Tank puns are best puns. And starting this off with...a 37mm BRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPmonster!What the heck is that?
Can I join the pun too?
What the heck is that?
Is that a movie prop or something?
As for the T249, well, let's just say that the M247 Sergeant York beat it. And you know what a wonderful platform THAT was.
No, I don't. Nobody does. Because it was trash garbage. ;D
Now, now. That's uncalled for. it's rude to insult garbage by comparing it to the Sgt. York system.
:-)
A dumpster fire, covered in bees.That it's still trying to shoot down.
Tank puns are best puns. And starting this off with...a 37mm BRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPmonster!very neat looking
Sure everyone knows about these, but maybe not, and they're pretty interesting.I have watched more Nicholas Moran "The Chieftain". But Mr. Fletcher's comment about British Army's decision regarding Vickers E is great ;D
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLBAEOsdxIbLPFEomzphaZQ0A5Vujkpjd8
David Fletcher's Tank Chats; I've taken to listening to them from time to time while doing other stuff. They're short, curiously personal, and really informative as to the kinds of tanks he covers - and he's gone everywhere from the Mark I to modern day. Fascinating watching.
Not every unit went from M1 - IPM1 - M1A1.The game Team Yankee has done quite unnecessarily.
The game Team Yankee has done quite unnecessarily.
Since it's AFV related and popular right now, why's that Bosch?
Because they chose a very specific year to set it in. I understand that this is for game balance, because it's the last time Western and Soviet equipment was anything near at parity, but it means that every force feels nearly identical. It's just not what I want out of a NATO vs. ComBlok game; I'd rather see more disparity in forces.Welp, after the first US box set I went in on their USMC line-up. There is one faction on the Eastern European side that is pretty much T-55s and pretty expensive to purpose a playable force let alone a competitive one. So disparity of sorts.
If you want to play a war game with force disparity, how about anything that includes USA against Afghanistan, Russia against Chechnya, Saudi-Arabia against Yemen, or Soviet Union against Finland?
*sighs* No, that isn't what I want. What do any of those conflicts have to do with me wanting more variety in my World War III wargames?What do you have in mind?
The other proble with Team Yankee is unit density on play area.My Boss and I were discussing this after Historicon last year and he had the same objection. I saw a graphic that had the right TY scale as being played with those models on a football field.
My Boss and I were discussing this after Historicon last year and he had the same objection. I saw a graphic that had the right TY scale as being played with those models on a football field.One of the reasons the 6mm scale was invented in the first place was to deal with the parking lot battles problem limited table space gave.
One of the reasons the 6mm scale was invented in the first place was to deal with the parking lot battles problem limited table space gave.Yet, Battlefront seems to be doing ok. I don't care either way although it would be nice if BF let GaleForce9 do a TY skirmish game.
People keep having to relearn the same lessons
Honestly not an April FoolsNow, that's what I call a primitive Locust.
Honestly not an April FoolsWhat isn't?
Why exactly is digital camo so common nowadays? Easy to apply? Easy to design but still effective?Part fashion, part "it works better."
Very effective... the first time I saw digital cammies, I thought my glasses were dirty. Nope... at that range, in a dim conference room, the Marines wearing it were just straight blurry......or your eyes were just filling with pride.
Is that a cammo uniform with reflective bands on the arms? ???
(https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/awm-media/collection/REL39872/screen/4255876.JPG) (http://www.navy.gov.au/sites/default/files/SW12-All-Ranks.jpg) (http://news.navy.gov.au/images/cms-image-000007855.jpg)
About the only environment that the US Army's ACUs actually worked:I was thinking about this pic today when I was walking the dog. Wondered if I could dig it up again.
Is that a cammo uniform with reflective bands on the arms? ???
(https://raafacairns.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/raaf-general-purpose-uniform.jpg)
I thought glamourflauge was what you used to blend in at a David Bowie concert.I Googled it up:
Glamourflage is an Australian-based beauty and skincare brand. We pride ourselves on adding a dash of 1950's glamour to your everyday beauty routine!So it's not just for the concerts
Which has been morphed into a ridiculous new Air Force general purpose uniform ::)Our Air Force almost went with those colors, but the digital tiger stripe pattern. Along with a nice, embroidered, 3-button henley undershirt. ::) I'm glad all I had to wear was the stupid gray tiger stripe.
https://raafacairns.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/raaf-general-purpose-uniform.jpg (https://raafacairns.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/raaf-general-purpose-uniform.jpg)
Wild guess here... Textron Stingray. Which only the Royal Thai Army operates.
Most of those are obvious, but...what the hell is the VCTP supposed to be?
Here's a graphic with the TAM next to theScorpion is the British CVRT with 90mm gun. Just remember, the Stingray is the only tank in the world named for a sea creature ::)ScorpionStingray:
Google suggests it is an IFV but I have no idea what it stands forVehículo de Combate Transporte de Personal
I can see the P must stand for Personnel going off the other designations.
Google suggests it is an IFV but I have no idea what it stands for
So here's a question. Obviously in games like War Thunder, you keep on fighting until you're deadified beyond anything. Full loss of crew, for starters; what happens in most cases when a tank takes a penetrating hit and doesn't end up with a mulched crew that tries to push the headless body of the gunner out of the way and go back to battle? At what point is it acceptable to bail out of a tank, especially older machines from older wars? Nowadays, I understand, the things are so robust that mission kills mean you just sit around and protect the tank until recovery crews show up, but what about in prior battles? What's the expectation, and what's the typical history, for the crew when they get a serious hit? Not counting ammo explosions or fires where the whole crew's obviously dead, of course.
In terms of when "penetration" occurs, I wonder what would happen with a Western tank without auto-loader and with the ammunition kept away from the crew - would some at least stand a chance of survival despite the presumed spall and other badness that would occur due to the penetration from a kinetic energy or explosively formed bit of metal making a surprise entrance into their living space?Its happened before - they just button up and wait for support as per doctrine, move the tank back towards ftiendly lines if they can. Well trained crews who trust in the firepower and willingness of their support to come back for them will obey their training and survive.
It's kind of an odd question, but it came about thinking about those loss numbers for American crews from WWII. For every Sherman "destroyed" with five man crews, the average was something like only 1.2 casualties per. So what do the other 3.8 crew go do with themselves, typically? Especially when you can take more than one serious hit and keep operating.
You can understand the desire to get out though, especially after the introduction of a high velocity lump of metal and its friends into your rather cramped fighting space that no doubt caused consternation and irritation for all involved.
Its happened before - they just button up and wait for support as per doctrine, move the tank back towards ftiendly lines if they can. Well trained crews who trust in the firepower and willingness of their support to come back for them will obey their training and survive.
It's kind of an odd question, but it came about thinking about those loss numbers for American crews from WWII. For every Sherman "destroyed" with five man crews, the average was something like only 1.2 casualties per. So what do the other 3.8 crew go do with themselves, typically? Especially when you can take more than one serious hit and keep operating.
Which I guess is one of the reasons why recovery vehicles are often made on the same chassis complete with armour as the tanks they support?Not quite. Thats the equivalent of BT "I want all my lancemates to move 4/6/4" - when its made of the same chassis you just know it can go wherever its customers go and pull what needs pulling. When this rule of thumb isn't adhered to problems arise - such as the M60-based M88 wrecker which needed upgrading to M88A2 to adequately handle an M1 Abrams by itself.
If memory serves, the only Challenger 2 loss was due to being shot by another Challenger 2 in the turret... but looking at the Wikipedia page about it, it was a HESH round hitting the commander's cupola and causing fragments to enter the turret leading to the deaths of two of the crew and the subsequent fire that wrote off the tank. I had thought they were hit by a "fin" round in the rear of the turret - in other words in the ammo bin. Does anyone know if an equivalent tank (Leopard 2, M1 Abrams) has been hit like that?
(https://www.army-technology.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2017/09/sabra1.jpg)
Because when tanks go, they tend to go very messily, once a shells inside, there's nothing to stop it from hitting what ever the hell it wants, along with a cloud of razor sharp, exceptionally hot metal. Or a jet of superheated metal.I have been told (by my father) that penetration can also create temporary vacuum of space that kills the crew but otherwise leaves tank relatively intact for salvage. Also penetration can result a toxic hazard in form of dust which is not good to breathe in.
I have been told (by my father) that penetration can also create temporary vacuum of space that kills the crew but otherwise leaves tank relatively intact for salvage. Also penetration can result a toxic hazard in form of dust which is not good to breathe in.
It's kind of an odd question, but it came about thinking about those loss numbers for American crews from WWII. For every Sherman "destroyed" with five man crews, the average was something like only 1.2 casualties per. So what do the other 3.8 crew go do with themselves, typically? Especially when you can take more than one serious hit and keep operating.Some of the crew casualties didn't happen inside the tank, but rather outside of it. British Sherman crews had more serious casualties per tank lost. Difference: American crews had helmets, Brits had berets.
Some of the crew casualties didn't happen inside the tank, but rather outside of it. British Sherman crews had more serious casualties per tank lost. Difference: American crews had helmets, Brits had berets.
That would be true in the slower velocity regimes using an APC type projectile, in todays threat enviroment velocities are much higher and armor failure is not displacement or strain failure but mutual ablation, and most AP projectiles are using a flat nose that is designed not to ricochet at large angles to the normal. A modern APFSDS penetrator will have to chew through the whole LOS thickness. Considering that this is a NERA or NXRA bulging plate array it actually injects more material laterally against the penetrator making it pinch like a saw into bending wood.
Yay, lemme redirect that shot into my hull/turret vulnerable space...
Wasn't there an M1 in the first Gulf War that got stuck in a mud hole, so the platoon tried to destroy it? I recall hearing that two other Abrams fired at it multiple times but the only damage they inflicted was igniting the ammo, which blew out the CASE but left the tank still intact. Recovery vehicles were able to successfully pull it out the next day and it was repaired and put back into service, IIRC.
Before I went to AIT for Intelligence Analyst training, I was at OSUT for M1 crewmen and my drill sergeants there loved to throw around the line "death before dismount." I have no idea how serious they were about it; it first came up when discussing the proper way to hang from the bustle rack while speeding along so you can take a "Class 1 Download" over the side of the tank without stopping.From my experience with a professional force I would say it is very serious. Now a lot of semi trained crew will abandon their tank as others have said even if they are not disabled. There were time when I was still in Armor that most of the crew did not touch the ground for days at a time. The driver would get out and check the track when we stopped moving, when it was chow time the driver who was already on the ground got food for the crew, everyone would sleep on the tank, and as you covered above "Class 1 Download" was also done from the tank.
Needs more tanks.Aside from the excellent detail overall, the one random 'mech makes the whole 3rd world scene scrolling through.
I know this isn't tanks but can we take a moment to admire the work on these models and the effort put into the painting?wow 70s Malaysia vibe strong
https://imgur.com/gallery/CoRsM
Story as told to me by my Drill Sergeants was that it got stuck up past the turret ring, the rest of the platoon tried to pull it out, but could not, so they were going to destroy it. Put flammables and spare ammo on the turret floor and dropped a thermite on it, but the fire suppression system put it out. So then the rest of the platoon shot at it, all they managed to do was pop the blow out panels, even at point blank they could not penetrate the armor except for the thin back side of the turret. At this point they were told to wait for recovery as the ground war was over. In the end it they said it took four wreckers (M88), and the three other tanks from the platoon. And it was combat ready again within 24 hours (pulled the turret and put a spare on).
Actually no. There were no 105 equipped M1s in Desert Storm. Even the Marine's were replaced with Army A1s out of the European war stocks.
A bit late with this one, but I think it was Marauder who was mentioning that tank ammo doesn't so much explode as it burns real fast. This is quite accurate. When not confined in a gun barrel, smokeless gunpowder is fairly stable, but will burn quite happily once you get it started. As a less grisly example than some videos, here are some soldiers disposing of unused mortar charges:
https://youtu.be/MN61kYwilnE
Not exactly an explosion, but hoo boy do they burn. Certainly not something anyone would want to be sat next to inside a tank.
Vehículo de Combate Transporte de Personal
WAIT.
That thing's fire suppression will put out thermite?!
Found a gif with a deflagration on it. Note this isn't an explosion. Coal dust is just very flammable and this is 'just' a rapid burn
https://imgur.com/gallery/1TU1r7e (https://imgur.com/gallery/1TU1r7e)
Apparently the chap threw a ton of fire lighters onto an already lit BBQ and was not too badly hurt.
Because the standard Tiger wasn't impractical enough.Hey... At least it got a better gun and improved armor layout (sloped armor). Allies tankers would had preferred the old Tiger H over this beast. xp
Hey... At least it got a better gun and improved armor layout (sloped armor). Allies tankers would had preferred the old Tiger H over this beast. xp
I think they'd have preferred the Tiger P, that thing was bonkers with its electric drives :s
They likely would have preferred driving the old Tiger I H as well. The Tiger by that point was one of the more reliable German tanks. The Tiger II was an unreliable beast that would often get a significant percentage of it's hulls as mechanical causalities on a road march before entering combat
I think it's possible today, but I'm a physicist, not an engineer...it is, he basically came up with the Hybrid-electric drive (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_vehicle). such tech is becoming fairly common on cars, more than a few military forces are looking to be switching to it for their wheeled vehicles, and there are a number of next generation tank projects* using it and discussion of using it to refit existing MBT's. a version of it is also in use on a the Littorial combat Ships.
Looks like an M48/M60 by looking at the forward hull.
Looks like an M48/M60 by looking at the forward hull.
Anglos adore alliteration?An accurate and amusing answer!
Something I have always wanted to know;
Why are almost all the British main line tanks named starting with C?
Crusader, Covenanter, Cromwell, Churchill, Centurion, Centaur, Comet, Charioteer, Challenger, Conqueror, Chieftain, Challenger again, ect?
Churchil and Conqueror were not in any way C for Cruiser tanks.
The Mathilda and Valentine are among the very few exceptions, but then there is the Scorpion-Family which is another thing again, but this time with S-names.
Definitely an M48.
Three quick ways to tell the 48 and 60 apart:M48
- The muzzle brake.
- The 48's turret is more round. The 60's turret is more turtle shell shaped.
- The 48 has a curved front hull. The 60's is straight.
(http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/pics/m48pattonfront.jpg)
M60
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/92/277723756_b13a0dbf69_o.jpg)
Very specifically an M48A1. Key features from this angle: enclosed commander's cupola "mini turret" & the rounded fenders. M48s had a flat profile cupola with external M2, M48A2s swiched to squared off fenders. I love tank spotting!
Damon.
It was a tradition for the cruiser tanks of WW2 and before to have names beginning with C.
The Churchill was the exception to that as it was an infantry tank.
There are a number of such traditions in British Army equipment naming - APCs/IFVs are called Spartan (FV432), Warrior, Saxon; artillery pieces until the AS90 were named for priest positions like Abbot, Sexton; dog-type animals for wheeled vehicles like the Land Rover WMIK, Jackal and Mastiff. The Panther is a bit of a break from that naming theme and may represent a shift to a new title chain. The Ajax looks set to have a family of names for the vehicles all beginning with A.
It is worth remembering that it was the British/Commonwealth use of names (rather than just numbers) that started US tanks being named for generals (Lee, Grant, Sherman, Stuart).
I went to the Tank Museum at Bovington yesterday and have plenty of photos but my iPhone defaults to too large a size to upload hereMy iPhone 4 offers a number of choices to reduce image size before sending it.
Still big though.
Is it really a cannon or a flamethrower? ::)
It is worth remembering that it was the British/Commonwealth use of names (rather than just numbers) that started US tanks being named for generals (Lee, Grant, Sherman, Stuart).While we're at it, look at how the Royal Navy handles ship classes and names too.
That AMX-13 with HOT missiles is cool...I build 1/35 models as my other (arguably main) hobby, have an AMX-13 in the stash with SS.11s (as well as an AMX VCI). Was the -13 with HOT missiles a service vehicle, or just a prototype?Prototype. As was this quad 20mm SPAAG, designated Char 48 FCM.
Damon.
That AMX-13 with HOT missiles is cool...I build 1/35 models as my other (arguably main) hobby, have an AMX-13 in the stash with SS.11s (as well as an AMX VCI). Was the -13 with HOT missiles a service vehicle, or just a prototype?War Thunder has a premium vehicle of it. if you have an account, you can play it in Test Drive.
Damon.
War Thunder has a premium vehicle of it. if you have an account, you can play it in Test Drive.
Nowadays they let the wheelies carry the ATGMs... AMX-10 with MMP missiles, prototypeThat looks more like a wheeled tank. I understand it isn't one anymore than Cougar MRAP is an armoured car.
(https://s17.postimg.cc/3zyc0c8in/T40_2.jpg)
Presumably no shot, and I wouldn't be surprised if they "salted" it a bit with extra paper and other flammable materials.The "pounder" nomenclature was the weight of the projectile, specifically, solid round shot, right? What happened with the switch to ogive tipped shells?
Plus, it's friggin' 64-pounder! That's a lot of powder!
The "pounder" nomenclature was the weight of the projectile, specifically, solid round shot, right? What happened with the switch to ogive tipped shells?
That looks more like a wheeled tank. I understand it isn't one anymore than Cougar MRAP is an armoured car.That's the demonstrator for the unmanned Nexter T40M turret. They just put it on a AMX-10RC to have a platform for firing trials. For sales exhibitions (Eurosatory, IDEX etc) it has also been mounted on a VBCI and a Patria AMV, both 8x8 vehicles.
VAB Mephisto with its elevatable 4-round HOT launcher:Cold War chills :D
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3b/Missile_HOT.jpg/800px-Missile_HOT.jpg)
I realize it's just a test vehicle, but that open spot where the launcher was bugs meThat VAB? That's the genuine article in use since 1976.
Only if they fired the launcher in the down position... which they wouldn't.
https://thearmoredpatrol.com/2018/05/09/2018-victory-day-parade-video/
That Uran 9 is such an adorable killbot.
https://thearmoredpatrol.com/2018/05/09/2018-victory-day-parade-video/
That Uran 9 is such an adorable killbot.
And yet more top heavy...
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/ey5jdlmr7DE/maxresdefault.jpg)
There seem to be no limits wheeled AFV companies will accept in terms of high centre of gravity and high ground pressure.The Boxer IFV variant recently ordered by the Australian Army is practically the upper limit - its 35 tons and can't fit in any aircraft smaller than the Airbus A400M. IIRC they conducted a study of IFVs worldwide and this is the max weight and dimensions a wheeled vehicle can get, once you hit the ~40 ton mark going tracked is better.
I understand that the Boxer will fit in a C-5 or an An-124Boxer is sized to fit in a A400M for airmobility. At least in all variants used by the German and Dutch armies. The German uparmored infantry variant in A1/A2 version hits ~35.5t empty. That's actually where its weight limit of 36.5t comes from, i.e. the A400M limit of 37 tons.
They can only reach these weights in the first place due to advances in wheel and suspension tech.Thyssen-Henschel was playing around (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAK3M6Oysok) with a 6x6 with a full Leopard 1 turret in the 80s, including the option of upgrading to a Leopard 2 equivalent turret.
The Boxer IFV variant recently ordered by the Australian Army is practically the upper limit - its 35 tons and can't fit in any aircraft smaller than the Airbus A400M. IIRC they conducted a study of IFVs worldwide and this is the max weight and dimensions a wheeled vehicle can get, once you hit the ~40 ton mark going tracked is better.
That is, within the current limits of technology. They can only reach these weights in the first place due to advances in wheel and suspension tech.
off-road mobility goes to hell long before the 35 ton mark.
Boxer AGM (with 155mm unmanned turret) will likely hit or go beyond the A400M limit.What does it shoot? Are HEAT and APFSDS in the menu?
(https://abload.de/img/boxer_rch155rwq7h.jpg)
What does it shoot? Are HEAT and APFSDS in the menu?
What does it shoot? Are HEAT and APFSDS in the menu?German artillery troops recently started training for direct-fire again.
I would hope not - if it is fairly unarmoured then I would worry about the return of fireArmor on the PzH2000 turret is STANAG 4569 Level IV, i.e. against 14.5mm; baseline Boxer is also Level IV.
off-road mobility goes to hell long before the 35 ton mark. Even without the applique armour, the LAV IIIs bog down like crazy due to their high ground pressure. And they roll. Oh boy do they roll.Straya's Boxer CRVs are designed with a view to operating primarily in the outback, where previously they had issues with their ASLAVs
(https://abload.de/img/vbci_32_ton_test_p326txuhv.jpg)
from the French qualification tests for upgrading the weight limit on the VBCI from 29 to 32 tons back in 2014.
Have I told the story of when I saw some 2LT order his Stryker driver into an LAV ford lately? :D
Are they still there? :D
It's got 8 wheels and weighs x-amount. The VBCI is wider than a LAV-III, but just because you show one moving freely there on a track doesn't mean it won't bog down in the same spot an LAV-III will, which is lots of places. I saw our current army medium truck doing it's paces on similar tracks in 2009. It dug itself in so deep the track is still there today and will be until they fill it in. The truck that passed that track, failed it's offroad rating to the extent that they cannot be taken off hardpack today and to do so can be chargeable when they bog down. Just goes to show that that ability to run even a very difficult track does not mean that field performance will be equal. As we learned to our hardship in Afghanistan and the American's learned in trials with the MGS.
So unless, the french have some magic that adds more flotation (in the sense of not bogging down) and traction without going to dual tires or some such, it's not going to do much better.
And lets see it do the same track at half the speed or less, as part of a convoy of a dozen vehicles.
You just can't keep putting more tons on the same footprint. Surface tension dictates you will sink and stick. It's why we invented tanks in the first place and why the Germans had such a hard time in Russia when the roads got wet.
Wheeled vehicles require much more planning and thought in their route planning and track plans than tracked vehicles do. But everything is on a scale. We found in the 70s that we had many places our M113s could not go, but our Sherman APCs could.
I guess the flip side is that a wheeled vehicle is easier and cheaper to maintain and can self-deploy much more easily as they are less likely to need transporters; they will also annoy the locals by tearing up the roads lessVery much so
If your main projected use is Operations Other Than War or in places with less mud than the Eurasian Steppe then a wheeled chassis may be worth the compromisesThats the current idea.
Motorised, or mechanised?
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/fd/d5/d9/fdd5d917bc8c83dd1246bcad10636d43.jpg)
Motorised, or mechanised?
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/fd/d5/d9/fdd5d917bc8c83dd1246bcad10636d43.jpg)
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/ae9a17e7d103a195094ca042201069be/tumblr_p2fx88sau91rqpszmo1_1280.jpg)
That raises so many questions. Do the tracks cut into the passenger compartment? With an engine that tiny, can it actually go faster than I walk?It's photoshopped. A photo of a Wiesel was cropped to the tracks only, reversed (they're backwards here), scaled down to 80% and pasted onto a picture of a 2007 Special Edition Camouflage Decal DaimlerChrysler Smart Fortwo 451.
That raises so many questions. Do the tracks cut into the passenger compartment? With an engine that tiny, can it actually go faster than I walk? How scary are the Starbucks lines over there?!? :o
How do you get in the cute little thing?
How do you get in the cute little thing?The sunroof?
The sunroof?
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQfhqfK4geHSSGCACTX5PbTVMBK6bHEgDR49QEpyzvcERO0lNZ3)Me me! I have a question! Can the 152 millimeter gun fire the rounds used by Red Army in Second World War?
"This is your tank on drugs. Any questions?"
Me me! I have a question! Can the 152 millimeter gun fire the rounds used by Red Army in Second World War?
...somehow none of our troops were bored enough to try"
Those must have been some damned scary sergeants, that the troops never once got that bored. :o
Nah, not that much at all. It is usually preceded by a Lt saying, "in my experience," a Major saying, "I've been thinking," or a SSgt saying, "check this shit out."
I think it would take a lot of bored to do something that dumb
Nah, not that much at all. It is usually preceded by a Lt saying, "in my experience," a Major saying, "I've been thinking," or a SSgt saying, "check this shit out."
For the record, the shell alone in the Soviet ML-20 is as long as the complete round in the Shillelagh gun. That doesn't account for the separate propellant charge, nor does it account for what's very likely an immense difference in barrel pressure. 3.8 to 16 pounds of propellant on the Soviet round (and a one hundred pound-plus complete shell!) versus the Shillelagh...yeah.Thanks! So I guess the recoil of 152 mm soviet round would kick Sheridan flying with faster speed than the shell itself.
Me me! I have a question! Can the 152 millimeter gun fire the rounds used by Red Army in Second World War?doubt it.
Nah, not that much at all. It is usually preceded by a Lt saying, "in my experience," a Major saying, "I've been thinking," or a SSgt saying, "check this shit out."ROFLMAO! By the way, wanna see what Sheridan replaced? Check this shit out! (https://youtu.be/tmTLQmsXuEQ?t=366)
Most of my military friends are doctors so tend to focus on things like the fights between camel spiders and scorpions and more importantly the average of 6 squaddies hurt capturing the beasts
So like, when the Sheridans went to Vietnam and Iraq and so on, they could work, but at a rate of like 30s/shot? And presumably the guns broke down faster than on other tanks?That's pretty much it, yes. Plus the guns broke everything ELSE on the tank; shaking loose all kinds of components not related to the gun at all.
Question for the tankers, is the 120mm-class gun really that much of an improvement over a 105mm, or can the smaller gun still perform even against top-tier armored targets these days?Briefly, yes it is. 105mm is only going to work on like, early model T-72s and below and side-aspect armor.
Was the Sheridan still in use in Desert Storm? I thought it was retired well before then.Yes with the 82nd Airborne. Fired off a couple of Shillelaghs too.
It was posted on earlier version of this thread that Canadian test of basic T-72 failed to achieve frontal penetration with 105 mm, though newer ammo might be good enough for that.With ERA on? And yeah new ammo helps a fair bit.
Briefly, yes it is. 105mm is only going to work on like, early model T-72s and below and side-aspect armor.Yes with the 82nd Airborne. Fired off a couple of Shillelaghs too.
With ERA on? And yeah new ammo helps a fair bit.
are those drone-kill marks on the side?Its still experimental. I'm guessing all that other stuff on the Stryker is range instrumentation
The future looks a little less exciting than we thought...So what did we thought? Walking mechas or something?
Not an AFV, but if you want sexy + lasers, go look up the USS Portland.Exactly!
Not an AFV, but if you want sexy + lasers, go look up the USS Portland.Done (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Portland_(CA-33)). Page don't say anything about lasers.
Done (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Portland_(CA-33)). Page don't say anything about lasers.Found the right ship (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Portland_(LPD-27))
Not an AFV, but if you want sexy + lasers, go look up the USS Portland.LPDs are not sexy ... ever
Not an AFV, but if you want sexy + lasers, go look up the USS Portland.
Hi folks,Vid: Awww look at that little tank puttering.
I normally don't have much interest in the topic of this thread, but I came across this on BBC Future and thought the regular threadizens might find it interesting.
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20180531-the-wwi-tank-that-helped-change-warfare-forever (http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20180531-the-wwi-tank-that-helped-change-warfare-forever)
Be sure to watch the video of the restored unit in operation.
Cheers, Gabe
Vid: Awww look at that little tank puttering.
I noticed this part in the article:
"The FT had a long life. It was still a front-line tank more than 20 years later at the start of World War Two in both the Polish and French armies. By this time, however, it was considered slow and offered poor protection from anti-tank weapons.
Nonetheless, hundreds of FTs were committed to battle when the Germans invaded France in May 1940. Even afterwards, the Germans found use for them. They patrolled occupied Europe, protecting supplies, guarding airfields and supporting police.
When the Allies invaded Normandy in June 1944, they encountered FTs in German markings, thrown into the frontline in desperation. The last examples used in combat were in the Arab-Israeli War of 1948."
Wow, that remind me of the Age of War 'Mechs in 31st Century.
Nonetheless, hundreds of FTs were committed to battle when the Germans invaded France in May 1940.About 500 units in nine battalions, with newly-formed tank battalions drawing from the about 1200 kept in reserve.
Wow, that remind me of the Age of War 'Mechs in 31st Century.I tend to use the Thyssen-Henschel UR-416 APC as an "example" for BT-Style Military Equipment. Even production facilities for them crop up in the strangest places, they tend to turn up even with small resistance groups, some places use them in numbers where you wonder why they're even keeping them active.
I tend to use the Thyssen-Henschel UR-416 APC as an "example" for BT-Style Military Equipment. Even production facilities for them crop up in the strangest places, they tend to turn up even with small resistance groups, some places use them in numbers where you wonder why they're even keeping them active.APC (Wheeled)
It also features a pretty damn utilitarian design.
(https://abload.de/img/c78c88f23ea4c545117d8o0uor.jpg)
it sounds a bit like the clip clop of a horse or horses, perhaps to help the mechanised cavalry feel less bad?
I wouldn't be surprised to find some FTs being thrown into the fight in the late 30th century!
I can't recall...was it included in XTRO:1945? If not, somebody should whip up some 1945-style stats for it.
It seems to be the first true infantry support tank...so I don't think the turret gun would even end up translating as a light rifle cannon. Maybe a light machine gun?
The article said it had a crew of 2, but the video showed only the one driver. I look at how the FT was accessed and how little space the driver has...and I'm thinking this is the conceptual forerunner not just of modern tanks, but of things like...the Sloth and Fenrir battle armours, Protomechs, Gears, and ATs ;D
cheers,
Gabe
Would this actually qualify as a light rifle cannon in BT terms? Or is it more akin to something like the Zeus heavy rifle?The gun is included in XTRO:1945 itself since it's the same one as mounted on the Renault R-35. At 37mm it's a medium recoilless rifle equivalent.
The gun is included in XTRO:1945 itself since it's the same one as mounted on the Renault R-35. At 37mm it's a medium recoilless rifle equivalent.talk about being over generous to make them useable in BT.
talk about being over generous to make them useable in BT.It's not a direct translation. At very least the vehicles in the XTRO are to be used against each other. Or you can plop them down on a world on Pheriphary that is cut off from rest of the Inner Sphere.
It's not a direct translation. At very least the vehicles in the XTRO are to be used against each other. Or you can plop them down on a world on Pheriphary that is cut off from rest of the Inner Sphere.If you're looking for some low-tech crap for low-tech crapsack world, I've got an offer for you (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=14474.0) 8)
Guys, remember - it's not a light or medium rifle, like the vehicle scale weapon, it's the infantry-scale Recoilless Rifle. So it's barely doing anything to 'Mech armor.
the sole prototype Leclerc with a 140mm gunIt's actually recently cobbled together, around 2015. The turret was built in 1996, and only used to test the gun and autoloader from a stand (there was no chassis underneath). To prevent its scrapping some maintenance guys in the Army got the idea that they had a first-generation Leclerc around that had been declawed as a Leclerc MARS* - so they mounted it on that and call the whole thing a "technology demonstrator".
given the 125mm's on the T-64, T-72, T-80, and T-90 use two piece ammo to allow autoloading, i'm surprised no one went that with the 140mm..
(http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/images/4/4a/Autoloader.jpg)
(https://www.suyongso.com/files/attach/images/115/964/512/006/54124dfc1f59c2689f16bf0039b7a4ef.gif)
Did you mean to insert the same picture twice? ???
The multi turret reminds me of the T-35 Russian tank, with the multiple turrets and multiple sized weapon.At the time they were conceived multi-turret tanks weren't such a bad idea. However the technology advanced much to fast for them...
Its the closest to the Land Dreadnought design that went into service.
Does that thing have four or five turrets??5: HE gun in the middle, two AT gun and two MG turrets.
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.
The O.G. DropShip - aka an LST landing an M4 Sherman
(https://s22.postimg.cc/ntk144oo1/hdnhmo90b1311.jpg)
Whichever is closer to the ground.
Would launching DD Shermans be akin to a hot drop or orbital insertion?
Whichever is closer to the ground.Ah, but is ground the seabed or the beach now?
Would launching DD Shermans be akin to a hot drop or orbital insertion?
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"
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
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.
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.
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
Sorry, on my Kindle making dinner so I can't do pics readily.Kindle does WWW now? How is it compared to mobile smart phone with Kindle app?
Kindle does WWW now? How is it compared to mobile smart phone with Kindle app?It has a web browser called Silk. It is a bit wonky at times so downloading and uploading pics is a bit tricky.
Just bought this from a local toy show. All Lego parts and not a mego or knockoff kit. Custom lego set and was very impressed with the engineering.
Sorry, but that doesn't hold a candle to Mega's military stuff from the past few years, as the Call of Duty license. Unfortunately their website is being redone right now, but if you run a Google search for "Mega Call of Duty" I think you'll be surprised.
Sorry, but that doesn't hold a candle to Mega's military stuff from the past few years, as the Call of Duty license. Unfortunately their website is being redone right now, but if you run a Google search for "Mega Call of Duty" I think you'll be surprised.
I really wish you woudn't have mentioned those. The company that makes the ones that I posted (Cobi) doesn't do very many modern subjects, and I've been wanting to add some modern stuff to the collection. They do have a ton of WW2 stuff, and it looks like they've just released a couple of WW1 tanks.
Cobi is Chinese garbage. But if you want to waste your money, feel free. Just remember, when your sets are missing parts and don't fit together correctly, I warned you.
Cobi is actually a Polish company.
But IIRC they source from Chinese factoriesSo do LEGO as far as I know. The important part isn't where the factory is but the quality control and the worker's motivation. Honestly, I trust a Danish-controlled factory in China more than a Polish-controlled factory in Poland...
So do LEGO as far as I know. The important part isn't where the factory is but the quality control and the worker's motivation. Honestly, I trust a Danish-controlled factory in China more than a Polish-controlled factory in Poland...actually most of the Bricks are made in Mexico and Hungary. the chinese factory is fairly new.
A bit of an interesting case, Romania went with a modernized T-55 derivative instead of the T-62 or T-72Part of a story that basically involved a decades-long desire to somehow mate a T-55 with a Leopard 1 engine that started with unlicensed production of reverse-engineered modified T-55 clones in the early 70s and somehow succeeded 25 years later.
The -113 is a box on tracks. It's super-simple to modify and upgrade. And hell, waste not, want not.also, just about anything you mount on it is going to make it more useful on the battlefield than its intended role as APC..
Makes you wonder sometimes. Why try and reinvent the wheel. We have M2, M3s, Stikers, LAVs, can't you more or less do all of this with a modernized M113?careful there Sparky.. down that route madness reigns.. :D
oh now I understand the Rhino and its chassis family in Warhammer 40k....
Makes you wonder sometimes. Why try and reinvent the wheel. We have M2, M3s, Stikers, LAVs, can't you more or less do all of this with a modernized M113?In short, no. Wheels offer different advantages to tracks, and the Bradley is a different beast - more protected, better performance.
Certainly a remote Turret with an Auto Cannon is possible, Missile Launchers have already been added.Has been done. The Singaporean M113 Ultra comes in 40mm AGL/0.50 cal (see below), 25mm AC and even Igla SAM flavours.
Finally anything with enough Armor to stop a tank round or missile, will be a tank, and not an IFV or Battle Taxi, it won't be air mobile, and it won't be fast anymore.The M113 can about stop 20mm autocannon rounds with addon armour, whereas the Bradley can and up to 30mm. There's a difference.
If my memory serves me correctly, the M-113's aluminium armor was only ever designed to protect the occupants against 7.62mm.
If my memory serves me correctly, the M-113's aluminium armor was only ever designed to protect the occupants against 7.62mm.
Correct. It's mounted infantry in the dragoon fashion: you will always be fighting dismounted. Of course, the lesson learned from the dragoons - and forgotten - is that you can never 100% know the time of battle, so you'd better be prepared to fight when mounted. I really, really hate the Stryker, but even I have to grudgingly concede that it's a better APC than the 113.
Is there anything of the original left in the M113AS4?!
What tank is that?
That a Soviet squad?With scope equipped rifles. They're snipers.
(http://www.armorjournal.com/Walkarounds/SPG/T28-T95/T28-T95_NACM-27.JPG)
Little known fact - the T28 could remove it's extra tracks for transport. I never knew that. I'd often wondered how they could replace the inner tracks.
Other tanks sometimes had thinner tracks for rail transport, but this was interesting.
W.
And unrelated to AFVs except in the most tangential way... I wonder how many kills are represented in this photoSome of those medals look "touched", that is photo touching.
(https://s22.postimg.cc/lpty4ijhd/p0tmxgfsrxpr7vr0-mob.jpg)
They're not. Look up the Night Witches. Fear.i love how Sabaton has a song for every awesome WW2 group and battle..
Conservatively 1000's. Couple of those women had 100's all by their lonesome.Figure those are outliers. But even at say 40 or 50 apiece, which isn't as hard as German fighter aces, we're looking at what, the best part of a battalion here?
Lyudmila Pavlichenko had almost 260.
They're not. Look up the Night Witches. Fear.then why are they holding scoped rifles for this picture?
i love how Sabaton has a song for every awesome WW2 group and battle..Thanks. Their song about White Death (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5CaQ37VYvw)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7NSUFDHFgg
then why are they holding scoped rifles for this picture?The night witches are pilots and instilled a different sort of fear than the lady snipers
then why are they holding scoped rifles for this picture?The Night Witches were an all-female bomber regiment. They piloted very low and slow biplanes that German soldiers reckoned hardly made any sound save for a swish like a broom passing overhead... et voila.
The Night Witches were an all-female bomber regiment. They piloted very low and slow biplanes that German soldiers reckoned hardly made any sound save for a swish like a broom passing overhead... et voila.Oh I wasn't questioning that they got medals. It's just that IN the picture, the medals seemed "photo-touched"
The pic I posted is of female Soviet snipers. The pic caption claims they are from the 1st Belorussian Front, aka in Western parlance Army Group Center.
The star medal they all wear is the Order of Glory (below), the 3rd class medal is awarded for at least 10 kills. A bit less than 1 million of these were given out.
Scoring another 20 or so would qualify for the Order of Glory 2nd class, signified by a second similar star-shaped medal which some of these women seem to have. Less than 47,000 were awarded.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3c/Order_of_Glory_3rd_class.jpg/200px-Order_of_Glory_3rd_class.jpg)
The round medal is possibly the Medal For Battle Merit, a common bravery award of which 5 million were given out.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a0/Medal_for_Merit_in_Combat.jpg/200px-Medal_for_Merit_in_Combat.jpg)
Oh I wasn't questioning that they got medals. It's just that IN the picture, the medals seemed "photo-touched"
Oh I wasn't questioning that they got medals. It's just that IN the picture, the medals seemed "photo-touched"I was curious about the medals anyway. I dunno, maybe they were highlighted, or maybe its the lighting, these are BnW after all.
It looks to me like the T-90 upgrade that was supposed to compete with Armata was a bit too ambitious as biomancy is still in it's infancy.
(https://i.imgur.com/F3pMsnV.jpg)
Speaking of the Armata, I saw a news article that the Russians are only going to aquire 100 of them, as they are too expensive (still cheaper than a new M1A2!), so are going to continue to rely on the T-90 & late model T-72s in the future...Whatever happened with T-80? I understand it got some bad rep when inexperienced crews abandoned the model while under fire, but is the tank really worse than T-72?
Whatever happened with T-80? I understand it got some bad rep when inexperienced crews abandoned the model while under fire, but is the tank really worse than T-72?
Whatever happened with T-80? I understand it got some bad rep when inexperienced crews abandoned the model while under fire, but is the tank really worse than T-72?AFAIK it's a gasoline T64 with T72 improvements tacked on
Actually since the Armata won't see full production, the Russians are planning on upgrading 3000 mothballed T-80s to the T-80BV standard (pictured) and putting them back into service.
(http://nevskii-bastion.ru/kartinki/T-80BVM_DEN_TANKISTA_LUGA_170909_04.JPG)
The T-80 is actually quite similar to the T-72/T-90. It was it's expensive to run turbine engine more than anything else that forced it's early retirement.
Shows you just how hard up Ivan is for somewhat modern tanks to bring 'em out of retirement.
tangential topic.. been playing word of tanks a bunch on my Xbox lately.. i have come to the conclusion..
the early tier Russian tanks suck. having to slog through the T-28 and the like in order to get to the actual good stuff is annoying.
the main issue, to me, is that in tiers where you start facing some mid to late war stuff, you are using mostly early war period russian. so you have good guns, but your armor might as well be tinfoil. and unlike most of the others in your bracket, you don't really have much speed to rely on.
hopefully i can get through to the KV-1 soon, get into the stuff that ought to be decent.
Also, Russian tanks are blind so you're always getting surprised by snipers and your guns are so inaccurate that you can't return fire even if you can see who's shooting at you.i'm hoping that once i get into the IS series it'll be worth investing in some of the upgrades that'll improve the accuracy and vision.. at the moment i'm progressing through hulls too fast to make it worth it. (it helps i had a fair amount of silver saved up from dilettante playing over the last few years) can't afford gold, so main limiter is vehicle slots (so i'm selling off older vehicles..except the starter) and Xp.
i'm hoping that once i get into the IS seriesI haven't played those tanks, but they have guns up to 122 mm with slow rate of fire. As armchair general, I would draw the line to 85 mm guns for general purpose use and use 122 mm as specialist to counter Kingtiger II (or whatever the game calls it) and other heavies.
i'm hoping that once i get into the IS series it'll be worth investing in some of the upgrades that'll improve the accuracy and vision.. at the moment i'm progressing through hulls too fast to make it worth it. (it helps i had a fair amount of silver saved up from dilettante playing over the last few years) can't afford gold, so main limiter is vehicle slots (so i'm selling off older vehicles..except the starter) and Xp.
Looking at that makes me wonder why the US Army has never considered replacing the Bradley's current turret with an unmanned non-penetrating one. You could reduce the crew by one and increase the carried troops by four. Not to mention reduce it's ridiculously high silhouette a bit.
Looking at that makes me wonder why the US Army has never considered replacing the Bradley's current turret with an unmanned non-penetrating one. You could reduce the crew by one and increase the carried troops by four. Not to mention reduce it's ridiculously high silhouette a bit.probably because they are conditioned to think in terms of replacing the whole vehicle rather than just do a major overhaul. since i don't think that any new ones have been built since the 90's, beyond spare parts, i suspect it might be a bit tricky to modify as well.. pretty sure a turret change like that would require some mods to the turret ring.
okay, imagine yo've got your new, shiny unmanned turret...
change teh ammo belt on the gun.
clear a jam.
poke your head out to see where you're going.
etcetera.
okay, imagine yo've got your new, shiny unmanned turret...The Namer has a comparably large turret ring to allow a one man maintenance hatch so weapons can be serviced under armour.
change teh ammo belt on the gun.
clear a jam.
poke your head out to see where you're going.
etcetera.
that might have been before the advent of 360-degree sensor-fused see-through-armour vision feeds which yes, are making the jump from scifi anime to the battlefieldThat's the ground equivalent of 5th generation fighter jets. 6th generation equivalent ("command fighter") is slowly making its way to the battlefield now, at least in Europe.
Yeah; the west *thought* the Russians had bad gun-laying, but when they tested the optics of their captured T-34/85s after Korea and the IS-III they cut up after the IDF gave it to them; they found they were top quality. Turns out it's the crew.There can be differences depending on a factory and the time frame tank was made (https://youtu.be/BRtj_TSOHjw?t=200).
By contrast; no firefly should be able to hit the broad side of a barn with their discarding sabot ammo."The problem was that you couldn't hit the broadside of a barn from the inside with a sabot" (https://youtu.be/bNjp_4jY8pY?t=1483)
There can be differences depending on a factory and the time frame tank was made (https://youtu.be/BRtj_TSOHjw?t=200).
"The problem was that you couldn't hit the broadside of a barn from the inside with a sabot" (https://youtu.be/bNjp_4jY8pY?t=1483)
If the US tanks would get the auto loader then that 140mm might be more useful.It's a matter of tradeoffs. Speed, firepower, protection. If they want a bigger gun, autoloader or not, the tradeoffs facing the Leo/Abrams/Chally family now are still:
Provided this image hasn't been retouched, I wonder the magnitude of the injuries that resulted from this:
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/190/462933177_c74a9d34a6_z.jpg?zz=1)
The Uran-9 unmanned ground vehicle, bristling with anti-tank missiles and all manner of high-caliber machine guns, was supposed to be a revolutionary combat asset for the Russian Ministry of Defense ever since officials confirmed the powerful robot tank saw testing in war-torn Syria back in March. As it turns out, rumors of its effectiveness have been greatly exaggerated.
In a surprisingly candid admission, Russian defense researcher Andrei P. Anisimov revealed several critical deficiencies in the Uran-9’s performance during its Syria tests at a Russian security conference in April — deficiencies that indicate, as Defence Blog put it, that the much-hyped robot tank “is not capable of performing the tasks assigned to it.”
How not capable is the Uran-9? Let’s take a gander:
Instead of an operational range of some 1.8 miles (or 2,800 meters), Anisimov claimed that the consistently sustainable range was just a mere 300 to 500 meters “in the conditions of the settlement with low-rise buildings,” per Defense Blog — meaning that the Uran-9 is more of a patrol cop than a suitable ground combat vehicle.
During the Syria tests, Russian defense officials recorded “17 cases of short-term (up to 1 min) and 2 cases of long (up to 1.5 hours) loss of Uran-9 control,” as Defence Blog put it. It’s unclear what “loss of control” means in this context, but it implies that the robot tank simply stopped working while downrange rather than, say, ran amok like the ED-209 in RoboCop. And this is to say nothing of the 30mm 2A72 autocannon that experienced frequent operational delays.
Like most new military tech, the Uran-9 breaks down like it’s nobody’s business — and not just the mechanical elements like the guiding rollers and suspension. According to Defence Blog, the “electro-optical” station that governs the vehicle’s target ID functions has a limit range of just 2 km. According to Defense Blog, the optical station “does not allow detecting optical observation and targeting devices of the enemy and gives out multiple interferences on the ground and in the airspace in the surveillance sector.”
Frankly, theses issues are unsurprising. As military researcher Sam Bendett observed for the U.S. Army’s Training and Doctrine Command, a May testing video of the Uran-9 in action likely hinted at some of the issues that cropped up during the downrange tests in Syria. But more importantly, the Uran-9’s failures can still prove instrumental and instructive for other unmanned ground vehicles — like, say, the Kalashnikov-produced BAS-01G Soratnik, or what T&P likes to call ‘Death Cab for Putin.’
Provided this image hasn't been retouched, I wonder the magnitude of the injuries that resulted from this:
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/190/462933177_c74a9d34a6_z.jpg?zz=1)
I witnessed an Abrams-on-Abrams collision. It was at the kind of speed that would likely just result in dents to a car. One soldier suffered chronic injuries, everyone in both vehicles was hurt to some degree, and both tanks' drivetrains were badly damaged. The sound alone was horrifying.
(http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/valenine-tank-gap-jumping.jpg)
"This is a photograph of the SADE experiment using a Valentine tank fitted with 26 rockets, 13 each side in four containers, to see if it was possible to make a tank jump over large gaps and minefields. It did not work and never entered production." - tanks-encyclopedia.com
W
*not really, but I needed a hook
When my brother did his time in the army he saw the result of a Leo2 running into a big rock on a snow-covered field. The whole body ended up kind of rhomboid-shaped... And the crew wasn't fit for service for quite a while.
That sucks
It does feel as though the main danger to current top of the line MBTs is themselves
I have memories of hearing about an engineering variant Challenger 2 coming off a tank transport at a roundabout and suffering significant damage from its own weight and of course there is the Challenger 2 taken out by blue-on-blue early on in Iraq and another suffered some form of gunnery accident on a range causing serious injuries and deaths - recently in the news again as the coroner recently announced the result of their inquest (and I live close to the home of British armour so such things feature in local news more than they might national news)
The very best of Russia
Oh, and a tank or something
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-uuEEsRJ42Fo/WrKl7o92CWI/AAAAAAAAT1U/DoqFkB0yLtotw_ip7kJpi4J798nAB_QoQCJoC/w1080-h1080/ad3ba6023e6be628a94a4f165e4cd1ba.jpg)
She's way too tall to be a tanker, at least in that machine
Meanwhile, this guy in this vid is still doing knees to chests and will be for the remainder of his career
https://imgur.com/gallery/pNhfeyI (https://imgur.com/gallery/pNhfeyI)
Meanwhile, this guy in this vid is still doing knees to chests and will be for the remainder of his career
https://imgur.com/gallery/pNhfeyI
Outriggers-not just for show.Parking brakes as well.
Just use the APC to flip the wrecker back over.
*Sargent Major screaming intensifies*
Unmanned turrets are pretty new. The Brad was designed in the late '70s into the '80s before those became a thing. Some Strykers are getting unmanned turrets. Maybe the Army is holding off until they decide what the Brad successor will be...
Damon.
*Sargent Major screaming intensifies*
I once saw a Sergeant-Major dress down a First Sergeant. Locked him in parade rest and circled him like a vulture, yelling the whole time. It was a beautiful sight.
Five bucks says that First Sergeant was taking notes for what to say when he grows up to be a Sergeant-Major. "And now we see the young being taught how to survive by their elders, play fighting and domination games that will serve the pup well in their life"Or from another perspective, it's a bunch boot camp horseshit behavior that's simultaneously embarrassing and undermining to unit cohesion. I'd have recommended to the commander to give the sergeant major an administrative form to go find somewhere else to peddle that crap. Don't need the troops thinking abuse of power is the way to solve problems.
Or from another perspective, it's a bunch boot camp horseshit behavior that's simultaneously embarrassing and undermining to unit cohesion. I'd have recommended to the commander to give the sergeant major an administrative form to go find somewhere else to peddle that crap. Don't need the troops thinking abuse of power is the way to solve problems.
I say that without any context to ColBosch's observeration...but I'm struggling to find a reason to justify it.
I actually agree with you. I fully recognize that it wasn't only an abusive show of power, it was also pure toxic masculinity at a time when my regiment was testing the waters with mixed sexes in a ground combat role. At the time I thought it was funny because "hey, look at that Top getting chewed out." Now I think it's funny because of how the 1SG was being calmly stoic in the face of a shrieking, preening CSM.I suspect the 1st Sgt was probably not only the better man, but maybe...right?
Ah, memories.
And nice Javelin.
As I picture and in keeping with the theme of my counter-comment I offer an anti-armor picture.Aren't those guys too close to each others? If 120 mm or bigger hits too close... Would single 100 mm HE be bad for the entire section?
Aren't those guys too close to each others? If 120 mm or bigger hits too close... Would single 100 mm HE be bad for the entire section?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 productionYou have to explain why it was so bad.
You have to explain why it was so bad.
toxic masculinity
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?
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.
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.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a22822532/russian-tank-flips-over-kursk/ (https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a22822532/russian-tank-flips-over-kursk/)oh it flip over on its side when moving up on the trailer.
:o
Ruger
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.
That might have been true originally, but I doubt it today, given how the M1 has received upgrades over the years.
able to achieve one-shot-hits while moving the first time I sat in the gunner's seat, I'd say the computer even a decade ago was pretty damn good.aimbot hax plz ban
aimbot hax plz banI can imagine Iraq tankers saying something like that ;D
I can imagine Iraq tankers saying something like that ;D
So Bosch, are ALL the Strykers getting the 30mm RWS or just a few?
Considering the spot-first-shoot-first-kill-first capability of theJust a few. The Stryker 30mm is about as strategically mobile as an M1 Abrams, and remember the original concept is supposed to replace the Humvee and deuce-half as a battle taxi.
So Bosch, are ALL the Strykers getting the 30mm RWS or just a few?
What is collateral damage? Yes terrifying indeed, but in the wrong way I think.
terrifying COIN vehicle.
Magach 5 Avenger
Following the Yom Kippur War the IDF’s holdings of M48s and M60s were dramatically reduced (500 and something down to 200 and something). OTL the US resupplied with M48A5s and more M60s. In this TL, however, some of the M60s supplied were M60A2s. Whilst the IDF had no intention of fielding the M60A2's gun/missile system they were desperate for AFVs. The A2 turrets were removed and replaced with either salvaged M60 105mm gun turrets or the new twin 120mm breach loading mortar turret (another story/project). Having suffered such great losses of its MBT force to Egyptian AT missile teams, the IDF were keen to come up with/prove the concept of a tank escort support vehicle. A deal was struck with the US for the IDF to acquire a limited number of GAU-8s to be retrofitted into the discarded M60A2 narrow profile turrets. With the barrel group sticking out front, the length and width of the turret was about right - although some modification was required to accommodate the large ammunition drums. The turrets, which were entirely unmanned, were then fitted onto older M48 hulls (same sized turret ring) with the 3-man crew (Commander, Gunner and Driver) being positioned within the hull. The end result was not, and was never intended to be, a MBT. The Magach 5 Avenger proved to be highly capable in its escort/urban role and, although never produced in large numbers, proved to be extremely popular with both AFV crews and infantry alike.
Factual detail:
- The A-10 routinely carries 1150 rounds of 30mm ammunition for its GAU-8 Avenger cannon. The GAU-8 was designed to have 2 rates of fire - slow 2100rpm and fast 4200rpm. In operation the gun now has a fixed rate of fire of 3900rpm. However, I would suggest that in a ground vehicle mount the slower rate of fire would more than suffice. Thus at 2100rpm you fire 35 rounds every second. This gives you approximately 32 x 1-second bursts from 1150 rounds.
- This compares favourably to a modern SPAAG such as the Gepard, which carries only 320 rounds per gun but also only fires each gun at a cyclic rate of 550rpm. In other words, 9 rounds per gun per second for a total of approximately 36 x 1-second bursts.
- In order to prevent possible ingestion of spent cases into its engines, the A-10 keeps hold of its fired empty cases in the rear drum immediately behind the ammunition feed drum (All of this is part of the overall 5.93m length of the gun system).
- There is no ingestion problem on a ground vehicle and so no need to retain the spent 30mm cases, thus the second drum could be used to hold more ammunition, effectively doubling its capacity to 2300 rounds. This would give approximately 64 x 1-second bursts from one complete ammunition load. The bonus, of course, is that each 1-second burst fires 35 rounds down range as opposed to the Gepard which fires 18 rounds per second from its 2 barrels.
- The GAU-8 operates a linkless round system with the rounds effectively pushed along the feed rails by the ammunition drum, which is designed like a giant corkscrew. Whilst this storage and feed system could be replaced with something less linear there is, I believe, scope for some sort of gun elevation system, which would only move the front part of the gun without adversely affecting the flexible feeds. In the A-10 mount this mid section appears to be taken up with what I assume are hydraulic and/or electric motors to spin the barrel group and power the ammunition drums. Without the limitation of aircraft space and weight constraints, I am sure that the above mentioned elevation system could be worked out.
- The empty cases are ejected from a armoured port on the right-hand side of the turret. The process of reloading the ammunition drums is facilitated through an access panel on the rear of the turret which allows a reload feed belt to be attached.
The model, which represents the 2nd Vehicle, 2nd Platoon of the 2nd Magach 5 Avenger Company, is made from parts of a Tamiya M48 Sgt York, a Tamiya M60A2 and a fair bit of scratch build/bits from the spares box.
Why don't they put the GAU-8 on a tank or AFV?This is why:
The Soviets used a simple variant of the ZSU-23/4 in Afghanistan where they just pulled the radar off it and used optical sights to engage targets that were often firing down on convoys. Its the same kind of situation that forces find themselves in today.The infamous Afghanskii. One of the most effective vehicles in Grozny, also became an RPG magnet as a result. Grandaddy of the BMPT "Terminator".
AFVs can just about carry a 30mm, ammo and room for other important stuff. Six barrels AND a useful ammo load? That's steep...General Electric did enter a severely cutdown GAU-8 in a specialized turret alongside the radar from the Chaparral for the 1970s DIVAD air-defense system, competing against Sperry Rand with a 35mm gatling (rebarreled from 37mm) and 15-year-old radar/fire control design, Raytheon with an adapted straight-up Gepard turret with twin 35mm, General Dynamics with the same guns as Gepard in a new turret with fire control and sensors copied over from Phalanx and Ford with a twin 40mm design and a AN/APG-66 radar adapted from the F-16. Chassis in all cases was a M48A5.
Ahh yes that boondoggle that lead to the Sgt York :sI understand Sgt York wasn't as successful as Shilka? What went wrong?
I understand Sgt York wasn't as successful as Shilka? What went wrong?
I understand Sgt York wasn't as successful as Shilka? What went wrong?
The RAM-D (reliability, availability, maintainability and durability) tests ran from November 1981 to February 1982, demonstrating a wide range of operation concerns.[16] The turret proved to have too slow a traverse to track fast moving targets, and had serious problems operating in cold weather, including numerous hydraulic leaks. The simple electronic counter-countermeasures (ECCM) suite could be defeated by only minor jamming. The used guns taken from U.S. Army stock were in twisted condition due to careless warehousing. Perhaps the most surprising problem was that the 30-year-old M48 chassis with the new 20-ton turret meant the vehicle had trouble keeping pace with the newer M1 and M2, the vehicles it was meant to protect.
General Electric did enter a severely cutdown GAU-8 in a specialized turret alongside the radar from the Chaparral for the 1970s DIVAD air-defense systemHow much ammo did it carry? Okay, I can see why it might be considered for the AA role.
(http://i.imgur.com/1sLO3cn.jpg)
Ahh yes that boondoggle that lead to the Sgt York :sIs that the one which locked on a building's ventilator fan instead of the helicopter target drone, and nearly hosed down the observation stands?
Like they said, it's a replacement prototype for the M-42 Duster, and probably the last major gun-based AA system. Everything gunwise since has been pretty close range, operating under an umbrella of missile fire instead of being the primary defense system. Not to knock things like the M163 VADS but it's a low-and-slow killer, rather than a general all-purpose AA unit.The T249 actually showed that it worked, that it could kind of hit what it was aiming at. It didn't loose to the M247 because it was worse than the Sgt. York. It lost to the 247 because the recoil and vibration from the main gun were so intense they damaged the machine. The Sgt. York got the nod because they figured that while it was a dumpster fire that the problems with the York were primarily in the electronics and could with effort be fixed. Whereas the Vigilante actually had working fire control, but every time it fired the main gun it vibrated itself to death and damaged itself.
As for the T249, well, let's just say that the M247 Sergeant York beat it. And you know what a wonderful platform THAT was. Still, there's something that brings a tear to the eye when you say "37x219mm at 3000rpm" but maybe that's just me.
Sleep well, little BRRRRRRRRT. Sleep well.
Is that the one which locked on a building's ventilator fan instead of the helicopter target drone, and nearly hosed down the observation stands?The observation stands were, it should be pointed out, packed with top level military folks for both the US and England and congresscritters that damn near got reaped by the two Bofors. Ever see the original Robocop? It was almost a Poor Mr. Kinney moment... Why did it happen? Ford said it was because the vehicle had been 'washed' and that fouled the electronics.
It didn't loose to the M247 because it was worse than the Sgt. York.
...it could kind of hit what it was aiming at...the recoil and vibration from the main gun were so intense they damaged the machine...every time it fired the main gun it vibrated itself to death...
Sounds worse to me. :DNah, the Sgt. York is famous for a public fire display in which it first put its full salvo into the ground. Ahead of it. While tracking targets in the air.
Um...And you'd think after the M551's gun issues, that'd be real embarrassing to run into AGAIN. Then again that wasn't a problem limited to the Americans, but at least the Soviets didn't run into it until they put battleship-sized sixteen-inch rifles on a tracked chassis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2B1_Oka). Kind of expected at that point.
Sounds worse to me. :D
iirc, using direct fire munitions from the cannon had a tendency to damage the missile firing related computer hardware, which made the lackluster performance of the missile that much worse from a operational perspective.
i often wondered why they didn't just redesign the tank to mount a 105mm or something instead, after the missile proved insufficient.
i often wondered why they didn't just redesign the tank to mount a 105mm or something instead, after the missile proved insufficient.
Edit: looked for a reference in the Hunnicutt book, unable to find. But there is a photo in the Squadron/Signal Sheridan in Action #2028 p. 15.
Damon.
Ready for the apocalypse ...Was that a Reliant Robin?
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/79870793499783e138a09913bde435de/tumblr_pe1hhbaxnu1rvhbxso1_640.jpg)
Ready for the apocalypse ...
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/79870793499783e138a09913bde435de/tumblr_pe1hhbaxnu1rvhbxso1_640.jpg)
Was that a Reliant Robin?Looks like. Or aka to me, that blue car Mr Bean really hates...
Note the outboard at the back. And does anyone recognise the longarm in the passenger seat?Might be a sterling smg? The L34A1/Mk.5 integrally suppressed variant i think
Might be a sterling smg? The L34A1/Mk.5 integrally suppressed variant i thinkThink so
Note the outboard at the back. And does anyone recognise the longarm in the passenger seat?Are you talking about the Sterling leaned back between the seats, or the water-cooled(?) belt fed on the mount?
It reminds me of Girls Last Tour.This one (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SdKfz_2)?
M1919 Browning AND a Vickers MG? come now, its the apocalypse, lets have some ammo commonality here
I believe that is actually a flex-mount M3 .50CAL machine gun. Note the spade grip at the back.
Damon.
I believe that is actually a flex-mount M3 .50CAL machine gun. Note the spade grip at the back.After taking a closer look, I'd say its an AN/M2 Browning aircraft gun, with spade grip added
Heh, wheeled MG Goblins,go fig.!not enough weapons. the MG variant Goblin has 6 MG's and an SRM6, the above only has, at best, 1.
( That's the Goblin (MG) medium tank from 3026 TRO and Reinforcements, Volume 5: Vehicles, folks. Yeah I'm old! xp)
TT
Except that only carries up to 10 troopers, more like a Heavy APC, Wheeled.heavy APC's carry ~30 though. given that our IRL infantry gear is incredibly lightweight compared to BT's (we use smaller calibers, lighter armor, fewer and lighter support weapons, etc) 1 modern squad equaling a 1 ton bay fits.
TT
I think the worst thing about that tank is the earworm.
An American invention during World War I, the flaming bayonet was an attachment to the standard American M1903 Springfield or M1917 Enfield which was placed below to the bayonet. The attachment consisted of six cartridges loaded with flammable chemicals which could fire a burst of very bright flame up to ten feet. It’s purpose was not to clear out trenches like a regular flamethrower, as it could only fire a quick burst. However it was intended to be used to distract or blind the enemy so that the user could close to within bayonet range. I can’t find much info on this weapon, however it is probably unlikely this device saw much combat, if any at all. Apparently the device had ignition problems, added to much extra weight to the front of a rifle, and was of dubious usefulness. The flaming bayonet project was discontinued in 1919.
https://imgur.com/gallery/SB2QGM7What's the dangly bit on the right?
*quietly head canons that this is what a AC-20's loading cycle is like just sans the bloke loading the cordite charge into the rammer.
What's the dangly bit on the right?i believe that is a crane assembly holding the next three shells, ready to be fed into the feed tray.
i believe that is a crane assembly holding the next three shells, ready to be fed into the feed tray.Yup, a bit curious as to where/when the fuzes are affixed as it somewhat presupposes what the next three rounds are. Great if you are firing HE but what if you need smoke or a different fuze.
Yup, a bit curious as to where/when the fuzes are affixed as it somewhat presupposes what the next three rounds are. Great if you are firing HE but what if you need smoke or a different fuze.
I think youtube clip show a better view of how it is done with the FH77. Warning - this is a 8 min 12 sec youtube clip of the Indian Army doing a demonstration firing, enjoy the giggles.
https://youtu.be/w_dWEtK94Wg (https://youtu.be/w_dWEtK94Wg)
Arty's not quite like a tank fight; you get told what to lay down and where and only then do you start fusing, loading, and firing. Each fire mission, anywhere from "five rounds from one gun" to "I need the entire division celebrating July 4" is going to be told ahead of time which rounds to prepare, load, and fire.As a former firing battery commander, battalion and regimental operations officer I am wrestling with my response. Please wait.
Arty's not quite like a tank fight; you get told what to lay down and where and only then do you start fusing, loading, and firing. Each fire mission, anywhere from "five rounds from one gun" to "I need the entire division celebrating July 4" is going to be told ahead of time which rounds to prepare, load, and fire.
its surprising it took this long for something like this to be developed. But I guess that M113 family was "good enough" for long enough...USA had plenty of armoured troop carriers in between: Bradley, Humvee (some of them anyway), Stryker, and something called MRAP. Anything else?
As a former firing battery commander, battalion and regimental operations officer I am wrestling with my response. Please wait.I defer to your knowledge and experience; my comparison was that the artillery isn't out there looking for targets and potentially running across surprises with just what's loaded but is more of an on-call service. And speaking purely in a perfect-world setting as well, of course.
OK, let's get some AFVs back in the AFV thread.
(https://www.janes.com/images/assets/194/84194/p1295942_main.jpg)
The Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV) will begin low-rate initial production this month.
The Bradley based vehicle will be produced in 5 variants to replace the US Army's M113 family.
ah, so some decades after the The Pentagon Wars (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA,) the Bradley returns to its original roots?The Circle is at last completed.
Interesting.
(https://www.janes.com/images/assets/194/84194/p1295942_main.jpg)
USA had plenty of armoured troop carriers in between: Bradley, Humvee (some of them anyway), Stryker, and something called MRAP. Anything else?
I defer to your knowledge and experience; my comparison was that the artillery isn't out there looking for targets and potentially running across surprises with just what's loaded but is more of an on-call service. And speaking purely in a perfect-world setting as well, of course.Well, I started out thinking, "No S Sherlock," but stopped when I realized you're not wrong and someone else might not know that. Also, I didn't have a no-kidding answer to what was happening. Fundamentally, you're correct artillery is waiting on someone to want something killed or suppressed but there are also the times where you need to obscure, illuminate, go anti-tank, or toss out a mine field. While not wrong it is not quite that simple (wrong word but it's been a long week so forgive me) because there are priority requirements for which you have to have ready ammunition.
How close is the artillery to the logistics and resupply chain anyway? Considering its preferred placement in the field, far enough behind the front line to not be threatened by direct attack but close enough that its (formidable) gun ranges can put shells on the enemy, I'd think you'd be a lot closer to the supply side of things and a lot less concerned about what's available at hand than, for example, said tanks or infantry. Granted, there's counterbattery fire, and EVERYONE has to worry about air attack, but I'd expect a battery to have its own resupply sites nearby and a close connection to the mainline.Now that is an astute question as a lot of it gets into, organic capability combat trains, field trains, logistics units, distribution nodes, etc. Years ago on these forums, I posted a picture of my battery getting resupplied at Nasiriyah in '03. If I recall, you could see two guns (M198s) with prime movers (7-tons), their ammo trucks (also 7-tons but trailers), and the battalion combat train (of which an LVS with Mk14(?) trailer was featured). Basically, my battery carried a basic load of ammunition (800 to 900 rounds), and so did the battalion which worked out to a three battery battalion have four batteries worth of ammunition with the last being in its combat train. The regimental field train would likely have a similar ratio and that would increase going further back the logistics train. Factored into that is the rate of consumption which is an average over time by activity.
Again, perfect world, at least.
A basic load of ammunition is even more than I'd expected it to beFor battalion level that's less than i had expected it to be.
For battalion level that's less than i had expected it to be.After 15 minutes of searching I can't find the weight of a 105mm round but since it is a semi-fixed ammunition type (meaning it has a powder canister attached) it is fairly light. A 155mm round is nearly 100lbs. For a sense of scale the 203mm is over 200lbs. Both of those are separate loading (no canister with powder). Bottom line, larger rounds and separate propellants means less total rounds carried...but the boom is ultimately bigger.
German 105mm batteries in the Cold War (as towed artillery for rear-security (!) infantry brigades) which would have featured a similar per-time consumption rate (by rounds, not throw-weight) carried a basic load of 1000 rounds just on the gun tractor trucks.
The batallion ammunition supply squads would carry another 1000 rounds - each, at one per battery. And the basic load of the brigade that its supply company carried included about another 1000 rounds for the artillery somewhere in its mobile stocks...
Part of the reason for this is probably that supply for German units worked on the "pull" principle instead of "push" as the US Army uses. I.e. the battalion supply unit would actively retrieve ammunition from the brigade or DIV supply points once ammunition in the batteries runs low. In the US principle, you get the ammunition delivered from that level instead based on estimated consumption rate at set intervals.
How much extra flammable boom does an unfired RAP booster give when the shell goes off? Or do they separate somewhere midflight and just end up in the ground?Negligible as far as I know. There is no "separation" because a plug is removed to activate the rocket. It is actually ignited by propellant. When shooting RAP, I'd count how many rocket dots I could see heading down range because if you didn't see one per gun you were going to have a short round by about 10 km.
So here's a question when it comes to artillery. SPG or towed? Which is, in your opinion, more generally useful despite the drawbacks?I'd say SPG for offense and mobile reserve, and towed for defense.
So here's a question when it comes to artillery. SPG or towed? Which is, in your opinion, more generally useful despite the drawbacks?Well it depends on what you're trying to do. For some, towed is a must have for expeditionary reasons while others facing potential invasion might go heavy SP with rapid fire capabilities to dish out massive volleys and then dodge the counter battery fires.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/ParkPatriot2015part5-54.jpg)And laser guided rounds for ''especially for you'' deliveries.
The Soviet 2S4 240mm SP mortar for when you REALLY want to send someone a 'to whom it may concern' HE message.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/ParkPatriot2015part5-54.jpg)
The Soviet 2S4 240mm SP mortar for when you REALLY want to send someone a 'to whom it may concern' HE message.
So here's a question when it comes to artillery. SPG or towed? Which is, in your opinion, more generally useful despite the drawbacks?
Self-propelled, at all times. It's just so much easier to dodge counter-battery fire.
In some parts of the world, a 30-50 ton SP artillery may have limited tactical mobility.M109s are still 30 tons right? that's not too bad.
And I don't know what the hell this monster is... a really, really big SPAAG?
M109s are still 30 tons right? that's not too bad.
I'm not an expert on the topic, and readily admit I could be wrong, but he story on the Bradley I've heard is this: Pentagon Wars movie distorted things a bit."The earliest specification, from 1958, called for a vehicle of no more than 8 tons, mounting a turret with a 20 mm autocannon and a 7.62 mm machine gun, with sealed firing ports for five infantry gunners." - Michael Green & James D. Brown (2007). M2/M3 Bradley at War. St. Paul, MN: Zenith Press.
It was never intended to be primarily an APC. It's a light tank (although it's not called that) with an infantry support mission. The infantry bay in the back is icing on the cake, like the Merkava MBT - there to reduce the force's reliance on actual APCs
SOP was to be a fair distance behind the infantry lines, supporting them from the rear. Armour was designed to be sufficient to survive artillery shrapnel.
And I don't know what the hell this monster is... a really, really big SPAAG?
(https://i.postimg.cc/1RNYgCCB/45002813324-4654fee178-o.jpg)
I wasn't aware that Minecraft had tanks.The first thing that went through my head was a flashback to 1988.
I'm not an expert on the topic, and readily admit I could be wrong, but he story on the Bradley I've heard is this: Pentagon Wars movie distorted things a bit.I thought Bradley was meant to be an American equivalent of BMP-1. And what little I have seen of Pentagon Wars, movie makes it that USA invented whole IFV concept with Bradley.
It was never intended to be primarily an APC. It's a light tank (although it's not called that) with an infantry support mission. The infantry bay in the back is icing on the cake, like the Merkava MBT - there to reduce the force's reliance on actual APCs
I thought Bradley was meant to be an American equivalent of BMP-1. And what little I have seen of Pentagon Wars, movie makes it that USA invented whole IFV concept with Bradley.
I wasn't aware that Minecraft had tanks.My first thought was "I want that LEGO set!". ;D
I'm not an expert on the topic, and readily admit I could be wrong, but he story on the Bradley I've heard is this: Pentagon Wars movie distorted things a bit.
IIRC wasn't there an Italian AA proposal that looked like that? A rather heavy (76mm?) naval AA gun on a heavy truck chassis?Not on a truck chassis, the OTOMATIC used the tracked chassis of the then-current Palmaria self-propelled howitzer (based off the OF-40 MBT, which some may claim was a reverse-engineered unlicensed copy of the Leopard 1).
I'm not an expert on the topic, and readily admit I could be wrong, but he story on the Bradley I've heard is this: Pentagon Wars movie distorted things a bit.
The Serbian PASARS-16 runs along those lines though, with a 40mm Bofors on a FAP-2026 6x6 truck looking even more like the GI Joe package...:It was the combo of the BFG and the light blue paint.
And I don't know what the hell this monster is... a really, really big SPAAG?JRVG-1 76mm self-propelled artillery weapon system, according to this site (https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=zh-CN&u=http://m.cankaoxiaoxi.com/mil/20181108/2350345.shtml&prev=search). another site (https://jqknews.com/news/93857-It_was_thought_that_the_air_show_was_to_see_how_the_plane_met_the_king_of_land_warfare.html) (which didn't have a pic but did have a description in mostly-OK-english) had more info.
(https://i.postimg.cc/1RNYgCCB/45002813324-4654fee178-o.jpg)
Doesn't make less size inside ...
in the case of teh T-90, it's the inside that makes it smaller inside, (like the T72 it's derived from, the T-90 is a whole new definition of 'cozy'...)I seem to recall that the decision to go with an autoloader versus a crew member let them go with a smaller turret and even with the mass of the autoloader, it still shaved something like 3 tons off the vehicle.
I seem to recall that the decision to go with an autoloader versus a crew member let them go with a smaller turret and even with the mass of the autoloader, it still shaved something like 3 tons off the vehicle.
Smaller tanks take less resources to build, so you can build more.well, smaller turret also use less weight to keep the same level of armor protection....
The Russians always believed that quantity has a quality all it's own. ::)
well, smaller turret also use less weight to keep the same level of armor protection....
Smaller tanks take less resources to build, so you can build more.
The Russians always believed that quantity has a quality all it's own. ::)
A combat-loaded T-72 is about 45 metric tons, an M1 Abrams is about 60 tons, significant difference when it comes to mobility considerations.
The most you're gonna save is a ton or two of actual steel, and while that may make you lighter and smaller it's not by far the most expensive parts of the tank.
It IS true, relatively, that a smaller tank is going to be harder to hit at the same distance as a larger tank. With modern guns and FCS, that margin of difficulty is mostly a joke
Fair point, though that also should point out the Abrams is a good 3 feet and change longer in the hull and I think wider as well. I'm thinking of 'taking the turret and making it larger' only really involving that amount of extra steel since the composite front end, gun, autoloader, and the hull of the Russian tank would all stay the same. IIRC there's also a lot more armor on the Abrams hull as well compared to the T-72, but I can't name that offhand.
And as far as the T-80 goes, granted, I'll concede the price difference between it and the Abrams is pretty significant, but I don't think it comes down to a case of 'buying 100 2 million dollar tanks or 40 5 million dollar tanks' as far as resource availability. I could be wrong!
I'm really surprised Russia stuck with that design paradigm for so long.they already have the factories, infrastructure ,and trained workers to make them. it is easier and cheaper to do an incremental update to an existing design than to create something massively different. especially when the updates largely involve internal systems like targeting system, radios, etc, and not the hull, turret, and gun.
I for one like the idea of a digital cockpit with cameras and decent size screens; maybe the next-gen followon to the Abrams will go gonzo for the driver and TC and go full EOTS/HMS/HMHUD.
Canceled mass production in August, they'll run two battalions of 40 of them with 1st Guards Tank Regiment in the Moscow garrison. Everything else is going to be upgraded T-80s and 90s, and keep about 6,000 T-72s of various mark from the smelters as reserve tanks.
It was an interesting idea, two points for effort if not the best execution. (Having your prestige machine break down at its unveiling parade didn't look so good) I for one like the idea of a digital cockpit with cameras and decent size screens; maybe the next-gen followon to the Abrams will go gonzo for the driver and TC and go full EOTS/HMS/HMHUD.
Meanwhile...photo realistic Bolo!Or Homeworld: Deserts of Kharak
Obviously fake but still kinda cool :D
Or Homeworld: Deserts of Kharak
Meanwhile...photo realistic Bolo!If that was real, how many cruise missiles could it survive?
(https://i.imgur.com/qg7vcPq.jpg)
If that was real, how many cruise missiles could it survive?Depends on if its a battleship with treads or a cruiser on tracks.
Not tan enoughPFFFT you never seen some of them in players' preferred colors and symbols.
If that was real, how many cruise missiles could it survive?Not many. it is a vehicle, so motive criticals will take care of it real fast.
I'm wondering if it's an all new vehicle or an AAV7 with a new set of clothes?It's FNSS, so it's probably a vismodded upscaled M113 like their ACV-30...
Not many. it is a vehicle, so motive criticals will take care of it real fast.Not a mobile structure?
Not a mobile structure?
The Turkish Marine Assault Vehicle (MAV). I'm wondering if it's an all new vehicle or an AAV7 with a new set of clothes?
(https://www.janes.com/images/assets/642/84642/p1723677_main.jpg)
It's FNSS, so it's probably a vismodded upscaled M113 like their ACV-30...not exactly vismod if they are actually rebuilding the hull to make it properly amphibious. but that does look like a M113's motive system under there.
What kind of tank is that?
I'm always amazed at how tiny a FT-17 is... Roughly the size of a compact car.It's barely bigger than a bloke sitting down and his mate standing up behind him.
Did Japan base the Type 89 off it?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_89_I-Go_medium_tank#History_and_development
It's barely bigger than a bloke sitting down and his mate standing up behind him.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a8/ca/58/a8ca584ad0deca9139ce49dcd9ff7fc6.jpg)
Did Japan base the Type 89 off it?loosely. sorta. the Type 89 was 12 ton tank filling a similar role of the 10 ton Renault FT, but it was developed using features off both the FT and the 20 ton Vickers Medium Mk. I (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickers_Medium_Mark_I) (which btw.. sucks in WoT.)
Gents:
What am I looking at? I was researching the Bushmaster Autocannon and well.... this was in there!
(https://cdn8.dissolve.com/p/D378_90_150/D378_90_150_0004_600.jpg)
Color me intrigued.
TT
What am I looking at? TT
How many people have to sit on the hood to keep it from flipping when it fires?
I love how they have gone to the trouble of painting a camo pattern the ute (aka pickup for you Americas) but leave the bright shine chrome door handles ;D
I love how they have gone to the trouble of painting a camo pattern the ute (aka pickup for you Americans) but leave the bright shine chrome door handles ;DHow else is he going to ride eternal shining and chrome to the gates of Valhalla?
How else is he going to ride eternal shining and chrome to the gates of Valhalla?Not to mention without the handles, they can't find the truck at all!
V8! V8! V8!
I will no longer be satisfied until I see a camo'ed Technical with a big gun and spinnaz.
How about a home-built SPG?The gate valve style breech block is kinda interesting. It goes back to the "how do you build something when you don't have the entire military-industrial complex to call on?" Making the block would be 4-5 (tedious) operations on a manual milling machine. Then the slot in the tube could be 2-3 more milling operations. The last thing would be to machine the end of the tube so it could accept some kind of ring to backstop the block. Almost all this work could be speed up with some clever pre drilling.
(https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Screenshot_20181021-143206-660x424.png)
The Free Syrian Army's "Sniper Cannon", outlined here: https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2018/11/28/fsa-technicals-part-3-120mm-sniper-cannon/ (https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2018/11/28/fsa-technicals-part-3-120mm-sniper-cannon/)
No, but they could probably take the gun out and put it into a new truck fairly easily once the damage gets bad enough.Looks like that's already happened at least one
Looks like that's already happened at least one
https://youtu.be/jDGrsi1AIl0?t=270
I'm curious why there seems to be screening over the holes in the muzzle brake.My thought: to prevent debris from entering the muzzle, inside or outside.
It's the wave of the future, as even terrorists can cobble together attack drones now.
Well, you've got to figure that whoever came up with it and made it work is probably pretty clever.Depending on the machine tools to which they have access, I would go so far as to say "really frickin' smart."
Every time I see an "anti-drone" vehicle I feel like they're designed for use against full scale helicopters.
The military is more concerned about #2, I guess. Police, #1, but their budgets aren't (yet) appealing to the arms manufacturers.
Don't forget the really big ones like the Piaggio Hammerhead, which is basically an executive transport aircraft turned into a giant drone.
There is also EW with capability to bring down the drones by overriding the ground controls, Russians had some success with this approach when defending their airbase in Syria, with the rest of drones being taken out by missiles.
random thought
iirc the old M79 grenade launcher had a shotgun style shell,
i wonder if you could modify a automatic grenade launcher to use them,
less issues with follow on damage, or just a belt fed 12 gauge could work
I'd be willing to be that the military is worried about things like this, too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HESA_Ababil#Qasef-1 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HESA_Ababil#Qasef-1) One of these was supposedly used in the last week or two to hit a military parade in Yemen. You can see what kind of coverage it give from about 1:03 to 1:40 in this video: https://youtu.be/JOQLEoAN98o?t=63 (https://youtu.be/JOQLEoAN98o?t=63)Supposedly 6 KIA from that
Stingers and similar missiles seem like gross overkill against them though. Every time I see an "anti-drone" vehicle I feel like they're designed for use against full scale helicopters.Missiles for the big ones, cannon for the little. I would imagine a fused round or two from a small CIWS or C-RAM type system would do the job on small, slow-moving drones.
Depending on the machine tools to which they have access, I would go so far as to say "really frickin' smart."
There are videos of people mounting (and firing) everything from handguns up to full-size MGs on commercial drones. Nut I think it will be another decade or two before it's really practical.Recoil must do wonders to accuracy and effective range...
I'm always shocked how tiny they are when I see one.
Speaking of dinky French tanks.Good show.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMqbkQcDe9E
Awwww! Its like someone put some armour plate and treads on one of the Walmart mobility scooters!
Bitey walmart scooters! Crewed by an amazingly brave (and lucky) crew!
The Wiesal is the last such vehicle that was built though (unless there are other vehicles that were built in response to it).Something 7.62mm proof that can be carried two to a CH-53? None.
Russian T-14 vs T-90according to what i've found (which i'll admit is probably highly speculative even on the better sites) it would probably be part of the NII Stali Upper Hemisphere Protection Complex, which includes the two vertical and two horizontal steerable box launchers. apparently they are a "soft kill" system according to what little has been released. presumably smoke/chaff/flare/how-ever-you-do-it.
I think that rack next to the Armata's RWS is an anti-top-attack APS - or is it chaff grenades?
(https://66.media.tumblr.com/af254ea382a9a1aeb1b5563ee3040461/tumblr_plldrj3FOl1r94kvzo1_1280.jpg)Tank? Not assault gun?
Past and present, a St Charmond tank escorting a much more modern Leclerc.
These early tanks were meant to break through of a sort, but they were too big and too slow to exploit the breakthrough so you had something like FT-17 Renault to exploit the breakthrough made by the big tanks.
by modern parlance the St Charmond could be called an assault gun, but that term didn't exist back in 1916 so it was a tank. The FT-17 though was really the great grandfather of all modern tanks as it got the layout correct, with a driver in the front and a turret in the middle with an engine at the back. Whilst the Mark I's got the ball rolling the FT-17 is the real genesis of modern tank layout.
As I understand it that's more true for the Whippet than the FT-17. For one, the FT-17 didn't have the ability to cross a full-width trench.https://youtu.be/WC0fK9OaS3E
Aye with the Merkava it was more about survivability, you put the engine and the power pack between anything sharp and very fast moving or explosive and it might help the tank survive, sure its a mobility kill but when you've only got a limited number of tankers, they are harder to replace than a tank itself.I have read Israel has mission killed enemy tanks with 40 mm autocannons of Duster SPAAG: enemy crews panicked and jumped out of the tanks as 40 mm knocked on armour. I make a guess Israel has got vast reserve of tanks to replace losses, even if many of those aren't Israel's own Merkavas.
Not really vast reserves and thats kind of the reason for the Merkava's big focus on survivability.Huh? So what has Israel done with captured & salvaged enemy tanks? Smelted them to build Merkavas?
Huh? So what has Israel done with captured & salvaged enemy tanks? Smelted them to build Merkavas?They re-gunned them and distributed them to armored brigades. See Tirdan -5 and Tirdan-6, apparently not bad tanks in the 70's and early 80's.
by modern parlance the St Charmond could be called an assault gun, but that term didn't exist back in 1916 so it was a tank. The FT-17 though was really the great grandfather of all modern tanks as it got the layout correct, with a driver in the front and a turret in the middle with an engine at the back. Whilst the Mark I's got the ball rolling the FT-17 is the real genesis of modern tank layout.At the beginning tanks were 'males' or 'females' depending on the main armement (machinegun or canon ?). Classification changed when engineers discovered the concept of 'coaxial machinegun' ;)
The S-Tank, I've always called it a Armored Fighting Vehicle. Its not a tank...its a mobile gun. Its like a Hetzer or a Stug.They were used as normal MBTs. Remember, it's a pretty old design. Up until the 80's firing on the run was still pretty much "spray and pray", so the 103 was only marginally slower than competing tanks when it came to successfully engaging targets. And its low profile meant that had a good chance of spotting (and thus engaging) the enemy first.
Aye with the Merkava it was more about survivability, you put the engine and the power pack between anything sharp and very fast moving or explosive and it might help the tank survive,
Wished the Merkava was in the game of Merc:2000 and Twilight:2000...
Wonder what it's game stats would have been...
TT
Big gun like the M1A1 with more armor and maybe that 60mm motor.As many as 6 according to Wikipedia.
I thought the Merkava have the ability to carry passengers like up to 4??
according to what i've found (which i'll admit is probably highly speculative even on the better sites) it would probably be part of the NII Stali Upper Hemisphere Protection Complex, which includes the two vertical and two horizontal steerable box launchers. apparently they are a "soft kill" system according to what little has been released. presumably smoke/chaff/flare/how-ever-you-do-it.
supposedly the larger tubes at the base of the turret are hard kill APS mounts, but there is some debate whether that is true (could just be smoke tubes and russia is hyping them up otherwise to make the vehicle seem more advanced)
nextbigfuture had this diagram made up.. grain of salt for a lot of it, i'm sure.
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ShEBi7leibc/VVzfufL2vrI/AAAAAAAA-Pw/YKpyiPhTI1g/s1600/RussiaT14tank.jpg)
and the APC model:
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-wOrKq-eTze0/VVzfyzC_11I/AAAAAAAA-P4/xhaIzyC_D1I/s1600/RussiaT15IFV.jpg)
Met sensor? Meteorological sensor?Yes. To be exact it's a crosswind sensor for the ballistic computer. Pretty much standard in any tank since the mid 70s, basically introduced globally in parallel to laser rangefinders on tanks.
Having that rear hatch would make loading a LOT faster than typical up-and-over through the turret hatches. Save a few minutes (and some fatigue) per each tank crew, it adds up over a battalion or brigade.
Also it's not like the Israelis have only a few crews and a bunch of tanks for them to jump out of and run back to get in and drive to the front. They mobilize all they can handle, Merkavas or Sabras or whatever; the point the Israelis consider is that their total population is less than 9 million and individual lives are very important culturally. So like the Americans, they do a lot to protect their troops, tankers or infantry or whatever. The idea of protecting the crew comes from that point of view, not "they can come back in a new tank" or anything.
Isn't the crew compartment on the Merkova also free of oils and greases to reduce the risk of fire? As I ask the question, I have to wonder how you could do that and still keep things sliding properly... Graphite or silicone base lubricants?
(https://defenceoftherealm.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/strv-103b-2.jpg)Tank destroyer. Assault guns are meant to engage fortifications and dug in positions in direct support of Infantry. The S-Tank is meant as an Anti-tank unit.
Tank destroyer. Assault guns are meant to engage fortifications and dug in positions in direct support of Infantry. The S-Tank is meant as an Anti-tank unit.
A tank destroyer is not a piece of hardware per se. It is a mode of use.Can't same apply to tanks regardless of whether main armament is on rotating turret or not?
"Tank" today is really a shorthand for "Main battle tank", and any AFV intended to be used that way (typically, mobile offensive warfare) can arguably be called a tank.Good one.
In using that definition, the 103 is a tank. AFVs like the Hetzer and the SU-85 were intended to be used against fixed positions (assault guns) or in fixed (defensive) positions (tank destroyers), thought during WWII they sometimes ended up being used as tanks anyway.
Then there's the Sturmgeschutz III. Used as an assault gun and infantry support tank, but armed and armoured just like any other tank.The original StuG III (versions A to E) used the 75mm StuK 37 L/24, same as on the Pz IV and not really considered a tank gun - but an infantry support gun.
Here we go (https://youtu.be/7ho8TU_JpoI?t=437)Depends? Tank Destroyers are called that because their primary role was to kill tanks, usually in a defensive role. Tanks were offensive units, and meant to kill anything in their way. (Someone's bound to bring up Infantry Tanks but...well, that's a specialised role on top of things.)
Can't same apply to tanks regardless of whether main armament is on rotating turret or not?
The original StuG III (versions A to E) used the 75mm StuK 37 L/24, same as on the Pz IV and not really considered a tank gun - but an infantry support gun.Yes, but the infantry support gun was still quite an effective tank-killer for its time, and later on even more so.
With later versions from 1942 on they split the role that the StuG III and Pz IV had with new variants, creating a dedicated anti-tank version with the 75mm StuK 40 L/48 (twice as long barrel) and a dedicated infantry support assault gun with a 105mm StuH 42 (a converted artillery gun).
That was an anti-aircraft gun that was pressed into service as an anti-tank gun due to the fact that nothing else the Germans had in Africa was able to penetrate the frontal armor of a Matilda. It was only after they realized how good it was at taking out tanks that a modified version that was a dedicated anti-tank gun was built.Who knew a high velocity made for excellent penetration power? :D
The 75mm KwK/StuK 37 L/24 ?Well, T-34 and KV-1 excepted, but nothing in the German army could deal with them anyway.
Not really. It relied virtually entirely on HEAT for anti-tank effect fired at low velocities and was pretty inaccurate firing them too beyond low ranges. Up till halfway into the war the performance of these HEAT shells was also pretty lackluster (as in you could've barely scratched a T-34 with them).
Who knew a high velocity made for excellent penetration power? :DAmericans. They considered using 57 millimeter gun to replace 75 mm ones. Then they realized that 57's shell velocity drops more rapidly and isn't fast enough for efficient penetration at ranges over 500 yards.
That's because 57mm guns were being used by the Soviets as a replacement for their 76mm guns, because the Soviet 76mm was a fairly terrible gun. And the Germans were using a 50mm gun at the time as well.Said 57mm gun aka the Ordnance QF 6 pounder was practically the only effective anti-tank gun the Soviets had, and one of the most numerous items sent under Lend-Lease.
Apparently the US didn't have any other 57mm rounds besides AP though the Brits had HE and (limited quantities of) canister. Plus probably by that time they figured theyd want something bigger.
I think 57mm APC could punch through even up-armoured Panzer IVs, but I'm not sure. Anyway the Brits were already moving on to the 17pdr by the time the Panthers started coming out.
There's a reason there are stories of lone KV-1s and Char B1-bis taking on entire companies of Panzers and winning in the early war. Germany just didn't have a good anti-tank gun until they developed the Kwk 40 7.5 cm.
That's because 57mm guns were being used by the Soviets as a replacement for their 76mm guns, because the Soviet 76mm was a fairly terrible gun. And the Germans were using a 50mm gun at the time as well.Soviet Union had great many different 76(,2) mm guns. Some were infantry guns, others were anti-tank guns, some were short (compare to Germany's short 75), and others were long (compare to Germany's long 75). With that said, not all of them were terrible, and T-34 & KV-1 with long 76,2 mm kicked serious ass.
....The Sherman gets a bad rep, that is not deserved and actual figures show it to be mostly Hollywood. Below are stats that I have been collecting and refining as I find more information. There are lots of urban myths about the Sherman that like I said mostly come from Hollywood, for example that it took five Sherman's to kill a Panther, not true once we got an gun with a decent AT round . Now when we sent Sherman's out we sent them in platoons of five tanks but it does not take five to one odds to kill a Panther. For example in the movie Fury when the tanks are driving down the road and attacked at close range by the German's starting at the rear tank, Fury an M4A3E8 should have been able to kill it from where it was, with out having to close, it did not need to get to the side/rear to get a killing shot, but that did not tell the story they wanted. (Still a good movie and I suggest you see it if you have not even with the Hollywood story telling.)
Both the Sherman & the T-34/76 did perfectly well against panzers when they only had up to 50mm frontal armor. But once you started deploying Panzer IVs with 80mm frontal armor, or Panthers with 120mm (not to mention Tigers), both tanks are going to have to use "tactics" to achieve kills. In addition, the US 76.2mm M1A1 cannon had better AP or similar performance per the information I've seen as compared to the 85mm D-5 cannon (in Korea, the M4A3E8 was mostly comparable to the T-34/85 IMHO). The biggest problem I've seen with Soviet guns is poorer performing ammunition... If they had access to ammo the quality the Germans had, they might have had a bit better performance from their weapons.
Damon.
There's also the issue of the theoretical performance that can be attained if everything is working perfectly versus the actual performance attained under typical conditions.Mmhmm. That too.
and as the Chieftain said, you send one sherman or two you send five because thats how many were in a platoon
the brits and russians both used and loved the shermans
You know, if Sherman crews had a higher chance of surviving the destruction of their tank, then it makes sense that there would be more soldiers talking crap about the tank they were shot out of - statistically, it seems unlikely that certain crew positions on certain tanks - like T-34 drivers would have had much of a chance to complain about their vehicle on the basis of being you know, dead.That's an interesting observation. Survivorship bias (http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacewardefense.php#wald) can have subtle but powerful effects. Consider when the US Army Air Corp asked the Statistical Research Group to determine the most critical places to add armor to B-17s, based on the location of damage found on planes that returned from missions. The answer was to armor the places with the least damage.
That's an interesting observation. Survivorship bias (http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacewardefense.php#wald) can have subtle but powerful effects. Consider when the US Army Air Corp asked the Statistical Research Group to determine the most critical places to add armor to B-17s, based on the location of damage found on planes that returned from missions. The answer was to armor the places with the least damage.
Now behold the AMX-30 ACRA, or the French peek into the gun/missile launcher conceptUnlike the 152mm gun-launchers trialled by Germany and the US, the French gun wasn't supposed to fire any standard gun-fired shells at all btw. The soft-target ammunition - i.e. other than the ATGM - was instead a rocket fired at Mach 2 (with a pretty small HE warhead, comparable effect to a 81mm mortar).
There's also the 'localization' effect - a factory in country that may have specific requirements for terrain considerations is going to understand those considerations much more than a foreign one would. Take Japan for example; entirely apolitically, their strategic situation for tanks is homeland defense on mountainous and forested terrain with a lot of bridges over rivers. Expecting a company in, say, the southwest USA's flat deserts to inherently understand that kind of terrain and what to consider in designing and building a tank is foolish. Granted, you can learn a lot, but the folks who live there know it best and would be your best choice for builders, if they're technologically capable of it.USA got Sherman to work in all the environments tank was used.
Question for you history buffs:
My grandfather passed away 19 years ago, and served in the 6th Armored Division of the US army. He was a Captain and the XO of a Battalion of mobile field artillery, which if I remember correctly, was the 231st Armored Field Artillery Battalion.
He described his vehicles to me as a Sherman that had the turret removed and a howitzer put on top. I've never seen one, and was curious of anyone here knew what it was and could find a picture.
Best,
Mad
thdre is a sherman with a 105 as its gun, but those were in armored units, he was probably referring to the M7 Priest
Question for you history buffs:
My grandfather passed away 19 years ago, and served in the 6th Armored Division of the US army. He was a Captain and the XO of a Battalion of mobile field artillery, which if I remember correctly, was the 231st Armored Field Artillery Battalion.
He described his vehicles to me as a Sherman that had the turret removed and a howitzer put on top. I've never seen one, and was curious of anyone here knew what it was and could find a picture.
Best,
Mad
Or a TD like a Wolverine.Possible, but IIRC Wolverines usually ended up in TD Battalions not Arty battalions. I could easily be wrong though.
CDAT
minor quibble, M8s were an outgrowth of the M5s which came from the M3s
but also M8s were generally assigned to cavalry units as support for M5 units
as to the M40, assuming the unit was updated with them, an XO most likely be in a command vehicle, such as what were referred to as defrocked priests, ie no gun
National pride is a thing, of course; being able to say "we made it ourselves" is kind of nice.Most people would like as much control over their defence supply chain as possible, for obvious reasons. It also helps the balance of trade and local economy if things are built locally rather than overseas.
Opps, My bad. :-[
i tend to obsess over TO&EGreat! Can you tell what are artillery regiments like, and does this BattleTech equivalent (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=64039.msg1473012#msg1473012) come anywhere close of it?
Great! Can you tell what are artillery regiments like, and does this BattleTech equivalent (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=64039.msg1473012#msg1473012) come anywhere close of it?
each battalion would have 18 artillery piecesThat few? I recall reading from somewhere that JGSDF artillery battalion has 40 guns
That few? I recall reading from somewhere that JGSDF artillery battalion has 40 gunsActually, the JGSDF traditionally has below-typical numbers of guns for a given unit size. Usual sizes are 32-48 guns per regiment (!), although that depends on the division and exact time. Usually these are spread out into a number of two-battery "direct support" battalions with only 8 guns per battalion, later enlarged to 12 (one "direct support" battalion per combat battalion in the division). Historically - Cold War - there tended to also be a "proper" artillery battalion grouping the usual 16-24 guns, although i think that has been redistributed to enlarge the "direct support" battalions instead.
does this BattleTech equivalent (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=64039.msg1473012#msg1473012) come anywhere close of it?Suggestion: Form up each battalion as three batteries, each with a single "shooting lance" (for 12 guns per battalion) and otherwise support vehicles if you want to come close.
Suggestion: Form up each battalion as three batteries, each with a single "shooting lance" (for 12 guns per battalion) and otherwise support vehicles if you want to come close.So 1 company of self-propelled artillery, 1 company of escorts (2 platoons) & recon (1 platoon), and 1 company of J-27 trucks with trailers + Heavy APC with battalion headquarters staff and communications equipment. Something like that?
So 1 company of self-propelled artillery, 1 company of escorts (2 platoons) & recon (1 platoon), and 1 company of J-27 trucks with trailers + Heavy APC with battalion headquarters staff and communications equipment. Something like that?Nah, per artillery battalion three batteries which each have
So, in my time in USMC Artillery, we had six-gun batteries with three per battalion. That meant back in the '90s and early '00s 10th and 11th Marines each had four battalions of 18 howitzers each: 72 guns across each regiment. 14th Marine Regiment still had five battalions in '03 and it had upwards of 90 guns.
Ideally, each of the first three battalions would provide direct support (including observers) to the three rifle regiments of a division. The last of the battalions, 5th Battalion, was meant to be general support for the Division Commander. The fourth battalions, disestablished in the very early 90's for 10th and 11th Marines, were meant to reinforce the direct support battalions. Longer in caliber and potentially larger in diameter, they could reach across the battlefield to augment the direct support fires.
Why 18 guns per battalion? Well six-gun batteries are inherently more powerful than four-gun platoons and less structurally cumbersome than a two-platoon, eight-gun battery. At least I think so.
So given a Real World to Battletech translation, I'd go with a six-gun battery, with three observer vehicles and three securty vehicles. Triple that for a battalion.
Also here's a picture of my seven-gun battery back in '03.
Well in Battletech I'd assume the howitzers would be self-propelled and logistics being "off-board" so to speak.
Are the security vehicles the prime movers and ammunition haulers, command/communication vehicles or a separate tasking that might also be used for reconnaissance of the next firing point?
Well in Battletech I'd assume the howitzers would be self-propelled and logistics being "off-board" so to speak.Well, in BattleTech trucks can be modified to have Machine Gun and/or SRM2 easily enough, though that cuts cargo capacity. Pity PBI scale weapons aren't supported, but with house rules you could declare PBI squad riding open-topped truck (is there a rule for such vehicle?) can shoot out from it without dismounting. Or in place of Humvee you can use wheeled mechanized infantry, or tracked mechanized infantry for half-tracks (or open-topped M113).
In Real Life, very few vehicles were single-use trucks. Four of my six prime movers had heavy machine guns on them. Four of my other 7-ton trucks had ring mounts as well as three hardback (not armored) HMMWVs. When my Advance Party went to recon a new position, I would take two of the hardbacks, one 7-ton along with two soft-skinned radio vehicles (also HMMWVs). I didn't put any ring mounts on the six ammo trucks because my philosophy has pretty much been that people shoot at the things shooting at them and I'd rather not invite the bad guys to shoot at a few hundred HE rounds.
Well, in BattleTech trucks can be modified to have Machine Gun and/or SRM2 easily enough, though that cuts cargo capacity. Pity PBI scale weapons aren't supported, but with house rules you could declare PBI squad riding open-topped truck (is there a rule for such vehicle?) can shoot out from it without dismounting. Or in place of Humvee you can use wheeled mechanized infantry, or tracked mechanized infantry for half-tracks (or open-topped M113).pintle mount
pintle mountI know it's available for small support vehicles under 5 tons, but what about combat vehicles like APC (Wheeled)?
Make your APC small enough, you've got no problems.Yeah, it's called Mechanized Infantry
Make your APC small enough, you've got no problems.
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
Rheinmetall says they're ready to roll out a C-RAM/drone laser turretIt's pretty much just a more compact version of the one they tested in 2012 against the same targets.
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
They've claimed that since the 1960s with each new SAM that comes out, as well as claims that THE TANK IS DEAD with ATGMs and such.Don't tell me how fancy your tech is.
There is no wonderweapon. There's improvements, and then there's counters, and the cycle goes on.
The Akrep IIe technology demonstrator, Turkey's first electric armored vehicle:
(https://www.janes.com/images/assets/230/88230/p1745452_main.jpg)
Better than you'd think.
(https://sc01.alicdn.com/kf/UT8IW7RXetaXXagOFbXk/bulletproof-laminated-glass-anti-burglar-glass-6.jpg)
While you can't see through the circlular areas directly, there's more than enough visibiity to move your head a little and maintain complete awareness.
My guess would be it is mostly intended as an internal security vehicleOtokar is positioning the Akrep II as a possible successor for its previous line of Akrep I vehicles. The Akrep I, which did in fact use automotive components from the HMMWV, is more commonly known as the Otokar Cobra and (modernized, rebuilt) Cobra II.
is it just me or are a lot of these lighter armored vehicles built roomier? Looking at how much interior space there is from those windshields, compared to the armored HMMWV. Then again, a lot of it might be taken up by that turret's hardware, so...maybe not?Interior of the Akrep II mockup, a bit too clean of course:
Want a temporary winter camouflage quickly and cheaply? These Russian BMPs are using newspaper!
(http://englishrussia.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/1-800x541.png)
This is one of the coolest things that I have seen in sometime. I would love to have a unit or two painted up to look like this, but not sure if it would work at 6mm....maybe there's someone that makes custom water transfers? :-\
Flipped during a sharp turn at high speed, my guess.Same, you can see some dirt and small rock debris on the far side of the turret, but that's still impressive it didn't throw a track or something. I feel sorry for the turret crew; there's no belly escape hatch on the T-72 series is there? Things are uncomfortable enough as it is; stuck inside there upside down...
there's no belly escape hatch on the T-72 series is there?It's right behind the driver's seat.
Not an AFV but apparently the US Army is getting a new parade uniform that is very WW2 looks inspired
(https://i.imgur.com/rbnVjcz.jpg)
More info here - https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/to-stand-out-the-army-picks-a-new-uniform-with-a-world-war-ii-look/ar-AAAWewJ?ocid=spartanntp (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/to-stand-out-the-army-picks-a-new-uniform-with-a-world-war-ii-look/ar-AAAWewJ?ocid=spartanntp)
Smart but they are missing a trick to add a little flourish - stable belts a la British Army - or some other sort of distinguishing mark for branch or unitNothing is missing. It is US Army-only so no branch mark required. It appears unit patches are on the shoulder. Leave the "flair" for other countries.
Lyran scout tank?We Lyrans build J. Edgars, Packrat, Warrior H-7, and Commando for scouting.
Lyran scout tank?Bolo Mk. 1
You also spend time at Ironfest there glitterboy? Must say I enjoyed the medieval/roman re-enactors assaulting the WWII guys mid-fight and 'stealing' some of their vehiclesWait... What??
You also spend time at Ironfest there glitterboy? Must say I enjoyed the medieval/roman re-enactors assaulting the WWII guys mid-fight and 'stealing' some of their vehiclesnever been there. just looked online for 'roman legion'+ various modern warfare gear.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ironfest_(Lithgow)
That gives a basic rundown of the event itself.
Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name.
Last parantheses got cut. Try https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ironfest_(Lithgow) (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ironfest_(Lithgow))This. You just have to look at the url address when you clicked on the link.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ironfest_(Lithgow)It may not be as good as live but it is on Youtube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqddgcKfjf0)!
That gives a basic rundown of the event itself.
Every year there are a bunch of different reenactment/HEMA groups ranging from Romans to various stages of the medieval era to WWII, and over the weekend they have fights to show off their groups and try to get more people into it.
They generally only fight themselves (so the viking group doesn't fight the Roman's for example) due to safety and possible differences in equipment standards, but during the WWII fight each year the others always charge onto the field to join in. Last year they did it at the end and got massacred by the MGs on the tanks - watching 30 guys in full armor go down in the most over the top ways is hilarious live btw - but this year they split into two, and took the germans and yanks/Aussies from behind halfway through their fight, then climbed into some the trucks and half tracks and did a victory lap of the field.
If l can upload the pics I have somewhere trustworthy I'll share em
Lots more, but I'm hogging the bandwidth.
W.
The previous post still has no images, but I can see both in the above...
Sorry for the delay, folks! Please let me know how many images you can see.
...
I can see them! Awesome Worktroll! Thanks for taking the time to fix them! :thumbsup:
Alas, yes. Oh, that fraction of a second when the engine turned over ... then the Corporal running out screaming at us. Totally worth it!
Alas, yes. Oh, that fraction of a second when the engine turned over ... then the Corporal running out screaming at us. Totally worth it!
And now with The Chieftain's videos on how to start most of these tanks...imagine the shenanigans you could have gotten into!Staff should disconnect cables from batteries and remove hand cranks
Staff should disconnect cables from batteries and remove hand cranksto be honest, I'm surprised they didn't take those steps when putting vehicles on displays.
And it's not like tank batteries are anything on the scale of your car battery either. Modern tanks with modern batteries are still weighing in at 40 kilos...older machines with older hardware? Yeah.Are cable connections different too? Are those welded to batteries or something and can't be disconnected without cutting tools?
re: job security, I'd call that a big damn yes.
Biggest question I have is how BULKY the stuff is. What's the density like, and how thick would we be talking for vehicle plate? It mentions plate "less than an inch" being used to stop machine gun fire up close, but how much lighter and thicker is it compared to a similar plate of steel able to do the same thing?
From the article, half the weight for similar or better protection. Probably takes up an additional 14 critical slots ;)I suppose the shielding makes some sense, if there's something to be said for surfaces - the inner spheres are all hollow, so perhaps photons are bouncing off the boundary layers that exist between the voids and solid metal that aren't in a homogenous piece of metal?
I was impressed by the superior rad shielding.
Plus, lighter substances absorb neutrons better than heavier ones, typically*.Wasn't that why the BMPs had gas tanks in the rear doors, as a sort of antiradiation protection? Or was that accidental?
No, I think it was a space-saving thing. Having recently been next to one, damn they're small inside!http://diary-of-distant-suns.wikidot.com/film
And yes, neutron moderation was an art until sufficiently powerful computation became available. We could have lost Chicago, and that would have been a Bad Thing. See also "Demon Core".
*snip*Uh, no... the denser the light nuclei, the more thermal ("slow") neutrons you get.
Steam voids slow neutrons for capture and fission, and "solid" water keeps them fast, right? It's this doubly-backwards thing I can't ever remember properly.
Makes you wonder how many of the Sherman DDs are still offshore.
Wasn't that why the BMPs had gas tanks in the rear doors, as a sort of antiradiation protection? Or was that accidental?
Steam voids slow neutrons for capture and fission, and "solid" water keeps them fast, right? It's this doubly-backwards thing I can't ever remember properly.
Wouldn't a freshly emptied tank actually be easier to ignite given the much higher amount of fuel vapor in it than in a mostly full tank?Yeah, though an empty tank that goes foof is going to burn very little, since once the immediate vapor's gone there's nothing left to burn.
IE: those built from the ground up as MBTs and not medium tanks putting on airs.Irony is T-54 & T-55 are officially medium tanks without "airs".
As far as the drum tanks on the back, I never understood why people freaked out about them.Red Army lost many tanks for glass bottles of gasoline and tar (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov_cocktail). So huge external tanks that can be penetrated by rifle or machine gun with tracer rounds like airships of First World War?
So huge external tanks that can be penetrated by rifle or machine gun with tracer rounds like airships of First World War?That are emptied first in overland travel and dumped when the shooting starts. Or do you think fighter planes with external fuel tanks are bad ideas because the fuel tank can be penetrated by rifle or machine gun with tracer rounds?
Irony is T-54 & T-55 are officially medium tanks without "airs".
About that.
We actually get our modern concept of a Main Battle Tank from Russian Tank design. Once we saw examples of where they were going post-war, we eventually realized there was no-where else to go, but to play their game or lose. But the Russians had only ever had a passing familiarity with the tank design conventions of the day and had never been shy about trying different things if they seemed to work. While T-54/55 may have been thought of...somewhere...as a Medium; it was far off script with a heavy tank gun and heavy tank armour on the frontal arc (especially the turret), while retaining very high-end mobility (cross-country performance, not just speed).
But Post-war Western tanks; which is what I was referring to, suffered by comparison of being developed as other kinds of tanks; mediums for the Americans, which lacked the selective heavy armour and guns of MBTs, Centurion; which was a perfected cruiser tank and various European dumpster fires derived from their own circus/madhouse approach to tank design.
We didn't get away from that until the 1970s and later, for the most part and most of our MBTs STILL had serious issues then; such as Chieftain's chronic underpower issues and the inferior IR system on the Abrams. Thankfully, by then the Russians had their own issues trying to push too far, too fast; which got them the T-64 and it's grab-bag of problems. Only some of which were solved by the follow-on T-80, which also had new issues.
I mean come on, the AMX-30's first run was in the weight range of the Sherman familyThe AMX-30B (non-prototype) weighed 36 tons, same as the T-54 or T-55 contemporarily. The prototypes later redesignated AMX-30A weighed 32.5 tons. The zero-series Leopard 1 prototypes also weighed only around 38 tons.
Of course, the 60s and 70s also blew out the armor paradigm for the most part50s actually. The original idea was to improve mobility by shoving the powerpack and armament (literally the same) of the late 40s heavy tank designs into the framework of a medium tank at the cost of armor. Produced prototypes like the Char Lorraine 40t, which basically packed the AMX-50 under the armor protection of an AMX-13 - with the mobility of a modern MBT. In 1952.
T-54, Centurion and Pershing are heavy tanks compared to the T-34, Cromwell and Sherman.
Arguably the Panther paradigm (okay, its gun was more middling, especially with the poor quality ammo available to it). Which is why I laugh at the idea of the Panther being a 'medium' tank in the WW2 sense of the word - it might have the mobility, but the all-up weight was on par with the early Centurion and greater than the M26 Pershing, itself designed as a heavy tank (obviously the goalposts get shifted in the post-war shuffle)As I understand Panther, at first it was supposed to be medium tank, but Hitler or someone wanted more protection which increased weight. That, and inadequate reworking and testing because of hurry to get the tanks into the field, resulted a heavy tank with axles and other parts designed for lighter chassis. Result was host of various breakdowns and other reliability problems for early production runs. And shot traps too.
at least 32 off omaha, they dropped a battalion in the first wave and only two made it
(I hope this doesn't get to close to rule 4)
As I understand it one of the big German problems in WWII was that, for most of the war, they didn't run a "war economy". The corporations had so much power (a defining feature of Fascism) that they could control the spending to benefit their bottom line.
So even if government wanted to shut down Pz.III/IV production in favor of Pz.V, it would only happen if the corporations thought they could get a larger profit.
Compare this to the US where the government basically said "build M4s!" and that's what happened. ;)
RE the T-64/T-80 did they ever fix the issue with the T-64's autoloader having a habit of trying to load the arm of the guy operating in in the T-80?
They made their mis-steps too. Ever heard of the M7?
No, but I'd like to. :-)
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/US/m7-medium.phpYeah, that seems like just about the right amount of train wreck...
The M46 was considered a tank destroyer briefly for truely obscure reasons, despite only having a different turret and the M47 was almost the exact same tank with a new turret again and called an MBT when it entered service.
The problem for the Germans was that when you're drowning in T-34s, you don't want to shut down your Panzer III and IV lines for a few months to a year for more Panthers (that aren't there yet, developmentally) you want more tanks you know work and you want them right now. Likewise; people are screaming for more Panthers, Tigers, ect; so any issues they have need to be fixed on the production line; which leads to increased variation (bad) and the fixes may not stick (Worse).Assuming Germany had stuck with quantity of Panzerkampfwagen III, Panzerkampf... IV, and Stürmgeschutz series and left Panther & sequels on the drawing board, would they had have enough fuel to keep the numbers going? According to certain claims, fuel ran low and halftracks were used to clear the minefields. So somebody decided Germany couldn't win through the numbers and it is better to produce better tanks against opposing numerical superiority. But then appeared unexpected problems. Compare to F-35.
It's easy to forget that real nations aren't run by omniscient power-gamers, willing to gamble big and then reload the game if they lose. Maybe the solution was to pour everything into STUGs/JPzIV in 1941? But who was really going to make that call?
The two tanks were identical & in fact the M46 was a rebuild program of the M26 Pershing. The turrets were the same, but the engine decks & exhausts were quite different.
Assuming Germany had stuck with quantity of Panzerkampfwagen III, Panzerkampf... IV, and Stürmgeschutz series and left Panther & sequels on the drawing board, would they had have enough fuel to keep the numbers going? According to certain claims, fuel ran low and halftracks were used to clear the minefields. So somebody decided Germany couldn't win through the numbers and it is better to produce better tanks against opposing numerical superiority. But then appeared unexpected problems. Compare to F-35.
Panzer III production formally ceased in 1943, but the chassis lived on to the end for Stugs & the like.And the StuG-III was the attempt to go for quantity over quality. 10,000 produced between mid 1942 and 1945 - 90% were destroyed in the same three years.
RE the German war econimy might I suggest reading the wonderfully written and darn well researchedI love how he lays out all the infighting between different departments, terrible bureaucratic inertia and odious personalities of various decisionmakers. Especially Lindemann.
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/and-they-shall-reap-the-whirlwind-story-only-thread.343760/
There's a great deal about the German econimy, about how allied bombing got most of their ideas wrong (ball bearings were imported from Sweden as an example) and how in reality the US stumbled across the right target, Oil, in 44. This time in that story, things go a bit different.
Also all German AFVs, not just StuGs suffered over 90% percent casualties in the last three years of war, it was just a nature of campaigns they fought.Eastern Front probably didn't have a lot of prisoners taken, I imagine, especially after '43.
This
Also all German AFVs, not just StuGs suffered over 90% percent casualties in the last three years of war, it was just a nature of campaigns they fought.
A similar case involved the British 2-pounder. After Dunkirk, no-one was prepared to stop production of the 2-pounder for the 6 months required to change over to the 6-pounder. A bad gun was considered better than no gun, especially given the amount of equipment left behind in France.Speaking about which, in USA Grant or Lee (or both?) remained in production because the need for tanks outweighed the need for more Shermans. On otherhand, generals rejected some tanks because those hadn't gone through enough testing or just plain sucked. Likely the better choice considering reliability issues some German tanks had going on.
There's also something to consider about Pershings going ANYWHERE at the time.Supposedly only a dozen or so actually saw combat in the ETO.
No, but I'd like to. :-)
Just a minor correction. The M46 was the M26 Pershing with a new powerplant & transmission. The two tanks were identical & in fact the M46 was a rebuild program of the M26 Pershing. The turrets were the same, but the engine decks & exhausts were quite different. The M47 married the M46 hull with a new turret.
Damon.
Well, Japanese tanks were such shitboxes the Lee may as well have been a King Tiger!
Pershings never got sent to the Pacific because the Sherman was already overkill.
They were pretty rare, though there's that Pershing-Panther duel caught on film that made it at least a little famous.
Wait? There's no stolen gold in this story... xpWhat story?
Oddball is my spirit animal.
(https://i.imgur.com/oDhMIzR.jpg)
Too funny... at least it looks like he didn't do much damage during the joy ride...
God, I'm just thinking back to the guy who stole the M-60 back in San Diego; I was still in El Cajon at that time. We were terrified he was gonna stop on the freeway, turn around, and charge south in the northbound lane and go into all the stopped cars that the police had blocked off, but instead...well, thank God it turned out the way it did.
I would imagine a Patton, with the turret pulled and covered over into an ersatz recovery vehicle, would make one unstoppable plow or wrecker.
I would imagine a Patton, with the turret pulled and covered over into an ersatz recovery vehicle, would make one unstoppable plow or wrecker.Related:
Someone's department of highways, for instance (State of Washington?). I have always wondered if there was any truth to this?
Long history of converting surplus tanks to farm equipment here in Aus:"Swords to ploughs" anyone? BattleTech book Legacy has that going too.
They're using them for avalanche control. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZLfboCceGA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZLfboCceGA)
I would imagine a Patton, with the turret pulled and covered over into an ersatz recovery vehicle, would make one unstoppable plow or wrecker.
And yeah, there's been a few rounds of surplus military hardware - even big stuff, like armored vehicles - being shipped around to various police and special services units in the US. After the big drawdown in Iraq, probably every police chief with dreams of a SWAT team got themselves a free MRAP.
There was a link from the video about a railroad company up in Alaska that uses a howitzer for the same job...There's also a group in the Sierra Nevada that uses a WW2 howitzer and intermittently had borrowed a M119 from the US Army for the job until they needed it back for Iraq.
There was a link from the video about a railroad company up in Alaska that uses a howitzer for the same job...
There was a link from the video about a railroad company up in Alaska that uses a howitzer for the same job...
And very technically interesting tanks, IRL; the post-war 76mm retrofit into the original (T43?) Turrets was pretty clever, but I wonder what it was like on the crews?
An M119 corresponds to an AC2?Neg. Try Thumper.
Before he got voted out (I left not long after) the Phoenix sheriff's department had a 155mm SPG. Demilled, but still....Why?
(http://njtoaz.smugmug.com/Police/Maricopa-County-Sheriff/i-DDTvpXz/0/L/MCSO%20The%20Tank%20M1%20Abrams%20%28ps%29-L.jpg)
the guys in uniform all read clueless"Okay, see this? This is a tank. Can you guys spell tank?"
"Okay, see this? This is a tank. Can you guys spell tank?"
My new boss just retired from the Marines, and just expressed this morning the same view - Give it to the privates, corporals, and lance corporals. If it can be broken, they'll figure out how to do it. :thumbsup:Hence our term, Marine-proof.
Bored soldiers are devil's paws. (https://terminallance.com/2014/09/16/terminal-lance-344-bored/)Let's see...
Things happen when Marines get bored. There are only two possible outcomes in this very common instance: either something amazing is going to happen or something absolutely horrifying is going to happen. There’s no middle ground here.Do we know of anything of the amazing part?
Give it to the privates, corporals, and lance corporals. If it can be broken, they'll figure out how to do it. :thumbsup:Eh. In our unit it was the sergeants and ensigns.
As in, we had a staff sergeant who commanded Fox APCs.Let's see... (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_armoured_reconnaissance_vehicle) How many passengers does it carry?
Let's see... (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_armoured_reconnaissance_vehicle) How many passengers does it carry?Nah, these (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TPz_Fuchs). M93 Fox in the US Army, hence why i used that name.
The Mars A-800 logistics unmanned ground vehicle, in testing with Russia's Airborne Forces.
(https://www.janes.com/images/assets/586/89586/p1732969_main.jpg)
Ruger: I think I had one of those too! :thumbsup:
And the U.S. had the M901 Improved Tow Vehicle.
(https://www.bing.com/th?id=OIP.9HZvHn0vMWdMgbBSX1z2OgHaFF&pid=Api&rs=1&p=0)
The tank killing M113.
Bit of an odd question, what's the point in a US armor officer's career (Marines or Army, either works) where they'll spend less and less time actually commanding from a tank, and more and more time doing overall unit command from behind the lines?
Captain (O-3) is generally recognized as the highest rank that can expect to regularly lead from the front in combat. Majors should be doing the staff work for the higher ranks to get those Captains where they need to be, when they need to be there.
So I suppose, if you want to be the James T. Kirk of your tank and always stay in command, never let them kick you past Major and preferably past Captain if at all possible. "Don't let them promote you. Don't let them transfer you. Don't let them do anything that takes you off the seat of that tank."
Which for any real military means you've gotta really work your time in grade to maximums and then look really rosy for promotion...and do the bare minimum to not get RIFed and hold on to that captain's rank as long as possible.
Anyway, just curious, thanks gang!
I'm not sure that's actually feasible for commissioned officers. Militaries generally take an up-or-out career approach to both cycle fresh blood in and to spread command experience around (filling the team bench, so to speak). If you want to do the same thing for 20 years, the appropriate track would be grizzled NCO :DAnd quite true, hence my comment about not getting RIF'ed...and keeping just enough command time in. Then again not every officer stays in for life...maybe if someone got a job as a major to transfer to a training command for a while. For the US, say, over at Fort Irwin...but they'd have to be a REALLY crack tanker for something like that I imagine.
I believe the USAF has a track for pilots where they can keep flying for 20 years, but they're pretty much stuck at Major.
Not a likely path, but theoretical could happen depending on when you joined (some of the positions were downgraded at later times). And yes the higher you get the less time that you would spend on the tanks, more in a office but would keep you on the tanks.Good to note. I suppose getting out as a Captain would be the best, though looking over the US Army pay grades it's about a 10 percent bump going to Major...and you're still gonna be spending most of your time doing tank things, even if you're teaching others at the time. I suppose that might be the sweet spot for departing, balancing good pay and future opportunity vs tank time and doing what you'd WANT to do. I suppose twelve years, three four-year obligations should be more than enough to hit O-3. Or do you get more flexibility in your re-up schedule after you're in?
there's places in Russia where they sell rides in the thing and will even let you behind the "wheel" as it were.And then some jackass steals it for alcohol shop run
My youngest daughter brought this link to my attention when I showed her that picture: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLQiUe3HMRs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLQiUe3HMRs)
I thought it was pretty amusing overall... ^-^
3
My youngest daughter brought this link to my attention when I showed her that picture: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLQiUe3HMRsDid at the end, tank scrape oncoming car? I heard something and camera shook a bit.
I thought it was pretty amusing overall... ^-^
Off the top of my head, there's this:
(http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/UK/photos/FV221_caernarvon.jpg)
Problem is, they only built 22 of the things that apparently were just used for development research, and very likely either had the turrets swapped to Conquerors and eventually sent to the BAOR or were scrapped. Good luck finding more info, though, it seems not even Bovington or Kubinka have one floating around.
The former's a turret swap (though the reverse makes me giggle, Conq turrets on Centurion hulls) while the latter's a bit more involved, but still quite doable considering the manufacturing timeline. Figured they'd been swapped back, and well...in all fairness, is there that much of a diff in the Caerny than looking at the Conq and Cent separately?
I don't see data on the Conqueror's turret ring diameter, but the Centurion is supposed to be 1880mm - which, amusingly, matches the M47 Patton. Anyone want to consider the L7 105mm on an early Patton series?
To be fair the Israelis put sawedoff 105mm F1s on their Shermans, so it's less a case of "can" you do it and more a case of "will" than anything else.
Also shows that even old tanks can still function as TDs with a modern gun, some decent guidance, and good ammo.
Question for trackheads - the commander's cupola (mini turret, almost) on the M60.Well in War Thunder, it's a very popular weak spot to shoot.
Worth it? Not worth the extra height/expense? Reliable?
I'm suspecting no, yes, no - otherwise we'd not see a pintle mount on the Abrams.
Sure, but can the running gear take the speed?
Question for trackheads - the commander's cupola (mini turret, almost) on the M60.
Worth it? Not worth the extra height/expense? Reliable?
I'm suspecting no, yes, no - otherwise we'd not see a pintle mount on the Abrams.
I never served on the M60's, but from talking with the guys who had been on them, they never had anything good to say about them. Now I did not ask a lot a questions about it more just general stuff. From what I remember them talking about they were maintenance nightmares, and did not really add anything to the tank that could not be done on the M1 except reload the .50 (but the M85 was even a bigger nightmare) if it did not jam before it used up its onboard ammo.
Are the 1-metre turrets any good?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8d/Cadillac_gage_1_metre_turret.jpg)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadillac-Gage_1_metre_turret (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadillac-Gage_1_metre_turret)
Today, on weird shit I stumbled across
AMX-30 Javelot
An early US-French attempt at a self-propelled SAM vehicle, armed with 64 unguided 40mm rockets
(https://cdn-live.warthunder.com/uploads/2a/83/a9/e4910280e192bd612922c33bea107ec294_mq/amx30-javelot-03.jpg)
I never served on the M60's, but from talking with the guys who had been on them, they never had anything good to say about them. Now I did not ask a lot a questions about it more just general stuff. From what I remember them talking about they were maintenance nightmares, and did not really add anything to the tank that could not be done on the M1 except reload the .50 (but the M85 was even a bigger nightmare) if it did not jam before it used up its onboard ammo.
Grid square craterer / misser?Anti-air
Anti-air
Apparently it was decent, especially with proximity fuzed rockets
I overlooked the SAM designation, sorry. Saw this first thing on waking up.I dunno, it was cancelled, so maybe it ended up becoming an (inadvertent) grid square craterer after all
An early US-French attempt at a self-propelled SAM vehicle, armed with 64 unguided 40mm rocketsThe Javelot system actually wasn't that early - it was built in 1970 and as a study ran until 1973. Thomson-CSF came up with the idea, Americans financed it entirely, all the French probably did was to provide the AMX-30 hull.
I wonder if it was supposed to go like a giant shotgun, one big belch of rockets at an incoming.Yes. 8-round salvoes fired in a pre-designated spread pattern. Single-salvo kill probability was supposedly 70% at 1500m.
The Javelot system actually wasn't that early - it was built in 1970 and as a study ran until 1973. Thomson-CSF came up with the idea, Americans financed it entirely, all the French probably did was to provide the AMX-30 hull.50 years ago is not that early, and yet, it kind of is, isn't it? Considering the other stuff armies are using now which date back to then.
Yes. 8-round salvoes fired in a pre-designated spread pattern. Single-salvo kill probability was supposedly 70% at 1500m.
Nucl-oh wait.
Sometimes I wonder, what did they not put on that AMX-30 hull.
Besides, they had a ton of armored car designs to do that, purpose-built, anyway.The French Army never used those - those designs were all export-only.
AMX-30 with an Honest John 25kt SRBM, known as the Pluton.All Honest Johns used by the French Army were returned to the US after the NATO command structure exit in '66. Pluton was subsequently developed as a local SRBM design to replace it and entered service in '74.
The French Army never used those - those designs were all export-only.I meant APCs in general, primarily thinking of the VABs. Though you're right about the VCI and 10P series, both of which were tracked. Though a little checking, hrm, I thought the VAB was older than that.
All Honest Johns used by the French Army were returned to the US after the NATO command structure exit in '66. Pluton was subsequently developed as a local SRBM design to replace it and entered service in '74.Wasn't the Pluton directly based on the HJ?
Wasn't the Pluton directly based on the HJ?Honest John was basically just a warhead strapped onto the spin-stabilized rocket motor of a Nike Hercules, creating an unguided artillery rocket with 25 km range.
Looks like that unit spent a lot of time on hard roads. The front tires are bald, but the rears are still in good shape.
(https://abload.de/img/ebr-ettkqksc.jpg)
Wasn't there also a variant that removed the turret in order to mount an 88mm in a casemate?Not aware of any prototypes along those lines.
That Manticore looks like a Battlemech stepped on a SK-105 Kürassier.You're not wrong. Manticore is TEN thousand pounds lighter! It's also around 3 feet less on length (not including gun barrel) and about 4 feet shorter (height).
Back to the AMX-30 for a minute, anyone got good pictures of the interior, preferably the driver's compartment? That's a shockingly hard thing to find with google, so far.
No Kuwait tomfoolery this year?Their run was either last night or today, not sure which. Haven't seen results yet.
Most expensive sport around? I mean, tanks ain't that cheap.
With so many salvagable T-55 around the world they could have tank races.Can you imagine the wrecks at Talladega with NASTANK races?
If not here, the Aviation thread would DEMAND it's posting! :thumbsup:Took me a couple of days but here you go...
I remember that Soviets experimented with lasers on T-80 chassis before Soviet Union went bust. Prototype is in Kubinka.This thing?
This thing?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1K17_Szhatie
Ontos!(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/34/Ontos.jpg/300px-Ontos.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/34/Ontos.jpg/300px-Ontos.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/34/Ontos.jpg/300px-Ontos.jpg)
Bore-sighting that thing must have been interesting.Nah, what they did was boar-sighting instead. Find a wild pig, cap off a few rounds till you hit it, then you know where you're aiming.
Nah, what they did was boar-sighting instead. Find a wild pig, cap off a few rounds till you hit it, then you know where you're aiming.Can it deal with 30 to 50 hogs in few minutes?
Can it deal with 30 to 50 hogs in few minutes?
They do now. A dozen years ago, not so much
I've always understood the "hog" is a nickname for the M60 - I think you might need to reload a belt or two of 7.62mm ball ammunition to kill 30-50 hogs but hopefully wouldn't need a barrel change. Anyway, I thought the US used the FN MAG/M240 for vehicle mounted MGs....
Nah, what they did was boar-sighting instead. Find a wild pig, cap off a few rounds till you hit it, then you know where you're aiming.
But at least it will be pre-shredded.
I've always understood the "hog" is a nickname for the M60 - I think you might need to reload a belt or two of 7.62mm ball ammunition to kill 30-50 hogs but hopefully wouldn't need a barrel change. Anyway, I thought the US used the FN MAG/M240 for vehicle mounted MGs....
They do now. A dozen years ago, not so much
I can not say for sure when they switched to the M240, but the M60 MG has never been used as a tank MG (I am sure there are some exceptions). The M47 Patton used the .30-06 M1919A4, the M48, M60, and M51 used the 7.62x51 M73 before being updated to the M240, and the M1 from day one used the 7.62x51 M240.
M37 on the M47 and also the M48 early on.
M213 replacing the M73 as time went on and still failing to be a viable weapon.
The M1 had the Hughes chaingun as a coax and the M240 as the loader's gun (loader?)
I can not say for sure when they switched to the M240, but the M60 MG has never been used as a tank MG (I am sure there are some exceptions).The USMC used the M60E2 machine gun as coaxials on their M60A1 tanks from the 60s until replacing it with the M240 in 1994 when the M1A1 started introduction with them. They didn't like the M219.
The prototype XM1's had the chaingun but it was switched to the M240 early on, well before type standardization and production. Now if you ask me that was a mistake to switch as with only 55 rounds on the M1/IPM1, or 40 (later updated to 42) on the M1A1 and up there is not enough ammo to be using main gun rounds on MICV's. If you had the 25mm as a coax you would be using it and saving main gun rounds for major targets. But alas they did not ask me.
If you had the 25mm as a coax you would be using it and saving main gun rounds for major targets. But alas they did not ask me.One thing I like a lot about the AMX-30 is that 20mm secondary, especially since it's aligned coax but in its own elevation mount that can go all the way to +40. Beats exposing your TC and only having a .50 for defense against helicopters. It can also work over light armor that would stop a typical .30 coax mount and let you save your 105mm ammo for the heavy stuff.
Wasn't the 20mm on the Centurion also basically used as a ranging gun as well for the main armament?
Not the polsten, but the later .50 RMG (Ranging Machinegun) was specifically installed for that reason and was *not* treated as a coax according to Centurion tankers I've spoken to, but was reserved as a special weapon, not just for ranging, but for engaging targets the 20pdr/105 wasn't suited for, in preference to the normal .30 coax.
Well, the problem is if your magazine capacity is so small you can't afforf to shoot the APC because there might be MBTs around...
40 rounds doesn't sound that bad, but some of the proposals with 140+ mm guns and 20-30 rounds might really have needed a backup.
Re: arming tanks with smaller caliber automatic cannons.There is some truth (and my guess why they did not go with it) to what you say, however at least when I was in during full scale combat a Armor Battalion was to become a Armor Task Force by combining it with Infantry. A and C Team's would be tank heavy, with B team being infantry heavy, D Company would remain tank pure to be the unit hammer. So you would not always have the brads around in defensive or offensive operations, and as for just another weapon system, it was the same as the Bradley gun for that reason.
Keep in mind that at least in the US your M1s are going to be operating alongside M2s/M3s that have that 25mm cannon. So in a defensive orientation, you'll have the Brads to hose down the IFVs/APCs while the M1s dedicate to killing tanks. So arming them with a 25mm coaxial just means another weapon system to support, possibly reducing the number of main rounds you carry, & creating a situation where the 25mm is overpowered for anti-infantry/suppressive roles. Let the Brads handle the light armor.
Damon.
Um. No no no.
*THIS* Chain gun; 7.62N Neat weapon; forward ejecting in some versions.
https://modernfirearms.net/en/machineguns/u-s-a-machineguns/ex-34-chain-gun-eng/ (https://modernfirearms.net/en/machineguns/u-s-a-machineguns/ex-34-chain-gun-eng/)
There is some truth (and my guess why they did not go with it) to what you say, however at least when I was in during full scale combat a Armor Battalion was to become a Armor Task Force by combining it with Infantry. A and C Team's would be tank heavy, with B team being infantry heavy, D Company would remain tank pure to be the unit hammer. So you would not always have the brads around in defensive or offensive operations, and as for just another weapon system, it was the same as the Bradley gun for that reason.
Sure, but that hammer force is still going to be able to kill IFVs with HEAT rounds, saving the Sabots for actual tanks, etc. So while using the main gun to engage IFVs is not ideal, it's still good enough, such that having to support a fourth weapon system on-board the tank still doesn't make sense.
Damon.
The chain gun was dropped from consideration for the M1 after Israel's bad experience on the receiving end of the AT-3 Sagger.This is my understanding as well, I am just not sure that I 100% agree with the thinking. Now I was not there (with the Israel's) and was not part of the committee who got the information that they used to make the decision, but the Israel's did not have a autocannon on there tanks. As I have said in other posts with only 17 ready rounds I think having the 25mm as back up is worth the increased risk. A trained crew (nothing special just meeting basic standards) can load and fire one round every eight seconds so it takes them about 2 min 16 seconds (1 min 8 sec for a good crew, and 51 sec for the best crew I ever saw) of combat to run out of ready ammo. After this you are looking at a rate of fire of about 1 round per min give or take a bit. Seeing as the USSR also planed to run tanks and infantry together we could expect to run in to the BMP's with the tanks. This would have given us a target rich environment, so running out of ready ammo I would think would be likely, also seeing as how we were trained to use the main gun for any anti-armor threat. That means a RPG team gets a HEAT round. So now you are running out in no time flat, so having the 25mm would let you use it for RPG teams, light armor including the BMP's, saving the main gun for things that only it can kill. But, it did not happen and so what would have been we will never know.
Since the BMP-1 mounted the Sagger, it was decided that M1's would be engaging it at the greatest range possible with main gun rounds, totally defeating the purpose of mounting the chain gun in the first place.
I have never heard of this gun before in any connection to the M1, everything I have ever seen/heard/read whatever has been they went from the 25mm to the M240 but who knows what planes were talked about before the first prototypes were built.
If you can find engagement reports for BMP 3's, you may be able to get an idea of how well the large-caliber coax works. 100mm main gun, AT-10 ATGM, 30mm coax, 7.62mm coax. Granted, it's not nearly heavy enough to be an MBT, but the armament array is close enough.
Funny. Sure enough; when I look it up; you are right; M240 Coax.
But I know the FN MAG/M240 and I can't see how it fits/why it needs that funny jacket
As for how it fits, it has no stock, handle, or sights. It has a charging cable in place of the handle and I am sure a few other modifications from the M240B/FN MAG that you are probably familiar with. What funny jacket are you talking about?
I think the Brits are the only ones using rifle-calibre chain guns. Wiki claims there's less gas vented back into the vehicle vs. gas operated. I do recall a Warrior driver in a no-longer-active forum I was on who wasn't a fan of the Warrior installation. Something about the turret dimensions forcing the co-ax to be mounted in an odd orientation and the electric drive motor being very marginal for the job of pulling the ammo belt through those contortions.
One thing that occurs to me is that for AFV use, the chain gun installation might be more complex with the need for the drive motor and operating chain, vs. a more self-contained GPMG installation.
The tube sticking out next to the main gun.I am not sure what it is for, as the barrel does not stick into it, I have never really thought about it before and may have to ask around.
The MAG has a gas tube under the barrel and it isn't remotely THAT long either. Most people using MAGs for coax guns have the muzzles flush with the mantlet or just protruding a bit.
...
One thing that occurs to me is that for AFV use, the chain gun installation might be more complex with the need for the drive motor and operating chain, vs. a more self-contained GPMG installation.
That would be a big killer for the A2 then. Not just the missile system and its (potentially loss-of-vehicle destructive) problems, but if the gun stabilizer never worked that'd be another big axe in the project. Height was probably another consideration, even if it was only 4 inches taller than the A1/A3 tanks; I like the hunter-killer system in the A2 and I see the Brits did something similar with Conqueror.
It's a shame they never got the stabilizer working properly, even if they were able to do it for the A3 as an add-on pack. That could be a gun issue, though; maybe the 152mm was just too physically large and weirdly balanced as short as it was? The 105 worked fine, so...alternatively it could have been the shape of the turret; the wider A3 turret having enough room for whatever worked that didn't in the A2. It can't be gun stabilizer technology in general, we had that with the M4!
I suppose an A2 with the 105mm gun makes some sense, though had MBT-70 not been a thing I wonder if that might have been a potential future.
Now why the hell didn't the French put a gun stabilizer in the AMX-30...
I've read comments (on the internet, face value and buckets of salt) from folks who claimed to run the A2 in the late 70s that the 'isolated' thing wasn't as bad as it seemed, mostly that it was the missile ammo and that could be moved out of the way. The TC's certainly back a ways, but photos show that he's got at least some access into the turret itself, so they're not completely cut off from each other. That said, they're also not right in close where they can just yell at each other over the sound of a high-rev diesel and a cannon round, so there's definitely something to having your crew close.
Totally agreed on the rest of it - that 152mm gun was atrocious with actual cannon ammo and apparently could only reach out to about 1500m. Comparing ammo between the M68 gun's 105mm shells and the 152mm, the bigger shells are actually shorter by what looks like about 6 to 8 inches. Almost looks like 105mm howitzer shells instead of antitank shells, which says you lose a lot in velocity and thus range as well. (It was the era of HEAT, penetration was its own category)
And we had a lot of countries that were buying M48s, and eventually M60 series anyway, so it's not like export regs were that big an impediment. Like you said, zero foreign sales, though that's also partly because the only A2s made were converted to A3s and various other CEVs.
I do wonder what electronics (outside of the aforementioned Shillelagh and whatnot) were problematic. It was one of the first tanks to use laser rangefinding, but what little bit I saw said that worked fine. I guess it was the reliance on electronics at all, plus the difficulties of crew communication?
Wish I'd saved the pic of the interior turret, alas. Have what turned out to be a much better version of the M60 anyway.
My guess is that it was an attempt at crew survivability. Even today separate armoured crew compartments are a part of theorised future tank designs.
WW2 tank performance needs re-examination in context especially logistics. For example, no one would dispute an M1A2 is probably one of if not the best tank in existence, but how much fuel would it need to operate as the Germans were operating their tanks?
And on the Arab wars side, it's not like their performance really changes significantly whether they're equipped with NATO or Soviet equipment.
Anyway I just posited it as a design theory. There have been other theories as well, some very widespread such as the "speed is life" and "low profile is life" schools of thought.
WW2 tank performance needs re-examination in context especially logistics. For example, no one would dispute an M1A2 is probably one of if not the best tank in existence, but how much fuel would it need to operate as the Germans were operating their tanks?The Chieftain addresses that in this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57oRqB_a-SA). To sum it up: USA has supply and transport capacity to provide the fuel for Abrams, and willingness to pay it up.
Gear wrt the arab armies kind of highlights it, though-they had technically superior equipment in every war against Israel up to about 1980, but they lacked the focus on communication and teamwork, which is why they lost every war from 1948 onward against the Israelis-individually it's arguable that they were adequately trained and equipped, but that inbuilt lack of teamwork and cooperation killed their flexibility and rendered their equipment and numerical advantage a non-factor.I remember seeing a documentary about tank battle between Israel and Syria. Flat plains, both sides committed only tanks, Syria had significant numerical superiority, but lost. Reason was Israel had better crews: they aimed faster, they moved their tanks between shots to throw off enemy's aim, and Syrian tanks were sitting ducks.
The Chieftain addresses that in this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57oRqB_a-SA). To sum it up: USA has supply and transport capacity to provide the fuel for Abrams, and willingness to pay it up.indeed. but 'better crew' really does tie into that teamwork thing; there are four pairs of eyes in a western tank (well, except the french thing with the autoloader), this is four chances to spot them, before they spot you. with only voice coms, there's a great opportunity for someone to spot, and then be not understood before things go all white hot and flashy (With attendant concussion, shockwaves, heat, pain and death and "Oh bugger the tank's on fire!")
Main point of the video is Tiger tank, and his point is Tiger was a good tank for what it was designed to do: to assault fortified positions AND take the time to maintain it properly. Problem with that tank was it was used for combat it wasn't designed for and wasn't given enough downtime for maintenance. Good tank, but wrong doctrine.
I remember seeing a documentary about tank battle between Israel and Syria. Flat plains, both sides committed only tanks, Syria had significant numerical superiority, but lost. Reason was Israel had better crews: they aimed faster, they moved their tanks between shots to throw off enemy's aim, and Syrian tanks were sitting ducks.
WW2 tank performance needs re-examination in context especially logistics. For example, no one would dispute an M1A2 is probably one of if not the best tank in existence, but how much fuel would it need to operate as the Germans were operating their tanks?
...
Which prompts a question, why DID the Americans and Brits keep making gasoline tanks instead of diesel - while making diesel tanks! - into the late '50s?I have understood that gasoline engine provides more HP for the weight. Can someone more knowledgeable confirm/deny this?
You want atrocious mileage, look up the M103 or Conqueror. At least the 103 got a diesel in the end that nearly quadrupled its range; the gasoline-powered model made it 80 miles on a tank...of 280 gallons. Conqueror does slightly better, a whole 95 miles on 266 gallons. You want thirsty beasts, they're it.
Which prompts a question, why DID the Americans and Brits keep making gasoline tanks instead of diesel - while making diesel tanks! - into the late '50s?
I have understood that gasoline engine provides more HP for the weight. Can someone more knowledgeable confirm/deny this?Well yes, but the diesel engines give a bigger base mana pool, so if you want a battle mage build, then you go diesel instead...
Considering that the Abrams tank is 1500hp about twice the size of the M60 tank. That gas mileage isn't that bad.
Guys, it was just an example.
But I suspect the M1 shouldn't be compared against its forebears, but against its contemporaries. Say the Chally 2, Leo 2 and T-72.
Wasn't the Panzerfaust known for making much larger holes in enemy armor than that?The shaped charge jet from a Panzerfaust struck very clean, sharp perfectly round holes of around 30mm diameter in armor, the explosion to create the jet would usually smudge the armor within 100mm around the hole. The edges of the holes in the tank in the video are too frayed and slightly conical in comparison, definitely gunfire.
So what's the most capable Leopard 2 variant now?The entire Leopard 2 line is so messed up no one will be able to tell you a definitive answer.
The A7V then pretty much takes that set of improvement and transfers them over into other systems where that was considered too big an investment for the small A7 run, thus:
- using 84 older A4-level Leopards, suspected to be Strv 121 returned by Sweden after lease
- implementing all the A7 hardware above, bringing them to the same standard
- since they're taking apart the hull anyway for this some modifications to the drive train to increase acceleration
- add-on armor on frontal arc over Leopard 2A7 level (... yes, on top of what MEXAS-H provides)
- the Attica thermal imager from PERI RTWL also being used for the EMES-15 gunner's sight
- Spectus thermal imager and separate air conditioning for the driver, which mandates moving some equipment around in the vehicle
@kato - speaking of the sourcing of Leo 2 chasses; why was it necessary to buy back a bunch of Leo 2s which had been sold to other nations? Or is it a misreporting of the leasing arrangements you mention?There were only three cases where significant quantities of Leos were "bought back": That was the 160 Strv 121 from Sweden when their lease expired (they were rented for 15 years), and 40 Leopard 2A4Ö that KMW bought from Austria in 2011 when they offered up one of their three battalions - actually outbidding competing offers. Rheinmetall similarly bought 42 Pz 87 (Leopard 2A4) from Switzerland in 2010 to rebuild them into mineclearing and engineer vehicles.
UrbOps was dropped a while ago and replaced with the Leopard 2A7, which was realized as a trial run - using the twenty Leopard 2A6M CAN, i.e. modified Leopard 2A6 NL, that were returned by Canada to Germany when their lease finished.
Interesting, thankswell the chassis can be rebuilt into Marksman AAG (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marksman_anti-aircraft_system) vehicles, bridgelayers, and engineering vehicles. but most likely they planned to sell them to smaller countries that wanted western tanks but couldn't afford the newer Leopards, M1's, etc. some countries still operate them and might need replacements as well.
Huh, 0.5m euro a unit doesn't seem like that much.
What the heck did they expect the Leo 1s to be used for?
@kato - speaking of the sourcing of Leo 2 chasses; why was it necessary to buy back a bunch of Leo 2s which had been sold to other nations? Or is it a misreporting of the leasing arrangements you mention?There are no capabilities to build new Leo 2 hulls anymore. So if they want to sell tanks new buyers, they need to buy used chassis from someone.
There are no capabilities to build new Leo 2 hulls anymore. So if they want to sell tanks new buyers, they need to buy used chassis from someone.
Yes, the assembly line was sacked some time ago and by now most experienced workers will be retired or otherwise goneThere is still an active assembly line. Hungary just ordered 44 new-built units (Leopard 2A7+) plus 12 used stock units (Leopard 2A4) from KMW in December 2018.
So we should be expecting a Eurofighter, with treads?We did have a joint tank project before, ya know. It resulted in the Leopard 1 and AMX-30, with nearly 10,000 hulls built across various variants.
So we should be expecting a Eurofighter, with treads?
Sub 40 tons, what's your guys' best thoughts for something that would follow on the AMX-30 as a replacement model? Pick your timeframe anywhere in the 80s, to fill the job of the AMX as high-speed cavalry with good gun or missile power, "enough" armor, but keep it light weight.For that timeframe? TAM all the way.
*snip*In today's world? Mobility rules. If you're stationary, a heavy enough gun can be brought to bear...
Also, what's the consensus (around here) on mobility vs armor protection? I'd always figured a faster unit, able to move farther over more terrain would be better than something slower and heavier, with more restrictions, because it can seize superior terrain and pre-empt an opponent, but once the shooting starts it does have its vulnerabilities. Your opinions?
Yes, the assembly line was sacked some time ago and by now most experienced workers will be retired or otherwise gone. Peace dividend does that to countries that are not the US for reasons such as "not buying tank chassis for 20 years" etc. As of now, the only Western nation on the continent with an assembly line from scratch to finished tank would be France. And even the French would need to re-open the line, since it has been shut since 2007.
In today's world? Mobility rules. If you're stationary, a heavy enough gun can be brought to bear...
Computer assisted gun laying takes into account of the targets movement and your tanks movement. The target will get hit. Its the quality of the armor that matters.That depends on terrain, and if you can even bring the heavier tank to the battle in the first place. Flying an M1 anywhere is generally regarded as a waste of a C-17.
Pretty much limited to Spike and Javelin in practice, the French MMPRbs 56 BILL is dedicated top arrack as well.willdoes also include a secondary trajectory mode for that. Tradeoff is higher susceptibility to active countermeasures.
Pretty much limited to Spike and Javelin in practice, the French MMPwilldoes also include a secondary trajectory mode for that. Tradeoff is higher susceptibility to active countermeasures.
Rbs 56 BILL is dedicated top arrack as well.Not through lofted trajectory though - it's simply a downward-firing EFP that overflies its target, same as e.g. TOW 2B.
In trials for Ecuador in 1989 it performed way ahead of its competitors - the Textron Stingray, Steyr SK-105 and upgraded AMX-13-105.
Not through lofted trajectory though - it's simply a downward-firing EFP that overflies its target, same as e.g. TOW 2B.
Top-attack through lofted/arcing trajectory in those missiles that do use it also are used for their main effect: Giving the missile a considerably higher range compared to flat trajectories. That's realistically the main reason the Spike missile family for example uses it.
As for types - it's not like there are that many ATGM types remaining anyway. Just look at Europe. Almost everyone uses Spike, and those that don't do use Javelin (France excluded as usual - they're replacing their adhoc Javelin buy with MMP).
And a very unusual mod found in a Pakistani armour museum:Looks like an M3 Lee/Grant with a really long gun, and no 37mm turret. Interesting SPG or testing setup.
(https://pm1.narvii.com/6782/3c43f52c4bcdf5496da2fcce0188d3cdb3d50197v2_hq.jpg)
No-one's quite sure if it's a 17-lbr, or 76mm, or what, but I want some for my next militia unit ... looks very BT.
In all honesty I can't imagine a recoil system that big would fit at all in the Lee's sponson.
Australia has selected Korean and German industries for Next Gen IFV/APC evaluation."What happened?
(https://defense-update.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Land400Phas3_1021.jpg)
Australia has shortlisted two contenders to replace their M-113s: The Rheinmetall Lynx KF-41 and the Hanwha Defense System AS21 Redback.
There's lots of room in a Lee/Grant; was up close & personal earlier this year at Puckapunyl.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/2CJQAFBxJWudwf2nDuT7dePmLraELK_j6yhyadqdxMBwvTAmrXwueHz4TlfSnWHClelBQj3cTPtsZ8mTww0jQEglx3C1TRVkFk-pPNLSELh0CvYMot2rtIhWQm5tYnHgzoztXq4Mh8K9fJRmNP-mBcYCjvcmoVhinN6ege0Wy74pTwhtiZcrG2OzTh4aYI52SVU5JnMsYWXwb8cLvdaT4OOvBIHDy4D-8YRbYzHNTTduPYZGF4SB7LbkWvloZcf8D-Qlc2NLaByKW9JNT9JtTekKAn_EIKVgQ65UVeq_44QL41q7TDOan7I7-v_vCCxPhCApYrxLHMd0uSr3z0s6VdZPKs_T0-jPtc0sQxJ7PgH9QA_OqG3QXSXEdsNHOo_gnSVpHW-DqQvCT8pb5n_iEYV0mUdO6JUsw8HITSULA_9jR9uPPtDNr1LhPb0kjzbTYpmpIUTfTFRrgvNvrU4HnQxetlHrFzIbV3JFvSxbkVIEXZINwZhvOkOeHouXy3UfDEbHQnaO53MIOMTJ9WyTTDLs3WevlhytWj0y7Nm_4uC5GCrZXBWtBG8VNUMZj7HAtIBS7ThAjKJG8nswE5GL7PpFdhjKOxLJ2YyabTwSXgjLrLUPG0BQA3ic1A4znRYvWMQHbfAhVd1hDYxw7vIanr6yy7XUE11-ePVoUGQbXxdVFFstTAXoOB547KniampAGgHOIH68Ngs_nOS9LC-Pj0ZmWvri5dBH7Aviy7bW45XaGrY=w1122-h842-no)
And in the early 70s, was inside that beast (the museum at the time being a paddock, and access was untrammelled.) So if you can fit a 17-lbr in a Sherman turret (the bustle on the back is stuffed with wireless, IIRC), and four 6' plus late teens into a Lee, you can fit a 17-lbr into a Lee sponson ;)
The muzzle brake - can't help but wonder if it's an improvised field repair, after that tank dug the barrel into a ditch.
And given I have a friend who will 3D print for me, I see several variant Hetzers carrying UAC-10s in my future.
Those things are 20 tons?! ???... a MT-LB weighs 11.9 tons.
Still convinced BTU people become liquid when placed in a container
Compared to a T-54, M13-40, or similar ... a lot of room. As mentioned, four 6'+ teens had no problems with the Lee. Of course, our circumference was smaller in the 70s ...
(https://abload.de/img/partisans-komsomoletsiokdy.jpg)
And yes, it's supposed to be used like that. They're sitting on benches.
The LTV-7 weighs 30 tons, carries 3 crew plus 21-30 troops (Wiki says 21, troopers say 30, I assume OH&S is left behind at need). The LTV-7 also has a full amphibious chassis ;)
What the devil is that thing?Soviet T-20 Komsomolets, 4400 units built from 1937 to 1941, captured units were also used by Germany, Finland and Romania.
And at 41 tons the LVTP-5 carried 34 troops.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cb/LVTP5A1Mobile.JPG/800px-LVTP5A1Mobile.JPG)
Those both had the M44 beat. It could only hold 24 troops.This is unironically my idea of a Battletech APC
(https://i.imgur.com/YgWxHx8.jpg)
The LTV-7 weighs 30 tons, carries 3 crew plus 21-30 troops (Wiki says 21, troopers say 30, I assume OH&S is left behind at need). The LTV-7 also has a full amphibious chassis ;)The most I've seen in a AAV-P7A1 was 24 or 25, plus crew...I forget which one I was but I do remember several members of Kilo 3/6 holding me in the vehicle as the ramp was raised.
Heavy APC in my mind is the size of two public buses side by side. That's your sixty right there, easy.Doesn't have to be that much... maybe 1.5 buses wide. Standard school bus capacity is 72 passengers. That's kids, not kitted troops, but you can squeeze that many adults in there. Add half-again the width and it seems plausible... not comfortable.
(https://abload.de/img/bw_kom_gr_db_o303_v2kjj16.jpg)The first one, is it basically a civilian bus painted green? maybe with kevlar plates?
German military bus. Used for peacetime larger-scale troop movement. Usually one or two deployed with base administration for each batallion. Around 40 passenger seats. Wartime role was for transport of wounded, with most seats folded over and stretchers mounted two above every six seats - replacing trucks used before them for the purpose with the same capacity of 12 stretchers.
That wasn't a theoretical capability btw, they were also deployed like that in support of KFOR - both as busses and as ambulances.
For conflict zone personnel transport twenty of these were later introduced for Afghanistan to replace busses:
(https://abload.de/img/bw_lkw_15t_milgl_multvdk34.jpg)
Armored (tested) against IEDs, artillery, infantry-scale guns, anti-personnel- and anti-tank mines. Seats 18. Carrier vehicle is a Multi A3 FSA, similarly armored and carrying a RWS for a 40mm grenade launcher or 7.62mm MG.
That six foot drop from the doorway suggests egress was a problem...From the container? Main exit is in the back. Method of egress: https://youtu.be/7N0HPjafFv4?t=340
The first one, is it basically a civilian bus painted green? maybe with kevlar plates?It's a specialized version of a Mercedes-Benz O302 series civilian bus. There are some minor changes, mostly regarding lowered visibility (no chrome rims...) and making them cheaper by removing any sort of comfort for passengers (including changes to e.g. air flow systems in the bus).
Worktroll, are you sure about that picture? The Wiki article described it as having one 6-pounder sponson, and one with Vickers... ???the Mk.V hermaphrodite did. but the pic he posted is the of the Mk.IX, which was an early effort at what we would call an APC.
I still have bad dreams of being jammed in to 'cattle car' trailers in basic training at Fort Dix
Worktroll, are you sure about that picture? The Wiki article described it as having one 6-pounder sponson, and one with Vickers... ???
There's lots of room in a Lee/Grant; was up close & personal earlier this year at Puckapunyl.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/2CJQAFBxJWudwf2nDuT7dePmLraELK_j6yhyadqdxMBwvTAmrXwueHz4TlfSnWHClelBQj3cTPtsZ8mTww0jQEglx3C1TRVkFk-pPNLSELh0CvYMot2rtIhWQm5tYnHgzoztXq4Mh8K9fJRmNP-mBcYCjvcmoVhinN6ege0Wy74pTwhtiZcrG2OzTh4aYI52SVU5JnMsYWXwb8cLvdaT4OOvBIHDy4D-8YRbYzHNTTduPYZGF4SB7LbkWvloZcf8D-Qlc2NLaByKW9JNT9JtTekKAn_EIKVgQ65UVeq_44QL41q7TDOan7I7-v_vCCxPhCApYrxLHMd0uSr3z0s6VdZPKs_T0-jPtc0sQxJ7PgH9QA_OqG3QXSXEdsNHOo_gnSVpHW-DqQvCT8pb5n_iEYV0mUdO6JUsw8HITSULA_9jR9uPPtDNr1LhPb0kjzbTYpmpIUTfTFRrgvNvrU4HnQxetlHrFzIbV3JFvSxbkVIEXZINwZhvOkOeHouXy3UfDEbHQnaO53MIOMTJ9WyTTDLs3WevlhytWj0y7Nm_4uC5GCrZXBWtBG8VNUMZj7HAtIBS7ThAjKJG8nswE5GL7PpFdhjKOxLJ2YyabTwSXgjLrLUPG0BQA3ic1A4znRYvWMQHbfAhVd1hDYxw7vIanr6yy7XUE11-ePVoUGQbXxdVFFstTAXoOB547KniampAGgHOIH68Ngs_nOS9LC-Pj0ZmWvri5dBH7Aviy7bW45XaGrY=w1122-h842-no)
And in the early 70s, was inside that beast (the museum at the time being a paddock, and access was untrammelled.) So if you can fit a 17-lbr in a Sherman turret (the bustle on the back is stuffed with wireless, IIRC), and four 6' plus late teens into a Lee, you can fit a 17-lbr into a Lee sponson ;)
The muzzle brake - can't help but wonder if it's an improvised field repair, after that tank dug the barrel into a ditch.
And given I have a friend who will 3D print for me, I see several variant Hetzers carrying UAC-10s in my future.
Let us not kid ourselves.... Obviously Panzer V Panther should be the King of the 5s!I second this
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/c2/be/44/c2be448b3c024c87c2d6511ec0b2a764.jpg)
Why just look at the Sherman; could the Americans have made a better tank? Sure! Hell. They put the M7 into production, then stopped it and tore down the factory. if the Russians can move tank production to the other side of the Urals; then the Americans could have made a better tank. They didn't because the damn transports were only so big; even a slightly larger tank would have taken up more than 2 Sherman's worth of space. Wouldn't have mattered. Size directly correlates to turret rings, track width and sloping armour. The Maus looks like that for a reason, ditto the Sherman; the Russians can build a wider tank from day one and never have to make them ship by sea...unless WWII goes REALLY well.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/British_Mark_IX_Armoured_Personnel_Carrier.jpg)What's the point of having PBI inside with that speed!? I could understand it as armoured ammo carrier for other tanks.
The Mark IX. Distortion of a Mark V chassis, weighed 27 tons, and carried 30 (or 50, some assert) troops. Over 30' long, with a top speed of 4.6mph - eg. moves 1 hex every other turn ;)
Don't forget the crane capacities for lifting tanks onto ships for transport (and vice versa at destinations) - IIRC Nick Moran mentioned this as being part of the reason Shermans weighed what they did, because of the lifting capacity for ship transport and the relative lack of cranes that could load heavier things like Pershing and so on.Yes. He also makes a note that Sherman is relatively more reliable and easier ( = faster) to maintain than most other tanks. Crew has more elbow space to work with (except in Firefly), which means increased efficiency ( = shorter reload times). And something about optics and periscopes. And gun stabilizer, which was so secret that most crews didn't get training for it. Gun also had some excellent type of ammunition, which wasn't produced much, possibly for rule #4 reasons.
What's the point of having PBI inside with that speed!?Protection and conservation of human effort
Wasn't there a problem with the exhaust of the Mark tanks and would poison the crew inside??Yes, I have read about it. It may not have been to the point of dying, but they may have suffered of nausea and possibly vomiting. Also huge engine is in the middle of the tank and in the first models it didn't have any kind of protection, so crew members were likely to fall on it and burn themselves. If I have understood correctly, Mark IV had a fence around the engine.