Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III

[The Eagle]

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?

[Daryk]

I did miss those... I wonder if Thunderbolts can be done as OS launchers...

[Liam's Ghost]

If it's so Spetznatz, can it do a backflip tomahawk throw?  :P

[worktroll]

More like a Gauss Rifle, two RAC-2s, and a Magshot.

With more spike!

[Kidd]

Not that amazingly far-fetched, considering the MBT-70 that could have been also mounted an autocannon secondary weapon...

If it's so Spetznatz, can it do a backflip tomahawk throw?  :P

Yes, but only after it transforms into this guy:

[Sabelkatten]

Strv2000 (T140/40) (page in Swedish) 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.

[DoctorMonkey]

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

[CDAT]

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.

[ANS Kamas P81]

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.

Slovak setup, never got bought or went into production past a few prototypes with ERA as well as the guns.

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

That looks like something Hasbro would design.

[glitterboy2098]

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.

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.


IIRC, both are based off field mods the soviets tried during the early Chechnya conflicts.

[marauder648]

A Matilda I Infantry Tank next to its last evolutionary descendant the Black Prince Infantry Tank, itself based on the Churchill.

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

Wasn't the Black Prince just a Churchill VII with a Centurion turret?

[The Eagle]

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.

[DoctorMonkey]

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

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

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.

[marauder648]

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.

[Feenix74]

Speaking of Centurion tanks, here is the one on display at the Australian War Memorial in Canberra.

[marauder648]

Didn't the Auzzies nuke one of their tanks and then keep it in service afterwards?

[Simon Landmine]

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 ...

[Feenix74]

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

[marauder648]

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.

[HobbesHurlbut]

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.

[marauder648]

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. 

[HobbesHurlbut]

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.

[marauder648]

Aye the III's growth wasn't quite so much as the IV which was far more adaptable. :)

[Kidd]

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.

[Simon Landmine]

I have to disagree here, for the time the 2lber gun was a very very good AT weapon.

Fair point.

[Arkansas Warrior]

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.

[Dave Talley]

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