Author Topic: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man. (Read 198989 times)

marauder648 · « **Reply #300 on:** 10 June 2018, 03:44:52 »

I've always loved the look of multi-turreted tanks, even if the idea for them was basically guff.

DoctorMonkey · « **Reply #301 on:** 10 June 2018, 07:01:50 »

another multi turret tank

Daryk · « **Reply #302 on:** 10 June 2018, 07:27:51 »

Did you mean to insert the same picture twice? ???

DoctorMonkey · « **Reply #303 on:** 10 June 2018, 07:32:29 »

Quote from: Daryk on 10 June 2018, 07:27:51

Did you mean to insert the same picture twice? ???

No

and my photo of one of these from the Tank Museum is the wrong size/format to upload on here

I am Belch II · « **Reply #304 on:** 10 June 2018, 08:38:57 »

The multi turret reminds me of the T-35 Russian tank, with the multiple turrets and multiple sized weapon.
Its the closest to the Land Dreadnought design that went into service.

Daryk · « **Reply #305 on:** 10 June 2018, 09:33:11 »

Does that thing have four or five turrets??

Sabelkatten · « **Reply #306 on:** 10 June 2018, 09:40:57 »

Quote from: I am Belch II on 10 June 2018, 08:38:57

The multi turret reminds me of the T-35 Russian tank, with the multiple turrets and multiple sized weapon.
Its the closest to the Land Dreadnought design that went into service.

At the time they were conceived multi-turret tanks weren't such a bad idea. However the technology advanced much to fast for them...

-Engines and suspension weren't all that reliable, so you wasn't terribly fast and pretty much had to work with (and against) infantry.
-AT guns were still in their infancy, so heavy armor wasn't a high priority.
-Due to said low speed and infantry you wanted guns in several directions.
-Due to said lack of AT guns there wasn't much that could be used against both infantry/bunkers and against AFVs.

All those problems were essentially solved by the mid-30s, but enough people were already sold on the idea.

Quote from: Daryk on 10 June 2018, 09:33:11

Does that thing have four or five turrets??

5: HE gun in the middle, two AT gun and two MG turrets.

I am Belch II · « **Reply #307 on:** 10 June 2018, 10:25:48 »

Quote from: Sabelkatten on 10 June 2018, 09:40:57

At the time they were conceived multi-turret tanks weren't such a bad idea. However the technology advanced much to fast for them...

-Engines and suspension weren't all that reliable, so you wasn't terribly fast and pretty much had to work with (and against) infantry.
-AT guns were still in their infancy, so heavy armor wasn't a high priority.
-Due to said low speed and infantry you wanted guns in several directions.
-Due to said lack of AT guns there wasn't much that could be used against both infantry/bunkers and against AFVs.

All those problems were essentially solved by the mid-30s, but enough people were already sold on the idea.
5: HE gun in the middle, two AT gun and two MG turrets.

Just like so many things out there. Look really cool and scary but when it came down to a battlefield application....useless. Its the sci-fi fantasy in me that would love to see a land battleship or something in the like in real life.

DoctorMonkey · « **Reply #308 on:** 10 June 2018, 10:32:40 »

I guess technology and doctrine also killed the multi-turret tank - with faster tanks and faster turret traverse you didn't need to have the guns already facing each side and you could break away from infantry. Meanwhile the doctrine lesson(s) that tanks need support from infantry and artillery and engineers etc to be most effective rather than deploying them on their own - from what I have heard of what is happening in the Middle East at the moment it sounds as though that lesson keeps on needing to be re-learned by people.

Kidd · « **Reply #309 on:** 10 June 2018, 10:41:57 »

The O.G. DropShip - aka an LST landing an M4 Sherman

DoctorMonkey · « **Reply #310 on:** 10 June 2018, 10:54:42 »

Quote from: Kidd on 10 June 2018, 10:41:57

The O.G. DropShip - aka an LST landing an M4 Sherman

Would launching DD Shermans be akin to a hot drop or orbital insertion?

Charlie 6 · « **Reply #311 on:** 10 June 2018, 13:56:10 »

Quote from: DoctorMonkey on 10 June 2018, 10:54:42

Would launching DD Shermans be akin to a hot drop or orbital insertion?

Whichever is closer to the ground.

MoneyLovinOgre4Hire · « **Reply #312 on:** 10 June 2018, 14:01:10 »

How far from the beach are they being launched?

Kidd · « **Reply #313 on:** 10 June 2018, 14:01:57 »

Quote from: Charlie 6 on 10 June 2018, 13:56:10

Whichever is closer to the ground.

Ah, but is ground the seabed or the beach now?

IMHO DD Shermans is hot drop. Parachuting tanks is orbital insertion.

HobbesHurlbut · « **Reply #314 on:** 10 June 2018, 14:39:25 »

In D-Day, the DD Shermans were deployed within 6000 yards of the beach.

worktroll · « **Reply #315 on:** 10 June 2018, 14:43:26 »

Quote from: DoctorMonkey on 10 June 2018, 10:54:42

Would launching DD Shermans be akin to a hot drop or orbital insertion?

Hot drop. This is prepping for orbital insertion:

DoctorMonkey · « **Reply #316 on:** 10 June 2018, 14:48:09 »

Glider delivered tanks - the main problem wasn't the weight of the tank but the giant balls of the crew of the glider

Matti · « **Reply #317 on:** 10 June 2018, 14:59:39 »

Quote from: DoctorMonkey on 10 June 2018, 14:48:09

Glider delivered tanks - the main problem wasn't the weight of the tank but the giant balls of the crew of the glider

"No guts, no galaxy"

VhenRa · « **Reply #318 on:** 11 June 2018, 01:15:59 »

Quote from: DoctorMonkey on 10 June 2018, 01:52:16

That's an auto-loader issue rather than an ammunition issue isn't it?

The separate ammunition allows it to be fitted into different "safe" stores and the changes needed to the ammunition handling and storage are one of the main reasons given for not changing the Challenger 2 to a smoothbore 120mm gun

I have certainly not heard anything about the two piece ammunition being a reason for the British tanks having a slower rate of fire than the Leopard 2 or M1s

What I don't know (at all) is how "safe" the French LeClerc's auto-loader is compared with the Russian-style designs in your animation in terms of the ammunition storage, handling etc

It's the Russian caracel layout. With that... you can't fit CASE, sorry, blowout panels.

kato · « **Reply #319 on:** 11 June 2018, 05:32:41 »

The Leclerc autoloader sits in the rear turret extension same as the ready ammunition bunkers in e.g. Abrams and Leopard, and loads horizontally. There are blowout panels fitted above this magazine. The ammunition within it is on a conveyor belt that shifts left and right to present the next round of chosen type to the loading tray.

The autoloader of the South Korean K2 uses the same design principle and looks pretty much the same when taken out of the turret. The design is pretty much fixed to certain external dimensions of the ammunition.

marauder648 · « **Reply #320 on:** 11 June 2018, 07:16:32 »

RE the T-35 tank, its freaking HUGE

The Eagle · « **Reply #321 on:** 11 June 2018, 21:03:44 »

Quote from: DoctorMonkey on 10 June 2018, 14:48:09

Glider delivered tanks - the main problem wasn't the weight of the tank but the giant balls of the crew of the glider

Basically. Those Tetrachs the Brits delivered via glider were glorified moving targets for German armor in Normandy; even with Littlejohn squeezebores, they had a hard time punching Pz. IVs and just scratched the armor on the cats.

DoctorMonkey · « **Reply #322 on:** 12 June 2018, 01:28:16 »

Quote from: The Eagle on 11 June 2018, 21:03:44

Basically. Those Tetrachs the Brits delivered via glider were glorified moving targets for German armor in Normandy; even with Littlejohn squeezebores, they had a hard time punching Pz. IVs and just scratched the armor on the cats.

The Besa MG was probably more use as it was really a self propelled lightly armoured machine gun, I'm not sure how many Tetrarchs deployed with the 2 pounder (40mm) and how many with the 3-inch "close support" howitzer

Kidd · « **Reply #323 on:** 12 June 2018, 01:42:21 »

Quote from: The Eagle on 11 June 2018, 21:03:44

Basically. Those Tetrachs the Brits delivered via glider were glorified moving targets for German armor in Normandy; even with Littlejohn squeezebores, they had a hard time punching Pz. IVs and just scratched the armor on the cats.

All like, ten or so of them anyway.

DoctorMonkey · « **Reply #324 on:** 12 June 2018, 01:47:26 »

Quote from: Kidd on 12 June 2018, 01:42:21

All like, ten or so of them anyway.

My understanding of the doctrine was that some time before 1944 the British armour had shifted light tanks down in importance and they really were just used for reconnaissance rather than direct action

I think it is a continuation of that which led to the Scimitar and similar family being referred to as Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance (Tracked) rather than light tanks post-War

MoneyLovinOgre4Hire · « **Reply #325 on:** 12 June 2018, 11:59:40 »

Quote from: DoctorMonkey on 12 June 2018, 01:47:26

My understanding of the doctrine was that some time before 1944 the British armour had shifted light tanks down in importance and they really were just used for reconnaissance rather than direct action

I think that was true of most nations by then, as light tanks were shown to be too poorly armed and armored to be effective in heavy fighting.

Kidd · « **Reply #326 on:** 12 June 2018, 12:31:13 »

I meant that there werent that many produced to start with, even less that actually were sent off in the gliders, and barely two handfuls that survived the landings to fire at the enemy.

Kidd · « **Reply #327 on:** 14 June 2018, 14:54:30 »

Does anybody (cough Kato) know what's the story behind this? Leclerc turret on a Leopard body.

kato · « **Reply #328 on:** 14 June 2018, 16:49:02 »

It's a demonstrator project intended to show that KNDS - the merger of KMW and Nexter - can produce a viable battle tank on their own that embodies technologies from both sides... and one that works without any contribution from competitor Rheinmetall.

Supposed benefit is that you can uparmor it quite a bit more since the Leclerc turret weighs 6 tons less than the Leo 2A7 turret that the chassis is specced for. Or that, without that, you get a tank that isn't as anemic as the Leclerc but still comes in at under 60 tons (... empty).

ANS Kamas P81 · « **Reply #329 on:** 23 June 2018, 11:38:47 »

It's got thick steel, an engine, and a gun. I suppose it's gonna have at least some modicum of effectiveness, as long as it doesn't get noticed by its grandkids. Definition of "stupid but works" perhaps?