Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III

[worktroll]

From an Adeptus Mechanicus lecture on the pre-history of Imperial Armour:

While the Sherman superficially resembles Imperial designs, it has several disadvantages compared to the Leman Russ. Sloped plating is likely to deflect small arms munitions into nearby soldiers while proving ineffective at dispersing las-fire. Attacking the enemy with a cavalry sabre from the turret hatch would be all but impossible due to its awkward position, even if the crew drove the officer very close. Similarly, field simulations suggest that the treads would quickly become clogged after running over even a smallish squad of Aeldari Guardians.

[Weirdo]

"Relatively rare" ;D

[worktroll]

I confess, if I did join my nephew and slip over to the dark side, I'd be modding a Lee/Grant, imperial-style ...

[kato]

King Tigers of German Army in WW2 were more massive then Tanks today, with the Tank Destroyers based off the King Tiger were larger still, with a 128mm gun.

The 75.0t Leopard 2 PSO is (considerably) heavier than a 69.7t Tiger II - and cancelled after some prototypes built in favour of the current 62.5t Leopard 2A7V.

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

I think the Western tanks of today can match them once fully-loaded with ERA blocks, armour inserts, etc.

Maybe for the Tiger II, but at a listed mass of 71.7 metric tons the Jagdtiger tank destroyer is regarded as the heaviest land combat vehicle ever put into production.

[chanman]

Let's see what Wikipedia says.

M103 heavy tank, in service up to 1973, and weight isn't much different from Abrams




T-10 heavy tank, in service up to 1996




Centurion; a MBT as said




T-54 & T-55, as I understand it, are officially medium (weight class) tanks, but also fill the criteria for main battle tank (role)




PT-76 amphibious light tank is still in service




FV101 Scorpion looks whole lot like a light tank, but is officially a reconnaissance vehicle




And then are whole lot of wheeled armoured fighting vehicles that could be argued to be tanks with wheeled motive system...

The Panther 'medium' tank is just shy of the JS-2 in weight, and heavier than the M26 Pershing which was originally intended to be a heavy tank.

[Kidd]

Maybe for the Tiger II, but at a listed mass of 71.7 metric tons the Jagdtiger tank destroyer is regarded as the heaviest land combat vehicle ever put into production.

I wish a tread-head like CDAT could weigh in on this, but I suspect quoted figures are net of armor inserts. Wikipedia lists a fully loaded Challenger 2 at over 70 long tons though I can't find the source for this figure. And I'll lay odds that the M1A2 Sep V2 TUSK 2 is no lighter... just look at the amount of stuff hanging off it!

[I am Belch II]

The "Heavy" tank of the US was less then a medium tank of the Germans.

I wonder if the Sherman tank would of had a different reputation if they just would of put the 76mm gun on it first vs the short 75mm from the start.

[snewsom2997]

The "Heavy" tank of the US was less then a medium tank of the Germans.

I wonder if the Sherman tank would of had a different reputation if they just would of put the 76mm gun on it first vs the short 75mm from the start.

Well good old "The Burning Grave", "Ronson" and "Tommycooker", got the reputation of catching fire most of all. Which was a product of Inadequate Armor and too much Ammunition.

[Matti]

Well good old "The Burning Grave", "Ronson" and "Tommycooker", got the reputation of catching fire most of all. Which was a product of Inadequate Armor and too much Ammunition.

And much of those problems were fixed in later production runs (I presume M4A2 and later ones). Also Sherman has good number of hatches with springs for assist and those are located directly above the crew members. See yourself how fast Nicholas Moran, The Chieftain gets his ass out of it. Can't do that on T-34.

[I am Belch II]

I just always thought that about the M4 Sherman.  With the US not putting on the larger gun earlier for the Sherman following the Tank Destroyer Battalion doctering. The Sherman was great for the advance and moving forward thru Europe, the Gasoline engine over the diesel engine is a big flaw.

[sadlerbw]

...And I'll lay odds that the M1A2 Sep V2 TUSK 2 is no lighter... just look at the amount of stuff hanging off it!

Welp, the Marine's LCAC is allowed to operate in an 'overloaded' condition up to 75t for some percentage of its lifetime. The LCAC is also listed as capable of carrying a single M1, and nothing else, as one of its optional load configurations. That allowable overload is the only thing that lets it carry an M1 these days. I would take that to mean an M1 is likely not more than 75 tons, fully kitted out...at least US Marines-style. No idea how their add-ons and loadout might compare to other users, like the US Army. Either way...I'm pretty sure it is safe to call them 'heavy' tanks!

BTW: this picture is actually of a very nice model...but I think it looks fantastic, and the scale is accurate.

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

I just always thought that about the M4 Sherman.  With the US not putting on the larger gun earlier for the Sherman following the Tank Destroyer Battalion doctering. The Sherman was great for the advance and moving forward thru Europe, the Gasoline engine over the diesel engine is a big flaw.

Once the Shermans were switched over to wet ammo storage, the fire issues were largely fixed, so the gasoline engine doesn't seem to have been that big of a design flaw (Soviet tanks used diesel because it was better in sub-zero temperatures, not because of its reduced fire hazard).

As far as the 75mm vs the 76mm, the 76 was superior for anti-tank usage, but it had an inferior HE shell for use against bunkers and infantry formations.  By the time the Jumbo and Easy Eight rolled around, the 76mm was the standard but apparently it was common for several tanks in a platoon to replace them with 75mm guns in order to maintain anti-infantry capability.  And given that the most commonly encountered German vehicles were still Panzer IVs and Stugs, the 75mm's AP round was sufficient most of the time.  With Allied air superiority, they could also radio in a Thunderbolt on Tank Buster duty if they ran into something heavier.

[ANS Kamas P81]

Well good old "The Burning Grave", "Ronson" and "Tommycooker", got the reputation of catching fire most of all. Which was a product of Inadequate Armor and too much Ammunition.

Entirely untrue, actually.  Yes, they were petrol powered, but as far as armor goes the M4s were equal to their contemporary tanks and actually have the lowest deaths-per-crew in the war - impressive with five guys stuffed in that little thing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNjp_4jY8pY

[Fat Guy]

Ukraine’s Zhytomyr Armored Plant unveiled its new Strazh (Sentinel) fire support vehicle at the Arms and Security Exhibition 2017 in Kiev.

Strazh is based on a T-64 main battle tank and is designed to provide armoured forces with close-range support and overwhelming firepower against infantry units employing hand held anti-tank weapons. The design leverages experience gained by Ukrainian defence forces operating in the Donbass region, where significant numbers of T-64s have been lost in urban combat.

Its primary armament is a pair of 30 mm ZTM-2 automatic cannons mounted side-by-side, with two KT-7.62 machine guns in between them. Mounted on the top of the turret is a 30 mm KBA-117 automatic grenade-launcher as well as two pods of Bar’er-212 anti-tank guided missiles. The ZTM-2 cannons are Ukrainian produced versions of the 2A42, which have a dual-feed configuration and are said to be capable of defeating lightly armoured targets (such as a BTR-70) at 1,500 m and personnel at 4,000 m.

[kato]

They even put the BMPT moniker on their BMPT-turret clone?

Doesn't Uralvagonzavod have some sort of trademark for that?

[worktroll]

Entirely untrue, actually.  Yes, they were petrol powered, but as far as armor goes the M4s were equal to their contemporary tanks and actually have the lowest deaths-per-crew in the war - impressive with five guys stuffed in that little thing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNjp_4jY8pY

Will disagree with "equal to their contemporary tanks". This may have been true in 1941-42 - the M4A1 was certainly comprable in terms of protection and firepower with the short-barreled Panzer IVs used in Africa - but by 1944 they were considerably inferior to designs which had evolved in the crucible of the Ostfront.

The Sherman's "brew up" reputation came more from the usual consequences of any AFV being massively penetrated. The US (and largely the British too) had ignored the rapid pace of AFV development the Germans and Russians had been making, and performance in North Africa was considered to be more than adequate. But the short-barreled 75mm gun was incapable of penetrating Panzer IVs except at point-blank range or from the flank/rear, and in most cases incapable of penetrating Tigers at any range.

The American refusal to consider more powerful AT guns was foolish, but ultimately irrelevant - the British 17pdr was a superb gun, enhanced when the first HVAP rounds were issued, but towed guns ain't so useful in attack. The 17pdrs did contribute magnificently whenever a German counter-attack happened in front of them.

Which then leads to the Sherman Firefly with the 17pdr, and the "Easy Eight" models with the high-vee 76mm guns. They then had firepower equalling the Panzer IVs and Panthers, and more protection. The Sherman Jumbo had massive protection, but wasn't used primarily for tank killing. All Shermans had several significant advantages over enemy designs - superior reliability, better ergonomics, improved periscopes, and towards the end of the war and in Korea better optics. Of course, superior numbers too.

The "Easy Eight" Shermans fought well in Korea - in many cases far more usefully than the "superior" Pershings - and were easily equal to T-34/85s in terms of protection & firepower, while superior in most other factors. But the Shermans rolling into Normandy were not "equal to contemporary designs" at that time & place, which is where they faced the most equal opposition.

IMHO, of course - happy to have a good, respectful debate O0

W.

[glitterboy2098]

to be fair, America did invest in better guns.. they just put them on dedicated Tank Destroyers like the M10 and the later M18 and M36, and left the M4's in a more Infantry Support role. The M4 wasn't originally designed for that role, but they proved reasonably adept at it.

[monbvol]

And the propensity for Shermans to catch fire has always been a bit overstated as well as how ineffective even the 75 was supposed to be against other tanks.  Even the Tiger.

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

Yeah, the Tiger's flat body meant that penetration was relatively easy.  It was the Tiger II's improved, sloped armor that the 75mm couldn't pen, and the US strategic response was to (correctly) assume that German didn't have the industrial capacity to churn out Tiger IIs in enough numbers to make a difference.  Sucked for American tank crews that encountered them, though.

[ColBosch]

I wish a tread-head like CDAT could weigh in on this, but I suspect quoted figures are net of armor inserts. Wikipedia lists a fully loaded Challenger 2 at over 70 long tons though I can't find the source for this figure. And I'll lay odds that the M1A2 Sep V2 TUSK 2 is no lighter... just look at the amount of stuff hanging off it!

The term "heavy tank" is obsolete, and the entire class of heavy tanks have been replaced with MBTs. In this case, it's because doctrine and classification followed technological advances. Improved armor, weapons, computers, and power plants meant that armies could have a one-design solution to their tank needs: a single well-armored machine, with a powerful cannon and bristling with machine guns that could engage and destroy anything else on the battlefield from infantry to other tanks, and mobile enough to set the pace of combat.

The sheer mass and cost of these tanks was irrelevant for the roles they were intended. NATO and the Warsaw Pact had plenty of time to position their forces, and could use leisurely methods - trains and ships, near-suicide in open warfare - to get them in place. The burgeoning wealth of the mid- to late-20 Century meant that the big nations didn't have to compromise with lighter tanks to fill out their forces, and could concentrate on producing thousands of cutting-edge MBTs.

Things have changed. There is still tension among the major nations, but it is considered unlikely to erupt into full-scale warfare. Modern battlefields are sharply asymmetrical, often pitting rich, professional militaries against poor, barely-trained opponents. Conflict is most likely to erupt in underdeveloped, often isolated, regions. While MBTs are no less effective than ever, it is difficult to deploy them without quite some advance warning.

Into this new paradigm, lighter armored vehicles are finding a new lease on life. They don't have to mount the armor and guns of a true MBT, as they will not be facing other tanks. Ideally, they will also be easier to move using fast assets like jumbo jets. I don't know if they will be classified as "light" or "medium" tanks or given a new classification. I suspect the latter, to more properly embrace their new roles.

[DaveMac]

I wish a tread-head like CDAT could weigh in on this, but I suspect quoted figures are net of armor inserts. Wikipedia lists a fully loaded Challenger 2 at over 70 long tons though I can't find the source for this figure. And I'll lay odds that the M1A2 Sep V2 TUSK 2 is no lighter... just look at the amount of stuff hanging off it!

According to http://www.army.mod.uk/equipment/23236.aspx

Combat weight of Challenger II is 62.5t

[DoctorMonkey]

Into this new paradigm, lighter armored vehicles are finding a new lease on life. They don't have to mount the armor and guns of a true MBT, as they will not be facing other tanks. Ideally, they will also be easier to move using fast assets like jumbo jets. I don't know if they will be classified as "light" or "medium" tanks or given a new classification. I suspect the latter, to more properly embrace their new roles.

Anyone want to guess on the silly name(s) that will be generated? Do people think they will go with a "sexy" acronym name? Probably with the word "expeditionary" in it.

[The Eagle]

The term "medium forces" is what we were using when I left the service in 2012, in this case specifically meaning Stryker-equipped brigades. 

[Kidd]

Anyone want to guess on the silly name(s) that will be generated? Do people think they will go with a "sexy" acronym name? Probably with the word "expeditionary" in it.

The US program is named Mobile Protected Firepower ::)

And the project head said this: “I don’t want to say it’s a light tank, but it’s kind of like a light tank."

[kato]

Germany and France call their Leopard/Leclerc successor "Main Ground Combat System" (MGCS) - although that won't be a light airmobile tank ;-)

Neither of us do light tanks in the future interestingly. France is replacing its current big-gun light carriers with a 25-ton "Armored Reconnaissance and Combat Vehicle" (EBRC) armed with a 40mm CTA gun and anti-tank missiles that will keep filling their "light cavalry" role. The name oddly harks back to an equivalent "Armored Reconnaissance Vehicle" (EBR) from the 50s that despite lacking that "C" in the designation still carried a 75mm gun...

[DoctorMonkey]

as Britain is only just getting around to replacing their 1960s CVR(T) not-a-light-tank-really-it's-just-like-a-tank-but-lighter they don't seem to be investing thought in a replacement for the Challenger 2

[Fat Guy]

The US program is named Mobile Protected Firepower ::)

And the project head said this: “I don’t want to say it’s a light tank, but it’s kind of like a light tank."

And here's a prototype unveiled last year:

[kato]

Meh, we don't even have vaporware artwork for MGCS yet - so far they've been using a Leopard Revolution as a stand-in in pictures.
(which oddly enough is a Rheinmetall upgrade - but KMW is designing MGCS with Nexter, not Rheinmetall)

[Matti]

Into this new paradigm, lighter armored vehicles are finding a new lease on life. They don't have to mount the armor and guns of a true MBT, as they will not be facing other tanks. Ideally, they will also be easier to move using fast assets like jumbo jets. I don't know if they will be classified as "light" or "medium" tanks or given a new classification. I suspect the latter, to more properly embrace their new roles.

How about:
MRAP = Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected (vehicle)
ICV = Infantry Carrier Vehicle
IMV = Infantry Mobility Vehicle
AMV = Armoured Modular Vehicle
Reconnaissance vehicle