Author Topic: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man. (Read 199276 times)

grimlock1 · « **Reply #900 on:** 05 February 2019, 11:40:47 »

Quote from: marauder648 on 05 February 2019, 03:13:53

The one with the three tanks together is a trio of French St Charmond's their first tank. And the AV-7's in its bubble to try and prevent moisture from getting to her, she's an old lady and really any maintnenace now is purely preservative.

Bovington did get an AV-7 replica made though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztkKJUQB4rU

I wonder if modern machining tolerance, experience, and perhaps materials have made these replicas anymore reliable than the originals?

glitterboy2098 · « **Reply #901 on:** 05 February 2019, 15:21:40 »

they would almost have to be, given they'd have to meet modern safety standards in general.

grimlock1 · « **Reply #902 on:** 05 February 2019, 16:38:12 »

Quote from: glitterboy2098 on 05 February 2019, 15:21:40

they would almost have to be, given they'd have to meet modern safety standards in general.

I can't speak for over the pond, but OSHA is surprisingly specific in what they require and if it's not spelled out, it's not required. Many modern safety rules are put in place by the organizations, not imposed by the government.

While that AV-7 is not original, which would grandfather it, it's not a consumer product, nor would there be any attempt to make it street legal. As long as you stay away from legal definitions like "car" or "truck," or "tractor." It's not a "vehicle." It's a collection of parts, that just so happens to move about under it's own power.

ATF might take issue if the cannon was live.

DoctorMonkey · « **Reply #903 on:** 05 February 2019, 16:51:33 »

Quote from: grimlock1 on 05 February 2019, 16:38:12

I can't speak for over the pond, but OSHA is surprisingly specific in what they require and if it's not spelled out, it's not required. Many modern safety rules are put in place by the organizations, not imposed by the government.

While that AV-7 is not original, which would grandfather it, it's not a consumer product, nor would there be any attempt to make it street legal. As long as you stay away from legal definitions like "car" or "truck," or "tractor." It's not a "vehicle." It's a collection of parts, that just so happens to move about under it's own power.

ATF might take issue if the cannon was live.

The Tank Museum is in the middle of an army base

I suspect the Tank Museum's YouTube feed on their A7V may well give some details... it was in the shed when I last visited so I couldn't get up close

DoctorMonkey · « **Reply #904 on:** 05 February 2019, 16:57:28 »

Linky-link

https://youtu.be/YXO9VK1uyFs

There is a photo of several A7Vs together though

kato · « **Reply #905 on:** 05 February 2019, 17:12:04 »

The Panzermuseum at Munster also only has a A7V replica. It's set into an indoor WW1 trench warfare diorama.

English-language video on the history of the A7V (25 min) using the Munster replica for portrayal:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESKxi4EEDUQ
They go inside it at around 7:00.

The replica was built in the 80s. They claim it's "as close to accurate as possible based on existing sources". With "5% guesswork".

marauder648 · « **Reply #906 on:** 08 February 2019, 09:19:12 »

Seeing the footage of a P-39 being started up reminded me of this vid of a ISU-152 that had been sat outside of the better part of sixty odd years without any maintenance being recovered to be put on display somewhere. And once they basically fixed the batteries and did an oil change the damn thing still worked. That Soviet farm machinery engineering!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plbhXcjAPIk

Elmoth · « **Reply #907 on:** 08 February 2019, 10:45:24 »

Freaking cool1!!

Dave Talley · « **Reply #908 on:** 08 February 2019, 15:58:02 »

there is also a T 34 recovered from a lake where they drained and refueled it and it was able to start

Daryk · « **Reply #909 on:** 08 February 2019, 17:05:58 »

They sure don't make 'em like they used to... ::)

Matti · « **Reply #910 on:** 09 February 2019, 02:01:39 »

Quote from: Daryk on 08 February 2019, 17:05:58

They sure don't make 'em like they used to... ::)

I have seen piece of a video where is explained that Abrams tanks crippled in battle have been recovered, repaired, and upgraded. Or were you referring to T-90?

MoneyLovinOgre4Hire · « **Reply #911 on:** 09 February 2019, 02:04:18 »

I think Daryk was referring to the fact that a tank that spent half a century underwater was able to start running after receiving nothing beyond being drained and having its fluids replaced.

Matti · « **Reply #912 on:** 09 February 2019, 02:15:30 »

Quote from: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 09 February 2019, 02:04:18

I think Daryk was referring to the fact that a tank that spent half a century underwater was able to start running after receiving nothing beyond being drained and having its fluids replaced.

So water did not corrode batteries and their wiring? If true, then that's pretty damn impressive, for I have experience with cars and vehicles that have needed battery maintenance and replacements.

Empyrus · « **Reply #913 on:** 09 February 2019, 02:26:26 »

The tank in question was in anaerobic environment, in a bog. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34#Surviving_vehicles
Also the engine wasn't in working condition as it was.

Assuming that was what you were talking about.

Reckon anoxic lake bottom would be similar case. Sea water on the other hand...

Daryk · « **Reply #914 on:** 09 February 2019, 04:50:26 »

I was referring to both tanks (the T-34 and the ISU-152 posted by Marauder)… 8)

marauder648 · « **Reply #915 on:** 09 February 2019, 15:18:48 »

Orin J. · « **Reply #916 on:** 09 February 2019, 15:33:12 »

Shameful job parking, that.

glitterboy2098 · « **Reply #917 on:** 09 February 2019, 16:12:35 »

i am always amazed at how tiny those old tanks are.

Kidd · « **Reply #918 on:** 25 February 2019, 10:10:12 »

M1A2sepv3, or "M1A2C", at Yuma Proving Grounds

next to AMPV ambulance?

Kidd · « **Reply #919 on:** 04 March 2019, 15:41:55 »

Question: the 0.50-cal M2 Browning was around in WW2, as was the 12.7mm Dshk. Some of the lighter-skinned vehicles of the era could theoretically be penetrated by these guns.

Did it ever happen in combat?

Feenix74 · « **Reply #920 on:** 04 March 2019, 18:02:43 »

Well if you consider aerial vehicles, like Bf109s and Fw190s then yes plenty of combat kills of lighter-skinned vehicles during WW2 :D

Ruger · « **Reply #921 on:** 04 March 2019, 18:51:41 »

Quote from: Kidd on 04 March 2019, 15:41:55

Question: the 0.50-cal M2 Browning was around in WW2, as was the 12.7mm Dshk. Some of the lighter-skinned vehicles of the era could theoretically be penetrated by these guns.

Did it ever happen in combat?

Plenty of tales of strafe runs on trains, destroyers and the like...

Ruger

MoneyLovinOgre4Hire · « **Reply #922 on:** 04 March 2019, 20:23:38 »

I'm pretty sure I saw something mention them punching through the sides of the little tankettes that the Japanese were using.

I mean, it was confirmed that standard-issue American rifles could penetrate the armor over the engine block on a Type 95 so a .50 cal machine gun wouldn't have had a lot of trouble.

Dave Talley · « **Reply #923 on:** 05 March 2019, 00:35:05 »

basically any soft skin of course, but essentially any armored car or halftrack was dead meat, virtually any Japanese armor, Japanese destroyers or lighter ships were definitely able to be penetrated in many areas
in the ETO destroyers were better armored, tanks especially older models such as the panzer 3 and its variants, Panzer 1&2s,
on newer/heavier units such as panzer 4s, panthers and tigers, from most angles they were immune except for vision block hits and such, from higher angles such as strafing aircraft, engine decks, ventilation areas, external fuel and such were able to be damaged
now there are pilots who swear they were able to take out tanks by hitting the bellies, and there are films showing rounds bouncing off foads into tanks, but i have never heard of any after action report listing belly damage from 50 sized weapons

Kidd · « **Reply #924 on:** 05 March 2019, 03:36:48 »

Rheinmetall says they're ready to roll out a C-RAM/drone laser turret

Decades of imagined chrome-barreled death rays with fins and coils hanging off 'em every which way has left me feeling a tad underwhelmed by this webcamlike thingy

kato · « **Reply #925 on:** 05 March 2019, 10:39:45 »

Quote from: Kidd on 05 March 2019, 03:36:48

Rheinmetall says they're ready to roll out a C-RAM/drone laser turret

It's pretty much just a more compact version of the one they tested in 2012 against the same targets.

The original container version looked a whole lot more like MANTIS too - mostly because it was basically a MANTIS turret with the 35mm replaced by a drop-in multiple laser unit. Their main problem was that they didn't have any 20 kW modules, so they just jury-rigged a 30 kW version like this...

(for scale: the base is about 8' by 8')

DoctorMonkey · « **Reply #926 on:** 26 April 2019, 16:46:29 »

Dave Talley · « **Reply #927 on:** 26 April 2019, 20:11:29 »

https://m.facebook.com/groups/1702825809944254

this group has several members who volunteer or work at the various museums in UK

Orin J. · « **Reply #928 on:** 26 April 2019, 20:22:19 »

Quote from: Kidd on 05 March 2019, 03:36:48

Rheinmetall says they're ready to roll out a C-RAM/drone laser turret

Decades of imagined chrome-barreled death rays with fins and coils hanging off 'em every which way has left me feeling a tad underwhelmed by this webcamlike thingy

aww yes, one more step towards making a Zeus! the fanbase may have dismissed the embedded lens aperture style, but real life rewards my aesthetic once more!

beachhead1985 · « **Reply #929 on:** 26 April 2019, 20:35:25 »

Closer aned closer to the obsolescense of combat aircraft...