Armored Fighting Vehicles Version M5 (it is a tradition now)

[ANS Kamas P81]

The ridiculous height and width being chief among them, I'm guessing.

Well, that and the remote control only had a six foot cord, so the operator had to walk along underneath it with the controller to do its thing...

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

What? ???

[Cache]

They couldn't borrow a cord from captured Goliaths?  :o

[ANS Kamas P81]

I'm kidding!  I was coming up with the worst possible option for an r/c demining vehicle...

[Matti]

I've been writing a story over in the Fan Fiction board, and trying to do some research about tank operation. Today I came across a M551 Sheridan training film on YouTube, I thought thought it might be interesting enough to post here. Here's the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z24YQMrK9Gs]

Another Sheridan video by Matsimus. He goes on to details about what was wrong with the damn thing. Still if I were to man a tank, I might take it over Sherman or T-34 ::)

[ANS Kamas P81]

I'll take the Sherman.  I know it'll fire when I pull the trigger, and I can fire at least five rounds while the 152mm's reloading.

[Garrand]

If you take a Sherman 76 with post-war ammo, you'll probably have a good chance at defeating the armor on the Sheridan at ranges effectively outside its conventional ammo range too...

Damon.

[ANS Kamas P81]

If you take a Sherman 76 with post-war ammo, you'll probably have a good chance at defeating the armor on the Sheridan at ranges effectively outside its conventional ammo range too...

Damon.

Or be a complete **** and grab one of the Israeli ones...

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

Yeah, what is the effective range on an M-51's 105 compared to the gun on the Sheridan?

[Wereling]

Straight up American, apparently.  Looks like whatever Hobart was smoking, he shared some with the allies.

I am, in fact, mildly stunned.

[Wereling]

Another Sheridan video by Matsimus. He goes on to details about what was wrong with the damn thing. Still if I were to man a tank, I might take it over Sherman or T-34 ::)

I've seen that one. I was more interested in the process of operation than I was in the actual tank. I do know about the many MANY issues with the Sheridan.

[Wereling]

Yeah, what is the effective range on an M-51's 105 compared to the gun on the Sheridan?

The range of the Shillelagh missile was, IIRC, about 4000 meters, with a minimum range of about 800 meters. It was supposed to be able to defeat pretty much any MBT armor in use at the time.

[glitterboy2098]

The range of the Shillelagh missile was, IIRC, about 4000 meters, with a minimum range of about 800 meters. It was supposed to be able to defeat pretty much any MBT armor in use at the time.

the direct fire munitions (HE and HEAT) had a range of about 5000 ft but the propellant charges tended to misfire, as well as damage the missile firing gear. and the bore excavator system meant to clear the breech of unburned powder wasn't always reliable, which slowed down firing rate.

honestly the whole "gun/missile system combo" was ahead of its time, and i think the russians had a better approach with their AT-8 Songster and their AT-12 Swinger ATGM's, which were designed to fire from a standard 125mm and 100mm gun respectively.

[Garrand]

honestly the whole "gun/missile system combo" was ahead of its time, and i think the russians had a better approach with their AT-8 Songster and their AT-12 Swinger ATGM's, which were designed to fire from a standard 125mm and 100mm gun respectively.

I think how it was implemented on the Brad is ultimately the best way to do it: a cannon for dealing with direct threats & a seperate TOW launcher for armored targets. If the Sheridan used a lightweight 76mm or 90mm cannon combined with a TOW launcher (somehow), then it might have been more successful in its role...

Damon.

[kato]

I think how it was implemented on the Brad is ultimately the best way to do it: a cannon for dealing with direct threats & a seperate TOW launcher for armored targets.

That's what the BMP-2 did in comparison to the BMP-1. Switch to a 30mm autocannon and separate the ATGM into an overslung launcher.

Then someone came crying that they missed their capability to lob HE shells and presto - BMP-3. Which took the BMP-2's armament and added the 100mm in additionally.

[Garrand]

That's what the BMP-2 did in comparison to the BMP-1. Switch to a 30mm autocannon and separate the ATGM into an overslung launcher.

The BMP-1 had a seperate ATGM launcher. In the original version an AT-3 mounted above the gun. In the BMP-1P a pedistal mount (IIRC for AT-4s this time) on the turret roof like the BMP-2.

The BMP-3 introduced gun-launched ATGMs to the BMP family, finally...

Damon.

[kato]

The BMP-1 gun was basically a modified SPG-9 recoilless rifle firing HE and HEAT with the launch rail for the Malyutka added to the top (using the gun optics...), which made it about as reliable as the Shillelagh that way.

The 9P135 on the BMP-2 and BMP-1P was simply the infantry launcher - otherwise usually deployed in anti-tank fireteams on BTRs - that was mounted into place on the turret, much like e.g. Germany did it with the Milan on Marder.

[Kidd]

Oh well

If gun launched ATGMs were overall better than tube launched, we'd see more of them

By the way, how good bad or otherwise is the LAHAT?

[I am Belch II]

Ive always wondered about that. Does a gun/missile launcher do anything better. A tank gun is way heavy but can fire a whole lot faster with different kind of rounds, but a missile launcher is much lighter, has much better range but is really expensive.

Is there a benefit to one or the other? 

[kato]

Reloading under armor. That's the main benefit of missiles launched through gun tubes, especially when NBC protection is concerned.

[Matti]

I think how it was implemented on the Brad is ultimately the best way to do it: a cannon for dealing with direct threats & a seperate TOW launcher for armored targets. If the Sheridan used a lightweight 76mm or 90mm cannon combined with a TOW launcher (somehow), then it might have been more successful in its role...

Speaking about which, is there any examples (or even plans) of main battle tank with ATGMs against tanks and a smaller gun (maybe auto cannon) against everything else?

[kato]

Only refits come to mind, like the AMX-13/HOT in the early 70s - which retained the then-obsolete 75mm gun for general tasks and added two 4-cell (early) or 3-cell (later) HOT launchers.



Was not accepted for service as the French Army considered the AMX-13 chassis itself obsolete as well and instead introduced HOT as a dedicated missile tank destroyer on the VAB chassis.

The earlier AMX-13/SS-11 (introduced in France around 1965) mounted four SS-11 ATGM for the same purpose while retaining the same 75mm gun. The gun was also considered to be useful to be kept as it could engage targets below the minimum effective engagement range of the missiles of about 500m. The AMX-13/SS-11 replaced the withdrawn M47 with their 90mm guns temporarily until the AMX-30 could be introduced, thus basically presenting a step-down in gun caliber that was balanced by adding the missiles for anti-tank work.

PS: Of course one might argue that the AMX-13 was not a MBT due to low weight.

[ANS Kamas P81]

By the way, how good bad or otherwise is the LAHAT?

LAHAT's pretty wicked.  Practically no firing signature compared to a regular tank shell, 8000m range, semi-active laser-guided, and optional straight or top-attack flight pattern with a tandem-charge warhead, and can be fired from any standard smoothbore 105mm or 120 - it comes with a sabot to fit either.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DD7MYj5UUfU

Firing tests from a Leo2A4 against various targets.

[worktroll]

The LeClerc. Seems in writing to be a "Rolls-Royce" tank. Good speed via a high-pressure diesel engine. The modular armour approach - steel frames & base, with slotted in armour slabs, allowing easy upgrade & possibly easier field repair. French-made NATO standard 120mm smoothbore, with extra length for more shot velocity, and full length thermal sleeve. And the most expensive MBT around.

So, any idea how good it actually is?

[ANS Kamas P81]

France seems to love them, especially jumping from AMX-30 to these.

I've never really heard anything bad, honestly, though it hasn't been in major conflicts - small scale stuff here and there, like Kosovo and pre-Syrian Civil War Lebanon, where it did okay as far as the Armée de terre leadership considers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=869_f4Gn8cg

I've always thought Matsimus' commentary on real world hardware is pretty decent (he's a former tanker, like Nick Moran) and while I haven't seen it I'd give his video a look.  And he's honest enough to admit his sources may not be perfect, but he's giving his best. 

[worktroll]

I'll try and take that on - I really struggle with podcasts. I'm old, my brain expects to gather information via text ...

Wonder what the main differentiators are with current Abrams models - aside from hard-won combat experience.

Thanks!

[kato]

And the most expensive MBT around.

Nah, not really. Problem with pricetags is that you always get some support constract, installation construction, additional vehicles and such with them. In the case of the contract quoted on wikipedia that amounts to about one-third of the price cited. Effective per-unit cost is about equivalent to the Leopard 2 in current versions.

The M1A2 SEP, if one takes original procurement cost plus the upgrade cost, runs about the same btw.

[DoctorMonkey]

Nah, not really. Problem with pricetags is that you always get some support constract, installation construction, additional vehicles and such with them. In the case of the contract quoted on wikipedia that amounts to about one-third of the price cited. Effective per-unit cost is about equivalent to the Leopard 2 in current versions.

The M1A2 SEP, if one takes original procurement cost plus the upgrade cost, runs about the same btw.

Wonder what the main differentiators are with current Abrams models - aside from hard-won combat experience.

Thanks!

As a complete amateur, I would say that any of the Western MBTs would be fine to go into combat in - what I would probably not want to do is go up against one in any other sort of armour (eg T-72). The differences are relatively minimal really.

[hoosierhick]

Speaking about which, is there any examples (or even plans) of main battle tank with ATGMs against tanks and a smaller gun (maybe auto cannon) against everything else?

Would MBT-70 fit the bill?  It had the 152mm gun/launcher and also had a 20mm autocannon.

[Kidd]

Wonder what the main differentiators are with current Abrams models - aside from hard-won combat experience.
!

Autoloader