Author Topic: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III  (Read 20212 times)

glitterboy2098

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6634
    • The Temple Grounds - My Roleplaying and History website
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #570 on: 07 August 2017, 04:01:37 »
what are those assemblies on either side of the turret?

Kidd

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1498
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #571 on: 07 August 2017, 05:05:26 »
what are those assemblies on either side of the turret?
British 60-pound rockets - updated post with more pics

I am Belch II

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 6394
  • It's a gator with a nuke, whats the problem.
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #572 on: 07 August 2017, 07:28:59 »
Big rockets on a angry tank. Awesome looking .
Walking the fine line between sarcasm and being a smart-ass

500 is the number of Warships Now. 500 looks like it will stay for a long time.

Sharpnel

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7083
  • Nil timere messorem
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #573 on: 07 August 2017, 07:37:14 »
Rockets look like they're best used against stationary objects and not enemy tanks.
Commander Louis Seifer, PHX-1U Phoenix Hawk, Extreme Measures, Inc.
Chu-i Shizuko Lofgren, Assault Infantry Platoon, Oniwaka
Takahiro Nakajima, ASN-21CO Assasin, Crimson Oasis Trading Company
Commander Jessica Dunleavy, VTR-9BP Victor, Dunleavy's Pistoleros

"Of what use is a dream, if not a blueprint for courageous action" -Adam West
It's an Omni, so I can build it into whatever I please - JHB
"Life is too short to be living someone else's dream" - Hugh Hefner

Feenix74

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2356
  • Purveyor of Fine Miniature Pewter Armaments
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #574 on: 07 August 2017, 08:54:59 »
They intrigued me so I did some googling. Supposedly they were useful in breaking up German ambushes.
Incoming fire has the right of way.

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

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


                                   - excepts from Murphy's Laws of Combat

ANS Kamas P81

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7968
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #575 on: 08 August 2017, 02:44:05 »
Also likely pretty good against concrete bunkers, going through the Siegfried Line's fixed defenses.  HESH does a nice job on concrete.

Feenix74

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2356
  • Purveyor of Fine Miniature Pewter Armaments
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #576 on: 08 August 2017, 06:23:29 »
Absolutely, the concrete spall does an even better job on the squishies inside the bunker.
Incoming fire has the right of way.

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

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


                                   - excepts from Murphy's Laws of Combat

beachhead1985

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2573
  • 1st SOG; SLDF. "McKenna's Marauders"
    • Kilroy's Wall
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #577 on: 10 August 2017, 06:25:40 »
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.
Epitaph on an Army of Mercenaries

These, in the day when heaven was falling,      Their shoulders held the sky suspended;
The hour when earth's foundations fled,         They stood, and earth's foundations stay;
Followed their mercenary calling,               What God abandoned, these defended,
And took their wages, and are dead.             And saved the sum of things for pay.
     
A.E. Housman

worktroll

  • Oldest and fatherless
  • Ombudsman
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 18734
  • 504th "Gateway" Division
    • There are Monsters in my Sky!
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #578 on: 10 August 2017, 17:41:19 »
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.
* No, FASA wasn't big on errata - ColBosch
* The Housebook series is from the 80's and is the foundation of Btech, the 80's heart wrapped in heavy metal that beats to this day - Sigma
* To sum it up: FASAnomics: By Cthulhu, for Cthulhu - Moonsword
* Because Battletech is a conspiracy by Habsburg & Bourbon pretenders - MadCapellan
* The Hellbringer is cool, either way. It's not cool because it's bad, it's cool because it's bad with balls - Nightsky
* It was a glorious time for people who felt that we didn't have enough Marauder variants - HABeas2, re "Empires Aflame"

worktroll

  • Oldest and fatherless
  • Ombudsman
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 18734
  • 504th "Gateway" Division
    • There are Monsters in my Sky!
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #579 on: 10 August 2017, 17:55:17 »
For laughs, the final stage in reloading the Sagger on a BMP-1:



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:



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.
« Last Edit: 10 August 2017, 17:59:20 by worktroll »
* No, FASA wasn't big on errata - ColBosch
* The Housebook series is from the 80's and is the foundation of Btech, the 80's heart wrapped in heavy metal that beats to this day - Sigma
* To sum it up: FASAnomics: By Cthulhu, for Cthulhu - Moonsword
* Because Battletech is a conspiracy by Habsburg & Bourbon pretenders - MadCapellan
* The Hellbringer is cool, either way. It's not cool because it's bad, it's cool because it's bad with balls - Nightsky
* It was a glorious time for people who felt that we didn't have enough Marauder variants - HABeas2, re "Empires Aflame"

glitterboy2098

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6634
    • The Temple Grounds - My Roleplaying and History website
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #580 on: 10 August 2017, 18:45:09 »


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..

ColBosch

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7218
  • Legends Never Die
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #581 on: 10 August 2017, 18:45:27 »
****** all of that. With a brick.
BattleTech is a huge house, it's not any one fan's or "type" of fans.  If you need to relieve yourself, use the bathroom not another BattleTech fan. - nckestrel
1st and 2nd Succession Wars are not happy times. - klarg1

Feenix74

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2356
  • Purveyor of Fine Miniature Pewter Armaments
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #582 on: 10 August 2017, 20:33:58 »
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
Incoming fire has the right of way.

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

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


                                   - excepts from Murphy's Laws of Combat

worktroll

  • Oldest and fatherless
  • Ombudsman
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 18734
  • 504th "Gateway" Division
    • There are Monsters in my Sky!
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #583 on: 10 August 2017, 22:05:01 »
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:

* No, FASA wasn't big on errata - ColBosch
* The Housebook series is from the 80's and is the foundation of Btech, the 80's heart wrapped in heavy metal that beats to this day - Sigma
* To sum it up: FASAnomics: By Cthulhu, for Cthulhu - Moonsword
* Because Battletech is a conspiracy by Habsburg & Bourbon pretenders - MadCapellan
* The Hellbringer is cool, either way. It's not cool because it's bad, it's cool because it's bad with balls - Nightsky
* It was a glorious time for people who felt that we didn't have enough Marauder variants - HABeas2, re "Empires Aflame"

MoneyLovinOgre4Hire

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 12454
  • Wipe your mouth!
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #584 on: 10 August 2017, 22:15:26 »
Bangbangbangbangbang!


Our Officer's Club is better than your Officer's Club.

Warning: this post may contain sarcasm.

You can kill people with kindness, but PPCs are more reliable.

Deadborder

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 6127
  • Out beyond beyond
    • Elmer Studios Blog
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #585 on: 10 August 2017, 23:41:07 »
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:



What wepaon is that? Besides being a strangely fascinating .gif
Author of BattleCorps stories Grand Theft Agro and Zero Signal



Whenever you use terms like 'fiat' or 'stupid pills', you render your argument invalid

How to Draw MegaMek Icons the Deadborder Way

hoosierhick

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 16
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #586 on: 11 August 2017, 21:00:01 »
Bangbangbangbangbang!



Needs more death blossom!


CDAT

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 117
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #587 on: 11 August 2017, 21:58:52 »
Needs more death blossom!


I know that in the end it was declared a failure, but I always though that the Sgt. York was a cool looking vehicle.

I am Belch II

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 6394
  • It's a gator with a nuke, whats the problem.
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #588 on: 12 August 2017, 00:16:19 »
That's a awesome action shot of the Sargent York.
Walking the fine line between sarcasm and being a smart-ass

500 is the number of Warships Now. 500 looks like it will stay for a long time.

Fat Guy

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1804
  • I make beer disappear. What's your superpower?
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #589 on: 12 August 2017, 15:25:33 »
I think it'd be easier to unass a BMP through those doors than a BTR through it's clown car doors.



Every time I see guys stumbling out of one of those, I immediately think "clown car".
"That's too much bacon."  - Said no one EVER!


Feenix74

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2356
  • Purveyor of Fine Miniature Pewter Armaments
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #590 on: 12 August 2017, 19:05:16 »
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

Incoming fire has the right of way.

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

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


                                   - excepts from Murphy's Laws of Combat

glitterboy2098

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6634
    • The Temple Grounds - My Roleplaying and History website
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #591 on: 12 August 2017, 20:21:12 »
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.

Liam's Ghost

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4326
  • My own childish bit of defiance
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #592 on: 12 August 2017, 20:32:11 »
Man, just the pictures of those russian APCs is enough to trigger claustrophobia. Everything about them screams "horrible way to die".
Good news is the lab boys say the symptoms of asbestos poisoning show an immediate latency of 44.6 years. So if you're thirty or over you're laughing. Worst case scenario you miss out on a few rounds of canasta, plus you've forwarded the cause of science by three centuries. I punch those numbers into my calculator, it makes a happy face.

(indirect accessory to the) Slayer of Monitors!

Feenix74

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2356
  • Purveyor of Fine Miniature Pewter Armaments
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #593 on: 12 August 2017, 20:42:54 »
Agree with you LG.





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 . . .)
Incoming fire has the right of way.

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

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


                                   - excepts from Murphy's Laws of Combat

DoctorMonkey

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1948
  • user briefly known as Khan of Clan Sex Panther
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #594 on: 13 August 2017, 10:01:48 »
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
Avatar stollen from spacebattles.com motivational posters thread

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

Feenix74

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2356
  • Purveyor of Fine Miniature Pewter Armaments
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #595 on: 13 August 2017, 10:40:48 »
Inconceivable!  :D
Incoming fire has the right of way.

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

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


                                   - excepts from Murphy's Laws of Combat

CDAT

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 117
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #596 on: 13 August 2017, 14:06:36 »
Inconceivable!  :D

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

BairdEC

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 18
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #597 on: 15 August 2017, 21:32:24 »
Agree with you LG.





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.

Fat Guy

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1804
  • I make beer disappear. What's your superpower?
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #598 on: 15 August 2017, 23:33:35 »
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.
"That's too much bacon."  - Said no one EVER!


ANS Kamas P81

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7968
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #599 on: 16 August 2017, 04:17:46 »
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.



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.