That's the beauty of sloped armor.That and the armor being as thick as a cinder block to start with.
That and the armor being as thick as a cinder block to start with.
(https://i.pinimg.com/236x/9e/c7/e9/9ec7e94c3512f6ae937c3e04e60577a5--panther-armour.jpg)Nice pic
Panzer V Panther tank is unamused by your Title.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/1e/50/82/1e50825ef57572d6e0e0111554dc1019.jpg)
I say, chaps! Spiffing tank!
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/1e/50/82/1e50825ef57572d6e0e0111554dc1019.jpg)
I say, chaps! Spiffing tank!
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/1e/50/82/1e50825ef57572d6e0e0111554dc1019.jpg)"What? Back further you say? Well ok, seems safe."
I say, chaps! Spiffing tank!
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/1e/50/82/1e50825ef57572d6e0e0111554dc1019.jpg)Little more forward, and that thing's gonna tilt down real fast. Gonna be joy for the crew inside, especially if burning hot engine block isn't fenced.
I say, chaps! Spiffing tank!
What M7 are you talking about? The only one I'm aware of was an intended replacement to the M3/M5 Stuart. Compared to the M4 it had only marginally better speed with the same main gun and markedly inferior armor.
The French love doing that though. They pull platoons from different regiments to form company groups and expect them to co-operate.
but it's also mixing units REALLY low in the TOE which isn't something typically done, I understand.
I've been playing Battletech too long, I have a bias towards vehicles which look kinda like BT style tanksOn that note, looks like the Bimpty's gotten some upgrades.
The French love doing that though. They pull platoons from different regiments to form company groups and expect them to co-operate.I guess if you're playing really small-unit games where you're expecting a single company or battalion to do its thing. I mean, I get that rises in lethality and effectiveness mean you can do more with smaller sized forces, but there's gotta be a minimum capacity somewhere, right? This isn't Battletech...(yet)
I guess if you're playing really small-unit games where you're expecting a single company or battalion to do its thing. I mean, I get that rises in lethality and effectiveness mean you can do more with smaller sized forces, but there's gotta be a minimum capacity somewhere, right? This isn't Battletech...(yet)
I'm just beating around some ideas trying to come up with an army structure for a fictional country, anyone interested?
I'm just beating around some ideas trying to come up with an army structure for a fictional country, anyone interested?
I guess if you're playing really small-unit games where you're expecting a single company or battalion to do its thing. I mean, I get that rises in lethality and effectiveness mean you can do more with smaller sized forces, but there's gotta be a minimum capacity somewhere, right? This isn't Battletech...(yet)It's... controversial.
Make the thread, count me in
I'm just beating around some ideas trying to come up with an army structure for a fictional country, anyone interested?
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-2HpMevHXqRw/WbW7DH3Ld8I/AAAAAAAAMAk/Cdyxdpq2KAEsDomfodpnEV65j4iuQHiPQCLcBGAs/s1600/tass_12345400.jpg)
*Snip*My thoughts on the idea are probably best summarized here (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=50881).
It strikes me as something doable, but it's also mixing units REALLY low in the TOE which isn't something typically done, I understand. Was curious whether it's true or not (Moran said he hadn't been able to confirm it) and what the consensus is on the idea.
*snip*
When I was in Iraq there was a few abandoned BMP-1's on our base and my unit had a bit of a giggle trying to debus from BMP's. To say they are tight is an understatement and the doors at the back are tiny, especially as the guys were use to Warrior's. And don't forget on the BMP-1, those back doors are also fuel tanks for additional 'fun'.When I was in Iraq the first time, my unit took a BMP-1 as the unit war trophy, but before we could ship it home one of the unit NBC NCO's had to clear that all the radioactive dials and such had been pulled out. I was the one who got tasked with this, and it was very tight getting into some of the locations to check. I had to kind of squeeze in to the drivers compartment, there was no way that I would be able to get in enough to drive.
On that note, looks like the Bimpty's gotten some upgrades.I recall seeing a video (maybe from Nicholas Moran?) where it is explained that an American PBI unit (company size?) in Normandy was supported by 1 Sherman. So yeah, that sounds about BattleTech scale to me.
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-2HpMevHXqRw/WbW7DH3Ld8I/AAAAAAAAMAk/Cdyxdpq2KAEsDomfodpnEV65j4iuQHiPQCLcBGAs/s1600/tass_12345400.jpg)I guess if you're playing really small-unit games where you're expecting a single company or battalion to do its thing. I mean, I get that rises in lethality and effectiveness mean you can do more with smaller sized forces, but there's gotta be a minimum capacity somewhere, right? This isn't Battletech...(yet)
That sounds like one extraordinarily lost Sherman. Not that it'd be hard in that situation, but weird happens.
There were some amazing "war trophies" kept by units, either "lost" equipment they found, equipment listed as destroyed that then got repaired at a unit level but had already been replaced (perhaps more of an experience for the Allies than German forces!), and captured enemy gear - one example was "Cuckoo" the captured Panther Tank used by the Coldstream Guards (technically an infantry regiment - Foot Guards - but operating as armour).
On that note, there's actually a 105mm howitzer Sherman at Fort Benning that's had a truly amazing history. I hope they restore it only to the point of preventing any further deterioration, and let her wear her battle scars with pride.
According to the video (https://youtu.be/7NU-yVwbJsQ?t=795): This tank started with the Americans, and deployed to and fought in Italy during WWII. It's later given to the Italian army under the mutual-defense programs, and then prior to 1979 is sold to the Iranians and served under the Shah, and then under the Ayatollah. It goes on to fight against the Iraqis, is captured by their forces, and used against the Iranians. Then it gets weird - it was still serving with the Iraqis in 1991, and was engaged by forces under 2nd Armored Division, possibly during 3rd Brigade's push through the Battle of 73 Easting or the Battle of Norfolk. Left behind, it was repaired by the Iraqis and returned to service, reappearing again in 2003 when it was spotted hiding under a bridge and was plinked by a Maverick missile - the splashed damage visible behind the turret is from that hit. After that, she got brought home.
On that note, there's actually a 105mm howitzer Sherman at Fort Benning that's had a truly amazing history. I hope they restore it only to the point of preventing any further deterioration, and let her wear her battle scars with pride.
According to the video (https://youtu.be/7NU-yVwbJsQ?t=795): This tank started with the Americans, and deployed to and fought in Italy during WWII. It's later given to the Italian army under the mutual-defense programs, and then prior to 1979 is sold to the Iranians and served under the Shah, and then under the Ayatollah. It goes on to fight against the Iraqis, is captured by their forces, and used against the Iranians. Then it gets weird - it was still serving with the Iraqis in 1991, and was engaged by forces under 2nd Armored Division, possibly during 3rd Brigade's push through the Battle of 73 Easting or the Battle of Norfolk. Left behind, it was repaired by the Iraqis and returned to service, reappearing again in 2003 when it was spotted hiding under a bridge and was plinked by a Maverick missile - the splashed damage visible behind the turret is from that hit. After that, she got brought home.
Didnt some American infantry division practically motorised itself with captured German vehicles?The 83rd.
That sounds like one extraordinarily lost Sherman. Not that it'd be hard in that situation, but weird happens.Found it (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sbwU-KMH2k&feature=youtu.be&t=404). Though video mentions some variety between different units, it describes that setup as a basic one.
Murphy and Gruyere...that's some frigging history right there... :oYeah, that's one of those tanks where as-is preservation rather than restoration is the name of the day. There's a hell of a story in that armor, let it show!
On that note, there's actually a 105mm howitzer Sherman at Fort Benning that's had a truly amazing history. I hope they restore it only to the point of preventing any further deterioration, and let her wear her battle scars with pride.
According to the video (https://youtu.be/7NU-yVwbJsQ?t=795): This tank started with the Americans, and deployed to and fought in Italy during WWII. It's later given to the Italian army under the mutual-defense programs, and then prior to 1979 is sold to the Iranians and served under the Shah, and then under the Ayatollah. It goes on to fight against the Iraqis, is captured by their forces, and used against the Iranians. Then it gets weird - it was still serving with the Iraqis in 1991, and was engaged by forces under 2nd Armored Division, possibly during 3rd Brigade's push through the Battle of 73 Easting or the Battle of Norfolk. Left behind, it was repaired by the Iraqis and returned to service, reappearing again in 2003 when it was spotted hiding under a bridge and was plinked by a Maverick missile - the splashed damage visible behind the turret is from that hit. After that, she got brought home.
I did not know about this tank, but did know that when we took over some of the Iraqi bases they had some Shermans on them. As we were clearing out warehouses on one, we saw another unit loading on to a flatbed what looked like almost factory new Easy 8, talking with some of them later, there was spare parts and ammo stored with it.Probably from the same provenance as that one in the video, captured from the Iranian supplies bought from Italy. Wonder how many of those Shermans went home as gate guards.
Like a 10.5 cm leFH 18(Sf) auf Geschützwagen Lorraine Schlepper (f). Where the heck did THAT come from???Most captured WW2 equipment that still worked and wasn't clandestinely stripped by people ended up dumped in Iraq and Syria (and Israel) between the mid 40s and early 50s. Italian tanks too for example.
IIRC they found a lot of crazy stuff in boneyards in Iraq. Like a 10.5 cm leFH 18(Sf) auf Geschützwagen Lorraine Schlepper (f). Where the heck did THAT come from???
damon.
IIRC they found a lot of crazy stuff in boneyards in Iraq. Like a 10.5 cm leFH 18(Sf) auf Geschützwagen Lorraine Schlepper (f). Where the heck did THAT come from???Mostly France and Czehoslovakia. They both used lot of captured German gear in their rebuilt armed forces and gradualy phased it out as more American/Soviet surplus became avaiable, along with their domestic production, selling off the unneeded weapons.
damon.
Probably from the same provenance as that one in the video, captured from the Iranian supplies bought from Italy. Wonder how many of those Shermans went home as gate guards.
Anti-mine conversion, basically sits too high up to be really affected and the wheels sink down deep enough to get at anything buried at a functional depth. So it literally blows up the road as it goes along. Witness him!
That HAS to be British. If Hobart didn't do that I'd be mildly stunned.Straight up American, apparently. Looks like whatever Hobart was smoking, he shared some with the allies.
"The T10 was tested in 1944 but was rejected due to its heavy weight and related drawbacks."
The ridiculous height and width being chief among them, I'm guessing.Well, that and the remote control only had a six foot cord, so the operator had to walk along underneath it with the controller to do its thing...
I've been writing a story over in the Fan Fiction board, and trying to do some research about tank operation. Today I came across a M551 Sheridan training film on YouTube, I thought thought it might be interesting enough to post here. Here's the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z24YQMrK9Gs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z24YQMrK9Gs)]Another Sheridan video by Matsimus (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-LRsRamBjc). He goes on to details about what was wrong with the damn thing. Still if I were to man a tank, I might take it over Sherman or T-34 ::)
If you take a Sherman 76 with post-war ammo, you'll probably have a good chance at defeating the armor on the Sheridan at ranges effectively outside its conventional ammo range too...Or be a complete **** and grab one of the Israeli ones...
Damon.
Straight up American, apparently. Looks like whatever Hobart was smoking, he shared some with the allies.I am, in fact, mildly stunned.
Another Sheridan video by Matsimus (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-LRsRamBjc). He goes on to details about what was wrong with the damn thing. Still if I were to man a tank, I might take it over Sherman or T-34 ::)
Yeah, what is the effective range on an M-51's 105 compared to the gun on the Sheridan?
The range of the Shillelagh missile was, IIRC, about 4000 meters, with a minimum range of about 800 meters. It was supposed to be able to defeat pretty much any MBT armor in use at the time.the direct fire munitions (HE and HEAT) had a range of about 5000 ft but the propellant charges tended to misfire, as well as damage the missile firing gear. and the bore excavator system meant to clear the breech of unburned powder wasn't always reliable, which slowed down firing rate.
honestly the whole "gun/missile system combo" was ahead of its time, and i think the russians had a better approach with their AT-8 Songster and their AT-12 Swinger ATGM's, which were designed to fire from a standard 125mm and 100mm gun respectively.
I think how it was implemented on the Brad is ultimately the best way to do it: a cannon for dealing with direct threats & a seperate TOW launcher for armored targets.That's what the BMP-2 did in comparison to the BMP-1. Switch to a 30mm autocannon and separate the ATGM into an overslung launcher.
That's what the BMP-2 did in comparison to the BMP-1. Switch to a 30mm autocannon and separate the ATGM into an overslung launcher.
I think how it was implemented on the Brad is ultimately the best way to do it: a cannon for dealing with direct threats & a seperate TOW launcher for armored targets. If the Sheridan used a lightweight 76mm or 90mm cannon combined with a TOW launcher (somehow), then it might have been more successful in its role...Speaking about which, is there any examples (or even plans) of main battle tank with ATGMs against tanks and a smaller gun (maybe auto cannon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bofors_57_mm_L/70_naval_artillery_gun)) against everything else?
By the way, how good bad or otherwise is the LAHAT?LAHAT's pretty wicked. Practically no firing signature compared to a regular tank shell, 8000m range, semi-active laser-guided, and optional straight or top-attack flight pattern with a tandem-charge warhead, and can be fired from any standard smoothbore 105mm or 120 - it comes with a sabot to fit either.
And the most expensive MBT around.Nah, not really. Problem with pricetags is that you always get some support constract, installation construction, additional vehicles and such with them. In the case of the contract quoted on wikipedia that amounts to about one-third of the price cited. Effective per-unit cost is about equivalent to the Leopard 2 in current versions.
Nah, not really. Problem with pricetags is that you always get some support constract, installation construction, additional vehicles and such with them. In the case of the contract quoted on wikipedia that amounts to about one-third of the price cited. Effective per-unit cost is about equivalent to the Leopard 2 in current versions.
The M1A2 SEP, if one takes original procurement cost plus the upgrade cost, runs about the same btw.
Wonder what the main differentiators are with current Abrams models - aside from hard-won combat experience.
Thanks!
Speaking about which, is there any examples (or even plans) of main battle tank with ATGMs against tanks and a smaller gun (maybe auto cannon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bofors_57_mm_L/70_naval_artillery_gun)) against everything else?
Autoloader
Wonder what the main differentiators are with current Abrams models - aside from hard-won combat experience.
!
(https://www.warhistoryonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/The-10-Most-Bizarre-Tanks-Ever-Built-7-640x446.jpg)
Some more:
Mine Exploder T10
"Its underside was thickened with 25mm steel and the sides were adapted to give room for the huge 96-inch wheels. The rear wheel had a diameter of 72 inches. It weighed 116,400 lbs and could attain a maximum speed of 3kmph while clearing mines and 10kmph on a clear road. The T10 was tested in 1944 but was rejected due to its heavy weight and related drawbacks."
Apparently the thing was remote controlled, and they added another inch of armor to the underbelly.
(https://www.worldwarphotos.info/wp-content/gallery/usa/tanks/sherman/T10_mine_roller.jpg)Straight up American, apparently. Looks like whatever Hobart was smoking, he shared some with the allies.
AutoloaderThat and I think we're the only country using DU sheathing over the composites for armor. I always laughed at that; "Aw, you use superhard ceramics for armor, that's cute. We're using leftover scraps from literal weaponized alchemy for ours. Because we can."
That and I think we're the only country using DU sheathing over the composites for armor. I always laughed at that; "Aw, you use superhard ceramics for armor, that's cute. We're using leftover scraps from literal weaponized alchemy for ours. Because we can."
I think the British Army has had that with the Challenger 2 but removed the option for current deployments for political considerations (the UK is pretty anti-nuclear compared with the USA) but could probably re-apply the armour and maybe restock the ammunition if needed, I guess against a peer level threat
Not before the next Eurotank, whatever it is, I think.
Like Tempest, and perhaps more applicably Ajax and Boxer, they dont have the economies of scale to go it alone any more. So they'll seek partners. They might indeed find somebody to buddy up with like they did for Tempest, but IMO more likely they'll seek some kind of broader commonality, given how successful that has been for Leo 2, and the expected operations area for British MBTs.
Rheinmetall apparentlyWe'll see. Rheinmetall is promising the sky but it depends what the MoD want to spend.
https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2019/06/05/will-the-stars-finally-align-to-upgrade-britains-obsolete-tanks/
We'll see. Rheinmetall is promising the sky but it depends what the MoD want to spend.Given the number quoted in the article for overall army procurement (€2.15b per year over the next decade - note: that's 4.25% of the defense budget) not particularly much. Just the 500 Boxers they're buying already cost one-quarter of that alone, inclusive of a 10-year support package.
Been a quiet month, I see. Hey, look, I can play Battletech on the surface of the GenDyn OMFV entry! It even has elevated and color-coded terrain!Looks like someone glued some Heroscape tiles on the vehicle.
Oh and it can shoot damn near straight up.
Battletech!
Poland's army was actually pretty decent in both training and equipment quality. They certainly weren't the too-dumb-to-live losers that post war pop-culture made them out to be. They just didn't have the numbers needed to take on a foe that size.
Poland's army was actually pretty decent in both training and equipment quality. They certainly weren't the too-dumb-to-live losers that post war pop-culture made them out to be. They just didn't have the numbers needed to take on a foe that size.That is absolutely correct. And to add to that: the Wehrmacht did not fare as brilliantly as contemporary German leaning hagiography - e. g. by US journalist John Gunther - made it seem. The Polish defence was conducted well and appropriate, given the possibilities of a much smaller nation against such a foe. Ultimately two factors doomed Poland in 1939: The decision of the Entente, Britain and France, not to attack Germany in the West and the entry of the USSR into the war against Poland, holding true to the partitioning of Europe as signed in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Treaty.
Been a quiet month, I see. Hey, look, I can play Battletech on the surface of the GenDyn OMFV entry! It even has elevated and color-coded terrain!What is that hex stuff trying to do?
Oh and it can shoot damn near straight up.
Battletech!
Camouflage, primarily, also probably breaks up the large-reflective-panel construction for radar tracking as well as looks thick enough to have some thermal suppression capability.Thermal and visible camo sounds reasonable but it creates so much kibble that the RCS must be through the roof. Any idea what that product is called so I can do my own research?
You'd have to google search the image, I can't even remember where I saw it. Sorry!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSuYxX5BE8c
It's a business like any other and you gotta have a product that gets in people's minds and stays there. If it means thermal-camouflage hextiles all over your tank, wellEspecially for a convention appearance. Something falls off in transit, they'll break out the 5-minute epoxy, glue gun, whatever it takes.
get the glue
Meanwhile the French just freaking love their 6x6 zoomies and I adore them for it. Shine on, vous diamant fou.
What about it?
And while not armoured, something which desperately needs to be canonised in BT: The Alvis Stalwart. Straight from the pages of Gerry Anderson, to you!
(https://www.trucksplanet.com/photo/alvis/stalwart/stalwart_14289.jpg)
Modern ATGMs are better. Especially non-LOS Fire and Forget types.
Idly on the topic of the AMX-10RC i have the most terrible idea...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LAHAT
Imagine little armored cars hiding in the bush lobbing those in support of infantry. You'd need smoothbores instead of the AMX's rifled barrel, but still!
And while not armoured, something which desperately needs to be canonised in BT: The Alvis Stalwart. Straight from the pages of Gerry Anderson, to you!There's one in the Mechwarrior RPG 1st edition, a "prime mover" in the color plates. Sure as pants looks like it.
There's one in the Mechwarrior RPG 1st edition, a "prime mover" in the color plates. Sure as pants looks like it.
Also have the Stewart's modern cousin, the Patria Pasi, a Battletech-schoolbus-APC! (seriously 18 guys in that thing)
to me, it looks like a Fuchs.Concurrent development for the same purpose.
Google found me both in the same picture!
(https://images01.military.com/sites/default/files/styles/full/public/2019-05/panzers-france-1944-900.jpg?itok=_LLvewP5)
The track widths would seem to be a dead giveaway...
Anything bigger than a rifle aimed at me is a Tiger 😝Yes, that is a "significant emotional event."
Sadly, to the average person all WWII German tanks were Tigers.I've been binging the Chieftan's videos lately and Nicholas Moran makes a very similar point.
How much does that Patria Pasi weigh? 18 troops is 3, 6-trooper squads...Original is 12 tons, upgraded variants are 13.5 tons. Pretty much paper thin armor though.
And while not armoured, something which desperately needs to be canonised in BT: The Alvis Stalwart. Straight from the pages of Gerry Anderson, to you!They're not far off: https://www.sarna.net/wiki/Sherpa
Anyone got good info on tanks in the jungle? WWII, Korea, Vietnam, I'm sure there's got to be some good reading about how well they performed.Slim's, "Defeat into Victory" has both his theories on employment as well as a humorous example of combined arms or at least getting too close to a combined arms fight. Regarding tanks, I took from him, "use them together or lose them separately."
Original is 12 tons, upgraded variants are 13.5 tons. Pretty much paper thin armor though.Cool... I did up 15-ton, 1 platoon capacity APCs down in the design forum...
Interestingly the newer Patria AMV weighs more (16t or more depending on the variant) but carries less troopers (up to 12).
Anyone got good info on tanks in the jungle? WWII, Korea, Vietnam, I'm sure there's got to be some good reading about how well they performed.
Tank Sergeant by Ralph Zumbro
Hundred Miles of Bad Road by Dwight Birdwell and Kieth Nolan
Into Cambodia and Search and Destroy by Kieth Nolan
I'm sure I have more on my shelves, but those stick out most profoundly to me.
I'll take a look. I'm still working on that one fictional nation's army, just as far as projects go, but I wondered just how useful tanks are in that situation. And to be fair it's not like "thick impenetrable jungle" is going to be everywhere, there's always paths and roads and civilized areas that will be considerations - otherwise, if there's nothing and nobody there, who's fighting over it?
Have a WIP that I'm not looking forward to making the tracks for.
If a tank can get there, are any friendlies going to say no to the tactical options a tank provides? Look at the workout the Canadian, Danish, and Dutch Leopard IIs have gotten in Afghanistan, another stereotypical 'not tank country' AO.
If a tank can get there, are any friendlies going to say no to the tactical options a tank provides? Look at the workout the Canadian, Danish, and Dutch Leopard IIs have gotten in Afghanistan, another stereotypical 'not tank country' AO.
Typically 'not tank country' is something us armchair warriors come up with, then some nutjob with brass on his collar proves us wrong.
Fiction, but David Drake wrote several stories collated in The Military Dimension [Mark II] that are formulated around the 11th ACR. They give a good basis of how the actual soldiers saw things and operated on a day-to-day level. Worth checking out, I think.That same description fits for The Complete Hammer's Slammers. I have got & read all 3 (thick) books of it, and it's way better than most BattleTech novels.
They were certainly more detailed about military life than Battletech fiction, but the Slammers tended to be dysfunctional and frequently completely unlikable.
That being a feature and not a bug of the series; you aren't supposed to like all or any of the Slammers, per say; because they are real, (very) imperfect people living in a very harsh environment. Some of them are so flawed we can't even talk about it without violating forum rules.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BzmRuetCMAE1X61?format=jpg&name=small)
I'm pretty sure that it's a Canadian Leopard 2, since I found the image on the Canadian Army's Twitter.
The image was smaller when I got it off Twitter. I couldn't even see that spot, much less make out the shape.
Completely understandable; just as long as you don't make that mistake looking through the sights of an ATGM or tank gun ;) That would be somewhat rude under any circumstances and you know how we feel about rudeness up here.
Yup. And I wouldn't want you thinking that I was somewhat rude. ;D
That being a feature and not a bug of the series; you aren't supposed to like all or any of the Slammers, per say; because they are real, (very) imperfect people living in a very harsh environment. Some of them are so flawed we can't even talk about it without violating forum rules.
For contrast; look at some of the character's in SM Stirling's Draka books; Under the Yoke and Stone Dogs where you have characters which manage to be just as unlikable to the point of comic-book villany, while being less realistic.
This Lady wants her parking spot back. One-side, you Jalopy!
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-MlLqFnSmiqw/VPLJY_-UuPI/AAAAAAADmR4/ff_rL66WA8k/s1600/10422499_334963326699400_8826940065193890143_n.jpg)
Mobility. Armor. Firepower.
Pick two.
M1 Abrams: Hold my beer. I'm taking all three!
It gave up on number 4, cost/logistics, and doesn't do as well as some might in terms of strategic mobility
Oh, there are so many M1s? Well, that explains the price to an extent.We're not using them all, I think the current in-service inventory is down to about 3,000 tanks, but the production line was open for quite some time.
Also I heard that it suffers from greater offroad drop of speed than other tanks, slower Merkava supposedly beat it on the rough terrain part of the Turkish tank trial and Croats like to bragg abot their M-84s being much more manouverable during common exercise.I have never been in a Merkava, M-84 or the Turkish tank, but when I was in Abrams I never noticed any slowing from on road to off road the top speed was more or less the same. The only speed issue we had was when doing gunnery we had to stay away from the shift point (different on each tank) as that would throw off the aim point if you fired right as the tank shifted, but as long as that did not happen off road was the same as on road with maybe a give of about five miles a hour.
We're not using them all, I think the current in-service inventory is down to about 3,000 tanks, but the production line was open for quite some time.
The total number produced to date is approximately 10,288. Used by the United States Army and Marine Corps, Egypt, Kuwait, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Australia, and Iraq.In addition number of Abrams are sitting in storage facilities in a number of places. Purpose is to have Abrams already in vicinity of combat site and only crew needs to be transported.
In addition number of Abrams are sitting in storage facilities in a number of places. Purpose is to have Abrams already in vicinity of combat site and only crew needs to be transported.I can kind of understand how you could get enough of the benefits of an Abrams out of the Stryker, probably MGS version, but trying to replace tanks with Humvees? I've heard it happens, but how does that make sense? I know logistics can kill virtually any good idea but this is like saying, "we can't ship you M-16s and body armor so here are some water guns and motorcycle leathers.
Logistics seems to be a real pain though. I have read stuff about Abrams being replaced with Stryker and even Humvee for some units. Logistics and related costs are the likely reasons.
Yeah, they're not *replacing* Abrams with HMMWVs and trying to use them as tanks. Even the crayoneaters aren't that stupid. What they are doing is grabbing spare soldiers that aren't doing anything else - what with a general lack of tanks to shoot at - and putting them in as PBIs to do patrols, security, recon, whatever.
Remember, they didn't give them all M-16s for nothing.
Anyone got those Haynes manuals for various armored vehicles? Was thinking of snagging a couple but weren't sure how good the info was. Is it just basic Wikipedia-grade stuff or is it really in-depth and good stuff?
It does, actually, I was interested in the Leopard 1 and AML books especially. Might have to grab them at some point...now the only question is where do you find them at £5-7!
If you have loads of T-55s sitting around and are not too likely to face high end threats then why bother upgrading them and if you are facing significant threats then surely you want something more capable than a T-55
But underneath it is still a T-55Raytheon is hocking an upgrade program for M60 Pattons that claims to make it competitive T-90s. Even with a saleswank correction factor, the new 120mm smoothbore and the modern sensor/fire control, it should make it nearly as lethal as any modern Abrams. Not sure how much protection they are adding.
If you have loads of T-55s sitting around and are not too likely to face high end threats then why bother upgrading them and if you are facing significant threats then surely you want something more capable than a T-55
You could add armour packages etc to anything if you wanted - even a WW1 era Mk IV Heavy - but it is a question of at what point you have a "ship of Theseus" or "my great grandfather's axe" or piling too much onto a limited frame
Raytheon is hocking an upgrade program for M60 Pattons that claims to make it competitive T-90s.The M60A3 SLEP was a prototype that began design around 2012 and reached marketing stage in early 2016. It's mostly a repackaging of the Jordanian 2004 M60A3 upgrade in which Raytheon had minor contributions.
The M60A3 SLEP was a prototype that began design around 2012 and reached marketing stage in early 2016. It's mostly a repackaging of the Jordanian 2004 M60A3 upgrade in which Raytheon had minor contributions.I'm not saying its common. Just offering another example of how older tanks can be refit so as to not be totally outclassed by modern vehicles. I'm not saying that the M60 A3 SLEP is equal to Challenger HAAIP or M1A2D. Only that it's a much more capable vehicle that what rolled off the line in '59.
Virtually the only possible customers for SLEP was Bahrain with its remaining 60 active M60A3 TTS tanks. Italian defence company Leonardo pitched a directly competing upgrade design in 2017. For various Rule 4 reasons involving license holders of subcomponents in the upgrade proposals neither of the two has ever been an active option.
T-55 uparmoring package known as the "Enigma" when it was first seen. It's actually a decently impressive composite armor system, and according to Bovington (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rX4pshJnEVE) was proof against TOW missiles.
Useful. TOWs are everywhere and even the non-top attack models can still do a number on unsuspecting modern MBTs
Presumably you're in the state where you're likely to face higher end threats but lack the resources to outright replace your T-55s. An unenviable position, to be sure.or at least unable to afford to replace enough T-55's. add-on armor and some improved optics and radios are a lot cheaper on a per-hull basis than buying a brand new tank. if you are budget strapped like a lot of the developing nations, being able to refit a company of T-55's for the cost of one up to date MBT is a much more cost effective choice. especially if you already have a massive force of old T-55's you inherited from the Soviets and/or a previous government.
but still hot enough to ignite it.New armor upgrade against infantry: burning armor!
They can't make swarm attacks if the target is on fire.They can if the CO has a whip!
That's from Operation Klondike, isn't it? ;)
While its not armored . . .
They can if the CO has a whip!
While its not armored . . .
(https://scontent-dfw5-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/59763441_401403870710629_6962924362353606656_n.jpg?_nc_cat=100&_nc_sid=110474&_nc_ohc=6SWVAMajzwgAX9HAgA6&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-2.xx&oh=470bfe5d87c6ccd2341e87905eff8d09&oe=5EDBB924)
Where there's a whip, there's a way. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdXQJS3Yv0Y)They can't make swarm attacks if the target is on fire.They can if the CO has a whip!
Hmm... Go and die in the most painful way possible or strangle the CO with his own whip and be released after the charges are dropped?...
Decisions, decisions.
short of a Char B1, the M3 grant is probably the closest thing you'll find for another 30 millennia
Nice photo of that Grant tank!
I thought the Grant model had the more rounded turret with the simple flip hatch on top? That one has the angular turret with what appears to be an unarmed machine gun cupola?
Ruger
i cant see the back of the turret so i am not sure which it is
https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/us/m3_lee_grant.php (https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/us/m3_lee_grant.php)
i cant see the back of the turret so i am not sure which it is
https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/us/m3_lee_grant.php
Did the US use many? Or were most of them in service with Commonwealth nations, in the Lee config?
IIRC, "Grant" was exclusively used to refer to the British variant of the M3 Medium Tank.
i miss the era of cute tanks. these could be used for designing pretty good plush toys, really.
Now do not get me wrong, I loved my M1, and think it is great in just about every way. But as great as it looks it just in some ways does not look as cool as some of the older (more effective, safer for its crew, deadlier for the enemy, but not as cool).
Flat tank flat tank nobody loves you!
I actually like the lines of the modern tanks. I find the profile to be lower and more aggressive, the lines cleaner and radiating combat power.
A lot of the older designs look like they were designed by committee, and that puts me right off.
You’d probably never get a design nowadays like the old M2 medium tank with its 37 mm turreted main gun, and additional 7 to 9 .30 caliber machine guns (with a whopping 12,000+ rounds for the MG’s)Marder until the mid 80s carried:
Come now. You’d probably never get a design nowadays like the old M2 medium tank with its 37 mm turreted main gun, and additional 7 to 9 .30 caliber machine guns (with a whopping 12,000+ rounds for the MG’s). That’s a level of zaniness you just have to love.
Still, nothing beats the ridiculousness that was the T-35.ahh the T35 or the early 40k tank
Come now. You’d probably never get a design nowadays like the old M2 medium tank with its 37 mm turreted main gun, and additional 7 to 9 .30 caliber machine guns (with a whopping 12,000+ rounds for the MG’s). That’s a level of zaniness you just have to love.
Ruger
ahh the T35 or the early 40k tank
Ah, The tank that Orks would approve of. Approaching sufficient dakka.
Still, nothing beats the ridiculousness that was the T-35.And afterwards Soviet tank designers still wanted to make the multi turret tanks, but Stalin told them to knock it off, famously remarking that these tanks make as much sense as building house with different living room for every occasion. You know you messed up when Stalin has to be the voice of reason.
And afterwards Soviet tank designers still wanted to make the multi turret tanks, but Stalin told them to knock it off, famously remarking that these tanks make as much sense as building house with different living room for every occasion. You know you messed up when Stalin has to be the voice of reason.
At what point do we start looking sideways at the M-60 with the large cupola for the commander... not at all a secondary MG turret... definitely not
Are there any armored RWS for vehicles?Not really any i know of. The armor after all is there to protect the squishy parts.
It should be pointed out that at the time multiple turrets did make some sense. Well, two turrets did. If you need two guns for HE and AP putting them in the same turret isn't easy.
the real idea for itThere were 20 different designs submitted for the KV-4.
and did you happen to notice that that was the LAST time we tried that?Your typical CROWS mount is basically the same thing, only with a .50 MG that actually works unlike the M85. Unmanned, granted, but still independent and on a powered mount.
There were 20 different designs submitted for the KV-4.There's good reason people keep getting suckered that this was real...
For the two guns (107mm main and 76 or 45mm secondary) these included in various designs:
- side-by-side mounting in one turret (+ MG turret on top)
- overarching casemate 107 with 76 in turret on top
- hull casemate 76 with 107 in turret (and the other way around)
- superfiring two turrets (+ MG turret on 107 turret)
- turret on top of turret (+ MG turret on top of second turret + MG turret on hull)
- offset 76 turret on top of 107 turret
- "shouldered" AA 76 on top of 107 turret
And afterwards Soviet tank designers still wanted to make the multi turret tanks, but Stalin told them to knock it off, famously remarking that these tanks make as much sense as building house with different living room for every occasion. You know you messed up when Stalin has to be the voice of reason.funny, in that european nobility and rich people often did have a different living room for every occasion.
*snip*Weather has been known to happen on land, I hear... ::)
The housing is probably also only there because those designs look to be basically adaptions of naval RWS where the housing actually serves a purpose.
Now I want to try & stat it out as the the flagship unit of some backwoods militia unit next time I run a MW2 campaign >:D
Hmmm...
45mm = AC/5, 76mm = AC/10, 150mm = AC/20, rocke rails = LRM10?
or
45mm = LAC/2, 76mm = LAC/5, 150mm = AC/10, rocket rails = 2xRL10?
Biggest problem I have always had when trying to stat out anything from real life to BattleTech is the ranges getting shorter as the weapon gets more powerful. My Abrams can shoot a lot further and for more damage than my grandpa's Sherman.
With rifles, the larger, more powerful guns have longer ranges.
Ruger
CADT, trying to apply realism to BattleTech results only in migraines and sadness. :bang:
Sounds like it will be a Leopard 2 chassis with a Rheinmetall 130mm gun with an autoloader and probably unmanned turret from the Frenchyes then it can be built with a totally superfluous rifled 130mm cannon.
Frankly, I think Britain needs to get in on the action!
yes then it can be built with a totally superfluous rifled 130mm cannon.
The Ruskies love their ERA way too much to rely on HE.
actually the brits kept the rifling so they could fire HESH rounds. why i've never figured out. the usual claim is light vehicles and buildings, but if you are sending your MBT's after trucks and buildings you are doing a lot of things wrong. especially since a 120mm HESH round is major overkill. and HESH is useless against heavily armored targets.
Or maybe just have a decent HE round developed from the get-go?
actually the brits kept the rifling so they could fire HESH rounds. why i've never figured out. the usual claim is light vehicles and buildings, but if you are sending your MBT's after trucks and buildings you are doing a lot of things wrong. especially since a 120mm HESH round is major overkill. and HESH is useless against heavily armored targets.
and the rifling degrades the performance of APFSDS and HEAT rounds.
L11, not L/11. L/ has a specific meaning with things like artillery and tank guns.
As it was explained to me the HESH issue had to do with range, specifically short range. APFSDS supposedly wobbles right after leaving the barrel, doing bad things to penetration for the first few hundred meters. The Brits were expecting to a lot of short-range fighting defending inside German cities and thought a rifled gun firing a HESH round would be the best option for that.
Sounds like it will be a Leopard 2 chassis with a Rheinmetall 130mm gun with an autoloader and probably unmanned turret from the FrenchEh, it rather won't be.
and CHIPS - and Causing Havoc In Public Spaces
I've heard that the British Army refer or referred to urban combat as FISH - Fighting In Someone's House
- and the novel "Chieftain" seems to suggest that while anticipating a life-span measured in hours if the Cold War went hot in the 1980s the British tankers were looking forward to reversing into and then hiding in German houses' front rooms
https://www.army-technology.com/features/streetfighter-challenger-2/
Urbanised upgrade, hence Streetfighter. Includes heavier, more lethal machine gun systems to provide dismounted infantry better support fire and Brimstone anti-tank guided missile system designed to neutralise the threat of heavily armoured, highly survivable land platforms at long-range. The Brimstone, made by MBDA, is designed to destroy fast-moving vehicles alongside tanks and other lighter-armoured vehicles as well as fixed positions like bunkers and can be fired from a range of platforms.
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/decision-on-challenger-2-tank-upgrade-to-be-taken-in-2021/
Update on Challenger upgrade not expected until next year
Or possibly the year after
Or maybe the year after that...
I'm surprised no Western nation hasn't followed the lead of the BMPT Terminator.What lead? That thing never really sold in non-western countries either. Russia and Kazakhstan each operate around a company worth of these vehicles. The only one that actually uses it in significant numbers is Algeria which seems to have a policy of "let's buy the whole catalogue" with regard to armoured vehicles.
a infantry vehicle with a pole and camera1981 wants its weapon ideas back.
you sneak up, but be fully buttoned up,
on the end of the pole, camera and weapon, can be a small missle,
https://www.army-technology.com/features/streetfighter-challenger-2/
Urbanised upgrade, hence Streetfighter.
I'm surprised no Western nation hasn't followed the lead of the BMPT Terminator. They all have excess tanks in storage they can switch out turrets with. Lots of situations where a light autocannon, machine guns, automatic grenade launchers and short range guided (even ungided) missiles would be much more appropriate than a 120mm tank gun. Basically infantry fighting vehicle firepower (on steroids!) with MBT protection.Western nations prefer to rely on proper infantry-armor cooperation. Terminator is one of the answers to Grozny disaster, when poorly supported armor suffered heavy casualties to Chechen irregulars. Russian army is not fond of the vehicle though, preferring to keep the current force composition and actually train it's forces in proper urban combat tactics, the purchases so far had only been due to political pressure.
(https://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/BMPT_at_Engineering_Technologies_2012_right-ft.jpg)
I'm surprised no Western nation hasn't followed the lead of the BMPT Terminator. They all have excess tanks in storage they can switch out turrets with.
I'm surprised no Western nation hasn't followed the lead of the BMPT Terminator. They all have excess tanks in storage they can switch out turrets with. Lots of situations where a light autocannon, machine guns, automatic grenade launchers and short range guided (even ungided) missiles would be much more appropriate than a 120mm tank gun. Basically infantry fighting vehicle firepower (on steroids!) with MBT protection.Roughly, 12 years ago when I still on active duty I showed that very picture to an infantry officer colleague and response when I told him what it was for, "why not just use a 500lb bomb?"
(https://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/BMPT_at_Engineering_Technologies_2012_right-ft.jpg)
Can't find production numbers for Terminators on a cursory search, but the biggest order I can see was Algeria's for 300, and I'm assuming the hulls were taken from "shelf stock".The Kazakh BMPT are probably new production vehicles delivered in two batches of 3 (in 2011) and 7 (by 2013) respectively, based around new T-72-based chassis. Supposedly there was another contract for a further 30 later, but it's a bit hazy whether that ever materialized.
Roughly, 12 years ago when I still on active duty I showed that very picture to an infantry officer colleague and response when I told him what it was for, "why not just use a 500lb bomb?"
The Kazakh BMPT are probably new production vehicles delivered in two batches of 3 (in 2011) and 7 (by 2013) respectively, based around new T-72-based chassis. Supposedly there was another contract for a further 30 later, but it's a bit hazy whether that ever materialized.
The Algerian BMPT are Terminator II version and hence retrofit kits on pre-existing T-72 hulls.
The Russian BMPT (other than retained trials vehicles) are an unnamed retrofit version on pre-existing T-90A hulls (production: 11).
Roughly, 12 years ago when I still on active duty I showed that very picture to an infantry officer colleague and response when I told him what it was for, "why not just use a 500lb bomb?"
*snip*THAT is an understatement... :-\
Urban warfare is bad for everyone.
Well...The joys of being in a Marine Air Ground Task Force made the presence of air more reliable.
1) The bomb doesn't look anywhere as cool in a parade
2) The bomb assumes the availability and presence of friendly aircraft at a time and place of the local commander's choosing which is... a lot more variables than "Was the BMP-T able to start this morning"
like every other heavy tank the US built it never actually saw combat.The M26 Pershing, originally designed as a heavy tank (reclassified in '46) saw plenty of combat.
The M26 Pershing, originally designed as a heavy tank (reclassified in '46) saw plenty of combat.
If fictional is OK, then have something from a setting that I'm working on. ;)I know I've been watching too much Inside the Chieftain's Hatch because first thought was, "where does the crew sleep?" followed by "No bustle rack? Boo. Hiss." :-)
(https://images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca887773594c2.wixmp.com/f/99743f96-3eb6-4cbc-9da7-c84e0f5d6d2d/dd5m4jr-35be9b80-438e-4979-b67b-e4bc14eaf9dd.png?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOiIsImlzcyI6InVybjphcHA6Iiwib2JqIjpbW3sicGF0aCI6IlwvZlwvOTk3NDNmOTYtM2ViNi00Y2JjLTlkYTctYzg0ZTBmNWQ2ZDJkXC9kZDVtNGpyLTM1YmU5YjgwLTQzOGUtNDk3OS1iNjdiLWU0YmMxNGVhZjlkZC5wbmcifV1dLCJhdWQiOlsidXJuOnNlcnZpY2U6ZmlsZS5kb3dubG9hZCJdfQ.Kk5w63FJ2NNUl0AiRV8KmAGX7ds_A-JNVsfckk5cAgc)
I know I've been watching too much Inside the Chieftain's Hatch because first thought was, "where does the crew sleep?" followed by "No bustle rack? Boo. Hiss." :-)
:bang: It's the "Oh bugger, the tank is fire," test. I know because my mug arrived 2 days ago. :-)
Will it pass the "help help, my tank is on fire!" test?
Is T-34 a good movie?Reception in Russia seems to have been along the lines that it's a movie version of World of Tanks, with very little realism and lots of gloss as regard the timeframe it depicts.
Is T-34 a good movie? Cause I loved Tank and that Afghan /Russian one, where the women follow it cause of the damage it caused to the village.
TT
"The Beast"? ???
Ya folks ever heard of this little thing?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_Tracked_Carrier
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/47/Oxford_Carrier_recovers_Jeeps%2C_AWM_HOBJ3524.jpg)
Or the FV401 Cambridge Carrier, that replaced the Oxford.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/18/00/7e/18007efc3eb9810dc56982959ea33a27.jpg)
(https://i.pinimg.com/564x/72/e4/74/72e47433019d4ccbfe38ac0c80c76ae6.jpg)
Also MechWarrior Fox those tanks and their background are really cool! Darn nice work! :)
Anyone else going to be watching Tankfest Online on Sunday?
https://tankmuseum.org/events/tankfest-online/ (https://tankmuseum.org/events/tankfest-online/)
I see your 90mm and raise you 15mm more... ^-^
(https://www.armyrecognition.com/images/stories/asia/india/exhibition/defexpo_2014/pictures/Garuda-105_ultra-light_105mm_field_gun_mounted_on_Humvee_Kalyani_group_India_defense_industry_Defexpo_2014_001.jpg)
I see your 90mm and raise you 15mm more... ^-^
(https://www.armyrecognition.com/images/stories/asia/india/exhibition/defexpo_2014/pictures/Garuda-105_ultra-light_105mm_field_gun_mounted_on_Humvee_Kalyani_group_India_defense_industry_Defexpo_2014_001.jpg)
don't know about that one, but this one looks interesting:
https://www.businessinsider.com/watch-the-army-test-its-new-105mm-hawkeye-humvee-mounted-howitzer-2018-8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqYB7cGij6o
The first one is an Indian design.that helped me find it. the Garuda-105
They look hydraulic to me, which is indirectly connected to the gearbox I suppose...
Is that a 105 howitzer or a 105 gun?? Howitizers have much less kick and can be lighter.That's an incredibly relative difference, Belch. Kind of like "Oh, .308 has a lot less kick than .300 winchester!"
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=W5QF_Adtf_I (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=W5QF_Adtf_I)
Here you go.
Also, are you all watching TankFest Live?Tankfest is warring with NASCAR but right now the race is redflagged, so yes!
TankFest Live?
Do what with the where now?
And it is...?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=W5QF_Adtf_I
Here you go.
Now I never was, never will be, and only kind of sort of understand what goes into artillery so if any red legs say otherwise I will believe them. Having said this the things that stuck out to me is how overloaded the Hawkeye looks, first it is an up-armored hummer and they are already just about overloaded, then you add the gun. This is also something I thought based on the ruts it was making in the ground, now yes the ground looks moist, compared to the towed were it is dry, but that just looks to me like a major limiting factor that does not apply as much to the towed unit. As for the towed unit why did they need to lift the toeing part up three times? that looked like it wasted a fair amount of time, could it not have been done once? The other question I have is sustained fire, with only a four man crew, one of who I am guessing is a SSG or higher (did not look to be doing any work), that leaves you with only three to do all the breakdown, setup and moving of ammo, how log can they keep that up. As once they started "firing" you had one on the truck, one with the control in hand, one supervising/checking stuff, and one loading. The towed one looked to have the same four positions, but with a seven man crew is able to have three to hump ammo. So what it looks like to me (and remember what I said about my artillery knowledge) that the Hawkeye is definitely faster, but will have a lot more maintenance, and will not be able to sustain fire for as long, nor go as many places.
As for the towed unit why did they need to lift the toeing part up three times? that looked like it wasted a fair amount of time, could it not have been done once?Specialty of the M119 : You can not turn the gun around to the other side unless the right wheel is removed. In order to be able to remove the right wheel the gun is temporarily propped up on a jack below its center of gravity.
It cannot have been a fun experience to be the driver for one of those.
Maxim 11: Everything is air-droppable at least once.
That's the Boxer, innit? We're getting them down under at some point. Any customer reviews :)The German one for Boxer + autocannon will pretty much be the same as the Australian one, other than details such as the anti-tank missiles slapped on.
Aren't the Wiesels just Pzkw 1s or 2s recycled from early WW2?They're actually 20% shorter, 10% less wide and half the weight compared to a Pz I.
Oh, and does the term 'airmobile weapons carrier' sound a little like 'omnivehicle'?
Those look like ridiculously narrow tracks. Not that the vehicles are super heavy, but how can those be useful on anything other than hard ground?
Oh, and does the term 'airmobile weapons carrier' sound a little like 'omnivehicle'?
Those look like ridiculously narrow tracks. Not that the vehicles are super heavy, but how can those be useful on anything other than hard ground?The requirement for cross-country ability of the Wiesel was to be "equivalent to an Iltis", the then-current 4x4 jeep in service.
But the German is so much more... German... at least according to Google Translate - Luftfahrzeugwaffenträger"Luftbeweglicher Waffenträger" actually. Formal abbreviation "LuWa", since the Bundeswehr abbreviates everything.
Ah, the German language. If a word has less letters than the actual alphabet, it's considered short.
"Luftbeweglicher Waffenträger" actually. Formal abbreviation "LuWa", since the Bundeswehr abbreviates everything.
Could be worse. Could be Welsh, where it could be that long and have no vowels.
:D ;D
Ruger
Could be worse. Could be Welsh, where it could be that long and have no vowels.
:D ;D
Ruger
Ah, the German language. If a word has less letters than the actual alphabet, it's considered short.;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Given that he is wearing the old monochrome uniform, I'd say this is before the cellphones.Looks rather like washed-out Flecktarn to me...
Given that he is wearing the old monochrome uniform, I'd say this is before the cellphones.I think he's simply carrying something over his right shoulder.
Those pictures look more like Napoleonic Wars rather than the era of Napoleon III!
Aye the only things that changed it seems were the weapons, with more modern rifles and a lack of sabres. Although saying that - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuXFSmhS_1c&t (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuXFSmhS_1c&t) Sure this isn't a WW1 weapon but dat 'bayonette'!
Of course this was largely an exception and most French troops wore uniforms like thisMost of the pictures seem to be colourized versions of photos taken ahead of the 1913 Bastille Day parade, i.e. these are their parade uniforms - not their regular duty uniforms. At least the ones with the Senegalese tirailleurs.
Damned if it doesn't look like they took the concept of the SAS Jeep and scaled it up.It's actually more of a scale-down:
Bradley Replacement?
(https://www.army-technology.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2017/09/3l-image-149.jpg)
Raytheon and Rheinmetall are offering the Lynx IFV.
They rebooted the OMFV tender in February.
Which given US peculiarities in particular with regard to NIH syndrome really does say something about how they evaluate the GDLS offer.
That's got the Bushmaster 50mm on there, right?
Is the cover protecting the barrel against external knocks, providing barrel stiffening, IR shielding, or some other function?
30mm.
I don't know much about modern armor., but I assume a 30mm cannon is for anti infantry and structure purposes?30x173 does fairly well against vehicles of about the same size as that one, and will mission-kill MBTs.
(https://i.redd.it/9tn35ryvs7o21.jpg)
So, eh, does that actually immobilize a tracked vehicle? Because if it does, barbed wire seems awfully easy way to prevent tanks and other tracked vehicles going places.
(https://i.redd.it/9tn35ryvs7o21.jpg)
The one(s) detailed to clean it all out are going to have far worse.
When I was driving a Sheridan,
So, eh, does that actually immobilize a tracked vehicle? Because if it does, barbed wire seems awfully easy way to prevent tanks and other tracked vehicles going places.From my understanding barbed wire not likely (modern vehicles will tear it up before enough gets wrapped around something). Concertina on the other hand, yes it will, if as others have said there is enough of it. I was talking with my brother some time ago, and he was saying how his driver had clipped the end of a row of triple strand, it took about a mile but stopped the tank dead. To fix it, they could have spend about a week with wire cutters, or wait for maintenance to show up with the torch, break the track and then get to cutting (and remember that concertina is spring loaded), you will end up cut and then you still have to fix any damage done before you can put track back on. Even on a good day you are out of action for most of the day.
BairdEC, if you don't mind - the Sheridan gets a lot of flak, some of which certainly seems reasonable to an armchair observer.
What was your experience of it, if you would share it with us? Were there good points as well as the well-reported bad?
okay my brain is fried but what the creature behind the M1 tank?
Is that a Wehrmacht flag on the Leopard 1?
Painted on the side of the turret. Just forward of the stuff that's sticking out from the armor.
Oh. Guess I'm just used to seeing it on German units in historical wargames like Axis and Allies or World of Tanks.The post-1956 Iron Cross is styled differently from the Wehrmacht use, reusing the pre-1916 version of a "Tatzenkreuz" ("paw cross", bars expanding outwards in concave fashion) instead of the Wehrmacht's wartime "Balkenkreuz" ("beam cross", simple straight bars).
Wasn't it also prone to getting so hot that the propellant for the cannon rounds became prone to spontaneously igniting when loaded into the gun?
Wasn't it also prone to getting so hot that the propellant for the cannon rounds became prone to spontaneously igniting when loaded into the gun?
IIRC, their use in Vietnam also revealed they had a tendency to not burn, but outright explode like a British battlecruiser at Jutland - and for the same reasons - magazine hit. And when you compare the ammo with the size of the hull, you can figure out that everything inside is either meatbag or magazine. I imagine caseless rounds didn't help in this regard. Instead of cased rounds cooking off, you went straight from 0 to Michael Bay.
(http://www.byronhartshorn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/DA-ST-92-07502.jpeg)
Wasn't it also prone to getting so hot that the propellant for the cannon rounds became prone to spontaneously igniting when loaded into the gun?
and ultimately the 152mm gun/launcher failed because it was too much launcher, not enough gun, and when the launcher aspect didn't work out, the gun part didn't live up to the need.
(the gun mode had poor performance, in part because of the caseless rounds used, and had a tendency to wreck the missile firing hardware. but the missiles were unreliable.)
it is notable that the soviets managed to make "missiles fired from a tank gun" work with things like the AT-8 Songster (9K112 Kobra) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K112_Kobra).. by just designing missiles that could be fired down a standard tank gun and be stored in the standard ammo bin alongside normal shells. and which didn't require elaborate firing gear inside the gun.
I think the AMX-30 is a better example of the all-or-nothing protection. I think its armour is barely more than most light tanks or wheeled vehicles. The initial Leopard 1 followed a similar paradigm, but up-armoured turrets starting showing up almost immediately. I think it was also around the time they started playing with spaced armour layouts and composites instead of homegenous cast or welded armour. Mind you, it's hardly a new idea. I seem to remember decapping plates being used as a counter against capped AP shells, while skirt armour also showed up pretty quickly in WW2 in order to try and reduce the damage caused by the first shaped charge AT weapons.
Well the Sheridan was supposed to be dropped out the back of a C130...don't know if it ever did that even. A 20 ton tank isn't going to last long against a 50 to 70 ton tank.
The Stryker was supposed to have the same capability of being dropped out of a C130, but the mods to the Stryker made that not happen.
The initial Leopard 1 followed a similar paradigm, but up-armoured turrets starting showing up almost immediately.Not quite immediately.
Not quite immediately.
German production:
Leopard 1A0 = built 1965-1970 - upgraded 1975-1976 to Leopard 1A1A1 (uparmored turret), upgraded 1986-1992 to Leopard 1A5 (new FCS).
Leopard 1A2 = built 1972-1973 - production run terminated after 122 units (thicker cast turret) in favour of A3 below.
Leopard 1A3 = built 1973-1974 - 110 A3 (new welded spaced-armor turret) + 250 A4 (new FCS, removed 1989 for foreign sale).
So basically the 1A0 were in service and the next production run after a pause was gonna use a new thicker cast turret. While that came into production a new welded turret was designed and production switched over asap. Only after that second production run finished they started looking into an armor upgrade for the original 1A0 that formed 80% of the fleet.
Production for other countries followed the same pattern - entirely based on production period. Belgium, Netherlands and Norway got 1A0 ; Italy 1A2 ; Canada, Australia, Denmark, Turkey and Greece 1A3. Italy as the only other country with a production line kept producing 1A2 while Germany had already switched to 1A3 (heck, timing-wise they probably got the tooling from Krauss-Maffei after the German A2 run was abandoned).
Upgrade philosophy was also a bit different outside Germany and pretty much based around buying old German 1A5 turrets after the Cold War and fitting them on the tanks.
Well the Sheridan was supposed to be dropped out the back of a C130...don't know if it ever did that even.
Is that what they call a career-limiting mistake?
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/81/4e/c1/814ec109e2236823c441ee37b9facd62.jpg)This looks like something from a sci fi movie
The Chrysler TV-8 from 1955. A diesel engine in the turret generated electricity for two electric motors, one per tank. The whole turret oscillated; the 90m gun was fixed, and auto-loaded. The main "hull"turret was conventionally shaped & sloped, and fitted within the smooth outer shell shown. THis not only acted like spaced armour, it gave the tank enough buoyancy to float (until damaged, I guess). zIt also had a water-jet in the back.
Nuclear fission power was considered. But then the Pentagon sobered up, and it was cancelled in 1956.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/81/4e/c1/814ec109e2236823c441ee37b9facd62.jpg)
The Chrysler TV-8 from 1955. A diesel engine in the turret generated electricity for two electric motors, one per tank. The whole turret oscillated; the 90m gun was fixed, and auto-loaded. The main "hull"turret was conventionally shaped & sloped, and fitted within the smooth outer shell shown. THis not only acted like spaced armour, it gave the tank enough buoyancy to float (until damaged, I guess). zIt also had a water-jet in the back.
Nuclear fission power was considered. But then the Pentagon sobered up, and it was cancelled in 1956.
A wooden box?Steel. It's the front part of the chassis, and holds the armor plates inside that open block forward of the wheel holes.
Is... is that a BUK on a T-34?? ???
Pereh is built on M-60 (Magach) chassis and was declassified only few years ago, with Magach being pulled out of service it was obvious that vehicles resembling it would draw lot attention, so no point keeping the cat in the bag.
Isn't there an Israeli(?) gun-launched missile out there now as well?LAHAT has been around since 1992 (!).
Well, the LAHAT has a range of >10km, that's quite a bit compared to standard rounds.6 km ground-to-ground, which is fairly standard (and also achievable with 120mm shells notionally).
A gun can fire at a much higher rate than a missile launcher could.As a bit of crossover from the Naval side... nah. May i introduce you to the Mk102: A 127mm/5-inch repeating rocket launcher with continuous automatic feed firing at 30-32 rpm, with actual rate of fire entirely dependent on how fast the regularly six (!) men loading it below could stuff the rockets in there from the ready racks. Range depending on ammunition used was either 2,500 to 10,000 yards, i.e. within the same scope as tank guns (similar throwweight too).
Is there any advantage to a gun/missile launcher?? A Missle launcher alone is light which makes it really portable. A gun can fire at a much higher rate than a missile launcher could. The missile will have a larger range and be more accurate, but the gun and ammo is a lot cheaper.I think part of what killed the gun/missile launchers was the folks found that APDS rounds were more effective. That and the issues of firing a projectile would knock parts of the missile system out of calibration. :-(
as i understand it, the initial push for guntube launched missiles was to try and fit a bigger HEAT warhead into a tank gun..Technically, the original intention back in 1957 in the West was to include the ability to fire cheap HE/HESH rounds from a missile launcher as the primary weapon system. The missiles as primary antitank armament were at the time advertised with a 0.9 PK rate, which was extremely attractive compared to existing gun systems (with typically below 0.5 PK). Factually the idea died when the system developed failed to deliver on these overrated PK numbers in trials.
And the second picture looked like something from Macross.
No, looks more like Naval Ops: Warship Gunner of PS2 fame.
Some of those graphics are fake, but most are based on, somewhat, on real weapons of the world.
TT
And the second picture looked like something from Macross.There's actually surprisingly few (maybe 5-10) pictures of that, despite them being heavily used in Korea and in some cases in Vietnam.
“The truly weak spot of the Panther is its final drive, which is of too weak a design and has an average fatigue life of only 150 km.“
I like bringing that point up about Panthers (and the lack of reliability in German armored vehicles in general) whenever a fanboy who's only ever looked at their stats in Flames of War or War Thunder starts gushing about how superior German tanks were to everyone else's.
Third, Germany lacked industrialized assembly lines for production. Their tanks were being built mostly by hand, and quite a bit of it was done by slave labor, including POWs. This no only made the construction process less efficient and prone to mistakes, it also meant that there was strong incentive to deliberately sabotage things whenever possible.
And I for one am glad the Allies made strategic, operational, and tactical logistics (and expeditionary warfare a doctrinal consideration) a higher priority than the Axis.Fully loaded, this thing can't make way versus an ebb tide at 6.5 mph or less than 6 knots. So no, it isn't a steal. The current LARC is fantastic because it can do surf zone recovery...but it isn't a landing craft. I'm not a fan of the LCAC as I see greater utility in displacement LCUs and self-deploying amphibious vehicles (AAV and ACV) but this thing doesn't help. At best it fits in the midst of reasonable qualities but none that are useful.
How about this monster. Apparently still available on the civilian market for about $50000 USD:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ae/BARC-LARC-XV-2.jpeg)
Actually, that's a two-LARC-for-one image. I'm mainly referring to the larger of the pair. At 10-gal US per mile, it's a steal compared the LCACs at their ~260 gpm.
EDIT: grammar, spelling
Fully loaded, this thing can't make way versus an ebb tide at 6.5 mph or less than 6 knots. So no, it isn't a steal. The current LARC is fantastic because it can do surf zone recovery...but it isn't a landing craft. I'm not a fan of the LCAC as I see greater utility in displacement LCUs and self-deploying amphibious vehicles (AAV and ACV) but this thing doesn't help. At best it fits in the midst of reasonable qualities but none that are useful.
"this meant the wheels would fall off, and then the hull would melt."It's so refreshing to hear engineers unfiltered by program managers! :D
Yah, not ideal ... :D Thanks for that! :thumbsup:
Meanwhile in the UK
"Can we make a Churchill tank the basis for an amphibious craft?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_F_ZjytDqqE&t
Also a good youtube channel well worth a watch.
Meanwhile in the UK
"Can we make a Churchill tank the basis for an amphibious craft?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_F_ZjytDqqE&t
Also a good youtube channel well worth a watch.
Marauder?
You've got a good reach into historical...
What can you tell us about this :
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4b/Tsar_tank.jpg/800px-Tsar_tank.jpg)
Tsar Tank
TT
Ah yes, the Churchill bridgelayer variant.
There was also the Churchill APC variant, which I think was honestly no faster than walking for the troopers in it.
Yeah, but it could take a hit from an anti-tank gun & survive.So could Tiger and IS tanks, but at higher speed, meaning they could get where they were needed sooner. One of the many problems Churchill had was it's terrible engine, emblematic for general state of British tank production before and during the war.
Damon.
It looks to me like spring 1945 offensive in Italy, 8th army tanks used such turret camouflage during that time.
So could Tiger and IS tanks, but at higher speed, meaning they could get where they were needed sooner. One of the many problems Churchill had was it's terrible engine, emblematic for general state of British tank production before and during the war.
I'm not going to comment on the general quality of the engine, but the CHurchill's slowness was deliberate & had nothing to do with the engine. It was an infantry tank, so it needed to be only so fast as to support the infantry. You could criticize the doctrine (& indeed the British moved away from that doctrine to the "universal tank" idea fairly quickly after the War), but the speed issues was a part of the design.
Damon.
(https://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/17c3ced11a07a090ff366eb60b5c476b.jpg)
And speaking of Churchill's here's its attempted upgrade/replacement- the Black Prince. A tank that was obsolete before development even began.
As always, it depends. How big is your country? How rich? What sort of technical support base does it have?
If your enemy has antique T-55s, LAVs ain't going to cut it. If I were running a smallish backwards country with more manpower than cash, I'd be looking for refurbished T-72s as a core, supported by wheeled vehicles which share parts for their APC, fire support, etc. And I'd be going to Poland, Rumania, Hungary, and saying "Cut me a deal, including the maintenance package!"
US/NATO equipment is typically high-end and needs high-end maintenance. Not aware of anyone producing "monkey models" (the old Soviet term) of current US/NATO equipment.
If your enemy has antique T-55s, LAVs ain't going to cut it. If I were running a smallish backwards country with more manpower than cash, I'd be looking for refurbished T-72s as a core, supported by wheeled vehicles which share parts for their APC, fire support, etc. And I'd be going to Poland, Rumania, Hungary, and saying "Cut me a deal, including the maintenance package!"This ended up being the general solution to my particular "make an 1985 army" thread, which ended up with T-55s and some T-72s sourced from Poland and the French duo of AMX-10P/AMX-10 RC for most other battlefield duties.
Low hanging fruit too, since it looks like it uses the turret from the Comet (an alltogether better tank).
Damon.
Worse, that turret was one that was considered (and rejected) for the Centurion, which had the same gun (17 Pounder), same frontal armor (but sloped for improved effectiveness), combined with being lighter and having better speed.
If the Black Prince had been put into development two years earlier, it might have been useful, but the Sherman Firefly was a better means of getting a tank with a 17 Pounder onto the battlefield in every regard aside from frontal armor, so I doubt it would have been that useful.
The sorry state of UK tank development also wasn't helped when the man with the most experience in tank design and development, John Carden died in a plane crash before the war, he and his team at Vickers were the UK's premier tank designers, and with his death, there simply wasn't someone of his skill to step up and take his place.
There's a thread over at AltHistory that uses John Carden surviving a rough landing as its PoD that I'm quite enjoying.
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/sir-john-valentine-carden-survives.496447/ (https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/sir-john-valentine-carden-survives.496447/)
Ok,So is that a Clan Hellhorse/Stone Lion design or a WOB one?
Does this belong here or in the Aviation thread?
Cause I'm not sure....
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a1/AntonovA40.jpg/1024px-AntonovA40.jpg)
Antonov-A40 / Krylya Tanka
TT
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/39870/nothing-but-images-of-precision-guided-weapons-taken-just-before-they-obliterate-their-targets
For all your pre-boom needs.
The British Valiant, a stark lesson in how not to design a tank.A literal lesson in how not to design a tank, each year REME engineering students are shown the thing and told to find all the problems.
Developed during WW2, the first T92 was ready by July 1945, they were intended to be used for the planned invasion of Japan, but the war ended before they could be used in combat, the production contracts were canceled after the Japanese Surrender with only 7 being builtapparently there was also a T93 version which carried a 203mm/8inch artillery piece.
The only surviving complete T92 is preserved at the Detroit Arsenal in Warren, Michigan
LIFE Magazine Archives - Mark Kauffman Photographer
Holy cow, that is a door knocker! Kind of wonder if the chassis was used for later development of the M48 since it is pretty different than the Sherman of the time.
The British Valiant, a stark lesson in how not to design a tank.so what traits earned it that reputation?
so what traits earned it that reputation?
apparently there was also a T93 version which carried a 203mm/8inch artillery piece.
which i suspect eventually inspired the M110. which was based on (Via the M107 and M55) the M48 tank chassis..
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/7a/59/16/7a59168eb76bf4610b4cf28aef08071d.jpg)(https://americanlegionpost113.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/M110-Self-Propelled-Howitzer.jpg)
so what traits earned it that reputation?
Have you ever wondered 'How much cheese does a Maus need?' well worry no more! Someone worked it out
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QN-XxbDOnAY
We did look at adding American cheese to the mix, but quite frankly it's vile, and enough research has been done on plastic armour in the past.
That video is proving to be a great example of serious answers to silly questions. The best bit of that video so far has been:
Maus and cheese have always been a good combination
https://youtu.be/WyiySzLPJ7Q (https://youtu.be/WyiySzLPJ7Q)
Paint the gunbarrel safety orange?
You know, I could kinda almost affort one of these (except for the shipping ...)So just so I know how did u explain the idea to Mrs.Worktroll? Just asking for a friend :thumbsup:
Paint the gunbarrel safety orange?"Hey Bob, you see that orange? I don't like it, drop a bomb on it".
Glad to see they're keeping armored warfare after all, with the rumors of their scrapping tanks altogether. So they're going with a new smoothbore, I'm guessing it's still going to be a 120mm instead of upgunning to the 130 that other nations are looking at.
Because why would we use anything that anyone else is using when we can create an expensive cul-de-sac of our own? [grin] And we don't need to scrap tanks, just reduce them, as we've pretty much scrapped IFVs to support them instead, from what I've heard. So I'm wondering how much Challenger III is intended for the open market rather than for 'domestic' use.
Because why would we use anything that anyone else is using when we can create an expensive cul-de-sac of our own? [grin]
TO keep their hand in? Australia would be SOL if we couldn't import armoured vehicles, because we've lost the knowledge & knacks. Once you lose the skilled & experienced workers, it's a wee bit harder building back.
They're buying 148 CIIIs, should keep the lights on for a while more.
And yes, optics aside I still think we'd have been better off getting some of the Polish Twardies, and SU-27 airframes with UK avionics and NATO-standard missiles, but ...
The slice of market not occupied by Leopard II, Abrams, or T-72/T-90 is not exactly huge.
True, but the UK arms sales folks have always been optimistic!
Is the Challenger III another overhaul like the Challenger II or more like one of those smaller A2/A6/A-something type updates?It's basically a new turret due to having to accomodate a different gun and entirely new "digitised" fire-control systems. And - presumably since that adds some weight - the engine will also be upgraded.
It's basically a new turret due to having to accomodate a different gun and entirely new "digitised" fire-control systems. And - presumably since that adds some weight - the engine will also be upgraded.Seems like weird timing for adopting a new tank with the Rh-120 gun. I wonder if that turret at least compatible with the Rh-130 that should be adopted by France and Germany around the time some of the first of those planned Challengers IIIs start losing their new tank smell...
At only 5.4 million pounds per tanks it's still more of an overhaul though. A new current MBT would cost three times that.
The Army announced Wednesday that it is planning to retire all of its Stryker Mobile Gun Systems by the end of 2022.Personally I think that money would be even better spent by replacing the entire Stryker family with something that isn't an overpriced and underperforming design-by-committee mess ;D. Moving on to the same BAE ACV platform that USMC just spent years selecting would seem like a smart choice. Then again, sunk cost fallacy is a hell of a drug...
...
The obsolete gun, troublesome autoloder and flat bottomed hull are the main reasons. Army officials reviewed the system's vulnerabilities and decided the service's money would be better spent on modernizing other components of the Stryker fleet, such as the Medium Caliber Weapons System, the Common Remotely Operated Weapons Station-Javelin, the Anti-Tank Guided Missile Updates, and the 30mm cannon.
Seems like weird timing for adopting a new tank with the Rh-120 gun. I wonder if that turret at least compatible with the Rh-130 that should be adopted by France and Germany around the time some of the first of those planned Challengers IIIs start losing their new tank smell...
France? Germany? This is the United Kingdom, standing proudly alone ... with a non-compatible weapons system. Given the MoD's procurement traditions, you can probably expect to see something Rh-130 compatible roughly when the rest of NATO has adopted the PPC as the primary tank weapon.
I remember when that vehicle came out and press releases were acting like it was the the greatest omnitank ever.The concept itself is good and proven but for some reason it was designed on a vintage platform with strict initial weigh and size limits that it ultimately failed to meet. The whole thing could almost make sense if it was done to extend the service life of already adopted vehicle or if the end result was really cheap as it was supposed to be an interim vehicle but nope...
Please, when NATO has adopted the PPC as primary weapon for its tanks, the UK will proudly announce that its vehicles are now Blazer-compatible!Hasn't it been a proud British tradition ever since the WW2 to produce good tanks that just happen to be outdated by the time they enter service ;). That Chally 3 would have been pretty sweet tank if it entered service about 10 years ago.
Those "couple of years" were pretty important, eh? 8)Definitely. By now there are like half dozen 8x8 AFV families (Boxer, Piranha V, Pandur II etc) that generally outperform the Cold War leftovers by an order of magnitude or two.
Definitely. By now there are like half dozen 8x8 AFV families (Boxer, Piranha V, Pandur II etc) that generally outperform the Cold War leftovers by an order of magnitude or two.tbf Pandur and Piranha are themselves cold war leftover designs with modernization.
Nuts indeed... and I think a single 155mm-shell-based IED would do it in...I think a small sideways incline would do that in...
A 10X10 needs stabilizers for a 155mm? ???The stabilizer thing, in modern computer-guided systems, is entirely about the rocking of the vehicle moving the barrel off its pre-calculated shot vector after firing (i.e. not for accuracy of the shot itself). Sleeving the barrel back onto that precise vector while riding out the rocking back-and-forth requires a few seconds to a significant enough amount to impact rate-of-fire. And that in particular in relatively low-angle fire, such as defensive direct fire.
The angle on the front hull makes me skeptical of counter battery fire resistance...Front arc on Boxer is armoured against 155mm HE at 10m.
I think a small sideways incline would do that in...The turret only weighs about 12 tons - and a good portion of that is sitting in the autoloader in the bottom.
The angle on the front hull makes me skeptical of counter battery fire resistance...Nothing is going to survive a direct hit from artillery but since modern near peer artillery war consists of shooting a fast fire mission and racing away before counter battery starts landing, you really want some kind of self propelled platform. Since things might get hairy you'll want at least some protection so minor shrapnel won't pop your tires and kill the crew. The Boxer level armor protection on the vehicle itself might actually even be a bit of an overkill but it's probably still cheaper to stick to the standard platform you are already using.
Designed for purpose, and not a cent (or centimetre) more.
Anyone know how Iron Dome works against artillery shells?
So a boxer is a modern Marder.Which one?
(https://abload.de/img/luwa4pkge.jpg)
LuWa demonstrator vehicle. Being developed as a successor for Wiesel 1 in Germany, i.e. as a mobile fire support platform transportable inside a helicopter.
And yes, it looks as if someone took two Wiesels for the Undercarriage, stuck a Fennek on top and then added a turret that they had to cut off in the middle for height concerns.
Gun is a 27mm revolver cannon.
1) Why do the Germans go for overly intricate suspensions?You mean due to the two sets of tracks here? Company (FFG in this case for the undercarriage - at least someone experienced in the mashup...) claims it's partially for survivability, although most people consider that BS.
2) At last, an AFV with BattleTech-style cockpit glass!Fennek has even more glass.
Definitely too much glass for any battlefield that includes RPGs...Due to spall liners and a lack of non-squishy relevant target material in the vehicle RPG damage to such vehicles tends to be minimal. Heavy machine guns are considerably more dangerous to them. Fenneks - with all that glass - have survived RPG-7 hits just fine. We've had only one incident with crew injured, and in that one the RPG's jet penetrated the side door and coincidentally brushed the legs of the guy on that side.
it probably is only armored to stop rifles, MG's, and light autocannon, at best.Light to medium machine guns at most. The Wiesel isn't any different in that.
Looks like any RPG will smash that thing, so probably it is a long range or low intensity warfare vehicle.Uh, LuWa is a high-intensity direct fire support vehicle for airborne troops engaged generally only in symmetric combat scenarios - like the Wiesel. There's also a version with Spike LR ATGM planned. Light Mountain Infantry units are planned on getting them too, although that's more because no one wants to design something like this on a Bv-206S.
I think this does not violate rule number 4, just showing that stupidity has no frontiers.
https://www.pcgamer.com/uk/war-thunder-fan-says-tank-is-inaccurate-leaks-classified-military-documents-to-prove-it/?fwa
Now I am gonna laugh hard if they change the statistics of the game for the Challenger.
A 10X10 needs stabilizers for a 155mm? ???
I think this does not violate rule number 4, just showing that stupidity has no frontiers.:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
https://www.pcgamer.com/uk/war-thunder-fan-says-tank-is-inaccurate-leaks-classified-military-documents-to-prove-it/?fwa
Now I am gonna laugh hard if they change the statistics of the game for the Challenger.
Is that a real image?It's on Textron's website as "Ripsaw M5". They've changed the exact design a few times.
They are expendable assets, unlike the manned vehicles.
Technically a large RWS on top kind of makes a tank multi-turreted... And it wouldn't surprise me if at some point a tank shows up with twin RWS on top, making it essentially tripple-turreted. ^-^make it 20mm's on a stretched M1 hull and you have a Bolo Mk.I
I think it comes down to the required autonomy once the control link is severed.
There are also a lot more issues to do with control and terrain - unless you get something very wrong, the sky is mostly a big open space in three dimensions, and the sea is much the same in two (or three if you're intentionally submersible). Terrain is a lot more complex, especially once you're operating at speed, although they're gettting there, admittedly, with the robotic rally contests.
When realizing he cannot say anything, the wise man says literally nothing at all.
I think they signal interest in the topic and provide a warning to others that rules are close to being broken, so they're not entirely useless.
Was running a rando youtube thing I do sometimes.
Under Most INCREDIBLE Abandoned Vehicles I noticed a thing.
The MAZ-7904.
I... didn't know this existed!
Yikes a real life HBRV! (https://www.sarna.net/wiki/BattleMech_Recovery_Vehicle)
TT
Yeah, the match is against a French-themed team in Somua S35s and ARL 44s (how they managed to swing the latter, I don't know, since the rules for the show state that they must use tanks that at least had a working prototype built during WW2 and the ARL wasn't completed until 1947).
Also, it looks like the Mk IV only had high explosive ammo for its cannons, so that would give them even less effectiveness against armored vehicles.
Also, it looks like the Mk IV only had high explosive ammo for its cannons, so that would give them even less effectiveness against armored vehicles.iirc the rules of Sensha-dō disallow the use of actual AP rounds for safety reasons, but they use something akin to MILES gear to simulate the effect.
I remember reading an interesting article (which I sadly can't find anymore) about how divisive the M18 was. Some units outright refused to swap their older but more armored M10 for M18, while others adapted successfully to its strengths and weaknesses. Its high operational mobility allowed it to get to where firepower was needed faster than anything else.
I'd imagine that the conveniently available M36 turret was mounted to see if upgrading the M18 to bigger gun was viable in general. The 90 mm tests were probably running in parallel with the wider debate over the future of the whole tank destroyer doctrine.
They had to use the M36 turret for the test. The M18's turret wasn't big enough to fit a 90mm in it.
And yeah, it was a divisive vehicle. On the one hand, it had the best kill to loss ratio of any American armored vehicle in the war. On the other, calling it armored was kind of a stretch, given that even machine guns could penetrate it at close range.
That huge gun on the M18 had to slow it down to the point of losing most of its advantage of speed. But when do you use that speed in a forest or other western area.Apparently the M36 turret didn't have much of an impact on the top speed but you'd expect that kind of weight increase to hit the acceleration and off-road performance at least. In any case, M18's speed wasn't really as much of a tactical capability as it was an operational one. Hellcats were often the first heavily armed vehicles to make it to where they were needed. Siege of Bastogne is probably the most famous example: When paratroopers required heavy support the M18s were first to arrive and join the fight. They actually did remarkably well against the German armor there and on many other occasions.
And at that point they already had the better-armored M36.M18's weak armor is not such a decisive factor when you consider that neither M10 nor M36 could survive a decent hit from anything but the lightest of German anti-tank weapons in use at the time, and all were open topped. Every contemporary German anti-tank gun, tank gun and infantry anti-tank weapon that wasn't in training or reserve use had more than enough penetration to make short work of any of the three (and most allied tanks for that matter). The main disadvantage for M18 would likely have been against 20 mm autocannons that Germans had on various platforms, and admittedly the allies did run into some hastily mustered amusingly outdated equipment that hadn't been used on the front lines in years.
Help an old man - what tanks are those?
And for tankers past & present, how well do tanks tolerate crashing into other tanks?
(https://thechive.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Daily-Afternoon-Randomness-Hotness-Humor-Humanity-WAR-DAR-Funny-Pictures-101421-000017.jpg?attachment_cache_bust=3844070&quality=85&strip=info&w=600)
Write the caption yourself, but keep it in your head.
Remember: the average tank driver is still a teenager.My wife's van has the scars to prove age has a LOT to do with it after four kids learning to drive on the thing... ::)
Help an old man - what tanks are those?
And for tankers past & present, how well do tanks tolerate crashing into other tanks?
Tanks do better when running over things like cars, Humvees, and, regrettably, people. They do not do well when attempting to go through triple-strand concertina wire, or over the edges of wadis at 0200 in the morning (or misreading hull-down revetments in the middle of the night). It's still the troopers inside that normally suffer the worst from those experiences.At the place where i served we had 6x6 armoured Fuchs APCs.
At the place where i served we had 6x6 armoured Fuchs APCs.
We had a sergeant that was notorious for having eliminated four of them in different ways:
- one ended up with a broken axle after driving sideways into a ditch.
- one had the entire rear - with mounted equipment - crushed when backing into a building.
- one sank in the Rhine river while attempting an amphibious crossing.
- one was driven off of a bridge in Kosovo.
Sounds like he really knew how to... Fuch off... :D
Sounds like he really knew how to... Fuch off... :D
Now a M5a1 Stuart did get a certified kill on a tiger once, snowy, woods, when the tiger moved past, he popped in the rear at like 10yards, same 37mmInteresting, do you happen to have a link to an article about that one? Couldn't find it with a quick search though there is a similar story of M8 Greyhound (it has the same gun) destroying a "Tiger" though it's very likely that the destroyed tank was actually something else. https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2-greyhound-vs-tiger-st-vith/
Oops it may have been the M8, working from memory
Wrong M8
Thats the M8 Scott, a has a 75mm howitzer to support the M5s
The M8 Greyhound is the one we mean, armored car,
iirc it's a truck frame that's armored up, also has a recon APC version
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M8_Greyhound
Was that a raccoon?
Was that a raccoon?Yes, mask over the eyes and all. Hair on the tail was a little thin, but it is definitely a raccoon.
Head sure doesn't look like a raccoon. Looks more like a large possum of some kind
Do coatis range up to Colorado, though? ???
Does that have a manned turret, then?
How reliable is it?
If it's really prone to mechanical failure, it might end up getting known as the Breakdown 3.
Just don't call it a light tank. ;)
Digital camo always makes me think that the tank looks like it's from Minecraft."Sarge, every time I try to target that tank, the TC starts the Tetris app!"
Rheinmetall has unveiled a new member of the company’s Lynx combat vehicle family. Described as the mechanized fire support variant of the Lynx KF41 IFV, the Lynx 120, comprises a turret concept that mounts the proven 120mm smoothbore cannon with the Lynx KF 41 chassis.
(https://euro-sd.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Lynx0D0A-120_MobileFeuerkraft_Rheinmnetall.jpeg)
Just don't call it a light tank. ;)
Digital camo always makes me think that the tank looks like it's from Minecraft.
Rheinmetall has unveiled a new member of the company’s Lynx combat vehicle family. Described as the mechanized fire support variant of the Lynx KF41 IFV, the Lynx 120, comprises a turret concept that mounts the proven 120mm smoothbore cannon with the Lynx KF 41 chassis.looks a bit like a CV90120. i guess there is only so many ways you can design a light tank off an IFV hull.
(https://euro-sd.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Lynx0D0A-120_MobileFeuerkraft_Rheinmnetall.jpeg)
Just don't call it a light tank. ;)
Just imagine: being able to hide something like QR codes in there to download viruses into the targeting systems of your enemies.
Ruger
looks a bit like a CV90120. i guess there is only so many ways you can design a light tank off an IFV hull.
I imagine there is going to be a lot of studies into the effectiveness of light anti tank weapons on modern armor in the next year or so.
Not trying to kick the hornet's nest politically.
I guess I wonder that IF we got to the point that most infantry have these weapons--armor becomes less cost effective maybe?
It's dubious whether it actually counts as armored, capable of fighting, or a vehicle.
The Bob Semple tank. Universally regarded as one of the worst AFVs ever designed.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c6/Pratt%2C_J%2C_fl_1974_-_Photograph_of_tank_designed_by_Robert_Semple.jpg/300px-Pratt%2C_J%2C_fl_1974_-_Photograph_of_tank_designed_by_Robert_Semple.jpg)
The Bob Semple tank. Universally regarded as one of the worst AFVs ever designed.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c6/Pratt%2C_J%2C_fl_1974_-_Photograph_of_tank_designed_by_Robert_Semple.jpg/300px-Pratt%2C_J%2C_fl_1974_-_Photograph_of_tank_designed_by_Robert_Semple.jpg)
If the track is rocking, don't come knocking!
Actually, what's the deal anyway? Did someone delete-option something they shouldn't have? The Spanish and Austrians have been using the ASCOD it's derived from for nearly two decades now
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-cYgsNaRQnUs/VEZg8fJlZlI/AAAAAAAAAX4/Y374YtMsTDo/s1600/31192.jpg)
That's "avtomobil klouna", good sir.
On the other hand, that's why Russian dismounts stay so close to their rides: It takes them half an hour to dismount and remount, so who wants to have to spend even longer getting back to the vehicle?
That's "avtomobil klouna", good sir.One more reason why they just ride on the top of the vehicle.
On the other hand, that's why Russian dismounts stay so close to their rides: It takes them half an hour to dismount and remount, so who wants to have to spend even longer getting back to the vehicle?
There is certainly a good reason to make AFVs as low as possible (e.g. the "S" tank), but I think the Russians have gone way beyond any sane level!
I wish I could say more, but I won't.
Regardless, it doesn't seem to help much in the real-world, the whole concept behind lower-silhouettes and surviving combat. It is not value-less, but I feel the positives for a taller tank outweigh the negatives of a shorter tank.
Crew ergonomics is a big part of that, but the IDF experiences with their Centurion Shot Kals in defilade are worth more to me in theory (I was never a tanker, though I did work around them at times) in comparison to the contemporaneous T-54/5's lack of main-gun elevation and depression.
Chanman, PsihoKekec: sure, they ride atop them, just did/do so many M113 users. Might be concern about mines, too. A good point nevertheless.
I was thinking more along the lines of Russian dismounts staying hip-mounted to their carriers in the extant conflict. And no, that is not the same as travelling behind an armored vehicle when moving in a built-up area and providing mutual cover--because the videos I have seen show them doing nothing of the sort.* At the end of the day, I guess it's better than dying inside the track like in Grozny (where the 131st MRB seemed to take the tanker joke of "death before dismount" to an absurd degree) , but getting shot to pieces behind it isn't what I would consider a significant improvement.
*Even given the fact that everything from the conflict in Ukraine is suspect until verified from at least three unrelated sources. And that is not a political gibe, just a statement of reality when every combatant and their eighteen brothers, sisters, parents, and local authorities have access to a cellphone and the internet...
...if you don't train because the training budget is now the dacha budget, just do what comes naturally...
(where the 131st MRB seemed to take the tanker joke of "death before dismount" to an absurd degree)To be fair, most of the vehicles of the first battalion were destroyed unmanned, while the vehicles of the second and third battalion were mostly knocked out in ambushes as they rushed to the aid of the first battalion, along the streets they thought were cleared. It was a perfect ****** of poor training, poor intelligence and higher ups being totally incompetent.
Well, 1st Battalion was laagered up around the train station and when they started getting hit, they did all dismount--the crews I mean--and went into the building which was promptly set afire. And 2nd and 3rd Battalion died in the streets and alleyways, sure, but it was found the conscripts, at least, mostly died in their Bimps.
Here is a very concise list of takeaways of First Grozny:
https://community.apan.org/cfs-file/__key/docpreview-s/00-00-00-78-27/2000_2D00_04_2D00_01-Russian-Lessons-Learned-From-the-Battles-For-Grozny-_2800_Thomas_2900_.pdf (https://community.apan.org/cfs-file/__key/docpreview-s/00-00-00-78-27/2000_2D00_04_2D00_01-Russian-Lessons-Learned-From-the-Battles-For-Grozny-_2800_Thomas_2900_.pdf)
There is a lot of interesting things from that article when viewed through the lens of April 2022. Things that did not change (lack of training and discipline) and things that did (not losing the information war at any cost, at least from the Russian perspective, which explains their oft-times ridiculous PR)
Yeah, the Netherlands uses the TUA design with that turret. I think Denmark and Canada do as well.
How exactly do you reload that thing anyway?
Please, comrade. Do not waste dacha budget on getting equipment dirty before parade and expending of ammunition when I have buyer come soon. We are kapitalist now and you are being unreasonable!
Speaking of capitalists, Piranha IIIs with big guns
Yeah, the Netherlands uses the TUA design with that turret. I think Denmark and Canada do as well.
How exactly do you reload that thing anyway?
i think the missile pods swivel vertically to line up with a hatch in the top that allows a new missile to be inserted. basically the same way the standard ones is loaded, just with the loader being protected* by the hull.
*at least so far as the M113 even has armor
There's a video out there somewhere showing a Hawkeye compared to a towed 105mm gun going from travel, deployment, and preparation all the way through shooting several rounds and then packing up and moving out. It was something like three minutes for the whole sequence for Hawkeye, and ten for the towed system.This is the truth of argument between SP and towed (i.e., towed can't keep up with tracked). Open ground and road speed are really dependent on the conditions (e.g., terrain type, temperature, fueling times). The transition to either emplacement or displacement: self-propelled is an easy winner nearly every time.
At least with the Warrior IFV getting in and out the back was never an issue for me
Awesome. Thanks for doing what you did.
How was the rear door controlled and actuated? Solely by the dismounts and manually, for instance? I'd think it would be too heavy and fiddly for normal operation like that, but could be wrong.
Thanks for the info. Almost any hatch on a modern AFV is heavy. The cargo hatches on a Brad or 113 could easily kill someone, even with a CVC (tanker's helmet) or Kevlar on if they weren't secured properly. And how to secure them properly was one of the first things a trooper learned. If they did not hit you in the head, they would easily break a limb or amputate fingers.
And firing ports are...subpar. The ones in the ramp for the M2/3 were apparently retained, but they compromise the overall integrity of the protective scheme and add nothing to the vehicle's situational awareness and only minutely to its offensive/defensive output. In other words, you weren't missing anything!
Apologies, comrade.
Look, unless you come at me with this beauty, don't even waste your time...
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/0c/47/82/0c4782edc41b8c4522998f799191915b.jpg)
Okay, okay. I'd have this in my garage, too:
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/b9/48/e0/b948e06cccfec513f077a89d628a7392.png)
Italian Centauro B1 and French AMX-10RC respectively, of course.
I hope you can find a good shot of a Brutus... ^-^
Next episode of "Big guns, small chassis" will feature artillery! :D
And seriously... white walls on a military vehicle? ::)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/89/Bt42_parola_2.jpg/1024px-Bt42_parola_2.jpg)
Yes that's a BT-7 with a 114mm howitzer onboard.
And seriously... white walls on a military vehicle? ::)
China loves them. Go figure.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FQfZ8quXsAo7i-F?format=jpg&name=large)I see a skull with the hatches for eye sockets, the center hole for a nose, and the stuff hanging off the back of the turret for teeth. Very definitely modern art.
See, now I cannot not see that, Kamas. I do wonder if there has been any slight photoshopping, though, but it's pretty awesome regardless.
When I see all those whitewalls, even on the tracked AFVs' roadwheels, I see a lot of time spent in the motor-hole at the wash-racks and changing these things out for no other gain than these photo opportunities. If I was going to do that, I'd rather be sitting in the barracks and taking a nap...
Quite deliberate, I'm sure.
And Failure16, consider US Marine Corp formals; lot of time & effort for the look of it. I also recall (and found some pics online) that the Soviet May Day parades also had whitewalls on tanks, at least.
Quite deliberate, I'm sure.I don't know that I've seen that particular observation related to my former Service / current employer.
And Failure16, consider US MarineCorpCorps formals; lot of time & effort for the look of it.
A Marine once told me: "No combat ready unit passed inspection, and no inspection ready unit survived combat."
Oh, yes, it's a communist military type of thing. I think I've seen -34s sporting whitewalls. And it's still ridiculous.
But squaring a dress uniform away is different than putting new roadwheels on a tank or IFV, which requires...a lot of work, to say the least. I mean, I'm assuming you mean military balls, yes? Or do jarheads do things with their AFVs I'm not aware of?
At NTC, the 11th ACR would do a review. We would clean our vehicles. And I mean using barber brushes on the interiors. But we wouldn't be changing our roadwheels for whitewalls. In the 10th Mountain we would still (rarely) have payday parades in Class As ala Gardens of Stone. There is nothing wrong with a white-glove inspection, because it does, ultimately, serve a purpose.
EDIT: Spelling
I see a skull with the hatches for eye sockets, the center hole for a nose, and the stuff hanging off the back of the turret for teeth. Very definitely modern art.
Seen on RPG.net:
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1515185694523678720
Sorry. don't know how to make a twitter show here, but short form a blown-up Russian T-80U shows it was missing its composite armour inserts. Like these:
(https://images-ext-1.discordapp.net/external/ZHfyFbR1UfG8r0znuhT5GVe5EBSeF0tsb_GB5KhV3Hs/https/1.bp.blogspot.com/-fObg4qxwcnA/YGSpZkxFI5I/AAAAAAAA78I/oMASlwtymOwfP5h8bkGgVYn7Xio0XvGZgCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/2.jpg)
First it's missing ERA blocks, next this ...
Seen on RPG.net:
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1515185694523678720
Sorry. don't know how to make a twitter show here, but short form a blown-up Russian T-80U shows it was missing its composite armour inserts. Like these:
(https://images-ext-1.discordapp.net/external/ZHfyFbR1UfG8r0znuhT5GVe5EBSeF0tsb_GB5KhV3Hs/https/1.bp.blogspot.com/-fObg4qxwcnA/YGSpZkxFI5I/AAAAAAAA78I/oMASlwtymOwfP5h8bkGgVYn7Xio0XvGZgCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/2.jpg)
First it's missing ERA blocks, next this ...
Or maybe they do it to give armour modelers more fiddly bits to paint, which they seem to love.
It's the precursor to the Mithras.
That picture of the blown off turret is on the cover of The Economist this week! :o
The A.W.E Striker.. fond memories
GI Joe did get their stuff from the US Military
It worked for me.
I knew/know someone that was part of that exploratory project way back when. There were more versions than just the TOW and M2HB carriers. Apparently, even 2.75" rockets were used (possibly on trailers) but that ended poorly since they flipped the vehicles and trailers.
These apparently work (how well, probably...not):
(https://th.bing.com/th/id/R.41757b95343968751e268a20b0022a97?rik=qb0UKrYAsnJpow&riu=http%3a%2f%2f4.bp.blogspot.com%2f-VnVGVr35a2M%2fTZ5naXltpFI%2fAAAAAAAAMhA%2fJn3c-fXUCWM%2fs1600%2flibya16.jpg&ehk=ATsghw2ZPrNkPnSmbEIE9MDXc1BahZJOlnKbN2qx614%3d&risl=&pid=ImgRaw&r=0)
It's practically BUILT out of ammo! :o
could be a backblast issue. backblast reflecting off the ground or an obstacle and then pushing the vehicle.It worked for me.I wonder what caused the rockets to tip the vehicles over. Too much friction between the rocket and the launcher tube during motor ignition? I think FF rockets fly out of the tube.
I knew/know someone that was part of that exploratory project way back when. There were more versions than just the TOW and M2HB carriers. Apparently, even 2.75" rockets were used (possibly on trailers) but that ended poorly since they flipped the vehicles and trailers.
These apparently work (how well, probably...not):
(https://th.bing.com/th/id/R.41757b95343968751e268a20b0022a97?rik=qb0UKrYAsnJpow&riu=http%3a%2f%2f4.bp.blogspot.com%2f-VnVGVr35a2M%2fTZ5naXltpFI%2fAAAAAAAAMhA%2fJn3c-fXUCWM%2fs1600%2flibya16.jpg&ehk=ATsghw2ZPrNkPnSmbEIE9MDXc1BahZJOlnKbN2qx614%3d&risl=&pid=ImgRaw&r=0)
It's practically BUILT out of ammo! :o
Clearly neither were designed by anyone who'd been shot at in an armored vehicle... ::)
I also heard their trucks were sub-par... they swiped American trucks at every opportunity.
It's practically BUILT out of ammo! :oYou know even Quikcell vehicles are better then this
What would be the point in having a turret if it can't be used sideways?It could be reduced to firing over a certain short arc - maybe 45 degrees to either side, for example. I have no idea what the real story is, I'm just speculating considering the kick for the big gun.
A recent Washington Post article had a nice illustration of why the T-72 and related tanks have a tendency to violently eject the turret while the Abrams and Leopard do not:
(https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/files/2022/05/tankflaw.png)
The French Leclerc is a 3 man tank with a autoloader. I wonder how the ammo is stowed in that tank? I would assume better than the ammo on the T-72box magazine instead of a pan magazine.
A recent Washington Post article had a nice illustration of why the T-72 and related tanks have a tendency to violently eject the turret while the Abrams and Leopard do not:
(https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/files/2022/05/tankflaw.png)
I think the danger of Soviet tanks' ammo storage has been overemphasized a bit too much lately. Armored fighting vehicles are always designed by making compromises by prioritizing some properties over others. Here are size comparisons of an Abrams and T-72 where the benefit of shoving the ammo into the hull (and prioritizing small size in general) is most visible:
(https://i.redd.it/mtwtamct1t821.jpg)
(http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/images/tank-comp-1.gif)
(https://media.moddb.com/cache/images/groups/1/3/2074/thumb_620x2000/M1_Abrams_and_T72_by_DOGZOVWAR81.jpg)
The T-72 is certainly more likely to suffer a deadly ammo explosion than Abrams. However, for that to happen, the T-72 must have already suffered a penetrating hit from a cannon, anti-tank missile or heavy artillery shell, so the crew is already very much in a mortal danger regardless of the exact location of the ammo. The carousel is an aggravating factor in an already bad situation more than it is a fatal flaw in the design (unless you mean fatal flaw very literally of course :) ).
The key difference in design thinking is involved here-the Abrams and most Western tanks expects to take hits, and is built accordingly. Ammunition is stored in an armored box with blow-out-panels and wet-storage for the non-ready rounds with the idea that a hit might penetrate the magazine, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily going to travel further if you take precautions.Definitely less survivable if the enemy could hit and penetrate. The actual armor protection on non-export soviet tanks was very good for cold war era with composite armor being introduced in late 1960's on T-64 and reactive armor being used from 1984 (Israel being the first user in 1982). I'm not sure if the thinking on survivability in tank design was that different on the whole during cold war.
The Soviet method minimizes target size and profile, on the idea that 'not being hit is better' than being prepared to take a hit. thus, for equivalent roles, Soviet designs were smaller, more compact, and a hell of a lot less survivable in the event the other side actually could shoot.
Definitely less survivable if the enemy could hit and penetrate. The actual armor protection on non-export soviet tanks was very good for cold war era with composite armor being introduced in late 1960's on T-64 and reactive armor being used from 1984 (Israel being the first user in 1982). I'm not sure if the thinking on survivability in tank design was that different on the whole during cold war.
These days, I doubt any modern tank can survive a direct hit from Javelin, NLAW, modern ATGM or artillery shell on the top armor. Speaking post-penetration, it's certainly an advantage to not have the ammo in a carousel but I suspect in many cases the ammo explosion and turret tossing is adding an insult to injury rather than what ultimately killed the crew.
The ammo carousel does lead to some very nasty deaths though. When hit, the propellant is more likely to catch fire than the actual shell is to explode and I have seen a few videos from the current conflict where a burning crew member manages to exit a tank that is cooking off from propellant fire.
I didn't mean to imply the soviets were LESS armored, just that they put less interest in surviving a penetrating hit, just like they chose 3 man crews over 4, to reduce the crew compartment volume and make the tank smaller-but the trade off is that you have to wait for the support to catch up if you need to pull maintenance, or take the risk that nobody's on overwatch while the crew is breaking track.During early and middle cold war here were popular western tanks like Leopard 1 and AMX-30 that relied entirely on speed for survival, but definitely from the 1980's when the modern western MBTs came out the priority has been increasingly on the crew survival. Even more so after the cold war when survivability arguably became the main consideration of most military vehicles.
It's all boiled down to differences in where the emphasis is with the doctrine, and tank design really does teach a lot about the priorities of the designers where their doctrine is concerned.
Yeah, the armor is -- by modern standards -- unacceptably thin on the Leo 1 and AMX-30. 80 millimeters on the frontal aspects with no spaced armor or composite inserts, or even ERA, because those tanks predated the revolution in protection that came in response to the proliferation of HEAT antitank weapons.The reasonable assumption that armor was no longer a viable protection for MBT against modern weapons didn't age too well with the T-64 entering service almost at the same time.
Yeah, the armor is -- by modern standards -- unacceptably thin on the Leo 1 and AMX-30. 80 millimeters on the frontal aspects with no spaced armor or composite inserts, or even ERA, because those tanks predated the revolution in protection that came in response to the proliferation of HEAT antitank weapons.
It was one of the reasons France fell so quickly. The Germans were able to move infantry across territory in three days when French command was expecting it to take closer to two weeks.
Of course, then the Germans realized what the downsides were of giving methamphetamine to their soldiers and banned the stuff.
What's the purpose in putting an M48 turret onto an M60 hull?
Are you sure about ROK (aka South Korea) and not ROC (aka Taiwan)?
The main gun seems to be an M68 105mm.
What's the purpose in putting an M48 turret onto an M60 hull?
I wonder if it was a way to minimize how long the tanks would be out of service- update the old M48 turrets and when they are ready bring in the M60s, remove the turret and replace it with the M48 turret so it can be quickly returned to service.
(https://abload.de/img/pzhuwkeg.jpg)
But ... what about the emotional support armour?
But ... what about the emotional support armour?
Chinese press captured footage of a turret being yeeted last week. I didn't expect that degree of fireball. Holy crap.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsiHlmJ9myg&t=147s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsiHlmJ9myg&t=147s)
What's that double (triple?) launcher in the background left?at a guess, perhaps a light SAM launcher?
Because we talked about them earlier: AT-buggies!Easy to miss the three-wheeler sitting between them.
(https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AAXf1MD.img?h=1080&w=1920&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f)
Ukranian improvisation. Just the one article, no independent confirmation on my part.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/ukraine-is-using-utvs-to-combat-russian-tanks/ar-AAXf3AL?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=485e2da4067c4a61999e01c624a6c4e4#image=1[url]]]https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/ukraine-is-using-utvs-to-combat-russian-tanks/ar-AAXf3AL?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=485e2da4067c4a61999e01c624a6c4e4#image=1[url] (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/ukraine-is-using-utvs-to-combat-russian-tanks/ar-AAXf3AL?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=485e2da4067c4a61999e01c624a6c4e4#image=1[url=http://)[/url]
Because we talked about them earlier: AT-buggies!
(https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AAXf1MD.img?h=1080&w=1920&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f)
Ukranian improvisation. Just the one article, no independent confirmation on my part.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/ukraine-is-using-utvs-to-combat-russian-tanks/ar-AAXf3AL?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=485e2da4067c4a61999e01c624a6c4e4#image=1[url]]]https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/ukraine-is-using-utvs-to-combat-russian-tanks/ar-AAXf3AL?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=485e2da4067c4a61999e01c624a6c4e4#image=1[url] (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/ukraine-is-using-utvs-to-combat-russian-tanks/ar-AAXf3AL?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=485e2da4067c4a61999e01c624a6c4e4#image=1[url=http://)[/url]
That is the "Get of my Golf Course" 2022!!!
In different news, because we've talked about them here previously, LARCs are beaching themselves (on purpose):
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/gigantic-vietnam-era-amphibious-vehicles-make-surprise-landing-on-nj-beach/ar-AAXqcsC?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=b21c62dc15d14f0fb4d8f68de45f0182 (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/gigantic-vietnam-era-amphibious-vehicles-make-surprise-landing-on-nj-beach/ar-AAXqcsC?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=b21c62dc15d14f0fb4d8f68de45f0182)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LARC-LX (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LARC-LX)
why not, it works for the similar sized mining dumptrucks.
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-KQaRqWZqwkM/Voj4s77Tz_I/AAAAAAAAOxw/viv4B-Q4deI/s1600/Caterpillar%2B797F.jpg)
(those wheels are 12+ feet high..)
and to be honest, it was less "offroad" as in rough ground and more "dirt roads and ice roads", routes that had been cleared and partially leveled but weren't improved with concrete or asphalt.
If there wasn't a road before, there will be after that monster rolls through.
And if there was a road before, there might not be after that monster rolls through. :P
Well there was this Chase (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1uxzSI1Lag) from '93 that give you the scale
That (and the off-road trains that the news article referred to) wouldn't look even slightly out of place in 80's Battletech and I'd probably criticize the design for being silly and implausible ;D. I would never have guessed that 4x4 could be sufficient for something that heavy that's guaranteed to go off-road.
Here's the overland train article: https://www.thedrive.com/news/33645/the-incredible-story-of-the-us-armys-earth-shaking-off-road-land-trains
(https://www.thedrive.com/content/2020/05/letourneau-overland-train.jpg?quality=85&auto=webp&optimize=high&quality=70&width=3840)
Neat find, thanks for sharing! :thumbsup:
Is that a three-wheel Vespa? ???
Other than the recoilless rifle, it's a pretty stock Vespa.
Other than the recoilless rifle, it's a pretty stock Vespa.
I love this sentence.Yeah, that sentence almost made me spit my coffee when I read it.
An M60 hull can even CARRY an M1A1 turret?? ??? :o
Other than the recoilless rifle, it's a pretty stock Vespa.
In psychology, compensation is a strategy whereby one covers up, consciously or unconsciously, feelings of inadequacy or incompetence in one life area through the gratification or (drive towards) excellence in another area.
An M60 hull can even CARRY an M1A1 turret?? ??? :oMaybe with a Lift Hoist? ;)
An M60 hull can even CARRY an M1A1 turret?? ??? :ohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M60-2000_Main_Battle_Tank
How heavy was that thing to require TWO of them? ???Does an average suburban consumer really need an SUV to drive to work and grocery store? Surely having two dogpowers hauling you carriage is at least twice as impressive as one even if one would do.
I have no idea what or where this is. That may just be a double-barreled t-shirt cannon.(Not just from the sign on the front and the uniforms) that's definitely Iran.
It's Iranian, so I'd imagine it's supposed to be some kind of rocket launcher and a real attempt at a fighting vehicle.At parades these Iranian ATVs are often used in what looks like garage kitbashing, with substantial welded-on parts (like the roof here) and strapping all kinds of weapons onto them - from welding on a frame to mount a tripod with a medium machine gun via welding on a TOW launcher column that probably came from a jeep via swiveling mounts for a SPG-9 to more esoteric stuff like the twin Grad tubes here or a quad Grad tube array either behind (!) the driver or on a similar roof frame. In general these kitbashes seem to be one-offs, only seen at that one parade and never again anywhere else. The parades they're shown at also seem to more often be relatively "local" ones.
How heavy was that thing to require TWO of them? ???
BILL 2 destroying a Centurion during testing.Apparently a BILL 1. The difference being that BILL 2 has a tandem warhead (and of course general software updates).
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8ARjuTKdiIk
Makes me warm & fuzzy that the S. Koreans still use MERDC for their official camo schemes.
Damon.
This scheme was abandoned by the US as NATO moved to a homogenous scheme of Medium Green, Black, & Leather Brown. But persists in S Korea. Which I am a fan of.
Mud and dust are just fine camo! ::).
@chanman
What is the top pic of, mine clearance?
Was it abandoned after the Afghanistan/Iraq invasions? or was it done by mid 90s?
So, let’s do some basic math: If a Polaris Ranger costs $12,000 and the Stugna-P is at $20,000 (compared to the Javelin at $178,000 per set), you have a very mobile tank killer at just $32,000. The Ukrainian military will be saving a huge ton of money by destroying these Russian tanks, which have an estimated price of around $2,000,000 per unit depending on the variant and the contract.
More Stug Buggies... includes a Twitter video of one firing:
https://loadoutroom.com/119830/ukrainian-special-forces-have-stug-buggies-out-hunting-russian-tanks/?fbclid=IwAR173xvI0IDE05o5wPNxw4_by9VQGsWEqP9dfIBPFxpDAohWS0TSYNYnNVE (https://loadoutroom.com/119830/ukrainian-special-forces-have-stug-buggies-out-hunting-russian-tanks/?fbclid=IwAR173xvI0IDE05o5wPNxw4_by9VQGsWEqP9dfIBPFxpDAohWS0TSYNYnNVE)
The DM22’s mine itself consists of a fin-stabilized, high-explosive, anti-tank (HEAT) warhead that is rocket-propelled and designed to engage targets from up to roughly 100 yards away, depending on the circumstances. The charge is said to be designed to penetrate armor over 100 millimeters deep and can be programmed to be active for up to 30 days. Use cases for the DM22 could include protective operations, large ambushes, and disrupting or completely halting the advancement of enemy forces.
A rear element with an arm and fuzing device makes up the other half of the DM22, and it is held together with the projectile by a barrel with a tripod, which makes it ideal for rapidly changing environments. Being that there is no requirement to bury the mine, the entire DM22 system can be easily transported and setup in a matter of minutes.
Experimental 1920s US light tank T1E2 with The Chieftain
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tr0kAgruItY
Man, I hope his tetanus shots are up to date. :P
You know things were squirrely when Josef Stalin was acting as the voice of reason.
Meanwhile in the Periphery... Ukrainian technicals. A MLRS using S-8 aircraft rockets in the flatbed of a Mitsubishi, a RWS for a 14.5mm machine gun on top of a Volga sedan, and a manned 14.5mm machine in another flatbed. Stylin...cleaner links and direct pics (some are rather poor, did my best to find them):
cleaner links and direct pics
Why Gamers leak classified Data on WAR THUNDER (https://taskandpurpose.com/entertainment/war-thunder-player-leaks-chinese-tank-secrets/). Too prove others wrong
He told Insider they first searched for second-hand 4-wheel drive diesel trucks with 2.0l engines or more, priced around €5,500, roughly $5,821. The favored models include the Toyota Hilux/Tundra, Mitsubishi L200, Ford Ranger, Nissan Navara/KingCab, Isuzu D-Max, Маzda BT-50/Mazda B2500, and the Jeep Gladiator.
Most vehicles are purchased from Germany, Poland, Lithuania, Scandinavia, or the UK.
All of their money comes from crowdfunding through their website.
Once the vehicles arrive at the team in Ukraine, they're retrofitted by volunteer mechanics and engineers who reinforce the body of the truck in to provide protection from mortar and shell fire and add a stand on the back of the vehicle for a machine gun or Javelins, NLAWs, and Stingers anti-tank weapons.
Adding a second layer of metal plate to the truck's chassis is one of the most critical parts of the refitting process...
All the trucks come decorated with a Ukrainian flag and the slogan, "Russian warships go ****** yourself."
One of the more interesting things about the ARL-44 is that because France couldn't cast a tank turret that size, they built its turret by welding together plates that had been salvaged from the wreck of the Dunkerque
So I am pretty sure the trauler can be parked (or even moved ok his own) thanks tonthat power and act as a remotely operated emplacement.
The Wilder is also at the forefront of the electrification of military operations because it’s been designed to work with Plasan’s new ATeMM (pronounced at-uhm) electric trailer. The ATeMM gets a 37-kilowatt-hour battery pack, and a 142-kilowatt electric motor to drive its two wheels. Attached to the back of the Wilder, it not only adds an extra 2,490 pounds of cargo-carrying ability, but it also turns the Wilder into a 6x6 hybrid. There’s eventually the potential to add another ATeMM to the train, turning it into an 8x8 hybrid...
The idea behind ATeMM is that you can hitch it up to a tow vehicle — it’s been designed to be native to the Wilder but it will work with other vehicles — and bring it out to a point where you can leave it. It’ll arrive fully charged on-site, because it’ll charge on the way from regenerative braking, and then you can use it as a docking and charging station for drones or whatever other electrical gear you need to power. You can unhitch it and strategically leave ATeMMs around as charging points. Or you can link two, three, or four of them together and use them as autonomous or remote-controlled self-propelled trailers.” Given how effective we’ve seen small, light drones and silent electric motorbikes can be in recent military operations, setups such as this could be a game-changer.
Thanks again for that link, Natasha... it led me to another article about a grenade launcher I need to add to my grenade launcher thread... 8)
Remember in the early Marder IFVs, they had that remote 7.62mm MG over the rear troop compartment, meant to cover troop debussing?A bit funnily that rear MG could not cover infantry egress. Because the guy operating it was sitting right in front of the door, and would be one of the guys jumping out anyway.
even with the rocket booster and GPS guidance, you could get more than a dozen boosted smart shells for the cost of a single cruise missile.Only if it works, though... ^-^
*snip*
Only if it works, though... ^-^The tech has been proven on a smaller scale. It just ran into the issue of "you have to spend money to save money later" and the expense of developing the scaled up hardware
Or maybe the slightly more modest 2A3 Kondensator with a 16 inch gun
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/48/2A3_Kondensator.jpg/1024px-2A3_Kondensator.jpg)
Or maybe the slightly more modest 2A3 Kondensator with a 16 inch gun
I'm obviously not getting enough sleep - it took me three attempts not to read that as "2A3 Kompensator" 8)
You're getting plenty of sleep... that thing is certainly compensating for something... ^-^
Jagdpanther, Sherman Jumbo (looking at the add-on armour plates), and gun from a Priest or similar SPG?
Nice pics! They'd be better with a caption or two, though... ^-^
The U.S. Army on Tuesday selected General Dynamics Land Systems as winner of the Mobile Protected Firepower (we can't say light tank anymore apparently) contract.
(https://www.defensenews.com/resizer/y5BP2CbQyyRJBw8GvCuA3f1xOFc=/1024x0/filters:format(jpg):quality(70)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/mco/6F6VF25GCFF2HFJCOITRJSGNPE.JPG)
BAE's losing entry was a warmed over M8 Buford.
(https://www.defensenews.com/resizer/K3OxihanJNWeN8DHS0ie5vp3sZ8=/1440x0/filters:format(jpg):quality(70)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/mco/3C4XW45O6RDVXMDJ4AYPLYIXCA.jpg)
its half the mass of an MBT and has high speed, high firepower, and limited armor, and its battlefield operational area is mobile firepower to support infantry and recon/scouting. by role it is a light tank.
Jagdpanther, Sherman Jumbo (looking at the add-on armour plates), and gun from a Priest or similar SPG?
There are many modern destroyers that displace almost as much (if not more in some cases) as a pre-dreadnaught battleship. Should we call them battleships now?
Ruger
There are many modern destroyers that displace almost as much (if not more in some cases) as a pre-dreadnaught battleship. Should we call them battleships now?
Ruger
The Sherman is not a jumbo, but I think an M4A4. Can't know for sure unless I look at its rear end or engine deck (the angle doesn't show wheel spacing great), but the driver hoods at least resemble those of an M4A4, rather than an M4.
Damon.
From the museum website it is an M4A4, well spotted. Googling the tank's name wasn't as risky as I expected.
I always liked the Stingray Light Tank. I guess its the closest to a "80s to modern" light tank.Besides "Airmobile" Light Tank what other role do they fill? I know the Russian have been using "Airmobile" Light Tanks/Fighting Vehicles and when fight conventional they are at disadvantage from the Info that on the Internet
Only one country got some. Just looks pretty neat IMHO.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stingray_light_tank
Besides "Airmobile" Light Tank what other role do they fill? I know the Russian have been using "Airmobile" Light Tanks/Fighting Vehicles and when fight conventional they are at disadvantage from the Info that on the Internet
Thai army on some sort of exercise. Looks like an interesting light cav/armour force they've got there:
I see Humvees, Gavins, some M163s, a whole bunch of Stingrays, and even some Type 62 light tanks off to the side.
(https://i.redd.it/0pi1k78tir541.png)
Good lord, it's a 1:1 Flames of War/Team Yankee game about to start...
(And no, that is not a dig nor invitation to, ahem, flame another game.)
But, I really love that picture and force set-up.
That does kind of look like a debrief in progress in the lower left corner...
The U.S. Army on Tuesday selected General Dynamics Land Systems as winner of the Mobile Protected Firepower (we can't say light tank anymore apparently) contract.
At4838 tons, is it really that light?
Yes, I know, not really. But it does make me wonder how useful the Wiesel really is.It's purpose-built around the idea of driving it out of the back of a helicopter and from that landing zone into a nearby position to support light infantry. For anything beyond that it doesn't really work and never was intended to.
No, this is a light tank:
(https://i.redd.it/npcbukgtni991.jpg)
Yes, I know, not really. But it does make me wonder how useful the Wiesel really is.
Aside from the novelty of owning a tracked vehicle, I'm not sure what civilian jobs such a vehicle could do that aren't already done by various ATVs or utility buggies.Bolt-on track systems for civilian vehicles really reduce the utility of tracked vehicles to specialized/construction equipment.
I see the JCB 1CXT has finally come to the States. I'll have to talk my wife into it, but it's definitely something I'll need if I win the argument about how much land to buy... ^-^Good luck, if it works please share your arguments?
Cool, but I think those are less legs than EXTREME suspension! :DLEGS ARE THE ULTIMATE SUSPENSION!!! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coNO9FpDb6E)
Aside from the novelty of owning a tracked vehicle, I'm not sure what civilian jobs such a vehicle could do that aren't already done by various ATVs or utility buggies.For Wiesel specifically there may (remotely) be a civilian market for highly specialized roles such as unmanned carriers for ground penetration radars for companies working in clearing UXO.
There don't seem to be any on the secondary market, but I think the ambulance version comes closest to that... 8)There might be a few making it on the secondary market for specialty applications and collectors in a few years. Germany is effectively getting rid of all of them.
Now that vid is a classic... ::)It, that Muck demo, and this Timberjack Walking Machine pitch (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CD2V8GFqk_Y) are my shorthand references when questioning "Why DON'T we have Legged Vehicles again?"
And here's one of those muck machines in action in a Swiss reservoir: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_XiSfdIvo0Real life Industrial QuadVee in action here folks!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROB_Mxc7dOo
3) Surprised that there wasn't a Chieftain around
You get to see a Chieftain Mk.10 or 11 at the very end...just not driving around or called out. Might have showed up in the next segment.
Isn't the one you see a quick glimpse of at 43 seconds also a Chieftain?
Isn't the one you see a quick glimpse of at 43 seconds also a Chieftain?
No, this is a light tank:no, that is fancy tankette. which arguably fills some battlefield roles like a light tank, but lacks the anti-armor firepower of one.
(https://i.redd.it/npcbukgtni991.jpg)
Yes, I know, not really. But it does make me wonder how useful the Wiesel really is.
2) The M60 really does have a large turret for a tank of that erapart of that is the thickness of the armor. being stuck with RHA steel armor, they had to just make the turret thicker and thicker to improve protection, the M60 had over 6 inches of armor on its turret. the original turret was actually a bit smaller than that one, but they kept having to add more stuff into the turret (enlarged ammo storage, newer bulkier radios, newer and bulkier optics equipment, etc) so the turrets just kept expanding to fit. the hull didn't really have room even for the stuff that could go into a hull, and it was easier to just crane the old turrets off and mount new ones during upgrades.
4) The T-54/55 family are pretty small. Probably why they sometimes straddle the medium tank-MBT divide[the T-55 wasn't all that small for a tank designed post-WW2 (designed in 1947), it was actually larger than many of the tanks it was replacing. and the soviets did classify it as a medium tank. tank design post-ww2 just advanced rapidly, and the physical sizes of tanks ballooned with the development of doctrine pushing western tanks along a line of improved optics and radios, and eventually the development of alternative armor types. which is why the soviets eventually developed the T-62 and T-72 families to meet the newer threats. but Soviet design always did have its own way of doing things, and i suspect they designed theirs to minimize resources spent per tank and allow them to field larger forces. knowing that for the foreseeable future they'd be a step behind in weapons and armor tech, and never able to train their crews to the level of expertise as NATO militaries due to internal politics and the structure of the soviet military more than anything else, so instead decided to try and just ensure they had numerical superiority.
5) The T-72's turret is absolutely tiny. It looks like a good non-penetrating hit might still concuss the hell out of the turret crew, to say nothing of HE or HESH
That's awesome that your father was crew on such a ride.
But I wouldn't knock yourself and the vehicle you rode. There was a deuce-and-a-half at NTC that had 2404's going back to Vietnam, and that thing was a jackrabbit. It could climb any hill it ever encountered better than any other vehicle I ever saw there. It was a Hell of a truck. Besides, your father's half-track wouldn't have been very effective if the 2.5's weren't bringing him up gas, food, and ammo.
That's awesome that your father was crew on such a ride.
But I wouldn't knock yourself and the vehicle you rode. There was a deuce-and-a-half at NTC that had 2404's going back to Vietnam, and that thing was a jackrabbit. It could climb any hill it ever encountered better than any other vehicle I ever saw there. It was a Hell of a truck. Besides, your father's half-track wouldn't have been very effective if the 2.5's weren't bringing him up gas, food, and ammo.
It was obsolete by 1941. By the look of it, all effort went into reducing recoil, so that sidecar could handle it, starting with picking the caliber that had the least recoil in the first place, that's why they picked 37 mm over 45 mm that superseded it before the WWII.The specific gun was developed around 1940-1941 as a cheap battalion and company level fire support gun, similar to the 37mm infantry guns in service with Western Allies to some extent at the time. Primary constraints were that it had to be cheaper and more mobile than existing 45mm anti-tank guns. In '41 development was effectively halted and went on a backburner until late '43 to early '44 when it was decided that it would basically be a good replacement/supplement for other 37mm guns in new production due to low cost and simplicity of design, with a primary focus on anti-tank guns for airborne forces.
I believe the PzIVA had only 15mm armor all round. Just like the early PzIIIs (A through D versions, though IIRC only the B-D versions actually saw combat). It was after the B version of the Pz IV that they had 30mm armor. To put things into perspective, the US 37mm was a credible threat to both the III & the IV when they had up to 50mm armor to the front. After that they would have had to struggle to penetrate (the latter versions of the III had 50mm base + 20mm spaced armor, while latter versions of the IV -- around half the Gs & on -- had either 50mm plus 30mm applique, or 80mm homogenous face hardened steel). But OTOH the US 37mm had excellent performance for the caliber, possibly the best of any 37mm cannon in WWII.
Damon.
I remember seeing one book where Tiger crews talked about how good M3 crews were at sniping the Tiger's optics with the 37mm. Which is probably the only thing you could actually do to a Tiger with a 37mm.
Although there is one recorded kill with an M5 (same weapon,later chassis) caught a tiger and sneaking in front of him is a snowstorm and popped a couple rounds into its backside and drove away at best speedworth keeping in mind though that a lot of reports by American and British crews claiming to have taken down Tigers were actually misidentified Panzer IV's, which looked similar enough to the Tiger that misidentification was easy, and the Tiger's reputation led to any tank putting up a decent fight was often reported as a Tiger. actual Tigers were quite rare away from the russian front. (where most of them had been sent, to help deal with the T-34's, KV-1's, and IS series tanks which had been giving the Germans trouble)
As to the 37 on anything else it was still useful against halftracks and armored cats, jeeps etc
Did they kill it with the 37mm or the 75mm?It's been report as an M5, so 37mm. The 75mm version was the M8.
Gamers like tanks, often enough. And, often enough, they like LEGOs too...Ooh, Micro builds?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIy9n_nnXAo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIy9n_nnXAo)
So how about small-scale LEGO AFVs? Great while you wait for the Battlefield Support Boxes to start coming out.
That sounds like an " Ask Gorky " pun...
Hey Gorky? How do you get your tank off a train?
TT
Have some Nicholas Moran critiquing tank-movie scenes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mjvZrLnlCg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mjvZrLnlCg)
Because he is Nick Moran, of course he chose The Beast as his favorite tank movie, with Fury as runner up. I love that man.
Because he is Nick Moran, of course he chose The Beast as his favorite tank movie, with Fury as runner up. I love that man.
Oh, has he retired from the army now? He mentioned being a civilian advisor now without mentioning still being in the military in the beginning.So far as I understand, he's still in the Reserves and his day job is Wargaming USA.
Also, the score for Indiana Jones seems low considering the commentary :P
Not sure I really agree about Fury, but each to their own.
Damon.
The Beast is a deep pick, but TOTALLY respect that! :thumbsup:
Is that a direct consequence of the exothermic reaction of brewing up, or does removal of the protective paint layer cause this? I would have expected modern armour alloys to be stainless ....
Is that a direct consequence of the exothermic reaction of brewing up, or does removal of the protective paint layer cause this? I would have expected modern armour alloys to be stainless ....
Snap under their own weight? That sounds more than a bit incredible.. ???
True, but you have to admit that "under their own weight" is an EXTREMELY low bar... ^-^
Ah, 3/11. I don't think I have ever seen a 551 that pristine before. Good Lord. The background looks Irwinish, or close enough, so is that some kind of a museum display (doubly so, since the Blackhorse hasn't had its 3rd Squadron activated since probably the 90s)?
Looking around for that image, I've seen that tank in more worn condition:
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a7/b2/e1/a7b2e164e0e530f297bf54d42f151908.jpg)
What is that thing, a bridge layer?
Ah, 3/11. I don't think I have ever seen a 551 that pristine before. Good Lord. The background looks Irwinish, or close enough, so is that some kind of a museum display (doubly so, since the Blackhorse hasn't had its 3rd Squadron activated since probably the 90s)?
Looking around for that image, I've seen that tank in more worn condition:
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a7/b2/e1/a7b2e164e0e530f297bf54d42f151908.jpg)
I wonder gun/missile was ever fired hwile the Sheridan was floating because it was designed too.probably not, because in order to actually 'swim' it had to deploy canvas screens to boost its bouyancy, similar to the older DD sherman. and those blocked the gun's line of fire except for the highest elevation. and trying to fire it with those up would basically set the fabric on fire and cause the tank to sink.
I don't recall hearing of any amphibious tanks that were actually capable of fighting while in the water. Most of them tended to be fairly unstable and prone to flipping over, trying to fire the main gun would presumably exacerbate that significantly.
I don't recall hearing of any amphibious tanks that were actually capable of fighting while in the water.Rostec claimed that the Sprut SDM1 was supposed to be able to fire while afloat (with very limited traverse across the bow arc), and was planning to start a test series in the Black Sea late last year.
Yeah, the shockwaves from firing that close to the water couldn't have done anything good for accuracy... 8)
It's my understanding that the gun on the Sheridan had some real kick to it when firing shells. The other issue I think had to do with the caseless ammunition not completely clearing the breach, which caused the crew to suffocate or immolate, or something like that. I think they did eventually fix that otherwise the tanks wouldn't have been used in Desert Storm/Shield.
I think a longer-barreled variant of that gun was used on the MBT-70 prototype.
The problem with the M551 was that the caseless ammo would not always be totally consumed, so there would be burning embers still in the barrel when the next round was loaded. This increased the chances of a cook off, either prematurely firing the round, or actually causing an explosion before the breech was closed. This was resolved later by a CBSS (Closed Bore Scavenger System), that pushed compressed air through the barrel to clear it before loading. Many modern tanks, including the M1A1, have this system.
Another issue was that the rounds tended to absorb moisture from the air. This was especially an issue in Vietnam, where the air was often hot & humid. This caused the rounds to warp & deform, sometimes to the point where they cannot be chambered anymore. One resolution was to wrap them in plastic, to be removed immediately before firing. I don't know if the ammo was further refined at a later date.
The gun was probably a little too powerful for the hull. When firing often the first pair, or even the first two pair, of road wheels would lose contact with the ground.
The MBT-70 indeed did have a similar gun, longer barreled though. The M60A2 as well. Though those were quickly withdrawn from service, about the same time as the M551 was withdrawn from service (save as an Airborne Assault Vehicle & VisMODS).
There were attempts to remedy the armament issue, to keep the M551 relevant (the actual vehicle itself was pretty good; just that the main gun was very problematic). This included fitting the turret with the 76mm high velocity cannon from the M41 Walker Bulldog, as well as attempts to fit a 90mm cannon. None of these solutions were used, & the vehicle was withdrawn anyway.
Damon.
There are also some photos of an XM274 ARES 75mm caseless automatic gun in an unmanned turret atop an M551. Not sure if this was a pure testbed for the gun or someone actually tried to build an operational AFV.
I want to argue that just because the Batmobile was clearly custom built and not a civilian vehicle that was militarized via after-market modifications.Seconded!
But it's too hilarious.
Germany used these from the 70s to the 90s:
(https://abload.de/img/22282076euw4f99.jpg)
That's a FK20-2 20mm field gun which was used in infantry support - on the back of a Unimog 2-ton truck.
There was a single-axle trailer that you could mount it on, which was for when you were moving the gun over a longer distance along with its crew and ammo on the truck towing it. That was the primary method of transport for dismounted/emplaced use.
However these guns were also used in "escort platoons" in supply battalions (of all types, from POL to nukes) in large numbers where their role was to accompany a unit as light mobile air defence. In those units they were used on "Technical Unimogs" like this.
In other units the guns were formally assigned for dismounted use - but the units quickly designed ways to mount the guns on the back of the same 2-ton trucks, often in a somewhat crude manner with just some wood beams underneath to protect the truckbed and some chains to lash down the gun and keep it in place.
ok, links:
the US army field kitchen, with it being used in a living history reenactment. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEt4rrtEN_k)
and then just for comparison. the German army equivalent. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQ2m3FGL0ks)
i can;t help but think that the american version is much better designed. not quite as individually mobile, but a lot less specialized and more easily scalable to supporting larger units. the fuel situation especially, given that the german one is basically a wood stove, which means not only extra logistics but also a lot more bulk.
the US army one seems like it would cook more variety of food types. the german one feels like it is basically focused on soups and stews. which would have morale effects.
(https://i.redd.it/49wb98egs3l51.jpg)
I love this chart so many times.
I find that I am somewhere between a Structural Purist and Doctrinal Neutral.
So, no, few if of the half-tracks you posted are technicals because they got to their units armed--and even if they did not, they were issued gear and therefore cannot be unconventional, merely modified for additional duties in the combat zone to which they already belong!
Kidding, kidding.
Structure Radical/Doctrine Neutral! 'Modification' is in the eye of the beholder and directly correlates to how long of a stick the local chain of command has up their collective aperture, evacuation, bowel :D
if you remeber awhile back i linked to videos about WW2 field kitchens in another thread. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/off-topic/logistics-ftw!/msg1848558/#msg1848558)Re field kitchens: Postwar the Bundeswehr used American WW2 M37 field ovens license-produced in Germany. You can see them at some points in the video linked back in July. Until 1990 - in the USA they were replaced in 1959. In Germany they were built into a kitchen cabin on a 5-ton truck frame.
well i found one for a modern field kitchen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dm5JvlvnZdM
the difference 80 years makes.
Right, but the RDF/LT prototype chassis was different, so the modified Sheridan may have been a test bed only or a private development project in parallel to the RDF tank.
The turret would make an interesting quirk for tanks in hull down positions...
According to R.P. Hunnicutt in his book Sheridan this was the ELKE (Elevated Kinetic Energy) Technology demonstrator from Pacific Car & Foundry. The gun was taken from PC&F's proposal for High Survivability Test Vehicle - Lightweight (HSTV-L), which was not accepted by the army. The other proposal for the HSTV-L came from AAI this design eventually evolved into the RDF/LT - which in Twilight 2000 became the LAV-75.Thanks for the info, have put the book on my reading list.
Thanks for the info, have put the book on my reading list.
(https://i.redd.it/49wb98egs3l51.jpg)
What sort of quantities do they produce of these variants?
I own most of them, but not yet Halftracks, Armored Cars and Sheridan.
Hunnicutt did 10 books on US armor from WW1 to the mid 1980s. They are all must reads if you have interest in the topic.
The Batmobile is absolutely a technical. 8)While the Batmobile is certainly non-standard, it is in no way improvised.
While the Batmobile is certainly non-standard, it is in no way improvised.
The original is...
TT
Does that count as "built for combat?"
Plus the car was pretty cheaply made because the show was on a shoestring budget. The reason for the big word sound effects on the screen was to cover up that those punches weren't even close to landing because the fight scenes were shot in one take and they didn't have a fight coordinator.
Cheaply made, shoestring budget, lacking coordination... we're just marking off all the technical checkboxes today! :DThe first one might have been a technical but successive models weren't.
I have SO many questions... ::)
I have SO many questions... ::)
It's certainly that, but a windshield that big is just asking for trouble... ^-^
So, Toyota's still at it, trying to stay in the warfighting game:
(https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AA124zfs.img?h=1080&w=1920&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f)
https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/news/armored-six-wheel-toyota-land-cruiser-debuts-with-drone-destroyer/ar-AA124mai?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=a98b2d2d256a44c6b7c9620cf53d47e4 (https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/news/armored-six-wheel-toyota-land-cruiser-debuts-with-drone-destroyer/ar-AA124mai?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=a98b2d2d256a44c6b7c9620cf53d47e4)
It is RPG-resistant glass, Daryk. It says so right on the tin.
Okay, I'm lying. In a world where RPGs are as functionally common as cell phones, big-paned windows on your new tactical vehicle are questionable at best.
But it does talk about being resistant to anti-personnel grenades. Nothing beats the need to carry around a dirt-bike to pick up the drones you have shot down, though. That is priceless.
(https://i.redd.it/49wb98egs3l51.jpg)So where does the Ukrainian Tactical Prius go?
(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2022/09/15/multimedia/15ukraine-briefing-carousel-11am-3/15ukraine-briefing-carousel-11am-3-threeByTwoMediumAt2X.jpg?quality=75&auto=webp)
A 6x6 Hilux with Bikes on the back!! if it's up to standard Hilux standards, they'll still be driving it in the 31st century...not the model...THAT TRUCK.Blake praise the Holy Hilux!
I'd say Structure Neutral/Doctrine Purist... ^-^
Good point, though I would argue even regular forces using something like that are at least a little "irregular"... ^-^
I think that says more about who they're fighting than anything else... ::)
So they're putting the crew in the forward hull compartment and going with an unmanned turret. Anyone know how that's worked for the Russians and the Armata? Honest question, not being sarcastic.
You use up what you have, and sometimes it uses you up.
I imagine some Byzantine sailors looking at their siphonatore when handed a load of Greek Fire that was past its use-by date and saying "You, ah, sure about this, Chief?"
In other news:
GDLS AbramsX demonstrator revealed:
(https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AA12KZmb.img?h=768&w=1366&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f)
(https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AA12KmME.img?h=768&w=1366&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f)
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/abramsx-next-generation-main-battle-tank-breaks-cover/ar-AA12KD0R?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=3d9ac5441dc0471181b25fb09fecbc07 (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/abramsx-next-generation-main-battle-tank-breaks-cover/ar-AA12KD0R?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=3d9ac5441dc0471181b25fb09fecbc07)
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/next-generation-abramsx-tank-will-have-hybrid-powerplant (https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/next-generation-abramsx-tank-will-have-hybrid-powerplant)
Sigh.
So much for Western armor doctrine going back to WWII of having TCs keeping an eye on things.
Sure, it can be called something else. And it may indeed be, if it ever comes to fruition. But, for now, that is what GDLS is calling it:
https://gdls-nextgen.com/abramsx/ (https://gdls-nextgen.com/abramsx/)
And regarding The Drive as a source...when this becomes a site that accepts only peer-reviewed or original-source documents for consideration, I'll be the absolute first to follow suit. I think that would be obvious by now. ;D
I imagine that GDLS is keeping the main-gun ammunition in the turret bustle, which would keep the turret roughly the same size. Also, a lot of the turret-size might be panels exterior to the turret structure itself. But if the hull is substantially the same as its progenitor, there is little sense in reducing the turret size if the ring is the same.
I'm personally on the side of the four-versus-three tanker debate. More personnel inside a tank means better ability to withstand losses/personnel shortages; better ability to conduct long-term, around-the-clock operations; one less mechanical system to go down; more personnel to keep the tank operational; more eyes to keep an eye on surroundings (because a loader means one more person on an MG when needed or during movements).
Like I said, this new concept goes against a long-standing Western/American armor doctrine that I find personally troubling, focused as I am on pebble-level operations.
I'm down with that. It is what I assume all the crew in heavy BTU AFVs are doing. Other than playing cards while three of them are doing Other Things, like fighting the vehicle.
Now that the Army is working on leader/follower tech for trucks at up to 1:5 ratio... we asked if the 2 crew members of the "leader" truck are expected to maintain all 6 trucks. We got told to shut up very harshly.
in Japan's case are on to their second MBT generation using it (Type 90 and now Type 10)[/li][/list]France has been using autoloaders since the AMX-13 in 1952.
Now that the Army is working on leader/follower tech for trucks at up to 1:5 ratio... we asked if the 2 crew members of the "leader" truck are expected to maintain all 6 trucks. We got told to shut up very harshly.
Go light inf or go home. Let someone else worry about the trucks, just so long as they are where they are supposed to be, when they are supposed to be there... ::)
The real trick was always how to fit inside of the handful that showed up. ;D
Now that the Army is working on leader/follower tech for trucks at up to 1:5 ratio... we asked if the 2 crew members of the "leader" truck are expected to maintain all 6 trucks. We got told to shut up very harshly.
There ain't nothin' light about light infantry. Especially the TOW platoons....
Oh yeah? Tell me more...*
Light infantry is light, when it is looked at through the lens of the Army as a whole. A light infantry platoon, company, battalion or even brigade can be moved more readily operationally or strategically than an equivalent-sized mech-inf or armor outfit.
But for the poor schelps on the ground, the gear just keeps getting heavier and heavier--precisely because as individual bits get lighter, more is packed on, and mission-creep is a thing you have to be prepared for. Anyone who has humped a ruck will agree with that.
*I presume you are talking about a dismounted TOW platoon, of which there are very few in the US Army. The TOW platoons in, say, the 101, are all HMMWV-mounted. Though I suppose the troopers could dismount their systems and walk them somewhere; but I've never heard of them doing such a thing, nor seen it on brigade-level operations.
For myself, I did work on a fully-dismounted TOW platoon for several rotations at NTC ('99ish). I carried the TU, which was forty-plus kilos of suck (and had the additional benefit of taking up the entirety of an ALICE ruck so that the only thing else I could bring was my woobie, a bit of food, and what I could stuff in my pockets or DCU blouse). And then I eventually got roped into carrying my SINCGARS, batteries, and aerials, which was...unwieldly, to say the least. Thank God for assault packs. :facepalm:
Yeah, I was specifically referring to the dismounted guys. I remember seeing a bunch of the poor shmucks at NTC when I was stationed there in '93 or '94. I think they were NG/Reserves augmentees. We ran across them while driving into sector one night.
Yep. The lighter things get, the more you get to carry. I'm sure some post-Marian reform legionary was bitching about the gear he had to hump around, saying that the militia only a few years before had it so much easier...
It is why regular forces carry so much more than irregular forces. Because they have to be ready for anything, at any time, until they get back to the wire. And things change once you leave the wire, and you have to be ready for that too.
The insurgents get to pick the time and place of their engagement, then get the option of melting away if things don't go the way they want them to. The regular guys have to sit and take it until they convince the irregulars that the job just isn't worth it anymore.
Roger that.
If you want to see why the Allies won WWII, look at some of the images posted on this page:
https://www.extreme-precision.com/t85727p25-diverses-photos-de-la-wwii-fichier-7 (https://www.extreme-precision.com/t85727p25-diverses-photos-de-la-wwii-fichier-7)
That is a lot of gear.
(https://i.servimg.com/u/f63/16/88/59/34/16529.jpg)
(https://i.servimg.com/u/f63/16/88/59/34/16830.jpg)
Roger that.
If you want to see why the Allies won WWII, look at some of the images posted on this page:
https://www.extreme-precision.com/t85727p25-diverses-photos-de-la-wwii-fichier-7 (https://www.extreme-precision.com/t85727p25-diverses-photos-de-la-wwii-fichier-7)
That is a lot of gear.
(https://i.servimg.com/u/f63/16/88/59/34/16529.jpg)
(https://i.servimg.com/u/f63/16/88/59/34/16830.jpg)
the mass production is also why we stuck with the M4 sherman instead of moving onto something better once we developed them. because the M4 was good enough for what it was doing, and by the time we did come up with something better, the factories had gotten into full swing on output, so retooling would have been a major slowdown. easier to make minor mods like an improved gun or engine than to replace it.And not just the tanks. The US industry could of course build tanks to rival Tigers and Panthers, but all those tanks would have to be transported to North Africa/Europe/SEA, and that would have meant building sturdier ships than the mass produced Liberties, not to mention heavier railcars, bridges, harbour cranes etc.
Libertys were just fine for their purpose. You just had to load fewer of those heavier vehicles. If they could figure it out with individual cases of rations (and they did), then they could figure that out too... ^-^
The "whitewalls" on China's equipment is pretty funny.
(https://th.bing.com/th/id/OIP.5ULQK1X9TAxh0I-YUymkrgHaF2?pid=ImgDet&rs=1)I called it a firing incident. The liaison officer to the battalion we shelled asked me to stop bringing it up each time I apologized to him.
Pic for attention.
I'm writing a short story that I'm curious about some info.
Who would know info about Artillery Barrages and what to call them when your on the receiving end, " Accidentally ".
TT
I called it a firing incident. The liaison officer to the battalion we shelled asked me to stop bringing it up each time I apologized to him.
Well, if you are screaming in a radio to get an artillery barrage to stop, it pretty much starts and ends with "Checkfirecheckfirecheckfire!!" on the fires-net.Pedantically, it is "check firing," but those who are panicked should be given some leeway. I believe, the incident you mention is what happens when you check your firing data using the same method (both automated vs. mixed automated & manual) between two computers with a data set created erroneously by the same person.
At Fort Stupid in '02 when an artillery unit dropped a round or two on another unit's mess-tent it was called a lot of things. Publicly it was referred to as "a tragic 105mm artillery accident".
Pedantically, it is "check firing," but those who are panicked should be given some leeway. I believe, the incident you mention is what happens when you check your firing data using the same method (both automated vs. mixed automated & manual) between computers with a data set created erroneously by the same person.
From this angle it could almost be a dozer blade for digging its own revetments, but it's mounted pretty high for that. I have not seen that particular image before, nor one from a different angle that shows what that encumbrance is. Here is the tank from a different angle, but it does not have that lip along the bow (along with sundry other difference, like the driving lights):
(https://www.army-technology.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2014/04/Image-1-Type-10-TK-X-Main-Battle-Tank-MBT.jpg)
From here:
https://www.army-technology.com/projects/type-10-tk-x-main-battle-tank-mbt/ (https://www.army-technology.com/projects/type-10-tk-x-main-battle-tank-mbt/)
I found a different image of the one MLO4H posted:
(https://media.moddb.com/cache/images/groups/1/3/2074/thumb_620x2000/tk_x_l2.jpg)
@Charlie 6Anytime. Happy to help.
Thanks.
TT
(https://scontent-ord5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/315628129_1324788065000805_2292772026047468782_n.jpg?_nc_cat=107&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=5cd70e&_nc_aid=0&_nc_ohc=jzk7dk3hGo0AX-eBW2r&_nc_oc=AQmgObCKCoD3UqA5rnsqwXhSL2O-3_KkEkvwEcJ17SfezD8qetDjZgZJOiwayJ6DfmU&_nc_ht=scontent-ord5-1.xx&oh=00_AfDHUnmYtOR5pJnmUkO_DM9oQFXpFwMrgr4Txu4jbsgQTQ&oe=637AFE44)Your new ride?
TT
They actually bolt the turret on? I thought that turrets were typically just set on the vehicle and held in place by gravity.
They actually bolt the turret on? I thought that turrets were typically just set on the vehicle and held in place by gravity.
They actually bolt the turret on? I thought that turrets were typically just set on the vehicle and held in place by gravity.traditional turrets yes, but this is more like an oversized remote weapon station (it is in fact classified as the "Medium Caliber Remote Weapons Station"). they went with it because fitting a traditional turret ring design would have reduced the number of troops it could carry from ~9 to only 5 or 6 (because of how the turret ring would intrude into the interior). it also would have made it impossible to upgrade existing Stryker ICV's to the new Dragoon standard. which would have greatly increased the cost of the switch, as they are planning to fit 1/2 the Infantry carrier Stykers in service to the Dragoon standard (and fit ATGM's to the RWS of the rest)
Now if they only made a 6x6 with this...
Oh well.
TT
SO much ammunition SO fast! :o
All we need now is a Sergeant York shooting an outhouse.
Man, who thought that autocannons that fired as slowly as the ZSU-57's would be effective for AA work?The ZSU-57-2 design-wise is a contemporary to the M42 Duster - firing 40mm at the same ROF - and the M51 Skysweeper, i.e. a single 75mm autocannon firing at 45 rpm.
Ironically, the safest place to be when facing a Sergeant York was in an aircraft.
I've seen a couple people try to claim that the York had had the bugs worked out before it was axed. Never seen anyone actually offer evidence of that, though, so I consider it suspect.
It does make you wonder how much fuel is needed to get the engine block hot enough... ???
You don't need to set an engine block "on fire" to be hot enough to cook... they get there just running idle... ^-^
I assume he means the Vickers, which was a derivative of the Maxim design, Vickers having purchased the Maxim company in the late 19th Century?
And yes. My fondness for that literally Victorian beast has to be measured against the GPMG, which of course owes more than a little to certain German designs of WW2 ...
"T-54M crews getting ready to roll out. The tankers frequently cook their own chow, hence the pot and firewood"
That is interesting and something I will need to remember for a campaign I have upcoming
That French stuff is all over Africa, isn't it? ???and SE asia, iirc.
What tanks have "6" in their name?
Armored Fighting Vehicles 6: Thread of the Tiger?
Gotta throw the music meme in there too
Eye of the Tiger