically hit while the tank destroyer was on the move.
Project was cancelled in 1979 with its couple prototypes recycling MBT70 or Leo1 hulls.
-
If I came across that elsewhere I'd have said "Wow, great photoshop skills"
Now if you had say a 150mm main gun, two part ammo, cassette autoloader, and more sloped armour ... you'd have an expensive but fundamentally useless assault gun.
Or a very low-profile vehicle with thicker armour than anyone else and a gun capable of killing any tank out there APS notwithstanding... sounds like a pretty scary tank-destroyer to me.
Specially if you add a couple soft/hard-kill APS systems on top
-
And what threat would it be used against, that wouldn't be better handled by a turretted 120mm?
Face it, the GVT shown made sense in terms of trying to stop the flood of Soviet armour through the Fulda gap. Given the absence of the need to defend your home against insane quantities of armour ... it's a boondoggle.
-
Just playing around, you understand:-
A lot of armies are opting for mechanised infantry as the main (some might say "only") manoeuvre unit, employing common IFV families as troop carrier and fire support both. Tanks are really only there to defeat other tanks with their ability to both give and receive heavy KE fire - that is their only real USP over a super-IFV like the Boxer.
That being the case why not dump legacy "MBT" design amd start afresh with the essentials, ie a tank destroyer - equipped with a gun big enough no MBT can stand, armour thick enough to resist return fire from its prey, and all the jammers and APSs and doohickeys needed to out-fight an enemy tank. Its low profile would make it harder to hit and there would be significant cost savings. Their only purpose is to support infantry against an enemy tank threat (though I bet the PBI would soon find uses for that gun.)
The lack of turret is a disadvantage for quickly reacting to contact on the go, I grant that. But how likely is a tank duel on the move these days?
As you say... the tank flood is no longer a major threat. So why not switch over to fully-mechanised infantry armies with multipurpose IFVs, backed by a small number of Tank Destroyers specialised for the role rather than an MBT jack of all trades?
-
TIL there was a German antitank vehicle armed with 6 Panzerschrecks and 3 smoke discharger grenades called the Panzerjager Wanze, shown here captured by Soviet troops
(https://s17.postimg.org/ltf6beam7/qp3h2n6spll01.jpg)
I shall think of it as the embarrassing old granddad of the Wiesel TOW - "Back in my day we had to hump SIX missile launchers uphill in the snow!"
-
:snip:
As you say... the tank flood is no longer a major threat. :snip:
I think several countries might disagree with that assessment...
-
TIL there was a German antitank vehicle armed with 6 Panzerschrecks and 3 smoke discharger grenades called the Panzerjager Wanze, shown here captured by Soviet troops
(https://s17.postimg.org/ltf6beam7/qp3h2n6spll01.jpg)
I shall think of it as the embarrassing old granddad of the Wiesel TOW - "Back in my day we had to hump SIX missile launchers uphill in the snow!"
Proto Ontos.
(https://i0.wp.com/www.defensemedianetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Marine-M50-Ontos-Vietnam.jpg?resize=720%2C496&ssl=1)
(http://www.historynet.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Hardware_1200x480.jpg)
-
The pseudo-tank destroyer model is what prompted the US Army to develop the Stryker MGS. That is, it's not a tank, it's not meant to kill tanks, but it does give mechanized infantry companies an organic, big, direct-fire gun. That said, there are still times you really want nothing short of a real main battle tank, and it's still a good idea to deploy some in support of any major mission. At the least, they make convoy guards par excellance.
-
I could see the use of that Leo Casemate in an urban or tight confines setting where you're playing ambusher more than anything else. Maybe if the focus were less on tank fights and more on an infantry support gun, that 150mm idea wouldn't be so bad. Hell, as a casemate setup, maybe even roll it all the way into an armed engineer vehicle, like the M728 CEV. Rear mounted crane, forward bulldozer perhaps, or modular for mine clearance, or who knows.
In any generic battlefield situation I'd prefer a tank of course, but if I were filling some pretty thin niches I kinda like it.
-
What about the Swedish tanks where they hard-mounted the gun to the hull and moved the whole body to aim instead of moving the gun?
-
My understanding as that the Swedes chose that design because they had no intention of offensive operations, and wanted a low-profile tank for defensive purposes
-
One should also point out that that the Swedes did run 350 Centurions rearmed with 105mm guns concurrently up to the 90s for MBT applications in parallel to their 290 Strv103 with the same armament. Originally the MBT project that became the Strv103 was supposed to replace the Centurions.
They did have a rather mixed set of constraints for the project, which were basically overall:
- weight under 42.5 tons, preferably under 32 tons
- low silhouette
- high mobility
- 105mm armament with autoloader
Three options were looked at:
- "Strv A" (A for America) (buying an American or British tank, such as M48)
- "Strv T" (T for Tyskland, Germany) (buying a French/German tnak, i.e. the Europapanzer project that became the Leopard 1 and AMX-30)
- "Strv S" (S for Sweden) (a domestic production, lightweight, low silhouette, turretless)
This was reduced to two options around 1958 - Strv A or Strv S.
However, around the same time, intelligence about the Soviet T-10 tank project suggested that the 105mm gun had to be lengthened considerably to provide sufficient penetration; from the initial 55-caliber length considerations the prototypes grew to an 85-caliber gun.
The Strv A was by design not suitable for this barrel length, leading to Strv A as an option to be replaced by Strv K - which would have placed a Centurion Mk X turret (with the then new 105mm L7 rifled gun) on a domestic KRV chassis. Strv K was then soon cancelled when Sweden decided to buy actual Centurion Mk X - and subsequently refit their Mk III and Mk V - thus only leaving the Strv S as the only option. Afterwards they spent 6 years improving the Strv S design...
Strv S2 prototype looking sleek in 1961:
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-4ojpB8BKPNc/WLHt8GLfTTI/AAAAAAAAMuU/WfKu6BnN4VsH8Qn6OAjZhh9dcf1Cqi7IACLcB/s1600/strv103dev14-e198e1c1161ecf13237a8b2b8433122d.jpg)
-
What a classic. I almost wish it had been battle tested.
-
What about the Swedish tanks where they hard-mounted the gun to the hull and moved the whole body to aim instead of moving the gun?
Nicholas Moran "The Chieftain" has got videos about it (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOn6QrN6pCA)
-
Honest question here from someone who is not at all well versed in the art of armored warfare: why do we need the 120mm gun on an MBT? When you have 155mm artillery, drones loaded down with 250lbs bombs and Hellfires, and a variety of IFV-mountable and in some cases man-portable anti-armor missiles backing you up, what is it that you need that big 120mm gun on a heavily armored chassis to do? I get the armored mobility part, but I'm having a bit harder time figuring out why we still want the big cannons instead of, say, a 30mm and a couple missiles. I don't doubt that a reason exists, it just isn't obvious to me why MBT's with a single, large cannon are still so popular.
-
For their versatility versus expense mostly.
-
because a 120mm and its shells are cheaper on a shot-per shot basis than a guided missile, and are a lot harder to defend against (you can't jam a shell, or shoot it down with an Active Defense System, or use cage armor to make its hit do nothing)
this is especially true of the APFSDS rounds, which are unaffected by reactive armor (getting very common now) and render much of the protection advantages of composite armor nullified (composite works great against HE, HESH, and HEAT warheads, but less so against pure kinetic)
as for why not just a 155 or bombs.. well, sometimes your targets are in places where a simple straight shot will hit them, but a ballistic arc or a top attack by a plane/bomb will have a lot less chance. not to mention that radioing in an artillery request, or a airstrike takes time (even when you aren't stuck in a queue because everyone else is asking too), it takes even more time for the artillery shell flight time or the aircraft flight time, and calling in the attack would often give away your own presence (even if your radio is encrypted and such, that there was a radio signal is still detectable)
also, lets just face it.. a 120mm shell is going to do a lot less collateral damage around the target than a 155mm will or a bomb will.
-
Honest question here from someone who is not at all well versed in the art of armored warfare: why do we need the 120mm gun on an MBT? When you have 155mm artillery, drones loaded down with 250lbs bombs and Hellfires, and a variety of IFV-mountable and in some cases man-portable anti-armor missiles backing you up, what is it that you need that big 120mm gun on a heavily armored chassis to do? I get the armored mobility part, but I'm having a bit harder time figuring out why we still want the big cannons instead of, say, a 30mm and a couple missiles. I don't doubt that a reason exists, it just isn't obvious to me why MBT's with a single, large cannon are still so popular.
Basically what the others said
Versatility - the time taken to swap from "fin" to HESH to canister to spraying someone with co-axial is measured in seconds
Relative cost effectiveness of the shells down the gun versus missiles
Direct fire and accuracy versus artillery or air dropped ordnance
To be honest, once you have the huge armoured tank set up it feels like the gun isn't the biggest expense and you'd feel a fool if your lovely 30mm and missiles armed tank came across someone with a 120-125mm who then shoots down your missiles with APS and laughs off your 30mm shells...
-
Also, hell hath no fury like the ghosts of the tankers who had to fight MBTs with 30mm on the day your 155s and bombs were busy elsewhere...except maybe for the survivors.
-
instead of, say, a 30mm and a couple missiles.
Adding on to glitterboy's very comprehensive post - a 30mm does next to nothing against modern tank armour. I think even the Puma IFV's frontal armour can stop 30mm. Tanks are generally going to face other tanks in combat, and the arms race has seen their main guns go from WW2 40mm to 75mm to 105mm to 120mm as thicker and more advanced armour gets put on.
Antitank guided missiles also face all kinds of defences. Explosive reactive armour, multispectral smoke grenades, IR jammers, and of course seriously all the rage now are "hard-kill active protection systems" aka CIWS for tanks. Its getting so that the latest ATGMs work by top-attack - flying up and coming down on the tank roof, since armour and defences are all positioned to defeat horizontal (side-on) attacks. And even that is not foolproof.
The latest developments is that the Europeans are mulling a new tank with a 130mm gun, and in some places tanks are resorting to platoon fire - 4 tanks firing on a single tank target - to get past all those defences. And everyone is scrambling to put hardkill APSs on their tanks.
-
Honest question here from someone who is not at all well versed in the art of armored warfare: why do we need the 120mm gun on an MBT? When you have 155mm artillery, drones loaded down with 250lbs bombs and Hellfires, and a variety of IFV-mountable and in some cases man-portable anti-armor missiles backing you up, what is it that you need that big 120mm gun on a heavily armored chassis to do? I get the armored mobility part, but I'm having a bit harder time figuring out why we still want the big cannons instead of, say, a 30mm and a couple missiles. I don't doubt that a reason exists, it just isn't obvious to me why MBT's with a single, large cannon are still so popular.
I consider the MBT one of two implacable all weather things on the battlefield. The other is artillery and a third, if it had any offensive utility, would be the landmine. Employed properly, the MBT is very hard to deal with and if you aren't prepared for it you really can't do much about it unless the other guy (or gal) screws up. That implacable nature combined with its sheer versatility (e.g., massed armor, a cavalry element, infantry support) ensure its continued existence.
-
Heh... the MBT: the only problem it can't solve is its own logistics...
-
Heh... the MBT: the only problem it can't solve is its own logistics...
That's true of anything outside of an X-Wing.
-
Interesting responses. Not sure I'm convinced by all of them, but certainly some good points in there. It got me motivated to look up a couple things.
First, it appears there absolutely are APS systems that are capable of defeating long-rod penetrators. The majority of these type of systems are only really good against ATGM's and RPG's, but there are some systems that were designed to deal with APFSDS projectiles as well. Don't know how effective they are, but silver bullets aren't necessarily a silver bullet anymore against other modern tanks.
The versatility of the 120mm cannon seems like an interesting argument, but I do still wonder how much of a variety our M1's usually have on-board. If the internet it to be believed, a current M1 can carry 42 rounds for the 120mm gun. What would the 'standard' mix be? Do they really carry more specialized stuff like Canister, HESH, or straight HE all the time, or is that the sort of thing you only load up if you KNOW you have a specific need for it ahead of time? Still, it does seem like most of the man-portable options don't have nearly the explosive payload of a 120mm round, and the vehicle-mounted missiles that do are more expensive than a comparable HEDP round or even a APFSDS round. Well, except for maybe 70mm rockets. The unguided versions come in a pretty wide variety of payloads, and they are only something like $1000/rocket. That is competitive with 120mm ammo pricing, although I'm not sure the accuracy would be comparable.
You folks are probably right and the big-gun MBT will be around for years to come. I just can't help but look at the Navy and Airforce and see how their worlds have changed from guns to missiles, and wonder when it will be the Army's turn. It will be a bot of a shame as I actually LIKE big cannons, but sometimes it feels like the only reason anyone wants cannons, of any size, these days is for targets that aren't worth spending missile-money to destroy. Anyway, thanks for all the opinions.
-
It should be noted that the USN is trying(with only mixed success so far, but that's what science is for) to move away from missiles in certain roles, such as lasers for CIWS, or guns(railguns or big conventionals firing guided rounds) for shore attack. The news is either slow or actually bad most of the time, but you can tell that the Navy really wants to move away from guided missiles where possible.
-
I work in the Pentagon... I can (sadly) confirm that it is, indeed, all about MONEY.
-
I work in the Pentagon... I can (sadly) confirm that it is, indeed, all about MONEY.
I can confirm...he does work at the Pentagon.
-
I used to wear a blue suit . . . I can confirm missiles cost money, lots of money ^-^
-
Do they really carry more specialized stuff like Canister, HESH, or straight HE all the time,
The M1 cannot use HESH. It requires a rifled gun.
The British Challengers are the only modern MBTs that can still make use of it.
-
Yes a modern tank will always carry some type of HE for dealing with bunkers/hard points, canister for dealing with infantry, and probably both types of anti armor round. Simply because tank on tank combat is still the minority of what kind of action tanks take part in and probably always will be.
-
Adding on to glitterboy's very comprehensive post - a 30mm does next to nothing against modern tank armour. I think even the Puma IFV's frontal armour can stop 30mm.
Case in point though, a Puma weighs as much as a 1960s/70s standard MBT. There's no "even" about it.
And as for a 30mm doing nothing... sure it does something. It'll shred your optics and outside electronics, including that ADS. A burst of e.g. 30mm AHEAD, i.e. ~1000 shotgun pellets the size and speed of a rifle round impacting within the space of two seconds, will mission-kill any MBT.
Its getting so that the latest ATGMs work by top-attack - flying up and coming down on the tank roof, since armour and defences are all positioned to defeat horizontal (side-on) attacks
Standard in about any new ATGM design since the 80s.
-
Never having served under armour, how long does it take to repair/replace optics? I assume antennas are reasonably easy and quick to replace but optic blocks I assume are going to be reasonably involved and need special equipment for repair/replace. So depot level task or is it something that can be done in the field by the crew or your handy RAEME (mechanical engineer)?
-
Yes a modern tank will always carry some type of HE for dealing with bunkers/hard points, canister for dealing with infantry, and probably both types of anti armor round. Simply because tank on tank combat is still the minority of what kind of action tanks take part in and probably always will be.
So when I got out of the military the rounds that were available for general use (120mm main gun)
M829A3/E4 APFSDSDU-T "Sabot" AKA Silver Bullet/Super-Sabot said to be able to defeat ERA (Explosive Reactive Armor). The E4 may be a A4 now. Per unit cost of around $10,000 each. Used against heavy armor
M830 HEAT-MP-T "HEAT" A multi-purpose (what the MP stands for) round that is good at taking out armor, and OK at taking out troops with the frag sleeve around the explosives. Used against all armor and troops/bunkers.
PS-Wikipedia says it is no longer in service, but I was still seeing them my last deployment in 2011.
M830A1 HEAT-MP-T "MPAT" Not a upgrade to the M830 but a entirely new round. A new and improved heat round that has a better frag sleeve, and such. Biggest thing is that it is also a sabot round and can be used for more than just ground targets. Used against light/medium armor , troop and helicopters.
M908 HE-OR-T (High-Explosive Obstacle-Reducing Tracer) "not sure call but guess HE" A modified M830A1 to make it contact warhead (or more specifically time delayed) so it blows up after going into the bunker a bit. Used for bunkers.
M1028 Canister "Canister" A short range anti-personnel round. Used for anti-personnel and helicopters.
Now for a not general issue rounds but they were in testing and at least some were making it to the battle field.
XM943 (Smart Target Activated Fire and Forget) "Staff" First heard about this one from my brother (who at the time was still in tanks, after I got out) it is a top down heat attack round. It has a look down shoot down radar or something. Supposed to be able to used against anything armor, troops, even helicopters.
And one that I found reference to when looking just now, not sure if it ever made it to the field.
M1069 Advanced Multi-Purpose "AMP" kind of a do everything round, anti-troops out to about 3000 meters, anti-helicopter, ant-armor.
Never having served under armour, how long does it take to repair/replace optics? I assume antennas are reasonably easy and quick to replace but optic blocks I assume are going to be reasonably involved and need special equipment for repair/replace. So depot level task or is it something that can be done in the field by the crew or your handy RAEME (mechanical engineer)?
Depends on the optics. If you are talking a vision block, 30 seconds from when you have the replacement, loosen the wing nuts pull the old one out (or just catch it so it does not hit you junk), and put the new one in then re-tighten the wing nuts this is operator level maintenance.. If you are talking the gunners primary sights then I can not even hazard a guess, but this will take battalion maintenance at the very least.
-
Cheers thanks CDAT :thumbsup: I learn something everyday.
-
Case in point though, a Puma weighs as much as a 1960s/70s standard MBT. There's no "even" about it.
And as for a 30mm doing nothing... sure it does something. It'll shred your optics and outside electronics, including that ADS. A burst of e.g. 30mm AHEAD, i.e. ~1000 shotgun pellets the size and speed of a rifle round impacting within the space of two seconds, will mission-kill any MBT.
Standard in about any new ATGM design since the 80s.
Puma's quite an outlier in any case.
30mm won't penetrate MBT front armour though. And not everyone has AHEAD or similar rounds.
Yeah, "latest" is pretty relative innit? There don't seem to be very many extremely new developments in the ATGM line - except the MMP. Is it all it's cracked up to be?
-
Puma's quite an outlier in any case.
The current incarnation of the good old Marder as its predecessor also comes in at 38.5 tons ;)
And it just got upgraded the last 3 months to fire Spike-LR, doubling its anti-tank envelope.
(https://abload.de/img/0961032edrcs.jpg)
There don't seem to be very many extremely new developments in the ATGM line - except the MMP.
Spike-LR meanwhile is being upgraded by Rafael, as Spike-LR II, to be available this year - first order was by the IDF last year.
Increases range to 5.5 km ground-to-ground / 10 km air-to-ground (by using an uncooled seeker that means it has more space/weight available for the rocket motor), will have a datalink, switchable warheads (tandem HEAT or SAPHE/MP), new seeker AI, some nebulous counter-APS capability and 70°+ angle top-attack profile. Uh, and the rounds are compatible with extant Spike-LR launchers like the above...
I'd rate the Spike family as a whole as a relatively new ATGM system.
-
Yes a modern tank will always carry some type of HE for dealing with bunkers/hard points, canister for dealing with infantry, and probably both types of anti armor round.
What about flechette?
-
Well I was using cannister as more of a catchall term. I don't know if flechette is considered sufficiently distinct to not be called cannister but both do operate largely the same.
-
The TM for the M551 Sheridan listed canister and flechette separately, FWIW.
-
The M1 cannot use HESH. It requires a rifled gun.
The British Challengers are the only modern MBTs that can still make use of it.
You know...I knew this. I really did. That’s what I get for skimming a list of 120mm ammo types on the internet without engaging my brain!
On the up-side I did have fun browsing the Orbital ATK and General Dynamics ammo lineups last night. I have to say, the medium caliber stuff from 20-30mm was more fun. The 120mm stuff was pretty much, APFSDS, multi-purpose or HE, and canister. The little guys had all sorts of different options. My favorite was the super-cavitating mini-APFSDS ammo for shooting mines From a boat or aircraft! The timed, air burst rounds were also pretty cool. Decent video of the air burst stuff here: https://youtu.be/4UolMYY7QaA
I love big guns in slow motion!
-
The current incarnation of the good old Marder as its predecessor also comes in at 38.5 tons ;)
...
I'd rate the Spike family as a whole as a relatively new ATGM system.
The Marder too was an outlier in its time ;D
Doesn't Spike date to like the early 80s as well? The earliest models anyway.
What kind of "counter-APS" does the Spike-LR 2 have?
-
Give the Marder some extra armor and new weapons and it could keep on going for a long time.
-
Doesn't Spike date to like the early 80s as well? The earliest models anyway.
The NLOS version supposedly dates to 1981 (but was kept secret until 2011). That one is a whole lot heavier though, larger than a Hellfire.
What kind of "counter-APS" does the Spike-LR 2 have?
I'd assume it has mostly to do with flight profiles and the 70° attack angle. All current APS systems are limited in elevation, typically around 45-60 degrees maximum depending on system and how it is mounted (Arena and Drozd much lower btw, typically 20°).
Give the Marder some extra armor and new weapons and it could keep on going for a long time.
The 1A3 upgrade in 1988 added forward arc protection identical to a Puma C (i.e. against 30mm) and rear protection the same as a Puma A (i.e. against 14.5mm).
The extra beyond the current - both armor and turret - is problematic since the Marder is basically at its maximum structural weight. The main changes during the 1A5 upgrade were to the running gear in order to give it its original mobility (though it's still capped to 65 km/h max speed as the A3 instead of the 75 km/h of the A1/A2); the engine is also at its maximum to support that.
Changing these two issues is basically what Rheinmetall does with Lynx as new-production vehicles. Most other "upgraded" Marder sales are downgraded APCs - which get rid of the turret and that 1988 add-on armor and replace the engine.
The 1A5A1 upgrade - as the current model - adds an IED jammer and Saab Barracuda for IR and radar return camouflage. Stuff like that still fits in the package. Even an ADS system would cut into the troop carrying capacity though.
-
P.S.: regarding weapons, you can't do this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEp4BJjJHrs with about any larger caliber.
-
The NLOS version supposedly dates to 1981 (but was kept secret until 2011). That one is a whole lot heavier though, larger than a Hellfire.
Fired from the secret Pereh missile carrier... I've posted it here before, but I just LOVE the look of the thing.
Stowed launcher, disguised as an Israeli M48A5 Magach 5
(https://s31.postimg.org/46mot8inv/1351409868014257225.jpg)
Launcher popped up
(https://s31.postimg.org/9uszk4uq3/mobilni-protioklepni-raketni-sistem-pereh-tamuz-spike.jpg)
Fire!
(https://s31.postimg.org/deex9y55n/c2d7d3e407574488e06e669e4be6e8f6.jpg)
-
Give the Marder some extra armor and new weapons and it could keep on going for a long time.
Isn't Marder itself refit of a tank, starting from Panzerkampfwagen II?
-
We're talking about the Cold War IFV, not the WW2 models.
As for the WW2 Marders:
- the Marder I was based on a French artillery tractor
- the Marder II was based on the Pz II
- the Marder III was based on the Pz 38(t)
-
Fired from the secret Pereh missile carrier... I've posted it here before, but I just LOVE the look of the thing.
Stowed launcher, disguised as an Israeli M48A5 Magach 5
(https://s31.postimg.org/46mot8inv/1351409868014257225.jpg)
Launcher popped up
(https://s31.postimg.org/9uszk4uq3/mobilni-protioklepni-raketni-sistem-pereh-tamuz-spike.jpg)
Fire!
I was wondering what that Tank looked like. GHQ has a miniature of that ship. Might have to get a couple .
(https://s31.postimg.org/deex9y55n/c2d7d3e407574488e06e669e4be6e8f6.jpg)
-
Well I was using cannister as more of a catchall term. I don't know if flechette is considered sufficiently distinct to not be called cannister but both do operate largely the same.
There is a technical difference, but for the most part it does not really make any difference, I kind of remember being a junior troop when we went from IPM1's to M1A1's and asked my platoon sergeant about the differences as we had flechette rounds for the 105mm (fire command Beehive) and they were telling us we would be getting canister soon for the 120mm. So what he told me and I am sure it is just a simple gloss over is that flechette is small darts, and canister are round balls. In actual use they found that the darts do not fly straight and hit at all sorts of angles this reduces the effect of them as they are also hitting each other in flight and such, where the biggest benefit for the round balls of the canister is they are basically a very big shotgun shell, more research has been done on shotguns so it is easier to make models but the biggest one of all, they are so much cheaper to make compared to the flechettes.
-
Re:Pereh
There's actual missile tank in existence?
Or is that simply disguised as a tank, not really possessing tank's armor?
I wonder because some video games feature "missile tanks", though admittedly they rarely if ever actually function as tanks that just happen to be armed with missiles primarily.
-
There is a technical difference, but for the most part it does not really make any difference, I kind of remember being a junior troop when we went from IPM1's to M1A1's and asked my platoon sergeant about the differences as we had flechette rounds for the 105mm (fire command Beehive) and they were telling us we would be getting canister soon for the 120mm. So what he told me and I am sure it is just a simple gloss over is that flechette is small darts, and canister are round balls. In actual use they found that the darts do not fly straight and hit at all sorts of angles this reduces the effect of them as they are also hitting each other in flight and such, where the biggest benefit for the round balls of the canister is they are basically a very big shotgun shell, more research has been done on shotguns so it is easier to make models but the biggest one of all, they are so much cheaper to make compared to the flechettes.
Your sergeant was correct. The US Army pretty much gave up on flechettes about halfway through the Objective Weapons Systems programs. Flechette performance was always highly disappointing, whereas canister is excellent for bringing a whole lot of pain to a whole lot of beaten zone.
-
I kind of remember being a junior troop when we went from IPM1's
Huh, what? ???
Re:Pereh
There's actual missile tank in existence?
Or is that simply disguised as a tank, not really possessing tank's armor?
I wonder because some video games feature "missile tanks", though admittedly they rarely if ever actually function as tanks that just happen to be armed with missiles primarily.
Oh yes, missile capable tanks have been made. One is M551 Sheridan
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5b/M551_Sheridan_Tank_Presentation.jpg/300px-M551_Sheridan_Tank_Presentation.jpg)
Can fire shells too. Soviet Union also made a tank with similar weapon and armament. After Soviet era, Russia refitted T-72 with a thermobaric missile battery comparable to Goblin SRM variant.
Israel one in the photos above isn't a tank but a tank destroyer disguised as a tank. When it entered the battle the first time, enemies had a nasty surprise.
-
When i said "missile tank", i didn't mean gun-fired ATGMs (pretty sure most later Russian tanks would count otherwise, no?). I meant something like taking a tank, retaining its mobility and armor, and swapping the primary armament for a missile battery. Like that Peresh having a battery of missiles but also having armor, i presume as it is a tank destroyer, it can't really take any hits.
Obviously combat endurance/options would be problematic. Reloading likewise. Guess this is what really kills the concept of a "missile tank" for now.
-
When i said "missile tank", i didn't mean gun-fired ATGMs (pretty sure most later Russian tanks would count otherwise, no?). I meant something like taking a tank, retaining its mobility and armor, and swapping the primary armament for a missile battery. Like that Peresh having a battery of missiles but also having armor, i presume as it is a tank destroyer, it can't really take any hits.
In that case closest answer is TOS-1, which is practically T-72 with thermobaric rocket turret
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cd/%D0%A2%D0%9E%D0%A1-1%D0%90_%D0%91%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%BE_%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%B8_%D0%BF%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B0_4.5.2010.jpg/300px-%D0%A2%D0%9E%D0%A1-1%D0%90_%D0%91%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%BE_%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%B8_%D0%BF%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B0_4.5.2010.jpg)
-
Or is that simply disguised as a tank, not really possessing tank's armor?
It's a modified M48 tank with the rear half of the turret replaced with the missile launchers (and guidance) and the gun being fake. I.e. yes, it has the armor of a medium, at its time obsolete MBT.
Offhand about the only other - non-prototype - system that wastes a tank chassis on a missile/rocket launcher in a similar fashion - i.e. not retaining the gun armament - is TOS-1. Three anti-aircraft systems use tank chassis as a base for the launcher: a Polish modification of S-75 (on T-55), a Cuban modification of S-125 (on T-55) and the Indian Akash MR SAM system (Army version on T-72).
Other than that, everything else uses IFV or APC chassis (or, in the case of the Chinese Type 89 MLRS, a SPH chassis).
Israel one in the photos above isn't a tank but a tank destroyer disguised as a tank.
Technically it's an artillery system.
-
In fairness to the Israelis, it's less of a waste for the system because it looks a LOT like their other tanks, especially a Merk turret with those angles. In photos, clearly there's something there but "it has a gun so it can't hit us from here" is still valid, and at 4-5km distance, I dare anyone with field glasses to reliably tell it apart from any other armor on the line.
Managing to keep the bloody things secret FOR THIRTY YEARS, while using them in combat the whole time, says a lot about how difficult it is to tell them from gun tanks. And having that missile umbrella helps...that 4-5km estimate above? The Spike-NLOS goes 25km. If you think you can see it you're in range...and probably under fire.
The early models of Spike are a bit bigger than a Javelin, and I suspect the mass increase is soley due to range since it goes up by a factor of five compared to previous versions. If so htat's still a good twenty pound warhead, split in two separate charges since it's a tandem design. Javelin's warhead is 8kg, I'd peak the Spike's at 10, and call it a 3/7 split for primary and secondary charges in the tandem design based on the purpose and the rough cutaways. Hell of a thing to drop a dozen into a fake MBT isn't it...especially when your reload time is about fifteen seconds per tube...
-
What do you do when you're building better and better Merkavas and you've got so many old tank chasses lying around? Build some really protected APCs and rocket artillery vehicles of course.
They put 160mm rockets on AMX-13s...
(https://s18.postimg.org/i93eytz8p/perezaryazhanie_lau-160.jpg)
...240mm and 290mm Katyusha rockets on Super Shermans...
(https://s18.postimg.org/svx849mtl/240_2.jpg)
(https://s18.postimg.org/5ugmyifg9/290_1.jpg)
...even a Shrike HARM on the Sherman.
(https://s18.postimg.org/l36kcaok9/kilshon.jpg)
When i said "missile tank", i didn't mean gun-fired ATGMs (pretty sure most later Russian tanks would count otherwise, no?). I meant something like taking a tank, retaining its mobility and armor, and swapping the primary armament for a missile battery. Like that Peresh having a battery of missiles but also having armor, i presume as it is a tank destroyer, it can't really take any hits.
Obviously combat endurance/options would be problematic. Reloading likewise. Guess this is what really kills the concept of a "missile tank" for now.
Meet the IT-1, built on a T-62 chassis. It fires a Drakon SACLOS ATGM, and has an autoloader magazine of 12 missiles plus a manually loaded magazine of 3 more missiles. The missile launcher flips out of a hatch up top from inside the turret. It's so dashed cute.
(https://s18.postimg.org/iw2boow89/IT-1-3.jpg)
(https://s18.postimg.org/pmisy4r3t/Park_Patriot2015part1-70-_M-1.jpg)
-
It definitely makes sense as a refit. You can re-use a hull that is obsolete. You can hide it towards the back of a maneuver unit, where it blends in with the rest of the armour unit and its less robust armour will not be a liability. It then gives the unit the organic ability to "reach out and touch" an OPFOR unit that the forward elements have located.
-
A new contender for the title of Grid Square Removal System.
-
Epic! :D
"Hi, what kind of MLRS would you like?"
"I'm thinking, I want to put six eggs in one unprotected basket."
"Say no more, fam..."
-
Epic! :D
"Hi, what kind of MLRS would you like?"
"I'm thinking, I want to put six eggs in one unprotected basket."
"Say no more, fam..."
"Ooo, could you make sure that it can only travel on roads?"
"Shh. I've got everything you need, right here."
-
"Hi, what kind of MLRS would you like?"
"I'm thinking, I want to put six eggs in one unprotected basket."
"Say no more, fam..."
We've got your basket covered...
-
Couldn't that truck just carry a M163 VADS instead? ::)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7a/M163_VADS.JPEG/300px-M163_VADS.JPEG)
-
different role. that truck mounts full Phalanx point defense system, including all the computers and radar system needed to shoot down incoming missiles.
the M163 just has the gun, and is meant to defend against Helicopters and slower moving aircraft, it is useless against enemy missiles.
-
I can only hope that the super-duper MLRS is only designed to field the 70-odd km ranged missiles from a protected fire base rather than being a more mobile design
Or someone is just playing silly buggers with either PhotoShop or the logistics vehicle hauling them forward to be put on better vehicles owned by the artillery
-
Or someone is just playing silly buggers with either PhotoShop or the logistics vehicle hauling them forward to be put on better vehicles owned by the artillery
It's not photoshopped and has been around for a while (first presented at IDEX 2013). It was supposedly designed to a specific request from the UAE army, intending to downsize the manpower requirements of a rocket artillery battery. They now operate a small number of them (possibly around four), replacing BM-21 batteries with the same range and firepower envelope.
The company has designed a new version more recently to army requirements, which uses the same truck and control cabin with a somewhat shorter trailer to carry two four-round 300mm launchers.
-
Captured Oskosh M-ATV modified with ZU-23-2, Yemen.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-pZm2LwzbVv4/Wrdgv9Dh6-I/AAAAAAAAAfQ/l223us-80R0Bwb6hg5HIbpOG397-fdqNgCHMYCw/s0/photo_2018-03-25_00-09-33.jpg)
-
Italian 6x6 APC modded by Libyan rebels to carry SA-6 SAM missiles now used as unguided artillery rockets
(https://s14.postimg.org/ev9uyorm9/XRo_EW1x.jpg)
-
Those Arab rebels and their crazy technicals.
-
(https://s14.postimg.org/ev9uyorm9/XRo_EW1x.jpg)
Reminds me of the Striker vehicle.
(http://cfw.sarna.net/wiki/images/8/86/Striker3026.jpg?timestamp=20091204090403)
TT
-
It's basically an overgrown Italian version of the VBL, outsized to Fennek dimensions and used mostly like a M1114.
-
See, now I want OS Arrow IVs...
-
Italian 6x6 APC modded by Libyan rebels to carry SA-6 SAM missiles now used as unguided artillery rockets
(https://s14.postimg.org/ev9uyorm9/XRo_EW1x.jpg)
That might just be the stupidest thing I have ever seen in this thread. Well done.
-
I vote for the next thread title to be "Panzer Four-ward!"
-
Four Wheelin': Military-style!
TT
-
Panzer vor!
-
That might just be the stupidest thing I have ever seen in this thread. Well done.
Gaze thy eyes on more from the abyss (http://spioenkop.blogspot.si/search/label/Libya).
-
They remind me of the home made tanks of Britain and NZ (and possibly Australia) in early WW2, especially after the Fall of France
-
Gaze thy eyes on more from the abyss (http://spioenkop.blogspot.si/search/label/Libya).
Dark Age Industrial MODs seem sane by comparison
-
Gaze thy eyes on more from the abyss (http://spioenkop.blogspot.si/search/label/Libya).
That blog is a inspirational goldmine for technicals in a low-tech campaign!
-
It's actually quite surprising what crops up in Libya from where exactly too. I've seen e.g. Romanian anti-aircraft guns that since their design over 40 years ago have only ever been exported to one country, in miniscule numbers - nope, not Libya. Liberia. Complete with handdrawn English-language instruction panels...
-
Gaze thy eyes on more from the abyss (http://spioenkop.blogspot.si/search/label/Libya).
same page http://spioenkop.blogspot.si/2016/03/the-islamic-state-going-diy-birth-of.html
Holy Cow, that vehicle.... where did i see something like that from?
-
Gentlemen, may I present
www.reddit.com/r/shittytechnicals
-
and here's one from the great British Army in 1940
-
Gentlemen, may I present
www.reddit.com/r/shittytechnicals
https://i.imgur.com/DXO86Ex.jpg wow a Hind Gunship rocketpod.
-
https://i.imgur.com/DXO86Ex.jpg wow a Hind Gunship rocketpod.
I have seen YouTube video of that or something of the like. When the damn thing fired, truck got burned down by the exhaust. Should have gotten Katyusha battery instead.
-
same page http://spioenkop.blogspot.si/2016/03/the-islamic-state-going-diy-birth-of.html
Holy Cow, that vehicle.... where did i see something like that from?
Vietnam era gun truck with the hull of a M113 mounted on the back?
-
same page http://spioenkop.blogspot.si/2016/03/the-islamic-state-going-diy-birth-of.html
Holy Cow, that vehicle.... where did i see something like that from?
From Stripes of course
http://inthedriversseatwithozzie.com/2015/05/em-50-urban-assault-vehicle-gmc/
-
hmm not really it. It's a hefty gun on the top on a big blocky vehicle. I can't put my finger on it where I have seen that from.
-
hmm not really it. It's a hefty gun on the top on a big blocky vehicle. I can't put my finger on it where I have seen that from.
Oh, I thought you mean the BMP hull on the back of the truck. Hmm...now you've got me thinking that other thing looks familiar, too.
-
Gentlemen, may I present
www.reddit.com/r/shittytechnicals
So... Industrial Mod LARP
-
If you mean Live Ammo Role Playing then yes
-
Here's the US of an unarmored patrol vehicle with a MK19 in the passenger seat and what looks to be a M2.50 MG up top
(https://broeder10.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/desert-patrol-vehicle-33.jpg)
.....where have I seen that kind of vehicle before? It was a show or movie I think.
Were they not in the Chuck Norris flicks Delta Force?
-
.....where have I seen that kind of vehicle before? It was a show or movie I think.
In the Army now (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_the_Army_Now_(film))
-
If you mean Live Ammo Role Playing then yes
Go ahead and close the thread. We are done here. This man has won the thread! :)) :)) :))
Oh, and the big, boxy technical with the turret looks sort of like a Vedette tank to me.
(http://cfw.sarna.net/wiki/images/2/2b/Vedette-3026.jpg)
-
Since I'm no gearhead, I guess it falls on me to lock the transmission on this thread, and then let someone else resurrect it anew!