BattleTech - The Board Game of Armored Combat
Off Topic and Technical Support => Off Topic => Topic started by: Daryk on 13 December 2022, 19:01:42
-
By popular demand!
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/ba/Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-299-1805-16%2C_Nordfrankreich%2C_Panzer_VI_%28Tiger_I%29.2.jpg)
-
tagging in
-
Ping!
-
i suspect a lot of Allied tankers wished that germany had gone with the Porsche Tiger design.. a tank that kills itself..
-
The Henschel Tiger was still in many ways a bad tank even if it wasn't as flawed as Porsche's design. The tracks were narrow and gave it poor performance on soft ground, it was hard to maintain, the armor was thick but flat so it wasn't as effective as it could have been were it sloped, and it was fairly expensive to build which limited production.
-
The Henschel Tiger was still in many ways a bad tank even if it wasn't as flawed as Porsche's design. The tracks were narrow and gave it poor performance on soft ground, it was hard to maintain, the armor was thick but flat so it wasn't as effective as it could have been were it sloped, and it was fairly expensive to build which limited production.
The question is how much fear did it cause?
-
I'm pretty sure that Porsche's version would have inspired similar levels of fear. That gun was scary regardless of what it was mounted on.
-
the major problem for both Porsche and Henschel's design, was that tank development was still extremely new, the knowledge of what works, and what doesn't, wasn't well established until well into the 1950s, and we're Still on a learning curve today as industrial processes that weren't even dreamed of in 1940 are being outmoded by methods developed in the last 30 years.
so it's kind of unfair to criticize what was cutting edge thinking in the second world war-they didn't have things like realistic computer modeling or computer aided drafting, or even much real development into materials sciences by today's standards to tell them things like 'flat armor bad', or how to get the most out of each scrap of metal.
much of the raw pragmatic knowledge ("This gearbox is too fiddly") hadn't really evolved or dispersed yet, when those tanks were made.
AND...Germany had a problem. The problem they had, was plenty of coal, and after France, plenty of iron, but the metallurgy was still...kinda shit, honestly. Rare earths like Molybdenum, Tungsten, and Carbides were pretty thin on the ground in the ground they were on, and Germany's not exactly sitting on a lake of oil. The big oil deposits like the North Sea fields weren't just unknown, they were unreachable had they even BEEN known.
so 'tis not really fair to mock the designs-they were the best the Germans could do with available knowledge, given their industries and the ironhanded central control of their economy (a feature of that sort of governance, but also a major flaw of it.)
one of the main reasons that these:
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTxqs3cZ3oDWBG64PuXibO3i1WX3VQ1Q4VaVUvRsbppsZyMUgLE-5O6uwsQIFU730RqUKA&usqp=CAU)
were still in use ten years after the war in front line units, while these:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/ba/Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-299-1805-16%2C_Nordfrankreich%2C_Panzer_VI_%28Tiger_I%29.2.jpg)
weren't? is because all that extra armor and huge main gun were overkill for most of the actual roles required, and the weight of all of it was more than the hardware and suspension it was built with could actually handle.
also because the Sherman, was designed to be built and maintained quickly, with easily serviced parts that could be shipped across oceans, making upgrades easier, maintenance simpler, and reliability higher.
The tank you have, if it works, beats ten tanks parked in the lager waiting for spares or broken down on the highway on the way to the battlefield. It's the same principle as "Only shots that hit, do damage." If you can't get your shootahs to the battle, they're of no value in the battle.
-
Another common issue was when designed the transmission would be designed and finalized buy wasn't upgraded as more layers of armor or bigger guns were added, this was an issue for everything from pz4 onwards,
So it wasn't a bad Transmission it was a Trans built for a unit 15-20 tons lighter
-
Another common issue was when designed the transmission would be designed and finalized buy wasn't upgraded as more layers of armor or bigger guns were added, this was an issue for everything from pz4 onwards,
So it wasn't a bad Transmission it was a Trans built for a unit 15-20 tons lighter
The underlying thinking was the problem, Dave. Somehow, the Reich's engineering staff didn't bother to account for what that extra weight would do, they were, ahem...'just following orders' without actually thinking about what the outcome of those orders would be.
Which is a pretty common trait of centrally planned logistics and economics, particularly the refusal to account for what your means do to your ends when you treat the ends as justifying the means.
meaning nobody intended for the transmissions to be unable to take the added weight, but nobody accounted for it either. Which is almost a sin in engineering terms, when you think on it a bit.
-
the major problem for both Porsche and Henschel's design, was that tank development was still extremely new, the knowledge of what works, and what doesn't, wasn't well established until well into the 1950s, and we're Still on a learning curve today as industrial processes that weren't even dreamed of in 1940 are being outmoded by methods developed in the last 30 years.
so it's kind of unfair to criticize what was cutting edge thinking in the second world war-they didn't have things like realistic computer modeling or computer aided drafting, or even much real development into materials sciences by today's standards to tell them things like 'flat armor bad', or how to get the most out of each scrap of metal.
It's not really the construction of the tank that I have a problem with so much as people who look at its portrayal in games that don't account for its technical issues and consequently treat it like it was a super-tank that was just better at everything than Allied tanks based on its gun.
-
It's not really the construction of the tank that I have a problem with so much as people who look at its portrayal in games that don't account for its technical issues and consequently treat it like it was a super-tank that was just better at everything than Allied tanks based on its gun.
Game developers often do the stupidest things. I seem to recall a popular FPS game introducing a .50BMG Garand rifle to their lineup as a premium item. (not only impractical, but mechanically impossible for a shoulder weapon in the 12 pound weight limit of an M-1 Garand).
Players often accept those stupid things, because it's fun, not because they think it's accurate. World of Tanks doesn't really HAVE a mechanic for mechanical unreliability, because that's not fun.
(or at least, it didn't during the time I briefly played.)
-
The question is how much fear did it cause?
enough that there were more reported tiger tanks being sighted than were built.
-
One YouTuber summed it up as Germany's attempt to go for more quality over quantity when they didn't have enough of ether.
There was no way Axis was going to produce enough armor to fight a war on two fronts so they became obsessed with the idea of the super tank that could best anything (I say obsessed because this was the brain trust that came up with the Mouse and later the most likely meth inspired Ratte) but when your bleeding resources and personnel, a bigger gun is only going to gain you so much.
So yeah, a scary tank used by scary people but died all the same.
-
The Henschel Tiger was still in many ways a bad tank even if it wasn't as flawed as Porsche's design. The tracks were narrow and gave it poor performance on soft ground, it was hard to maintain, the armor was thick but flat so it wasn't as effective as it could have been were it sloped, and it was fairly expensive to build which limited production.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/da/3a/f8/da3af8fd9238d4efb4833f76ed55079b.jpg)
Nothing narrow about those tracks. 520mm wide travel tracks, 725mm normal tracks for 1.545 kg/cm2 and 1.11 kg/cm2 ground pressure respectively. (Tanks Encyclopedia). That's not far off an early-war Panzer 4 at 0.98 kg/cm2 or Sherman (1.01 kg/cm2). Tiger's mobility issue wasn't tactical (on the battlefield). It was strategic.
The Chieftain goes into how it's appropriate for its original doctrinal role (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57oRqB_a-SA).
-
I've seen that video. There's other sources I've seen that have called the Tiger's tracks too narrow for its weight which led to it having traction problems in ice, mud, and snow compared to other tanks. And that was on top of the tendency for said ice, mud, and snow to get packed into the spaces between the wheels until things started to break. There was a book I had at one point that was all about the Tiger that talked about the issue, but I'm not even sure if I've still got it: I got rid of a bunch of books a few years back and I'm not sure if I kept it.
Game developers often do the stupidest things. I seem to recall a popular FPS game introducing a .50BMG Garand rifle to their lineup as a premium item. (not only impractical, but mechanically impossible for a shoulder weapon in the 12 pound weight limit of an M-1 Garand).
Players often accept those stupid things, because it's fun, not because they think it's accurate. World of Tanks doesn't really HAVE a mechanic for mechanical unreliability, because that's not fun.
(or at least, it didn't during the time I briefly played.)
And excessive realism is not something that most games should strive for just because it would be painfully un-fun: imagine trying to play a KV-2 if it took as long to reload as it did in real life or if it were as prone to tipping over on uneven ground as it actually was. The problem is that too many people look at World of Tanks or other games (both video and tabletop) and ignore that things were changed for the game to make them fun and instead assume that things like the T-34 88 and the Tiger I mounting the Tiger II's cannon are things that actually happened.
-
One YouTuber summed it up as Germany's attempt to go for more quality over quantity when they didn't have enough of ether.
There was no way Axis was going to produce enough armor to fight a war on two fronts so they became obsessed with the idea of the super tank that could best anything (I say obsessed because this was the brain trust that came up with the Mouse and later the most likely meth inspired Ratte) but when your bleeding resources and personnel, a bigger gun is only going to gain you so much.
So yeah, a scary tank used by scary people but died all the same.
un fortunately by the time they built it, quality was starting to be difficult to achieve as well. due to a combination of poor workmanship (overworked factory workers or even slave labor often enough) and overengineering (pretty much every part had to be custom fit to meet the intended levels of performance.)
-
And that led to eliminating quality control from production.
-
And here's the version of the Tiger most Western soldiers encountered in WW2:
(https://www.militaryimages.net/media/italian-panzer-iv-in-the-forest.45466/full)
Yup. The "legendary" status of the Tiger meant anything not a Panther was reported as a Tiger. Panzer IV was deadly enough.
Still, if you can find Otto Carius' book "Tigers in the Mud", it's a great read.
-
Regarding the Tiger's tracks, didn't the first versions have have narrower ones that were replaced pretty quickly?
-
Let's also not forget how needlessly complex the Tiger was. The engine didn't turn the tracks. The engine turned a generator, which turned traction motors, which turned the tracks. All while Germany had a shortage of copper. ::)
-
Let's also not forget how needlessly complex the Tiger was. The engine didn't turn the tracks. The engine turned a generator, which turned traction motors, which turned the tracks. All while Germany had a shortage of copper. ::)
Wait, what? Why all this complexity?
In general I know that the Tiger was not what they needed (they needed A LOT more panzer IVs AKA ·the German T34/85 or Sherman) but tracks were certainly not the issue with it. The cost in materials, man hours and monthly output of tigers per month were, as well as the logistical train of the Germans, that went more and more complex as time went by, when their resources were dwindling. So this left a lot of the produced tigers (that were too scarce anyway) unable to perform due to breakdowns. And when they performed they were not what was needed, except in a few ideal cases.
I always liked how late war sloped armor was becoming more prevalent after the T34 demonstrated its usefulness, but the Tiger has a kind of shoebox brutality to it that is sexy in itself.
-
Let's also not forget how needlessly complex the Tiger was. The engine didn't turn the tracks. The engine turned a generator, which turned traction motors, which turned the tracks. All while Germany had a shortage of copper. ::)
AFAIK that was the Porsche variant that didn't get produced.
-
A bit of clarification:
The TIGER didn't have an electric drive. The Porsche competitor did. Porsche built one gun tank, but the rest of the chassis were converted to the Ferdinand/Elefant tank destroyers. There were around 100 of these vehicles (with a gun tank version serving as a command tank in one of the battalions). The Tiger we all know and love had a conventional engine & drive train.
Also, I want to qualify that any discussions about the Ratte needs to be had with the fact that this was a back-of-a-napkin design, that has become very popular in military fandom because of how ridiculous it really was.
The problem with tanks like the Tiger (& really Tiger II) was mission creep & interference from above. So you got tanks that had weak transmissions...because they weren't designed to pull that weight. This was an issue with the Panther as well. It had a transmission for a 30 ton tank driving a 45 ton tank, so it could often be overstressed. You needed care when driving the Panther. But the problem was exacerbated by the custom of assigning green crews to Panthers, & veterans to Panzer IVs (the idea was to even out performance). Tiger crews would have been veterans, however.
One final note about the Tiger. They did not originally field with narrow tracks, that were widened later. They were, however, fitted with "transport" tracks. These were the narrow tracks discussed before that were intended just for transport & road march purposes. When the tanks reached their assembly area, the tracks were to be switched (usually after unloading at the rail head) to battle tracks. The idea was to save on wear & tear. It was also a huge pain, so if the tank could be transported with battle tracks in place, it would be.
Damon.
-
A bit of clarification:
The TIGER didn't have an electric drive. The Porsche competitor did. Porsche built one gun tank, but the rest of the chassis were converted to the Ferdinand/Elefant tank destroyers. There were around 100 of these vehicles (with a gun tank version serving as a command tank in one of the battalions).
And the Ferdi/Elefant strained the Porsche's transmission system by slapping on a lot more armor and a bigger gun after removing the turret. It also had terrible visibility even for an armored vehicle: Soviet infantry found that it was easy to hide from by laying down in a trench until it was no longer facing them head-on, then popping up and stuffing anti-tank grenades into vulnerable points.
-
In general I know that the Tiger was not what they needed (they needed A LOT more panzer IVs AKA ·the German T34/85 or Sherman)
The Germans where never going to make enough Panzer IVs nor have enough tankers to crew the numbers they needed, thus the push and then the over reliance on bigger guns in the hopes they could kill more Allied armor than they would loose.
-
AFAIK that was the Porsche variant that didn't get produced.
You are correct sir. That's what I get for trying to post at 5:30am before the coffee kicks in.
My bad. :-[
-
The Porsche version having an electric drive makes perfect sense. One of his first designs was an electric car, after all... ^-^
-
The Porsche version having an electric drive makes perfect sense. One of his first designs was an electric car, after all... ^-^
Porsche was always forward looking, but really missed the mark in terms of military necessity. Of note is the Ferdinand/Elefant, which used a huge amount of strategic material for the electric drives, the Porsche designed turret for the Tiger II (which was complicated to make, had a shot trap), which was soon discontinued (maybe 100 finished with that turret, out of a little less than 400), & the Porsche designed suspension for the Jagdtiger, also discontinued as unnecessarily complex. There may be other examples I am forgetting...
Damon.
-
The spiral up in the factory's museum included exactly ZERO other electric designs. The exploded racing engine was FASCINATING... 8)
-
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/fe/4b/67/fe4b6799c247019b19ef73627a8481d7.jpg)
Marians in the IlClan, 3153
TT
-
Meanwhile in the Draconis Combine...
(https://c4.wallpaperflare.com/wallpaper/29/350/391/umbrella-girls-figure-katana-wallpaper-preview.jpg)
-
The O5P wins again! :D
-
AMX-30 museum exhibit with the tank in its Desert Storm colours
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/2e/05/1b/2e051bf65543d74282c76587e666c757.png)
-
Love the camo the 6e DLB wore during Desert Storm. To this day it forms the basis of my conception of Davion desert colors, not to mention my go-to for any basic desert scheme.
Here is a short documentary about the French light armored division that served in the Gulf.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDMnIMolMbc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDMnIMolMbc)
Interesting to note, chanman, that this harkens back to an earlier discussion about professional soldiers (vice conscripts) only being used in French expeditionary ops.
(Oh, and thanks for the heads-up in the last thread about the new OPFOR vehicles. If they ever get real French armor, I'll have to go hiking out that way and get lost during a rotation day.)
-
Love the camo the 6e DLB wore during Desert Storm. To this day it forms the basis of my conception of Davion desert colors, not to mention my go-to for any basic desert scheme.
Here is a short documentary about the French light armored division that served in the Gulf.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDMnIMolMbc
Interesting to note, chanman, that this harkens back to an earlier discussion about professional soldiers (vice conscripts) only being used in French expeditionary ops.
(Oh, and thanks for the heads-up in the last thread about the new OPFOR vehicles. If they ever get real French armor, I'll have to go hiking out that way and get lost during a rotation day.)
Think you've accidentally used email tags for your link. Somehow, I can see you putting around in a vizmod SUV made to look like a VBL :D
-
Confirmed e-mail tags, and second chanman on the vizmod SUV! :D
-
Fixed tags and will be looking into vismodding an Outback into something suitably VABish* or a VBLalogue.
-
In war-games, I love AMX-30s; they are light and can move around and can actually take out another tank with their cannon. Just, don't get hit.
Meanwhile in the Draconis Combine...
There's something not right about the girl on the left; I mean, not right, anatomically.
-
In war-games, I love AMX-30s; they are light and can move around and can actually take out another tank with their cannon. Just, don't get hit.
I've built the Heller AMX-30 maybe half a dozen times. Goes together reasonably well, but those wire stowage racks on the side of the turret are always pretty rough...
Damon.
-
In war-games, I love AMX-30s; they are light and can move around and can actually take out another tank with their cannon. Just, don't get hit.
I remember back when I was still playing World of Tanks and someone in an AMX-30 got the bright idea of ramming my T-150.
Running a French lawnmower into a giant block of Soviet steel was not a good idea.
-
Here's a bit of an oddball mix:
The Royal Jordanian army is retiring its aging but upgraded Challenger 1 MBTs (Al-Hussein) and replacing them with a mix of surplus Italian B1 Centauros and... donated LeClercs from the UAE. The LeClercs and retirement probably also mean the Falcon low-profile turret project never really got acceptable results. The transfer from the UAE is recent enough that I'm having trouble finding pictures.
Jordanian Challenger 1 with a Falcon turret. RUAG 120mm L50 smoothbore 120mm gun with an autoloader
(https://i.pinimg.com/564x/b6/65/28/b66528fe2a5fca9a374336aad6aef7f1.jpg)
(https://i.redd.it/lbm1e8vlqje11.jpg)
Normal Al-Husseins
(https://imgur.com/VgpHqq0.jpg)
Upgraded M60 covered in ERA blocks. Looks like the underlying turret shape resembles the Israeli Magach
(https://imgur.com/sI4X4pb.jpg)
-
Have any of these upgrades seen actual use?
-
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ad/Berry_in_1928_%28moar_contrast_%2B_cropped%29.jpg/1280px-Berry_in_1928_%28moar_contrast_%2B_cropped%29.jpg)
The Char 2C. France's massive land barge, the only vehicle that was classified as a super-heavy tank that ever actually made it into production. Didn't actually get built soon enough to fight in the First World War, but still got an actual production run unlike other super-heavies like the Maus and T-28. Though despite being designated a super-heavy it was still lighter than some vehicles that served in World War Two and is only a couple tons heavier than the current M1 Abrams kit.
Had a 12 man crew and by length, width, height, and volume the largest operational tank ever built.
Quite frankly, with tracks more than thirty feet long, I wonder how it actually turned.
-
I would imagine it turned nearly on a dime. Okay, a really big dime...
But still, since tracked vehicles (or any skid-steer vehicle, really) turn effectively at the mid-point of their tracks or motive apparatus, there shouldn't be a significant change in the length of the tracks versus their turning ability.
chanman, Centauro B1s in the desert? Yes, please.
-
I would imagine it turned nearly on a dime. Okay, a really big dime...
But still, since tracked vehicles (or any skid-steer vehicle, really) turn effectively at the mid-point of their tracks or motive apparatus, there shouldn't be a significant change in the length of the tracks versus their turning ability.
chanman, Centauro B1s in the desert? Yes, please.
(https://imgur.com/7k8u18t.jpg)
(https://imgur.com/wbwA0po.jpg)
What's the deal with the Centauro IIs? 120mm smoothbore, but a 2-man turret. That turret is definitely not storing rounds in the bustle, so I'm guessing loader and gunner/commander?
Centauro and Cenatauro II
(https://i.pinimg.com/564x/8e/42/ba/8e42bae6079d573f2fe4a7286e3956b3.jpg)
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/4d/77/d8/4d77d88f59f4137ee372ade3d9ae061e.jpg)
-
*scratches head*
Is the Centauro the real-life inspiration for the BT Chevalier wheeled tank?
cheers,
Gabe
-
Naw, the Chevy is more Rooikat:
(https://images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca887773594c2.wixmp.com/f/27ffe3ec-85ef-4b9d-ad4a-e0d0b6914346/dc2p5vh-4f71cd7f-640c-4280-81cf-12d198ff41a1.jpg/v1/fill/w_1024,h_554,q_75,strp/rooikat_3_by_sandu61-dc2p5vh.jpg?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJpc3MiOiJ1cm46YXBwOjdlMGQxODg5ODIyNjQzNzNhNWYwZDQxNWVhMGQyNmUwIiwic3ViIjoidXJuOmFwcDo3ZTBkMTg4OTgyMjY0MzczYTVmMGQ0MTVlYTBkMjZlMCIsImF1ZCI6WyJ1cm46c2VydmljZTppbWFnZS5vcGVyYXRpb25zIl0sIm9iaiI6W1t7InBhdGgiOiIvZi8yN2ZmZTNlYy04NWVmLTRiOWQtYWQ0YS1lMGQwYjY5MTQzNDYvZGMycDV2aC00ZjcxY2Q3Zi02NDBjLTQyODAtODFjZi0xMmQxOThmZjQxYTEuanBnIiwid2lkdGgiOiI8PTEwMjQiLCJoZWlnaHQiOiI8PTU1NCJ9XV19.RGwglrHylqCt3SC0ki-IyBdW3q-6f3NhjoCQxkBuxMk)
-
Panhard EBR
(https://i.redd.it/44sh48bsjv301.jpg)
(https://cfw.sarna.net/wiki/images/b/bd/Chevalier.jpg)
-
How does that vehicle engage the inner wheels? Do they get lowered down to the ground or do the outer wheels retract?
-
How does that vehicle engage the inner wheels? Do they get lowered down to the ground or do the outer wheels retract?
Inner wheels are lowered. They're for off-road use only - note the complete lack of tires
-
I figured that. They look like something that would be used for marshy or sandy terrain where those rather thin-looking tires would start experiencing problems.
-
i'd argue that the 8x8 with a tank turret in general was the inspiration for the BT unit. though profile wise it looks more like some of the Swiss MOWAG Shark prototypes.
-
The wheel arrangement leads me to agree with F16.
-
I would imagine it turned nearly on a dime. Okay, a really big dime...
But still, since tracked vehicles (or any skid-steer vehicle, really) turn effectively at the mid-point of their tracks or motive apparatus, there shouldn't be a significant change in the length of the tracks versus their turning ability.
actually, a lot of the earlier tracked vehicles like that were not designed with neutral steering, and thus couldn't turn on a dime in the way you are suggested, instead being steered by a clutch and brake system, which basically removed the power to one tread when turning, requiring them to keep moving forward as they turn. with such a system, the longer the tracks, the shallower the turns they could do without throwing a tread.
steering through a Double differential system, which maintains power to both treads the whole time and allow you to put the treads at differernt speed to turn, even put one tread in reverse to turn in place, was a cutting edge feature mostly pioneered by the Germans with designs like the Tiger and Panther, as well as some british ones like the Churchill, only after the war becoming fairly standard.
-
Is it just me, or does the Panhard look like it as a space for a driver at each end?
-
It doesn't just look like it, it does have two drivers.
Is it just me, or does the Panhard look like it as a space for a driver at each end?
-
actually, a lot of the earlier tracked vehicles like that were not designed with neutral steering, and thus couldn't turn on a dime in the way you are suggested, instead being steered by a clutch and brake system, which basically removed the power to one tread when turning, requiring them to keep moving forward as they turn. with such a system, the longer the tracks, the shallower the turns they could do without throwing a tread.
steering through a Double differential system, which maintains power to both treads the whole time and allow you to put the treads at differernt speed to turn, even put one tread in reverse to turn in place, was a cutting edge feature mostly pioneered by the Germans with designs like the Tiger and Panther, as well as some british ones like the Churchill, only after the war becoming fairly standard.
Funny you should mention the double differential method of tank-steering, since the French developed it in 1921. The Char B1 had a continuously variable output for its tracks allied to a hydrostatic transmission. During trials, the Char 2C did indeed experience track slippage in tight turns (it used a different engine for each track, by the way; interestingly they eventually became Maybachs, which Panzer fans will notice as being familiar) but it never once actually threw a track.
As far as I can tell, the Char 2C used a controlled differential, whereupon there are effectively two gears (epicyclic gearing) with an idler wheel, the second of which is clutched in or out so that power isn't wasted. This system--with the usual operator-controls being two wands--is typified by the M113 series or armored vehicles. I will submit that the Char 2C was a beast and certainly not fast (10-15 kph max) nor particularly mobile (whether that last issue was a concomitant of its great weight, the size of its tracks, or insufficient track-shoe articulation is open for debate.
And "turning on a dime" is relative. There are videos of Char 2Cs in motion, but not too many of them turning, so I am not sure we will ever know for certain. But a tracked vehicle of a given size turns more closely than an equivalently sized wheeled vehicle. And you will note that I never stated that tracked vehicles or other skid-steer vehicles could all turn from a stand-still/idle. But I bet the Char 2C could, though it might be painful to watch. For what it is worth, it is relatively rare for any tracked military vehicle to neutral steer completely in place as it puts too much strain of the individual shoes and track-pins holding them together, thereby risks throwing a track.
For example, take a look at this St. Chamond in 2017:
https://youtu.be/sFTUkmj3gaU (https://youtu.be/sFTUkmj3gaU)
https://youtu.be/1jkYUUGK09I (https://youtu.be/1jkYUUGK09I)
Not moving around too badly for a 100-year old fighting lady when you think about it.
Here is its replacement, a little guy that can skid steer wherever you want:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=9&v=GdPb5PCpivE&embeds_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bing.com%2F&embeds_origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bing.com&source_ve_path=MjM4NTE&feature=emb_title (https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=9&v=GdPb5PCpivE&embeds_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bing.com%2F&embeds_origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bing.com&source_ve_path=MjM4NTE&feature=emb_title)
-
Is it just me, or does the Panhard look like it as a space for a driver at each end?
It goes back to pre-WWII French doctrine for armored recon, basically their armor only protects against small arms fire and they were expected to encounter the enemy main force alone. Add to this that this might happen on narrow country roads with obstacles on both sides, so it was thought that the best chance for vehicle to survive long enough to report back, was to light up the enemy and go in other direction at full speed, thus two drivers and heavy armament. Gearbox was rather complicated and maintenance was not simple though.
-
Not-Abrams
(https://www.imcdb.org/i222036.jpg)
(https://i.redd.it/zsibzmn5a7b31.jpg)
(https://www.imcdb.org/i089434.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/58/Centurion_like_M1A1_Abrams_3.jpg/1280px-Centurion_like_M1A1_Abrams_3.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4e/Centurion_like_M1A1_Abrams.jpg/1024px-Centurion_like_M1A1_Abrams.jpg/img]
[img width=800]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d5/Centurion_like_M1A1_Abrams_4.jpg/1024px-Centurion_like_M1A1_Abrams_4.jpg)
(https://www.imfdb.org/images/7/7b/CoFCenturion.jpg)
(https://www.imfdb.org/images/a/ab/CUF_801.jpg)
(https://www.imfdb.org/images/1/13/CUF_802.jpg)
(https://www.imfdb.org/images/7/7f/FakeAbrams.jpg)
(https://static.wixstatic.com/media/87ffb6_491b66ec58a448bc945adb1a4187fbe4~mv2_d_2016_1512_s_2.jpg/v1/fill/w_1353,h_1015,al_c,q_85,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01,enc_auto/87ffb6_491b66ec58a448bc945adb1a4187fbe4~mv2_d_2016_1512_s_2.jpg)
(https://static.wixstatic.com/media/87ffb6_feec892e58294e87a47228fbbb04a896.jpg/v1/fill/w_800,h_600,al_c,q_85,enc_auto/87ffb6_feec892e58294e87a47228fbbb04a896.jpg)
(https://static.wixstatic.com/media/87ffb6_dd4f1b7415994f5286cdb875e050eb28.jpg/v1/fill/w_800,h_516,al_c,q_85,enc_auto/87ffb6_dd4f1b7415994f5286cdb875e050eb28.jpg)
(https://static.wixstatic.com/media/87ffb6_9fdefa008f5d40dd8956dc763f66c41f.jpg/v1/fill/w_880,h_432,al_c,lg_1,q_85,enc_auto/87ffb6_9fdefa008f5d40dd8956dc763f66c41f.jpg)
-
Some of them look really close though! 8)
-
Looks like a mix of mock-ups on Chieftains & Centurions. The one showing the back-end looks like it has the LR fuel tank used by Aussie Centurions (I built a model of one!)
Damon.
-
"Not tank country, my arse!" Leopard 2A6CAN in Afghanistan. The Canadian Leopard 2s are pretty distinctive with their dinged up slat armour and an antennae farm extensive enough to double as a SIGINT listening post :D
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a1/01/99/a101996e8836546850a988da729a930e.jpg)
-
Well... ALMOST extensive enough... 8)
-
I wonder if the increased propensity for jointness and combined arms/support options means that troopers on the ground in these expeditionary ops have to monitor more commo nets than ever before. I mean, four antennae means at least four radios (if they are SINCGARS or ASIP) in the tank...
"Not tank country, my arse!"
They said as much about Vietnam. The Blackhorse and Three Quarter Cav (amongst others, of course) proved them all wrong in short order.
-
Let's see:
Local Net
HQ Net
Air Support Net
Artillery Net
...
-
That's exactly what I'm saying. Back in the olden days of yore, individual tanks were not monitoring all of those nets. Hell, at the turn of the century, the 2/11 S-3 only monitored two nets...and during an NTC rotation, the squadron HQ elements were acting at an echelon higher (so, 2/11 the 32nd Guards Motorized Rifle Regiment). Now, that's not to say that the two available radios were not changed as needed, but it was still only two nets at a time.
I guess if you are one of a handful of tanks out in the wilds of AfghanLand, you probably want to talk to all sorts of people very quickly if something untoward happens.
-
That's exactly what I'm saying. Back in the olden days of yore, individual tanks were not monitoring all of those nets. Hell, at the turn of the century, the 2/11 S-3 only monitored two nets...and during an NTC rotation, the squadron HQ elements were acting at an echelon higher (so, 2/11 the 32nd Guards Motorized Rifle Regiment). Now, that's not to say that the two available radios were not changed as needed, but it was still only two nets at a time.
I guess if you are one of a handful of tanks out in the wilds of AfghanLand, you probably want to talk to all sorts of people very quickly if something untoward happens.
I guess you can't just shoot the one with the antennae to take out the command vehicle if they're ALL festooned with antennae
(https://imgur.com/AaOEUk0.jpg)
(https://imgur.com/7jtxZd1.jpg)
-
"Ambiguity increasing" deception is a thing... 8)
-
"Ambiguity increasing" deception is a thing... 8)
Can't un-see them now. Maybe they're really hardcore wifi extenders :D
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a7/e5/04/a7e504642eefd0bed9978871ba7d8df3.jpg)
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/0f/c4/19/0fc41913d8d8d52e8ef24505dbd8409a.jpg)
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/37/7c/16/377c16847f24a0d371092a31273946ae.jpg)
-
Hedge cutters? In the desert? ???
-
Hedge cutters? In the desert? ???
How else are you supposed to mow the tall poppies? ??? (It's a mine plow)
-
It's a mine plow in the travel position, in deployed position it tills the soil and pushes aside any buried mines and IEDs. In a pinch it can also be used to breach the walls of the compounds.
Canadians found them to be quite a life savers, so they kept Leopards I in Afghanistan even when they started fielding Leopards 2, as they didn't have mine plows for Leo 2s.
-
Ah, thank you gentlemen! :thumbsup:
-
It's a mine plow in the travel position, in deployed position it tills the soil and pushes aside any buried mines and IEDs. . . .
Unless, the IED is a 2,000lbs bomb, which, it won't matter.
-
Those were extremely rare, while smaller ones were rather disruptively common.
-
Sometimes you can't make these things up ...
(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/6e04def3d3dc968be1c122431a09e58537135eb0/266_333_1737_1042/master/1737.jpg?width=620&quality=85&dpr=1&s=none)
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/dec/24/pub-crawling-santas-get-armoured-vehicle-stuck-in-cornish-hedge
A vintage armoured vehicle filled with Santas had to be freed by police after getting stuck in a Cornish lane.
The Santas, who were believed to be on a pub crawl, got wedged in a hedge at Marsh Lane, near Hayle.
Devon and Cornwall police were called at about 7.40pm on Thursday after reports that a vehicle had been damaged. No one was arrested.
Merry Christmas!
-
Not something I would have ever come up with, certainly! :toofunny:
-
Sometimes you can't make these things up ...
(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/6e04def3d3dc968be1c122431a09e58537135eb0/266_333_1737_1042/master/1737.jpg?width=620&quality=85&dpr=1&s=none)
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/dec/24/pub-crawling-santas-get-armoured-vehicle-stuck-in-cornish-hedge
Merry Christmas!
"I'm too drunk to drive a car, but this isn't a car!"
-
It's only embarrassing because they should have known that it takes a tank to break brush whilst the PCs follow in behind.
-
Ive done a couple of Santa Bar crawls and all we had was a school bus, no APC.
-
Ive done a couple of Santa Bar crawls and all we had was a school bus, no APC.
The 'A' stands for Alcoholic :D
-
And here I thought it stood for "Amateur".
-
Gavin derivatives!
Taiwan's CM-21. I think those two large sponsons are extended fuel tanks? Bit of a weird overhang. It has the sloped rear to allow firing ports when those were all the rage (and we'll see them again soon. Note that the forward seats are benches on the outside facing inward, but the rearmost 4 are folding seats facing outward, in order to use the ports
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/4d/80/95/4d8095747199fc0ce88829017856eaf8.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/31/CM-21A_in_Chengkungling_Side_View_Oct2011.jpg/1024px-CM-21A_in_Chengkungling_Side_View_Oct2011.jpg)
Philippines upgrade with an Israeli remote turret and a 25mm cannon
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/b7/28/1c/b7281cae2934f6b87665d7aa4632cdd2.jpg)
(https://imgur.com/JNySb0N.jpg)
Australian M113AS4, stretched hull (extra roadwheel) like the Canadian TLAV and a new one-man .50 turret
(https://imgur.com/HqWQikb.jpg)
Canadian TLAV (stretched hull) engineering vehicle in Afghanistan
(https://imgur.com/iaVgpyt.jpg)
Canadian ADATS
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0f/ADATS%2C_4AD%2C_CFB_Gagetown%2C_02_May_2011_1.JPG/1024px-ADATS%2C_4AD%2C_CFB_Gagetown%2C_02_May_2011_1.JPG)
Canadian M113 with slats and extra tall radio antennae in Afghanistan
(https://external-preview.redd.it/7WWh4piPB4SJEwAPk25jEWXTly-0PUNpQ-erbfQXM9A.jpg?auto=webp&s=e52ec1fb4b6da3b256ca7691447c581519d71bdb)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/Lavm113.jpg)
Retired Danish IFV model with a 25mm cannon in an OTO Melara turret. It looks a lot like the 2-man 25mm turret on the Spanish VEC-M1
(https://imgur.com/QjefdKe.jpg)
Italian VCC-1 APC. Similar to the Taiwanese CM-1 with the rearranged interior and firing ports
(https://tanknutdave.com/images/vcc1/vcc2.jpg)
(https://tanknutdave.com/images/vcc1/vcc1.jpg)
Malaysian AIFV
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/79/ACV-300_Adnan.jpg/1024px-ACV-300_Adnan.jpg)
Malaysian AIFV on stretched chassis
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/85/ACV_300_Adnan_120mm_mortar_carrier_in_display_during_2022_MAF%27s_open_day_in_RMAF_Kuantan.jpg/1024px-ACV_300_Adnan_120mm_mortar_carrier_in_display_during_2022_MAF%27s_open_day_in_RMAF_Kuantan.jpg)
Korean KIFV with what looks a bit like an ACAV-style gunshield for the M2. I would NOT want to be that driver with the GPMG deployed facing forwards from the cargo hatch!
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5d/2011.7.5_%EC%88%98%EA%B8%B0%EC%82%AC_%EC%A0%80%ED%83%84%EC%86%8C%EB%85%B9%EC%83%89%EC%84%B1%EC%9E%A5_%287633933564%29.jpg/1024px-2011.7.5_%EC%88%98%EA%B8%B0%EC%82%AC_%EC%A0%80%ED%83%84%EC%86%8C%EB%85%B9%EC%83%89%EC%84%B1%EC%9E%A5_%287633933564%29.jpg)
KIFV chassis with the weapons from an M163
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/2014_%EB%8C%80%ED%95%9C%EB%AF%BC%EA%B5%AD_%EB%B0%A9%EC%9C%84%EC%82%B0%EC%97%85%EC%A0%84%28DX_Korea%29_%EC%9C%A1%EA%B5%B0%EC%9D%98_%EB%AA%85%ED%92%88_%EB%AC%B4%EA%B8%B0%EC%99%80_%EC%9E%A5%EB%B9%84_%EC%86%8C%EA%B0%9C_%2815577818781%29.jpg)
Dutch YPR-765s in Afghanistan. This one with a 25mm Oerlikon, but others seem to have the M2 with wraparound gunshield. Some of these have been passed on to Ukraine. Note the large antennae - I'm starting to think that was something necessitated by operating conditions in Afghanistan
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ac/c5/f9/acc5f971f31f3c272999839f999feef5.jpg)
Philippines fire support vehicle (FSV) with a Scorpion turret. Same idea as the Aussies
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b5/M-113_with_Scorpion_Turret_-_Oblique_View_%40_2018_Kalayaan_Parade.jpg/1280px-M-113_with_Scorpion_Turret_-_Oblique_View_%40_2018_Kalayaan_Parade.jpg)
Singapore SHORAD version using of all things, Igla missiles. Wonder if Ukraine will rig up something similar with their donated M113s
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a9/M113A2_Ultra_Mechanised_Igla.jpg/1280px-M113A2_Ultra_Mechanised_Igla.jpg)
Singapore's upgraded IFV using a Rafael RWS with a 25mm Bushmaster or a new cupula with a 40mm AGL and machine gun
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/18/2b/7c/182b7cfe5e97753b1e7674e2b5931c65.jpg)
Swiss Schützenpanzer 63/89 with a Swedish turret armed with a 20mm Oerlikon
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/65/M113_Kawest_seitlich.jpg/1024px-M113_Kawest_seitlich.jpg)
Turkish M113A2T1 with an M45 quadmount. Profile is a little on the tall side...
(https://imgur.com/5nGBV5U.jpg)
More AA. Italian SIDAM quad 25mm
(https://imgur.com/OzjxYdy.jpg)
(https://imgur.com/byZTa8Z.jpg)
And for a real throwback, the LVT-5 and LVTH-6. Both linger in service in small numbers with Taiwan and Philippines
(https://imgur.com/KzH0rWA.jpg)
(https://imgur.com/f3AJjmp.jpg)
(https://imgur.com/JpBk0TX.jpg)
-
I'm not quite sure how the name Gavin got attached to the M113, but I can assure you no one in the US Army has EVER used it.
It's always referred to as a one-thirteen, or simply a track.
-
A military fanboi labelled the M113 with a name of an Airborne commander, and astroturfed a campaign in favour of the name change. Same guy also pressed for submarine aircraft carriers.
-
I think the one you labelled as a Canadian M113 TUA is actually an M113 ADATS. Different missile system with a different guidance.
Damon.
-
I'm not quite sure how the name Gavin got attached to the M113, but I can assure you no one in the US Army has EVER used it.
It's always referred to as a one-thirteen, or simply a track.
I've always known them as One-One-Threes, not One-Thirteens myself. But yes, if it is yours or in your unit, it is a track. If it is someone else's or in another unit, it is a one-one-three.
And yes, the boxes to either side of the ramp are fuel tanks and have been since the A3 model at an absolute minimum.
-
AAR time:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2022/12/25/how-ukraines-1st-tank-brigade-fought-a-russian-force-ten-times-its-size-and-won/?sh=43f928046c59 (https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2022/12/25/how-ukraines-1st-tank-brigade-fought-a-russian-force-ten-times-its-size-and-won/?sh=43f928046c59)
(https://imageio.forbes.com/specials-images/imageserve/63a8db6adf1ddbbefdcc7317/The-1st-Tank-Brigade-in-training-in-2021-/0x0.jpg?format=jpg&crop=2048,960,x0,y145,safe&width=960)
As it turns out, light infantry working with tanks in restrictive terrain is a good thing. Who'd have thought?
-
I'm going to guess every light infantryman ever? ??? :D
-
I'm going to guess every light infantryman ever? ??? :D
Not 'every', just every one that's wanted to survive the experience, lol.
-
Point! ;D
-
;D
Maybe.
For myself, I only want the big brutes around in maybe MOUT (especially during the initial assault). Other than that, they can stay the Hell away and draw their own fire on their own time. ;)
-
I think the one you labelled as a Canadian M113 TUA is actually an M113 ADATS. Different missile system with a different guidance.
Damon.
Thanks. I had a different picture and swapped 'em in. Oops! :D
-
I'm going to guess every light infantryman ever? ??? :D
I'm going to guess every tank crew that actually checked the size of their ride's blind spots :))
-
A military fanboi labelled the M113 with a name of an Airborne commander, and astroturfed a campaign in favour of the name change. Same guy also pressed for submarine aircraft carriers.
My mistake. Gotta give him marks for persistence since he seems to have been at it for a couple decades now. Out of the mouths of Lt's... :(
Clearly, the M113 is more likely to be some kind of proto-WH40k Rhino
(https://imgur.com/96PvAYY.jpg)
-
Nice! Just don't let GW see that... ^-^
-
Nice! Just don't let GW see that... ^-^
What else will Henry Cavill ride with his chainsword?
-
Could you really tell it was Henry with his helmet on? ??? :D
-
It's in how he carries himself. Didn't know he was a Beakie man though. But if he is, I'll respect him just a little bit more.
-
A military fanboi labelled the M113 with a name of an Airborne commander, and astroturfed a campaign in favour of the name change. Same guy also pressed for submarine aircraft carriers.
Mike Sparks, aka "sparky", an army reservist parachute packer dishonorably discharged (who then proceeded to pull a stolen valor claiming he was a special forces officer, and represented an official government military think tank)
he also suggested such crazy ideas as M113's with wings that could be towed behind transport jets, and later the "aero-gavin" which was the winged M113 with a turboprop engine so it could self-deploy. he'd also suggests stuff like making cargo 747's into flying boats so you can land on rivers and deploy "super-gavins" (M113's that somehow are lighter and more mobile than the current ones, but have armor like a tank and the weapons of an M2 bradley) directly into combat from the nose hatch, etc.
the dude's certifiable, and his website "combatreform [dot] org" (which i am not going to link to as it is a malware filled hellsite) is just chock full of nonsense of the sort, and even worse.
and it used to be that any mention of his name on a military forum was certain to attract him and a gaggle of his sockpuppet accounts. he seems to have largely dropped off the net recently though. probably for the best.
-
Pretty sure you are not allowed to actually say or type his name, GB. Rule 13, I think. The Candyman/Beetlejuice doctrine.
-
Nice! Just don't let GW see that... ^-^
quite right.. they built their 1:1 scale functioning Rhino (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gm6GHovvRF0) from a british FV432 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FV432)
(https://www.dakkadakka.com/s/i/at/at2/2012/12/29/1b2bd9787f0042ac349839f1fda63af8_32887.jpg)
-
That's no Rhino! The tracks aren't exposed! :D
-
Oakley had a BMP at their sunglasses factory:
(https://cdn-bbhgb.nitrocdn.com/RrveGYbsntrgzBRucGHetFhEaNhebbJN/assets/static/optimized/rev-fa142da/guides/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Oakley-Tank-768x576-730x.jpeg)
-
Oakley had a BMP at their sunglasses factory:
(https://cdn-bbhgb.nitrocdn.com/RrveGYbsntrgzBRucGHetFhEaNhebbJN/assets/static/optimized/rev-fa142da/guides/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Oakley-Tank-768x576-730x.jpeg)
Is it because their shades are bimpin'?
-
Is it because their shades are bimpin'?
"...next time on BMP my ride!!" (ducks flying food and offal)
-
If you're short enough to get into a BMP, you hardly need to duck ...
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/pw/AL9nZEVfeB4bs91NLVAQ6Owq42ZskULURcg9Y7h2T5wkivJgcLT4Janr8_i8HKnIZvPTJo-HJsn5pJGsQ5efkkv8Y1PFRgPEz-pJO5nbgZaCCsUbWrCyv2Z0CNgWbJ4x7saUA5FgPgzlnDYmHtDaTS9N0gt8=w1250-h938-no?authuser=2)
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/pw/AL9nZEUXiUvILdMk_RdLwlpYuJTn7WyBpQmSF3bLtMcPZcZWErDW7f80r0YWbll8U0C4zMUoqHRsx4sLJNuXq0f6c6hpHycP5oPCzebPg5mGZptaICrrKlON-P9_IBnbZiSjC42akokm54xkM7nim18LR5Kl=w1250-h938-no?authuser=2)
Featuring the infamous fuel tank doors to the infantry compartment
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/pw/AL9nZEVT9R06fKttQLY9O4HQXMsyE48pf8LG2kS8_ccfMjKlRziyTzrtNvEhUG1ngGGjuTAdE85t4lPz0du0tE3zusUrom05UQoyB9wNCRODTpijCkQCiAeqT8I7xBoT8kqNEm1ifIwpc-LdqKhhSIrNvsTM=w1250-h938-no?authuser=2)
And I'm sorry ... I know the Abrams, Leo II, and LeClerc are better tanks, but nothing says "tank" like a Soviet-era MBT.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/pw/AL9nZEUYylK5wLH5G5xsit0BAceJw2IPjY4u5ctBTFND_nUg3lpLiEq1hnbqmCzWN4kJ9oJ_VtyLQkFZ0_4Rwn-1w1EEddbqtBsPuE2NlC57OWtBBg0RAm6LrEZ9kSA5hU07BTjgbOlviQaebXiG2mX3DQV-=w1250-h938-no?authuser=2)
-
My mistake. Gotta give him marks for persistence since he seems to have been at it for a couple decades now. Out of the mouths of Lt's... :(
Clearly, the M113 is more likely to be some kind of proto-WH40k Rhino
(https://imgur.com/96PvAYY.jpg)
Damn, that's the old Tamiya M113A1 Fire Support Vehicle 1:35 scale kit with a few added doodads.
I built one of those in grade school!
Who'd have thought at the time I'd one day drive/command/live out of M113A2s, A3s, and M577s?
-
That's no Rhino! The tracks aren't exposed! :D
I don’t think any version of the Rhino's had exposed track. That was more of a Landraider hallmark. ;)
-
It's been a decade or two since I played 40K, so please forgive my confusion... :-\
-
It's been a decade or two since I played 40K, so please forgive my confusion... :-\
Heh. I haven't played in more than 20 years. But I do have an old (early '90s) Rhino kit unassembled in a box that I haven't managed to sell.
And AFAIK all versions of the Rhino has had all-around tracks, they've just been covered. A bit like an unholy match between a M113 and a Churchill tank. ^-^
-
Damn, that's the old Tamiya M113A1 Fire Support Vehicle 1:35 scale kit with a few added doodads.
One of my favorite kits. I've built it half a dozen times. I'd love to do another!
Damon.
-
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-uG2fZZPLo0g/VYl77py0grI/AAAAAAAACj4/p0YsAC9dld4/s1600/NDP%2B2015%2BCR1%2BAEV%2Bblog2.jpg)
and here the rest of the rest of the story (https://kementah.blogspot.com/2015/06/singapore-armys-armoured-engineer.html?m=1) on Singapore Army's Armoured Engineer Vehicle (AEV) and upsized Leopard 2 family go on show at National Day Parade NDP 2015 Mobile Column
-
REALLY? ???
That's all I can say to that monstrosity... ::)
-
What do you all all the intangible gear on an AFV? The radios, data links, night vision, hunter-killer sights, laser rangefinder, anti-missile systems, etc.?
Aircraft have avionics. Maybe AFVs have armouronics? 🤔
-
What do you all all the intangible gear on an AFV? The radios, data links, night vision, hunter-killer sights, laser rangefinder, anti-missile systems, etc.?
Aircraft have avionics. Maybe AFVs have armouronics? 🤔
Aircraft have avionics, AFV's have electrical systems. The difference is that tank manufacturers don't have the pretensions we do in the aviation world. (Drum riff!!)
-
Heh... all vehicles have pretensions of one sort or another... ::)
-
Many are even found to have delusions. Of grandeur. Of effectiveness. Or even of adequacy.
-
Yes, but none are so arrogant (wrongly arrogant, even) as those in my industry. We rename shit just to distinguish it from the same product that everyone else is using! ;D :))
-
What do you all all the intangible gear on an AFV? The radios, data links, night vision, hunter-killer sights, laser rangefinder, anti-missile systems, etc.?
Aircraft have avionics. Maybe AFVs have armouronics? 🤔
i've seen such systems refereed to as "vehictronics" by scifi fans online.
-
That's terrible.
-
i've seen such systems refereed to as "vehictronics" by scifi fans online.
How about AFVonics? Makes one sound a bit like a clanner, but... :D
Actually, everyone can probably get onboard with either shootronics or fightronics. After all, that's the most exciting bit ;D
-
This thread is starting to sound like it was published by Image comics in the mid-90s.
-
Here, I made something up after having the light tank argument yet again in a different context
(https://imgur.com/zvi0gdq.jpg)
-
Ooh. Straight Neutral on that chart. Is it serendipity that is the intersection of an AMX-10RC? ;D
Yes, but none are so arrogant (wrongly arrogant, even) as those in my industry. We rename shit just to distinguish it from the same product that everyone else is using! ;D :))
Well, that sums up probably 75% of all BattleMechs and their variants.
-
I think the IKV-91 is misplaced, seeing how mobility was one of its main goals (IIRC even originally intended to fit in the C-130!). So it’s definitely "doctrine purist".
It really needs a MBT fitted with sensors, comms, and extra fuel tanks. Are there any examples of that? Maybe some British cruiser tanks?
-
I shall not lie: I carefully ignored the ACAV.
Because everyone knows chanman's apostasy sometimes has no bounds. ;) ;D
-
Pretty happy with most examples there - the Russians considered the Hind a light, very speedy tank without much armour, so the Cobra gets it's place. My two quibbles:
- the Abbot doesn't have a "main gun", it has an artillery piece. Not aware it could engage in direct fire.
- the A-10 and the AAPV7 should swap spaces. The A-10 belongs in the "chaotic evil"box ;)
-
Pretty happy with most examples there - the Russians considered the Hind a light, very speedy tank without much armour, so the Cobra gets it's place. My two quibbles:
- the Abbot doesn't have a "main gun", it has an artillery piece. Not aware it could engage in direct fire.
- the A-10 and the AAPV7 should swap spaces. The A-10 belongs in the "chaotic evil"box ;)
No gun is more main than an artillery piece 😂
-
I think the IKV-91 is misplaced, seeing how mobility was one of its main goals (IIRC even originally intended to fit in the C-130!). So it’s definitely "doctrine purist".
It really needs a MBT fitted with sensors, comms, and extra fuel tanks. Are there any examples of that? Maybe some British cruiser tanks?
The Swedes don't call it a light tank, so it isn't one according to their doctrine despite sure looking and often acting like one.
What makes an M24 Chaffee or M24 Locust a light tank but not an M18 Hellcat?
Also, a modified MBT is still an MBT. I went back and forth over what 'Main Gun' entails. If it's any main armament, then an M3 Bradley might fit..
Or any MBT used by a reconnaissance or cav unit...
-
Tank Destroyer Doctrine or the fact that the Hellcat had an open turret.
-
a pretty good argument can be made that the reason the M18 hellcat was classed as a TD and not a tank, was the just fact it was assigned to Tank Destroyer Units.
and some videos:
US Tank Destroyer History (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ho8TU_JpoI), How to Design a Tank Destroyer (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gz0GvmyQN80) (both by The Cheiftan)
-
a pretty good argument can be made that the reason the M18 hellcat was classed as a TD and not a tank, was the just fact it was assigned to Tank Destroyer Units.
and some videos:
US Tank Destroyer History (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ho8TU_JpoI), How to Design a Tank Destroyer (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gz0GvmyQN80) (both by The Cheiftan)
The Ikv 91 is also sometimes called a tank destroyer as well. I don't think we're in disagreement? This is just the SAW/Automatic Rifleman/Light Machine Gun debate. The same hardware can be called different things when deliberately employed in different ways.
And WW2 tank destroyers and assault guns were all frequently called on to do tank-like things out of necessity or expediency.
-
Revised by replacing the Ikv 91 with the M3 Bradley. Partly just to annoy the 'Bradley isn't a tank' people ^-^
(https://imgur.com/btdrIBm.jpg)
-
I see you left the A-10 in the Chaotic Neutral bin... ::)
-
AFAIK the Ikv91 was originally intended to provide highly mobile AT support for infantery. So quite like the US WWII TDs.
Anyway, I was just going by the descriptions above. It was a high mobility vehicle and while it did have a fire support role, it wasn't (to my knowledge) really used for scouting or screening.
-
I really think the radical/radical unit should be a technical of some kind... ;)
-
The Ikv 91 is also sometimes called a tank destroyer as well. I don't think we're in disagreement? This is just the SAW/Automatic Rifleman/Light Machine Gun debate. The same hardware can be called different things when deliberately employed in different ways.
And WW2 tank destroyers and assault guns were all frequently called on to do tank-like things out of necessity or expediency.
Wasn't "tank destroyer" a term that lacked a standardized definition during WW2?
-
I think the issue is that no one is looking for a 'light tank' in the traditional pre-MBT understanding of a faster, lightly-armoured, lightly-protected vehicle for performing traditional light cavalry roles of reconnaissance and screening*. Those roles are already filled by dedicated recce vehicles and have no real requirement for a large-calibre weapon.
On the other hand, the MGS and Sprut SD fill the traditional role of an assault gun where mobility just needs to keep up with the infantry it's supporting (and I'm guessing where the MGS failed in practice vs. doctrine with its extra weight and center of gravity concerns vs. other Strykers).
Light tanks have always heavily sacrificed armour and frequently firepower for speed and weight. M551 Scorpion, Sheridan, Type 62, Type 63, PT-76, AMX-13, M41 Walker Bulldog, M24 Chaffee, Stingray... none of them can take a hit either. They're generally just as, if not even more lightly armoured than APCs and IFVs, and of course most of them never received the benefits of modern material science in the form of external up-armouring.
Sabrah, LT 105, ZTQ-15, ZTD-05, M8, MPF/Griffin II, CV90105, CV90120, TAM, ASCOD, etc. etc. aren't looking to be light tanks, they're all meant to be light MBTs, in that they're expected to fulfill all of the roles an MBT fills doctrinally, just at a less infrastructure or transport-crushing weight. Most aren't notably faster than a modern MBT and would never be used alongside MBTs - they're used in lieu of an MBT due to operating environment constraints (infrastructure, amphibious requirements, air-deliverable requirements, high-altitude - the ZTQ-15 is designed specifically to be over-engined for high altitude operations on the Tibetan plateau).
What you wouldn't expect to see is ZTQ-15s running recon for for a ZTZ-99 unit. Or the CV90105/CV90120 for a Leopard 2, or the MPF/Griffin II for an Abrams because if you can bring the MBT, you'd use the MBT.
*These roles have been arguably shared and overlapped with armoured cars from the beginning of AFVs with the degree of overlap depending on particular doctrine. The Western Allies had room for both the M8 'Greyhound' and the M3/M5 'Stuart'. The Wehrmacht arguably went with half-tracks and armoured card for those roles right from the start, with things like Panzer 38s and Panzer IIs being used to bulk out armoured forces because they were available, not because they fit any specific doctrinal role. Fairly similar deal with the British who stopped development of their own light tanks, but kept up with armoured cars, and the Soviets who stopped farting around with the BT series once the T-34 started becoming available in numbers
-
I see you left the A-10 in the Chaotic Neutral bin... ::)
Well you see, The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly, but really there are two kinds of people light tanks in this world. The kind with gun and the kind that run. And the A-10 is definitely ugly with gun ;)
-
Heh... well, it can certainly RUN faster than anything on the ground... ^-^
-
Wasn't "tank destroyer" a term that lacked a standardized definition during WW2?
I'm pretty sure the only time that terms have standardized definitions are when treaties impose them, and even then everyone thinks they're the cleverest and try to find loopholes. The interwar naval treaties solidify a lot of definitions, but then you still have things like the Panzerschliffs, or some of the Italian very light cruisers, or some of everyone's very large destroyers.
-
In comparison to an M1A2 SEP v3 (66.8t) or Challenger II (75t) or Leopard 2A7V (66.5t), pretty much any other MBT in the world is a 'light' tank. In a world where the proposed Griffin III entry for MPF ranges from 38-50 tons...
You could just roll with a first-generation K1/Type 88 MBT from South Korea (51t) or the new Japanese Type 10 (40-48t) :P
-
No such thing as a light jet if you only have 1 type of tank.
-
I'd call it an MBT if it carries armour enough to resist (hopefully!) opposing heavy main guns (eg. 120-125mm being the current varsity), while carrying a heavy enough gun to broach opposing heavy armour. T-72s etc remain MBTs, but a previous generation of MBT, by my thinking.
Light tanks sacrifice armour and/or gun weight for greater manoeuvrability. Happy to put the IKV 91 in that class, along with the Sprut, and quite possibly the Centauro (despite its wheels). Note - maneuverability does not mean only speed; greater ability to cross light bridges, go amphibious with minimal prep, or handle steep and winding roads all counts.
-
Radical light tank? Technical? Or BattleTech motorized infantry--or is it mechanized?
(https://www.boredpanda.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/funny-military-soldiers-photos-37__605.jpg)
-
That's mechanised. Motorised means trucks; mechanised means 1-2 man vehicles, as shown.
-
I'd call it an MBT if it carries armour enough to resist (hopefully!) opposing heavy main guns (eg. 120-125mm being the current varsity), while carrying a heavy enough gun to broach opposing heavy armour. T-72s etc remain MBTs, but a previous generation of MBT, by my thinking.
Light tanks sacrifice armour and/or gun weight for greater manoeuvrability. Happy to put the IKV 91 in that class, along with the Sprut, and quite possibly the Centauro (despite its wheels). Note - maneuverability does not mean only speed; greater ability to cross light bridges, go amphibious with minimal prep, or handle steep and winding roads all counts.
Mmmm, the AMX-30 and early Leopards definitely fail on resisting opposing heavy main guns.
Here's my personal description of an MBT:
The MBT is a general purpose AFV with a balance between mobility, protection, and firepower that can perform nearly any direct-combat role nearly anywhere and combines the roles of light, medium, heavy, infantry, cruiser tanks, as well as that of tank destroyers and assault guns.
An MBT can be used to deliberately hunt other tanks (tank destroyers), spearhead a breakthrough assault (heavy tanks, assault guns), mount fast-moving advances (cruiser tanks), support infantry in a close fight (assault guns, infantry tank, medium tank), or even screen and skirmish ahead of the main body as part of a recce or light cavalry unit (Soviet, French, and PLA doctrine all make use of this).
Hence my assertion that there is no doctrinal justification for calling anything a 'light tank' (least of all the newer designs, many of which are in the mid-30 ton range or higher, and thus hardly objectively 'light' in terms of mass) any more than modern multi-role aircraft or surface warships combine both the qualities and doctrinal roles of multiple types of yesteryear make it redundant to have 'fighter' F-16s and 'attack' F-16s.
The Griffin II / MPF if it reaches units and the field will be used very much like an Abrams, just in places an Abrams can't go. It'll still be expected to support infantry, assault strongpoints, advance against a prepared enemy, defend against an advancing enemy, hunt enemy armour, etc. etc.
In other words, by use and doctrine, it's still an MBT, just a somewhat lighter one. Or you could re-class the Abrams as a heavy MBT (also accurate). The other fudge I've seen for the TAM (one of the few IFV-based tanks that's actually found a customer, natch) is to call it a 'medium tank' which is... the most direct lineage for MBTs
-
But the AMX-30 and Leo I didn't have any chance on resisting hits by opposing main guns (105-110mm), so they "resisted" by "not being there" with their greater manoeuvrability. So in their era I'll call them MBTs, but even older generation than the T-72s. Pre-Chobham/composite armour, nothing could take a hit from a then-current main gun.
Totally agree with your definition of MBT. I'd differentiate between "tanks that try hard with comparable mainstream technology, but are not up to scratch compared to the prime MBTs of their era" eg. medium tanks, and "tanks that deliberately sacrifice armour or weapon specifically to get greater manoeuvrability," with that meaning more than just speed, which are the light tanks.
Light tanks should in theory be able to kill medium tanks, and with luck & positioning score on corresponding MBTs, but are likely to get killed by Bradleys, BMPs and the like.
IMHO as a trained meteorologist, of course.
-
IMHO "MBT armor" is when the enemy needs to bring dedicated AT weapons to reliably kill it. I.e. it might be easy to kill a Leo-1 with a 90mm, but you're going to need a lot of luck using a 40mm. OTOH an Ikv91 has to be careful around 20mm guns.
Basically, if your vehicle is threatened by AI or AA weapons it’s definitely "light".
This argument can be extended to a "heavy" being a vehicle that's not threatened by common AT weapons, meaning you need to bring in the really serious stuff (e.g.heavy ATGMs, large tank guns, guided artillery a.s.on).
-
That's mechanised. Motorised means trucks; mechanised means 1-2 man vehicles, as shown.
Um...I thought it was the exact opposite?
-
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-uG2fZZPLo0g/VYl77py0grI/AAAAAAAACj4/p0YsAC9dld4/s1600/NDP%2B2015%2BCR1%2BAEV%2Bblog2.jpg)
and here the rest of the rest of the story (https://kementah.blogspot.com/2015/06/singapore-armys-armoured-engineer.html?m=1) on Singapore Army's Armoured Engineer Vehicle (AEV) and upsized Leopard 2 family go on show at National Day Parade NDP 2015 Mobile Column
Wait a minute that's so awesome in a terrible way but no one has mentioned the wing mirrors yet! Wing mirrors on a tank! I can drive over wreckage or barriers but I want to make sure I can parallel park ok! Also they seem to have swapped out the main gun for more accessories!
-
The mirrors are probably added for running about town during the display. The accessories comes with it being an engineering vehicle... :)
-
Different countries have different rules about what level of vehicle regulations armoured vehicles have to abide by. Germans for example delayed introduction of Puma IFV, racking up additional development costs, because lawmakers decided that vehicle must be adapted to the needs of women in the third trimester of pregnancy, something that combat vehicles designers did not have to deal before.
-
Wait a minute that's so awesome in a terrible way but no one has mentioned the wing mirrors yet! Wing mirrors on a tank! I can drive over wreckage or barriers but I want to make sure I can parallel park ok! Also they seem to have swapped out the main gun for more accessories!
Wing mirrors can have an important function in an AFV tasked with maneuvering in tight spaces--so long as the driver can see them. Not that they would survive long in a conflict zone, but they are not valueless. Just like the posts on some Israeli HAPCs, which assist the driver and TC in making turns in confined spaces.
Germans for example delayed introduction of Puma IFV, racking up additional development costs, because lawmakers decided that vehicle must be adapted to the needs of women in the third trimester of pregnancy, something that combat vehicles designers did not have to deal before.
I'd love to see a real, verified source for this, other than off-hand comments from people on the internet; and by that, I mean other people (which is the only place I have seen it), not as a dig at you, PsihoKekec.
Honestly, the lovely Puma is having more serious problems than that:
https://defbrief.com/2022/12/19/germany-halts-puma-ifv-purchases-after-live-fire-fiasco/ (https://defbrief.com/2022/12/19/germany-halts-puma-ifv-purchases-after-live-fire-fiasco/)
-
What's a cable fire?
-
Likely an overheating and subsequent flashfire in the myriad cables running all throughout modern AFVs. The Puma is noted for its sensor suite (mainly an absurd number of cameras). And in most AFVs, all those cables are simply routed along the inside walls of the vehicle, not behind facing panels like in a car. Hell, M113s and 577s in the late '90s had cables all over their driver's compartment, and those were stone-age tech. The control for the rear hatch was simply a swing handle located behind the driver's head that actuated the hydraulic system, for example.
-
Its a big deal when something goes over budget in other countries, a billion dollars is a huge part of the budget. 1 billion is just a rounding error for US defense spending F-35, DDG1000, AAV and so many others.
-
I'd love to see a real, verified source for this, other than off-hand comments from people on the internet; and by that, I mean other people (which is the only place I have seen it), not as a dig at you, PsihoKekec.
yeah, it does sound like the the kind of fictional narrative that a detractor might come up to explain a delay while also putting down the government.
though given how often german troops have been involved in peace keeping operations in the last half century, having the ability for people with lower mobility to enter, ride, and exit wouldn't a bad idea. after all, when doing hearts and minds work, you might end up moving around old people, pregnant women, inured people, etc. and even ion combat, if a very pregnant lady can get on and off, it'll be easier for a wounded soldier as well.
-
though given how often german troops have been involved in peace keeping operations in the last half century, having the ability for people with lower mobility to enter, ride, and exit wouldn't a bad idea. after all, when doing hearts and minds work, you might end up moving around old people, pregnant women, inured people, etc. and even ion combat, if a very pregnant lady can get on and off, it'll be easier for a wounded soldier as well.
A capability creep that's frankly a really good idea to consider.
-
A capability creep that's frankly a really good idea to consider.
and if the ride is smooth enough to not harm an unborn fetus, it's more than smooth enough to ensure that a wounded soldier doesn't suffer complications on the way to an aid station.
-
and if the ride is smooth enough to not harm an unborn fetus, it's more than smooth enough to ensure that a wounded soldier doesn't suffer complications on the way to an aid station.
Pick one: Smooth ride to the aid station, or fast ride to the aid station.
why this dichotomy? because actual combat where you might NEED to be in a tracked armored carrier, doesn't tend to lend itself to intact, never mind smooth, roads with relatively direct, smooth paths from the fighting TO said aid station. (the enemy rarely cooperates by not shooting at large OD-green-or-camouflage objects in motion, and in irregular warfare scenarios like peacekeeping that red cross is a point that draws fire, not a sign of 'do not shoot me', war crimes be damned, if you've got peacekeepers on the ground, war crimes are already in progress, usually on both sides.)
-
after all, when doing hearts and minds work, you might end up moving around old people, pregnant women, inured people, etc. and even ion combat, if a very pregnant lady can get on and off, it'll be easier for a wounded soldier as well.
I agree with the thought process of this and admit that the notion had crossed my mind as well. At best, I think the original idea--if it exists at all, which I presently doubt--was turned into something else as a way to score some kind of point...and it is at this stage, I'll leave that line of thought alone.
and if the ride is smooth enough to not harm an unborn fetus, it's more than smooth enough to ensure that a wounded soldier doesn't suffer complications on the way to an aid station.
Which is a nice thought, but not really how the military works. While my own experience is long ago in the past, when I was seriously injured (not wounded; non-combat), I got transported to hospital in the back of a Chevy S-10. It was quite a ride, let me tell you, though I blanked much of it. Later, I got to see the inside of an CASEVAC M113 (or FLA, not the AMEV in use today). Very tight quarters. Probably claustrophobic if you're not seriously injured, as well as very loud, very dark, and very bumpy in the desert.
-
Which is a nice thought, but not really how the military works. While my own experience is long ago in the past, when I was seriously injured (not wounded; non-combat), I got transported to hospital in the back of a Chevy S-10. It was quite a ride, let me tell you, though I blanked much of it. Later, I got to see the inside of an CASEVAC M113 (or FLA, not the AMEV in use today). Very tight quarters. Probably claustrophobic if you're not seriously injured, as well as very loud, very dark, and very bumpy in the desert.
It's not how any emergency vehicle works, having ridden in the back of an ambulance, they aren't comfortble, they aren't smooth, and they certainly aren't quiet. Why? Because all of the military and civilian studies indicate exactly the same thing: Time to treatment if a far more important variable in survival than comfort of the drive.
A capability creep that's frankly a really good idea to consider.
No, it's not. ACV are are intended to be as functional and effective on the battlefield as is possible for the money spent. No other factors should come into consideration! That there may be some applicability in NEO or HADR circumstances is purely secondary and should not ever factor into acquisition.
I'd love to see a real, verified source for this, other than off-hand comments from people on the internet; and by that, I mean other people (which is the only place I have seen it), not as a dig at you, PsihoKekec.
Welcome to information warfare my friend, it's not daily briefs or public messaging or any of the myriad other things militaries like to claim it is. No IW is all about shaping the discussion space! It's all about crafting messages which invoke emotion to drive engagement, and making certain positions totally untennable for the decision maker purely by association to that emotional engagement.
It's crafty, deceitful and incredibly effective. I'd put a kidney on the genesis of this being think tank somewhere who looked at obscure laws governing German roads and decided to get out in front of the information space to shape the conversation.
-
Meet the Conqueror!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2g0UZNeySo
-
"...stabilized both vertically and horizontally!" :D
-
Didn't the Soviets replace the IS-3 before 54?
-
"...stabilized both vertically and horizontally!" :D
Just read that the Conqueror's stab wasn't to improve accuracy, but to prevent the massive gun from trashing its mounts.
That's a big gun.
-
Not an IFV but as i've seen it. So to must you
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FlkLMk5XkAcRV1a?format=png&name=900x900)
Yes, this is actually real. Gun Jesus does not like the company.
-
Why???
Damon.
-
Why???
Damon.
There is ever only ONE reason for a new gun concept or product.
"Because we CAN".
-
There is ever only ONE reason for a new gun concept or product.
"Because we CAN".
Just because you can, doesn't mean you should...
Damon.
-
Why???
Damon.
You take a bunch of individually reasonable ideas, get really drunk, and execute them all at once.
I've often wondered why more lever guns aren't offered in rimless calibres - if it was something to do with the lifter geometry. After all, .45 ACP is roughly comparable to .45 Long Colt, but a good 20% shorter and with more bulk ammo available.
Of course, since POF makes 9mm magazines and magwells for their AR carbines already, that neatly sidesteps any feed geometry issue.
I mean... if they had stopped there, they could have done a neat M1 carbine vibe, buuuuuut none of their other products use wood stocks, so they won't have any existing contractor relationships or in-house wood stock making capability, so... they went with Magpul or a clone.
After that, marketing insists it has to fit in the tactical lineup, so slap some rails and a big honkin' brake on it! Does 9mm even generate enough pressure to make a brake work out of that barrel? Who cares!
Actually, I think the reason it's got that weird, oddly close front sight *on the rail* is because that barrel is coming out of their parts bin, and none of their other rifles come with a barrel-mounted front sight, whether on a gas block, or dovetailed in, so POF likely doesn't have the internal training or possibly tooling to do so. Also, it's weird that they went that 'modern' on the appearances and then left in the exposed hammer.
Also, Mossberg made the 464 SPX for years. If there's one huge downside to the POF gun, it's probably that price...
The reality is that lever-actions are a niche market and a lot of it is tied up in nostalgia/Westerns, so the way Henry does (or Marlin did) it is probably best with even non-traditional configurations having largely traditional lines, and offering more modern materials/finishes just as options. Always did amuse me how explicitly Henry does that with their lever-action rimfires - the receiver, IIRC is cast light alloy, but they have a sheet metal cover over it that gives the blued or brass finish
-
Just because you can, doesn't mean you should...
Damon.
'should'??
Should, has nothing to do with it, honestly, it has nothing at ALL to do with modern firearms design. on a practical level, there's a reason why most new handguns look like a Glock, why the bulk of bolt action rifles are Mauser copies (with refinements) and why even modern AK platforms have lots of features that came from modding AR's.
There isn't, in real terms, much left to innovate in the industry...but there are all sorts of ways to be expressive and artistic, while still making a product that isn't a major hazard to the user.
(Some ideas being better or more functional than others).
Thus, there is a LOT of room for 'Quirky and niche' products in firearms, because 'practical and durable' are pretty well sewn up, with very little that can be invented or installed that someone else isn't already working on.
-
'should'??
Should, has nothing to do with it, honestly, it has nothing at ALL to do with modern firearms design. on a practical level, there's a reason why most new handguns look like a Glock, why the bulk of bolt action rifles are Mauser copies (with refinements) and why even modern AK platforms have lots of features that came from modding AR's.
There isn't, in real terms, much left to innovate in the industry...but there are all sorts of ways to be expressive and artistic, while still making a product that isn't a major hazard to the user.
(Some ideas being better or more functional than others).
Thus, there is a LOT of room for 'Quirky and niche' products in firearms, because 'practical and durable' are pretty well sewn up, with very little that can be invented or installed that someone else isn't already working on.
See also: Tank, fighter, car, and airliner design.
Sure, there are other shapes/designs that can work, but the trade-offs are are rarely worth it or greatly impact flexibility.
Although RWS systems do sometimes give off a bit of an M60 MG cupula/Inter-war area turret on top of turret vibe...
-
The accumulation of stuff. And the difference between a parade and the field.
M2 Bradley at home celebrating the victory of Desert Storm
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/21/f4/50/21f45026c3359365aac45e1917fbe42e.jpg)
M2 Bradley (A3? A4?) on exercise in Romania last year
(https://imgur.com/JFjIcfI.jpg)
-
Tanks have had similar issues with accumulating stuff. one of the reasosn that Germany is going forward with designing a new MBT currently, and so many companies keep developing and proposing new IFV's, tanks, etc. most of which try to integrate as much of that stuff (at least, the additional sensors, defensive systems, etc) into the hull and turret as possible.
-
I look forward to seeing more Bradley's in OD Green soon... ^-^
I think that rifle stuff belongs in the most recent Gun Geekery thread, honestly... 8)
-
Pick one: Smooth ride to the aid station, or fast ride to the aid station.
why this dichotomy? because actual combat where you might NEED to be in a tracked armored carrier, doesn't tend to lend itself to intact, never mind smooth, roads with relatively direct, smooth paths from the fighting TO said aid station. (the enemy rarely cooperates by not shooting at large OD-green-or-camouflage objects in motion, and in irregular warfare scenarios like peacekeeping that red cross is a point that draws fire, not a sign of 'do not shoot me', war crimes be damned, if you've got peacekeepers on the ground, war crimes are already in progress, usually on both sides.)
Ideally, I'd like the crew to be able to choose, depending upon the situation, and what it requires, whether they're going for a slow, smooth trip or flooring it and making a rough high-speed dash.
With that said, any time you're cushioning the occupants of your vehicle against the shocks of rough terrain can also be useful for high-speed dashes, so that the personnel your personnel transport is carrying arrive intact and functional at their destination. Admittedly, my expertise is less in armored vehicles and more with Baja racing style vehicles (and I'm not exactly an expert there, either), but I'd assume the principle applies to both.
-
Ideally, I'd like the crew to be able to choose, depending upon the situation, and what it requires, whether they're going for a slow, smooth trip or flooring it and making a rough high-speed dash.
With that said, any time you're cushioning the occupants of your vehicle against the shocks of rough terrain can also be useful for high-speed dashes, so that the personnel your personnel transport is carrying arrive intact and functional at their destination. Admittedly, my expertise is less in armored vehicles and more with Baja racing style vehicles (and I'm not exactly an expert there, either), but I'd assume the principle applies to both.
I don't think anything can really smooth out an off-road ride except taking it real slow. That said, APCs and IFVs are cramped and bumpy places. Are there many instances of using them for civilian evac? I'm pretty sure those kinds of operations have the AFVs open the road, but the real carrying is done (far more efficiently) by trucks of some sort.
-
I don't think anything can really smooth out an off-road ride except taking it real slow. That said, APCs and IFVs are cramped and bumpy places. Are there many instances of using them for civilian evac? I'm pretty sure those kinds of operations have the AFVs open the road, but the real carrying is done (far more efficiently) by trucks of some sort.
My first thought is, "Well, how are you defining APC or IFV in this instance?" Because now you have IMVs like the ATF Dingo or MRAP to consider, too.
And, yeah, internal volume's going to war with vehicle target profile, and can result in a cramped vehicle. That's kind of the cse for anything that's going to be moving at speed off-road anyway, though, since you're trying to keep your CG down, instead of being super-tippy. Seating design and harnesses can play a huge role in how comfortable you are off-road, but then you get into the problem that your troops tend to carry pointy, bouncy things on them that, say, a guy in a Class 5-1600 or Class 11 car, or even the big Trophy trucks, wouldn't.
-
Let's be fair: it would take most AFV crews some serious convincing to let unknown people inside their vehicles. Injured or not. In need of assistance or not.
It's sort of like LEOs letting unsecured people ride in the cruiser with them. More bad things can happen than good ones.
And let's say it out loud: combat, and real-world operations in general, can be tiring, confusing, hazardous, and downright frightening. It is hard to imagine--to really internalize, to feel it in your soul--from the comfort of a First-World office or living room, but soldiers are not always thinking about how best to serve their fellow man, unless that it one of their fellows, or themselves. When you are tired, or scared, or uncomfortable (and have been for days, or weeks, or months) you tend to insulate yourself from further shocks, and you are not the nice person you once were...and may not be for a long time.
Imagine this: During a cross-state drive, you enter into a random town; would you pick up a hitchhiker? Even a pregnant woman? Now imagine you have been living during this whole drive with the reasonable expectation that something bad was going to happen, despite your best efforts, and that when it did, one of your closest friends was going to be the one that was hurt or killed.
While I doubt that any troopers I knew would willingly let some child or especially a pregnant woman die or be tormented (through the natural process of imminent childbirth or an outside factor) if they could do something about it, I also do not think that it would be their overarching priority. We are not talking about a "sinking of the Titanic" moment, or an apartment fire across the way. We are talking about a repetitive, high-stress environment where 'Them' and 'Us' are real things that cannot be discounted, and are hard to understand.
So, my earlier comment about having thought of this and not disagreeing was not false. But I did not expound upon it because, well, it's not something is likely to happen with any statistically significant regularity. Like chanman said, if you get into a situation where you have to exfil refugees, pregnant women amongst them, I can almost guarantee you are in a situation well above pebble level where higher elements are becoming involved and trucks or helos are going to be doing the lifting while the trigger-pullers are doing the protecting. In any event, our AFVs of any stripe have other things to do than transport civilians around. It's just the way it is.
I seriously doubt any AFV is spacious inside. I never served in or around an MRAP, but I have seen converted ones in LEO service, and they are not exactly extra roomy, and they lack all the gear that modern soldiers cart around (including the kit they live with for days and weeks at a time, let alone the weapons and ammo and gear they use for their duties). A HMMWV is a pretty big truck, but put four troopers and their gear in it, and it is pretty small inside. Try sitting in it with thirty kilos of gear, with the expectation you are going to want to get out realfastnow, and you will see just how tight it really is.
And they are uncomfortable. Almost by design. Ever wonder why military vehicles are so prickly to your precious posterior? Know what often happens when you penetrate the armor of most AFVs? You start fires. Know what burns? Seat padding. But so does wiring, ammunition, fuel, lubricants, and people...but out of all those possibilities, there is only one an AFV can do with a minimum of.
(And this is why I chuckle and shake my head when I read the Maxim entry in 3026)
-
I've ridden in more than one MRAP, and a "Rhino" armored bus. There isn't much room in those aside from the shock mounted seats. I won't comment on the effectiveness of said shock mounting, as I never had the opportunity to assess it, thankfully.
-
And I, for one, am glad you did not have to live-test it, either, brother.
-
More archival footage from the Brits
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKJ-OJu8glc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFkFTtWQfXo
-
I always did like the Saladin, as far as armored cars go.
-
I always did like the Saladin, as far as armored cars go.
One of these days, I'm going to find a film right at the point where the mid-Atlantic accent starts falling out of use :D
-
I always did like the Saladin, as far as armored cars go.
The whole family was pretty darn capable really, Saladin, Saracen and Stalwart were all pretty decent bits of kit. Always had a soft spot for the Conqueror too, its a MASSIVE vehicle, i've seen it a few times at Bovington.
-
The new infantry tank >:D
-
:toofunny:
-
Rotunda, eat your heart out!
-
That VISMOD beats out a lot of 1970-90s movies. Just saying.
-
While LAV IIIs aren't exactly low-profile...
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/3c/3b/90/3c3b907c7f2cb46edc40dfcf7e0d714d.jpg)
The Boxer really takes it to the next level
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fly3UlxXgAAwKeD?format=jpg&name=medium)
Hefty besat too. With a combat weight well north of 30 tonnes, it's around twice as heavy as a clean LAV III. The engine is proportionately more powerful (700-800hp vs. 350 in the LAV III/Stryker family).
The tires don't look much larger though, so I'm curious what its ground pressure is like...
Boxer on the left, Patria on the right
(https://external-preview.redd.it/1Lie5MU9XJvKvkM4mpPvMBBT4za8UGe29NW2HmUfUCI.jpg?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=88956e483eaea1fcd7c72c70299107a35aad8f04)
Aussie Boxer and Abrams
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f3/1c/de/f31cde9c617bc315f3304d893f903cba.jpg)
Dwarfling an ASLAV (LAV-25/second-generation Pirahna)
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-NI2YdJSRKB0/YNS7d3yFfeI/AAAAAAADEVs/mymtIOT6AJEimx-uEZ-4POxatCTcgHcvQCLcBGAsYHQ/s16000/Future_Infantry_Combat_Vehicle_FICV.jpg)
-
The new infantry tank >:D
Nah, that's a silly idea. A station wagon can only carry a 2-space turret. That's a fake ATG or HRR, 3 and 4 space respectively. Obviously fake.
Thought of course they may be trying a double bluff and actually have a VMG hidden under the fake ATG...? ^-^
-
The tires definitely look bigger to me...
-
Don't forget the Boxer's party trick though. Its modular, the back section can be taken off and a completely different one bolted on and linked up to change its role without too much work either.
It is a case of "Okay we need to carry troops, now we need it to be an ATGM carrier and tank killer." and as long as the modules are avalable and you've got a crane and the folks to link it up, you can do it.
-
I for one welcome the new trend towards massively sized AFVs. It makes modern microarmor play so much nicer than true-scaled earlier AFVs compared to BT 'Mechs.
-
Heh... I only just realized the Boxer is right-hand drive... :D
-
Boxer dwarfs an Abrahams. From that point out, yes, it seems somewhat large.
-
The tires definitely look bigger to me...
ASLAV/LAV-25 is only a second-gen Piranha. It's a bit smaller. Infuriatingly, I'm having trouble finding a photo of an USMC LAV next to an Army Stryker or a Canadian LAV-III next to a Coyote, so this will have to do:
(https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/images/lav-comp.jpg)
-
Is the LAV-III actually longer, or is it just parked a little forward of the LAV-25? ???
-
According to Wiki, LAV-25 is 6.39m long, LAV-III 6.98m. So a bit longer.
-
Sounds like "both" then... thanks! :thumbsup:
-
Boxer didn't seem that big at first.
I do have minitatures of but I never put the 2 together.
-
While I'm sure the M1128 AGS had issues (given the low production numbers and early retirement), I suspect it still beats the turreted big-gun Piranha options...
Saudi 105mm armed LAV (2nd gen like the LAV-25, Coyote, and ASLAV)
(https://imgur.com/B7zFHSN.jpg)
Belgian Piranha 3C with a 90mm Cockerill gun
(https://imgur.com/ykVOZ6P.jpg)
(https://imgur.com/xg7MewS.jpg)
I've only ever seen a few tiny photos of a 10x10 Piranha 3C prototype supposedly with a 105mm
(https://imgur.com/0T4OToT.jpg)
-
Israel's Eitan IFV is also pretty darn huge
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/98/Eytan_--_Our-IDF-2018-IZE-200_%2843053775600%29_%28cropped%29.jpg)
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/YJlzt6prmDQ/maxresdefault.jpg)
Is the newest one with a 30mm bushmaster cannon, APS and Spike missiles.
Its got the same turret as they're putting on the Namer Heavy APC
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Trophy_on_NAMER_IFV.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/Trophy_on_NAMER_AFV.jpg)
Being the older one, the one with the turret has a different hull makeup to take into account the turret mounting.
Then again Israel is getting a ton of use out of the Merkava hull, like the Sholef SPG, which was going to replace the M109's the IDF has, and it worked very well but it was quicker and cheaper to upgrade the 109's.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/42/Sholef-beyt-hatotchan-2.jpg)
-
Bit of a weird tank, but Bangladesh and Pakistan both have upgraded Type 59s (aka T-54s) that take a 125mm gun. Ukrainian arms makers had similar upgrade packages that included either a 120mm or 125mm gun.
Type 59G Durjoy (Bangladesh):
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fe/Bangladesh_Army_upgraded_T-59G_%27Durjoy%27_MBT._%2833659625935%29.jpg/1024px-Bangladesh_Army_upgraded_T-59G_%27Durjoy%27_MBT._%2833659625935%29.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/99/Bangladesh_Army_upgraded_T-59G_%27Durjoy%27_MBT._%2827682919308%29.jpg/1024px-Bangladesh_Army_upgraded_T-59G_%27Durjoy%27_MBT._%2827682919308%29.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/43/Bangladesh_Army_upgraded_T-59G_%27Durjoy%27_MBT._%2833659622075%29.jpg/1024px-Bangladesh_Army_upgraded_T-59G_%27Durjoy%27_MBT._%2833659622075%29.jpg)
(https://preview.redd.it/hkls44ore5w51.jpg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3e52e25be74fc57af54c35be9d5cae72a7992120)
Al-Zarrar (Pakistan):
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/82/Alzarrar.jpg/1024px-Alzarrar.jpg)
(https://imgur.com/EZjaicP.jpg)
(https://imgur.com/POCfrSH.jpg)
-
Saladin armoured cars
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7HnKmT2WgM
Some other weird British vehicles:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCodZ_6gV8Q
Chieftain gets to inspect an MPF:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdPmpidUbWo
The Product Manager immediately refuses to call it a light tank (obviously - the thing already weighs 42 tonnes and I assume ERA, slat, or other additional armour will be added at some point), but also doesn't want to call it an assault gun, despite its role being very similar to one. Near as I can tell, they've managed to recreate the old British Cruiser tank/Infantry tank dynamic.
Note the height of the hull - it comes up to Moran's neck and he's infamously tall. In his videos with the M1 and M1A1, the hull only goes up to about mid-chest height.
-
Regarding the MPF: light inf for the win, boys. I'm pretty excited to see it go further. Of course, if they mean the 10th Mountain, that will be quite a change, since that outfit has never had an organic armor-component, let alone the ranges on-post to keep them operational. Not that things like that cannot be made relatively easily, but it's part of the things few people spend time thinking about.
And well, well.. everyone's favorite 6x6 Cart of Doom might be going east:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/the-tank-killing-armored-vehicle-that-france-is-sending-to-ukraine-is-a-bit-of-an-oddity-but-don-t-call-it-a-tank/ar-AA166xug?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=4a4cc8c7541d45178b203e7679eb1ef2 (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/the-tank-killing-armored-vehicle-that-france-is-sending-to-ukraine-is-a-bit-of-an-oddity-but-don-t-call-it-a-tank/ar-AA166xug?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=4a4cc8c7541d45178b203e7679eb1ef2)
(https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AA1670oN.img?w=1920&h=1080&q=60&m=2&f=jpg)
Get 'em, RC!
-
That one seems to have found the proper slope to actually take the recoil... ::)
-
Shush, you!
-
Heh! :D
-
For some interesting vids on some rather unusual or little known about tanks i'd suggest giving this chap a watch.
https://www.youtube.com/@armouredarchives8867/videos
-
Centurion showing off its stabilizer. That loader was really cranking it! :o
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcRpeSSwpvE
-
Is it just me, or did it pretty obviously miss a couple of those shots?
-
They looked like hits to me... 8)
-
By popular demand!
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/ba/Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-299-1805-16%2C_Nordfrankreich%2C_Panzer_VI_%28Tiger_I%29.2.jpg)
My favorite tank.
-
Howitzer Motor Carriage M8 'Scott' is too cute for words. It's a M116 75mm short-barreled howitzer in an open-topped turret on the M3/M5 Stuart chassis.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/24/M8GMC-Saumur.0004z89h67.jpg)
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/7b/59/fb/7b59fb74d993301a44f1a624e45ade15.jpg)
It reminds me a bit of the tanks in the old (1996) RTS 'Z' from Bitmap Brothers.
(https://lh3.ggpht.com/-x5Dv1GFEUQk/Ulvp-1SsK3I/AAAAAAAAIwQ/qbNCEz30Uu0/s1600/screen568x568.jpg)
-
Comet tanks being hooned on the course. About all they were good for by 1953, really.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sOqucR9nq0
-
Comet tanks being hooned on the course. About all they were good for by 1953, really.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sOqucR9nq0
I think there were still plenty of T-34/85s in the WarPact arsenal at this time for them to shoot at.
Damon.
-
The words "flying tank" in THAT accent are just... 8)
-
flying? d'ya mean the A-40?
(http://i1.wp.com/knowledgenuts.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/AntonovA40.jpg?resize=1024%2C537)
or perhaps the MAS-1?
(https://cdni.rbth.com/rbthmedia/images/2018.08/original/5b87d94d15e9f940ec6ef3a6.jpg)
-
Re: the MAS-1:
"It's only a model." [/Python]
-
Flying tank?
(https://images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca887773594c2.wixmp.com/f/b2e26859-0444-48a9-b1c6-bf4a8223c548/d5ld3ft-cab8e41d-6b9f-4bb6-b879-e3aefbc25ead.jpg/v1/fill/w_900,h_612,q_75,strp/flying_bt_7__by_bezsoba_d5ld3ft-fullview.jpg?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOjdlMGQxODg5ODIyNjQzNzNhNWYwZDQxNWVhMGQyNmUwIiwiaXNzIjoidXJuOmFwcDo3ZTBkMTg4OTgyMjY0MzczYTVmMGQ0MTVlYTBkMjZlMCIsIm9iaiI6W1t7ImhlaWdodCI6Ijw9NjEyIiwicGF0aCI6IlwvZlwvYjJlMjY4NTktMDQ0NC00OGE5LWIxYzYtYmY0YTgyMjNjNTQ4XC9kNWxkM2Z0LWNhYjhlNDFkLTZiOWYtNGJiNi1iODc5LWUzYWVmYmMyNWVhZC5qcGciLCJ3aWR0aCI6Ijw9OTAwIn1dXSwiYXVkIjpbInVybjpzZXJ2aWNlOmltYWdlLm9wZXJhdGlvbnMiXX0.AgtoXHJhgBitLdcWP-GAw-rVWyMTlmkuaG6_i5WB9_Y)
-
Trying flying tank:
(https://hips.hearstapps.com/hmg-prod/images/animated-gif-downsized-large-1585596651.gif?crop=1.00xw:0.668xh;0,0.0759xh&resize=640:*)
-
More like frying tank.
-
The rocket booster setup, wasn't that an attempt to make a tank that could get out of a swamp by itself? I remember reading something about it.
-
More like frying tank.
Nah, that was Covenanter (engine cooling was routed through crew compartment xp). Australians were issued several of the bridgelayer variant. It was joked that it is a self propelled oven, intended to serve the cooked crew to the cannibal tribes.
-
Leopard 1A6. Cancelled because... why bother when you can just make more Leopard 2s? For similar reasons, even though the Leopard 1A5 turret was able to mount the 120mm L44, tanks that got the 1A5 upgrade, just kept their existing 105mm guns in the new turret. I have no idea how that impacted shell stowage, but...
(https://i.imgur.com/x69YLRS.jpeg)
(https://external-preview.redd.it/grpMvn9wSZV_zvlIasSGEHSZQpULFVQcF7e22Sd0zbU.jpg?auto=webp&s=c05a44f6f10bdc2027d04d82dfba8c986ecbe7c6)
I still prefer the entire Leo 2 turret on the Leo 1 hull though
(https://i.redd.it/usmrnh880r671.jpg)
-
How can you make the Boxer taller?
Like this!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mv9eiDpbl78
(https://ukdj.imgix.net/2022/06/boxer-tracked-image04-1656422688.4974.jpg?auto=compress%2Cformat&ixlib=php-3.3.0&s=e8374ba3153c55c6ddf7ed65da361f75)
-
It's the grandaddy of the Goblin!! :excited:
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lye7UHnhqEg&ab_channel=ArmouredArchives
-
How about AFVonics? Makes one sound a bit like a clanner, but... :D
Actually, everyone can probably get onboard with either shootronics or fightronics. After all, that's the most exciting bit ;D
KMW (maker of the Boxer IFV's) apparently calls them "Vectronics"
https://www.kmweg.com/systems-products/mission-solutions/vetronics/
How can you make the Boxer taller?
Like this!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mv9eiDpbl78
(https://ukdj.imgix.net/2022/06/boxer-tracked-image04-1656422688.4974.jpg?auto=compress%2Cformat&ixlib=php-3.3.0&s=e8374ba3153c55c6ddf7ed65da361f75)
with the tracked drive system, wouldn't it lose height on the base vehicle?
also, as i understand it, the boxer is am odular design, so if that tracked model can use the other mission variant fittings, shouldn't you be able to fit the 120mm turret to the 8x8 wheeled version as well? that would make it super tall..
-
I saw a mention somewhere that the Cadillac-Gage Stingray (later rebranded as the Commando Stringray) light tank just lifted the turret directly off the 105mm fire support version of the Cadillac Gage Commando wheeled vehicle. I knew it looked familiar, but hadn't drawn the connection, thinking it was just a generic turret like the Cockerill 90mm one.
Stingray
(https://imgur.com/0pHYLDm.jpg)
Brazilian LAV-600 with the 105mm turret
(https://imgur.com/Sd56a7k.jpg)
The Stingray is extremely lightly armoured, even by WW2 standards. 14.5mm 'resistant' front, 7.62mm 'resistant' sides. And I'd bet that modern 7.62 x 51 or x54 AP ammo probably stands a decent chance of penetrating, especially after repeated hits.
The Stingray II entry for the AGS competition added a new turret and an armour upgrade kit to 23mm frontal protection. I'm having trouble finding a photo, so here's some artwork from a model kit showing the blockier turret (vaguely Altay-like). Supposedly the turret could be made to fit an M551 or M41 as an upgrade option, although I imagine some interior rearranging would need to be done to fit the hull ammo. Important because the small turret means the ready rack is quite small.
(https://i.imgur.com/kk6wuZC.jpg)
-
Ive always liked the Stingray tank. Its a modern version of a light tank.
-
The Stingray is one of those designs that fared better in Twilight: 2000 than in real-life procurement, and I'll always have a certain fondness for it for that reason alone.
-
I happened to see this on a hockey board thread tonight...the Montreal Canadiens, who have not done so well this year and sensibly should be tanking (in the sports sense), came away with an unexpected victory over the Winnipeg Jets. One of the comments in the fan thread was "f**k the tank tonight", with this accompanying GIF:
https://giphy.com/gifs/usnationalarchives-vintage-throwback-archivesgif-KulZNyMraUAjx7pHsv (https://giphy.com/gifs/usnationalarchives-vintage-throwback-archivesgif-KulZNyMraUAjx7pHsv)
What vehicle is that, and when is this from?
Just hope the crew was OK after that. :)
cheers,
Gabe
-
Leopard 2s that are junk? Maybe so?
https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/10ejhi7/spain_wanted_to_give_their_leopards_2_to_ukraine/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3
sorry, best picture I could find...
(https://www.spainenglish.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/52124212514_d72e9fa46e_b.jpg)
-
I happened to see this on a hockey board thread tonight...the Montreal Canadiens, who have not done so well this year and sensibly should be tanking (in the sports sense), came away with an unexpected victory over the Winnipeg Jets. One of the comments in the fan thread was "f**k the tank tonight", with this accompanying GIF:
https://giphy.com/gifs/usnationalarchives-vintage-throwback-archivesgif-KulZNyMraUAjx7pHsv (https://giphy.com/gifs/usnationalarchives-vintage-throwback-archivesgif-KulZNyMraUAjx7pHsv)
What vehicle is that, and when is this from?
Just hope the crew was OK after that. :)
cheers,
Gabe
At a guess, either an early ford 3-ton, or one of the competing designs.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_3-Ton_M1918
-
https://giphy.com/gifs/usnationalarchives-vintage-throwback-archivesgif-KulZNyMraUAjx7pHsv (https://giphy.com/gifs/usnationalarchives-vintage-throwback-archivesgif-KulZNyMraUAjx7pHsv)
What vehicle is that, and when is this from?
Just hope the crew was OK after that. :)
cheers,
Gabe
Think I found it:
https://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww1/USA/ford-3tons-tank.php
-
so two people saying the same thing, guess we're fairly confident. :)
i recognized it from the video The Chieftain did on youtube on it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYNZOaP93Uc
-
1948 footage of an M46 showing off neutral steer, climbing, and rough terrain. The way the wheels jiggle over the terrain for the last bit is hilarious ;D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTnvh3Yht0Y
And 1931 footage of a Christie tank absolutely hauling ass
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjWPgCkjgIQ
And of course, the fun-sized Scorpion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EX8mnKEu9NM
-
Rotunda?
(https://i.redd.it/qrk6mhrp9wca1.jpg)
-
Rotunda?
(https://i.redd.it/qrk6mhrp9wca1.jpg)
being driven by Special Agent Leonard Parker most likely after being called out of retirement
-
There are some upgrade paths for Leopard 2A4s, but all of them look pretty involved and none of them look cheap.
Leopard 2A4M CAN
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/7e/36/49/7e36490e9702e200992e2e54f38f647e.jpg)
Leopard 2PL
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7b/Leopard2PL_IMGP3265.JPG/1024px-Leopard2PL_IMGP3265.JPG)
Leopard 2SG
(https://i.redd.it/p31abw8d6rf31.jpg)
Leopard 2RI
(https://external-preview.redd.it/ciliKf9nVD__1J90Bhj86O4whN_Jetj2w_BqSJqCc2o.jpg?auto=webp&v=enabled&s=a0ea4e5ef8e4c6174b589a554cf6c4ab6648e546)
-
Only in Canada would there be a random civilian walking past two armored vehicles driving down the STREET... ::)
-
Only in Canada would there be a random civilian walking past two armored vehicles driving down the STREET... ::)
Could be a soldier who hasn't changed into uniform yet. The building in the back has crenellations, so I suspect this is actually on a military base. Tanks driving around an armour base are less unusual :D
-
True, but do the Canadians allow beards? ???
-
True, but do the Canadians allow beards? ???
Yes, except at sea because respirators.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/military-hipster-beards-1.4839426
Also, where do you think the Lumberjack Commando meme came from? :D
(https://pioneercrew.yolasite.com/resources/lumberjack-commandos.jpg)
-
Touché! 8)
-
Sudden script in my head for Jean Rambeau,
Afghan war vet, army engineer
In hardware store during robbery by gang of
thugs, pick a type
Hey fuzzball, drop your wallet on the counter
and step away, remember I have the gun,
Yeah you betcha, I just have an are, reminds me of
fighting the talisman, all I needed was my axes, and here I am with a rack of axes to try out......
-
Sudden script in my head for Jean Rambeau,
Afghan war vet, army engineer
In hardware store during robbery by gang of
thugs, pick a type
Hey fuzzball, drop your wallet on the counter
and step away, remember I have the gun,
Yeah you betcha, I just have an are, reminds me of
fighting the talisman, all I needed was my axes, and here I am with a rack of axes to try out......
sigh...
The reason the U.S. mandates shaved faces, has to do with something called 'Gas masks'-which don't play nicely with facial hair. The reason the Canucks don't mandate it, is that they don't mandate it, the doctrine and policies are different, the expected conflicts are also different. Put Canadian troops in an anticipated NBC environment and those stylish beards and moustaches will go bye-bye...but most of the time they aren't IN an anticipated NBC environment. Canada does a lot more peacekeeping in third world situations where that kind of stuff isn't in use because the native forces aren't using them, while U.S. doctrine still assumes we're going to get an apocalyptic level of nastiness any day now.
-
I mean, there are field regs and garrison regs and they aren't the same. Just like pilots have to get the oxygen masks on.
-
The US military started getting less strict about facial hair while in Afghanistan, due to cultural beliefs about beards there making it easier to get along with the locals, IIRC.
-
Only for SF though, regular units had their uniform regulations strictly enforced, down to commanders checking the units in field for rolled sleeves violations via drones.
Beards in Canadian army are a regimental thing, from what I recall it's NCOs in some regiments and engineers that are allowed, rest of the army has to do with moustaches. Also the vehicles are stationary, probably part of some exhibition, you are supposed to walk by them.
-
Found an old tanker's photos of East German T-72M1s donated post reunification and farting around in Canada in the mid-90s. I think most ended up expended as targets although some might still be around as static displays and one might be a running example in a collector's hands now.
I initially saw this post on a Canadian military forum probably around the mid-2000s, but someone (maybe the OP) re-posted it to a Canadian firearms forum. All of the photos were trapped in Photobucket jail, so I broke them out and re-hosted them on imgur.
(https://imgur.com/RbuVNNa.jpg)
(https://imgur.com/anZhlQj.jpg)
(https://imgur.com/zb0Vmcs.jpg)
(https://imgur.com/u3rufdH.jpg)
(https://imgur.com/ColNVE0.jpg)
(https://imgur.com/HXKUTG7.jpg)
(https://imgur.com/tSYYgli.jpg)
(https://imgur.com/GxDIDkZ.jpg)
(https://imgur.com/UJNpu9s.jpg)
(https://imgur.com/nhzq35H.jpg)
(https://imgur.com/zHA5Lce.jpg)
(https://imgur.com/jfcyGX6.jpg)
(https://imgur.com/zQGiucP.jpg)
-
Fun fact: around 27 of East Germany's T-72M1s were actually hybrids. They were ordered from Czechoslovakia. At the time, the Czechs could not create large turret castings, so they were ordered from the Soviet Union. When East Germany{s order came in, the Czechs had no -M1 turrets in stock, so substituted M turrets instead. So there were a handful of East German T-72s kicking around with the enhanced hull armor of the -M1, but with the older & slightly inferior M turret.
For those that build models, the Tamiya T-72 actually represents one of these hybrids.
Damon.
-
Some very crisp footage from last year's Maple Resolve exercise
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGTee_3T_oY
Live-fire mechanized and force-on-force with blanks.
-
That's a fantastic video! :thumbsup:
-
South Africa Defense Force Buffel (Buffalo) Mine-Protected Vehicle (MPV) and APC. One of the first V-shaped hulls (nearly 3K operated 1978-1995), originally designed to defeat Soviet TM-57 anti-tank mines.
(https://fft-keymilitary.b-cdn.net/sites/militarykey/files/styles/article_body/public/imported/2020-03-24/img_8_7.jpg?itok=BSRkhMfm)
(https://fft-keymilitary.b-cdn.net/sites/militarykey/files/styles/article_body/public/imported/2020-03-24/img_6_1_1.jpg?itok=6QRvP-Uh)
(https://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/hsXd4FC-640x384.jpg)
6-7mm steel protected ten seatbelted infantrymen in the passenger tub and opened to the sides for deployment. The driver’s cab added bullet-resistant glass. Both protected against 7.62x39mm AK-47 and 7.62x51mm NATO ammo, and both were open-topped, although the driver’s cab was eventually covered with polyethylene and the passenger tub included a roll bar.
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/SvNfhzUnIfs/maxresdefault.jpg)
Armament included one or two 5.56mm or 7.62mm machine guns, mounted in the forward-right and rear-left of the passenger tub, sometimes with gun shields and/or twin-mountings.
(https://images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca887773594c2.wixmp.com/f/b1719dfa-b51c-417e-a640-254ad1dced89/d5unp9j-e5764060-cc86-422d-aaf5-ef2f7b81cd5a.jpg/v1/fill/w_1600,h_1278,q_75,strp/buffel__black_ops_ii__by_goreface13_d5unp9j-fullview.jpg?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOjdlMGQxODg5ODIyNjQzNzNhNWYwZDQxNWVhMGQyNmUwIiwiaXNzIjoidXJuOmFwcDo3ZTBkMTg4OTgyMjY0MzczYTVmMGQ0MTVlYTBkMjZlMCIsIm9iaiI6W1t7ImhlaWdodCI6Ijw9MTI3OCIsInBhdGgiOiJcL2ZcL2IxNzE5ZGZhLWI1MWMtNDE3ZS1hNjQwLTI1NGFkMWRjZWQ4OVwvZDV1bnA5ai1lNTc2NDA2MC1jYzg2LTQyMmQtYWFmNS1lZjJmN2I4MWNkNWEuanBnIiwid2lkdGgiOiI8PTE2MDAifV1dLCJhdWQiOlsidXJuOnNlcnZpY2U6aW1hZ2Uub3BlcmF0aW9ucyJdfQ.ZvI6a7-I7yo6a7i03ag5SQIkWR-_VV-grfnUTtRGO1Q)
6+ tons, 2x4 or 4x4, 6-cylinder diesel, 125hp, 60 mph top speed and 600 mile range on road. A bush guard protected the engine when driving off-road through vegetation. Storage box in the rear.
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/SvNfhzUnIfs/hqdefault_99966.jpg?sqp=-oaymwEjCNACELwBSFryq4qpAxUIARUAAAAAGAElAADIQj0AgKJDeAE=&rs=AOn4CLC_4M29jGxsKK2n7YFl3BmDiS4OFQ)
(https://milweb.net/webvert_images/81542/img_3.jpg)
Variants included a cargo truck (flatbed in place of the passenger tub), ambulance, and the riot-duty Moffel, which enclosed the tops of the driver’s cab and passenger tub against Molotov Cocktails and the like and added large panes of bullet-resistant glass to the passenger tub, with firing ports.
(https://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Z3HeEg0-640x426.jpg)
A very quirky, distinctive-looking, and effective forerunner of today’s MRAPs. Referred to as one of the world’s ugliest APCs, but I love the appearance of the offset driver’s cab with its bullet-resistant glass, the primitive-looking but life-saving passenger tub, and even the position spare wheel. It’s like a fusion of a cab from a BattleTech combat vehicle, a dump-truck converted into a Mad Max APC, and just plain old bush practicality.
-
Ugly indeed! I don't think any artist would have come up with that... :D
-
No, but a few engineers surely did.
A little later some artists took inspiration:
(https://th.bing.com/th/id/R.c0904416405d8b597f4173cb30bb3757?rik=hKoE%2b6x06377Yg&riu=http%3a%2f%2fwww.warehouse23.com%2fspree%2fproducts%2f699%2flarge%2fSJG10-0216.jpg%3f1390166240&ehk=CEkgpk0VvWHuSgE%2fdSk7nMgafM0HdWN%2fL05sTH%2fuJKI%3d&risl=&pid=ImgRaw&r=0)
-
What is that? ???
-
Oops. SJG Ogre Cargo Truck.
-
That makes sense, thanks! :thumbsup:
-
(http://www.warehouse23.com/spree/products/699/xlarge/SJG10-0216.jpg?1390166240)
For those (like me) who can't see F16's image.
-
That's weird... I'm usually the one that can't see images... ???
-
Eh. I attached it, too. Popular image now.
-
A little later some artists took inspiration:
(https://th.bing.com/th/id/R.c0904416405d8b597f4173cb30bb3757?rik=hKoE%2b6x06377Yg&riu=http%3a%2f%2fwww.warehouse23.com%2fspree%2fproducts%2f699%2flarge%2fSJG10-0216.jpg%3f1390166240&ehk=CEkgpk0VvWHuSgE%2fdSk7nMgafM0HdWN%2fL05sTH%2fuJKI%3d&risl=&pid=ImgRaw&r=0)
Cool. Here’s the original Buffel cargo carrier:
(https://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/crYIiCN.png)
-
Is there ever a bad time for high res Centurion footage?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sA3WqyDeWdo
-
Nice footage... I'm just amazed a country the size of Denmark as a range that big! :o
-
to Natasha Kerensky
that Buffel is really cool for me.
-
(https://scontent-ord5-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/322384400_5166828650086009_3767054935199209543_n.jpg?_nc_cat=111&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=l3IUKrgTtQ0AX_EJ27a&tn=0VPum6wyu7WccYXN&_nc_ht=scontent-ord5-2.xx&oh=00_AfC9JEilloKB7Y2noAa4FiSZW3BTuM26EF_AXU5yK9GJ2Q&oe=640207A8)
TT
-
to Natasha Kerensky
that Buffel is really cool for me.
Yeah, the Buffel is visually interesting to me, and its place at the root of the MPV/MRAP evolutionary tree is noteworthy.
In the 1980s, Sri Lanka imported (for 11 million rupees), reverse-engineered, and then produced (for only 3 million rupees) their own version of the Buffel, called the Unicorn. The most noteworthy change from the Buffel to the Unicorn was the addition of an intercom between the driver’s cabin and the passenger tub so they could communicate. This is a Unicorn with twin gun mounts:
(https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-7478fea8594b8bf7480aa3e7e75f6e6e-lq)
Eventually, Sri Lanka developed their own version of this concept called the Unibuffel (I kid you not), which saw use through at least 2000. The driver’s cabin was flipped to the right side of the vehicle and physically connected (I think) to the passenger tub, which itself had some top armor added (but still not fully enclosed). Some Unibuffels mounted .50 cals and there was a flatbed version with a 25mm canon.
(https://external-preview.redd.it/9NmR5UAQAZKja3V-FuEDCv8oUKh-HgoOiBk2evZjhtM.jpg?auto=webp&s=66ea067956a05b487e43448ca3df5d82fccf7935)
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQc2_aqKIyII_oWItXN9xDNz2YGrNZuTFrF9A&usqp=CAU)
(http://archives.sundayobserver.lk/2004/04/25/z_p05-from.jpg)
(https://cdn.ccdiscussion.com/original/3X/0/6/06a5565e04ff9ec398b4179c119df8b02bede11d.jpeg)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EzijJVLXIAcsicS.jpg)
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRrvtqadpkuUlslbwbB64c5RSJ0FH2waLir8Q&usqp=CAU)
-
When function is the only dictator of form...
-
Heh... by switching to right hand drive, they could deny any accusations of plagiarism... ::)
-
Heh... by switching to right hand drive, they could deny any accusations of plagiarism... ::)
Is it possible that the South African manufacturer intended the Buffel primarily for international sales, whereas the Sri Lankan version was intended only for domestic use? They drive on the left in both countries...
cheers,
Gabe
-
was there ever a reason given for why they went with an assymetrical single person cab, instead of stretching it across the chassis for a 2nd person?
-
was there ever a reason given for why they went with an assymetrical single person cab, instead of stretching it across the chassis for a 2nd person?
easier to armor and uses less materials for the same level of driver protection?
-
was there ever a reason given for why they went with an assymetrical single person cab, instead of stretching it across the chassis for a 2nd person?
No explicit explanation that I’ve seen, but I think it’s safe to say it was all about protecting the driver.
The Buffel was initially called the Bosvark (Bushpig) II. The original Bosvark (“or Bosvark I”) was a Mercedes-Benz Unimog chassis with a better engine and a V-shaped passenger tub that was shorter than what the Buffel and Unibuffel developed later. As near as I can tell, the Bosvark retained the Unimog’s original (presumably 2-plus person) cab with little/no change. Less than 50 were built, and it was noted for poor driver protection. Here’s a pic:
(https://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/DT97i2A-640x427.png)
So although I have not run across anything that says the cabin shrank in going from the Bosvark to the Buffel (or Bosvark II) to better protect the driver, I think that’s a pretty safe conclusion to draw.
What’s a bit striking about the Bosvark is that it’s little more than a big technical with an armored bed. The Bosvark and Buffel were all about fighting insurgencies, which were probably also using the technicals of their day. The Bosvark is arguably just a very modestly evolved technical, while the Buffel turns the evolution of the technical up another notch or two.
Lastly, the South African military has used the name “Bosvark” for a three-axle vehicle, a gun, and probably some other stuff, too. Just noting to avoid confusion.
-
was there ever a reason given for why they went with an assymetrical single person cab, instead of stretching it across the chassis for a 2nd person?
I think as Natasha Kerensky mentioned, for driver protection to move them out of the way of the blast of any landmines detonated by a forward wheel. As for why asymmetrical? My guess is for the prosaic reason of aiding driver entry/exit. A cab directly over the centerline might be difficult to get to from the ground.
-
Driver protection is not a bad supposition...but if they wanted to really do it properly, they would have put the wheels ahead of the driver position, ala the Israeli RBY-1:
(https://warwheels.net/images/RBY1young%20(25).JPG)
Having the wheels beyond the plane of the front-most passenger compartment is the first step in keeping the blast away from the occupants (tilt-rod AT mines need not apply to this concept ::)).
-
Driver protection is not a bad supposition...but if they wanted to really do it properly, they would have put the wheels ahead of the driver position, ala the Israeli RBY-1:
(https://warwheels.net/images/RBY1young%20(25).JPG)
Having the wheels beyond the plane of the front-most passenger compartment is the first step in keeping the blast away from the occupants (tilt-rod AT mines need not apply to this concept ::)).
Most of the pictures of non-prototype Buffels show the driver position a bit behind the front axle. Not a LOT behind, but it's high enough and higher than the RBY that maybe its enough for floor armour/blast deflecting hull shaping. Basing off an existing platform may have also placed restrictions on where the driver's station could be located and still keep its mechanical steering linkages
-
The Buffel was designed so that the driver and passengers survived a front wheel setting off two Russian TM-57 anti-tank mines at once (I guess that was a mode of deploying those mines), and one TM-57 going off anywhere else. They tested with a chimp or other primate in the driver’s seat (I kid you not), and I ran across at least one attestation online from a veteran.
That said, this is an another African V-hull that does use a really long chassis to maximize the distance between mines going off and the passenger compartment. It’s the Leopard security vehicle from Rhodesia, circa 1970s, designed to defeat the Soviet TM-46 landmine. Based on a Land Rover. Used to move 4+ people and supplies between far-flung settlements with heavily mined roads between them.
(https://cs9.pikabu.ru/post_img/2017/09/23/7/150616631218639371.jpg)
(https://images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca887773594c2.wixmp.com/f/df6d73c0-1cac-4eb5-84b7-888fbe8c781d/db7h0kl-847aebdd-80d9-44e5-931d-5d6e03acf372.jpg/v1/fill/w_1032,h_774,q_70,strp/rhodesian_leopard_mk_vi_security_vehicle_by_rlkitterman_db7h0kl-pre.jpg?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOjdlMGQxODg5ODIyNjQzNzNhNWYwZDQxNWVhMGQyNmUwIiwiaXNzIjoidXJuOmFwcDo3ZTBkMTg4OTgyMjY0MzczYTVmMGQ0MTVlYTBkMjZlMCIsIm9iaiI6W1t7ImhlaWdodCI6Ijw9MTIwMCIsInBhdGgiOiJcL2ZcL2RmNmQ3M2MwLTFjYWMtNGViNS04NGI3LTg4OGZiZThjNzgxZFwvZGI3aDBrbC04NDdhZWJkZC04MGQ5LTQ0ZTUtOTMxZC01ZDZlMDNhY2YzNzIuanBnIiwid2lkdGgiOiI8PTE2MDAifV1dLCJhdWQiOlsidXJuOnNlcnZpY2U6aW1hZ2Uub3BlcmF0aW9ucyJdfQ.oc_3su-KQZkNs0M06_o9N9OFZ20xLUaTszULRlCctts)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cf/LeopardSVfromIWMNRearView.jpg/220px-LeopardSVfromIWMNRearView.jpg)
This is a single-seat, mine detection variation on the idea called the Pookie, used to escort convoys between settlements. Based on the chassis from a lightweight VW Van, and used Milton Pans from South Africa for landmine detecting (lowered rectangular objects on either side of the vehicle). Wide racing wheels to minimize ground pressure. Supposedly the only countermine vehicle ever that would not set off antitank or even antipersonnel mines.
(https://i.imgur.com/z589GkJ.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/98XdKi7.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/iFFbKYM.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/OGjsLMi.jpg)
Some were armed with a “Spider” anti-ambush device which was just a circular array of shotgun shells in pipes with the triggers connected to a pull chain in the cockpit:
(https://i.imgur.com/w9mNGmz.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/tFlmLlm.jpg)
(https://reaperfeed.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Pookie.jpg)
Eventually, Pookies were even adapted for international mine-clearing missions:
(https://i.imgur.com/pVBsiJa.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/OlwFxK1.png)
I think this is an armed evolution of the Leopard and Pookie called the Cougar, but not sure:
(https://preview.redd.it/r4v2gddptss31.jpg?auto=webp&s=83c26e1a621489f5ff6e8835872fc0d0fda90d20)
Family tree of these improvised Rhodesian combat vehicles. It’s a little misleading because they do not all use the Land Rover chassis.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cqdmyd3XEAAmk3Q.jpg:large)
-
Very interesting, thank you for sharing
-
Interesting indeed! :thumbsup:
-
what are Milton pans? i tried googling them but only got pages for cookware and that vehicle.
https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/pookie-light-landmine-detection-vehicle/
-
what are Milton pans? i tried googling them but only got pages for cookware and that vehicle.
Some flavor of metal detector from South Africa. I don’t know to what extent they were a real military piece of kit or just a civilian metal detector adapted to mine detection. Pookie drivers wore headphones that produced tones when the Miltons ran over a metal object, and supposedly the Miltons were sensitive to objects as small as a bottlecap. That sounds a lot like a hobbyist’s metal detector, but I’m not sure. Pookie drivers learned the difference between the tones produced by a mine versus smaller objects, suppossedly at up to 50mph. When the Miltons went off, drivers turned on rear lights to stop the convoys they were escorting, which usually followed ~100m behind them. The Pookie drivers then backed up as necessary to find the exact position of the mine and dig it up. It’s noted that the insurgents never realized that they could have defeated the Pookie with non-metallic mines/IEDs.
Here’s some clearer Pookie pix, a unit emblem, and the primate, more commonly known as the bush baby, that the vehicle was named after:
(https://fft-keymilitary.b-cdn.net/sites/militarykey/files/styles/jumbo/public/imported/2023-01-19/img_37-1_0.jpg?itok=7tLSnHU9)
(https://fft-keymilitary.b-cdn.net/sites/militarykey/files/styles/article_body/public/imported/2023-01-19/img_36-2_0.jpg?itok=BzARAskM)
(https://fft-keymilitary.b-cdn.net/sites/militarykey/files/styles/article_body/public/imported/2023-01-19/img_36-3_0.jpg?itok=ldSByglD)
(https://fft-keymilitary.b-cdn.net/sites/militarykey/files/styles/article_body/public/imported/2023-01-19/img_40-5.jpg?itok=zFTIka2R)
(https://fft-keymilitary.b-cdn.net/sites/militarykey/files/styles/article_body/public/imported/2023-01-19/img_39-2_0.jpg?itok=jIBv6PLR)
-
Fantastic research! :thumbsup:
-
Good pictures indeed. Does the Pookie come equipped with an gpr?
-
Good pictures indeed. Does the Pookie come equipped with an gpr?
Not when they were built and operated for the Rhodesian Bush War. Those used South African metal detectors deployed from the sides of the vehicle.
But I included a couple pics upthread of white-painted Pookies. Those were either built or operated sometime after the Rhodesian Bush War for peacetime mine clearance in that area of Africa. They have different mine-detecting equipment out in front of the vehicle. I don’t if that equipment is a ground-penetrating radar or just another metal detector, but it could be the former. I just didn’t run across much info on those white Pookies, which also appear to have different wheels, a trailing wheel to prevent flipovers, etc.
-
Good to know
-
I joked to someone that if they just needed tanks for parades, Russia should stop futzing around with Armata and just bring back some T-35s. To which I learned...
The world is still run by The Onion. Apparently it can move and I did find footage of it running in the May Day parade in 2017
(https://i.redd.it/uwymu8snjay01.jpg)
https://www.warhistoryonline.com/featured/russian-company-builds-replica-t-35-tank.html?edg-c=1
-
What an impressive-looking piece of garbage the T-35 was.
-
I joked to someone that if they just needed tanks for parades, Russia should stop futzing around with Armata and just bring back some T-35s. To which I learned...
The world is still run by The Onion. Apparently it can move and I did find footage of it running in the May Day parade in 2017
(https://i.redd.it/uwymu8snjay01.jpg)
https://www.warhistoryonline.com/featured/russian-company-builds-replica-t-35-tank.html?edg-c=1
That T35 really dose scream Land Battleship.
-
What an impressive-looking piece of garbage the T-35 was.
First of all, I just realized what the predecessor of the Leman Russ battle tank is! Ironically, it's nothing British, but rather French
Renault B1
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/93/Renault_B1_bis%2CTanks_in_the_Mus%C3%A9e_des_Blind%C3%A9s%2C_France%2C_pic-9.jpg/1024px-Renault_B1_bis%2CTanks_in_the_Mus%C3%A9e_des_Blind%C3%A9s%2C_France%2C_pic-9.jpg)
Leman Russ
(https://wh40k.lexicanum.com/mediawiki/images/thumb/9/92/LRConq.jpg/550px-LRConq.jpg)
But second of all, we cannot allow a landship gap!
(https://64.media.tumblr.com/5bbb6c7b57dc00ab178bf9a6193b24bb/tumblr_p7g03src7U1uryk28o4_1280.jpg)
-
Truly hilarious! :D
-
!Exactly
-
Aerosani is Russian for “aerosledge” or “aerosled”. Think swamp boat on skis. They predate WWI and the first tracked snowmobiles. Ukrainian engineer Igor Sikorsky of helicopter fame was an early innovator. The Soviet military developed, built, and operated a few standard aerosani designs during WWII.
This is the NKL-26 “raider” aerosani. Mostly built from plywood, only the front glacis was protected by 8mm or 10mm (depending on source) of steel armor. They were powered by excess 110hp M-11G five-cylinder air-cooled radial aircraft engines that had exceeded their flight hours and twin-blade pusher propellers. With four coil-sprung skis, the NKL-26 could reach top speeds of 50 km/h or 70 km/h (again, depending on source). Two crew included a driver/mechanic and commander/gunner. The commander manned a tourelle equipped with a 7.62mm DT machine gun. Each NKL-26 could carry four infantrymen externally, one on each skid, or tow up to 20 ski infantry behind the vehicle.
NKL-26 were organized into battalions of 30, with 10 per company, which included one for the company commander and three platoons of three NKL-26s each. Total numbers are sketchy, but it appears there were 70 of these battalions at one point circa 1942 and some 3000 NKL-26s were built.
(https://fft-keymilitary.b-cdn.net/sites/militarykey/files/styles/article_body/public/imported/2020-03-24/img_56_1_0.jpg?itok=3JrfCyZP)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/20/NKL-26%2C_Koryazhma.JPG)
(https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/data/attachments/189/189081-e69d749153db0e3fb98aa43060864ec3.jpg)
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/64/11/e4/6411e4f6ccf9c7cd522c122fd8ebe0ed.jpg)
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/64/f5/94/64f59438b1104d45d150022528deb769.jpg)
(https://tanksinworldwar2.com/pictures/sovietunion/nkl26-02.jpg)
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTz6p37z02CGrQN_NCLCXcQw2Pmb3BfGNBkdw&usqp=CAU)
(https://topwar.ru/uploads/posts/2017-06/1496684856_nkl26-1.jpeg)
My understanding is that only the Soviets made purpose-built combat aerosani, and then only after the disastrous Winter War against Finland. However, the Finns, Soviets, and Germans all pressed civilian aerosani into wartime service, including during the Winter War, and the Finns and Germans also made use of captured Soviet combat aerosani, like the NKL-26 with swastika below. Some Soviet NKL-26 saw service as far south as the Battle of Moscow.
(https://saturnismus.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/aero6.jpg)
Somewhere between a handful and 500 (records are unclear) NKL-26 were built or modified with heavier 12.7mm DShK machine guns. Nominally designated NKL-32, they may also have incorporated an armored fuel tank or other changes. An even smaller number of prototypes with twin machine guns, mortars, or rockets were also built. The NKL-26 below has been fitted with wheels (presumably for testing outside winter conditions or farther south) and two RS-82 rockets, which were the predecessor of the famed Katyusha rockets.
(https://fft-keymilitary.b-cdn.net/sites/militarykey/files/styles/article_body/public/imported/2020-03-24/img_57_5.jpg?itok=rXfGRlTk)
(http://)
(http://)
(http://)
-
Being an infantry trooper who was getting towed by one of those can not have been a fun experience.
-
interesting vehicle...
Inf on the Skids
-
Yeah, a .50 cal makes more sense on something that big... ^-^
-
This is the NKL-16 “transport” aerosani, which was produced at the same time (1941-1942+) and alongside the NKL-26 “raider” aerosani discussed upthread It used the same M-11 engine as the NKL-26 and the same/similar skids and suspension, but unlike the NKL-26, the NKL-16 was unarmored with plywood walls all around. It was also nominally unarmed, but carried four passengers inside in addition to the driver and/or 500kg of cargo. Or it towed unpowered sleds with heavy equipment like 45mm anti-tank guns.
Although sources confuse the similar numbering of NKL-16 and NKL-26, it appears that each battalion of 30 NKL-26 raiders was typically supported by a company of NKL-16 transports. There may have been 10 to 15 NKL-16s in these support companies, as the aerosani totals in these combined battalions was 45. There are also references to combat aerosani battalions or BASB (presumably the ones with the preponderance of NKL-26 raiders) and transport aerosani battalions or TASB (which may have reversed the ratio of NKL-16 to NKL-26 or been composed entirely of NKL-16s).
Like jeeps and similar multi-purpose utility vehicles, NKL-16s saw widespread use in roles outside those battalions, like courier, patrol, and base duty (moving barrels of fluids at airfields is one noted example).
(https://www.armedconflicts.com/attachments/3140/1560441007_nkl_skan.jpg)
(https://www.super-hobby.com/zdjecia/3/5/1/3130_0-auto_downl.jpg)
(https://www.armedconflicts.com/attachments/3140/NKL-16-41.jpg)
(https://www.armedconflicts.com/files/nkl_16-41_113.jpg)
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/gij5yaLP5U0/hqdefault.jpg)
(https://www.super-hobby.ru/zdjecia/0/6/8/3129_4-auto_downl.jpg)
(https://storage.yandexcloud.net/wr4img/331781_12_pic_144.jpg)
(https://www.super-hobby.it/zdjecia/9/5/8/3129_3-auto_downl.jpg)
The NKL-16 (and presumably the NKL-26) was based on the NKL-6 aerosani, a three-skid vehicle that I believe predated WWII for civilian use. However, the NKL-6 was pressed into service and used on both sides of the Winter War and the Eastern Front as an ambulance, for pintle-mounting a mobile machine gun, etc.
(https://karopka.ru/upload/comments/a4f/sani7_e1532591342294.jpg)
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRpDaukcArqfFcYDUQLlqyc5Kp5UrXmjy8e8A&usqp=CAU)
(http://)
-
Being an infantry trooper who was getting towed by one of those can not have been a fun experience.
I wonder how many towed infantry became casualties when one of these aerosani came to a sudden stop and the troopers skied right into the pusher propeller... in Russia, snowmobile mows you!
interesting vehicle...
Inf on the Skids
They were built by aircraft and boat firms and Igor Sikorsky was involved early, so the similarity to fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft skids may be more than convergent evolution.
Yeah, a .50 cal makes more sense on something that big... ^-^
Lothian League needs aerosani.
-
I wonder how many towed infantry became casualties when one of these aerosani came to a sudden stop and the troopers skied right into the pusher propeller... in Russia, snowmobile mows you!
They were built by aircraft and boat firms and Igor Sikorsky was involved early, so the similarity to fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft skids may be more than convergent evolution.
I don't see any means of stopping short of running into a stationary object, so I think the towed ski troops don't have as much to worry about the propeller itself as they do about stuff kicked up and thrown at them by the propeller.
Riding on the skis, on the other hand...
-
I don't see any means of stopping short of running into a stationary object, so I think the towed ski troops don't have as much to worry about the propeller itself as they do about stuff kicked up and thrown at them by the propeller.
Riding on the skis, on the other hand...
There were no “brakes”, but because there was no controlled stop, aerosani apparently did run into trees and the like somewhat frequently.
-
*snip*
Lothian League needs aerosani.
I don't really see their advantage over hovercraft, though... :-\
-
There were no “brakes”, but because there was no controlled stop, aerosani apparently did run into trees and the like somewhat frequently.
Well yes, hence my point about it being not likely being a huge problem for the troops skiing behind, since with its greater inertia, the snowmobile would generally keep going further than the troops, even while the propwash was pushing them back.
I mean, I'm sure it was a problem for someone somewhere, but compare that to riding on the skids per your post:
Each NKL-26 could carry four infantrymen externally, one on each skid, or tow up to 20 ski infantry behind the vehicle.
-
This is the RF-8 “reconnaissance” aerosani. Unlike the aircraft engines in the NKL-16 and NKL-26, the RF-8 was powered by a the same 3.3L engine used in the GAZ-MM 4x2 truck. However, some were eventually built with or converted to the M-11 radial aircraft engine used by the NKLs. Like the NKL-16, the RF-8 was unarmored with plywood all around. And like the NKL-26, the gunner controlled a 7.62mm machine gun and sat in front of the driver. Unclear on how the RF-8s were organized, but in presumably smaller numbers for recon duties. Some 2000 were built.
(http://www.paperdiorama.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Aerosan-foto2.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/03/RF-8.jpg)
(http://www.paperdiorama.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Aerosan-foto3.jpg)
(https://www.realhistoryonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/1-3-300x199.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/2FBmOFb.jpg)
-
Hmmm... the side view makes it look like the driver and gunner are at the same height, but some of the off-angle shots make it look like the driver is higher (like they should be)... ???
-
Well yes, hence my point about it being not likely being a huge problem for the troops skiing behind, since with its greater inertia, the snowmobile would generally keep going further than the troops, even while the propwash was pushing them back.
I mean, I'm sure it was a problem for someone somewhere, but compare that to riding on the skids per your post:
Riding on the skids may have been safer because there was a physical guard between the riders and the propeller. See the triangular tubing sticking out to each side at the rear of these vehicles. It was to protect the propeller from tree branches and the like (note the extra propeller strapped to the side of some of these aerosani), but it probably bounced infantry that lost their mount away from the propeller as well.
Or maybe the infantry still lost limbs to the large gaps in those guards. Hard to say.
-
Hmmm... the side view makes it look like the driver and gunner are at the same height, but some of the off-angle shots make it look like the driver is higher (like they should be)... ???
Orthographic drawings, schematics, etc. seem to show the seating at the same level:
(https://i.pinimg.com/236x/0a/37/47/0a374700e20973d2b7a2a23361c2d28a--red-army-armored-vehicles.jpg)
The RF-8 seating is noted as being similar to (inspired by?) WWI fighters. But unlike the NKLs’ aircraft manufacturers, the RF-8 was built by an automobile manufacturer.
-
I guess they relied on short guys for gunners and tall guys for drivers... ::)
-
I would like to try one of these on a frozen lake... just need to figure out the braking system
-
Sideways friction like skates or skis
-
Last one... this monster is the 02SS prototype “patrol” aerosani. Only one was built, tested, and failed proving ground testing and so never entered production. At 7m long and over 5 tons, it was much bigger and heavier than the aerosani upthread. It used an 850hp liquid-cooled M-103A aircraft engine from SB bombers. The suspension and steering was very different from the NKLs and RF aerosani, with two fixed skids along the entire length and a rudder at the rear that dragged in the snow/ground. The hull was armored in 7-8mm steel all around. The 02SS was armed with a 23mm MP-6 autocannon and a coaxial 7.62mm DT machine gun. The MP-6 itself was a prototype aircraft weapon that never entered mass production, and the specific MP-6 used on the 02SS was redirected from another project to adapt the MP-6 to the T-40 light amphibious tank. (I’m not even sure if the “turret” that the MP-6 was housed in could traverse.) In the end, the 02SS was overweight, exhibited too much ground pressure, could not turn within an acceptable radius, and found even small grades difficult to traverse and so was terminated.
(https://i.redd.it/rrb3sa8acev81.jpg)
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-iH4re9HS39I/WLsSqtTbBgI/AAAAAAAAMxc/BYCHtYRfxmoMn1bDg-9GxPBg7MVjmozcwCLcB/s1600/ckb50erosledges04-b5a1598135115dc8cb594c9a261eb6a6.jpg)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EvpuMV2XMAM_umG.png)
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ZFoG2_WhZl8/WLsSqpQTCTI/AAAAAAAAMxY/059OIOaodOYQLw1TaUsDZ6Dlc-PbewLuACLcB/s1600/ckb50erosledges02-d971c68c0a8c3f16821dbc1442ddc22f.jpg)
(https://i.pinimg.com/474x/e3/54/da/e354da7f7727348074cea75d529c6145.jpg)
(https://64.media.tumblr.com/c99d35407143446973d7edc51319144f/tumblr_oo54erBq5S1uryk28o5_1280.jpg)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ED0wS1yUcAAUfQ6.jpg)
-
In short: it was too heavy? ???
-
I would like to try one of these on a frozen lake... just need to figure out the braking system
Even the best aerosani have trouble with steep grades, so they mostly operated on relatively flat, snowed-over fields/grasslands, frozen marshes, and frozen lakes/rivers (and snowed-over roads), all of which were abundant terrains where they operated. I keep running across the term “desant” in reference to their attacks and offensive operations. So my impression is that these aerosani maneuvered really far behind enemy lines on unwatched frozen waterways and then cut across open ground to hit logistics, convoys, etc. But I think they also did a lot of mundane scout, patrol, resupply, infantry transport, etc. duty.
-
In short: it was too heavy? ???
Yeah, although I could imagine a version that used the suspension and steering from the NKLs and RFs that would have better distributed the weight, enabled tighter turning radii, and gotten up steeper grades. That might have provided the performance needed even if the 02SS remained technically overweight. But that’s just my speculation.
The 02SS was built by an armored boat manufacturer and based on a particular “Tunguska” sled design, which shows in the vehicle. It only had two crew and I can’t imagine there’s anything in the long nose that couldn’t be relocated or dumped with the NKL’s independently sprung, four-skid suspension and steering. Losing that nose and its armor would have saved a lot of weight.
Long way of saying that they should have just upscaled the NKL-26 if they wanted a “tankier” aerosani.
-
It looks like something that GIJoe or Cobra would field.
-
IIRC, GI Joe did have a vehicle that was pretty similar, but it used jet engines and was used on water more than snow. At least in the cartoon.
-
It looks like something that GIJoe or Cobra would field.
Some of these aerosani look like soapbox racers, and with the (admittedly aircraft-grade) plywood walls, they almost could be.
-
You can get them in 1/285 via GHQ. Probably sturdier than the real thing.
(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0266/2711/3023/products/R62Instruct-single_1_290x.jpg?v=1609369312)
-
Nice find F16! :thumbsup:
-
Perfect for Lothian League militia and rapid response to bandit raids.
For anyone who enjoys assembling plastic from sprues, there are also a lot of larger, non-gaming models of the NKL-16, NKL-26, and RF-8 for sale with a quick Google search. Some even on Amazon.
-
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/gij5yaLP5U0/hqdefault.jpg)
When I was a kid, I saw this picture in a history book, a sledge powered by aircraft engines was one of the most awesome concepts to me back then.
-
You can get them in 1/285 via GHQ. Probably sturdier than the real thing.
(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0266/2711/3023/products/R62Instruct-single_1_290x.jpg?v=1609369312)
I was wondering how some crazy way to get these in Battletech.
-
they'd make fun proxies for Savannah masters. or Mechanized (Hover) infantry.
-
I prefer J. Edgars for the Lothians, but these could work too... 8)
-
Oh, and good research lately, Nasty K. Others said it before, but it's true.
-
I double stamp F16's post! :thumbsup:
-
(https://scontent-ord5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/337013219_143685451962446_7229452608691626872_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_p960x960&_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=2c4854&_nc_ohc=4ZcroWZ1FbQAX9BMsGo&_nc_ht=scontent-ord5-1.xx&oh=00_AfBehZdXcQcHNbfDUxV8zTac7gtbJj1toQKQ0_CIqN_cdQ&oe=641D8B15)
Rearend of a Super Heavy Tank T28 aka Gun Motor Carriage T95.
Ancient parent (?) of a of BOLO?
TT
-
Rearend of a Super Heavy Tank T28 aka Gun Motor Carriage T95.
Baby got back.
-
That's what? The 50's right?
Can you imagine what it would look like today, a billion dollars plus ultra!
TT
-
That's what? The 50's right?
Can you imagine what it would look like today, a billion dollars plus ultra!
TT
It was the 40s, actually. The T28 was designed to breach the Siegfried Line. But even if it wasn't a wildly impractical vehicle the Allies succeeded in breaching the Line via conventional means before the T28 was ready for deployment.
-
I'm more scared that they considered it for the invasion of Japan??? So the Landing craft would deploy 2 of them, and some light support vehicles??
-
I'm more scared that they considered it for the invasion of Japan??? So the Landing craft would deploy 2 of them, and some light support vehicles??
at htat weight, it would be "One per landing craft" and they'd have to assemble the tracks on the beach.
while under fire.
Because it's too wide for the LC's of the era with the outboard tracks installed.
(and too wide for many roads, and too heavy for most bridges...)
One of the advantages the Allies (Americans) had, was the ability to have serious tank firepower that could go places Panthers and Tigers could not, and get to where they needed to be as a result, rather than being unable to get where they needed to go.
The tank you HAVE, is worth ten you can't get to the fighting because the bridge can't handle the weight or the roads are too narrow...
-
If it had been used against Japan I figure it would have been after Beachheads were established. It's intended use was to breach heavy fixed defenses, if you faced that kind of defenses near the beach you should have a BB throwing 16" shells at it!
-
They didn't even bother with trying to use the Pershing in the Pacific theater because it was above and beyond what was needed.
-
One of the advantages the Allies (Americans) had, was the ability to have serious tank firepower that could go places Panthers and Tigers could not, and get to where they needed to be as a result, rather than being unable to get where they needed to go.
The tank you HAVE, is worth ten you can't get to the fighting because the bridge can't handle the weight or the roads are too narrow...
Wasn't just the issue with bridges and roads. Heavier vehicles put a lot more strain on their engines, suspension, and drives. They require a lot more fuel, too. The M4's engine was allegedly capable of making it through the entire war with no maintenance beyond oil changes. By contrast, a Panther's engine needed extensive work done after a mere 200 miles. The more time your tank spends being repaired/tuned, the less likely it's going to be ready to fight when you need it.
That was a major reason why the US rejected the M6, and by extension the T28.
-
not to mention the transoceanic transport issue.. a single T28 used up as much tonnage on a cargo ship as 3 Shermans.. it also used up as much cargo deck space as 4 shermans. while not really giving 3-4x the sherman's combat ability.
-
The T28 could only move like 10mph at best, and the gun was fixed. The other superheavy designs were neat. I like the T29 and T30, that is what a good US Superheavy would look like.
-
Is that a 105mm way back then? ???
-
I believe the T29 and T30 were only classified as heavy tanks, not super-heavies like the T28, Maus, or E-100.
And the T29 mounted a 105mm cannon. The T30 mounted a 155mm gun!
-
Wasn't just the issue with bridges and roads. Heavier vehicles put a lot more strain on their engines, suspension, and drives. They require a lot more fuel, too. The M4's engine was allegedly capable of making it through the entire war with no maintenance beyond oil changes. By contrast, a Panther's engine needed extensive work done after a mere 200 miles. The more time your tank spends being repaired/tuned, the less likely it's going to be ready to fight when you need it.
That was a major reason why the US rejected the M6, and by extension the T28.
one of the lessons of the World Wars that gets forgotten by the technophiles, is that the mediocre weapon you can deploy when and where you need it is infinitely superior to the superweapon you can't get off the testing range or out of the repair shop.
This goes for a lot more than just tanks. If your super-fighter can lay waste to a whole formation of enemy bombers, it's still going to be useless if it has to be in the repair bay for three days after every flight and sortie, because those three days the enemy is still bombing the living shit out of you, and you might end up not having the spare parts to get it up in three WEEKS as a result.
gamers often forget that it doesn't matter if Superweapon X has twice the damage potential when it reliably fails to function at the worst times and requires in-depth rebuilding when it does-the guy whose guns fire every time they pull the trigger are going to mop the floor with you on the strategic and operational level.
Just like the guys whose trucks start when they have the gas and turn the 'on switch' to 'on' and don't strip their transmissions are going to out maneuver the guys whose trucks individually carry heavier loads, but can't be relied on to fire up when it's cold or raining or tyche had a bad day and wants to see someone suffer.
Mil-Spec in (1940s) American usage doesn't mean it's sharper or more accurate, it means it can be kept running by a half-trained Private supervised by a drunken NCO with hand-tools and maybe a truck-mounted crane.
The example used by The Chieftain is changing transmissions for an M-4 versus almost ANY of the German tanks. The M-4's transmission change involved breaking track and undoing bolts, and could be done in under a day. Doing it on a Panther or Tiger/tiger II, panzer IV etc. involved pulling the turret and emptying the hull of installed gear that isn't supposed to be removed-like the dashboard and driving controls. (oh, and the engine.)
Guess how long THAT took. (hint: it's not a short process and it involves cutting torches and welders.)
Reliability trumps most other factors. The only thing that runs up as a close second, is ergonomics. (as demonstrated in export T-72 versus Centurions a generation or so older in 1973.)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/8373/8527297972_29497d2961_b.jpg)
-
I've got all three Warship Gunner by KOEI for PS2.
First, friggin' awesome game.
Second, yes I see what you mean. Friend of mine played against me in a PvP game.
My "Dingy" DD took out his BattleCarrier using only small caliber guns verse his super ones.
More guns on target and speed verse a pretty fast for its sized monster and his triple dual heavies, which only one could sink me by itself...
Long range and fast reloading works... My fish and secondaries only worked when I sniped out his mains. Though his secondaries and multiple " AMS " worked to counter that.
TT
-
one of the lessons of the World Wars that gets forgotten by the technophiles, is that the mediocre weapon you can deploy when and where you need it is infinitely superior to the superweapon you can't get off the testing range or out of the repair shop.
This goes for a lot more than just tanks. If your super-fighter can lay waste to a whole formation of enemy bombers, it's still going to be useless if it has to be in the repair bay for three days after every flight and sortie, because those three days the enemy is still bombing the living shit out of you, and you might end up not having the spare parts to get it up in three WEEKS as a result.
gamers often forget that it doesn't matter if Superweapon X has twice the damage potential when it reliably fails to function at the worst times and requires in-depth rebuilding when it does-the guy whose guns fire every time they pull the trigger are going to mop the floor with you on the strategic and operational level.
Just like the guys whose trucks start when they have the gas and turn the 'on switch' to 'on' and don't strip their transmissions are going to out maneuver the guys whose trucks individually carry heavier loads, but can't be relied on to fire up when it's cold or raining or tyche had a bad day and wants to see someone suffer.
Mil-Spec in (1940s) American usage doesn't mean it's sharper or more accurate, it means it can be kept running by a half-trained Private supervised by a drunken NCO with hand-tools and maybe a truck-mounted crane.
The example used by The Chieftain is changing transmissions for an M-4 versus almost ANY of the German tanks. The M-4's transmission change involved breaking track and undoing bolts, and could be done in under a day. Doing it on a Panther or Tiger/tiger II, panzer IV etc. involved pulling the turret and emptying the hull of installed gear that isn't supposed to be removed-like the dashboard and driving controls. (oh, and the engine.)
Guess how long THAT took. (hint: it's not a short process and it involves cutting torches and welders.)
Reliability trumps most other factors. The only thing that runs up as a close second, is ergonomics. (as demonstrated in export T-72 versus Centurions a generation or so older in 1973.)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/8373/8527297972_29497d2961_b.jpg)
Indeed. It's why I say that if video games like World of Tanks had a Reliability stat that represented a vehicle's chances of spontaneous equipment failure, nobody would play Germany. Especially not heavy tanks or TDs.
-
one of the lessons of the World Wars that gets forgotten by the technophiles, is that the mediocre weapon you can deploy when and where you need it is infinitely superior to the superweapon you can't get off the testing range or out of the repair shop.
This goes for a lot more than just tanks. If your super-fighter can lay waste to a whole formation of enemy bombers, it's still going to be useless if it has to be in the repair bay for three days after every flight and sortie, because those three days the enemy is still bombing the living shit out of you, and you might end up not having the spare parts to get it up in three WEEKS as a result.
gamers often forget that it doesn't matter if Superweapon X has twice the damage potential when it reliably fails to function at the worst times and requires in-depth rebuilding when it does-the guy whose guns fire every time they pull the trigger are going to mop the floor with you on the strategic and operational level.
Just like the guys whose trucks start when they have the gas and turn the 'on switch' to 'on' and don't strip their transmissions are going to out maneuver the guys whose trucks individually carry heavier loads, but can't be relied on to fire up when it's cold or raining or tyche had a bad day and wants to see someone suffer.
Mil-Spec in (1940s) American usage doesn't mean it's sharper or more accurate, it means it can be kept running by a half-trained Private supervised by a drunken NCO with hand-tools and maybe a truck-mounted crane.
The example used by The Chieftain is changing transmissions for an M-4 versus almost ANY of the German tanks. The M-4's transmission change involved breaking track and undoing bolts, and could be done in under a day. Doing it on a Panther or Tiger/tiger II, panzer IV etc. involved pulling the turret and emptying the hull of installed gear that isn't supposed to be removed-like the dashboard and driving controls. (oh, and the engine.)
Guess how long THAT took. (hint: it's not a short process and it involves cutting torches and welders.)
Reliability trumps most other factors. The only thing that runs up as a close second, is ergonomics. (as demonstrated in export T-72 versus Centurions a generation or so older in 1973.)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/8373/8527297972_29497d2961_b.jpg)
The 1973 war is too early for the T-72. It was still in trials at that point.
The T-62's 115mm gun was more than dangerous enough for any tank at the time, including the Chieftain, let alone the Centurion, M48, and M60. APFSDS out of a smoothbore cannon was a game changer.
115mm vs. Chieftain: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0t-Vi4unTLQ
115mm vs. M60: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sf70t8ehyNM
That channel also has numerous tests by and against Centurion, T-54/55 and T-62. The 105mm looks like it would have had a tough time with a T-72 before APFSDS ammo became available.
-
The 1973 war is too early for the T-72. It was still in trials at that point.
The T-62's 115mm gun was more than dangerous enough for any tank at the time, including the Chieftain, let alone the Centurion, M48, and M60. APFSDS out of a smoothbore cannon was a game changer.
115mm vs. Chieftain: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0t-Vi4unTLQ
115mm vs. M60: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sf70t8ehyNM
That channel also has numerous tests by and against Centurion, T-54/55 and T-62. The 105mm looks like it would have had a tough time with a T-72 before APFSDS ammo became available.
so...prior to about 1946 or so? Sabot round penetrators go back a LONG time, Chanman. How long? Comet used them.
That said, battlefield conditions matter, as do battlefield results.
Centurion was designed at the tail end of the 2nd World War, the tanks used by Egypt and the other Arab allies were (at least structurally) designed post-war with the lessons learned IN that war.
and the older design still kicked the dogsnot out of newer designs. Employment is part of that, but also doctrine, and especially reliability. Tanks that start when you turn the key switch, and drive without failing, and have guns that aren't maybe the best, but they're good enough...and reliable.
would it have done as well against Soviet crews on Soviet machines with all the soviet goodies that they didn't export?
maybe. it's a 'maybe', not a certainty, but it wasn't technological superiority that let the M-50 Super Shermans do as well as they did with what amounts to a 1930s chassis with a 1940's gun in the hands of crews from the 1960s against designs finalized in the 1950s and 1960s.
It's that, for that kind of conflict, the technologies matured in the 1940s to the point that issues like training, doctrine, and support doctrines had more to do with success, than superior or newer tank design.
and again, the tank that runs and goes and whose main gun goes bang when you fire it, is superior to the tank you have down for maintenance (all other factors being equal).
one of the reasons most NATO designs had four man crews while Soviet designs had lower profiles and more compact (harder to hit) layouts with autoloaders, is that it's easier to keep that four-man tank in the field via maintenance and upkeep, (and situational awareness because it's STILL the case that first shot usually wins a tank duel), than it is with a three man crew for tasks like repairing damaged track, lubing the bogeys, and doing general upkeep to stay in the fight. Soviet doctrine was to let the second wave finish the job so keeping the damn thing running wasn't as significant a priority.
-
so...prior to about 1946 or so? Sabot round penetrators go back a LONG time, Chanman. How long? Comet used them.
No, Fin-Stabilized rounds with greater length-to-diameter ratios don't go back that far or else we'd have seen tanks going back to smoothbore guns earlier than they did.
Yes, development of spin-stabilized subcalibre rounds go back to the 1930s and saw use in WW2 with the 6-pounder and 17-pounder.
The internal ballistics still applies to tank or even battleship shells. Sectional density and dimensions determine how much twist is needed to stabilize the projectile and the dimensions of long-rod penetrators. An American 120mm round hav a penetrator just ranging from 22-27mm mm in diameter depending on the model.
APDS round in and out of its sabot next to an APFSDS round:
(https://imgur.com/oTIhJCf.jpg)
Or to illustrate the differences from the various 105mm rounds listed at wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/105%C3%97617mmR#Armour-piercing_discarding_sabot_(APDS))
APDS:
Slpprj m/62: Tungsten carbide, 5.9kg propellant, 1450 m/s muzzle velocity, 4.5kg projectile, 1.82kg sabot, 57mm projectile, Penetration: 200 mm at 30° obliquity at 1500 m, 140 mm at 55° at 700 m
APFSDS:
H6/62: Tungsten-nickel-iron alloy, 5.62kg propellant, 1490 m/s muzzle velocity, 3.59kg projectile, 2.67kg sabot, 25mm projectile, penetration: 360mm at 2000m
That said, battlefield conditions matter, as do battlefield results.
Centurion was designed at the tail end of the 2nd World War, the tanks used by Egypt and the other Arab allies were (at least structurally) designed post-war with the lessons learned IN that war.
and the older design still kicked the dogsnot out of newer designs. Employment is part of that, but also doctrine, and especially reliability. Tanks that start when you turn the key switch, and drive without failing, and have guns that aren't maybe the best, but they're good enough...and reliable.
Varies. Both sides ran everything from WW2 antiques (M50/M51 Shermans on the ISraeli side, T-34s, SU-100/152 on the Arab side). The T-54/55 is a contemporary with the Centurion and both got a number of upgrades. M48s and Centurions were sold and operated by both sides and the Israelis eventually ended up with and operating captured T-54/55 and PT-76 as well. That's a troop issue, but gear is not clear-cut at all. Everyone was operating everything they could get their hands on.
would it have done as well against Soviet crews on Soviet machines with all the soviet goodies that they didn't export?
maybe. it's a 'maybe', not a certainty, but it wasn't technological superiority that let the M-50 Super Shermans do as well as they did with what amounts to a 1930s chassis with a 1940's gun in the hands of crews from the 1960s against designs finalized in the 1950s and 1960s.
My point is only that T-72s were not involved in this conflict. The Syrians had some in time for the fighting in the early 80s though.
It's that, for that kind of conflict, the technologies matured in the 1940s to the point that issues like training, doctrine, and support doctrines had more to do with success, than superior or newer tank design.
Training, doctrine and logistics have always had more to do with success than a weapons stat line. That was true in WW2 too.
and again, the tank that runs and goes and whose main gun goes bang when you fire it, is superior to the tank you have down for maintenance (all other factors being equal).
one of the reasons most NATO designs had four man crews while Soviet designs had lower profiles and more compact (harder to hit) layouts with autoloaders, is that it's easier to keep that four-man tank in the field via maintenance and upkeep, (and situational awareness because it's STILL the case that first shot usually wins a tank duel), than it is with a three man crew for tasks like repairing damaged track, lubing the bogeys, and doing general upkeep to stay in the fight. Soviet doctrine was to let the second wave finish the job so keeping the damn thing running wasn't as significant a priority.
None of the tanks in the 1973 war had autoloaders though. My only point was that in 1973, most tanks were at the very least quite dangerous to everyone else's tanks in that war. Centurion can stop 100mm AP ammunition most of the time from the front, but there's a lot of caveats. The same goes for the T-62 and the 90 and 105mm ammo of the period.
The 115mm smoothbore and widespread use of APFSDS changed that just like HEAT rounds did because it tipped the armour/weapons race decisively to the weapons side until material science (composite armour, NERA) caught up. It shows up on the field the way the 17 pounder or the 88mm gun did in WW2 by making everything vulnerable at pretty much all practical ranges. No T-72s needed to make life exceptionally dangerous for Israeli tankers. DM23 rounds from T-62 and ATGMs already did that.
-
Do you think of autoloaded ATGMs?
-
Indeed. It's why I say that if video games like World of Tanks had a Reliability stat that represented a vehicle's chances of spontaneous equipment failure, nobody would play Germany. Especially not heavy tanks or TDs.
No body would play any war game if there where remotely realistic, I get frustrated enough with the existing parameters of PVP.
-
You're right, but I've just run into too many people who look at the stats of tanks in games (which are based primarily on the theoretical maximum performance under perfectly optimal conditions) and think that it's how the tanks actually work in real life.
-
You're right, but I've just run into too many people who look at the stats of tanks in games (which are based primarily on the theoretical maximum performance under perfectly optimal conditions) and think that it's how the tanks actually work in real life.
People do that, because it's a GAME (and because it's hella lot easier to code with that assumption, than to add in all the little variables that exist in reality with its randomness and bad luck.)
-
People do that with rifles and FPS stats as well, you can't stop people from thinking that there is a arbitrary number to every and X has to be better than Y
The real world is allot more sloppy and chaotic but people can't accept that.
Games are made to be fun but if they are based on anything real world, god help you if your games arbitrary numbers don't match how that weapon should preform in someone's mind palace :P
-
No body would play any war game if there where remotely realistic, I get frustrated enough with the existing parameters of PVP.
Steel Panthers game, does have random vehicle break-downs and even moral-issues; an infantry-unit fired on my lead tank with small-arms fire and it routed it's movement back the other way. It's not that frustrating because it's usually company or battalion size action and there's a lot going on.
-
1944: Across the Rhine also had breakdowns as well ad ammo and fuel shortage, I remember that with Germans breakdowns were not much of issue as I often had to leave up to half of my battalion out of battle due to lack of fuel and ammo.
-
This isn't a War Thunder/ WoT forum! :D
People do that with rifles and FPS stats as well, you can't stop people from thinking that there is a arbitrary number to every and X has to be better than Y
The real world is allot more sloppy and chaotic but people can't accept that.
Games are made to be fun but if they are based on anything real world, god help you if your games arbitrary numbers don't match how that weapon should preform in someone's mind palace :P
-
This isn't a War Thunder/ WoT forum! :D
Obviously not. The moderators actually enforce the rules here.
-
And no one has posted any classified military information yet.
-
This isn't a War Thunder/ WoT forum! :D
of course not no one has leaked classified info about their favorite mech to justify improving their stats
-
Obviously not. The moderators actually enforce the rules here.
Are you sure about that? :D :D
I will bring a point about German reliability issues. A few years ago a Panther was found in a lake (No, it is not the Panzer of the lake!) and it was in a very good condition. It ended on a repair shop and they discovered that at least five parts were sabotaged from the factory. That meant that the Panther was, more or less, working even with sabotaged pieces. That means it was good or just good luck?
-
I will bring a point about German reliability issues. A few years ago a Panther was found in a lake (No, it is not the Panzer of the lake!) and it was in a very good condition. It ended on a repair shop and they discovered that at least five parts were sabotaged from the factory.
This must be it:
http://archaeofeed.com/2017/04/possible-remains-of-panther-tank-found-at-lakes-bottom/ (http://archaeofeed.com/2017/04/possible-remains-of-panther-tank-found-at-lakes-bottom/)
I can’t find any articles on the factory sabotage of this Panther. If anyone runs across one, please share. Thx.
-
Are you sure about that? :D :D
I will bring a point about German reliability issues. A few years ago a Panther was found in a lake (No, it is not the Panzer of the lake!) and it was in a very good condition. It ended on a repair shop and they discovered that at least five parts were sabotaged from the factory. That meant that the Panther was, more or less, working even with sabotaged pieces. That means it was good or just good luck?
I'd say it's "just good luck", and maybe the determination of soldiers not to die might have been involved, or that the systems in question, while sabotaged, weren't vital, or the tank didn't get far enough for the sabotage to be relevant.
-
This must be it:
http://archaeofeed.com/2017/04/possible-remains-of-panther-tank-found-at-lakes-bottom/ (http://archaeofeed.com/2017/04/possible-remains-of-panther-tank-found-at-lakes-bottom/)
I can’t find any articles on the factory sabotage of this Panther. If anyone runs across one, please share. Thx.
I remember a documentary about it, but it was actually sunk in bog, so they had to dig it up. While they chucked up factory defects to sabotage, it could also be a consequence of both slave workers and German workforce receiving next to no training.
-
A lot of that slave work was POWs, which gave significant incentive to sabotage production by producing defective parts.
Also, the quality control at most (or maybe all) German factories had been eliminated in an effort to speed up production.
-
It depends, there were three categories of slave workers: POWs, concentration camp inmates and civilians from occupied countries who were forced to volunteer for poorly paid work. They tried to use civilians for armament work, but as Himmler was becoming increasingly influential he got more and more camp inmates into industrial work. So while some workers might consciously sabotage their work (and risk brutal reprisal), most of the defects would be consequence of poor training of the unskilled workers doing work of skilled workers, under heavy pressure to meet the quota. Off course every such defect would be portrayed as sabotage, it's easier for people who went through hell as slaves to nazis to believe they resisted while being exploited.
-
I mean, if you want to talk reliability the last Sherman was retired from active service in 2018, where it was used for training purposes in Paraguay.
-
And T-34/85 isare still being used in Yemen.
-
And no one has posted any classified military information yet.
I beg to differ...
Concealed for your protection: Armourweave
(https://scontent-ord5-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/339190844_242477298172928_1797853616712234598_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_p843x403&_nc_cat=107&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=hwLpvMj8aCAAX9gEgUL&_nc_ht=scontent-ord5-2.xx&oh=00_AfAMWIJgjHfjx6Tm0o4PbFcCSoocwpJ0o9h4e0Ar4reGoQ&oe=6434041D)
::)
TT
-
:toofunny:
-
Alas, AI-generated (just check the hands ...). But definitely amusing.
-
Definitely still funny! ;D
-
WW1 tanks. Larger than you think!
Saint-Chamond and its petrol-electric drive
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuTA9ewNb6k
A7V and Mark IV replicas
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztkKJUQB4rU
-
Impressive, but what I'd really like to see is videos of the Mark VIII or Char 2C (or replicas) in motion.
-
Been enjoying the "ERA Goblins" by Florkofcows on social media, which has become a bit of a meme..
(https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/002/560/732/bd0.jpg)
Some of my favorites people have posted:
(https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/002/572/429/118.jpg)
(A leclerc tank.. )
(https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/002/569/552/3ed)
(https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/002/570/092/6a3.png)
(https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/002/569/366/3e0.jpg)
(https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/002/571/762/d50)
-
(https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/002/572/429/118.jpg)
(A leclerc tank.. )
I'm pretty sure that's an AMX-30.
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/47/55/4e/47554e21373cf93ddbb13694d1f784fa--amx--combat-gear.jpg)
Leclerc for reference:
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ff/bf/a4/ffbfa4a1ea2ef20c4cdb17dd9f628b57.jpg)
-
(https://i.imgur.com/017dKKj.jpg)
-
I'm pretty sure that's an AMX-30.
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/47/55/4e/47554e21373cf93ddbb13694d1f784fa--amx--combat-gear.jpg)
Leclerc for reference:
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ff/bf/a4/ffbfa4a1ea2ef20c4cdb17dd9f628b57.jpg)
Guess the poster got their tanks mixed up. They labelled it a leclerc
-
(https://i.imgur.com/017dKKj.jpg)
Be funnier if that officer was either Commandant Lassard (George Gaynes) or Lloyd Bridges from Hot Shots shaking Steve Carell as "Michael Scott" from The Office.
TT
-
Meanwhile in the Periphery:
(https://scontent-ord5-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/341889784_752470383181239_369703705692830703_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_p843x403&_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=s-9aJ9MGT2cAX8Gy4L5&_nc_ht=scontent-ord5-2.xx&oh=00_AfAQSaEZTz9ckeCIUnCIb-wGDI52GCval7Cj6kwvGPYf7Q&oe=6447996A)
Cyber-Horsepower!
TT
-
I like the smooth articulations in the horse legs.
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fuzv2iQXsAIS2Hi.jpg)
An M3 Stuart with a 90mm main gun replacing the 37mm it started life with. It's adorable.
-
Talk about a glass cannon! :o
-
Hopefully it's a low pressure gun. Otherwise the recoil is going to be nuts!
-
Yeah, the attempt to put a 90mm on an M18 caused problems with trying to fire the gun, and the M3 is several tons lighter than the M18.
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fuzv2iQXsAIS2Hi.jpg)
An M3 Stuart with a 90mm main gun replacing the 37mm it started life with. It's adorable.
So how many rounds fired before you mission kill the vehicle
-
https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/brazil/bernardini-ccl-x1-pioneiroo
it was extensively rebuilt. it used a low pressure 90mm, firing HE rounds. so definitely more of an infantry support platform than meant for hunting other tanks.
and very very extensively rebuilt.. this is the type of tank they started with before rebuilding it..
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/d4/b2/b8/d4b2b80b75515a0779ed754ad05c8983.jpg)
and they got a lot of service out of the refitted M3 light's..
like a rocket artillery version:
(http://www.forte.jor.br/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/museu-militar-conde-de-linhares-foto-4-nunao1.jpg)
they even experimented with lengthened hulls on the X1A1.. and effectively scrapped the original base hull on the X1A2. but by that point they would have basically be building 95% of the tank themselves.
they also used the hull for a bridge layer, experimented with an APC like mortar carrier version, and developed an artillery tractor...
basically, they pulled a kowloon on the M3/M5 light.
-
Interesting article, thanks! :thumbsup:
-
The Cascaval and Urutu are also based on the M8 Armored car from WWII, which Brazil loved. The Cascaval and urutu are still in use here in Ecuador, as well as some units in Colombia as well.
Damon.
-
Man, I keep seeing people who think that the P1000 Ratte was a real design that could have really been built and not the meth-fueled fantasy or practical joke that it actually was.
-
The image of a ****** Battleship Turret on treads is a amusing one but 'meth fueled fantasy' is indeed the definition for it.
-
Could it be built? Sure, the Germans built 35,000 ton battleships at the time. Creating a steel building with a battleship turret on top isn't that much different. Could it move under its own power? Probably not, and it'd be the target of every bomber the Allies had.
-
I've seen at least one source that claimed that the turret it was intended to carry was 750 tons, which makes the idea that the entire vehicle would have been 1000 tons seem extremely fanciful.
-
Man, I keep seeing people who think that the P1000 Ratte was a real design that could have really been built and not the meth-fueled fantasy or practical joke that it actually was.
There are also many people who think this hilarity was real
(https://preview.redd.it/weluyhedo8o61.jpg?width=1080&crop=smart&auto=webp&v=enabled&s=21a0f220dc331af6f29eeb81d48e474786672e8e)
-
Guess it just goes to show you that some people will believe anything.
-
There were concepts bigger than the Ratte:
https://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.php?armor_id=480 (https://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.php?armor_id=480)
-
Yeah, and it still gets talked about how it was "in development." Which heavily exaggerates the actual situation.
-
That it could conceivably be built isn't in much dispute tbh, there are bigger vehicles in existence now, showing it could be done physically. Like the bagger 288 (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagger_288)
But there was no way that germany could have built it and gotten it to work with the time and resources they had left. So it stayed a paper project.
-
The thing is that it wasn't even a paper project. It was effectively just a doodle on a napkin. And it's possible that it wasn't even that much- there's inconclusive evidence that both the Ratte and Monster were actually fabrications that engineers made up after the war was over.
And I'd point out that the Bagger was designed twenty years after the war using technology that wasn't available during it and it requires an external power source (while only having a top speed of less than half a kilometer an hour) so it only qualifies as mobile in the loosest sense of the word.
-
There are also many people who think this hilarity was real
(https://preview.redd.it/weluyhedo8o61.jpg?width=1080&crop=smart&auto=webp&v=enabled&s=21a0f220dc331af6f29eeb81d48e474786672e8e)
It makes a great Boondoggle project for many SciFi games. Just try to visualize it turning...
-
Just try to imagine fixing a track or replacing a roadwheel.
-
I'm pretty sure that's one of the reasons NASA's crawler has four separate tracks. 8)
-
The thing is that it wasn't even a paper project. It was effectively just a doodle on a napkin.
There’s correspondence, requirements documents, models, etc. for the Ratte and Monster here:
https://www.tankarchives.ca/2018/12/steel-sarcophagus.html?m=1 (https://www.tankarchives.ca/2018/12/steel-sarcophagus.html?m=1)
There are even articles in German that predate the war on similar superheavy “coastal defense tanks”, designs developed by engineers that later worked on the Ratte.
None of this means that the Ratte or Monster ever would have been practical or workable. But these projects definitely existed, and they became more than back-of-the-envelope notions before Speer put a stop to them.
-
I'm pretty sure that's one of the reasons NASA's crawler has four separate tracks. 8)
NASA’s crawler-transporters have four separate track assemblies because they were built by the Marion Power Shovel Company in Ohio and then shipped in sections to be put together in Florida.
-
And I'm sure Marion had procedures to repair their tracks already written too... :)
-
Just try to imagine fixing a track or replacing a roadwheel.
Nope at that point congrads we have a new fixed emplacement
-
In a different vein, I was thinking that, without the turrets, that thing would make a passable self-propelled bridge. Not an AVLB--a bridge itself. Just give it a hydraulic drop-ramp and each end and you can just drive it over a stream of narrow of a river and drive the rest of the outfit across to continue the fight.
And no, I don't think even that would work. Maybe when we get Ogreverse or Bolo-level technology, and even then... ::)
-
Maybe you can orient it EXACTLY to the crossing point you want to cover when you are building it in the assembly line. And just drive to the destination when needed.
-
In a different vein, I was thinking that, without the turrets, that thing would make a passable self-propelled bridge. Not an AVLB--a bridge itself. Just give it a hydraulic drop-ramp and each end and you can just drive it over a stream of narrow of a river and drive the rest of the outfit across to continue the fight.
And no, I don't think even that would work. Maybe when we get Ogreverse or Bolo-level technology, and even then... ::)
there are three factors;
1. Ground pressure to avoid sinking.
2. total weight (for bridges and crossings) where it's not so much ground pressure per square foot, but rather a matter of total weight vs. structural capacity of bridges...
3. Engine power and fuel duration, or conversely, can your structural materials in the vehicle handle enough power to move it, and for how far and how long?
IOW the mechanical limits of your technology. It does no good at all to have a self propelled gun that tears its own chassis apart on the cross-country because your steel's the wrong alloy, nor does it do much good if you have to have tankers trailing behind it for a quarter mile to get it anywhere under its own power, and if your infantry can out-walk it by walking, there's a problem there too.
likewise if it stalls on a five percent grade.
the MAUS prototypes had problems with anything that wasn't flat, paved, and durable, and those weren't even at full weight, Ratte would have failed on some, most, or all of those conditions because Germany lacked good sources of the right rare earths to make steel that could handle it for the gearboxes and suspensions.
and that's without being bombed to the edge of extinction.
-
Even keeping the ground pressue down isn't certain to be enough. ANY surface can be regarded as a "bridge" of sorts, in that the total load-bearing area is actually larger than just the contact area.
A 1000-ton tank, even if you keep the ground pressure low and manage decent P/W ratio, is likely to run into problems unless it's running on a very solid surface.
Never mind trying to turn the thing around! :D
-
The Ratte was so big and slow that the Allies could have attacked it using B-17s and B-24s, much less dive bombers.
-
Found on facebook
(https://scontent-ord5-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/352560399_263105866396014_431353810141552868_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_s600x600&_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=2c4854&_nc_ohc=lcxi1qXNx4MAX-OpFLq&_nc_ht=scontent-ord5-2.xx&oh=00_AfAcWaLtojHVbBWovEd3iVa1QF0PI7VJhXc_wJ_0pQUjfg&oe=6486CCF6)
https://tankhistoria.com/experimental/the-minenraumer/?fbclid=IwAR1Ay-faehO1n5fuF5vLsz2Kvmj345uXEPIEnkqyCC_SZ_8OnVTEfUZYFLE
(https://tankhistoria.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Alan-Wilson-CC-BY-SA-2.0-1-1024x683-1.jpg?ezimgfmt=ng%3Awebp%2Fngcb3%2Frs%3Adevice%2Frscb3-1)
-
footed wheels, the precoursor to treads. not a bad choice for what was basically an armored tractor.
-
I guess they realised that detachable mine roller is a much better option.
-
I guess they weren't big on the metric system if they built a tank with ten foot wheels.
-
Bwah bwah bwah bwah ....
-
I guess they weren't big on the metric system if they built a tank with ten foot wheels.
10ft is near enough to 3m that the specs probably called for 3 meters and the missing 48mm/1.8 inches didn't get noticed.
-
Ummm ... count the boots ...
-
Pretty similar idea to the "monster truck" Sherman (https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=sherman+m4a2+t10). Failed for much the same reasons too as I understand it.
-
Found on facebook
(https://scontent-ord5-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/352560399_263105866396014_431353810141552868_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_s600x600&_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=2c4854&_nc_ohc=lcxi1qXNx4MAX-OpFLq&_nc_ht=scontent-ord5-2.xx&oh=00_AfAcWaLtojHVbBWovEd3iVa1QF0PI7VJhXc_wJ_0pQUjfg&oe=6486CCF6)
https://tankhistoria.com/experimental/the-minenraumer/?fbclid=IwAR1Ay-faehO1n5fuF5vLsz2Kvmj345uXEPIEnkqyCC_SZ_8OnVTEfUZYFLE
(https://tankhistoria.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Alan-Wilson-CC-BY-SA-2.0-1-1024x683-1.jpg?ezimgfmt=ng%3Awebp%2Fngcb3%2Frs%3Adevice%2Frscb3-1)
No, that’s a Clan tank pulled from one of the TROs.
-
So, the US Army's not-a-light-tank has a name: the M10 Booker Combat Vehicle.
(https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AA1cnKX0.img?w=1920&h=1080&q=60&m=2&f=jpg)
(https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AA1cnNye.img?w=1920&h=1080&q=60&m=2&f=jpg)
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/the-army-s-new-m10-booker-is-its-first-combat-vehicle-named-for-a-post-9-11-soldier/ar-AA1cnNym?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=9b4877e5f2a9409f8360634bc1e61b98&ei=39 (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/the-army-s-new-m10-booker-is-its-first-combat-vehicle-named-for-a-post-9-11-soldier/ar-AA1cnNym?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=9b4877e5f2a9409f8360634bc1e61b98&ei=39)
-
Okay, here's a question I had that I thought someone here might know the answer to.
The Jagdtiger had phenomenally thick armor in World War 2, superior to that of any other land combat vehicle during the war aside from a few prototypes.
But given the advances in armor-piercing munitions during the Cold War, how would it have fair against something like the M48? Would the 90mm (or 105mm in the M48A5) have been sufficient to penetrate the Jagdtiger's frontal armor?
-
Jagdtiger was 250mm vertical on the casemate's front, while the M48's 90mm had developed a round (that was not accepted) that could pierce 280mm at 30 degrees, so I'd say that it's pretty likely the Patton could punch through a Jagdtiger. Penetrating the front glacis was even easier, since it was only 150mm, so definitely hitting the hull. The 105mm with APFSDS rounds would easily kill a Jagdtiger, since it was basically the renown British L7.
Granted, that penetration doesn't say at what range it can do it at - 100m, 500m, or 2000m; that does mean a lot when it comes to KE projectiles.
-
Sniped! But I typed more words to say the same thing ;D
So according to General Wiki, the Jagdtiger had 250mm of armour on the casemate, 150mm on the hull.
Not allowing for slope, the 90mm on the M48 had about 160mm penetration against RHA (which I believed the JT was using - prepared to be corrected.) Late model HVAP rounds for the 90mm were rated up to 300mm or so.
The 105mm on the M48A5 is the Royal Ordnance L7 from Centurion. The APFSDS round for this had listed penetration of 400mm against RHA. Yes, it was just that much better than previous Western cannons.
However, the turretless nature of the JT, it's mechanical unreliability (same eggine & transmission as the Tiger I, but another 20 tons or so on top), and the need to keep the gun locked down during movement else it would get out of alignment (necessitating a crewman to exit the hull and unlock the barrel ...) means that in anything else than an ambush situation, the M48s, even with 90mm guns, would have a good chance to get around to flank or rear. where they could penetrate.
Otto Carius' "Tigers in the Mud" a recommended read on Tiger I, II, and Jagdtiger. He loved the first, coped with the second, not impressed with the third.
-
There was also the advent of HEAT rounds which is why for a while some NATO tanks basically didn't both with armour outside of being proof against autocannon rounds and heavy calibre machine guns because no matter how thick you slap a lump of armour on a tank, a heat round will go "thank you very much." and burrow through it.
Its why the Leopard 1 and AMX-30 were so lightly protected, relying on speed and the ability to track and engage you faster than an opponent could, because it was felt at the time that HEAT basically rendered thick armour obsolete. And this was basically the case until you start seeing composites and ceramics being used in armour. The US and UK kept heavier armour on their tanks because they were also concerned about APFSDS rounds too and their ilk whilst France and Germany focused almost exclusively on HEAT as the threat.
-
Jagdtiger was 250mm vertical on the casemate's front, while the M48's 90mm had developed a round (that was not accepted) that could pierce 280mm at 30 degrees, so I'd say that it's pretty likely the Patton could punch through a Jagdtiger. Penetrating the front glacis was even easier, since it was only 150mm, so definitely hitting the hull. The 105mm with APFSDS rounds would easily kill a Jagdtiger, since it was basically the renown British L7.
Granted, that penetration doesn't say at what range it can do it at - 100m, 500m, or 2000m; that does mean a lot when it comes to KE projectiles.
Sniped! But I typed more words to say the same thing ;D
So according to General Wiki, the Jagdtiger had 250mm of armour on the casemate, 150mm on the hull.
Not allowing for slope, the 90mm on the M48 had about 160mm penetration against RHA (which I believed the JT was using - prepared to be corrected.) Late model HVAP rounds for the 90mm were rated up to 300mm or so.
The 105mm on the M48A5 is the Royal Ordnance L7 from Centurion. The APFSDS round for this had listed penetration of 400mm against RHA. Yes, it was just that much better than previous Western cannons.
However, the turretless nature of the JT, it's mechanical unreliability (same eggine & transmission as the Tiger I, but another 20 tons or so on top), and the need to keep the gun locked down during movement else it would get out of alignment (necessitating a crewman to exit the hull and unlock the barrel ...) means that in anything else than an ambush situation, the M48s, even with 90mm guns, would have a good chance to get around to flank or rear. where they could penetrate.
Otto Carius' "Tigers in the Mud" a recommended read on Tiger I, II, and Jagdtiger. He loved the first, coped with the second, not impressed with the third.
Thanks. I had a feeling this was probably the case, but was just in one of those late night "what if this happened" moods.
-
We all learned something from the question, so I call it a win! :thumbsup:
-
There was also the advent of HEAT rounds which is why for a while some NATO tanks basically didn't both with armour outside of being proof against autocannon rounds and heavy calibre machine guns because no matter how thick you slap a lump of armour on a tank, a heat round will go "thank you very much." and burrow through it.
Its why the Leopard 1 and AMX-30 were so lightly protected, relying on speed and the ability to track and engage you faster than an opponent could, because it was felt at the time that HEAT basically rendered thick armour obsolete. And this was basically the case until you start seeing composites and ceramics being used in armour. The US and UK kept heavier armour on their tanks because they were also concerned about APFSDS rounds too and their ilk whilst France and Germany focused almost exclusively on HEAT as the threat.
and why when Composite Armors were developed to the point they could be layered over the whole tank without running the cost through the roof, that trend reversed. since Composite armors worked so much better stopping HEAT rounds than hardened steel, once you could build tanks out of the stuff you got vehicles that were very tough agaisnt the common munitions of the day. (which just led to increased development of kinetic impact munitions like saboted long-rod penetrators, which Composite armor was weaker to.. the red queens race never stops.)
-
We live in a "weapons" universe. BattleTech is an "armor" universe.
-
Otto Carius' "Tigers in the Mud" a recommended read on Tiger I, II, and Jagdtiger. He loved the first, coped with the second, not impressed with the third.
That was an excellent read. Thanks for the recommendation. :thumbsup:
-
It's good to read books from the other side's perspective. Two others not particularly connected with armour are
- The First and the Last, by Adolf Galand
- Inside the Soviet Army, by Viktor Suvorov
Sometimes we see from the "now" perspective what they say is not factual. But it's important to know what they believed to be true at the time, which helps explain why things happened in certain ways.
-
Sometimes we see from the "now" perspective what they say is not factual. But it's important to know what they believed to be true at the time, which helps explain why things happened in certain ways.
This is an important point, but one, I think, that is frequently lost when talking about pop history. A perfect example is Deathtraps. Of course Belton Cooper is going to have a negative perspective on Shermans, because one of his jobs was to hose the corpses out of knocked out tanks. So what he wrote was true from the perspective of an ordinance officer. Is that true from the perspective of a tanker? How about a tank battalion commander? Corps leader? Etc.
But that message gets confused in the pop history environment, where I see frequently this book being cited for why the Sherman was such a terrible tank.
Damon.
-
Found on facebook
(https://scontent-ord5-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/352560399_263105866396014_431353810141552868_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_s600x600&_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=2c4854&_nc_ohc=lcxi1qXNx4MAX-OpFLq&_nc_ht=scontent-ord5-2.xx&oh=00_AfAcWaLtojHVbBWovEd3iVa1QF0PI7VJhXc_wJ_0pQUjfg&oe=6486CCF6)
https://tankhistoria.com/experimental/the-minenraumer/?fbclid=IwAR1Ay-faehO1n5fuF5vLsz2Kvmj345uXEPIEnkqyCC_SZ_8OnVTEfUZYFLE
(https://tankhistoria.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Alan-Wilson-CC-BY-SA-2.0-1-1024x683-1.jpg?ezimgfmt=ng%3Awebp%2Fngcb3%2Frs%3Adevice%2Frscb3-1)
The Germans weren't alone in building "eccentric" mine clearance vehicles. Ladies and Gentlemen, I give your the US Mine Exploder T8...
(https://th.bing.com/th/id/OIP.Ni7STkgHTcxkmzkfD7dVjwHaEa?pid=ImgDet&rs=1)
And the even nuttier Mine Exploder T10.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a7/b9/d2/a7b9d259f38d3e95317bda8e8c22c6c1.png)
-
Looks like the MTLB is still doing what it has akways done best--be modified to do things it was likeluy never envisioned to be doing sixty or so years ago:
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a44787818/mt-lb-apc-mutant-soviet-armored-vehicles-ukraine/ (https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a44787818/mt-lb-apc-mutant-soviet-armored-vehicles-ukraine/)
Many of those modifications are things we have seen before in this thread, but they are worth seeing again.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FiRQx7UXwBsGM2S?format=jpg&name=900x900)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FqY3vbtWwAAx_bN?format=jpg&name=small)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fz5ThriWYAAfKVp?format=jpg&name=900x900)
And something the designers probably did envision if their new vehicle ended up on the front lines...
(https://hips.hearstapps.com/hmg-prod/images/this-photograph-taken-on-september-14-2022-shows-a-news-photo-1691755864.jpg?resize=2048:*)
And, in other news, have a walk down memory lane with some Shermans for company. Good historical anedotes and iamgery of the doughty M4:
https://mikesresearch.com/2019/01/27/m4a3e8-sherman/#:~:text=Note%20the%20section%20of%20corduroy%20matting%20on%20the,be%20used%20for%20unditching%20or%20filling%20in%20obstacles. (https://mikesresearch.com/2019/01/27/m4a3e8-sherman/#:~:text=Note%20the%20section%20of%20corduroy%20matting%20on%20the,be%20used%20for%20unditching%20or%20filling%20in%20obstacles.)
-
smile motorized infantry
-
Ha, ha... not even with your special operators...
(https://www.toysforbigboys.com/skyrunner-light-sport-aircraft/[/width]
[img width=500]https://silodrome.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Skyrunner-6.jpeg)
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-special-forces-all-terrain-flying-vehicle-2016-9
(https://www.businessinsider.com/us-special-forces-all-terrain-flying-vehicle-2016-9)
-
That article is from 2016.
-
Looks about on time for procurement speeds
-
Hilariously, its ground speed is faster than its airspeed... ;D
-
Someone wanted a gyrocopter with less inherent comedic value 😝
-
This one's for @Failure16
Blackhorse in West Germany (1985)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJ72kyNZ3OE
-
That video was SO painfully 80s! ;D
-
Isn't that Brigadier Lethbridge-Stewart at about 1:43? :D
-
That video was SO painfully 80s! ;D
Not enough neon, legwarmers, or feathered hair to be painfully 80s.
-
That video was SO painfully 80s! ;D
.
Hopefully the boys didn't hear that. But all that groovy hair. I could hear the whimpers of a hundred 1990s/2000s-era sergeants major from here.
And then I smiled.
This one's for @Failure16
Cheers, brother.
Eaglehorse!
Allons, Allons, the pride of cavalry,
The best damn regiment that you will ever see...
Long years of war, though others quit, no Blackhorse troopers would.
-
We're not even going to talk about the 'staches... ::)
-
We're not even going to talk about the 'staches... ::)
It was a sad day for the Navy when they torpedoed the groovy facial hair in the 80s.
-
A sad day indeed! :/
-
About the 12 minute mark, I think you see a Cobra doing the rocket lob that we've been seeing attack helos doing in Ukraine
-
Very well could be. Hell, it was a technique that went back to Vietnam at the very least. Good eye.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPnOekrwDtg
There's a fantasy management RPG idea in the making - a party of resourceful scoundrel freelance camp followers...
-
Hilarious! :D
-
You can't keep a good snorker away from Tommy, nosiree.
-
Just found out this was a thing:
(https://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/obMh4tx.jpg)
(http://www.wardrawings.be/WW2/Images/1-Vehicles(bis)/Japan/Files/5-AmphibiousTanks/Type3/Boards/Board-1.jpg)
(https://preview.redd.it/53nysulowxg71.jpg?width=1024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c5a5ce230da8c336a1e63522c6e7213e221cd546)
https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/jap/type-3-ka-chi.php
-
Yeah, multiple nations experimented with amphibious tanks.
For the most part, they sucked- either they were too tank like, in which case the amphibious part didn't really work, or they had to cut so much armor and firepower in order to function amphibiously that they were ineffective as combat vehicles.
-
Yeah, multiple nations experimented with amphibious tanks.
For the most part, they sucked- either they were too tank like, in which case the amphibious part didn't really work, or they had to cut so much armor and firepower in order to function amphibiously that they were ineffective as combat vehicles.
I don't know about amphibious tanks being ineffective as "combat vehicles"... Amphibious MBTs are certainly problematic (e.g. the Sherman DD). But since the significant problem is armoring them, if you don't aim for a heavily armored unit amphibious tanks are quite workable. Today it's mostly a case of "do I want to pay for the capability", and concluding that it's just cheaper to get bridging equipment.
-
Modern amphibious vehicles can work pretty well in specific roles, but the amphibious tanks of World War 2 were for the most part a failure. Aside from the Donald Ducks, the majority of them were very lightweight and carried so little armor that some of them weren't even protected from small arms fire, while their armament was similarly weak enough that it was ineffective against most anything they would be facing.
-
There's 'amphibious' as in 'can float across a perfectly still pond to the terror of the crew and passengers' and amphibious as in 'a boat with AFV characteristics'.
For example, the ZBD-04A, standard IFV of the PLA Ground Forces is supposedly 'amphibious' with a pair of water jets (or the USMC LAV-25 Piranha II derivatives with propellers or the BMP-1/2, or even the Bradley in theory)
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/16/91/69/16916952a5d4bbff17702d13ea18e63d.jpg)
Now compare that to the ZBD/ZTD-05 used by the PLAN Marine Corps which look more at home in the water than on land
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-nr33pwpgU2U/XNrVYljSivI/AAAAAAABBNw/tHjbT9yudiYogmDBth_opAxJSYT_reD5ACLcBGAs/s1600/ZTD-05-100.jpg)
(https://i.redd.it/chwgttfjsnt31.jpg)
-
I just thought it looked funny (as in it actually made me chuckle) and was amused it actually excited and wasn't some fever dream like the flying M-113
-
and wasn't some fever dream like the flying M-113
Hand me an aspirin...
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SwHqLtK_TpY&pp=ygUWRmx5aW5nIE0tMTEzIGFlcm9nYXZpbg%3D%3D (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SwHqLtK_TpY&pp=ygUWRmx5aW5nIE0tMTEzIGFlcm9nYXZpbg%3D%3D)
-
Hysterically funny! The mix of Bond and OG BSG music is over the top! ;D
-
Yeah, apparently people forget helicopters exist and decide making ground vehicles airborne is a much more practical idea.
https://www.cobanengineering.com/archive/flyinghumveer.asp
https://www.autoevolution.com/news/military-flying-car-to-be-built-by-terrafugia-27524.html
(https://www.fiddlersgreen.net/aircraft/Flying-Humvee/IMAGES/PS-Flying-Humvee.jpg)
-
The precursor to the LAM.
-
Hand me an aspirin...
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SwHqLtK_TpY&pp=ygUWRmx5aW5nIE0tMTEzIGFlcm9nYXZpbg%3D%3D (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SwHqLtK_TpY&pp=ygUWRmx5aW5nIE0tMTEzIGFlcm9nYXZpbg%3D%3D)
worse in that sparks also insisted that despite all the extra junk his proposed M113 versions would have on them (like full tank level armor, and the flight unit), they'd also be amphibious and better at swimming than boats. dude was very unhinged.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPnOekrwDtg
There's a fantasy management RPG idea in the making - a party of resourceful scoundrel freelance camp followers...
lol
I love it..
-
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-OcqRG5KSGXI/U_xXq60uF6I/AAAAAAAAAxE/Y8jTxjp7TdE/s1600/Pakistani%2BTanks%2BPictures%2B(7).jpg)
That landing had to suck for the crew.
-
Hopefully they all have their helmets and seat belts on.
-
Those are the kinds of maneuvers that PPE is FOR! ;D
-
PPE and absorbent linens...
-
LOL! :D
-
That landing had to suck for the crew.
Being in the tank for any reason had to suck for the crew.
'
And, well, it's a T-90. Even if there were seatbelts, they likely would have been sold off years beforehand. And it's from a tank corps that thinks soft-shell tankers helmets are top-of-the-line equipment.
-
Being in the tank for any reason had to suck for the crew.
'
And, well, it's a T-90. Even if there were seatbelts, they likely would have been sold off years beforehand. And it's from a tank corps that thinks soft-shell tankers helmets are top-of-the-line equipment.
Extra hilarious because taking their tanks airborne are a favourite demo routine for the Russians
-
Fight like you train. Just preparing for the eventual Turret Flight Pod Demonstration. Which is, of course, the lesser-known and ill-fated precursor to the Full Head Ejection Capsule technology that would finally mature after another thousand years.
-
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-OcqRG5KSGXI/U_xXq60uF6I/AAAAAAAAAxE/Y8jTxjp7TdE/s1600/Pakistani%2BTanks%2BPictures%2B(7).jpg)
Sasha "Leadfoot" Tankski, pilot in training for Soviet Luna Mission.
TT
-
When the Stingray II Light Tank used by armed forces of Thailand was reported to have cracks in the hauls, the engineers investigating the potential problem found out bored tankers would throttle the engine, hit the ramp and see how high they could make the tank jump.
-
So the original Kanga tank?
TT
-
In Slovenian Army, the BVP M-80 drivers had an unofficial competition who can make the longest jump with their IFV. The command was not amused, but in the end it only came to ''don't do this shit ever again''.
-
In Slovenian Army, the BVP M-80 drivers had an unofficial competition who can make the longest jump with their IFV. The command was not amused, but in the end it only came to ''don't do this shit ever again''.
Probably after extended morning runs and exercise to those who were already a walking bruise from the actual jumps
-
At least the Commies got full soft helmets. The Brits in this Cromwell jumped 31 feet, and they only got berets
In the 1950s (aka, it's going to the scrapyard anyway, might as well send it)
(https://imgur.com/xU1K1mb.jpg)
And back at trials during WW2
(https://imgur.com/VKV0UO6.jpg)
Colourized by a reddit bot:
(https://imgur.com/jRjtO8Z.jpg)
-
A bad Reddit bot, but at least it tried... ;)
-
At least the Commies got full soft helmets. The Brits in this Cromwell jumped 31 feet, and they only got berets
The British military is crazy anyways.
They did not come often, but any time a British infantry unit was at NTC, at least one of their squaddies--invariably the youngest--would get in trouble for running around post completely naked. Line units, Paras, Royal Marines, Commandos...some 16/17-year kid was getting tossed and shucking off his clothes.
Didn't know a Cromwell could jump. Thanks for the intel.
-
"Everything is airdroppable - once."
-
French light armored car ERC 90 Sagaie showing a heavy bit of wear to its paint job
-
Probably after extended morning runs and exercise to those who were already a walking bruise from the actual jumps
Or if this was in the British army
"Knees to chest until your eyes bleed." or wose
"Press ups to my timing..."
-
French light armored car ERC 90 Sagaie showing a heavy bit of wear to its paint job
Love the Sagaie (but not as much as the -10RC). Still, it's a direct result of needing to include a hull and running gear to get the turret somewhere.
-
One of the earlier attempts at the BTU's universal 10-tonne APCs. The tracked version was first, followed quickly by Quikcell's conversion to a wheeled chassis, the designers taking a soon-to-be-company-trademark shortcut. The bicycle was added in case of [inevitable] breakdown (which was, of course, yet another trademark in the making). The hover version was not operational at the time of this image.
(https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AA1kHGwp.img?w=1920&h=1080&q=60&m=2&f=jpg)
-
Well played, good sir! ;D
-
Cheers, brother.
"Ah, yep. Totally can't see you in that hole of yours..."
(https://cdn10.picryl.com/photo/1991/02/24/a-marine-corps-m-1a1-abrams-main-battle-tank-equipped-with-a-mine-clearing-78c345-640.jpg)
I see this and I think of kids hiding under a blanket...with their legs out as if they are invisible. :laugh:
USMC M1A1. Guess we won't be seeing them anymore. :cry:
-
unless an Abrams is absolutely destroyed, they are recovered and rebuilt as the next bleeding edge technology Abrams.
USMC Abrams are definitely working in the active fleet. They just got new paintjobs, better tech and new designations.
...but...
if you know where to look,
and the time to purge paint,
the original USMC EGA VIN can still be found.
... or so I've been told.
-
So the USMC isn't divesting itself of heavy armor (https://www.stripes.com/branches/marine_corps/a-farewell-to-armor-marine-corps-shuts-down-tank-units-hauls-away-m1a1s-1.639355)? Sounds great. Very glad to hear that. They recall everyone they let out early (https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2020/12/07/corps-to-release-marine-tankers-from-contracts-a-year-early/)?
-
I'm pretty sure that's still happening... I think Grognard meant the tanks themselves are still in service with the Army.
-
Yeah, they're being transferred to the Army, along with any tankie that wants to go with their armor. The replacement doesn't exist, but they are upgunning the Amphibious Combat Vehicle with a 30mm autocannon in a turret based on the Army's Stryker Dragoon system. They're going to lack anti-tank capability, though, leaving that to the infantry ATGM teams apparently - or to HIMARS rockets, since they're tripling down on the number of rocket artillery systems in the Corps.
Have an ACV doing ACV things.
-
I found this Binkov's Battlegrounds YouTube video on the Merkava IV (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcEnSf_axEo) interesting.
I recall someone proposing that thicker BattleTech Armor has more of the interlaced layers of armor, like an onion, many moons and board iterations ago. Mayhap we revisit the notion behind that concept.
-
I'm pretty sure that's still happening... I think Grognard meant the tanks themselves are still in service with the Army.
I'm pretty sure I said we wouldn't be seeing USMC M1s anymore. Which is the truth. The USMC has gotten rid of their heavy armor assets, units, and personnel. So we will not be seeing any more USMC M1s.
The fact they have been transferred to the Army--along with some of the tankers themselves--is irrelevant. Both services are pretty clear in their intuitive understanding that the Army tanks will support Army missions first, and Marine missions second. Which will be a problem if those Marine missions require heavy armor.
And they will, one day.
-
Hell, the Marine tankers are even being offered early outs a year ahead of their normal separation date, just to divest the Corps from its armor corps. I can only hope they're going to add missile capability to the ACV, because OPFOR defending units are highly unlikely to give up their tanks for an equal fight against the Marines. There's a TOW carrier variant for the LAV; I wouldn't be surprised to see the turret adapted for the ACV in the future.
(https://d1ldvf68ux039x.cloudfront.net/thumbs/photos/1502/1786095/1000w_q95.jpg)
LAV with upgraded TOW launcher
-
Which will be a problem if those Marine missions require heavy armor.
And they will, one day.
It’s really about the larger strategic pivot to the Indo-Pacific and whether the next major war will be another land engagement in, say, the Middle East or an air/naval engagement in the South China Sea or around Taiwan. If it’s the latter, then the USMC role is to choke off access and shipping by holding small islands that will serve as bases for their NMESIS anti-ship missiles, Tomahawks, MRIC air defense systems, and the like. In that role, it doesn’t make sense to use up limited ship-to-shore cargo with heavy armor.
Time will tell. Planners have to make their bets and take their chances.
-
There is an easier way to see what should be done: as any of the 82nd paratroopers--commanders, officers, enlisted--who were on the ground in 1990 shortly after Kuwait was invaded. Ask them what they thought about facing down several armored divisions with no friendly heavy divisions in-theater.
The answer will lie somewhere in between: "we don't have enough ATGMs", "ATGMs aren't enough", and "our organic tank battalion isn't near enough".
For the record, I have asked that question, and those were the answers. Sometimes you need tanks (and sometimes the tanks need you).
But sure, I understand the rationale. I also understand that in the dark days of 1942 we had the time and space to make the Big Blue Blanket that won the Pacific War. And I willingly concede that the people making these decisions and actions know so much more than I do, and I will trust they are right.
But I know what those troopers in the 82nd felt like, and I know that in 2017, the Armed Forces of the Philippines found out just how quickly the need for armor develops during the Battle for Marawi. And in 2023, tanks are still in demand wherever there is gunfire. I won't be there no matter what happens.
I'd still rather have a Marine tank battalion available in three weeks for a campaign as opposed to never, or when another service can get around to opconning a BTF to you.
In the meantime, have some light[er] armor:
(https://taskandpurpose.com/uploads/2023/06/09/Mobile-Protected-Firepower-edited.jpeg)
-
There is an easier way to see what should be done: as any of the 82nd paratroopers--commanders, officers, enlisted--who were on the ground in 1990 shortly after Kuwait was invaded. Ask them what they thought about facing down several armored divisions with no friendly heavy divisions in-theater.
The answer will lie somewhere in between: "we don't have enough ATGMs", "ATGMs aren't enough", and "our organic tank battalion isn't near enough".
For the record, I have asked that question, and those were the answers. Sometimes you need tanks (and sometimes the tanks need you).
But sure, I understand the rationale. I also understand that in the dark days of 1942 we had the time and space to make the Big Blue Blanket that won the Pacific War. And I willingly concede that the people making these decisions and actions know so much more than I do, and I will trust they are right.
And there's just a longstanding fact that it's very difficult to correctly anticipate what the battlefield needs of the next war will actually be.
-
And there's just a longstanding fact that it's very difficult to correctly anticipate what the battlefield needs of the next war will actually be.
In some ways, it's hard. In other ways...
Ammo. Everyone needs more ammo all the time.
-
(https://taskandpurpose.com/uploads/2023/06/09/Mobile-Protected-Firepower-edited.jpeg)
That looks like an amphibious hull, can it float? (I wouldn't count on it, but I could be pleasantly surprised)
-
There is an easier way to see what should be done: as any of the 82nd paratroopers--commanders, officers, enlisted--who were on the ground in 1990 shortly after Kuwait was invaded. Ask them what they thought about facing down several armored divisions with no friendly heavy divisions in-theater.
The answer will lie somewhere in between: "we don't have enough ATGMs", "ATGMs aren't enough", and "our organic tank battalion isn't near enough".
(https://taskandpurpose.com/uploads/2023/06/09/Mobile-Protected-Firepower-edited.jpeg)
Yep
Had a new friend at the time, the day of the invasion he came to our weekly gaming club with a calendar, and counted out his days since discharge, he was one week past recall date for the 82nd, Joe was happy the only desert he served in was at Ft Irwin
-
In some ways, it's hard. In other ways...
Ammo. Everyone needs more ammo all the time.
Though they don't always predict what the right type of ammo will be. Like in the 1930s when most countries were putting small-bore anti-tank guns on everything.
-
That looks like an amphibious hull, can it float? (I wouldn't count on it, but I could be pleasantly surprised)
i doubt it. though it is possible that the APC hull that the proposal vehicle was originally derived from might have been amphibious.
-
Not amphibious so far as I know. No fording depth released that I have seen.
-
Random question, I notice exhaust coming out the side. Does that mean the engine is in the front of the tank?
-
Yes it is. That's why the turret is so far back.
-
Another interesting pic I found on my feed I don't believe I seen before:
Found a interesting image but three sources wont let me share the image, I hate this is becoming common practice on the internet.
Anyway, Google 'Sunshield Split Cover'
The image I came across was of a Matilda Tank, these where large wood and canvas canopies that would cover the entire upper half of the tank and give it the shape or a transport truck. Used in Operation Bertram, this helped disguised the actual number of tanks in a British formation, playing a shell game with real trucks and actual tanks with disguised tanks and dummy tanks.
-
This one? I found it on reddit and re-hosted it on imgur for however long it remains free/linkable
(https://imgur.com/3snvbll.jpg)
-
In North Africa the Brits wanted the Germans to think they had fewer tanks...
(https://www.armytanks.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/decoy-tank-truck243.jpg)
While the Germans wanted the Brits to think they had more!
(https://th.bing.com/th/id/R.084fa086834d71b3e1a64b703ea92827?rik=N%2fQ0JXQG4DNRdA&riu=http%3a%2f%2fup.picr.de%2f16587999gs.jpg&ehk=UvFuGUECXLtNE9ixIreBSWMcKP9oaRTWtgEJX4ZPEKs%3d&risl=&pid=ImgRaw&r=0)
-
Which just goes to show that nobody ever has the right amount of tanks!
-
I thank my associates for trying to clarify my statement.
YES. the USMC's Armor formations are gone, their personnel either repurposed, retired or transferred to the Army.
But the USMC M1s are still in service. They have DISTINCTIVE serial numbers and have stamped EGAs in various locations.
-
So, Fury if it were WWI. And British: https://youtu.be/h54oFH0paZU (https://youtu.be/h54oFH0paZU)
-
Oh, the humanity! ;D
-
Why did I know that it's the Squire even before I clicked the link?
-
(https://scontent-ord5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/408749928_694706789422594_8055370300068892301_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=3635dc&_nc_ohc=abaRn5SETT4AX8hoM4o&_nc_ht=scontent-ord5-1.xx&oh=00_AfBV645xQ1Qr4tUuSz25b9jC81RtSZxQbx9hWqNQlusowg&oe=657B7420)
Oops... he got a little bit cocky, eh?
TT
-
Hey, it's the 15; most Dangerous Road in America TM.
-
That reminds me of video from Syrian Civil War, when rebels were trying to tow a captured BMP-1 with tractors and people were swarming the BMP. Somebody must have pulled the trigger on the main gun and while the round didn't detonate at such short distance, it still took off the head of the driver of one of the tractors.
-
Friendly fire does have the right of way, after all. :rolleyes:
Say, in other parts of the world, sometimes you have to kill yourself to save yourself (to mis-paraphrase a statement of a US Army officer from a different war about a completely different scenario):
(https://imageio.forbes.com/specials-images/imageserve/656fc954988eb7b3734a9309/A-Russian-truck-wearing-ERA-/0x0.jpg?format=jpg&crop=1280,853,x0,y48,safe&width=1440)
(https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AA1likSo.img?w=1920&h=1080&q=60&m=2&f=jpg)
In case you don't feel like playing the guessing game, the first is indeed a GAZ-66 light/medium truck covered in Kontakt-5 ERA, while the second is a UAZ-452 van. Including the windshield.
-
It seems like reactive armor bricks would be of limited use on a truck that's presumably not particularly heavily armored?
-
The explosion of the ERA would do more damage to the truck than the incoming round.
Shows that idiots are endemic everywhere...
-
The explosion of the ERA would do more damage to the truck than the incoming round.
Shows that idiots are endemic everywhere...
It's only an issue if the 'ERA' is actually ERA and not say, bricks of heroin.
-
ERA goblins cannot be stopped.
-
How many of you still have your fruit salad when you finished your tours?
Or do you have more to add in your current tour?
I ask because my granduncle recently passed away and left me his, served the Army from '42-'54 as an enlisted, corporal stipes, until he retired. Walked with a limp, asked him if it was a war wound, smirked when he said it was a bedroom one...
I got several combat ribbons, his Soldier, Service, Victory Medals, a Korean one and some French medal: La France a ses Liberateurs.
Colorful threads...
TT
-
(https://static.wixstatic.com/media/9c9792_286ce28da5e64cf0ab72e67d4c7886e7~mv2.jpg/v1/fill/w_496,h_332,al_c,q_85,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01/9c9792_286ce28da5e64cf0ab72e67d4c7886e7~mv2.jpg)
say hello to 1K17 Compression (https://tankhistoria.com/experimental/1k17-compression/) Russia's Laser Tank
-
(https://static.wixstatic.com/media/9c9792_286ce28da5e64cf0ab72e67d4c7886e7~mv2.jpg/v1/fill/w_496,h_332,al_c,q_85,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01/9c9792_286ce28da5e64cf0ab72e67d4c7886e7~mv2.jpg)
say hello to 1K17 Compression (https://tankhistoria.com/experimental/1k17-compression/) Russia's Laser Tank
Another real Russian military innovation indistinguishable from a parody shitpost.
-
Like this lovely gem:
(https://www.warhistoryonline.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/64/2018/11/ef847f035fdb76f1c7f6b17174c01e7d.png)
Progvev-T, a T-54 with a Mig-15 jet engine that was meant to cook off landmines
How did we not get these in Red Alert?
All the same, it's legacy lived on in away;
(https://i.redd.it/70i2goys5h061.png)
Big Wind, The God of Hellfire. This anime character is a T-32 with twin Mig-21 Jet engines built to help snuff out the oil well fires of Kuwait in 1991.
-
Didn't the Soviets also experiment with a tank-mounted sonic cannon for shooting down bombers?
-
Didn't the Soviets also experiment with a tank-mounted sonic cannon for shooting down bombers?
honestly, it would not surprise me.. there were a lots of soviet ideas that 40K looked at and went YES
-
I remember reading something about the Soviets experimenting with a sonic cannon as an anti-aircraft weapon... and canceling the project when they realized that it had an effective range of about 3 feet.
-
Regarding the ERA van thing, some posters I follow mention that it seems to be a running gag among Russian army units in Ukraine: to see what unit builds the most preposterous van.
Here is another example. It is supposed to be "an antidrone coverage test" to pass the raised eyeborws of the higher ups.
-
That reminds of Libyan sheepskin tank
(https://preview.redd.it/q5mmzkmpt2d61.png?width=640&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=1041a3dc23d11c74ccea5a4b5e09cab335b2a9d4)
-
Regarding the ERA van thing, some posters I follow mention that it seems to be a running gag among Russian army units in Ukraine: to see what unit builds the most preposterous van.
Here is another example. It is supposed to be "an antidrone coverage test" to pass the raised eyeborws of the higher ups.
The theory behind Russia’s shaggy trucks is that the fur or grasses disperse their heat signatures at night, which is when Russia is moving logistics these days. This is suppossed to make it harder for Ukrainian drones, especially FPVs, to spot and target the trucks with their IR cameras/sensors. But the trucks’ windscreens have to be left clear so drivers can see where they’re going. This may cause the windows to stick out even more against the IR background and help guide FPV operators fly their drone warheads right into the trucks’ cabins. (“In Russia, camouflage exposes you!”)
I heard this from a former tank operator who reports daily for the London Telegraph’s podcast on the war. I assume the same nighttime/IR logic applies to the sheepskin tank — otherwise this type of camo will make these vehicles stick out even more in daytime — but someone closer to that case may know better.
FWIW…
-
I don't know... compare the color of the sheepskins to the terrain behind that tank and the paint color... ;)
-
I don't know... compare the color of the sheepskins to the terrain behind that tank and the paint color... ;)
I mean, the reality is that no matter what colour something starts out as, it's going to end up the colour of either mud or dust or both in short order.
-
The front fenders get there, but not so much the rest... ;)
-
I feel as though they're risking some issues with the engine's ventilation.
-
And cooling, which would explain why tank broke down and was captured.
-
Apropos of nothing, a B1 Centauro. I'm really surprised with how low the turret is on these, it makes it look very flat by comparison to other IFVs turrets.
-
I always enjoyed the look of the wheeled gun platforms. The performance of such vehicles varies allot from chases to chases and each conflict but there is something about them I find interesting every time I see one.
-
Centauros aren't IFVs, they're tank destroyers/fire support. So no room for PBI inside needed, and low profile an asset.
The Freccia is the IFV built on the Centauro chassis; note higher & straight-sided hull, and smaller & taller turret.
(https://preview.redd.it/vbm-freccia-evo-an-italian-ifv-with-a-30mm-autocannon-and-a-v0-3sthq2j7fol91.jpg?width=640&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=30066ba242f4c70a49728c0d6c9e3df15076cdff)
-
Here's one for F16
Aussie museum finishes restoration on a Panhard EBR
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gz7tPCT7Flk
-
T-14 turret on a BMP-1 chassis (I think):
https://www.reddit.com/r/tanks/comments/14npsnk/t14_armata_made_from_bmp1/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/tanks/comments/14npsnk/t14_armata_made_from_bmp1/)
A true Universal Combat Platform…
Or desperate times, desperate measures.
-
T-14 turret on a BMP-1 chassis (I think):
https://www.reddit.com/r/tanks/comments/14npsnk/t14_armata_made_from_bmp1/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/tanks/comments/14npsnk/t14_armata_made_from_bmp1/)
A true Universal Combat Platform…
Or desperate times, desperate measures.
Definity the latter/last.
-
I thought the Armata turret was bigger than that? ???
-
I thought the Armata turret was bigger than that? ???
The shape of the turret looks about right when viewed from the same perspective on a proper T-14:
https://tankhistoria.com/modern-day/t-14-armata-russias-latest-tank-thats-nowhere-to-be-seen/ (https://tankhistoria.com/modern-day/t-14-armata-russias-latest-tank-thats-nowhere-to-be-seen/)
But the main gun looks shorter and smaller on the BMP. That may be where some dimensional or mass savings were found/taken advantage of.
-
Also missing the turret bustle, which presumably holds main gun ammo in blow-out cells.
Which means it's not a plug & play; it's more likely "We have these turret assemblies half-finished, and no tank, and no main guns. What can we do with them?"
-
T-14 turret on a BMP-1 chassis (I think):
https://www.reddit.com/r/tanks/comments/14npsnk/t14_armata_made_from_bmp1/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/tanks/comments/14npsnk/t14_armata_made_from_bmp1/)
A true Universal Combat Platform…
Or desperate times, desperate measures.
Looks like a mock up, size of the turret is bit off and the gun barrel is a bit off. Not to mention that the turret rings wouldn't match with real turret.
-
Mock up or good photoshop, the turret's far too small to be a true T-14 turret - it'd be like putting an Abrams turret on a Bradley. It's not a T-15 turret either, so I'm leaning to photoshop myself.
-
I decided to look up allot of pics of the t-14 and other BPM's just out of curiosity, ANS Kamas P81 is right on the money about the proportions.
You can get a better idea of how big the T-14 is from the pics from the parade day premier where you can see the commander and driver sitting near the turret.
Furthermore, the more I look at the Reddit pic, the more things look missing. All the angels are right but the certain details are missing, the main gun looks completely stationary and the rack/pegs/whatever for the PK bi-pod are kinda useless for actual combat. If it's photo shop, amazing work. Otherwise I can only think it was a proof of concept mock up or some sort of prop mock up prior to the actual conflict as there are no time stamps.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0A_vZ9LY-ng
-
This one's for @Failure16
French tanks!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfjRIdpS0oo
-
First image of the Challanger 3 prototype:
(https://sites.breakingmedia.com/uploads/sites/3/2024/01/IMG_4867-e1705954840202.jpg)
-
How the heck is the driver supposed to get out?
-
How the heck is the driver supposed to get out?
I assume with some difficulty unless the turret is turned a bit, but isn't that the case with Abrams as well?
Given the front armour arrangement, I assume the hatch slides forward to open. I think that's fairly common with modern MBTs where frontal armour arrays tend to hang over the driver position, especially if the armour has been added after the initial design (Leopard 2A5 and forwards, every iteration of the Abrams). The gun also gets in the way for tanks with a central driver position.
-
The driver position is set so far back, I'm not sure turning the turret would be enough...
-
That is a huge turret on the Challanger 3. It does have the upgraded 120mm
-
Anyone looking to go above 120-125mm for main guns?
-
Anyone looking to go above 120-125mm for main guns?
the German Panther KF51 supposedly will have a 130mm. but i suspect it'll end up using the existing 120mm at first.
-
Looks like Challenger 2 with some applique armour. It's like they are taking the upgrade they are mulling upon since 2007 and spinning it as a new tank. It's not like UK is capable of building new tanks anyway.
-
Looks like Challenger 2 with some applique armour. It's like they are taking the upgrade they are mulling upon since 2007 and spinning it as a new tank. It's not like UK is capable of building new tanks anyway.
The real question is if they'll build enough to justify/amortize that R&D cost. You don't want to end up like the Ariete with only 200 made.
-
Anyone looking to go above 120-125mm for main guns?
Is there a need for going to a 130+ main gun?
-
The real question is if they'll build enough to justify/amortize that R&D cost.
148 is the plan.
-
the German Panther KF51 supposedly will have a 130mm. but i suspect it'll end up using the existing 120mm at first.
We'll see if it ever gets put into production. The KF51 is Rheinmetall's attempt to show up KMW / Nexter and push their idea of the new standard in MBT construction. Part of that is the 130mm cannon Rheinmetall has designed. Currently, it doesn't seem to have much success replacing the MGCS program in Germany and France. I'm sceptical if the Rheinmetall - Ukraine deal actually produces any results, much less on the timeframe they have put forward. (KF51 in production in Ukraine before the year is out)
-
Is there a need for going to a 130+ main gun?
Believe it's mostly in response to the T-14 Armata which also boast a 130mm gun and the not so subtle hints that it was built to compete with western tank.
-
Despite the questionable nature of whether the T-14 is actually being built in any significant quantities or actually being deployed in combat?
-
Think it was one part the return of the Cold War design philosophy of 'We have to have the bigger gun!' and one part Russia having very good PR for their military at the time.
It's also good to keep in mind some tend to make knee jerk statements in regards to the future of military development, 'the tank is obsolete' was very common statement when the success Javelin Weapon System made the news.
-
148 is the plan.
I don't know what the minimum order number is to make designing and building a new MBT viable, but that's gotta be on the low-end for sure.
-
Despite the questionable nature of whether the T-14 is actually being built in any significant quantities or actually being deployed in combat?
Nyet to both. they've built less than 40 (the initial 'test order' issued in 2021) and no one has ever seen more than the 7 seen in parades even more than two years later. supposedly they halted the development and production project after starting the invasion of ukraine. and the closest they've gotten to actual fighting has been those parades in moscow, otherwise they're being kept in the training academy in Kazan, volga district. more than 1500 miles from the fighting.
one of the reasons i suspect the new Panther will end up with a 120mm gun in the end. it'll end up cheaper, and the main 'threat' they wanted the 130mm for looks to be the next closest thing to vaporware. the other new features on it appear to be pretty useful though, especially the built in drone/loitering munition launch system.
-
I don't know what the minimum order number is to make designing and building a new MBT viable, but that's gotta be on the low-end for sure.
They are not designing and building a new tank (no capabilities for that), this is modernisation of existing Challanger 2 tanks which is being touted as a new tank for PR reasons.
-
Want to go see a real Tiger Tank? On of only 10 left..the Vimoutiers Tiger
(http://tank-photographs.s3-website-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/tiger-tank-vimoutiers-normandy.jpg)
Left in a Hedge for 30 Years (https://tankhistoria.com/wwii/vimoutiers-tiger/)
-
Nice find, thanks DOC! :)
-
Gotta have a Valentine on Valentine's Day.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ac/Valentine_II_%E2%80%985-40%E2%80%99_-_Patriot_Museum%2C_Kubinka_%2838390149682%29.jpg)
-
Old footage of Chobham armour testing
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vJEBE1VXbP0
-
Ukraine lost an Abrams.
(https://www.twz.com/uploads/2024/02/26/ukraine-abrams-tank-fire.jpg?auto=webp&crop=16%3A9&auto=webp&optimize=high&quality=70&width=2018)
-
Musta been a "golden" BB floating crit roll...
Only way that could have happen.
Sad, hope the crew got out and little or no injuries.
TT
-
Musta been a "golden" BB floating crit roll...
Only way that could have happen.
Sad, hope the crew got out and little or no injuries.
TT
It's still subject to the laws of physics. 9 destroyed in Gulf 1, 35 or so over the course of OIF, plus Iraqi army losses against ISIL and Saudi losses in Yemen.
Plus, none of the export tanks have the DU NERA (Non-Explosive Reactive Armour) arrays. They've been removed and replaced with a different armour package and that conversion process was one reason why Abrams arrived later in Ukraine than the Leopard 2s.
Regardless, the turret front looks undamaged. The M1 isn't significantly better protected from the top or rear than other tanks, although I seem to recall the turret side armour is reasonably heavy even behind the crew compartment. Either way, the entire top and rear are vulnerable. That's hardly a golden BB slipping through a gap in the protection like directly hitting the co-ax or a periscope. Drones being used to make rear/top attacks against tanks has been going on for months now.
-
It's crew survival rates that make the Abrams a success story, here's hoping the crew made it out safe.
-
It's still subject to the laws of physics. 9 destroyed in Gulf 1, 35 or so over the course of OIF, plus Iraqi army losses against ISIL and Saudi losses in Yemen.
Plus, none of the export tanks have the DU NERA (Non-Explosive Reactive Armour) arrays. They've been removed and replaced with a different armour package and that conversion process was one reason why Abrams arrived later in Ukraine than the Leopard 2s.
Regardless, the turret front looks undamaged. The M1 isn't significantly better protected from the top or rear than other tanks, although I seem to recall the turret side armour is reasonably heavy even behind the crew compartment. Either way, the entire top and rear are vulnerable. That's hardly a golden BB slipping through a gap in the protection like directly hitting the co-ax or a periscope. Drones being used to make rear/top attacks against tanks has been going on for months now.
from the looks of things the main damage is around the engine area, maybe the ammo compartments.
where did you find that pic? would love to learn more of the context.
-
If you study the picture it looks like the ammo doors are blown. So I think it suffered an ammo explosion (good thing it has CASE).
From what I understood, this was caused by a Russian drone dropping an RPG round on the roof.
Damon.
-
The real question is whether the armored door that separates the ammunition from the fighting compartment was closed at the time.
-
My reference mil analyst says it was hit by a Lancet. Near Adviinka.
-
where did you find that pic? would love to learn more of the context.
https://www.twz.com/land/ukraines-first-m1-abrams-tank-loss-appears-to-have-occurred (https://www.twz.com/land/ukraines-first-m1-abrams-tank-loss-appears-to-have-occurred)
-
Tanks...get taken out. They're disposable combat units, it's inevitable that some combination of enemy cleverness, operator mistakes, tactical situation or dumb ass luck is going to take one out.
even an Abrams.
-
I will assume that a lot more Abrahams will be taken out in Ucraine if they are used for anything ressembling real combat. Damage beats armor in the current battlefield.
-
Abrams, not Abrahams. There's a lot of ways to kill an Abrams, and there's a lot of ways to not kill one. What looks like catastrophic damage may just be an ammo explosion and that's something that is easy to repair on the tank because of its armored storage and blow-out panels.
-
Abrams, not Abrahams. There's a lot of ways to kill an Abrams, and there's a lot of ways to not kill one. What looks like catastrophic damage may just be an ammo explosion and that's something that is easy to repair on the tank because of its armored storage and blow-out panels.
Pictures only tell a limited story, true, and in wartime, exaggeration of claims, (both to make it seem better OR worse) is common operations, while objective truth is a goddam rarity, especially on the journalistic end from either side.
-
In 1985 the Standard Manufacturing Company pitched a wheeled Vulcan Air Defense System (VADS) called Excalibur to the U.S. Army.
(https://www.twz.com/content/2018/05/vwc-4.jpg?quality=85&auto=webp&optimize=high&crop=16%3A9&auto=webp&optimize=high&quality=70&width=2018)
(https://s3.amazonaws.com/the-drive-staging/message-editor%2F1526951202369-vwc-5.jpg?auto=webp&optimize=high&quality=70&width=2018)
At the time, the Army had both tracked and towed VADS in service and it wasn't adopted.
-
That looks so G.I. Joe it hurts.
-
Makes you wonder if there is an inspiration shelf in some designers rooms.
That looks so G.I. Joe it hurts.
-
It looks C-130 transportable... I chalk it up to it being ahead of its time...
-
Forget GI Joe, it's Battletech-worthy! I'd buy a lance or two of minis.
-
I'll bet the army was still smarting over the Sergeant York.
-
It's contemporary with the Linebacker (truck with Stinger missile pods on the back), and while it addressed some of the issues with the M163 VADS, the biggest problem is it still used the same 20mm cannon as the VADS. Bigger calibres were preferred, eg. Gepard.
The LInebacker still has problems keeping up with tanks in terrain, which is I assume why they stuck Stingers on a Bradley instead of the TOWs.
-
It's adorable, I want one.
-
It's contemporary with the Linebacker (truck with Stinger missile pods on the back), and while it addressed some of the issues with the M163 VADS, the biggest problem is it still used the same 20mm cannon as the VADS. Bigger calibres were preferred, eg. Gepard.
The LInebacker still has problems keeping up with tanks in terrain, which is I assume why they stuck Stingers on a Bradley instead of the TOWs.
Uhm, Worktroll? "Linebacker" is the Bradley version, you're thinking of "Avenger".(https://images04.military.com/sites/default/files/media/equipment/weapons/avenger-weapon-system/2014/05/avenger-002.jpg)
(https://www.army-technology.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2017/09/linebacker1.jpg) Linebacker.
-
Chaparral
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/MIM-72_Chaparral_07.jpg)
since we're on an ADA kick...
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/99/Gepard_1a2_overview.jpg/1200px-Gepard_1a2_overview.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/86/Romanian_MIM-23_Hawk.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/M42_Duster_in_1968.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/Skysweeper_3.jpg)
-
At least two or three of those were turned into toys for GI Joe. Or at least look very similar to the toys I remember having.
Ruger
-
A LOT of early GI Joe gear was based on prototype stuff. And then they went off the rails :D
-
Heh.. a lot of prototype stuff went off the rails too... ;D
-
At least two or three of those were turned into toys for GI Joe. Or at least look very similar to the toys I remember having.
Ruger
The Hawk Missile trailer was an early G.I. Joe release and was basically a direct copy from the 1st gen of the smaller 'action figure' sized Joes.
Not sure about the others though. the original eighties plastic Joes (three inch?) were initially based on realistic, or real-world military systems that were either in development, or in service.
-
The GI Joe toys were 3.5 inch.
-
The Hawk Missile trailer was an early G.I. Joe release and was basically a direct copy from the 1st gen of the smaller 'action figure' sized Joes.
Not sure about the others though. the original eighties plastic Joes (three inch?) were initially based on realistic, or real-world military systems that were either in development, or in service.
There were three robotic drone (as I remember them) machines that look like the turrets from the first two pics. Can still somewhat see in my head some scenes from one of the comics with them.
Ruger
-
There were three robotic drone (as I remember them) machines that look like the turrets from the first two pics. Can still somewhat see in my head some scenes from one of the comics with them.
Ruger
Yeah, they were called the Rat Pack. One had a quartet of missiles, one had a flamethrower, and one had four machine guns. They showed up in the beginning scene of GI Joe The Movie.
-
PAC/RATS
https://www.yojoe.com/vehicles/83/pacrats/
-
I repainted mine...
Imperial Star Wars colors...
I mixed and matched...
Imperial Stormtrooper Vipers anyone?
Cobra!
TT
-
I never played with GI Joe toys--even though I had friends that had them. Were the 3.5 inch ones I remember the same size as the Kenner line of Star Wars action figures? Gi Joe had more articulation points, didn't they?
Totally off topic, I apologize.
-
Yes on both...
(https://www.armytimes.com/resizer/Y3mgs9OBQLMJhuKrbyMK2cKtbbE=/1440x0/filters:format(jpg):quality(70)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/archetype/N6BH5EV5FVFHTBUHU5RQYDHYIA.jpg)
'Army Futures Command held demonstrations of technology and equipment on May 16, 2019 at the Texas A&M University System’s RELLIS Campus in Bryan, Texas. Six weapons and defense industry vendors showcased seven autonomous combat vehicles in an effort for Army officials to decide which machines fit their needs best and what needs to be improved on.'
Wonder which will see "light"?
TT
-
(https://www.armytimes.com/resizer/Y3mgs9OBQLMJhuKrbyMK2cKtbbE=/1440x0/filters:format(jpg):quality(70)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/archetype/N6BH5EV5FVFHTBUHU5RQYDHYIA.jpg)
Shrunken down for visibility. [img width=600] is your friend!
-
that Tan one looks like it was comissioned by Stargate Command to replace the F.R.E.D. (https://www.rdanderson.com/stargate/lexicon/entries/fred1.htm) (image in attachment because i couldn't find one that was linkable)
-
Mud maketh the vehicle REAL! ;D
-
I never played with GI Joe toys--even though I had friends that had them. Were the 3.5 inch ones I remember the same size as the Kenner line of Star Wars action figures? Gi Joe had more articulation points, didn't they?
Totally off topic, I apologize.
yes, and yes, totally off topic. lol.
-
From FB:
(https://scontent-ord5-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/434414363_10159653878391406_5811369818742716194_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_p843x403&_nc_cat=100&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=5f2048&_nc_ohc=806rthKRSh0Ab7Ad_3X&_nc_ht=scontent-ord5-2.xx&oh=00_AfAnLs2TuFAOuGLz1YJp3CI7FZtgApWIFf6D0bb3x3j-Dw&oe=66198EB5)
TT
-
That's an AWESOME family tree! :)
And you can see where the Hetzer came from too! ;D
-
That is pretty neat Family Tree of Cats
-
It's not entirely correct. There's a couple of missing links between the Pz IV and Panther like the VK20.01 and VK30.01, the prototype chassis of which was converted into the Sturer Emil. Similarly the Tiger was derived from the VK36.01 -so the relationship shown between the Tiger and Sturer Emil is back to front - and the "Pz VII Lowe" was a parallel project to the Tiger II, not a derivation of it. The Lowe was cancelled in favour of the Tiger II for being too big and heavy.
-
I was thinking that it looked rather like they based it on the tech tree from World of Tanks.
-
(https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/437095361_1466880273917991_3693564346461059177_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_p851x315&_nc_cat=108&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=5f2048&_nc_ohc=tnYmEmfTaqEAb77iH18&_nc_ht=scontent-lga3-1.xx&oh=00_AfDQLQ3gh2cXgzbXIaoW8Dg7PvvB1XQqQWhU4xLIZ7KWlQ&oe=662CEA25)
Too bad no one has done this:
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTA9qEc06m3AxT4_hhgIbmSmUM0BYSkFpv6EkJQfcaaKA&s)
In real life.
TT
-
Is that an SU-152?
-
I think it's the more common ISU-152
-
(https://i.imgur.com/u4x0fXh.jpeg)
-
Is that an SU-152?
No, it’s Marik.
-
*snip*
*If it fits, it works.
*If it works, do it.
*Your not my mom, I do what I want
-
Maxim 43: If it's stupid and it works, it's still stupid and you're lucky. ;D
-
T-72 and BMP “Turtle Tanks” designed to counter FPV drones. Not expected to do well after Ukraine’s supplies of ATGMs and artillery are replaced. But the improvised armor, in combination with mine plows and/or EW suites, have temporarily afforded the Russians a limited close assault capability against Ukrainian positions primarily defended by FPVs and low on other anti-tank weaponry.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CtHJFTgkvIw&pp=ygULVHVydGxlIHRhbms%3D (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CtHJFTgkvIw&pp=ygULVHVydGxlIHRhbms%3D)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=A9iobk_nir8&pp=ygULVHVydGxlIHRhbms%3D (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=A9iobk_nir8&pp=ygULVHVydGxlIHRhbms%3D)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PCrAve7ynhw&pp=ygUGWmVpaGFu (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PCrAve7ynhw&pp=ygUGWmVpaGFu)
-
Camel-borne 81mm mortars:
https://taskandpurpose.com/news/india-military-camels-camo-mortars/ (https://taskandpurpose.com/news/india-military-camels-camo-mortars/)
I think the Beast-Mounted Infantry rules can actually accommodate this in BT.
-
Like the article, I'm positive they don't fire the mortar from the back of the camel... ::)
-
During WW2, a number of troopers found out the hard way why you don't brace even the smallest mortar on something like a leg. The force on that camel means at least 3 things go flying when you thump.
-
Base plates go on the ground for a REASON! :)
-
Like the article, I'm positive they don't fire the mortar from the back of the camel... ::)
same. there were camel borne artillery units using light cannons/swivelguns in the pike and shot era (called Zamburak), but they were never used while mounted, they just used the camel's mobility and carry capacity to haul the guns around between set up points. version of these saw use right up into the late 19th century.
-
During WW2, a number of troopers found out the hard way why you don't brace even the smallest mortar on something like a leg. The force on that camel means at least 3 things go flying when you thump.
Part of that had to do with some extremely poor translations of the manuals of captured enemy equipment.
-
Part of that had to do with some extremely poor translations of the manuals of captured enemy equipment.
I'm guessing you're referring to the Japanese's small 50mm mortar whose base plate fit nicely on the thigh. The whole thing was about 2 feet long. These guys (https://www.thearmorylife.com/japanese-model-89-knee-mortar/) have a good write up.
-
Victory Day parade in Red Square tomorrow. Which of the following is most likely to happen?
- A vehicle breaks down
- Su-57 or T-14 spotted
- New Russian wonder weapon announced or shown
- Flyover canceled again
- Western trophy vehicles
- Worlds loneliest T-34 returns
- Air defense friendly fire
- Brodcast cut due to "technical difficulties"
- Something catches fire
-
I'm going to go with "A vehicle breaks down" and "something catches fire."
-
Victory Day parade in Red Square tomorrow. Which of the following is most likely to happen?
- A vehicle breaks down
- Su-57 or T-14 spotted
- New Russian wonder weapon announced or shown
- Flyover canceled again
- Western trophy vehicles
- Worlds loneliest T-34 returns
- Air defense friendly fire
- Brodcast cut due to "technical difficulties"
- Something catches fire
i'm predicting
Western trophy vehicles will be hauled around (they've already had several on display, so i'm expecting those on flatbeds)
Su-57 or T-14 spotted
Worlds loneliest T-34 returns
A vehicle breaks down followed by Brodcast cut due to "technical difficulties"
-
You almost have enough for a proper bingo card... :D
-
Lots of crowd shots of patriotic citizens talking about the great patriotic war.
-
You almost have enough for a proper bingo card... :D
how many more do we need to fill it out?
-
About 14 more... ;)
-
World's loneliest T34 was indeed lonely ...