Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.

[grimlock1]

I wasn't aware that Minecraft had tanks.

The first thing that went through my head was a flashback to 1988.

[Matti]

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.

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 am Belch II]

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.

The US and the west were very scared of the BMP-1, and Im sure the Bradley was used to compete with that design.

[Sabelkatten]

I wasn't aware that Minecraft had tanks.

My first thought was "I want that LEGO set!". ;D

IIRC wasn't there an Italian AA proposal that looked like that? A rather heavy (76mm?) naval AA gun on a heavy truck chassis?

[glitterboy2098]

the XM734 was a proposal by FMC for an IFV based off a (modified) M113. basically it was a slightly bulked up M113 that had vision slits and firing ports added to the sides so the embarked troops could fight without leaving the vehicle, as well as an unmanned 20mm turret. it was a contemporary, chronologically speaking, with the BMP-1 development. this is apparently is where pentagon Wars got the idea that the Bradley started as a simple troop-taxi.



however that development program (MICV-65) instead chose to develop the rival XM701 proposal (by what is now Paccar), a heavier APC type vehicle based off the M-109 SPA chassis.

the XM701


this vehicle ultimately was dropped because it proved too heavy to transport by air using the C-141.


the modern M2 Bradley however traces its linage to the XM723, which was what FMC offered after the XM701 was dropped. it had been one of their alternate designs to the XM734. basically a light tank with a troop bay, it was substantially larget than the M113 based XM734. it used a (heavily modified) LTV-7 chassis, with a manned turret mounting the same 20mm cannon the MICV-65 specs called for. the turret had always been a requirement of the program, despite what pentagon Wars suggested.



the army then decided that the 20mm had too weak of performance against armored vehicles, and decided to upgrade to the 30mm bushmaster. creatign the XM2.

the recon role (despite what the film shows) was only tacked on towards the end of the development of the XM2, when the army realized the Xm2 could fulfil most of the roles of the XM800 scout vehicle program. (what was basically an armored car program) combining the two to use the XM2 chassis would save a bundle in the budget.

so the narrative that the film uses, that the M2 Bradley was a simple battle-taxi ruined by army hubris and bad decisions, is inaccurate. rather, it was a program that was always going to generate a large turret IFV, as that was what the Army wanted. the flaws in the M2 bradley derive mostly from the fact that the army basically wanted a light tank with a troop bay, but had to compromise due to weight and budget issues.

[grimlock1]

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've been meaning to get a copy of the book and compare the two.

[kato]

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).



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...:

[Liam's Ghost]

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 movie distorted things a lot.

[grimlock1]

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.

[kato]

The all-blue digital camo is Chinese marines btw, even if NORINCO uses it for advertising on random stuff.

Here's some ZBD2000 in that pattern:



The SPAAG shown looks a bit like a more modern big brother to the CS/SA-1 (twin 35mm) shown in 2012, probably with a similar mission in mind:

[PsihoKekec]

More from China.


Fould fit into BT

[glitterboy2098]

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. another site (which didn't have a pic but did have a description in mostly-OK-english) had more info.

grain of salt on all of it of course. but apparently it is a 76mm artillery piece, using a standard naval artillery design, adapted to ground vehicle use and fitted with hardware so it can be used as both artillery and as an AA gun. and fitted to a custom 10 wheel chassis.

[worktroll]

Size matters: Merkava IV, Leopard 2A5, T-90A:

[kato]

Should we point out that that Leo model has AGDUS mounted?

(AGDUS is a laser-based battlefield simulation system, part of which is the "cartridge bank" that's mounted on the forward port side consisting of 17 smoke pots to simulate effects from firing the gun)

[worktroll]

Doesn't make less size inside ...

[Cannonshop]

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'...)

[grimlock1]

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.

[Cannonshop]

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 need to dig up Nick Moran's inside-and-outside examination of a T-72.  It's an ergonomic nightmare even WITH a crew of only three.  (Crew efficiency impacts vehicle efficiency, ergonomics impacts crew efficiency.)

[ANS Kamas P81]

It's not Moran's, but https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krp2y88nNCo is another of the WoT crew digging his way through a T-72. 

There's also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQTHQObsGxA this one, which shows a 360 view of both of them inside a T-55 turret. 

[PsihoKekec]

Non-midgets need not apply.

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

I'm really surprised Russia stuck with that design paradigm for so long.

[Fat Guy]

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.   ::)

[HobbesHurlbut]

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.   ::)

well, smaller turret also use less weight to keep the same level of armor protection....

[Fat Guy]

well, smaller turret also use less weight to keep the same level of armor protection....

Which combat has proven to not be anywhere close to enough.   xp

[ANS Kamas P81]

The difference in resources between a top-end T-80 and an Abrams aren't that big.  You still need a high-end powerplant, high-end transmission, the best gun you can get, composite armor shaped properly, fire control/communications/other electronics.  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; Rheinmetall claims an accuracy of "less than" 20cm spread at 1,000 meters for the silver bullet.  That's under 8 inches at 1000 yards, rounding off; at under 0.8 MOA an Abrams is literally carrying a 4.7 inch sniper rifle...and yes, that means at a thousand yards, it's capable of putting every round in the same hole on its target.  Size of your target is going to mean little at best, with such accuracy.

P.S. more T-72 video  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTGM1n8CYyQ  (in Russian)

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

Wouldn't the biggest cost saver on the T-80 compared to an Abrams be using a conventional diesel engine and the corresponding boost to fuel efficiency over the that freaking turbine?

[kato]

... the T-80B and T-80U all use gas turbines.

Only the T-80UD series, which amounts to about 5% of all built, carries a diesel.

[ANS Kamas P81]

And a 1500hp diesel powerplant small enough to fit in a tank and engineered to handle that kind of tactical power-on-demand is going to be damned expensive anyway.

[CDAT]

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.   ::)

As I was informed years ago, the Russians/Soviets are much closer to using the ideal design then the western powers, but they then go cheap. By this I mean the rounded turret does not have the bullet traps and such, but they also do not have room for the crew to work effectively and are limiting on who can be in the crew, I spent years on the M1 at 6'2", my brother spent his 20 on them at 6'5" neither of us could have been on any T-XX. The autoloader lets you go smaller but also makes you compromise other things like the ammo being around the turret so small penetrating hits kill the tank, and not as reliable as a 18-20 year old crewman. Not to mention that you are cutting the crew by 25-50% (depending on if command tank or not) when it comes to pulling maintenance.

[ANS Kamas P81]

What's odd about the interior of the T-72 is that Russian men, on average, are a half-centimeter taller than American men so it's not like 'oh they're all short, they don't need the room' or anything.  I've heard that stated before, but definitely not true.