Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.

[Matti]

Things told here reminded me about something someone had told in another forum (MegaMekNET one):

But what real world military wouldn't have internal troublemakers, incompetent generals, and plain *****? That's the way of life, in game or out.

Censored, because I have got a warning before for this quote.

That's a training range. And believe it or not, but tank cannons suck for killing infantry. In a situation like that, where the driver is accelerating and juking like mad to try to dodge the missile - it probably won't work, but it's better than nothing - you are not going to be able to put a round on a bunch of guys who definitely ran off as soon as the Javelin cleared the tube. Fire-and-forget are scary to tankers.

Better not to expose side profile while juking. Otherwise there can be other tanks around, mortars, howitzers, and AA guns within range and LOS.

[edit]
I have read from somewhere that tank crews can get scared of AA guns and bail out even when tank has suffered no damage besides scratched camo paint.

[CDAT]

That's a training range. And believe it or not, but tank cannons suck for killing infantry. In a situation like that, where the driver is accelerating and juking like mad to try to dodge the missile - it probably won't work, but it's better than nothing - you are not going to be able to put a round on a bunch of guys who definitely ran off as soon as the Javelin cleared the tube. Fire-and-forget are scary to tankers.

Well that depends on the round, the MPAT and Canister rounds are between quite decent to very good, the standard Anti-Armor rounds including the original HEAT are not falling someplace between sucks the big one, to just bad.

Best way to deal with the IR Fire and Forget in a simplified format.
One have a well trained crew as you have seconds to get this done or you are dead.
Two pop your IR smoke grenades, if you only have standard smoke grenades loaded you are probably dead.
Three back into the IR Smoke and hope the missile misses when it losses lock on.

[CDAT]

I have read from somewhere that tank crews can get scared of AA guns and bail out even when tank has suffered no damage besides scratched camo paint.

To me this is one of the things that separates professional/highly trained tank crews from rest. When I was still in and a tanker, we knew that we were not safe from every weapon out there, however short of the tank being on fire (and not ever 100% with that) we would stick with the tank during the fight. We had trust in our tank and the rest of the crew, also we can influence the battle in the tank, but out side not so much.

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

IIRC, Germany suffered from that issue late in World War 2: there's at least one report of Shermans encounter a Jagdtiger (which had enough frontal armor that it was impervious to any Allied anti-tang gun) that panicked and turned to run as soon as they started shooting it, allowing them to hit its side and rear armor and score a kill.

[ColBosch]

Well that depends on the round, the MPAT and Canister rounds are between quite decent to very good, the standard Anti-Armor rounds including the original HEAT are not falling someplace between sucks the big one, to just bad.

Best way to deal with the IR Fire and Forget in a simplified format.
One have a well trained crew as you have seconds to get this done or you are dead.
Two pop your IR smoke grenades, if you only have standard smoke grenades loaded you are probably dead.
Three back into the IR Smoke and hope the missile misses when it losses lock on.

Yeah, I was trained to pop smoke, but to charge forward towards the shooter, laying down fire with the MGs. We didn't get much training on the MPAT; it was still relatively new, and we assumed we'd be carrying a mix of HEAT and Sabot.

[CDAT]

Yeah, I was trained to pop smoke, but to charge forward towards the shooter, laying down fire with the MGs. We didn't get much training on the MPAT; it was still relatively new, and we assumed we'd be carrying a mix of HEAT and Sabot.

Might just have been difference in time? I was trained that you want to have a sudden change in the direction of movement, but it is just a temporary. Pop the smoke, back into it to throw off the aim of anyone else aiming at the unit, and the IR Smoke to break the current lock. Then yes like you said charge forward. It is amazing how much fire one tank can put out, let alone a well trained platoon.

[DoctorMonkey]

A good sergeant major shouldn't need to shout, a look of disappointment should be enough to have one feel very very sad


Also, I have been taught to praise in public and admonish in private but do sometimes find myself in arguments I don't want to be in, in public places - simply ending up in that situation is a fail


Speaking of fails, here is what is probably the worst tank ever - the A38 Valiant, so bad even the British Army of WW2 wouldn't put it into production and look at the stuff they did put into production

[HobbesHurlbut]

Speaking of fails, here is what is probably the worst tank ever - the A38 Valiant, so bad even the British Army of WW2 wouldn't put it into production and look at the stuff they did put into production

You have to explain why it was so bad.

[ColBosch]

You have to explain why it was so bad.

I'll let Lindybeige and The Chieftain explain: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRW3N7GmsBA

[Daryk]

Lindybeige has some very interesting stuff... just watched his "Napoleon's Greatest Foe" video, which was amusing and informative.

[marauder648]

Yeah Lindy can be very interesting and funny, sure some of his stuff is a bit...shall we say Rule 4 topical, and he's quite stating in his opinions on certain things, this aside, he's a good watch

[beachhead1985]

Let's not use

toxic masculinity

This term on the forum, please. Happy to explain why over PM.

Here is the most recent spec sheet from 6-Commando; an interesting webcomic (when it updates) with shades of Bolo. The spec sheets do a good job of harkening back to similar documents that used to be common as mail-in bonuses and such for kids in the 90s.

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

Looked up the stats on the Valiant after watching that video.

Wow.  The reason they stopped the road test after 13 miles?  The driver was already exhausted due to how difficult the controls were.

[PsihoKekec]

I guess that after Covenanter they were not willing to put up with such nonsense anymore.

[ANS Kamas P81]

I had not heard about this until now, and it's from 2016, so it may be old news to you guys.  Either way, grandpa is getting one big bad cane to chase kids off his lawn.

https://youtu.be/1wwUTEkRano

Raytheon's got a SLEP going on the thing that guts the tank, puts a 950hp diesel in, an all-electric turret drive system, an armor improvement with sideskirts and something bolt-on on the nose, and M1A1 electronics and fire control...though it seems odd to use that for an M60.  Oh wait they're putting a Rheinmetall L44 in it to use that fire control package.

Somewhere in the high heavens, I think George is nodding his head in approval.

[glitterboy2098]

Who still uses M60's? Curious who the main market that upgrade is for, given that the U.S. Doesn't have any in service anymore, that I know of.

Looks like a useful upgrade though.

[ANS Kamas P81]

Grabbed off the Wikipedia, looks like Egypt, Turkey, and Taiwan are major users of the M60A3 series, a lot of other countries use them in smaller numbers as well. 

[Sharpnel]

Taiwan and Egypt might be the primary buyers of this kit. Turkey seems to be ready to replace them with their newer homemade stuff.

[ANS Kamas P81]

Yeah, I'm going to peek over the Rule 4 sign and suggest this upgrade might not be offered to the Turks, aaaaand leave it at that.

Still a hell of an upgrade, though I have to wonder if the armor's really worth it anymore.  Steel just doesn't cut it anymore, even on second-rate battlefields.  The plethora of antiarmor weapons built to kill composite-armored systems makes me wonder if this is a dead end.  After all, you're hauling around a hell of a lot of metal that just isn't quite worth it, I'd think.  Unless they put on some serious ERA and an APS, I think it might just be too heavy of a tank in the end.

[Kidd]

The Turks are out of the picture, also because their M60 fleet is being upgraded to the Magach 7 standard by the Israelis.

Wiki shows a lot of potential buyers, especially the UAE. But I concur that the lack of an APS is an issue.

[Matti]

Still a hell of an upgrade, though I have to wonder if the armor's really worth it anymore.  Steel just doesn't cut it anymore, even on second-rate battlefields.

Is it any worse than refitted T-55?

[Weirdo]

If steel is no good any more, I wonder how useful it might be to remove much of the armor from old tanks, turning them into direct-fire fire support units with tactics that don't try to pretend that they're still armored vehicles.

Assuming pulling armor like that is even structurally possible, would the weight reduction lead to any boost in speed or terrain handling?

[ANS Kamas P81]

Same basic thing.  I mean, compare it to the much thinner hulls of the Leopards and AMX-30s that the Germans and French made.  It's giving up a lot of weight in armor for, what these days, really isn't all that useful unless it's dealing with third-rate threats.  And with the rest of the upgrade, the fire control and the 120mm, that's definitely not something you need with third-rate threats.

Unless I'm way off, but the M60's armor is almost twice as thick as the Leopard 1 (for example) and I'm just not seeing a use for that extra weight.  It's not like you can unbolt a few armor panels; it's all part of the structure.  Five to seven inches in the old days, at those slopes, was likely enough to handle incoming fire, but these days...I dunno.  This thing's got the gun and electronics to fight on a modern field, it just seems an odd choice.

Then again there's still a zillion of them out there, and anything's better than nothing.

[CDAT]

I was told years ago when I was a Specialist that the M60 with it extra height over the M1 actually had a better thermal and ballistic computer (more room for it), and with this it was considered probably one of the best tanks in the world for defensive engagements. When you are fighting from prepared positions armor is less of much of a concern (note did not say none, just less) so if the fire control is upgraded along with the weapon and such it could make a very effective tank to be used against those who only have light armor or in the defense.

[Cannonshop]

funny thing: when was the last time a major tank battle happened between forces of equal technology?

Even 73-easting was a battle involving a twenty-some-odd year difference in tech levels, to get to a situation where the tech is comparable, you have to go all the way back to the  iran/iraq war of the 1980s.

and even there, it's not really a comparable matchup because you had a huge spread of capability (era wise) on both sides.

the 'obsolete steel' armor is still relevant and effective, given the likely opponents-why? because a top-down hit (or bottom up, as in the case with popular IED designs current to the present era) will still kill an Abrams.

which is pretty much the toughest armored vee out there, and yet, some of the 'improvised' adaptations (Slat armor, etc.) seem to narrow the field of 'effective anti-armor' weapons even when applied to third-hand surplus T-55s, Centurions, and the like.

The Perfect is the bane of the good enough. An upgraded, up-gunned M-60 is probably more than enough tank for facing anyone but the U.S. army, because even the U.S Army faces things that kill its best tanks handily at a fraction of the cost-but those are much narrower choices-fewer options that work, see?

OTOH, the old Patton design is relatively fuel efficient (compared to turbine powered vehicles) and has a decent amount of armor against the most probable opposition.  Moreso if you improve the secondary protection systems, or update the armor (Magach being a good example here).

Since World War Two, with very few exceptions, the winner of a tank-on-tank is going to be the guy who gets his shot off first.  Tank-on-infantry has always been questionable.  There were Technicals killing tanks with early wire-guided missiles, recoilless rifles, etc etc. since 1948, the cold war for a while thought Tanks would become obsolete with the invention and proliferation of shaped charges and missiles-and yet, theyr'e still a relevant force on the battlefield, while tank-busting helicopters have become somewhat less of a replacement with the proliferation of good AA shoulder fired missiles, better field detection, and improved AAA systems.

In considering all out war scenarios, it's kind of important to remember that teh top-tier powers are pretty averse to dying, which means they're not going to (voluntarily) go to the point of pulling out the stops WWII style-which means matchups are going to be first-tier powers against third tier, or two third tier powers going at it client-style.

because nobody wants to be extinct.

as for 'obsolescence' being a factor let me remind you of something...



and

were still plenty effective in 1973, even up against

a tank that was 20 years newer at the time, with a significantly better armoring and hull, and with guided antitank missile support.  strategy and tactics still matter more than raw technology.

[Cannonshop]

I was told years ago when I was a Specialist that the M60 with it extra height over the M1 actually had a better thermal and ballistic computer (more room for it), and with this it was considered probably one of the best tanks in the world for defensive engagements. When you are fighting from prepared positions armor is less of much of a concern (note did not say none, just less) so if the fire control is upgraded along with the weapon and such it could make a very effective tank to be used against those who only have light armor or in the defense.

there's also the question of gun depression and fighting from hull-down or reverse-slope positions.  but the biggie is still that "the tank that shoots first usually wins" when guns are roughly equal in tech level.

[ANS Kamas P81]

Pretty good points all-round, Cannonshop, I just...with the kinds of threats out there (including the rapid proliferation of TOW launchers all around the world) I don't see the extra tonnage invested in steel to be worth it, compared to a lighter, faster, more mobile system.  There's a lot of first-tier antitank stuff out there even in third-tier conflicts; there's been more than a few videos of higher quality Russian stuff getting, if not taken out, at least neutralized in the Syrian conflict.  Just seems to me like 'armor' is an all-in or all-out thing these days.

[Kidd]

Besides, 90mm and 105mm guns still abound in large numbers. Thin out the armour further and those guns start threatening you.

[Cannonshop]

Pretty good points all-round, Cannonshop, I just...with the kinds of threats out there (including the rapid proliferation of TOW launchers all around the world) I don't see the extra tonnage invested in steel to be worth it, compared to a lighter, faster, more mobile system.  There's a lot of first-tier antitank stuff out there even in third-tier conflicts; there's been more than a few videos of higher quality Russian stuff getting, if not taken out, at least neutralized in the Syrian conflict.  Just seems to me like 'armor' is an all-in or all-out thing these days.

speed isn't protection though.  Speed of engagement is protection, but ground speed, to be viable as a defense, you need to be clocking high double-digits (over sixty to seventy MPH) before you can outrun a gunner in a fixed position.

and even then, you're not gonna do it against guided missiles.  The main benefit of 'fast chassis' is to get in close to your opponent or get around his flank quicker, and the 'light' chassis like Striker stll can't do that any better than a track except in terms of moving more quietly (Tyres are quieter than tracks...)

at the cost of terrains it can handle.  Most of the tracks out there exert less ground pressure than a man on foot, giving them options for terrain crossing that your wheeled vehicles don't have, which is a form of speed, in bad terrain.

The push for light wheeled armor has more to do with maintenance and operating costs than capability.  (It does, in fact, cost less to upkeep an 8x8 wheeled vehicle than your average tracked tank, and it's easier to do it too.)

but speed is NOT protection.  Protection is protection.  Steel works fine against 99% of what you're facing even with the proliferation of wire-guided missiles since the 1960s, (this is because those are optically tracked and guided, thus relatively slow.  the gunner 'flies' the missile into the tank, which is a daunting task even for TRAINED operators, proliferation of gear doesn't equate to the users being any better than the lightly/barely trained conscripts they are.)

I'm reminded of a story told around the cooler about some scary incidents involving american advisors and a client state that will remain nameless (rule 4).

The locals fired their TOW, and cheered-letting go of the controls and the missile almost landed on the firing position, instead of the target hulk down-range.

speed wouldn't have helped in that situation, with a competent operator, but most of the users aren't competent, and people get LESS competent in actual combat with their adrenal glands raging and incoming fire.

[Ruger]

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a22822532/russian-tank-flips-over-kursk/

 :o

Ruger