BattleTech - The Board Game of Armored Combat

Off Topic and Forum Support => Off Topic => Topic started by: ANS Kamas P81 on 27 March 2018, 12:06:23

Title: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 27 March 2018, 12:06:23
Tank puns are best puns.  And starting this off with...a 37mm BRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPmonster!
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Luciora on 27 March 2018, 12:09:59
Can I join the pun too?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 27 March 2018, 12:15:33
Sure everyone knows about these, but maybe not, and they're pretty interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLBAEOsdxIbLPFEomzphaZQ0A5Vujkpjd8

David Fletcher's Tank Chats; I've taken to listening to them from time to time while doing other stuff.  They're short, curiously personal, and really informative as to the kinds of tanks he covers - and he's gone everywhere from the Mark I to modern day.  Fascinating watching.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 27 March 2018, 12:24:29
Tank puns are best puns.  And starting this off with...a 37mm BRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPmonster!
What the heck is that?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 27 March 2018, 12:30:30
Can I join the pun too?

Is that a movie prop or something?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 27 March 2018, 13:06:07
You guys do know M4 is.... THE SHERMAN!
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 27 March 2018, 13:31:18
here are some other mark 4s...


the Grandaddy - the British Mark IV (male)
the German WW2 Panzer IV - so cool it didn't get a fun big-cat nickname
the Israeli Merkava Mk 4
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Fat Guy on 27 March 2018, 14:14:23
What the heck is that?

The T249 Vigilante. Proposed replacement for the M42 Duster.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Luciora on 27 March 2018, 14:28:43
Found it doing a search for tanks and thought it would be good for an assault on *something*.

Is that a movie prop or something?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 27 March 2018, 14:35:06
Like they said, it's a replacement prototype for the M-42 Duster, and probably the last major gun-based AA system.  Everything gunwise since has been pretty close range, operating under an umbrella of missile fire instead of being the primary defense system.  Not to knock things like the M163 VADS but it's a low-and-slow killer, rather than a general all-purpose AA unit.

As for the T249, well, let's just say that the M247 Sergeant York beat it.  And you know what a wonderful platform THAT was.  Still, there's something that brings a tear to the eye when you say "37x219mm at 3000rpm" but maybe that's just me.

Sleep well, little BRRRRRRRRT.  Sleep well.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ColBosch on 27 March 2018, 14:39:41
As for the T249, well, let's just say that the M247 Sergeant York beat it.  And you know what a wonderful platform THAT was.

No, I don't. Nobody does. Because it was trash garbage. ;D
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: grimlock1 on 27 March 2018, 14:50:47
No, I don't. Nobody does. Because it was trash garbage. ;D

Now, now.  That's uncalled for.  it's rude to insult garbage by comparing it to the Sgt. York system.
:-)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ColBosch on 27 March 2018, 15:01:47
Now, now.  That's uncalled for.  it's rude to insult garbage by comparing it to the Sgt. York system.
:-)

A dumpster fire, covered in bees.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 27 March 2018, 15:05:14
A dumpster fire, covered in bees.
That it's still trying to shoot down.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: David CGB on 27 March 2018, 23:07:21
Tank puns are best puns.  And starting this off with...a 37mm BRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPmonster!
very neat looking
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: CDAT on 28 March 2018, 09:15:26
Been away for a bit, so in reply to Matti from the last thread. Where I was talking about the IPM1's. For a short time between the M1 and the M1A1 they had the Improved Product M1. Kind of a M1A1 hull with a M1 turret. It still had the 105mm main gun, but lots of other systems were upgraded. Not every unit went from M1 - IPM1 - M1A1.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Matti on 28 March 2018, 11:03:32
Sure everyone knows about these, but maybe not, and they're pretty interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLBAEOsdxIbLPFEomzphaZQ0A5Vujkpjd8

David Fletcher's Tank Chats; I've taken to listening to them from time to time while doing other stuff.  They're short, curiously personal, and really informative as to the kinds of tanks he covers - and he's gone everywhere from the Mark I to modern day.  Fascinating watching.
I have watched more Nicholas Moran "The Chieftain". But Mr. Fletcher's comment about British Army's decision regarding Vickers E is great ;D
Seriously though, Vickers E was good enough for about half of the Europe (including Finland, Poland, and Soviet Union), but it wasn't good enough for British Army ::)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Sharpnel on 28 March 2018, 11:26:21
You mean this Vickers E

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/Vickers6ton_front.JPG)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: marauder648 on 28 March 2018, 12:20:07
Mr Fletcher is amazing :)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Charlie 6 on 31 March 2018, 19:28:53
Not every unit went from M1 - IPM1 - M1A1.
The game Team Yankee has done quite unnecessarily.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ColBosch on 31 March 2018, 19:35:28
The game Team Yankee has done quite unnecessarily.

Team Yankee (assuming we're talking about the fairly recent miniature wargame) has made some baffling design and release decisions, and it's kept me from getting into the game.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 31 March 2018, 20:47:22
Since it's AFV related and popular right now, why's that Bosch?

(https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/business/2017/09/22/Boxer-DSEI_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqZ52mtAR2Jcn9NQE33yP0iFqO19Le6D3uH2s6WzqFKGY.jpg)

Needs more sharks with frickin laser beams on their heads.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ColBosch on 31 March 2018, 21:15:58
Since it's AFV related and popular right now, why's that Bosch?

Because they chose a very specific year to set it in. I understand that this is for game balance, because it's the last time Western and Soviet equipment was anything near at parity, but it means that every force feels nearly identical. It's just not what I want out of a NATO vs. ComBlok game; I'd rather see more disparity in forces.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Charlie 6 on 31 March 2018, 21:56:20
Because they chose a very specific year to set it in. I understand that this is for game balance, because it's the last time Western and Soviet equipment was anything near at parity, but it means that every force feels nearly identical. It's just not what I want out of a NATO vs. ComBlok game; I'd rather see more disparity in forces.
Welp, after the first US box set I went in on their USMC line-up. There is one faction on the Eastern European side that is pretty much T-55s and pretty expensive to purpose a playable force let alone a competitive one. So disparity of sorts.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Matti on 01 April 2018, 01:54:58
If you want to play a war game with force disparity, how about anything that includes USA against Afghanistan, Russia against Chechnya, Saudi-Arabia against Yemen, or Soviet Union against Finland?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Weirdo on 01 April 2018, 02:51:53
For all but the last, I'd probably go with Fireteam: Modern or any other game that handles squad-level modern combat. For the last, I'd pick whatever WWII system was my favorite, unless there are yet more conflicts my schooling failed to tell me about.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: worktroll on 01 April 2018, 05:03:55
The other proble with Team Yankee is unit density on play area.

(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-cD4_Hr-RMPM/WW8GNc8OugI/AAAAAAAAGPI/uKFboTzaGr4p_vm8oh9ZBympNCWNi3aKQCEwYBhgL/s1600/IMG_2653.JPG)

(http://www.team-yankee.com/Portals/0/all_images/EventReports/MOAB2016-14.jpg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: worktroll on 01 April 2018, 05:07:42
And a real tank ... "Drive closer!"

(https://i.imgur.com/iStD4ld.jpg)

T-55, April Coup, Sudan, 1986
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 01 April 2018, 05:36:10
Do they have to have someone run over and light the fuse hanging out of the barrel to shoot the gun?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ColBosch on 01 April 2018, 10:36:53
If you want to play a war game with force disparity, how about anything that includes USA against Afghanistan, Russia against Chechnya, Saudi-Arabia against Yemen, or Soviet Union against Finland?

*sighs* No, that isn't what I want. What do any of those conflicts have to do with me wanting more variety in my World War III wargames?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Empyrus on 01 April 2018, 10:47:47
Soviet armor doctrine was pretty different from NATO's, no?
Smaller tanks, fast tanks, designed with strategic offensives in mind. NATO tanks tend to be more defensive, hull-down tanks.
So, naturally NATO vs WP game should be somewhat asymmetric.

Conventional warfare with asymmetric sides, not asymmetric warfare with asymmetric forces.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Daryk on 01 April 2018, 11:01:46
As I recall, the Soviet doctrine was "make it simple, make it work, make more"...  That generally led to much larger forces facing NATO in Europe, and was the basic reason tactical nukes were necessary.  The needed kill ratios for a NATO victory were something over 3:1.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 01 April 2018, 11:15:53
*sighs* No, that isn't what I want. What do any of those conflicts have to do with me wanting more variety in my World War III wargames?
What do you have in mind?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Charlie 6 on 01 April 2018, 12:32:01
The other proble with Team Yankee is unit density on play area.
My Boss and I were discussing this after Historicon last year and he had the same objection.  I saw a graphic that had the right TY scale as being played with those models on a football field.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Daryk on 01 April 2018, 12:38:07
Now that would be something to see... hilarious too!  ;D
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: glitterboy2098 on 01 April 2018, 13:27:26
My Boss and I were discussing this after Historicon last year and he had the same objection.  I saw a graphic that had the right TY scale as being played with those models on a football field.
One of the reasons the 6mm scale was invented in the first place was to deal with the parking lot battles problem limited table space gave.
People keep having to relearn the same lessons
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 01 April 2018, 13:38:03
Or go with computers?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Charlie 6 on 01 April 2018, 13:54:07
One of the reasons the 6mm scale was invented in the first place was to deal with the parking lot battles problem limited table space gave.
People keep having to relearn the same lessons
Yet, Battlefront seems to be doing ok.  I don't care either way although it would be nice if BF let GaleForce9 do a TY skirmish game.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Dragon Cat on 01 April 2018, 15:54:42
Honestly not an April Fools
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Daryk on 01 April 2018, 17:58:37
Now that got a LOL!  ;D
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 01 April 2018, 18:53:21
That's what, a Primitive AT-ST?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: I am Belch II on 01 April 2018, 20:20:45
Isn't there a couple of WW2 games that have "Mechs" in them?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Sharpnel on 01 April 2018, 22:03:00
Honestly not an April Fools
Now, that's what I call a primitive Locust.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Matti on 01 April 2018, 23:09:11
Honestly not an April Fools
What isn't?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 01 April 2018, 23:33:28
Looks like Gear Krieg at a guess.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: chanman on 02 April 2018, 04:09:22
It's rarely the sole SPAAG that you need to worry about. It's the fact that they travel in packs.

(https://78.media.tumblr.com/c23a3f4e9d9f4387970979db45806775/tumblr_og96oejL3A1vaiv1co1_500.gif)

Those look like PGZ-09 35mm SPAAGs
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0a/PGZ-09_Self-propelled_Anti-Aircrafft_Artillery_20170919.jpg/1024px-PGZ-09_Self-propelled_Anti-Aircrafft_Artillery_20170919.jpg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 02 April 2018, 13:42:42
The camouflage has gone 8-bit!
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Empyrus on 03 April 2018, 15:13:20
Why exactly is digital camo so common nowadays? Easy to apply? Easy to design but still effective?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: grimlock1 on 03 April 2018, 17:48:31
Why exactly is digital camo so common nowadays? Easy to apply? Easy to design but still effective?
Part fashion, part "it works better."

All those squares require masking, while older styles of camo could just be done free hand.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Daryk on 03 April 2018, 18:54:01
Very effective... the first time I saw digital cammies, I thought my glasses were dirty.  Nope... at that range, in a dim conference room, the Marines wearing it were just straight blurry...
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Charlie 6 on 03 April 2018, 20:17:00
Very effective... the first time I saw digital cammies, I thought my glasses were dirty.  Nope... at that range, in a dim conference room, the Marines wearing it were just straight blurry...
...or your eyes were just filling with pride.

On a related note, while on BATAAN I peered through the peephole on a QAWTD, saw nothing, and opened the hatch.  I very nearly knocked a sailor head over heels because her uniform had blended so well with the deck sole on the O-2 Level.  She told me that it wasn't he first time it had happened.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Feenix74 on 03 April 2018, 21:09:25
I much prefer the round/soft edge designs such as our old "hearts and bunnies" AUSCAM DPCU (Disruptive Pattern Camouflage Uniform) pattern or the new Crye MultiCam. However this is purely a personal preference not based on effectiveness.

An Australian Army soldier in Australian Multicam Camouflage Uniform (AMCU), which has the base pattern of the MultiCam camouflage pattern with a modified colour scheme inherited from the AUSCAM DPCU.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b5/An_Australian_soldier_attached_to_Task_Group_Taji_demonstrates_how_to_tactically_move_to_Iraqi_soldiers.jpg)

Which has been morphed into a ridiculous new Air Force general purpose uniform  ::)

(https://raafacairns.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/raaf-general-purpose-uniform.jpg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Daryk on 03 April 2018, 21:27:48
There's a semi-famous picture of a Sailor laying on a blue PRC deck, and they blend almost too well.  I still don't get the whole blue cammies, thing... The Navy is finally giving up on them, so I'll probably have to buy a whole new set of the green ones soon...
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Feenix74 on 03 April 2018, 21:44:31
RAAF is using it to replace the old Working Dress (I cannot find a photo quickly but think tradesman heavy drill cotton trousers and shirt in a solid navy blue) and DPCUs as the goto uniform when working on base. Although for us base operations (Ground Defence, Security Police, Airfield Engineers, etc) types I assume we still get issued a set of AMCU for when we are doing base defence duties.

The Royal Australian Navy went with the camo look early and they transition from the old pure grey working overalls to a Navy AUSCAM DPCU working dress and I understand now they are moving to a new Navy MultiCam working dress (Nightlord can probably provide more details).

(https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/awm-media/collection/REL39872/screen/4255876.JPG) (http://www.navy.gov.au/sites/default/files/SW12-All-Ranks.jpg) (http://news.navy.gov.au/images/cms-image-000007855.jpg)

The Air Force's camo pattern is to make the working dress more "military" looking without being mistaken for Army (happened all the time when wearing DPCUs) but it is ridiculous at the same time.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: grimlock1 on 03 April 2018, 22:10:55

(https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/awm-media/collection/REL39872/screen/4255876.JPG) (http://www.navy.gov.au/sites/default/files/SW12-All-Ranks.jpg) (http://news.navy.gov.au/images/cms-image-000007855.jpg)
Is that a cammo uniform with reflective bands on the arms? ???
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Feenix74 on 04 April 2018, 00:02:18
Affirmative, reflective bands on camo  :D

Its "working dress", worn while working on board, the reflective bands are for safety. The camo pattern is not designed to actually provide any real "camouflage", just to identify the person is military and is a member of the Royal Australian Navy.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Fat Guy on 04 April 2018, 00:11:39
About the only environment that the US Army's ACUs actually worked:

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_KI3IRH6RxSs/SwNe4H6rEMI/AAAAAAAAAIg/tE1COVIec1U/s1600/CamouflageCouch.jpg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: grimlock1 on 04 April 2018, 16:11:53
About the only environment that the US Army's ACUs actually worked:


I was thinking about this pic today when I was walking the dog.  Wondered if I could dig it up again.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 07 April 2018, 05:53:16
The Tank Museum at Bovington is running a series about the centenaries of significant events in tank history - the most recent seems to be the debut of the A7V


http://tank100.com/headline-news/action-debut-of-the-a7v-tank/
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Feenix74 on 07 April 2018, 07:03:24
I have previously posted photos of Mephisto, the final surviving A7V. Here is another photo, Mephisto was down here in Canberra at the Australian War Memorial but has now been returned to Brisbane. It is in a bubble to help preserve it.

(http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/9168166-3x2-940x627.jpg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 07 April 2018, 07:04:43
a couple of other interesting links - one on British Army tank IDs and the other on the organisation of a Tiger 1 company


http://tank100.com/headline-news/numbers/


http://blog.tiger-tank.com/tanks/the-panzerkompanie/
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 07 April 2018, 17:11:19
Dated, but still sexy... kinda

(https://s14.postimg.org/wi0nh1ri9/31765409430_ed1e3eae1c_o.jpg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: PsihoKekec on 09 April 2018, 02:10:29
That IR cover looks like burqa for tanks.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Nightlord01 on 09 April 2018, 06:20:07
Is that a cammo uniform with reflective bands on the arms? ???

Not reflective until it's wet, if you can believe it. Navy doesn't consider it camouflage, it's a working dress that shares a pattern with the DPCU, hence DPNU.

(https://raafacairns.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/raaf-general-purpose-uniform.jpg)

We call this one "Glamourflage"
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 09 April 2018, 13:42:30
I thought glamourflauge was what you used to blend in at a David Bowie concert.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Matti on 09 April 2018, 14:36:56
I thought glamourflauge was what you used to blend in at a David Bowie concert.
I Googled it up:
Quote
Glamourflage is an Australian-based beauty and skincare brand. We pride ourselves on adding a dash of 1950's glamour to your everyday beauty routine!
So it's not just for the concerts
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Cache on 09 April 2018, 18:19:52
Which has been morphed into a ridiculous new Air Force general purpose uniform  ::)

https://raafacairns.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/raaf-general-purpose-uniform.jpg (https://raafacairns.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/raaf-general-purpose-uniform.jpg)
Our Air Force almost went with those colors, but the digital tiger stripe pattern. Along with a nice, embroidered, 3-button henley undershirt.  ::)  I'm glad all I had to wear was the stupid gray tiger stripe.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Feenix74 on 09 April 2018, 22:23:38
I always liked my old "hearts and bunnies" DPCUs and when I was in, there was talk about having an Air Force brassard (probably navy blue with an Air Force patch) to wear in non-combat situations to make it easier to identify and differentiate from Army but it never happened. It would have been the more in-expensive solution than issuing a full set of new RAAF General Purpose uniforms but obviously TPTB decided that "glamourflage" was the preferred solution.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 14 April 2018, 01:01:06
I tried to find a picture of the Million Pound Tank that was used by the British government to sell war bonds in World War One, but my Googlefu is weak.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Cannonshop on 14 April 2018, 02:54:22
let's bring this back, to target, and armored vehicle pron...

(https://aw.my.com/sites/aw.my.com/files/styles/news_body_image_1/public/u183517/1503202.jpg)

not necessarily the sexiest tank, but...
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Weirdo on 14 April 2018, 11:53:05
Having weak Armor-Fu...it's pretty, and seems smaller than most tanks. What is it?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 14 April 2018, 11:57:17
The body remind me of the M5 Stuart.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Garrand on 14 April 2018, 12:13:05
Guessing its an M8? Based on markings & crew uniforms, from the '90s or so.

There was talk about refurbing them & updating the electronics for the 21st C battlefield, & re-enter the US Light tank competition. Haven't heard anything since...

Damon.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 14 April 2018, 12:49:24
Wild guess here... Textron Stingray. Which only the Royal Thai Army operates.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Cannonshop on 14 April 2018, 14:31:28
Wild guess here... Textron Stingray. Which only the Royal Thai Army operates.

dingding! correct, that is the Cadillac-Gage Stingray (Textron came late to the party).
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 14 April 2018, 14:44:33
tanks tanks tanks


note the large "don't shoot me" flag on the second Scimitar for the benefit of any A-10 pilots in the area


actually, they're not referred to as tanks but Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance (Tracked)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: worktroll on 14 April 2018, 15:29:30
I've always been fond of the TAM - Tanque Argentino Mediano:

(https://www.armyrecognition.com/images/stories/south_america/argentina/heavy_armoured_tank/tam/pictures/TAM_main_battle_tank_heavy_armoured_vehicle_Argentine_Army_Argentina_006.jpg)

Here's a graphic with the TAM next to the Scorpion:

(https://thaimilitaryandasianregion.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/075.jpg?w=625)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: worktroll on 14 April 2018, 15:33:55
And here's the family shot:

(https://pre00.deviantart.net/430b/th/pre/f/2016/255/5/5/familia_tam_3_by_franco_808-dahe3ch.png)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ColBosch on 14 April 2018, 15:37:05
Most of those are obvious, but...what the hell is the VCTP supposed to be?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: worktroll on 14 April 2018, 15:43:49
That, IIRC, is the APC version - 12 infantry plus driver. Remember, it's based on the Marder, so the situation is similar. Big-ass turret, though, plus remote gun station rear-covering. Looks like that's bolted on top.

Wonder if the mine-clearing blades are permanently mounted on the mortar carrier?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 14 April 2018, 15:44:08
Most of those are obvious, but...what the hell is the VCTP supposed to be?


Google suggests it is an IFV but I have no idea what it stands for
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 14 April 2018, 15:49:26
Garrand's M8 suggestion somehow put the notion to me.

Medium tanks are popular in the ASEAN region, being cheaper, lighter and narrower than MBTs. The latter qualities give them an advantage over MBTs navigating secondary jungle, plantations, narrow village and city streets, riverbanks and light bridges. They can support infantry assaults, kill IFVs and perhaps even MBTs at close range.

Though both Indonesia and Singapore field extensively-upgraded Leopard 2s, both are procuring medium tanks, the Singaporeans developing an indigenous vehicle while the Indons opting to license produce the Turkish Kaplan MT armed with a 105mm Cockerill turret, below.

(https://iadsb.tmgrup.com.tr/62e8f4/645/344/0/68/1000/602?u=https://idsb.tmgrup.com.tr/2017/10/02/1506960808619.jpg)

Here's a graphic with the TAM next to the Scorpion Stingray:
Scorpion is the British CVRT with 90mm gun. Just remember, the Stingray is the only tank in the world named for a sea creature  ::)

Google suggests it is an IFV but I have no idea what it stands for
Vehículo de Combate Transporte de Personal
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 14 April 2018, 15:49:47

Google suggests it is an IFV but I have no idea what it stands for
I can see the P must stand for Personnel going off the other designations.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 15 April 2018, 07:20:50
So here's a question.  Obviously in games like War Thunder, you keep on fighting until you're deadified beyond anything.  Full loss of crew, for starters; what happens in most cases when a tank takes a penetrating hit and doesn't end up with a mulched crew that tries to push the headless body of the gunner out of the way and go back to battle?  At what point is it acceptable to bail out of a tank, especially older machines from older wars?  Nowadays, I understand, the things are so robust that mission kills mean you just sit around and protect the tank until recovery crews show up, but what about in prior battles?  What's the expectation, and what's the typical history, for the crew when they get a serious hit?  Not counting ammo explosions or fires where the whole crew's obviously dead, of course.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: marauder648 on 15 April 2018, 07:36:08
With modern tanks it seems to be basically one of two things happening.

1 - Mobility kill, hunker down if under fire, bail out if not as you're now an immobile target.

2 - Penetration - most of the crew die in a horrific way if they can't get out before the ammo goes up.

Because when tanks go, they tend to go very messily, once a shells inside, there's nothing to stop it from hitting what ever the hell it wants, along with a cloud of razor sharp, exceptionally hot metal.  Or a jet of superheated metal.

Whilst you can find a LOT of video's from the fighting in Syria and that region, I won't link them here.

but I will link this vid from a documentary.  That a few seconds after a hit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHZbC-VCyoE

Once that had died down, you'd be getting the crew out of that with a bucket and mop if you was lucky.  What you're seeing is the propellant for the ammo cooking off. Most tank shells nowdays don't go BANG when they hit something as they are generally solid lumps of very fast moving metal.  A tank might have some or more HE rounds onboard but they are not enough to cause a huge bang.  But the propellant is and thats what causes the jets of flame to roar out of hatches that you've probably seen or will see in that video.

Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 15 April 2018, 07:38:42
So here's a question.  Obviously in games like War Thunder, you keep on fighting until you're deadified beyond anything.  Full loss of crew, for starters; what happens in most cases when a tank takes a penetrating hit and doesn't end up with a mulched crew that tries to push the headless body of the gunner out of the way and go back to battle?  At what point is it acceptable to bail out of a tank, especially older machines from older wars?  Nowadays, I understand, the things are so robust that mission kills mean you just sit around and protect the tank until recovery crews show up, but what about in prior battles?  What's the expectation, and what's the typical history, for the crew when they get a serious hit?  Not counting ammo explosions or fires where the whole crew's obviously dead, of course.


From my understanding, post-WW2 tanks don't have "spare" crew - everyone has a vital role in making the tank an effective combat unit. While you might need to finish an engagement the loss of the crew member (doesn't have to be dead, just incapacitated) would mean it would be worth pulling out of the battle fairly quickly for replacement.


The crew can be thought of as three parts, either with three or four crew depending on whether or not there is an auto-loader.
The commander provides the situational awareness - often sticking their head out of the turret and so may well be the one lost to a sniper, shell fragment etc.
The gun crew provides the firepower - while the commander might be able to take over either the gunner or loader role they would then still lose the commander; this might be adequate if the tank is retreating and laying down fire fairly haphazardly to cover this but in any sort of attack would be bad.
The driver provides the mobility - without this, you just have an expensive pillbox.


At the risk of sounding like you are de-humanising the crew, consider them as components in a machine the same as the guns, engine, tracks etc and then consider when you would pull out of battle versus carrying on.


In terms of when "penetration" occurs, I wonder what would happen with a Western tank without auto-loader and with the ammunition kept away from the crew - would some at least stand a chance of survival despite the presumed spall and other badness that would occur due to the penetration from a kinetic energy or explosively formed bit of metal making a surprise entrance into their living space?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 15 April 2018, 07:49:53
In terms of when "penetration" occurs, I wonder what would happen with a Western tank without auto-loader and with the ammunition kept away from the crew - would some at least stand a chance of survival despite the presumed spall and other badness that would occur due to the penetration from a kinetic energy or explosively formed bit of metal making a surprise entrance into their living space?
Its happened before - they just button up and wait for support as per doctrine, move the tank back towards ftiendly lines if they can. Well trained crews who trust in the firepower and willingness of their support to come back for them will obey their training and survive.

Unfortunately for other armies, the crews often bail even when the tank is still operational. That's how a lot of tanks get captured by, er, non-state actors. Since often this happens when the lines have been broken and everyone is legging it for home, they don't usually make it back - and certain parties don't take prisoners.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: marauder648 on 15 April 2018, 07:51:12
You can understand the desire to get out though, especially after the introduction of a high velocity lump of metal and its friends into your rather cramped fighting space that no doubt caused consternation and irritation for all involved. 

The propellant for a tank shell is very stable and what it does not technically do is explode.  It burns incredibly rapidly and at high heat.  This is called a deflagration effect.

take for example the USS Arizona

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujquq7IU0uY

That right there is her ammuniton not exploding, because there was lots left of the ship, if her magazine had exploded there wouldn't be much left of her at all.  That is a deflagration, the propellant is all ignighting and burning as its meant to in a gun tube.  Just when you've got multiple tons of it all going off at once the result is that. 

Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 15 April 2018, 07:55:45
It's kind of an odd question, but it came about thinking about those loss numbers for American crews from WWII.  For every Sherman "destroyed" with five man crews, the average was something like only 1.2 casualties per.  So what do the other 3.8 crew go do with themselves, typically?  Especially when you can take more than one serious hit and keep operating.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: marauder648 on 15 April 2018, 07:59:43
It's kind of an odd question, but it came about thinking about those loss numbers for American crews from WWII.  For every Sherman "destroyed" with five man crews, the average was something like only 1.2 casualties per.  So what do the other 3.8 crew go do with themselves, typically?  Especially when you can take more than one serious hit and keep operating.

In reality if you take a serious hit, that means a penetration and a shell bouncing around the inside of a tank being a general menace and making all grouchy.  And that means who ever is in that area is either hurt or dead, and at that point the rest of the crew would wisely think "Nope" and get the hell out.  Sherman crew casualties were helped by the well designed interior and the large hatches, making it easy to debuss if its a case of "On look, the tanks on fire.".

British and Soviet tanks were harder to get out of, the French even more so.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 15 April 2018, 08:00:36
You can understand the desire to get out though, especially after the introduction of a high velocity lump of metal and its friends into your rather cramped fighting space that no doubt caused consternation and irritation for all involved. 


British crews won't, so long as the tea-making Boiling Vessel isn't damaged


Its happened before - they just button up and wait for support as per doctrine, move the tank back towards ftiendly lines if they can. Well trained crews who trust in the firepower and willingness of their support to come back for them will obey their training and survive.



Which I guess is one of the reasons why recovery vehicles are often made on the same chassis complete with armour as the tanks they support?


If memory serves, the only Challenger 2 loss was due to being shot by another Challenger 2 in the turret... but looking at the Wikipedia page about it, it was a HESH round hitting the commander's cupola and causing fragments to enter the turret leading to the deaths of two of the crew and the subsequent fire that wrote off the tank. I had thought they were hit by a "fin" round in the rear of the turret - in other words in the ammo bin. Does anyone know if an equivalent tank (Leopard 2, M1 Abrams) has been hit like that?


(I do hope none have as I wouldn't wish harm on the soldiers making up the tank's crew)


It's kind of an odd question, but it came about thinking about those loss numbers for American crews from WWII.  For every Sherman "destroyed" with five man crews, the average was something like only 1.2 casualties per.  So what do the other 3.8 crew go do with themselves, typically?  Especially when you can take more than one serious hit and keep operating.


This is what happens when you mistake an average for an actual. The crews would, I believe, reform with those personnel still "operational" forming new crews with colleagues similarly inconvenienced.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: marauder648 on 15 April 2018, 08:18:22
There's a fair few vids of modern Western MBT's getting hit by ATGMs in the Middle East, but again, won't link them here (because they can be a tad grisly as you know that inside that rapidly burning metal box 3 - 5 men are burning alive).  But they tend to end with jets of flame roaring out of them.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 15 April 2018, 09:07:04
Which I guess is one of the reasons why recovery vehicles are often made on the same chassis complete with armour as the tanks they support?
Not quite. Thats the equivalent of BT "I want all my lancemates to move 4/6/4" - when its made of the same chassis you just know it can go wherever its customers go and pull what needs pulling. When this rule of thumb isn't adhered to problems arise - such as the M60-based M88 wrecker which needed upgrading to M88A2 to adequately handle an M1 Abrams by itself.

There have been more penetrations of Challys than writeoffs - I was thinking of the one pierced in the belly by an RPG maiming the driver. Crew sat tight and collected a dozen more RPG hits while waiting for help.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 15 April 2018, 10:35:09
If memory serves, the only Challenger 2 loss was due to being shot by another Challenger 2 in the turret... but looking at the Wikipedia page about it, it was a HESH round hitting the commander's cupola and causing fragments to enter the turret leading to the deaths of two of the crew and the subsequent fire that wrote off the tank. I had thought they were hit by a "fin" round in the rear of the turret - in other words in the ammo bin. Does anyone know if an equivalent tank (Leopard 2, M1 Abrams) has been hit like that?

Wasn't there an M1 in the first Gulf War that got stuck in a mud hole, so the platoon tried to destroy it?  I recall hearing that two other Abrams fired at it multiple times but the only damage they inflicted was igniting the ammo, which blew out the CASE but left the tank still intact.  Recovery vehicles were able to successfully pull it out the next day and it was repaired and put back into service, IIRC.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ColBosch on 15 April 2018, 10:37:45
My training did not include the appropriate times to de-ass the track - that's something taught at the unit level, post-OSUT - so I'll have to wait for one of the more experienced treadheads to comment.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: The Eagle on 15 April 2018, 11:30:16
Before I went to AIT for Intelligence Analyst training, I was at OSUT for M1 crewmen and my drill sergeants there loved to throw around the line "death before dismount."  I have no idea how serious they were about it; it first came up when discussing the proper way to hang from the bustle rack while speeding along so you can take a "Class 1 Download" over the side of the tank without stopping.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Cannonshop on 15 April 2018, 11:47:08
(https://www.army-technology.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2017/09/sabra1.jpg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 15 April 2018, 12:03:01
(https://www.army-technology.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2017/09/sabra1.jpg)


Yay, lemme redirect that shot into my hull/turret vulnerable space...
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Matti on 15 April 2018, 12:39:24
Because when tanks go, they tend to go very messily, once a shells inside, there's nothing to stop it from hitting what ever the hell it wants, along with a cloud of razor sharp, exceptionally hot metal.  Or a jet of superheated metal.
I have been told (by my father) that penetration can also create temporary vacuum of space that kills the crew but otherwise leaves tank relatively intact for salvage. Also penetration can result a toxic hazard in form of dust which is not good to breathe in.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 15 April 2018, 12:41:53
I have been told (by my father) that penetration can also create temporary vacuum of space that kills the crew but otherwise leaves tank relatively intact for salvage. Also penetration can result a toxic hazard in form of dust which is not good to breathe in.


I think that is similar to the concept of damage from high velocity bullets in flesh
Certainly there might well be pressure changes that would not be nice to experience
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Matti on 15 April 2018, 12:47:20
It's kind of an odd question, but it came about thinking about those loss numbers for American crews from WWII.  For every Sherman "destroyed" with five man crews, the average was something like only 1.2 casualties per.  So what do the other 3.8 crew go do with themselves, typically?  Especially when you can take more than one serious hit and keep operating.
Some of the crew casualties didn't happen inside the tank, but rather outside of it. British Sherman crews had more serious casualties per tank lost. Difference: American crews had helmets, Brits had berets.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 15 April 2018, 12:52:08
Some of the crew casualties didn't happen inside the tank, but rather outside of it. British Sherman crews had more serious casualties per tank lost. Difference: American crews had helmets, Brits had berets.


but points were being awarded for style...
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Starbuck on 15 April 2018, 13:38:55
something a bit different, no photos but posters from WWI.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 15 April 2018, 16:16:31
I have a book called The Tank Commander Pocket Manual which has some stories from tankers from WW2 as well as some background on doctrine etc


One part by a tank commander, at the time of Normandy in June 1944 he was Troop Corporal and a tank commander in the Northants Yeomanry - his unit used Cromwells rather than Shermans but... he describes coming across one of the other tanks in the squadron were "brewed up" and found the crew had one man uninjured, one dead and three badly wounded. They put the four surviving crew on the back of their tank and withdrew them back until they could hand them off to other units. The other brewed up tank crew appears to have survived without injury as, as the writer puts it, none of them were listed as casualties.


The same man was wounded later in the Normandy campaign and returned to his unit 10 days later to a new tank and a new driver.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: tomaddamz on 15 April 2018, 16:33:43

Yay, lemme redirect that shot into my hull/turret vulnerable space...
That would be true in the slower velocity regimes using an APC type projectile, in todays threat enviroment velocities are much higher and armor failure is not displacement or strain failure but mutual ablation, and most AP projectiles are using a flat nose that is designed not to ricochet at large angles to the normal.  A modern APFSDS penetrator will have to chew through the whole LOS thickness.  Considering that this is a NERA or NXRA bulging plate array it actually injects more material laterally against the penetrator making it pinch like a saw into bending wood.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: CDAT on 16 April 2018, 01:46:21
Wasn't there an M1 in the first Gulf War that got stuck in a mud hole, so the platoon tried to destroy it?  I recall hearing that two other Abrams fired at it multiple times but the only damage they inflicted was igniting the ammo, which blew out the CASE but left the tank still intact.  Recovery vehicles were able to successfully pull it out the next day and it was repaired and put back into service, IIRC.

Story as told to me by my Drill Sergeants was that it got stuck up past the turret ring, the rest of the platoon tried to pull it out, but could not, so they were going to destroy it. Put flammables and spare ammo on the turret floor and dropped a thermite on it, but the fire suppression system put it out. So then the rest of the platoon shot at it, all they managed to do was pop the blow out panels, even at point blank they could not penetrate the armor except for the thin back side of the turret. At this point they were told to wait for recovery as the ground war was over. In the end it they said it took four wreckers (M88), and the three other tanks from the platoon. And it was combat ready again within 24 hours (pulled the turret and put a spare on).

Before I went to AIT for Intelligence Analyst training, I was at OSUT for M1 crewmen and my drill sergeants there loved to throw around the line "death before dismount."  I have no idea how serious they were about it; it first came up when discussing the proper way to hang from the bustle rack while speeding along so you can take a "Class 1 Download" over the side of the tank without stopping.
From my experience with a professional force I would say it is very serious. Now a lot of semi trained crew will abandon their tank as others have said even if they are not disabled. There were time when I was still in Armor that most of the crew did not touch the ground for days at a time. The driver would get out and check the track when we stopped moving, when it was chow time the driver who was already on the ground got food for the crew, everyone would sleep on the tank, and as you covered above "Class 1 Download" was also done from the tank.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: marauder648 on 16 April 2018, 02:01:47
I know this isn't tanks but can we take a moment to admire the work on these models and the effort put into the painting?

https://imgur.com/gallery/CoRsM
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 16 April 2018, 02:50:47
Needs more tanks.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 16 April 2018, 03:10:59
Well, here's at least half a tank

(https://i.imgur.com/nhzTkw3.jpg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Daryk on 16 April 2018, 04:35:37
Needs more tanks.
Aside from the excellent detail overall, the one random 'mech makes the whole 3rd world scene scrolling through. 
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 16 April 2018, 06:24:07
I know this isn't tanks but can we take a moment to admire the work on these models and the effort put into the painting?

https://imgur.com/gallery/CoRsM
wow 70s Malaysia vibe strong
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Feenix74 on 16 April 2018, 06:31:50
Beautiful work, the Mitsubishi Heavy Industries split-system air-conditioner gives it very nineties-noughties feel for me.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Weirdo on 16 April 2018, 09:25:45
Story as told to me by my Drill Sergeants was that it got stuck up past the turret ring, the rest of the platoon tried to pull it out, but could not, so they were going to destroy it. Put flammables and spare ammo on the turret floor and dropped a thermite on it, but the fire suppression system put it out. So then the rest of the platoon shot at it, all they managed to do was pop the blow out panels, even at point blank they could not penetrate the armor except for the thin back side of the turret. At this point they were told to wait for recovery as the ground war was over. In the end it they said it took four wreckers (M88), and the three other tanks from the platoon. And it was combat ready again within 24 hours (pulled the turret and put a spare on).

WAIT.

That thing's fire suppression will put out thermite?!
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: glitterboy2098 on 16 April 2018, 11:01:28
might have just kept the thermite from igniting when the vehicle was hit.

and IIRC those were the 105mm equipped models. though the A1 upgrade IIRC actually increased the armor protection at the same time it switched to the a bigger gun, so the results might be about the same with the later models.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Fat Guy on 16 April 2018, 15:10:49
Actually no. There were no 105 equipped M1s in Desert Storm. Even the Marine's were replaced with Army A1s out of the European war stocks.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: sadlerbw on 16 April 2018, 15:11:58
A bit late with this one, but I think it was Marauder who was mentioning that tank ammo doesn't so much explode as it burns real fast. This is quite accurate. When not confined in a gun barrel, smokeless gunpowder is fairly stable, but will burn quite happily once you get it started. As a less grisly example than some videos, here are some soldiers disposing of unused mortar charges:

https://youtu.be/MN61kYwilnE

Not exactly an explosion, but hoo boy do they burn. Certainly not something anyone would want to be sat next to inside a tank.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Garrand on 16 April 2018, 15:28:42
Actually no. There were no 105 equipped M1s in Desert Storm. Even the Marine's were replaced with Army A1s out of the European war stocks.

To be even more accurate, there WERE 105mm armed Abrams in Desert Shield but were all replaced with -A1s before the ground war kicked off, just in case there are any conflicting photos out there (and there are...)

Damon.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: marauder648 on 16 April 2018, 15:56:17
A bit late with this one, but I think it was Marauder who was mentioning that tank ammo doesn't so much explode as it burns real fast. This is quite accurate. When not confined in a gun barrel, smokeless gunpowder is fairly stable, but will burn quite happily once you get it started. As a less grisly example than some videos, here are some soldiers disposing of unused mortar charges:

https://youtu.be/MN61kYwilnE

Not exactly an explosion, but hoo boy do they burn. Certainly not something anyone would want to be sat next to inside a tank.

Thats a really good video!  Also this kind of fire is obviously hot as all hell, and because it burns so intensely, it melts metal.  HMS Defence was hit during the Battle of Jutland and a fire was started in her wing 7.5-inch turret which flashed back to the magazine and set off the propellant.

The wing magazine then set off the bow and stern 9.2-inch guns magazines and it all burned.  She sunk within 5 - 10 seconds, its thought she exploded but her wreck was found upright on the sea floor, in remarkably good condition.  What happened was that the deflagration of her magazines basically melted through her hull and keel and she just dropped down like a thrown rock.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Baldur Mekorig on 16 April 2018, 16:27:51
Vehículo de Combate Transporte de Personal

Thats correct, VCTP, or in english, Personal Carrier Combat Vehicle.

Sadly a lot of the variants only exist in schematics (like the VCDA), but the TAM are getting modernized. Heck, we even got  our own IIC upgrade (http://www.defensasur.com.ar/index.php/america-del-sur/116-argentina/10337-novedades-sobre-el-proyecto-tam-2c)!

(http://www.defensasur.com.ar/imagenes/noticias/2017/AGO/060817_TAM%202C.jpg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: CDAT on 16 April 2018, 17:06:08
WAIT.

That thing's fire suppression will put out thermite?!

No the fire suppression put out the fire they started in the tank to destroy it. It did take some damage, but did not destroy the tank as they had hoped it would.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: marauder648 on 17 April 2018, 00:04:54
A rather wonderful gif

https://imgur.com/gallery/zdMFSm9
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 17 April 2018, 01:48:56
That'll clear your sinuses!

Watch his face closely, you can see everything he's REALLY trying not to have to have bleeped out after that goes off.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Fat Guy on 17 April 2018, 08:26:16
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/6d/36/f3/6d36f3c3930f3de240a9e6e619d14549.jpg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 17 April 2018, 08:39:52
Wrong kind of caterpillar drive, Comrade.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Luciora on 17 April 2018, 11:09:32
The A-team are chickens.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: marauder648 on 20 April 2018, 09:25:10
Found a gif with a deflagration on it. Note this isn't an explosion. Coal dust is just very flammable and this is 'just' a rapid burn

https://imgur.com/gallery/1TU1r7e

Apparently the chap threw a ton of fire lighters onto an already lit BBQ and was not too badly hurt.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 20 April 2018, 09:27:47
Found a gif with a deflagration on it. Note this isn't an explosion. Coal dust is just very flammable and this is 'just' a rapid burn

https://imgur.com/gallery/1TU1r7e (https://imgur.com/gallery/1TU1r7e)

Apparently the chap threw a ton of fire lighters onto an already lit BBQ and was not too badly hurt.


He should pilot the DRW-1N Darwin which mostly has MG ammo around it's XL engine...
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: marauder648 on 20 April 2018, 12:47:52
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/d0fd1d942765d75fa953362005d5ae02/tumblr_p7ft4he4Am1rwc4muo5_1280.jpg)

(https://78.media.tumblr.com/cd7bd67b4f2597d1e7b78ff3b7b1b3cd/tumblr_p7ft4he4Am1rwc4muo4_1280.jpg)

(https://78.media.tumblr.com/35a6f2ac924c78c1d3887993db8b9023/tumblr_p7ft4he4Am1rwc4muo7_1280.jpg)

(https://78.media.tumblr.com/6a56e7d8fbdb9814c9f369762731cdc1/tumblr_p7ft4he4Am1rwc4muo3_1280.jpg)

BT tanks as you've not seen them before, drawn by

https://hydrothrax.tumblr.com/post/173115653176/bt-tanks-look-at-them-go-im-running-im
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: I am Belch II on 20 April 2018, 16:19:40
Very different idea for a tank.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Cannonshop on 21 April 2018, 04:20:11
(https://olive-drab.com/images/id_m41_full_2.jpg)

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/45/1a/b8/451ab836b82dcab9a074a95755abc29d.jpg)

(http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/US/photos/M551A1_Sheridan_gulfWar.jpg)

Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 21 April 2018, 05:17:09
Not a picture per se but I've been leafing through my Tank Commander Pock Book 1939-1945 which has elements of the FM 17-30 from October 1942 which details the different ammunition loads of the different tanks in use


Light Tank M3 (Stuart) : 1 x 37mm gun carrying 103 rounds with an effective rate of fire of 10 rounds per minute and able to engage 21 targets with the average 5 rounds needed to complete an engagement per target


Medium Tank M3 (Lee/Grant) : 1 x 37mm gun carrying 150 rounds with an effective rate of fire of 10 rounds per minute and able to engage 30 targets with the average 5 rounds needed to complete an engagement per target
1 x 75mm gun carrying 50 rounds with an effective rate of fire of 6 rounds per minute and able to engage 10 targets with the average 5 rounds needed to complete an engagement per target

Medium Tank M4 (Sherman): 1 x 75mm gun carrying 96 rounds with an effective rate of fire of 6 rounds per minute and able to engage 15 targets with the average 5 rounds needed to complete an engagement per target


What is interesting is the increased utility of the 75mm gun over the 37mm for attacking things like infantry or anti-tank guns at anything over 200 yards (at which point the 37mm had canister) while the smoke rounds of the 75mm had no equivalent for the 37mm and was great for suppressing positions as well as setting fire to things
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Fat Guy on 23 April 2018, 07:29:49
The King Tiger.

(http://www.mark-1-tank.co.uk/jpgs/1-4-king-tiger-3244b.jpg)

Because the standard Tiger wasn't impractical enough.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 23 April 2018, 08:43:52
Because the standard Tiger wasn't impractical enough.
Hey... At least it got a better gun and improved armor layout (sloped armor). Allies tankers would had preferred the old Tiger H over this beast.  xp
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: marauder648 on 23 April 2018, 09:29:26
I think they'd have preferred the Tiger P, that thing was bonkers with its electric drives :s
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: VhenRa on 23 April 2018, 09:46:01
Hey... At least it got a better gun and improved armor layout (sloped armor). Allies tankers would had preferred the old Tiger H over this beast.  xp

They likely would have preferred driving the old Tiger I H as well. The Tiger by that point was one of the more reliable German tanks. The Tiger II was an unreliable beast that would often get a significant percentage of it's hulls as mechanical causalities on a road march before entering combat

Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Cannonshop on 23 April 2018, 09:49:17
I think they'd have preferred the Tiger P, that thing was bonkers with its electric drives :s

the Tiger P is a great example of a concept outrunning the material capability of a civilization.  The reason it suffered from fires and didn't work, was that it was, at the time, literally impossible to build electric motors that could do what Porsche wanted to do with them, and even generators were bulkier and heavier than they would be for the same output even ten years later.  Hell, it' might be impossible with TODAY'S electric motor technology, but it's MORE possible today, than it was in 1940-something with the state of electrical engineering and materials science that was available then, vs. now.

He had a terrific concept, but the materials and the knowledge to make it happen weren't there at the time.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Daryk on 23 April 2018, 10:00:20
I think it's possible today, but I'm a physicist, not an engineer...
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Garrand on 23 April 2018, 12:01:06
They likely would have preferred driving the old Tiger I H as well. The Tiger by that point was one of the more reliable German tanks. The Tiger II was an unreliable beast that would often get a significant percentage of it's hulls as mechanical causalities on a road march before entering combat

Both Tigers had reliability issues, as both were underpowered. The Tiger I was moderately underpowered, & suffered from reliability issues because of it (crews had to be forbidden to tow a disabled Tiger with their own Tiger, since this would often result in a blown engine, even if these orders were ignored from time to time). The Tiger II even moreso, as it reused the same engine & drivetrain as the Tiger I while being several tons heavier. More than half of all Tigers (both types) lost was due to crew destruction rather than actual combat, due to breakdowns. It seems the best way to kill a Tiger was to outflank strategically & force them to engage in a road march on their own tracks...

Damon.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 23 April 2018, 12:38:59
That describes about half of all German tanks used in the war.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Matti on 23 April 2018, 12:48:18
Video about King Tiger II (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuDuBwAhRa4)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: marauder648 on 23 April 2018, 13:11:14
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/9f125e8d09a78a49b73ab6d1b73a36ad/tumblr_p7kne5Emi61rwc4muo4_500.jpg)

(https://78.media.tumblr.com/6ec02cb6a94f52b9617544db44bf061a/tumblr_p7kne5Emi61rwc4muo5_500.jpg)

(https://78.media.tumblr.com/d3e47a16bb246c81ce3cf4cb8a44d7d3/tumblr_p7kne5Emi61rwc4muo1_r1_500.jpg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: marauder648 on 23 April 2018, 15:00:36
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/da0c4d2b2cbf141af3aacbd275c2927b/tumblr_p7g9vxARYa1th7tzzo1_1280.jpg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 23 April 2018, 15:03:04
So that was the mistake made when fielding the French tanks - given the amount of multi-tasking needed of the commander it should have been done by a woman rather than a man!
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: glitterboy2098 on 23 April 2018, 15:17:29
I think it's possible today, but I'm a physicist, not an engineer...
it is, he basically came up with the Hybrid-electric drive (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_vehicle). such tech is becoming fairly common on cars, more than a few military forces are looking to be switching to it for their wheeled vehicles, and there are a number of next generation tank projects* using it and discussion of using it to refit existing MBT's. a version of it is also in use on a the Littorial combat Ships.

Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Sabelkatten on 23 April 2018, 17:08:57
It wasn't exactly new (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine#Diesel-electric) technology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Lexington_(CV-2)#Propulsion) in 1940 either. ^-^
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Daryk on 23 April 2018, 18:29:34
I was lucky enough to get to visit the Porsche museum on one of my trips to Stuttgart for work.  The very first exhibit is of his first attempt at a car... an electric one, no less...
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: worktroll on 24 April 2018, 16:44:50
(http://www.angelfire.com/mi4/armania/armor/firepower/heat_path.jpg)

Effects of a HEAT round on stacked steel blocks.

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcReHVqQNjhj5bduX7GNC0LTSbwYoMDjArZ_k8ocWPdfioTzHFglVA)

And what one looks like going off, from the outside.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 24 April 2018, 16:46:15
What's being shot there?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: worktroll on 24 April 2018, 16:49:06
Looks like an M-48 to me.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Sharpnel on 24 April 2018, 16:49:31
Looks like an M48/M60 by looking at the forward hull.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: CDAT on 24 April 2018, 19:38:36
Looks like an M48/M60 by looking at the forward hull.

The M47/M48/M6o all look very close to each other. The key ID features are M47 has a bow MG (but right next to lights and so with out barrel sticking out easy to miss), and the commanders .50BMG is on a standard mount. The M48 has the same muzzle break as the M47 but does not have the bow MG, and had it commanders MG in a cupola (on most, but not some early ones). The M60 once again look very close to the M48 except it does not have the muzzle break, and had a different MG (M85 on M60, M2 on M48) in the cupola (and different cupola design).
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: beachhead1985 on 24 April 2018, 19:59:22
Something I have always wanted to know;

Why are almost all the British main line tanks named starting with C?

Crusader, Covenanter, Cromwell, Churchill, Centurion, Centaur, Comet, Charioteer, Challenger, Conqueror, Chieftain, Challenger again, ect?

Churchil and Conqueror were not in any way C for Cruiser tanks.

The Mathilda and Valentine are among the very few exceptions, but then there is the Scorpion-Family which is another thing again, but this time with S-names.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Weirdo on 24 April 2018, 21:38:20
Anglos adore alliteration?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Fat Guy on 24 April 2018, 22:38:21
Looks like an M48/M60 by looking at the forward hull.

Definitely an M48.

Three quick ways to tell the 48 and 60 apart:
M48
(http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/pics/m48pattonfront.jpg)

M60
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/92/277723756_b13a0dbf69_o.jpg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 25 April 2018, 01:34:39
Anglos adore alliteration?
An accurate and amusing answer!
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 25 April 2018, 03:20:46
Something I have always wanted to know;

Why are almost all the British main line tanks named starting with C?

Crusader, Covenanter, Cromwell, Churchill, Centurion, Centaur, Comet, Charioteer, Challenger, Conqueror, Chieftain, Challenger again, ect?

Churchil and Conqueror were not in any way C for Cruiser tanks.

The Mathilda and Valentine are among the very few exceptions, but then there is the Scorpion-Family which is another thing again, but this time with S-names.


It was a tradition for the cruiser tanks of WW2 and before to have names beginning with C.
The Churchill was the exception to that as it was an infantry tank.


There are a number of such traditions in British Army equipment naming - APCs/IFVs are called Spartan (FV432), Warrior, Saxon; artillery pieces until the AS90 were named for priest positions like Abbot, Sexton; dog-type animals for wheeled vehicles like the Land Rover WMIK, Jackal and Mastiff. The Panther is a bit of a break from that naming theme and may represent a shift to a new title chain. The Ajax looks set to have a family of names for the vehicles all beginning with A.


It is worth remembering that it was the British/Commonwealth use of names (rather than just numbers) that started US tanks being named for generals (Lee, Grant, Sherman, Stuart).
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Garrand on 25 April 2018, 11:22:24
Definitely an M48.

Three quick ways to tell the 48 and 60 apart:
  • The muzzle brake.
  • The 48's turret is more round. The 60's turret is more turtle shell shaped.
  • The 48 has a curved front hull. The 60's is straight.
M48
(http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/pics/m48pattonfront.jpg)

M60
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/92/277723756_b13a0dbf69_o.jpg)

Very specifically an M48A1. Key features from this angle: enclosed commander's cupola "mini turret" & the rounded fenders. M48s had a flat profile cupola with external M2, M48A2s swiched to squared off fenders. I love tank spotting!

Damon.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ColBosch on 25 April 2018, 14:13:55
Very specifically an M48A1. Key features from this angle: enclosed commander's cupola "mini turret" & the rounded fenders. M48s had a flat profile cupola with external M2, M48A2s swiched to squared off fenders. I love tank spotting!

Damon.

*applauds* Well done, sir!
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: beachhead1985 on 25 April 2018, 22:18:31

It was a tradition for the cruiser tanks of WW2 and before to have names beginning with C.
The Churchill was the exception to that as it was an infantry tank.


There are a number of such traditions in British Army equipment naming - APCs/IFVs are called Spartan (FV432), Warrior, Saxon; artillery pieces until the AS90 were named for priest positions like Abbot, Sexton; dog-type animals for wheeled vehicles like the Land Rover WMIK, Jackal and Mastiff. The Panther is a bit of a break from that naming theme and may represent a shift to a new title chain. The Ajax looks set to have a family of names for the vehicles all beginning with A.


It is worth remembering that it was the British/Commonwealth use of names (rather than just numbers) that started US tanks being named for generals (Lee, Grant, Sherman, Stuart).

Much appreciated!
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 26 April 2018, 02:46:35
In fact this goes even further back than I realised - while the first experimental tank was called Little Willie, the next one (that actually looked like a WW1 British tank) was officially called His Majesty's Landship Centipede!


I went to the Tank Museum at Bovington yesterday and have plenty of photos but my iPhone defaults to too large a size to upload here
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Matti on 26 April 2018, 13:52:40
I went to the Tank Museum at Bovington yesterday and have plenty of photos but my iPhone defaults to too large a size to upload here
My iPhone 4 offers a number of choices to reduce image size before sending it.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 26 April 2018, 14:20:15
mine isn't but the photos have automatically shared with my laptop and I'm fiddling with them on that
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: worktroll on 26 April 2018, 15:19:05
Still big though.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 26 April 2018, 15:20:02
Still big though.


and that's the photo cut down to just the name plate!


Probably easiest if I put up a link to Flickr



Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 26 April 2018, 15:37:02
now I can't get Flickr to work properly


I suspect there is a running theme here...


anyway


here's a link to my OneDrive which does seem to have managed to get them up


https://1drv.ms/a/s!AtP_nNhiV3urgkD9AhsOagS13GIM (https://1drv.ms/a/s!AtP_nNhiV3urgkD9AhsOagS13GIM)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 26 April 2018, 15:50:23
Lemme see if this works...


Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Daryk on 26 April 2018, 15:54:52
Thanks for posting the OneDrive link... that was very neat!

As for your image tags, try using the button above with the Mona Lisa...
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Feenix74 on 01 May 2018, 20:17:43
Not an armoured fighting vehicle but I could not be bothered to start a new thread for this cool photo:

(https://i.pinimg.com/564x/20/21/5b/20215b4dc781dcc6f198c5b7912fb5d2.jpg)

64 Pounder Rifled Muzzle Loading Cannon being fired by re-enactment group at Fort Lytton in Brisbane.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Ghostbear_Gurdel on 01 May 2018, 20:46:12
that's an actual photo????


it looks like a cheesy video game
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 01 May 2018, 21:01:38
The color is very off.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Feenix74 on 01 May 2018, 23:16:41
I think the photographer was using one of those "arty" fancy colour filter things on his/her camera.

Here are some more:

(http://www.historyalive.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/521288_10150903644761298_1402116366_n.jpg)

(http://www.spiritland.net/galleries/queensland/qld060.jpg)

Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Matti on 02 May 2018, 14:34:33
Is it really a cannon or a flamethrower? ::)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 02 May 2018, 14:55:40
Is it really a cannon or a flamethrower? ::)


Not sure but if I wanted to destroy Brisbane (and having visited, I don't think that's such a bad idea) I'd opt for a more speedy approach like nukin' it from orbit
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Sabelkatten on 02 May 2018, 15:00:26
Presumably no shot, and I wouldn't be surprised if they "salted" it a bit with extra paper and other flammable materials.

Plus, it's friggin' 64-pounder! That's a lot of powder!
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Istal_Devalis on 03 May 2018, 15:10:10
It is worth remembering that it was the British/Commonwealth use of names (rather than just numbers) that started US tanks being named for generals (Lee, Grant, Sherman, Stuart).
While we're at it, look at how the Royal Navy handles ship classes and names too.
It does make it easy to ID what class/role something was for when you see the name.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 03 May 2018, 15:52:30
AMX-13 with SS.11 ATGMs.

(http://weaponsystems.net/image/s-lightbox/n-SS-11%20missile/--/img/ws/am_atm_ss11_o1.jpg)

and with HOT ATGMs.

(https://s17.postimg.cc/me8v48si7/amx13_hot_010_178.jpg)

Nowadays they let the wheelies carry the ATGMs... AMX-10 with MMP missiles, prototype

(https://s17.postimg.cc/3zyc0c8in/T40_2.jpg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Garrand on 03 May 2018, 17:35:39
That AMX-13 with HOT missiles is cool...I build 1/35 models as my other (arguably main) hobby, have an AMX-13 in the stash with SS.11s (as well as an AMX VCI). Was the -13 with HOT missiles a service vehicle, or just a prototype?

Damon.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 03 May 2018, 18:01:58
That AMX-13 with HOT missiles is cool...I build 1/35 models as my other (arguably main) hobby, have an AMX-13 in the stash with SS.11s (as well as an AMX VCI). Was the -13 with HOT missiles a service vehicle, or just a prototype?

Damon.
Prototype. As was this quad 20mm SPAAG, designated Char 48 FCM.

(https://s17.postimg.cc/twwlqxehb/582974_Char48_FCM.jpg)

The service variant had only half the dakka.

(https://s17.postimg.cc/7kysxlzyn/img786.jpg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 03 May 2018, 21:44:50
That AMX-13 with HOT missiles is cool...I build 1/35 models as my other (arguably main) hobby, have an AMX-13 in the stash with SS.11s (as well as an AMX VCI). Was the -13 with HOT missiles a service vehicle, or just a prototype?

Damon.
War Thunder has a premium vehicle of it. if you have an account, you can play it in Test Drive.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Garrand on 04 May 2018, 10:26:12
War Thunder has a premium vehicle of it. if you have an account, you can play it in Test Drive.

I'd rather just build a model of one. Though only if it is a service vehicle...

I've been waiting for the old Heller AMX-13 DCA to show up on ebay so I can kitbash it with a Takom or Tamiya AMX-13. Seems to be a rare kit, so I may get the AMX-30 DCA to serve as the base...

Damon.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Matti on 04 May 2018, 11:19:04
Nowadays they let the wheelies carry the ATGMs... AMX-10 with MMP missiles, prototype

(https://s17.postimg.cc/3zyc0c8in/T40_2.jpg)
That looks more like a wheeled tank. I understand it isn't one anymore than Cougar MRAP is an armoured car.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: grimlock1 on 09 May 2018, 02:43:13
Presumably no shot, and I wouldn't be surprised if they "salted" it a bit with extra paper and other flammable materials.

Plus, it's friggin' 64-pounder! That's a lot of powder!
The "pounder" nomenclature was the weight of the projectile, specifically, solid round shot, right?  What happened with the switch to ogive tipped shells?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ColBosch on 09 May 2018, 12:29:43
The "pounder" nomenclature was the weight of the projectile, specifically, solid round shot, right?  What happened with the switch to ogive tipped shells?

Not quite. "Pounder" refers to the weight of a hypothetical perfect sphere of iron at the diameter of the gun's barrel. It's a similar measurement to a shotgun's "gauge." So, while these guns did fire cannonballs that weighed (in this case) 64 lbs. for most of their history, the system of measurement could still be used as more-advanced shells came into service.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: kato on 09 May 2018, 12:31:39
That looks more like a wheeled tank. I understand it isn't one anymore than Cougar MRAP is an armoured car.
That's the demonstrator for the unmanned Nexter T40M turret. They just put it on a AMX-10RC to have a platform for firing trials. For sales exhibitions (Eurosatory, IDEX etc) it has also been mounted on a VBCI and a Patria AMV, both 8x8 vehicles.

The T40 will be mounted in a modified (manned) version on the successor vehicle for the AMX-10RC, i.e. on EBRC Jaguar. That one uses a elevatable 2-round MMP launcher. The T40M shown simply has mockup launchers for other missiles (HOT or TOW) instead.

Besides the AMX-10RC the Jaguar will also replace the VAB Mephisto with its elevatable 4-round HOT launcher:

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3b/Missile_HOT.jpg/800px-Missile_HOT.jpg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 09 May 2018, 13:34:11
VAB Mephisto with its elevatable 4-round HOT launcher:

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3b/Missile_HOT.jpg/800px-Missile_HOT.jpg)
Cold War chills  :D
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Dave Talley on 09 May 2018, 13:39:09
I realize it's just a test vehicle, but that open spot where the launcher was bugs  me
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: kato on 09 May 2018, 14:01:42
I realize it's just a test vehicle, but that open spot where the launcher was bugs  me
That VAB? That's the genuine article in use since 1976.

It's not really a hole in the roof but a recess which the launcher can fold down into. The interior of the vehicle is separated from this recess through armor.

This is what it looks like from the inside - those two hatches with the numbers are for accessing the launcher for reloading under armor.
(http://www.chars-francais.net/2015/images/stories/galery/1976_vab-mephisto/6853-0199%2004%20mephisto%20photo%20olivier%20carneau.jpg)

Note: the vehicle was actually cleared for that photo. Usually there's a seat for the loader in the center in the back, you can see the mount points for that on the floor. Those arms with the hinges either side hold the missiles for the loading process. A HOT missile weighs around 25 kg. The launcher itself is in the "down" position in this picture.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 09 May 2018, 14:14:23
does the poor chap get a lungful of missile exhaust when those hatches are opened?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: kato on 09 May 2018, 14:27:15
Only if they fired the launcher in the down position... which they wouldn't.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Matti on 09 May 2018, 15:22:14
deleted
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Orin J. on 09 May 2018, 15:25:35
nice to know style still counts for something, i feel the curtains really tie the whole thing together.  ;D too bad they didn't leave an energy drink in there for scale, i'd have liked to have gotten a proper understanding of how badly they're getting crammed in there in the thing.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: kato on 09 May 2018, 16:03:20
Seats in the centerline mounted (one for loader, one for launcher operator). The loader's seat (rear) can be turned 360°.

Right side missile loading system extended in loading position, left side folded back against side wall to increase available space for occupants. Each of those loading arms mounts a pair of missiles on top and another on the bottom, with the loader able to just flip it over to load the other side.

(https://abload.de/img/vab20hot200120200620p8tu8c.jpg)

View from the loader's seat, with right-side missile loading arm in the folded-back position and missiles mounted. The cans that you see on the wall in the crawlspace towards the front are ammo cans for the machine gun on the commander's hatch. 3,500 rounds.

P.S. Note industrial-design joystick for the launcher operator to remotely move the launcher.

(https://abload.de/img/6853200324201020photoe1u60.jpg)

For demonstration - missiles on left side mounted, loading arm in loading position, hatch to launch recess opened for insertion (launcher is in the up position though), right side loading arm folded back, loader's seat turned 180° to the back, wooden slats on floor to prevent sliding:

(https://abload.de/img/683320033020154du9s.jpg)

People for scale; in my opinion - from experience in similar other vehicles - the VAB has a relatively high interior:

(https://abload.de/img/68332003302024vbung.jpg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 09 May 2018, 16:28:57
Only if they fired the launcher in the down position... which they wouldn't.

Do the missiles intended to be fired by that launcher have a minimum arming distance that would prevent them from detonating in the event that someone somehow managed to disarm all the safety systems that would keep the launcher from firing in the down position?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: kato on 09 May 2018, 16:57:40
HOT only arms the fuze of the HEAT warhead once the guidance wire is unrolled for 50m distance from the launcher. Can't really tamper with that either as the missile is a fully encapsulated round that launches from its sealed transport container.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 12 May 2018, 15:53:46
https://thearmoredpatrol.com/2018/05/09/2018-victory-day-parade-video/

That Uran 9 is such an adorable killbot.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 12 May 2018, 15:59:44
Holy crap, it's TANK-E!
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Orin J. on 12 May 2018, 20:48:59
https://thearmoredpatrol.com/2018/05/09/2018-victory-day-parade-video/

That Uran 9 is such an adorable killbot.

Got to admit russia makes a neat looking cannon though.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: grimlock1 on 13 May 2018, 06:57:15
https://thearmoredpatrol.com/2018/05/09/2018-victory-day-parade-video/

That Uran 9 is such an adorable killbot.

Anyone else find it odd that the drones couldn't be trusted to drive themselves down the street?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Daryk on 13 May 2018, 07:04:44
Not at all... In Soviet Russia, YOU drive the robot!  :D
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Failure16 on 13 May 2018, 09:17:30
Well, to be fair, no one wants an ED-209 moment in the middle of a Victory Day Parade.  It's embarrassing.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 20 May 2018, 13:18:22
New French EBRC Jaguar recon vehicle showing off its MMP launcher... the thing looks top heavy dunnit?

(https://s9.postimg.cc/mx9svp1vz/5470624_original.jpg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 20 May 2018, 13:34:40
actually, my first thought was that it has terrible ground clearance
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Sabelkatten on 20 May 2018, 13:48:50
Very active suspension, I think. Look inside the front wheel.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: kato on 20 May 2018, 14:18:08
It doesn't look that much worse than with the ERC-90 that it replaces - that one had around 34 cm depending on how the wheels were inflated at default suspension height.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: I am Belch II on 20 May 2018, 21:36:42
The Stryker with the 30mm turret looks also top heavy to me also.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Fat Guy on 21 May 2018, 15:07:44
And yet more top heavy...

(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/ey5jdlmr7DE/maxresdefault.jpg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: beachhead1985 on 22 May 2018, 23:08:10
And yet more top heavy...

(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/ey5jdlmr7DE/maxresdefault.jpg)

There seem to be no limits wheeled AFV companies will accept in terms of high centre of gravity and high ground pressure.

Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ColBosch on 22 May 2018, 23:35:52
Oh hey, that was supposed to be my ride, except I got out before we were ever actually issued them. Actually, I think that photo is quite specifically the MGS I would've been driving. I can see what appears to be a 2/2 CAV identifier, but can't make out the troop/vehicle, but I have found pictures of the very vehicle I would've been assigned.

I'm not sad that I never got to drive it.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 23 May 2018, 01:58:46
There seem to be no limits wheeled AFV companies will accept in terms of high centre of gravity and high ground pressure.
The Boxer IFV variant recently ordered by the Australian Army is practically the upper limit - its 35 tons and can't fit in any aircraft smaller than the Airbus A400M. IIRC they conducted a study of IFVs worldwide and this is the max weight and dimensions a wheeled vehicle can get, once you hit the ~40 ton mark going tracked is better.

That is, within the current limits of technology. They can only reach these weights in the first place due to advances in wheel and suspension tech.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Feenix74 on 23 May 2018, 02:55:59
I understand that the Boxer will fit in a C-5 or an An-124 (see photo below when they airlifted out here to Aus)

(https://boxercrv.com.au/images/_galleryImage/Boxer-CRV-1.jpg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: kato on 23 May 2018, 04:21:56
I understand that the Boxer will fit in a C-5 or an An-124
Boxer is sized to fit in a A400M for airmobility. At least in all variants used by the German and Dutch armies. The German uparmored infantry variant in A1/A2 version hits ~35.5t empty. That's actually where its weight limit of 36.5t comes from, i.e. the A400M limit of 37 tons.

If a variant exceeds that you just have to dismount the module for air transport and remount it at the destination. Takes about 20 minutes and a crane, splits the vehicle into the ~ 25-27t chassis (depending on whether AMAP-M is mounted) and the ~ 8-12t module.

Boxer AGM (with 155mm unmanned turret) will likely hit or go beyond the A400M limit.

(https://abload.de/img/boxer_rch155rwq7h.jpg)

They can only reach these weights in the first place due to advances in wheel and suspension tech.
Thyssen-Henschel was playing around (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAK3M6Oysok) with a 6x6 with a full Leopard 1 turret in the 80s, including the option of upgrading to a Leopard 2 equivalent turret.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 23 May 2018, 07:03:01
Ah. A400M it is then. Wasnt 100% sure as the diggers intend to deploy them by ship mainly and the thing is taller than an Abrams.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Feenix74 on 23 May 2018, 07:26:21
Cheers kato  :thumbsup:

So if it fits in an A400M it will definitely fit in a C-17 as well.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Sharpnel on 23 May 2018, 08:16:20
Give me a tracked IFV any day. A lower silhouette is a godsend on the b attlefield. Sure, troop accomodations might be cramped, but it's worth it if the enemy can't see you to hit you.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: beachhead1985 on 23 May 2018, 09:11:14
The Boxer IFV variant recently ordered by the Australian Army is practically the upper limit - its 35 tons and can't fit in any aircraft smaller than the Airbus A400M. IIRC they conducted a study of IFVs worldwide and this is the max weight and dimensions a wheeled vehicle can get, once you hit the ~40 ton mark going tracked is better.

That is, within the current limits of technology. They can only reach these weights in the first place due to advances in wheel and suspension tech.

off-road mobility goes to hell long before the 35 ton mark. Even without the applique armour, the LAV IIIs bog down like crazy due to their high ground pressure. And they roll. Oh boy do they roll.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: kato on 23 May 2018, 09:40:53
off-road mobility goes to hell long before the 35 ton mark.

(https://abload.de/img/vbci_32_ton_test_p326txuhv.jpg)

from the French qualification tests for upgrading the weight limit on the VBCI from 29 to 32 tons back in 2014.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Matti on 23 May 2018, 14:19:21
Boxer AGM (with 155mm unmanned turret) will likely hit or go beyond the A400M limit.

(https://abload.de/img/boxer_rch155rwq7h.jpg)
What does it shoot? Are HEAT and APFSDS in the menu?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 23 May 2018, 14:25:07
What does it shoot? Are HEAT and APFSDS in the menu?


I would hope not - if it is fairly unarmoured then I would worry about the return of fire
Artillery should be heard/felt but not seen (by the enemy at least)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: kato on 23 May 2018, 14:48:56
What does it shoot? Are HEAT and APFSDS in the menu?
German artillery troops recently started training for direct-fire again.

Video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBQe7Ahod34).

Target is a Leopard 1; ammunition used is standard contact-fuzed HE, distance is 600m; using full charge for 1000m/s MV. Effect on target shown at around 2:40.

Crews are mostly getting used to the direct-fire sight in this one, hence missing quite a bit. The direct-fire sight is a fixed-forward non-stabilized installation on the turret itself. Since the AGM module is unmanned it doesn't have it at all though.

I would hope not - if it is fairly unarmoured then I would worry about the return of fire
Armor on the PzH2000 turret is STANAG 4569 Level IV, i.e. against 14.5mm; baseline Boxer is also Level IV.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 23 May 2018, 15:49:20
off-road mobility goes to hell long before the 35 ton mark. Even without the applique armour, the LAV IIIs bog down like crazy due to their high ground pressure. And they roll. Oh boy do they roll.
Straya's Boxer CRVs are designed with a view to operating primarily in the outback, where previously they had issues with their ASLAVs
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: worktroll on 23 May 2018, 16:16:29
How do they handle in the wet North?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: beachhead1985 on 23 May 2018, 21:24:02
(https://abload.de/img/vbci_32_ton_test_p326txuhv.jpg)

from the French qualification tests for upgrading the weight limit on the VBCI from 29 to 32 tons back in 2014.

It's got 8 wheels and weighs x-amount. The VBCI is wider than a LAV-III, but just because you show one moving freely there on a track doesn't mean it won't bog down in the same spot an LAV-III will, which is lots of places. I saw our current army medium truck doing it's paces on similar tracks in 2009. It dug itself in so deep the track is still there today and will be until they fill it in. The truck that passed that track, failed it's offroad rating to the extent that they cannot be taken off hardpack today and to do so can be chargeable when they bog down. Just goes to show that that ability to run even a very difficult track does not mean that field performance will be equal. As we learned to our hardship in Afghanistan and the American's learned in trials with the MGS.

So unless, the french have some magic that adds more flotation (in the sense of not bogging down) and traction without going to dual tires or some such, it's not going to do much better.

And lets see it do the same track at half the speed or less, as part of a convoy of a dozen vehicles.

You just can't keep putting more tons on the same footprint. Surface tension dictates you will sink and stick. It's why we invented tanks in the first place and why the Germans had such a hard time in Russia when the roads got wet.

Wheeled vehicles require much more planning and thought in their route planning and track plans than tracked vehicles do. But everything is on a scale. We found in the 70s that we had many places our M113s could not go, but our Sherman APCs could.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ColBosch on 23 May 2018, 21:25:48
Have I told the story of when I saw some 2LT order his Stryker driver into an LAV ford lately? :D
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: chanman on 24 May 2018, 00:03:00
Have I told the story of when I saw some 2LT order his Stryker driver into an LAV ford lately? :D

Are they still there?  :D
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ColBosch on 24 May 2018, 00:26:39
Are they still there?  :D

I have never seen a driver come out of his hatch so quickly, not before nor since. They did get rescued, after a while - in fact, my platoon sergeant radioed for the wrecker - and I am left just imagining the dressing-down they got from their CO, XO, 1SG, and motor pool sergeant.

Remember: just because it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it doesn't make a Stryker into a DUKW. ^-^
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 24 May 2018, 05:45:35
It's got 8 wheels and weighs x-amount. The VBCI is wider than a LAV-III, but just because you show one moving freely there on a track doesn't mean it won't bog down in the same spot an LAV-III will, which is lots of places. I saw our current army medium truck doing it's paces on similar tracks in 2009. It dug itself in so deep the track is still there today and will be until they fill it in. The truck that passed that track, failed it's offroad rating to the extent that they cannot be taken off hardpack today and to do so can be chargeable when they bog down. Just goes to show that that ability to run even a very difficult track does not mean that field performance will be equal. As we learned to our hardship in Afghanistan and the American's learned in trials with the MGS.

So unless, the french have some magic that adds more flotation (in the sense of not bogging down) and traction without going to dual tires or some such, it's not going to do much better.

And lets see it do the same track at half the speed or less, as part of a convoy of a dozen vehicles.

You just can't keep putting more tons on the same footprint. Surface tension dictates you will sink and stick. It's why we invented tanks in the first place and why the Germans had such a hard time in Russia when the roads got wet.

Wheeled vehicles require much more planning and thought in their route planning and track plans than tracked vehicles do. But everything is on a scale. We found in the 70s that we had many places our M113s could not go, but our Sherman APCs could.


I guess the flip side is that a wheeled vehicle is easier and cheaper to maintain and can self-deploy much more easily as they are less likely to need transporters; they will also annoy the locals by tearing up the roads less


If your main projected use is Operations Other Than War or in places with less mud than the Eurasian Steppe then a wheeled chassis may be worth the compromises
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 24 May 2018, 06:27:29
I guess the flip side is that a wheeled vehicle is easier and cheaper to maintain and can self-deploy much more easily as they are less likely to need transporters; they will also annoy the locals by tearing up the roads less
Very much so
Quote
If your main projected use is Operations Other Than War or in places with less mud than the Eurasian Steppe then a wheeled chassis may be worth the compromises
Thats the current idea.

Down here in the ASEAN we're also switching to FIBUA doctrines and meching up with wheelies as road networks and cleared fields begin to outnumber jungle in the key areas ie cities and their surroundings. It also helps that ~35 ton wheeled IFVs match up nicely with the curb weight of the average 18 wheeler - where lorries can go, IFVs can too.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: worktroll on 30 May 2018, 06:29:41
Motorised, or mechanised?

(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/fd/d5/d9/fdd5d917bc8c83dd1246bcad10636d43.jpg)

(https://78.media.tumblr.com/ae9a17e7d103a195094ca042201069be/tumblr_p2fx88sau91rqpszmo1_1280.jpg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Weirdo on 30 May 2018, 08:01:35
Motorised, or mechanised?

(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/fd/d5/d9/fdd5d917bc8c83dd1246bcad10636d43.jpg)

That raises so many questions. Do the tracks cut into the passenger compartment? With an engine that tiny, can it actually go faster than I walk?  How scary are the Starbucks lines over there?!? :o
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: I am Belch II on 30 May 2018, 09:08:57
Motorised, or mechanised?

(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/fd/d5/d9/fdd5d917bc8c83dd1246bcad10636d43.jpg)

(https://78.media.tumblr.com/ae9a17e7d103a195094ca042201069be/tumblr_p2fx88sau91rqpszmo1_1280.jpg)

A Armored Smart Car!!
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: kato on 30 May 2018, 12:14:57
That raises so many questions. Do the tracks cut into the passenger compartment? With an engine that tiny, can it actually go faster than I walk?
It's photoshopped. A photo of a Wiesel was cropped to the tracks only, reversed (they're backwards here), scaled down to 80% and pasted onto a picture of a 2007 Special Edition Camouflage Decal DaimlerChrysler Smart Fortwo 451.

Notionally the Smart chassis would indeed fit "between" the tracks of a Wiesel, if you didn't scale it down that way; they'd also reach to about mid window level vertically. The engines of both vehicles are almost identical in power (2000ccm 64 kW vs 1000ccm 62 kW).

The photoshopped picture is from 2008. Someone who saw it thought "i can do that too" and mounted the same camo decal Smart Fortwo hull on a tracked chassis that came from some construction vehicle. Video of that one here on Youtube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MJxTE_1MuA).
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: grimlock1 on 30 May 2018, 12:33:41
That raises so many questions. Do the tracks cut into the passenger compartment? With an engine that tiny, can it actually go faster than I walk?  How scary are the Starbucks lines over there?!? :o

How do you get in the cute little thing?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Weirdo on 30 May 2018, 13:15:17
How do you get in the cute little thing?

Evil sciencey magic!
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Sharpnel on 30 May 2018, 13:21:23
How do you get in the cute little thing?
The sunroof?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 30 May 2018, 15:37:24
The sunroof?

It's a hatchback, isn't it?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: worktroll on 31 May 2018, 01:58:28
An anecdote I read somewhere:

Public outreach day on an army base. Vehicles are lined up on display, and a Sheridan happens to be parked next to an M60. A sergeant walks out to the display, stands to face the onlookers, and points at the M60.

(https://www.army-technology.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2017/09/m60_tank5.jpg)

"This is your tank."

Points at the Sheridan.

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQfhqfK4geHSSGCACTX5PbTVMBK6bHEgDR49QEpyzvcERO0lNZ3)

"This is your tank on drugs. Any questions?"

To which I can only add:

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/75/12/03/7512039b2741705ec8ef5adbb11b3746.jpg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 31 May 2018, 05:08:01
Was the Sheridan's main gun at all usable in combat? What about the Shillelagh missile?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: worktroll on 31 May 2018, 05:31:24
The 152mm fired a righteous HE shell, and a fearsome flechette. Both low velocity though. The biggest issue was the loose caseless propellant, which broke up, and represented an insane fire hazard. Also slowed ROF to 2 per minute, compared to a good M-60 crew's 9 per minute. The other issue was the recoil - the aluminium hull was so light, firing the gun rocked it off the front of its tracks, and knocked electronics (like the missile gear) out of its sockets.

The Shilleleagh (sp?) was also a step ahead of the bleeding edge, with significant reliability issues. It also had problems targetting within 800m, not the most uncommon issue with first-gen AT missiles (see what I did there?) They tried it on the M-60A2 "Starship", but failure of the Sheridan seemed to doom this.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Matti on 31 May 2018, 15:28:27
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQfhqfK4geHSSGCACTX5PbTVMBK6bHEgDR49QEpyzvcERO0lNZ3)

"This is your tank on drugs. Any questions?"
Me me! I have a question! Can the 152 millimeter gun fire the rounds used by Red Army in Second World War?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 31 May 2018, 15:32:44
Me me! I have a question! Can the 152 millimeter gun fire the rounds used by Red Army in Second World War?


"Unlikely and somehow none of our troops were bored enough to try"
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Weirdo on 31 May 2018, 15:37:34
...somehow none of our troops were bored enough to try"

Those must have been some damned scary sergeants, that the troops never once got that bored. :o
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 31 May 2018, 15:46:40
Those must have been some damned scary sergeants, that the troops never once got that bored. :o


I think it would take a lot of bored to do something that dumb

Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Charlie 6 on 31 May 2018, 15:52:18

I think it would take a lot of bored to do something that dumb
Nah, not that much at all.  It is usually preceded by a Lt saying, "in my experience," a Major saying, "I've been thinking," or a SSgt saying, "check this shit out."
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 31 May 2018, 15:55:29
Nah, not that much at all.  It is usually preceded by a Lt saying, "in my experience," a Major saying, "I've been thinking," or a SSgt saying, "check this shit out."


Most of my military friends are doctors so tend to focus on things like the fights between camel spiders and scorpions and more importantly the average of 6 squaddies hurt capturing the beasts
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 31 May 2018, 16:11:58
For the record, the shell alone in the Soviet ML-20 is as long as the complete round in the Shillelagh gun.  That doesn't account for the separate propellant charge, nor does it account for what's very likely an immense difference in barrel pressure.  3.8 to 16 pounds of propellant on the Soviet round (and a one hundred pound-plus complete shell!) versus the Shillelagh...yeah.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Matti on 31 May 2018, 16:17:35
For the record, the shell alone in the Soviet ML-20 is as long as the complete round in the Shillelagh gun.  That doesn't account for the separate propellant charge, nor does it account for what's very likely an immense difference in barrel pressure.  3.8 to 16 pounds of propellant on the Soviet round (and a one hundred pound-plus complete shell!) versus the Shillelagh...yeah.
Thanks! So I guess the recoil of 152 mm soviet round would kick Sheridan flying with faster speed than the shell itself.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: glitterboy2098 on 31 May 2018, 16:20:38
Me me! I have a question! Can the 152 millimeter gun fire the rounds used by Red Army in Second World War?
doubt it.
first the breech is going to be the wrong shape and design. the M81E1 gun on the M551 is a caseless weapon, while the 2A36 gun is Cased.
second the M81E1 gun is a low velocity weapon, so not only will the breech be sized wrong for the high velocity ammo of the 2A36, odds are the barrel is not going to be reinforced enough to handle it.

firing the Sheridan's M81E1 with the low velocity HEAT shells already shook the tank's chassis so bad it would break down faster. firing shells from the 2A36 would probably result in it cracking in half on firing.


edit: and i just realized the 2A36 is a post WW2 weapon.. from the 70's. oops. but still.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Matti on 31 May 2018, 16:26:45
Nah, not that much at all.  It is usually preceded by a Lt saying, "in my experience," a Major saying, "I've been thinking," or a SSgt saying, "check this shit out."
ROFLMAO! By the way, wanna see what Sheridan replaced? Check this shit out! (https://youtu.be/tmTLQmsXuEQ?t=366)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 31 May 2018, 17:35:30
a self propelled 90mm AT gun?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Daryk on 31 May 2018, 20:37:05
Dismount!?  That's HILARIOUS!! :D
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 31 May 2018, 22:01:49
That's some epic recoil there.

So like, when the Sheridans went to Vietnam and Iraq and so on, they could work, but at a rate of like 30s/shot? And presumably the guns broke down faster than on other tanks?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: VhenRa on 31 May 2018, 22:46:49

Most of my military friends are doctors so tend to focus on things like the fights between camel spiders and scorpions and more importantly the average of 6 squaddies hurt capturing the beasts

I am surprised... I thought the Squaddies would be too busy thieving everything.

... eh, I suppose capturing camel spiders and scorpions counts, somewhat, as theft.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 01 June 2018, 00:45:07
So like, when the Sheridans went to Vietnam and Iraq and so on, they could work, but at a rate of like 30s/shot? And presumably the guns broke down faster than on other tanks?
That's pretty much it, yes.  Plus the guns broke everything ELSE on the tank; shaking loose all kinds of components not related to the gun at all.

Still, I can't help but think something like these would be murder in an urban environment; get them into parking structures and firing from all sorts of positions.  They're pretty small, though unarmored, it'd be like the jeeps with the TOW or recoilless rifles.  Fast and quick to relocate, one big whack of a gun....not much protection, though.

Question for the tankers, is the 120mm-class gun really that much of an improvement over a 105mm, or can the smaller gun still perform even against top-tier armored targets these days? 
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 01 June 2018, 01:01:13
Was the Sheridan still in use in Desert Storm?  I thought it was retired well before then.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 01 June 2018, 01:07:36
Question for the tankers, is the 120mm-class gun really that much of an improvement over a 105mm, or can the smaller gun still perform even against top-tier armored targets these days?
Briefly, yes it is. 105mm is only going to work on like, early model T-72s and below and side-aspect armor.
Was the Sheridan still in use in Desert Storm?  I thought it was retired well before then.
Yes with the 82nd Airborne. Fired off a couple of Shillelaghs too.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: PsihoKekec on 01 June 2018, 01:16:49
It was posted on earlier version of this thread that Canadian test of basic T-72 failed to achieve frontal penetration with 105 mm, though newer ammo might be good enough for that.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 01 June 2018, 01:19:25
It was posted on earlier version of this thread that Canadian test of basic T-72 failed to achieve frontal penetration with 105 mm, though newer ammo might be good enough for that.
With ERA on? And yeah new ammo helps a fair bit.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 01 June 2018, 01:23:17
Briefly, yes it is. 105mm is only going to work on like, early model T-72s and below and side-aspect armor.Yes with the 82nd Airborne. Fired off a couple of Shillelaghs too.

Looks like it mostly shot gun emplacements, based on a Google search.  I shudder to think of what would have happened if a Sheridan went up against a T-72.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: chanman on 01 June 2018, 04:24:16
With ERA on? And yeah new ammo helps a fair bit.

No, standard East German late-80's models with the additional turret armour but no ERA. I think everyone got in a bunch of testing on those surplus hulls. All the usual cruft was removed from the tanks for testing and penetration with the 105mm and even the 120mm ammo available at the time was unreliable at best.

Presumably that did a lot to spur everyone to move up to 120mm and develop better ammo for them. 105mm only really seems to show up in numbers on wheeled AFVs, and some light tanks, presumably with no expectation that they would be taking frontal shots at any modern MBTs any time soon.

Might still take out an Arjun, but I did specify modern MBT
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 02 June 2018, 03:52:43
The future looks a little less exciting than we thought... Mobile Experimental High Energy Laser, to be used for shooting down drones

(https://s33.postimg.cc/bwis989mn/FMCQRXODSRG2_FLMMHSVUKG4_RI4.jpg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 02 June 2018, 03:59:30
are those drone-kill marks on the side?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 02 June 2018, 04:01:29
are those drone-kill marks on the side?
Its still experimental. I'm guessing all that other stuff on the Stryker is range instrumentation
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Matti on 02 June 2018, 07:32:04
The future looks a little less exciting than we thought...
So what did we thought? Walking mechas or something?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Weirdo on 02 June 2018, 12:24:57
Not an AFV, but if you want sexy + lasers, go look up the USS Portland.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 02 June 2018, 12:40:55
Not an AFV, but if you want sexy + lasers, go look up the USS Portland.
Exactly!
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Matti on 02 June 2018, 14:19:56
Not an AFV, but if you want sexy + lasers, go look up the USS Portland.
Done (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Portland_(CA-33)). Page don't say anything about lasers.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Daryk on 02 June 2018, 14:30:04
Off the top of my head, I think he meant USS PONCE.

EDIT: And PONCE's wikipedia page references PORTLAND...
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Matti on 02 June 2018, 14:33:56
Done (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Portland_(CA-33)). Page don't say anything about lasers.
Found the right ship (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Portland_(LPD-27))
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Weirdo on 02 June 2018, 16:41:39
Protip: Unless you're in the wrong wiki entirely, if an article talks about a WWII heavy cruiser, you're not gonna find any mention of lasers.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Orin J. on 02 June 2018, 23:08:07
Cut him a break, who hasn't confused the real world with their homebrew rules from time to time?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Weirdo on 03 June 2018, 00:24:36
That's fair. I recently faced a problem, and my initial proposed solution was to reverse gravity in a small area.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 03 June 2018, 02:52:14
Simple. Change the gravitational constant of the universe.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Sharpnel on 03 June 2018, 02:54:48
Not an AFV, but if you want sexy + lasers, go look up the USS Portland.
LPDs are not sexy ... ever
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Cannonshop on 03 June 2018, 05:30:54
Not an AFV, but if you want sexy + lasers, go look up the USS Portland.

waaaait...are you saying it's not armored, that it doesn't fight, or that it's not a vehicle?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Weirdo on 03 June 2018, 10:14:59
I know Burkes have a later of Kevlar armor around vital systems, but I cannot say if San Antonios do.

And even if it does, I'm fairly certain every poster in this thread knows what common parlance refers to when we speak of Armored Fighting Vehicles. :)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 03 June 2018, 12:36:31
I just want to slap a "Keep Portland Weird" sticker on the side of that laser.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: gyedid on 06 June 2018, 11:34:54
Hi folks,

I normally don't have much interest in the topic of this thread, but I came across this on BBC Future and thought the regular threadizens might find it interesting.
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20180531-the-wwi-tank-that-helped-change-warfare-forever (http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20180531-the-wwi-tank-that-helped-change-warfare-forever)

Be sure to watch the video of the restored unit in operation.

Cheers, Gabe
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 06 June 2018, 11:39:05
Hi folks,

I normally don't have much interest in the topic of this thread, but I came across this on BBC Future and thought the regular threadizens might find it interesting.
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20180531-the-wwi-tank-that-helped-change-warfare-forever (http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20180531-the-wwi-tank-that-helped-change-warfare-forever)

Be sure to watch the video of the restored unit in operation.

Cheers, Gabe
Vid: Awww look at that little tank puttering.


I noticed this part in the article:
"The FT had a long life. It was still a front-line tank more than 20 years later at the start of World War Two in both the Polish and French armies. By this time, however, it was considered slow and offered poor protection from anti-tank weapons.

Nonetheless, hundreds of FTs were committed to battle when the Germans invaded France in May 1940. Even afterwards, the Germans found use for them. They patrolled occupied Europe, protecting supplies, guarding airfields and supporting police.

When the Allies invaded Normandy in June 1944, they encountered FTs in German markings, thrown into the frontline in desperation. The last examples used in combat were in the Arab-Israeli War of 1948."
Wow, that remind me of the Age of War 'Mechs in 31st Century.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 06 June 2018, 12:33:48
Vid: Awww look at that little tank puttering.


I noticed this part in the article:
"The FT had a long life. It was still a front-line tank more than 20 years later at the start of World War Two in both the Polish and French armies. By this time, however, it was considered slow and offered poor protection from anti-tank weapons.

Nonetheless, hundreds of FTs were committed to battle when the Germans invaded France in May 1940. Even afterwards, the Germans found use for them. They patrolled occupied Europe, protecting supplies, guarding airfields and supporting police.

When the Allies invaded Normandy in June 1944, they encountered FTs in German markings, thrown into the frontline in desperation. The last examples used in combat were in the Arab-Israeli War of 1948."
Wow, that remind me of the Age of War 'Mechs in 31st Century.


it sounds a bit like the clip clop of a horse or horses, perhaps to help the mechanised cavalry feel less bad?


I wouldn't be surprised to find some FTs being thrown into the fight in the late 30th century!
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: kato on 06 June 2018, 13:16:34
Nonetheless, hundreds of FTs were committed to battle when the Germans invaded France in May 1940.
About 500 units in nine battalions, with newly-formed tank battalions drawing from the about 1200 kept in reserve.

Wow, that remind me of the Age of War 'Mechs in 31st Century.
I tend to use the Thyssen-Henschel UR-416 APC as an "example" for BT-Style Military Equipment. Even production facilities for them crop up in the strangest places, they tend to turn up even with small resistance groups, some places use them in numbers where you wonder why they're even keeping them active.

It also features a pretty damn utilitarian design.

(https://abload.de/img/c78c88f23ea4c545117d8o0uor.jpg)

Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Matti on 06 June 2018, 13:40:35
I tend to use the Thyssen-Henschel UR-416 APC as an "example" for BT-Style Military Equipment. Even production facilities for them crop up in the strangest places, they tend to turn up even with small resistance groups, some places use them in numbers where you wonder why they're even keeping them active.

It also features a pretty damn utilitarian design.

(https://abload.de/img/c78c88f23ea4c545117d8o0uor.jpg)
APC (Wheeled)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: gyedid on 07 June 2018, 00:15:17

it sounds a bit like the clip clop of a horse or horses, perhaps to help the mechanised cavalry feel less bad?


I wouldn't be surprised to find some FTs being thrown into the fight in the late 30th century!

I can't recall...was it included in XTRO:1945?  If not, somebody should whip up some 1945-style stats for it.
It seems to be the first true infantry support tank...so I don't think the turret gun would even end up translating as a light rifle cannon.  Maybe a light machine gun?

The article said it had a crew of 2, but the video showed only the one driver.  I look at how the FT was accessed and how little space the driver has...and I'm thinking this is the conceptual forerunner not just of modern tanks, but of things like...the Sloth and Fenrir battle armours, Protomechs, Gears, and ATs  ;D

cheers,

Gabe
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: glitterboy2098 on 07 June 2018, 01:15:09
I can't recall...was it included in XTRO:1945?  If not, somebody should whip up some 1945-style stats for it.
It seems to be the first true infantry support tank...so I don't think the turret gun would even end up translating as a light rifle cannon.  Maybe a light machine gun?

The article said it had a crew of 2, but the video showed only the one driver.  I look at how the FT was accessed and how little space the driver has...and I'm thinking this is the conceptual forerunner not just of modern tanks, but of things like...the Sloth and Fenrir battle armours, Protomechs, Gears, and ATs  ;D

cheers,

Gabe

definitely two crew on the Renault FT's and their clones. it was just really tight confines and less than ideal crew space layout
(http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/With_the_Americans_northwest_of_Verdun._The_skipper_and_gunner_of_a_-whippet-_tank_with_the_hatches_open._France..._-_NARA_-_530756.tif.jpg)

(http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/RenaultFT-17TankInternalLayoutDiagram.jpg)

and the Germans were still using a few hundred of them as late as 1944, mainly for patrols and stuff like airfield defense.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: kato on 07 June 2018, 01:27:35
The "airfield defense" FTs were basically pillboxes. FTs towed into position and turned into a one-man bunker. The concept was later optimized for fortifications with Tobruk type bunkers getting at least three standardized variants with turret rings specifically for FT-17 turrets.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: gyedid on 08 June 2018, 03:03:21
That cutaway diagram sure makes the FT look like it's just one step above a "technical".  (Indeed, many modern jeeps and pickups could probably outmaneuver it).

For translating into XTRO:1945 stats, there were two major variants during WWI:  a machine gun variant, and a cannon variant.  The latter was equipped with this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puteaux_SA_18 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puteaux_SA_18)

Would this actually qualify as a light rifle cannon in BT terms?  Or is it more akin to something like the Zeus heavy rifle?

cheers,

Gabe
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: kato on 08 June 2018, 03:17:59
Would this actually qualify as a light rifle cannon in BT terms?  Or is it more akin to something like the Zeus heavy rifle?
The gun is included in XTRO:1945 itself since it's the same one as mounted on the Renault R-35. At 37mm it's a medium recoilless rifle equivalent.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: glitterboy2098 on 08 June 2018, 11:16:07
The gun is included in XTRO:1945 itself since it's the same one as mounted on the Renault R-35. At 37mm it's a medium recoilless rifle equivalent.
talk about being over generous to make them useable in BT.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 08 June 2018, 12:30:54
talk about being over generous to make them useable in BT.
It's not a direct translation. At very least the vehicles in the XTRO are to be used against each other. Or you can plop them down on a world on Pheriphary that is cut off from rest of the Inner Sphere.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: glitterboy2098 on 08 June 2018, 12:34:20
just meant that as a low velocity 37mm, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puteaux_SA_18) it would be more like a grenade launcher IRL, so at a light rifle would seem more fitting, given the lack of any sort of mech scale multi-use grenade launcher system.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Matti on 08 June 2018, 12:48:29
It's not a direct translation. At very least the vehicles in the XTRO are to be used against each other. Or you can plop them down on a world on Pheriphary that is cut off from rest of the Inner Sphere.
If you're looking for some low-tech crap for low-tech crapsack world, I've got an offer for you (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=14474.0) 8)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: kato on 08 June 2018, 13:12:10
600m/s for 37mm (M1935 APCR ammunition) isn't really low-velocity. The postwar 30mm DEFA/ADEN caliber, which is still used e.g. on the Apache, delivers about the same effective impact energy on target per shot.

The medium recoilless rifle comparison is actually a good one in my opinion - there was the 37mm Canon d'Infanterie de 37 modele 1916 TRP, which filled exactly the medium recoilless rifle position operationally, was used by about everyone in WW2 up to 1945 and used the exact same ammunition and virtually the same, slightly lower-weight gun (breech block wasn't the same).
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 08 June 2018, 14:04:00
Guys, remember - it's not a light or medium rifle, like the vehicle scale weapon, it's the infantry-scale Recoilless Rifle.  So it's barely doing anything to 'Mech armor.

Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: gyedid on 08 June 2018, 21:39:27
Guys, remember - it's not a light or medium rifle, like the vehicle scale weapon, it's the infantry-scale Recoilless Rifle.  So it's barely doing anything to 'Mech armor.

Well, the Wikipedia article did note the Puteaux's poor anti-armour capability even in its own day, so...

Cheers, Gabe
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 09 June 2018, 13:55:55
And on the other end of the scale... the sole prototype Leclerc with a 140mm gun, and one of the reasons it remains experimental

(https://s15.postimg.cc/tqvr1ou0r/2016-09-30-11.43.02.jpg)
(https://s15.postimg.cc/hp0d7ixmz/20160928_110728.jpg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: kato on 09 June 2018, 14:20:41
the sole prototype Leclerc with a 140mm gun
It's actually recently cobbled together, around 2015. The turret was built in 1996, and only used to test the gun and autoloader from a stand (there was no chassis underneath). To prevent its scrapping some maintenance guys in the Army got the idea that they had a first-generation Leclerc around that had been declawed as a Leclerc MARS* - so they mounted it on that and call the whole thing a "technology demonstrator".

* (removing gun, autoloader and sights from turret but leaving it in place, used as recovery vehicle after orders for dedicated stretched Leclerc DCL/DNG ARVs were cut)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 09 June 2018, 14:31:23
fixed, one piece ammunition really starts to get big and splitting them (as per the L30 CHARM) starts to look more and more sensible to me
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: glitterboy2098 on 09 June 2018, 15:10:54
given the 125mm's on the T-64, T-72, T-80, and T-90 use two piece ammo to allow autoloading, i'm surprised no one went that with the 140mm..
(http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/images/4/4a/Autoloader.jpg)
(https://www.suyongso.com/files/attach/images/115/964/512/006/54124dfc1f59c2689f16bf0039b7a4ef.gif)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: VhenRa on 09 June 2018, 18:36:23
given the 125mm's on the T-64, T-72, T-80, and T-90 use two piece ammo to allow autoloading, i'm surprised no one went that with the 140mm..
(http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/images/4/4a/Autoloader.jpg)
(https://www.suyongso.com/files/attach/images/115/964/512/006/54124dfc1f59c2689f16bf0039b7a4ef.gif)

Of course, that ammunition layout on the T-64/72/80/90 makes the tank much much more dangerous to be in compared to designs like an Abrams or Leopard 2.

That right there is the cause of all those catastrophic ammo explosions you saw from the Gulf Wars and stuff like Syria. Its the cause of all those jack-in-the-box turret flying off.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 10 June 2018, 02:52:16
That's an auto-loader issue rather than an ammunition issue isn't it?


The separate ammunition allows it to be fitted into different "safe" stores and the changes needed to the ammunition handling and storage are one of the main reasons given for not changing the Challenger 2 to a smoothbore 120mm gun


I have certainly not heard anything about the two piece ammunition being a reason for the British tanks having a slower rate of fire than the Leopard 2 or M1s


What I don't know (at all) is how "safe" the French LeClerc's auto-loader is compared with the Russian-style designs in your animation in terms of the ammunition storage, handling etc
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Sabelkatten on 10 June 2018, 04:18:00
As I understand it the ammo storage in the LeClerk is quite similar to the M1, so it should be about as safe?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: marauder648 on 10 June 2018, 04:44:52
(http://api.ning.com/files/QAPQTVjHrmsHSLwPMivlokG71-W1lqZi4zCJoHlbtxKhtx21uMk2UTSP8lPSWB0j/i_109.jpg)

(http://api.ning.com/files/27IUZuYR1-gRS42kU7DBxX0a7FJlS9MMNe-97IDB7B2djW28Ww-qOzqoUQNUxYhq/i6.jpg)

(http://api.ning.com/files/Wpe66RiJWRhoshIG32bfbleOG4pNDo1I*tCK-8zwwG-ZCOmNdIEFMQ*gf8O6Gegu/t100_5.jpg)

I've always loved the look of multi-turreted tanks, even if the idea for them was basically guff.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 10 June 2018, 08:01:50
another multi turret tank
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Daryk on 10 June 2018, 08:27:51
Did you mean to insert the same picture twice?  ???
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 10 June 2018, 08:32:29
Did you mean to insert the same picture twice?  ???


No


and my photo of one of these from the Tank Museum is the wrong size/format to upload on here
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: I am Belch II on 10 June 2018, 09:38:57
The multi turret reminds me of the T-35 Russian tank, with the multiple turrets and multiple sized weapon.
Its the closest to the Land Dreadnought design that went into service.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Daryk on 10 June 2018, 10:33:11
Does that thing have four or five turrets??
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Sabelkatten on 10 June 2018, 10:40:57
The multi turret reminds me of the T-35 Russian tank, with the multiple turrets and multiple sized weapon.
Its the closest to the Land Dreadnought design that went into service.
At the time they were conceived multi-turret tanks weren't such a bad idea. However the technology advanced much to fast for them...

-Engines and suspension weren't all that reliable, so you wasn't terribly fast and pretty much had to work with (and against) infantry.
-AT guns were still in their infancy, so heavy armor wasn't a high priority.
-Due to said low speed and infantry you wanted guns in several directions.
-Due to said lack of AT guns there wasn't much that could be used against both infantry/bunkers and against AFVs.

All those problems were essentially solved by the mid-30s, but enough people were already sold on the idea.

Does that thing have four or five turrets??
5: HE gun in the middle, two AT gun and two MG turrets.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: I am Belch II on 10 June 2018, 11:25:48
At the time they were conceived multi-turret tanks weren't such a bad idea. However the technology advanced much to fast for them...

-Engines and suspension weren't all that reliable, so you wasn't terribly fast and pretty much had to work with (and against) infantry.
-AT guns were still in their infancy, so heavy armor wasn't a high priority.
-Due to said low speed and infantry you wanted guns in several directions.
-Due to said lack of AT guns there wasn't much that could be used against both infantry/bunkers and against AFVs.

All those problems were essentially solved by the mid-30s, but enough people were already sold on the idea.
5: HE gun in the middle, two AT gun and two MG turrets.

Just like so many things out there. Look really cool and scary but when it came down to a battlefield application....useless. Its the sci-fi fantasy in me that would love to see a land battleship or something in the like in real life.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 10 June 2018, 11:32:40
I guess technology and doctrine also killed the multi-turret tank - with faster tanks and faster turret traverse you didn't need to have the guns already facing each side and you could break away from infantry. Meanwhile the doctrine lesson(s) that tanks need support from infantry and artillery and engineers etc to be most effective rather than deploying them on their own - from what I have heard of what is happening in the Middle East at the moment it sounds as though that lesson keeps on needing to be re-learned by people.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 10 June 2018, 11:41:57
The O.G. DropShip - aka an LST landing an M4 Sherman

(https://s22.postimg.cc/ntk144oo1/hdnhmo90b1311.jpg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 10 June 2018, 11:54:42
The O.G. DropShip - aka an LST landing an M4 Sherman

(https://s22.postimg.cc/ntk144oo1/hdnhmo90b1311.jpg)


Would launching DD Shermans be akin to a hot drop or orbital insertion?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Charlie 6 on 10 June 2018, 14:56:10

Would launching DD Shermans be akin to a hot drop or orbital insertion?
Whichever is closer to the ground.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 10 June 2018, 15:01:10
How far from the beach are they being launched?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 10 June 2018, 15:01:57
Whichever is closer to the ground.
Ah, but is ground the seabed or the beach now?

IMHO DD Shermans is hot drop. Parachuting tanks is orbital insertion.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 10 June 2018, 15:39:25
In D-Day, the DD Shermans were deployed within 6000 yards of the beach.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: worktroll on 10 June 2018, 15:43:26

Would launching DD Shermans be akin to a hot drop or orbital insertion?

Hot drop. This is prepping for orbital insertion:

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/61/c8/ee/61c8ee6d651491af7f9a3bef32759a38.jpg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 10 June 2018, 15:48:09
Glider delivered tanks - the main problem wasn't the weight of the tank but the giant balls of the crew of the glider
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Matti on 10 June 2018, 15:59:39
Glider delivered tanks - the main problem wasn't the weight of the tank but the giant balls of the crew of the glider
"No guts, no galaxy"
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: VhenRa on 11 June 2018, 02:15:59
That's an auto-loader issue rather than an ammunition issue isn't it?


The separate ammunition allows it to be fitted into different "safe" stores and the changes needed to the ammunition handling and storage are one of the main reasons given for not changing the Challenger 2 to a smoothbore 120mm gun


I have certainly not heard anything about the two piece ammunition being a reason for the British tanks having a slower rate of fire than the Leopard 2 or M1s


What I don't know (at all) is how "safe" the French LeClerc's auto-loader is compared with the Russian-style designs in your animation in terms of the ammunition storage, handling etc

It's the Russian caracel layout. With that... you can't fit CASE, sorry, blowout panels.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: kato on 11 June 2018, 06:32:41
The Leclerc autoloader sits in the rear turret extension same as the ready ammunition bunkers in e.g. Abrams and Leopard, and loads horizontally. There are blowout panels fitted above this magazine. The ammunition within it is on a conveyor belt that shifts left and right to present the next round of chosen type to the loading tray.

(https://abload.de/img/lader_des_leclerc33k2u.jpg)

The autoloader of the South Korean K2 uses the same design principle and looks pretty much the same when taken out of the turret. The design is pretty much fixed to certain external dimensions of the ammunition.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: marauder648 on 11 June 2018, 08:16:32
RE the T-35 tank, its freaking HUGE


(http://tank-photographs.s3-website-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/t-35-replica.jpg)

(https://www.worldwarphotos.info/wp-content/gallery/ussr/tanks/t-35-tank/T-35_39.jpg)


(https://www.worldwarphotos.info/wp-content/gallery/ussr/tanks/t-35-tank/T-35_31.jpg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: The Eagle on 11 June 2018, 22:03:44
Glider delivered tanks - the main problem wasn't the weight of the tank but the giant balls of the crew of the glider

Basically.  Those Tetrachs the Brits delivered via glider were glorified moving targets for German armor in Normandy; even with Littlejohn squeezebores, they had a hard time punching Pz. IVs and just scratched the armor on the cats.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 12 June 2018, 02:28:16
Basically.  Those Tetrachs the Brits delivered via glider were glorified moving targets for German armor in Normandy; even with Littlejohn squeezebores, they had a hard time punching Pz. IVs and just scratched the armor on the cats.


The Besa MG was probably more use as it was really a self propelled lightly armoured machine gun, I'm not sure how many Tetrarchs deployed with the 2 pounder (40mm) and how many with the 3-inch "close support" howitzer
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 12 June 2018, 02:42:21
Basically.  Those Tetrachs the Brits delivered via glider were glorified moving targets for German armor in Normandy; even with Littlejohn squeezebores, they had a hard time punching Pz. IVs and just scratched the armor on the cats.
All like, ten or so of them anyway.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 12 June 2018, 02:47:26
All like, ten or so of them anyway.


My understanding of the doctrine was that some time before 1944 the British armour had shifted light tanks down in importance and they really were just used for reconnaissance rather than direct action


I think it is a continuation of that which led to the Scimitar and similar family being referred to as Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance (Tracked) rather than light tanks post-War
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 12 June 2018, 12:59:40

My understanding of the doctrine was that some time before 1944 the British armour had shifted light tanks down in importance and they really were just used for reconnaissance rather than direct action

I think that was true of most nations by then, as light tanks were shown to be too poorly armed and armored to be effective in heavy fighting.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 12 June 2018, 13:31:13
I meant that there werent that many produced to start with, even less that actually were sent off in the gliders, and barely two handfuls that survived the landings to fire at the enemy.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 14 June 2018, 15:54:30
Does anybody (cough Kato) know what's the story behind this? Leclerc turret on a Leopard body.

(https://s15.postimg.cc/ajxz1or4r/643e44ac841a809c81648ecadbdef24244a90b5a99022cc45baa533fca93784c.jpg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: kato on 14 June 2018, 17:49:02
It's a demonstrator project intended to show that KNDS - the merger of KMW and Nexter - can produce a viable battle tank on their own that embodies technologies from both sides... and one that works without any contribution from competitor Rheinmetall.

Supposed benefit is that you can uparmor it quite a bit more since the Leclerc turret weighs 6 tons less than the Leo 2A7 turret that the chassis is specced for. Or that, without that, you get a tank that isn't as anemic as the Leclerc but still comes in at under 60 tons (... empty).
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 23 June 2018, 12:38:47
It's got thick steel, an engine, and a gun.  I suppose it's gonna have at least some modicum of effectiveness, as long as it doesn't get noticed by its grandkids.  Definition of "stupid but works" perhaps?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 23 June 2018, 15:36:37
And in a more thinky concept, I understand all the problems of casemated gun carriers (ISU-152 for example) but I'm wondering about more modern types of things.  The Centurion AVRE 165 Mk 5 got added into War Thunder, and seeing that monster bloop gun and its 40 pound load of C-4 admittedly makes me giggle, but is it really that much more useful than simply using a Centurion tank, especially with the 105mm gun it had?

My thoughts are towards a sort of Soviet-style combat engineer/assault pioneer battalion, and the vehicles they'd use.  Obviously you'd have armored recovery vehicles, but what about something for a direct assault?  Is a regular tank just that much more generally useful, or is the specialized ride worth the effort?  Taking on fixed fortifications, breaching defenses, that sort of thing.

I've got some loose fluffy ideas for the unit, "By Hammer And Hellfire" for a motto; converted tanks into APCs Kangaroo style, that sort of thing.  Besides the question of 'proper tanks or specialist gun carriers' there's also a general request, any good books or websites that you guys know about for that sort of thing?  I've found a few that talk about the Soviet engineer units in WWII, but they're pretty sparse on info.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Charlie 6 on 23 June 2018, 16:52:01
Assault Breacher Vehicle:  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_Breacher_Vehicle

Sorry, on my Kindle making dinner so I can't do pics readily.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Matti on 24 June 2018, 11:18:10
Sorry, on my Kindle making dinner so I can't do pics readily.
Kindle does WWW now? How is it compared to mobile smart phone with Kindle app?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Charlie 6 on 24 June 2018, 11:57:21
Kindle does WWW now? How is it compared to mobile smart phone with Kindle app?
It has a web browser called Silk.  It is a bit wonky at times so downloading and uploading pics is a bit tricky.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Dave Talley on 24 June 2018, 14:48:36
yep.
they have 7/8/10 inch screens, its a customized variation of droid, and you can cross load some normal droid apps easily
I have been using my 8" fire for about a month , works decently, seems to be a decent tab without graduating to the $200+++ Samsung's
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: hoosierhick on 24 June 2018, 17:59:55
And for a pic of something slightly different, but AFV related...tanks made from interlocking plastic building blocks.

(https://i.imgur.com/ZTxEuHD.jpg)

I really need to dust the back part of that second shelf...
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Luciora on 24 June 2018, 18:13:02
Just bought this from a local toy show.  All Lego parts and not a mego or knockoff kit.  Custom lego set and was very impressed with the engineering.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Charlie 6 on 24 June 2018, 18:44:40
If you really want your soul (or wallet) crushed, check out Brickmania on the web.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ColBosch on 24 June 2018, 21:09:44
Just bought this from a local toy show.  All Lego parts and not a mego or knockoff kit.  Custom lego set and was very impressed with the engineering.

Sorry, but that doesn't hold a candle to Mega's military stuff from the past few years, as the Call of Duty license. Unfortunately their website is being redone right now, but if you run a Google search for "Mega Call of Duty" I think you'll be surprised.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: hoosierhick on 24 June 2018, 21:33:37
Sorry, but that doesn't hold a candle to Mega's military stuff from the past few years, as the Call of Duty license. Unfortunately their website is being redone right now, but if you run a Google search for "Mega Call of Duty" I think you'll be surprised.

I really wish you woudn't have mentioned those.  The company that makes the ones that I posted (Cobi) doesn't do very many modern subjects, and I've been wanting to add some modern stuff to the collection.  They do have a ton of WW2 stuff, and it looks like they've just released a couple of WW1 tanks.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Luciora on 24 June 2018, 21:53:22
Didn't mean to start a comparison contest.  Just wanted to show off a unique build I found at a toyfair using official Lego parts that I really enjoyed enough to buy.

Sorry, but that doesn't hold a candle to Mega's military stuff from the past few years, as the Call of Duty license. Unfortunately their website is being redone right now, but if you run a Google search for "Mega Call of Duty" I think you'll be surprised.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ColBosch on 25 June 2018, 05:59:05
I really wish you woudn't have mentioned those.  The company that makes the ones that I posted (Cobi) doesn't do very many modern subjects, and I've been wanting to add some modern stuff to the collection.  They do have a ton of WW2 stuff, and it looks like they've just released a couple of WW1 tanks.

Cobi is Chinese garbage. But if you want to waste your money, feel free. Just remember, when your sets are missing parts and don't fit together correctly, I warned you.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Liam's Ghost on 25 June 2018, 14:27:20
Cobi is Chinese garbage. But if you want to waste your money, feel free. Just remember, when your sets are missing parts and don't fit together correctly, I warned you.

Cobi is actually a Polish company.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Deadborder on 25 June 2018, 16:22:06
Cobi is actually a Polish company.

But IIRC they source from Chinese factories
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 25 June 2018, 18:06:03
Having just bought my first Cobi tank (a Churchill Mk 1) the packaging definitely says "Made in the EU" and while Australia may be in Eurovision, I don't think China is in the EU
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: kato on 25 June 2018, 18:44:30
Cobi produces at their own plastic mould factory in Mielec, South Poland.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Sabelkatten on 26 June 2018, 02:32:21
But IIRC they source from Chinese factories
So do LEGO as far as I know. The important part isn't where the factory is but the quality control and the worker's motivation. Honestly, I trust a Danish-controlled factory in China more than a Polish-controlled factory in Poland...
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: hoosierhick on 26 June 2018, 08:36:13
I was wary of how well they would fit together before i started buying them. I bought the Kettenkrad first and was honestly impressed at how well it went together.
That being said,  Cobi's quality control isn't quite up to the standard of LEGO.  The Matilda is missing a road wheel, the Pershing had a wrong wheel in the package, the Sherman was also missing a piece, and the T-34 had a wrong piece that I had to modify to work.   I can fix the Pershing easily enough, and I need to contact them about the Matilda.  Even with that,  I've been happy with what I've got.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Dragon Cat on 09 July 2018, 10:39:16
cool image from the invasion of Sicily
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Fat Guy on 09 July 2018, 11:39:08
The PST-54, an attempt to make the T-54 amphibious:

(http://i58.fastpic.ru/big/2013/1029/a5/4ddb3f10b56ad3bf8279e52c7927d5a5.jpg)

(http://i59.fastpic.ru/big/2013/1029/02/b78d6b8c2bab5e9c49502b391ca17002.jpg)

(http://i59.fastpic.ru/big/2013/1029/8d/71288914bde9de2e85bc28e42524858d.jpg)


At this point, I think it'd be a lot easier to just put the damn thing on a barge!   ::)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: chanman on 09 July 2018, 15:41:57
Whole bunch of Cold War tanks from countries other than the big tank exporters of the era (US, UK, France, Germany, USSR)

If you squint, the PRC's Type 63 almost looks like an amphibious T-54/55 (20 tonne range)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/db/Type_63_tank_-_above.jpg/1024px-Type_63_tank_-_above.jpg)

The predecessor light tank which clearly shows its lineage from the T-54/55/Type-59 (21 tonne range)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fa/Tank-vientiane.jpg/1280px-Tank-vientiane.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2a/Type_62_light_tank_20180219.jpg/1280px-Type_62_light_tank_20180219.jpg)

Another T-55 derivative, the Type 69 is most infamous for its role as 'target' in Desert Storm (37 tonne range)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6e/Type_69_at_Tank_Museum_20131004.JPG/1280px-Type_69_at_Tank_Museum_20131004.JPG)

Size difference with the Abrams:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/58/An_Iraqi_T-54%2C_T-55%2C_Type_59_or_Type_69_tank_between_two_M1A1_Abrams_tanks_on_the_Highway_of_Death.JPEG/1280px-An_Iraqi_T-54%2C_T-55%2C_Type_59_or_Type_69_tank_between_two_M1A1_Abrams_tanks_on_the_Highway_of_Death.JPEG)

Type 80/88 - the last Chinese tanks with the old dome turrets before the change to boxy welded turrets - which actually show up in the later variants of the Type 80 family (40 tonne range)
(https://i1.wp.com/tanknutdave.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/type_88_chinese_army_029qi.jpg)

Q: What do you get if you yank the turret of an M18 Hellcat and slap it on the hull of an M42 Duster?
A: The RoC's Type 64 hybrid
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e3/Type_64_Display_at_Tanks_Park%2C_Armor_School_Side_View_20130302.jpg/1280px-Type_64_Display_at_Tanks_Park%2C_Armor_School_Side_View_20130302.jpg)

Swiss Pz 58 medium tank (35 tonne range, evolved into the Pz61):
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/18/Panzer_58.jpg/1280px-Panzer_58.jpg)

Swiss Pz 61 medium tank (39 tonne range):
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a3/Pz-61-latrun-2.jpg)

Swiss Pz 68 medium tank (40 tonne range):
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b8/Panzer_68_slash_88_pic10.JPG/1280px-Panzer_68_slash_88_pic10.JPG)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f9/Kampfpanzer_68-88.JPG/1280px-Kampfpanzer_68-88.JPG)

Japanese Type 61 'MBT' (35 tonne range - medium tank/MBT is a nebulous differentiation, isn't it?):
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/92/Japanese_Type_61_tank_-_1.jpg/1280px-Japanese_Type_61_tank_-_1.jpg)
(http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/type61_09.jpg)

Japanese Type 74 MBT (38 tonne range)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d7/Japanese_-_Type_74_tank_-_1.jpg/1280px-Japanese_-_Type_74_tank_-_1.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/98/JGSDF_Type74_Tank%2820080113%29.JPG/1280px-JGSDF_Type74_Tank%2820080113%29.JPG)

The Austrian SK-105 light tank saw a degree of export success to Latin America and North Africa. The turret shows its relation to the AMX-13 (18 tonne range)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b3/0033FSDF.JPG/1280px-0033FSDF.JPG)

Another hybrid tank, Argentina ordered new hulls from Austria and mated them with surplus AMX-13 turrets. 39 planned, but only 4 conversions were made
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/93/VC_Tan_Patag%C3%B3n_105_mm.JPG/1280px-VC_Tan_Patag%C3%B3n_105_mm.JPG)

Back to Sweden, the Ikv 91 is classified as a tank destroyer, but I don't see how it's anything but a light tank (16 tonne range)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e0/Ikv_90_rolling.jpg/1280px-Ikv_90_rolling.jpg)

Another super-weird Swedish tank, the Strv 74 mated a new turret and wider tracks with the hull and powertrain of the WW2-vintage Stridsvagn m/42(26 tonne range)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b8/Stridsvagn_74.jpg/1280px-Stridsvagn_74.jpg)

Speaking of the Stridsvagn m/42, it may be a 1943 design, but it looks closer to pre-war tanks like the LT vz. 38/Panzer 38(t) than anything designed during the war. (23 tonne range)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/48/Stridsvagn_m42_Revinge_2012-2.jpg/1280px-Stridsvagn_m42_Revinge_2012-2.jpg)

A bit of an interesting case, Romania went with a modernized T-55 derivative instead of the T-62 or T-72 (photo is of a modernized vehicle, couldn't find one of the tank in its Cold War service guise)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d6/Romanian_Tank_TR-85M1_-_01.jpg/1280px-Romanian_Tank_TR-85M1_-_01.jpg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: glitterboy2098 on 09 July 2018, 15:42:12
So do LEGO as far as I know. The important part isn't where the factory is but the quality control and the worker's motivation. Honestly, I trust a Danish-controlled factory in China more than a Polish-controlled factory in Poland...
actually most of the Bricks are made in Mexico and Hungary. the chinese factory is fairly new.

tax:
Egyptian M4 Sherman with their own local upgrade.. the turret of an AMX-13.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cf/M4A4-AMX-13-latrun-2.jpg)
wonder why they went with that combo?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: kato on 09 July 2018, 20:04:19
A bit of an interesting case, Romania went with a modernized T-55 derivative instead of the T-62 or T-72
Part of a story that basically involved a decades-long desire to somehow mate a T-55 with a Leopard 1 engine that started with unlicensed production of reverse-engineered modified T-55 clones in the early 70s and somehow succeeded 25 years later.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: I am Belch II on 10 July 2018, 07:26:15
Some great photos
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Garrand on 10 July 2018, 13:02:15
Info on Egyptian Shermans is hard to find, other than the conversion took place. From what I understand, they simply bought turrets for that very purpose (rather than stripping them from existing AMX-13s), in an effort to increase the firepower of the existing Sherman fleet. Started sometime in the '50s & may have been available for the '56 Suez Crisis. Israel took a similar approach but mated the 75mm cannon from the AMX-13 to the existing Sherman turret. This required an extension to the front of the turret as well as a large cast counterweight in the rear. Design work & conversions done with the help of the French. Around 25 of these were available for the '56 Suez Crisis. I suspect the Egyptians went that route to take advantagge of the autoloader as well as being a much more straightforward conversion (just a new turret ring probably). Egyptian Shermans were M4A4s & had their engines replaced with Guberson diesels similar to the M4A2.

Dragon has a 1/35 model of one, which I am working on off-&-on. Worth the price if you get it at discount, definitely not for full price (Sherman parts are pretty good, but the FL-10 turret is very chunky & not nearly as well refined!). If you get it at discount & can get your hands on the Takom AMX-13 or purchase the turret sprues from Tamiya you'd have a much better model IMHO...

Damon.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 10 July 2018, 14:06:09
And then there was the later Israeli Sherman with the shortened 105mm, and the Yugoslavs cramming a 122mm into that turret...   :o
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: PsihoKekec on 11 July 2018, 01:18:42
I don't think Yugoslav project even made it to prototype stage when decision to buy Gvozdikas was made.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: marauder648 on 11 July 2018, 08:10:26
The problems with single piece ammunition. 

's bloody HUGE.

(https://scontent.fdub5-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/36907596_1056651954497579_437106153223094272_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=b3d5e99e0449961ba559fab1d5bd177b&oe=5BCF5395)

Apparenltly this is the single piece 120mm HESH round for the MBT-70 being tested, but its only a wooden dummy round.  But still..dang that things massive.  I can see why they went with shell and propellant rather that all in ones.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 17 July 2018, 08:55:09
TIL in addition to the M48 Pereh missile carrier, the IDF also had the M113 Hafiz, armed with the secretive Spike NLOS missile

(https://s22.postimg.cc/6qmokrl3l/7vb_Zo_CV.jpg)

(https://s22.postimg.cc/did3n1hmp/tamuz_03_of_27.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/ofWhov7.jpg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 17 July 2018, 09:33:39
Sometimes it makes you wonder whether it's a testament to the sheer brick-simplicity and ruggedness of the M113's design and its usefulness...or the absolutely insane innovative adaptability the IDF beats into things.  Probably both, in all honesty.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ColBosch on 17 July 2018, 13:29:32
The -113 is a box on tracks. It's super-simple to modify and upgrade. And hell, waste not, want not.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: snewsom2997 on 17 July 2018, 15:11:14
Makes you wonder sometimes. Why try and reinvent the wheel. We have M2, M3s, Stikers, LAVs, can't you more or less do all of this with a modernized M113?

Certainly a remote Turret with an Auto Cannon is possible, Missile Launchers have already been added. It is already amphibious, there are ATC, MHQ, and Ambulance versions. Finally anything with enough Armor to stop a tank round or missile, will be a tank, and not an IFV or Battle Taxi, it won't be air mobile, and it won't be fast anymore.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: glitterboy2098 on 17 July 2018, 16:28:42
The -113 is a box on tracks. It's super-simple to modify and upgrade. And hell, waste not, want not.
also, just about anything you mount on it is going to make it more useful on the battlefield than its intended role as APC..

Makes you wonder sometimes. Why try and reinvent the wheel. We have M2, M3s, Stikers, LAVs, can't you more or less do all of this with a modernized M113?
careful there Sparky.. down that route madness reigns..  :D

just because the M-113 can be heavily modified and made to fit a bunch of different roles doesn't make it an ideal vehicle for any of them. and of all its myriad variants, the ones that suck the most in combat are the ones that try to be APC's and IFV's..
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 17 July 2018, 16:45:39
oh now I understand the Rhino and its chassis family in Warhammer 40k....
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: glitterboy2098 on 17 July 2018, 17:12:37
oh now I understand the Rhino and its chassis family in Warhammer 40k....

well they did build a slighty-smaller-than-1:1-scale Rhino from a surplus M113 a few years ago..

(https://ttgamingdiary.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/img_2048.jpg)

(https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/images/august08/rhino.jpg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Fat Guy on 17 July 2018, 17:53:37
That's a FV432, not a M113.

(http://miliblog.co.uk/wp-content/gallery/brit-pw1970-inservice-armourtracked/fv-432-apc-staffordshire-regt-museum.jpg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 17 July 2018, 18:18:06
Makes you wonder sometimes. Why try and reinvent the wheel. We have M2, M3s, Stikers, LAVs, can't you more or less do all of this with a modernized M113?
In short, no. Wheels offer different advantages to tracks, and the Bradley is a different beast - more protected, better performance.
Quote
Certainly a remote Turret with an Auto Cannon is possible, Missile Launchers have already been added.
Has been done. The Singaporean M113 Ultra comes in 40mm AGL/0.50 cal (see below), 25mm AC and even Igla SAM flavours.

(https://s22.postimg.cc/4js37567l/Ultra_M113_afv.jpg)

(https://s22.postimg.cc/yogjst13l/M-113_Ultra_IFV_Integrated_Fire_Unit.jpg)

But there's really only so much you can do to a 60s chassis until you're much better off building something brand new, and that line has long been crossed.
Quote
Finally anything with enough Armor to stop a tank round or missile, will be a tank, and not an IFV or Battle Taxi, it won't be air mobile, and it won't be fast anymore.
The M113 can about stop 20mm autocannon rounds with addon armour, whereas the Bradley can and up to 30mm. There's a difference.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: glitterboy2098 on 17 July 2018, 18:30:48
without add-on armor the -113 can barely stop .50cal rounds.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Feenix74 on 17 July 2018, 20:23:57
If my memory serves me correctly, the M-113's aluminium armor was only ever designed to protect the occupants against 7.62mm.


Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ColBosch on 17 July 2018, 22:12:19
If my memory serves me correctly, the M-113's aluminium armor was only ever designed to protect the occupants against 7.62mm.

Correct. It's mounted infantry in the dragoon fashion: you will always be fighting dismounted. Of course, the lesson learned from the dragoons - and forgotten - is that you can never 100% know the time of battle, so you'd better be prepared to fight when mounted. I really, really hate the Stryker, but even I have to grudgingly concede that it's a better APC than the 113.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Feenix74 on 18 July 2018, 02:09:08
Which makes it quite fitting as many of the M113s in Australian Army use were/are assigned to Light Horse Regiments , who were originally employed as mounted infantry in the dragoon fashion but learnt the hard way (see the Battle of Beersheeba) that they sometimes might need to be able to perform a cavalry charge.

Our old "classic" M113A1 Medium Reconnaissance Vehicle (MRV) - an Australian variant using the turret from the FV101 Scorpion light tank.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/Puckapunyal-M113-MRV-1-1.jpg)

Our current M113AS4 upgraded with new engine, transmission, steering, suspension, brakes and hull protection, lengthened to fit an additional road wheel station and fitted with a new Australian-designed electronically driven "one man turret" with 12.7mm heavy machine gun and sight.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6f/M113AS4_front.JPG)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 18 July 2018, 02:24:04
Is there anything of the original left in the M113AS4?!


One advantage of tinkering with an old design is you can probably bypass a lot of the politics of procurement of a new design but the downside is you lose the spending on new toys that industry likes
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: CDAT on 18 July 2018, 03:15:41
If my memory serves me correctly, the M-113's aluminium armor was only ever designed to protect the occupants against 7.62mm.
Correct. It's mounted infantry in the dragoon fashion: you will always be fighting dismounted. Of course, the lesson learned from the dragoons - and forgotten - is that you can never 100% know the time of battle, so you'd better be prepared to fight when mounted. I really, really hate the Stryker, but even I have to grudgingly concede that it's a better APC than the 113.

I can not say what the 113 was designed to protect against, I had always been told that a 30rd mag of 5.56 would cut a hole in it, 7.62 would go in one side and bounce around, and .50BMG or larger would just make Swiss cheese out of it. I do not know what the armor will stop but I can say that the armor will stop much more than 7.62. Years ago my unit had the opportunity to shoot some old hulls (M981 hard targets). 5.56 green tip (M16A4), 7.62 Black tip (M240B), .50BMG Silver/Red tip (M2HB). After our battle drills we were able to go down range and look at the targets. None of them penetrated, the 5.56 left little pock marks, the 7.62 larger pock marks, with some of them left small slashes, the .50BMG left some large pock marks but mostly slashes in the armor. It had also been shot with TP rounds from something larger 25-30mm was our guess, and you could see the large dents where they had hit it, but even they did not penetrate, so they are much tougher than many (myself included) had been lead to believe. Having said that it is still the vehicle that I hated the most to ride in.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Feenix74 on 18 July 2018, 03:31:24
Is there anything of the original left in the M113AS4?!

It is like grandpa's trusty old axe, the one that has had 2 new heads and 5 new handles . . .  ^-^

I am sure I have seen photos from Vietnam War where the troops choose to ride on top of the M-113 instead of inside and they have sandbags on the floor of the M-113 to give it a bit more mine protection.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: glitterboy2098 on 18 July 2018, 04:28:23
that, and the fact it meant they could shoot back easier in the event of ambush.

(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8283/7809362116_066e5366b3_b.jpg)
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7115/7604899240_91f8f19c46_b.jpg)
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7335/9585834974_f47dbdbbb9_b.jpg)

then they had the idea that, if the troops were gonna be up there anyway, to put some extra MG's ontop, the M113ACAV
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8304/7948064954_e4163120ab_b.jpg)

and what did they stick in the troop bay instead of troops? anything else the unit was gonna need for a patrol. better than sticking it on the outside i suspect.
(https://pp.vk.me/c637216/v637216783/264c0/MBiEAeUQQXg.jpg)

Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 18 July 2018, 05:47:17
Good thing the VC didn't regularly employ airburst artillery eh? Or guided ATGMs... I think I prefer the approach these days where most everything has to come with a .50 cal turret or RWS up top.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 19 July 2018, 12:32:36
Came across this from a link in the gun thread.
https://i.imgur.com/YvlbkAG.mp4

It look like it let the vehicle hug tighter to hard cover without impeding the missile's flight path.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 19 July 2018, 13:27:28
Also means you're not limited to facing any particular direction; useful if you've got attackers approaching from multiple directions.  Simply press-and-serve instead of swing the whole launcher to face the target.

Wonder how much of that's a true VLS cell, Mk-41 style, or if it's just a vertically mounted, horizontally-reloaded single launcher?  Could make sudden flushes much more fun.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 19 July 2018, 13:36:49
What tank is that?

The old BAE Swingfire was interesting. No doubt a very outdated weapon, its ability to make a sharp 90 was cute if nothing else.

(https://s22.postimg.cc/xcnntaao1/CVRT-_FV102-_Striker-02-740x611.jpg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Deadborder on 19 July 2018, 16:57:27
What tank is that?


I think it's the SA-15, but don't quote me
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: PsihoKekec on 20 July 2018, 01:23:25
It is, the base ground variant known in Russia as Tor.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: worktroll on 23 July 2018, 06:36:21
(http://www.armorjournal.com/Walkarounds/SPG/T28-T95/T28-T95_NACM-27.JPG)

Little known fact - the T28 could remove it's extra tracks for transport. I never knew that. I'd often wondered how they could replace the inner tracks.

Other tanks sometimes had thinner tracks for rail transport, but this was interesting.

W.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 23 July 2018, 10:27:46
It's how World of Tanks justified having the T28 and T95 as two separate vehicles.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 23 July 2018, 11:11:00
M1A2 Abrams with Trophy APS, probably a prototype

(https://s22.postimg.cc/522g20h01/lb35mk1kc6b11.jpg)

And unrelated to AFVs except in the most tangential way... I wonder how many kills are represented in this photo

(https://s22.postimg.cc/lpty4ijhd/p0tmxgfsrxpr7vr0-mob.jpg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 23 July 2018, 11:33:24
That a Soviet squad?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Matti on 23 July 2018, 12:34:51
That a Soviet squad?
With scope equipped rifles. They're snipers.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: snewsom2997 on 23 July 2018, 13:58:18
Conservatively 1000's. Couple of those women had 100's all by their lonesome.

Lyudmila Pavlichenko had almost 260.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Garrand on 23 July 2018, 15:45:04
(http://www.armorjournal.com/Walkarounds/SPG/T28-T95/T28-T95_NACM-27.JPG)

Little known fact - the T28 could remove it's extra tracks for transport. I never knew that. I'd often wondered how they could replace the inner tracks.

Other tanks sometimes had thinner tracks for rail transport, but this was interesting.

W.

When I was at Ft Knox & the Patton Armor museum was still there, I totally ignored the rules & crawled all over this thing with a camera. Pretty cool. I also crawled all over a Panther, Pz III & T-34/85 that were awaiting restoration. No one caught me either...

Damon.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 23 July 2018, 16:55:09
And unrelated to AFVs except in the most tangential way... I wonder how many kills are represented in this photo

(https://s22.postimg.cc/lpty4ijhd/p0tmxgfsrxpr7vr0-mob.jpg)
Some of those medals look "touched", that is photo touching.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 23 July 2018, 22:31:48
They're not.  Look up the Night Witches.  Fear.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: glitterboy2098 on 24 July 2018, 00:37:03
They're not.  Look up the Night Witches.  Fear.
i love how Sabaton has a song for every awesome WW2 group and battle..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7NSUFDHFgg
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 24 July 2018, 02:59:59
I love that they don't limit themselves to WWII.  Some of their best stuff is completely separate.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 24 July 2018, 04:00:52
Conservatively 1000's. Couple of those women had 100's all by their lonesome.

Lyudmila Pavlichenko had almost 260.
Figure those are outliers. But even at say 40 or 50 apiece, which isn't as hard as German fighter aces, we're looking at what, the best part of a battalion here?

Snipers are scary.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Luciora on 24 July 2018, 10:06:26
If someone in a warzone during winter just came out of a forest, looking sinister, carrying an empty sniper rifle and telling me they killed 40 guys and needs reloads, i'm going to give them ammo and believe them.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 24 July 2018, 12:10:37
The Soviet female sniper teams were badass.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 24 July 2018, 13:36:37
They're not.  Look up the Night Witches.  Fear.
then why are they holding scoped rifles for this picture?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Matti on 24 July 2018, 14:20:04
i love how Sabaton has a song for every awesome WW2 group and battle..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7NSUFDHFgg
Thanks. Their song about White Death (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5CaQ37VYvw)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Sharpnel on 24 July 2018, 14:52:45
then why are they holding scoped rifles for this picture?
The night witches are pilots and instilled a different sort of fear than the lady snipers
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 24 July 2018, 18:26:07
then why are they holding scoped rifles for this picture?
The Night Witches were an all-female bomber regiment. They piloted very low and slow biplanes that German soldiers reckoned hardly made any sound save for a swish like a broom passing overhead... et voila.

The pic I posted is of female Soviet snipers. The pic caption claims they are from the 1st Belorussian Front, aka in Western parlance Army Group Center.

The star medal they all wear is the Order of Glory (below), the 3rd class medal is awarded for at least 10 kills. A bit less than 1 million of these were given out.

Scoring another 20 or so would qualify for the Order of Glory 2nd class, signified by a second similar star-shaped medal which some of these women seem to have. Less than 47,000 were awarded.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3c/Order_of_Glory_3rd_class.jpg/200px-Order_of_Glory_3rd_class.jpg)

The round medal is possibly the Medal For Battle Merit, a common bravery award of which 5 million were given out.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a0/Medal_for_Merit_in_Combat.jpg/200px-Medal_for_Merit_in_Combat.jpg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 24 July 2018, 19:21:17
The Night Witches were an all-female bomber regiment. They piloted very low and slow biplanes that German soldiers reckoned hardly made any sound save for a swish like a broom passing overhead... et voila.

The pic I posted is of female Soviet snipers. The pic caption claims they are from the 1st Belorussian Front, aka in Western parlance Army Group Center.

The star medal they all wear is the Order of Glory (below), the 3rd class medal is awarded for at least 10 kills. A bit less than 1 million of these were given out.

Scoring another 20 or so would qualify for the Order of Glory 2nd class, signified by a second similar star-shaped medal which some of these women seem to have. Less than 47,000 were awarded.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3c/Order_of_Glory_3rd_class.jpg/200px-Order_of_Glory_3rd_class.jpg)

The round medal is possibly the Medal For Battle Merit, a common bravery award of which 5 million were given out.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a0/Medal_for_Merit_in_Combat.jpg/200px-Medal_for_Merit_in_Combat.jpg)
Oh I wasn't questioning that they got medals. It's just that IN the picture, the medals seemed "photo-touched"
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Liam's Ghost on 24 July 2018, 21:39:18
Oh I wasn't questioning that they got medals. It's just that IN the picture, the medals seemed "photo-touched"

Well it was Stalinist Russia.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 25 July 2018, 00:09:40
Oh I wasn't questioning that they got medals. It's just that IN the picture, the medals seemed "photo-touched"
I was curious about the medals anyway. I dunno, maybe they were highlighted, or maybe its the lighting, these are BnW after all.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 29 July 2018, 09:54:35
Leopard 2A7, possibly a Qatari variant

(https://s33.postimg.cc/koojpd9pb/5nd82srsqtc11.jpg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: kato on 29 July 2018, 10:35:32
According to the sole page on the internet that uses that picture (some Georgian defense news site) it's a Leopard 2A7V, at the Bergen training area in Germany. If so it's a preproduction prototype for the current new German variant.

The assumption is probably based around the armour arrangement on the glacis, which is A7V standard in the picture. We'd probably rather have to see the turret from the other side to be sure - for the APU grill, which is also different from standard A7.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 29 July 2018, 13:07:43
The Germans are certainly having a little fun with history, with that particular name.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: kato on 29 July 2018, 13:59:52
And in the 100-year anniversary year too...
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: PsihoKekec on 08 August 2018, 05:29:01
It looks to me like the T-90 upgrade that was supposed to compete with Armata was a bit too ambitious as biomancy is still in it's infancy.

(https://i.imgur.com/F3pMsnV.jpg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Feenix74 on 08 August 2018, 05:56:39
King Crab KGC-0000?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: I am Belch II on 08 August 2018, 07:44:24
Scorpion Mech
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 08 August 2018, 09:01:50
Why have track wheels on it? It doesn't have a set of track :P
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Garrand on 08 August 2018, 11:58:19
Speaking of the Armata, I saw a news article that the Russians are only going to aquire 100 of them, as they are too expensive (still cheaper than a new M1A2!), so are going to continue to rely on the T-90 & late model T-72s in the future...

Damon.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 08 August 2018, 13:47:11
It looks to me like the T-90 upgrade that was supposed to compete with Armata was a bit too ambitious as biomancy is still in it's infancy.

(https://i.imgur.com/F3pMsnV.jpg)

Attack its weak point.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 08 August 2018, 13:55:52
Tell Cookie to melt the butter and break out the bibs, I want this lobster served up on a silver platter!
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Matti on 08 August 2018, 14:16:20
Speaking of the Armata, I saw a news article that the Russians are only going to aquire 100 of them, as they are too expensive (still cheaper than a new M1A2!), so are going to continue to rely on the T-90 & late model T-72s in the future...
Whatever happened with T-80? I understand it got some bad rep when inexperienced crews abandoned the model while under fire, but is the tank really worse than T-72?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 08 August 2018, 14:27:47
Whatever happened with T-80? I understand it got some bad rep when inexperienced crews abandoned the model while under fire, but is the tank really worse than T-72?


IIRC the Ukrainians like it but the Russians opted to further develop the T-72 but after the poor reputation it gained in Iraqi service, rebranded to T-90
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Fat Guy on 08 August 2018, 14:51:07
Actually since the Armata won't see full production, the Russians are planning on upgrading 3000 mothballed T-80s to the T-80BV standard (pictured) and putting them back into service.


(http://nevskii-bastion.ru/kartinki/T-80BVM_DEN_TANKISTA_LUGA_170909_04.JPG)


The T-80 is actually quite similar to the T-72/T-90. It was it's expensive to run turbine engine more than anything else that forced it's early retirement.


Shows you just how hard up Ivan is for somewhat modern tanks to bring 'em out of retirement.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 08 August 2018, 15:11:09
Whatever happened with T-80? I understand it got some bad rep when inexperienced crews abandoned the model while under fire, but is the tank really worse than T-72?
AFAIK it's a gasoline T64 with T72 improvements tacked on

Similarly the T-90 is a development of the T-72B with elements of the T-80U. If they don't commit to Armata this is their best bet for new production I think

Either way a fleet of T-80Us, T-72B3/B3Ms, T-90s and a handful of T-14s is still a formidable collection.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 08 August 2018, 15:55:55
Actually since the Armata won't see full production, the Russians are planning on upgrading 3000 mothballed T-80s to the T-80BV standard (pictured) and putting them back into service.


(http://nevskii-bastion.ru/kartinki/T-80BVM_DEN_TANKISTA_LUGA_170909_04.JPG)


The T-80 is actually quite similar to the T-72/T-90. It was it's expensive to run turbine engine more than anything else that forced it's early retirement.


Shows you just how hard up Ivan is for somewhat modern tanks to bring 'em out of retirement.

While I was scrolling down, I initially thought that enormous cylinder in the background was the tank's gun- had me wonder just how big a projectile it launched.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: glitterboy2098 on 08 August 2018, 18:04:19
tangential topic.. been playing word of tanks a bunch on my Xbox lately.. i have come to the conclusion..

the early tier Russian tanks suck. having to slog through the T-28 and the like in order to get to the actual good stuff is annoying.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 08 August 2018, 18:06:35
tangential topic.. been playing word of tanks a bunch on my Xbox lately.. i have come to the conclusion..

the early tier Russian tanks suck. having to slog through the T-28 and the like in order to get to the actual good stuff is annoying.


Playing World of Warships makes you wonder why anyone would join a USN Cruiser before about 1930 and even then I would be picky about which I would serve aboard
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: glitterboy2098 on 08 August 2018, 18:16:54
the main issue, to me, is that in tiers where you start facing some mid to late war stuff, you are using mostly early war period russian. so you have good guns, but your armor might as well be tinfoil. and unlike most of the others in your bracket, you don't really have much speed to rely on.

hopefully i can get through to the KV-1 soon, get into the stuff that ought to be decent.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 08 August 2018, 18:32:01
the main issue, to me, is that in tiers where you start facing some mid to late war stuff, you are using mostly early war period russian. so you have good guns, but your armor might as well be tinfoil. and unlike most of the others in your bracket, you don't really have much speed to rely on.

hopefully i can get through to the KV-1 soon, get into the stuff that ought to be decent.

Also, Russian tanks are blind so you're always getting surprised by snipers and your guns are so inaccurate that you can't return fire even if you can see who's shooting at you.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: PsihoKekec on 09 August 2018, 01:11:17
Issue with Armata is that is still a prototype, so they will build a small production run, test it extensively, iron out the bugs and then put the troubleshooted/perhaps upgraded version into full production (they intend the same with Su-57). They acknowledge that this is not Cold War anymore, when new weapons systems had to be put into production immediatly, shortcommings be damned.

T-80 upgrade is driven by two factors, turbine engines doing better in arctic conditions than diesels and desire to keep production capabilities/know how alive.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: glitterboy2098 on 09 August 2018, 04:53:10
Also, Russian tanks are blind so you're always getting surprised by snipers and your guns are so inaccurate that you can't return fire even if you can see who's shooting at you.
i'm hoping that once i get into the IS series it'll be worth investing in some of the upgrades that'll improve the accuracy and vision.. at the moment i'm progressing through hulls too fast to make it worth it. (it helps i had a fair amount of silver saved up from dilettante playing over the last few years) can't afford gold, so main limiter is vehicle slots (so i'm selling off older vehicles..except the starter) and Xp.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Matti on 09 August 2018, 10:54:52
i'm hoping that once i get into the IS series
I haven't played those tanks, but they have guns up to 122 mm with slow rate of fire. As armchair general, I would draw the line to 85 mm guns for general purpose use and use 122 mm as specialist to counter Kingtiger II (or whatever the game calls it) and other heavies.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 09 August 2018, 12:14:05
i'm hoping that once i get into the IS series it'll be worth investing in some of the upgrades that'll improve the accuracy and vision.. at the moment i'm progressing through hulls too fast to make it worth it. (it helps i had a fair amount of silver saved up from dilettante playing over the last few years) can't afford gold, so main limiter is vehicle slots (so i'm selling off older vehicles..except the starter) and Xp.

Soviet tanks are universally painful grinds.  It's brutally painful trying to fight in a Tier IX game with an IS or KV-3: even when fully upgraded, their guns have terrible penetration and accuracy.  And that's on top of the utter lack of gun depression.  But we should take this to a different thread if we want to continue the conversation.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 10 August 2018, 16:21:07
Namer IFV with turret. The circle is complete.

(https://s22.postimg.cc/488m922hd/urur1w4ro4f11.jpg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Fat Guy on 10 August 2018, 19:16:53
Looking at that makes me wonder why the US Army has never considered replacing the Bradley's current turret with an unmanned non-penetrating one. You could reduce the crew by one and increase the carried troops by four. Not to mention reduce it's ridiculously high silhouette a bit.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Garrand on 10 August 2018, 19:33:47
Unmanned turrets are pretty new. The Brad was designed in the late '70s into the '80s before those became a thing. Some Strykers are getting unmanned turrets. Maybe the Army is holding off until they decide what the Brad successor will be...

Damon.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Cannonshop on 10 August 2018, 20:21:00
Looking at that makes me wonder why the US Army has never considered replacing the Bradley's current turret with an unmanned non-penetrating one. You could reduce the crew by one and increase the carried troops by four. Not to mention reduce it's ridiculously high silhouette a bit.

okay, imagine yo've got your new, shiny unmanned turret...

change teh ammo belt on the gun.
clear a jam.
poke your head out to see where you're going.

etcetera.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: glitterboy2098 on 10 August 2018, 20:24:21
Looking at that makes me wonder why the US Army has never considered replacing the Bradley's current turret with an unmanned non-penetrating one. You could reduce the crew by one and increase the carried troops by four. Not to mention reduce it's ridiculously high silhouette a bit.
probably because they are conditioned to think in terms of replacing the whole vehicle rather than just do a major overhaul. since i don't think that any new ones have been built since the 90's, beyond spare parts, i suspect it might be a bit tricky to modify as well.. pretty sure a turret change like that would require some mods to the turret ring.

though if they wanted to do it, they could probably slap some on some of the stuff to fix the Bradley's other flaws.. 30mm chaingun (the 25mm has proven to wimpy for more modern targets), maybe whatever active protection system they settled on. heck, i wonder if you could fit add-on armor to make it tougher.

hmm.. i wonder if there is a lighter ATGM they could fit instead of the TOW.. free up a bit more space inside. currently the M2 can carry 7 men (in space originally designed for 6), but the basic squad is 9. so they need to cram another 2 in. unmanned turret gives you 1.

okay, imagine yo've got your new, shiny unmanned turret...

change teh ammo belt on the gun.
clear a jam.
poke your head out to see where you're going.

etcetera.

linkless feed on the gun, so no need to change belts. either you have ammo in the drum or you don't. and the drum would still be inside the hull, so reloading from any stored reserve drums would be unhindered.

jams are already handled automatically through the chaingun's feed system, as are misfires. modern weapons are pretty jam resistant by design anyway.. you can fire over a hundred thousand rounds (IE, about 333+ full ammo loads for the current bushmasters) without ever running into one, and the motorized cycling just ejects the errant shell.

and vision blocks and systems have gotten good enough that commander don't need to poke their heads out.. and are trained not to, since that makes them more vulnerable. besides, the M2 still has its aft dorsal hatch, currently used for reloading the TOW launcher.

Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 10 August 2018, 21:47:17
okay, imagine yo've got your new, shiny unmanned turret...

change teh ammo belt on the gun.
clear a jam.
poke your head out to see where you're going.

etcetera.
The Namer has a comparably large turret ring to allow a one man maintenance hatch so weapons can be serviced under armour.

As for vision, I don't know, conventional wisdom maintains that unmanned turrets still don't match manned for situational awareness, but that might have been before the advent of 360-degree sensor-fused see-through-armour vision feeds which yes, are making the jump from scifi anime to the battlefield

http://youtu.be/XOi__MmtN1M

But even that is dependent on the survival of the 10 or so optics placed around the vehicle. The Israelis' good buddies Singapore had pitched something like this in the Terrex offered to the Marines.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: kato on 11 August 2018, 03:16:55
that might have been before the advent of 360-degree sensor-fused see-through-armour vision feeds which yes, are making the jump from scifi anime to the battlefield
That's the ground equivalent of 5th generation fighter jets. 6th generation equivalent ("command fighter") is slowly making its way to the battlefield now, at least in Europe.

Integrates both on-vehicle (sensors) and off-vehicle (drones/troops) data sources into a full 3D environment simulation with AI-supported target detection and integrated weapon effect discrimination. I.e. you get a 3D simulation in which contacts even beyond hills and in buildings and such are marked, and you get pretty much a point-and-click interface to control direct, indirect or off-vehicle weapons such that you eliminate specific contacts or areas. With access to that simulation by multiple operators and no clunky helmets.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: beachhead1985 on 11 August 2018, 17:38:00
WOT (I play on PC) is a neat game, but it's game-balanced all to hell and gone. I've just about had it with these unbelievably tough and effective Italian tanks everyone has now and the ignorance of technical realities bugs me too.

Yeah; the west *thought* the Russians had bad gun-laying, but when they tested the optics of their captured T-34/85s after Korea and the IS-III they cut up after the IDF gave it to them; they found they were top quality. Turns out it's the crew.

By contrast; no firefly should be able to hit the broad side of a barn with their discarding sabot ammo.

The Char B1 was...weird...to play too. They took the extra crew for the 75 which does not work in game and assigned them to the Turret gun; making it VERY fast-firing. Which is weird because the Char b1 had a 2-man turret, right?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 11 August 2018, 19:32:07
Yeah, all the French tanks had two-man turrets that were pretty cramped.

With the Soviet tanks, the IS-3 and T-34/85 had good optics, but the Winter War era tanks like the original T-34, the T-28, or the KV-1 were pretty blind and were further hindered by their guns being inaccurate.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Matti on 12 August 2018, 06:31:11
Yeah; the west *thought* the Russians had bad gun-laying, but when they tested the optics of their captured T-34/85s after Korea and the IS-III they cut up after the IDF gave it to them; they found they were top quality. Turns out it's the crew.
There can be differences depending on a factory and the time frame tank was made (https://youtu.be/BRtj_TSOHjw?t=200).

Quote
By contrast; no firefly should be able to hit the broad side of a barn with their discarding sabot ammo.
"The problem was that you couldn't hit the broadside of a barn from the inside with a sabot" (https://youtu.be/bNjp_4jY8pY?t=1483)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: beachhead1985 on 12 August 2018, 14:39:46
There can be differences depending on a factory and the time frame tank was made (https://youtu.be/BRtj_TSOHjw?t=200).
"The problem was that you couldn't hit the broadside of a barn from the inside with a sabot" (https://youtu.be/bNjp_4jY8pY?t=1483)

I'd buy that.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: I am Belch II on 12 August 2018, 14:53:58
I dont know if this is a true photo, but is says M1A3 version
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Fat Guy on 12 August 2018, 15:13:28
That's the M1 CATTB (Component Advanced Technology Test Bed) from 1987. Basically an even tougher M1.

Positive results, but deemed overkill and never produced.

(http://www.maquetland.com/upload/phototeque/images/3105/cattb_profil_gauche.jpg)

(https://media.moddb.com/cache/images/groups/1/3/2074/thumb_620x2000/4871.jpg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: I am Belch II on 12 August 2018, 15:42:18
Overkill.....that's funny. I guess the 140mm would of done that seeing what the 120mm did to things.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Cannonshop on 12 August 2018, 16:50:46
there is no 'overkill', just 'open fire' and 'time to reload.'
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 13 August 2018, 02:13:25
Well, the 120s are fifty pounds already and three feet long; a 140mm is well

(https://f001.backblazeb2.com/file/Soapbox-Photos/140mm.png)

A lot more than that.  Very clearly it's a two piece round, but each shell is 88 pounds total and would require two loaders or an autoloader setup, neither of which was something anyone wanted in the Abrams.  And really, is there that much of a need for 1000mm of penetration at 2km?  Name a Soviet or other OPFOR tank that got anywhere near that...hell, name any Western ones!
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: I am Belch II on 13 August 2018, 07:30:41
If the US tanks would get the auto loader then that 140mm might be more useful.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 13 August 2018, 07:38:19
If the US tanks would get the auto loader then that 140mm might be more useful.
It's a matter of tradeoffs. Speed, firepower, protection. If they want a bigger gun, autoloader or not, the tradeoffs facing the Leo/Abrams/Chally family now are still:

Firepower - bigger gun = smaller ammo load, perhaps less RPM

Protection - possibly less armour and blowout safety

UNLESS the tank grows bigger and heavier, which leads to

Speed - any bigger and heavier and it won't just be tactically less mobile, it will no longer be economically transportable even by C-5 Galaxy, and that limits it to shipborne deployment, plus new investment in tank transporter vehicles to ferry them from ports to front lines
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Feenix74 on 13 August 2018, 07:45:10
Mobility limits are not just C-5 Galaxy but also things like size and load limts of your rail and road infrastructure and equipment.

(https://www.infowars.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/tanks.jpg)

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/77/60/0e/77600e0026a20eb0bcacfbe48a93d624.jpg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 13 August 2018, 11:06:14
Yeah, you'd be surprised just how insistent bridges are about carrying capacity...
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: kato on 13 August 2018, 11:46:47
Ships too actually. That's why RoRos have a limited tank load of (for MSC ships) typically one battalion - that's what you fit on the reinforced lowest deck...

And surprisingly often it's also done this way just to make sure you can actually still use that deck afterwards:

(https://abload.de/img/size0w0ex6.jpg)

(https://abload.de/img/size0lhiam.jpg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: worktroll on 14 August 2018, 15:02:49
In honour of the Kanga, invented on this day in 2653!*

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/76/17/d4/7617d43f5358fe3bed653327d9e0e5d1.jpg)

And this!

(http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/valenine-tank-gap-jumping.jpg)

"This is a photograph of the SADE experiment using a Valentine tank fitted with 26 rockets, 13 each side in four containers, to see if it was possible to make a tank jump over large gaps and minefields. It did not work and never entered production." - tanks-encyclopedia.com

W
*not really, but I needed a hook
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Fat Guy on 14 August 2018, 15:10:29
Provided this image hasn't been retouched, I wonder the magnitude of the injuries that resulted from this:

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/190/462933177_c74a9d34a6_z.jpg?zz=1)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: BairdEC on 14 August 2018, 15:43:01
Given how much dropping just a couple feet in a Sheridan hurt, I'm gonna go with "lots and lots."  You could also look up a major incident at Ft. Irwin around '93 or maybe '94 where a BlueFor scout platoon in Bradleys drove over the side of a large wadi, the Colorado wash IIRC.  There were several deaths; I don't believe any of the soldiers were completely unharmed.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 14 August 2018, 15:50:50
I rather doubt that the tank was derivable afterword, either.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Liam's Ghost on 14 August 2018, 18:41:43
Provided this image hasn't been retouched, I wonder the magnitude of the injuries that resulted from this:

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/190/462933177_c74a9d34a6_z.jpg?zz=1)

Depends, was the crew made up of Japanese schoolgirls? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSMCDAWPUrs)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ColBosch on 15 August 2018, 05:23:40
I witnessed an Abrams-on-Abrams collision. It was at the kind of speed that would likely just result in dents to a car. One soldier suffered chronic injuries, everyone in both vehicles was hurt to some degree, and both tanks' drivetrains were badly damaged. The sound alone was horrifying.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 15 August 2018, 06:48:17
Same speed, 65 times the mass on each side

TIL Uran-9 was deployed in Syria, but the little murder-bot fell somewhat short of Kremlin expectations.

(http://www.military-zones.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/T62m.jpg)

Quote
The Uran-9 unmanned ground vehicle, bristling with anti-tank missiles and all manner of high-caliber machine guns, was supposed to be a revolutionary combat asset for the Russian Ministry of Defense ever since officials confirmed the powerful robot tank saw testing in war-torn Syria back in March. As it turns out, rumors of its effectiveness have been greatly exaggerated.

In a surprisingly candid admission, Russian defense researcher Andrei P. Anisimov revealed several critical deficiencies in the Uran-9’s performance during its Syria tests at a Russian security conference in April — deficiencies that indicate, as Defence Blog put it, that the much-hyped robot tank “is not capable of performing the tasks assigned to it.”

How not capable is the Uran-9? Let’s take a gander:

Instead of an operational range of some 1.8 miles (or 2,800 meters), Anisimov claimed that the consistently sustainable range was just a mere 300 to 500 meters “in the conditions of the settlement with low-rise buildings,” per Defense Blog — meaning that the Uran-9 is more of a patrol cop than a suitable ground combat vehicle.

During the Syria tests, Russian defense officials recorded “17 cases of short-term (up to 1 min) and 2 cases of long (up to 1.5 hours) loss of Uran-9 control,” as Defence Blog put it. It’s unclear what “loss of control” means in this context, but it implies that the robot tank simply stopped working while downrange rather than, say, ran amok like the ED-209 in RoboCop. And this is to say nothing of the 30mm 2A72 autocannon that experienced frequent operational delays.

Like most new military tech, the Uran-9 breaks down like it’s nobody’s business — and not just the mechanical elements like the guiding rollers and suspension. According to Defence Blog, the “electro-optical” station that governs the vehicle’s target ID functions has a limit range of just 2 km. According to Defense Blog, the optical station “does not allow detecting optical observation and targeting devices of the enemy and gives out multiple interferences on the ground and in the airspace in the surveillance sector.”

Frankly, theses issues are unsurprising. As military researcher Sam Bendett observed for the U.S. Army’s Training and Doctrine Command, a May testing video of the Uran-9 in action likely hinted at some of the issues that cropped up during the downrange tests in Syria. But more importantly, the Uran-9’s failures can still prove instrumental and instructive for other unmanned ground vehicles — like, say, the Kalashnikov-produced BAS-01G Soratnik, or what T&P likes to call ‘Death Cab for Putin.’

Sounds almost like Battletech drone performance.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ColBosch on 15 August 2018, 09:19:48
I don't bother taking a grain of salt with Russia's military claims. My doctor told me to cut back. I mean, it literally never fails: Russia announces some new amazing bit of kit, a Certain Type of Poster gets all excited over it, and then it turns out the tech is flawed beyond usefulness - if it ever existed in the first place.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 15 August 2018, 11:38:16
Or, like the Armata tank, it's SOOOO overpowering that they don't need to produce any more than 100 to dominate the battlefield forever.  (Yes, I've seen state media report very nearly exactly that)

re: that Abrams collision, well, there's a few reasons for that.  The obvious one is the sheer weight involved, the kinetic energy of a 72 ton Abrams in any direction at a whopping 15mph is just short of 1.5 megajoules.  The other part involved is force, aka mass times acceleration - in this case, acceleration in the opposite direction of travel.  Considering that an Abrams is arguably one of the best definitions of 'object with inelastic collision' and thinks 'crumple zones' are when people park illegally in tank lagers ... yeah, any acceleration or energy transfer is going to be on extremely short timeframes.  The force required to coax an Abrams to come to rest in 10 seconds is one thing; the force required to do the same in a tenth of a second is going to be brutal as hell.

Do hope those tankers weren't hurt too bad in the end, not surprised at all about the drivetrains.  Even as powerful as they are, a literal sudden stop like that is going to do terrible things.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: PsihoKekec on 16 August 2018, 01:50:25
Provided this image hasn't been retouched, I wonder the magnitude of the injuries that resulted from this:

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/190/462933177_c74a9d34a6_z.jpg?zz=1)

Colorized version:
(http://img03.deviantart.net/fa68/i/2012/322/9/d/flying_bt_7__by_bezsoba-d5ld3ft.jpg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 16 August 2018, 02:39:39
I witnessed an Abrams-on-Abrams collision. It was at the kind of speed that would likely just result in dents to a car. One soldier suffered chronic injuries, everyone in both vehicles was hurt to some degree, and both tanks' drivetrains were badly damaged. The sound alone was horrifying.


That sucks


It does feel as though the main danger to current top of the line MBTs is themselves


I have memories of hearing about an engineering variant Challenger 2 coming off a tank transport at a roundabout and suffering significant damage from its own weight and of course there is the Challenger 2 taken out by blue-on-blue early on in Iraq and another suffered some form of gunnery accident on a range causing serious injuries and deaths - recently in the news again as the coroner recently announced the result of their inquest (and I live close to the home of British armour so such things feature in local news more than they might national news)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Dies Irae on 16 August 2018, 04:53:29
Quote
(http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/valenine-tank-gap-jumping.jpg)

"This is a photograph of the SADE experiment using a Valentine tank fitted with 26 rockets, 13 each side in four containers, to see if it was possible to make a tank jump over large gaps and minefields. It did not work and never entered production." - tanks-encyclopedia.com

W
*not really, but I needed a hook

(http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/bren-gun-carrier-rocket.jpg)

The attempt with a UC didn't lead to good outcomes either.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 16 August 2018, 05:16:26
The very best of Russia

Oh, and a tank or something

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-uuEEsRJ42Fo/WrKl7o92CWI/AAAAAAAAT1U/DoqFkB0yLtotw_ip7kJpi4J798nAB_QoQCJoC/w1080-h1080/ad3ba6023e6be628a94a4f165e4cd1ba.jpg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Sabelkatten on 16 August 2018, 06:16:05

That sucks


It does feel as though the main danger to current top of the line MBTs is themselves


I have memories of hearing about an engineering variant Challenger 2 coming off a tank transport at a roundabout and suffering significant damage from its own weight and of course there is the Challenger 2 taken out by blue-on-blue early on in Iraq and another suffered some form of gunnery accident on a range causing serious injuries and deaths - recently in the news again as the coroner recently announced the result of their inquest (and I live close to the home of British armour so such things feature in local news more than they might national news)
When my brother did his time in the army he saw the result of a Leo2 running into a big rock on a snow-covered field. The whole body ended up kind of rhomboid-shaped... And the crew wasn't fit for service for quite a while.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: marauder648 on 16 August 2018, 13:39:45
Meanwhile, this guy in this vid is still doing knees to chests and will be for the remainder of his career

https://imgur.com/gallery/pNhfeyI
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: chanman on 16 August 2018, 14:24:01
The very best of Russia

Oh, and a tank or something

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-uuEEsRJ42Fo/WrKl7o92CWI/AAAAAAAAT1U/DoqFkB0yLtotw_ip7kJpi4J798nAB_QoQCJoC/w1080-h1080/ad3ba6023e6be628a94a4f165e4cd1ba.jpg)

She's way too tall to be a tanker, at least in that machine
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 16 August 2018, 15:47:36
She's way too tall to be a tanker, at least in that machine


I suspect she would wear shorter heels for combat deployments


Meanwhile, this guy in this vid is still doing knees to chests and will be for the remainder of his career

https://imgur.com/gallery/pNhfeyI (https://imgur.com/gallery/pNhfeyI)


Yep, that is amusing and it looks as though no one was hurt
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ColBosch on 16 August 2018, 16:27:03
Meanwhile, this guy in this vid is still doing knees to chests and will be for the remainder of his career

https://imgur.com/gallery/pNhfeyI

Just use the APC to flip the wrecker back over.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Cannonshop on 16 August 2018, 16:37:53
Outriggers-not just for show.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Cache on 16 August 2018, 20:05:53
Outriggers-not just for show.
Parking brakes as well.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: marauder648 on 17 August 2018, 02:42:51
Just use the APC to flip the wrecker back over.

*Sargent Major screaming intensifies*
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: beachhead1985 on 17 August 2018, 10:49:27
*Sargent Major screaming intensifies*

I love it.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: VhenRa on 17 August 2018, 14:57:43
Unmanned turrets are pretty new. The Brad was designed in the late '70s into the '80s before those became a thing. Some Strykers are getting unmanned turrets. Maybe the Army is holding off until they decide what the Brad successor will be...

Damon.

Technically, what the Strykers are getting aren't turrets in the traditional sense. They are oversized remote weapon mounts. They don't extend into the vehicle, just being bolted onto the exterior.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ColBosch on 17 August 2018, 18:31:10
*Sargent Major screaming intensifies*

I once saw a Sergeant-Major dress down a First Sergeant. Locked him in parade rest and circled him like a vulture, yelling the whole time. It was a beautiful sight.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Dave Talley on 17 August 2018, 19:20:17
I once saw a Sergeant-Major dress down a First Sergeant. Locked him in parade rest and circled him like a vulture, yelling the whole time. It was a beautiful sight.


 here we see the Sergeant-Major in his natural environment, where he is the alpha, he is no ones prey......
end David Attenborough voice
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 17 August 2018, 20:23:35
Five bucks says that First Sergeant was taking notes for what to say when he grows up to be a Sergeant-Major.  "And now we see the young being taught how to survive by their elders, play fighting and domination games that will serve the pup well in their life"
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Charlie 6 on 17 August 2018, 21:17:54
Five bucks says that First Sergeant was taking notes for what to say when he grows up to be a Sergeant-Major.  "And now we see the young being taught how to survive by their elders, play fighting and domination games that will serve the pup well in their life"
Or from another perspective, it's a bunch boot camp horseshit behavior that's simultaneously embarrassing and undermining to unit cohesion. I'd have recommended to the commander to give the sergeant major an administrative form to go find somewhere else to peddle that crap.  Don't need the troops thinking abuse of power is the way to solve problems.

I say that without any context to ColBosch's observeration...but I'm struggling to find a reason to justify it.

As I picture and in keeping with the theme of my counter-comment I offer an anti-armor picture.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ColBosch on 17 August 2018, 21:33:12
Or from another perspective, it's a bunch boot camp horseshit behavior that's simultaneously embarrassing and undermining to unit cohesion. I'd have recommended to the commander to give the sergeant major an administrative form to go find somewhere else to peddle that crap.  Don't need the troops thinking abuse of power is the way to solve problems.

I say that without any context to ColBosch's observeration...but I'm struggling to find a reason to justify it.

I actually agree with you. I fully recognize that it wasn't only an abusive show of power, it was also pure toxic masculinity at a time when my regiment was testing the waters with mixed sexes in a ground combat role. At the time I thought it was funny because "hey, look at that Top getting chewed out." Now I think it's funny because of how the 1SG was being calmly stoic in the face of a shrieking, preening CSM.

Ah, memories.

And nice Javelin.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Cannonshop on 17 August 2018, 21:44:56
I actually agree with you. I fully recognize that it wasn't only an abusive show of power, it was also pure toxic masculinity at a time when my regiment was testing the waters with mixed sexes in a ground combat role. At the time I thought it was funny because "hey, look at that Top getting chewed out." Now I think it's funny because of how the 1SG was being calmly stoic in the face of a shrieking, preening CSM.

Ah, memories.

And nice Javelin.
I suspect the 1st Sgt was probably not only the better man, but maybe...right?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Charlie 6 on 17 August 2018, 22:00:06
I went "red" twice in my career.  That's the only way to describe the my perception of being so furious that I can't remember what I saw during the confrontation.  The first time, I "came to" to hear the US Army Master Sergeant asking the Special Forces Staff Sergeant I was yelling at, "what Army are you from?!?"  This guy (which is what he said to piss me off) was an utter piece of garbage that his leaders and peers were thrilled to discover he'd been disrespectful to someone outside his chain of command.  That way they could get additional written documentation against him.  The second time was after I discovered one of my howitzer prime mover drivers was hiding a found RPG round behind his seat to take home with him.  The second numbnut was just that: stupid. In and of itself, I didn't care he was dumb but the fact he could have hurt his family (a new father) or his section mates sent me over the edge.

In both cases, I had confirmation after the fact that I was in the right but I sure felt stupid in the immediate aftermath.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Matti on 18 August 2018, 00:36:52
As I picture and in keeping with the theme of my counter-comment I offer an anti-armor picture.
Aren't those guys too close to each others? If 120 mm or bigger hits too close... Would single 100 mm HE be bad for the entire section?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ColBosch on 18 August 2018, 00:44:41
Aren't those guys too close to each others? If 120 mm or bigger hits too close... Would single 100 mm HE be bad for the entire section?

That's a training range. And believe it or not, but tank cannons suck for killing infantry. In a situation like that, where the driver is accelerating and juking like mad to try to dodge the missile - it probably won't work, but it's better than nothing - you are not going to be able to put a round on a bunch of guys who definitely ran off as soon as the Javelin cleared the tube. Fire-and-forget are scary to tankers.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: marauder648 on 18 August 2018, 01:35:55
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/1d216832aa9833ba065ec4a53569fdb7/tumblr_pdmrbawiUa1s27r5eo1_1280.jpg)

My last Sgt Major absolutely HATED me because I wasn't infantry.  Didn't help when I did my training for Iraq I shot better than half the company on the first time I used the SUSAT  on the SA-80 and I beat them all in the vehicle and equipment identification.

One of the guys in my company, carribiean lad kept going awol, always came back but he kept doing it.  And my WO2 who I am sure got aroused by charging people considering the number of charges he'd do a week, had something special for him.
Kid went AWOL before Iraq, and my Sgt Major wanted to charge him not with going AWOL but with Desertion.  And in the Army Act 1955 and Manual of Military Law, thats an entirely different animal to say the least and carries a far greater punishment, namely 6 months at Her Majesties pleasure in RMP Colchester and then out with a dishonourable discharge, good luck getting any employment after that.

But, we couldn't charge him with it.  We wasn't in a state of war and thus, no desertion, just AWOL.  Told my CSM this, got yelled at and told to go do it for desertion.  Went up to HQ, got new paperwork and one of my Sgt's (another Clerk) saw me and asked what I was doing, I explained and he came down with me and then had a blazing row with my CSM.
Ended out having to get the Regimental Admin Officer, all 5'2 of her to come down there and tell the CSM to stop being bloody stupid.

I'm glad I got out after Iraq.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Matti on 18 August 2018, 13:10:49
Things told here reminded me about something someone had told in another forum (MegaMekNET one):
Quote
But what real world military wouldn't have internal troublemakers, incompetent generals, and plain *****? That's the way of life, in game or out.
Censored, because I have got a warning before for this quote.


That's a training range. And believe it or not, but tank cannons suck for killing infantry. In a situation like that, where the driver is accelerating and juking like mad to try to dodge the missile - it probably won't work, but it's better than nothing - you are not going to be able to put a round on a bunch of guys who definitely ran off as soon as the Javelin cleared the tube. Fire-and-forget are scary to tankers.
Better not to expose side profile while juking. Otherwise there can be other tanks around, mortars, howitzers, and AA guns within range and LOS.

[edit]
I have read from somewhere that tank crews can get scared of AA guns and bail out even when tank has suffered no damage besides scratched camo paint.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: CDAT on 18 August 2018, 13:37:10
That's a training range. And believe it or not, but tank cannons suck for killing infantry. In a situation like that, where the driver is accelerating and juking like mad to try to dodge the missile - it probably won't work, but it's better than nothing - you are not going to be able to put a round on a bunch of guys who definitely ran off as soon as the Javelin cleared the tube. Fire-and-forget are scary to tankers.

Well that depends on the round, the MPAT and Canister rounds are between quite decent to very good, the standard Anti-Armor rounds including the original HEAT are not falling someplace between sucks the big one, to just bad.

Best way to deal with the IR Fire and Forget in a simplified format.
One have a well trained crew as you have seconds to get this done or you are dead.
Two pop your IR smoke grenades, if you only have standard smoke grenades loaded you are probably dead.
Three back into the IR Smoke and hope the missile misses when it losses lock on.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: CDAT on 18 August 2018, 13:42:34
I have read from somewhere that tank crews can get scared of AA guns and bail out even when tank has suffered no damage besides scratched camo paint.

To me this is one of the things that separates professional/highly trained tank crews from rest. When I was still in and a tanker, we knew that we were not safe from every weapon out there, however short of the tank being on fire (and not ever 100% with that) we would stick with the tank during the fight. We had trust in our tank and the rest of the crew, also we can influence the battle in the tank, but out side not so much.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 18 August 2018, 13:49:10
IIRC, Germany suffered from that issue late in World War 2: there's at least one report of Shermans encounter a Jagdtiger (which had enough frontal armor that it was impervious to any Allied anti-tang gun) that panicked and turned to run as soon as they started shooting it, allowing them to hit its side and rear armor and score a kill.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ColBosch on 18 August 2018, 16:00:59
Well that depends on the round, the MPAT and Canister rounds are between quite decent to very good, the standard Anti-Armor rounds including the original HEAT are not falling someplace between sucks the big one, to just bad.

Best way to deal with the IR Fire and Forget in a simplified format.
One have a well trained crew as you have seconds to get this done or you are dead.
Two pop your IR smoke grenades, if you only have standard smoke grenades loaded you are probably dead.
Three back into the IR Smoke and hope the missile misses when it losses lock on.

Yeah, I was trained to pop smoke, but to charge forward towards the shooter, laying down fire with the MGs. We didn't get much training on the MPAT; it was still relatively new, and we assumed we'd be carrying a mix of HEAT and Sabot.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: CDAT on 18 August 2018, 16:39:32
Yeah, I was trained to pop smoke, but to charge forward towards the shooter, laying down fire with the MGs. We didn't get much training on the MPAT; it was still relatively new, and we assumed we'd be carrying a mix of HEAT and Sabot.

Might just have been difference in time? I was trained that you want to have a sudden change in the direction of movement, but it is just a temporary. Pop the smoke, back into it to throw off the aim of anyone else aiming at the unit, and the IR Smoke to break the current lock. Then yes like you said charge forward. It is amazing how much fire one tank can put out, let alone a well trained platoon.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 18 August 2018, 17:58:52
A good sergeant major shouldn't need to shout, a look of disappointment should be enough to have one feel very very sad


Also, I have been taught to praise in public and admonish in private but do sometimes find myself in arguments I don't want to be in, in public places - simply ending up in that situation is a fail


Speaking of fails, here is what is probably the worst tank ever - the A38 Valiant, so bad even the British Army of WW2 wouldn't put it into production and look at the stuff they did put into production
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 18 August 2018, 21:55:34
Speaking of fails, here is what is probably the worst tank ever - the A38 Valiant, so bad even the British Army of WW2 wouldn't put it into production and look at the stuff they did put into production
You have to explain why it was so bad.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ColBosch on 18 August 2018, 22:15:28
You have to explain why it was so bad.

I'll let Lindybeige and The Chieftain explain: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRW3N7GmsBA
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Daryk on 18 August 2018, 22:17:39
Lindybeige has some very interesting stuff... just watched his "Napoleon's Greatest Foe" video, which was amusing and informative.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: marauder648 on 19 August 2018, 01:05:18
Yeah Lindy can be very interesting and funny, sure some of his stuff is a bit...shall we say Rule 4 topical, and he's quite stating in his opinions on certain things, this aside, he's a good watch
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: beachhead1985 on 19 August 2018, 12:46:15
Let's not use

toxic masculinity

This term on the forum, please. Happy to explain why over PM.

Here is the most recent spec sheet from 6-Commando; an interesting webcomic (when it updates) with shades of Bolo. The spec sheets do a good job of harkening back to similar documents that used to be common as mail-in bonuses and such for kids in the 90s.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 19 August 2018, 13:02:57
Looked up the stats on the Valiant after watching that video.

Wow.  The reason they stopped the road test after 13 miles?  The driver was already exhausted due to how difficult the controls were.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: PsihoKekec on 20 August 2018, 01:13:54
I guess that after Covenanter they were not willing to put up with such nonsense anymore.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 23 August 2018, 03:59:33
I had not heard about this until now, and it's from 2016, so it may be old news to you guys.  Either way, grandpa is getting one big bad cane to chase kids off his lawn.

https://youtu.be/1wwUTEkRano

Raytheon's got a SLEP going on the thing that guts the tank, puts a 950hp diesel in, an all-electric turret drive system, an armor improvement with sideskirts and something bolt-on on the nose, and M1A1 electronics and fire control...though it seems odd to use that for an M60.  Oh wait they're putting a Rheinmetall L44 in it to use that fire control package.

Somewhere in the high heavens, I think George is nodding his head in approval.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: glitterboy2098 on 23 August 2018, 06:29:54
Who still uses M60's? Curious who the main market that upgrade is for, given that the U.S. Doesn't have any in service anymore, that I know of.

Looks like a useful upgrade though.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 23 August 2018, 07:41:40
Grabbed off the Wikipedia, looks like Egypt, Turkey, and Taiwan are major users of the M60A3 series, a lot of other countries use them in smaller numbers as well. 
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Sharpnel on 23 August 2018, 08:49:18
Taiwan and Egypt might be the primary buyers of this kit. Turkey seems to be ready to replace them with their newer homemade stuff.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 23 August 2018, 10:16:50
Yeah, I'm going to peek over the Rule 4 sign and suggest this upgrade might not be offered to the Turks, aaaaand leave it at that.

Still a hell of an upgrade, though I have to wonder if the armor's really worth it anymore.  Steel just doesn't cut it anymore, even on second-rate battlefields.  The plethora of antiarmor weapons built to kill composite-armored systems makes me wonder if this is a dead end.  After all, you're hauling around a hell of a lot of metal that just isn't quite worth it, I'd think.  Unless they put on some serious ERA and an APS, I think it might just be too heavy of a tank in the end.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 23 August 2018, 10:57:44
The Turks are out of the picture, also because their M60 fleet is being upgraded to the Magach 7 standard by the Israelis.

Wiki shows a lot of potential buyers, especially the UAE. But I concur that the lack of an APS is an issue.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Matti on 23 August 2018, 11:10:26
Still a hell of an upgrade, though I have to wonder if the armor's really worth it anymore.  Steel just doesn't cut it anymore, even on second-rate battlefields.
Is it any worse than refitted T-55?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Weirdo on 23 August 2018, 11:26:11
If steel is no good any more, I wonder how useful it might be to remove much of the armor from old tanks, turning them into direct-fire fire support units with tactics that don't try to pretend that they're still armored vehicles.

Assuming pulling armor like that is even structurally possible, would the weight reduction lead to any boost in speed or terrain handling?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 23 August 2018, 11:48:35
Same basic thing.  I mean, compare it to the much thinner hulls of the Leopards and AMX-30s that the Germans and French made.  It's giving up a lot of weight in armor for, what these days, really isn't all that useful unless it's dealing with third-rate threats.  And with the rest of the upgrade, the fire control and the 120mm, that's definitely not something you need with third-rate threats.

Unless I'm way off, but the M60's armor is almost twice as thick as the Leopard 1 (for example) and I'm just not seeing a use for that extra weight.  It's not like you can unbolt a few armor panels; it's all part of the structure.  Five to seven inches in the old days, at those slopes, was likely enough to handle incoming fire, but these days...I dunno.  This thing's got the gun and electronics to fight on a modern field, it just seems an odd choice.

Then again there's still a zillion of them out there, and anything's better than nothing.

Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: CDAT on 23 August 2018, 12:16:19
I was told years ago when I was a Specialist that the M60 with it extra height over the M1 actually had a better thermal and ballistic computer (more room for it), and with this it was considered probably one of the best tanks in the world for defensive engagements. When you are fighting from prepared positions armor is less of much of a concern (note did not say none, just less) so if the fire control is upgraded along with the weapon and such it could make a very effective tank to be used against those who only have light armor or in the defense.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Cannonshop on 23 August 2018, 12:19:06
funny thing: when was the last time a major tank battle happened between forces of equal technology?

Even 73-easting was a battle involving a twenty-some-odd year difference in tech levels, to get to a situation where the tech is comparable, you have to go all the way back to the  iran/iraq war of the 1980s.

and even there, it's not really a comparable matchup because you had a huge spread of capability (era wise) on both sides.

the 'obsolete steel' armor is still relevant and effective, given the likely opponents-why? because a top-down hit (or bottom up, as in the case with popular IED designs current to the present era) will still kill an Abrams.

which is pretty much the toughest armored vee out there, and yet, some of the 'improvised' adaptations (Slat armor, etc.) seem to narrow the field of 'effective anti-armor' weapons even when applied to third-hand surplus T-55s, Centurions, and the like.

The Perfect is the bane of the good enough. An upgraded, up-gunned M-60 is probably more than enough tank for facing anyone but the U.S. army, because even the U.S Army faces things that kill its best tanks handily at a fraction of the cost-but those are much narrower choices-fewer options that work, see?

OTOH, the old Patton design is relatively fuel efficient (compared to turbine powered vehicles) and has a decent amount of armor against the most probable opposition.  Moreso if you improve the secondary protection systems, or update the armor (Magach being a good example here).

Since World War Two, with very few exceptions, the winner of a tank-on-tank is going to be the guy who gets his shot off first.  Tank-on-infantry has always been questionable.  There were Technicals killing tanks with early wire-guided missiles, recoilless rifles, etc etc. since 1948, the cold war for a while thought Tanks would become obsolete with the invention and proliferation of shaped charges and missiles-and yet, theyr'e still a relevant force on the battlefield, while tank-busting helicopters have become somewhat less of a replacement with the proliferation of good AA shoulder fired missiles, better field detection, and improved AAA systems.

In considering all out war scenarios, it's kind of important to remember that teh top-tier powers are pretty averse to dying, which means they're not going to (voluntarily) go to the point of pulling out the stops WWII style-which means matchups are going to be first-tier powers against third tier, or two third tier powers going at it client-style.

because nobody wants to be extinct.

as for 'obsolescence' being a factor let me remind you of something...

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c0/M51-Isherman-latrun-1.jpg/250px-M51-Isherman-latrun-1.jpg)

and (http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/UK/Centurion/photos/Australian_Cent_Vietnam_U.jpg)

were still plenty effective in 1973, even up against(https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-aef8dbbbc7f8ceb348482882b967d85e-c)

a tank that was 20 years newer at the time, with a significantly better armoring and hull, and with guided antitank missile support.  strategy and tactics still matter more than raw technology.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Cannonshop on 23 August 2018, 12:20:53
I was told years ago when I was a Specialist that the M60 with it extra height over the M1 actually had a better thermal and ballistic computer (more room for it), and with this it was considered probably one of the best tanks in the world for defensive engagements. When you are fighting from prepared positions armor is less of much of a concern (note did not say none, just less) so if the fire control is upgraded along with the weapon and such it could make a very effective tank to be used against those who only have light armor or in the defense.

there's also the question of gun depression and fighting from hull-down or reverse-slope positions.  but the biggie is still that "the tank that shoots first usually wins" when guns are roughly equal in tech level.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 23 August 2018, 15:55:54
Pretty good points all-round, Cannonshop, I just...with the kinds of threats out there (including the rapid proliferation of TOW launchers all around the world) I don't see the extra tonnage invested in steel to be worth it, compared to a lighter, faster, more mobile system.  There's a lot of first-tier antitank stuff out there even in third-tier conflicts; there's been more than a few videos of higher quality Russian stuff getting, if not taken out, at least neutralized in the Syrian conflict.  Just seems to me like 'armor' is an all-in or all-out thing these days.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 23 August 2018, 16:12:14
Besides, 90mm and 105mm guns still abound in large numbers. Thin out the armour further and those guns start threatening you.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Cannonshop on 24 August 2018, 17:30:36
Pretty good points all-round, Cannonshop, I just...with the kinds of threats out there (including the rapid proliferation of TOW launchers all around the world) I don't see the extra tonnage invested in steel to be worth it, compared to a lighter, faster, more mobile system.  There's a lot of first-tier antitank stuff out there even in third-tier conflicts; there's been more than a few videos of higher quality Russian stuff getting, if not taken out, at least neutralized in the Syrian conflict.  Just seems to me like 'armor' is an all-in or all-out thing these days.

speed isn't protection though.  Speed of engagement is protection, but ground speed, to be viable as a defense, you need to be clocking high double-digits (over sixty to seventy MPH) before you can outrun a gunner in a fixed position.

and even then, you're not gonna do it against guided missiles.  The main benefit of 'fast chassis' is to get in close to your opponent or get around his flank quicker, and the 'light' chassis like Striker stll can't do that any better than a track except in terms of moving more quietly (Tyres are quieter than tracks...)

at the cost of terrains it can handle.  Most of the tracks out there exert less ground pressure than a man on foot, giving them options for terrain crossing that your wheeled vehicles don't have, which is a form of speed, in bad terrain.

The push for light wheeled armor has more to do with maintenance and operating costs than capability.  (It does, in fact, cost less to upkeep an 8x8 wheeled vehicle than your average tracked tank, and it's easier to do it too.)

but speed is NOT protection.  Protection is protection.  Steel works fine against 99% of what you're facing even with the proliferation of wire-guided missiles since the 1960s, (this is because those are optically tracked and guided, thus relatively slow.  the gunner 'flies' the missile into the tank, which is a daunting task even for TRAINED operators, proliferation of gear doesn't equate to the users being any better than the lightly/barely trained conscripts they are.)

I'm reminded of a story told around the cooler about some scary incidents involving american advisors and a client state that will remain nameless (rule 4).

The locals fired their TOW, and cheered-letting go of the controls and the missile almost landed on the firing position, instead of the target hulk down-range.

speed wouldn't have helped in that situation, with a competent operator, but most of the users aren't competent, and people get LESS competent in actual combat with their adrenal glands raging and incoming fire.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Ruger on 24 August 2018, 19:49:02
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a22822532/russian-tank-flips-over-kursk/ (https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a22822532/russian-tank-flips-over-kursk/)

 :o

Ruger
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 24 August 2018, 21:19:13
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a22822532/russian-tank-flips-over-kursk/ (https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a22822532/russian-tank-flips-over-kursk/)

 :o

Ruger
oh it flip over on its side when moving up on the trailer.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: VhenRa on 25 August 2018, 00:18:05
I was told years ago when I was a Specialist that the M60 with it extra height over the M1 actually had a better thermal and ballistic computer (more room for it), and with this it was considered probably one of the best tanks in the world for defensive engagements. When you are fighting from prepared positions armor is less of much of a concern (note did not say none, just less) so if the fire control is upgraded along with the weapon and such it could make a very effective tank to be used against those who only have light armor or in the defense.

That might have been true originally, but I doubt it today, given how the M1 has received upgrades over the years.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: CDAT on 25 August 2018, 08:21:30
That might have been true originally, but I doubt it today, given how the M1 has received upgrades over the years.

True the M1 of today is probably better than the M60 of yesterday, but this was partly in regards to the updating of the M60, with that much room how much could they upgrade its systems?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ColBosch on 25 August 2018, 08:27:05
I can tell you, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the M1A2 SEP-v3 TUSK-II (boy, there's a mouthful) is quite a bit better than any M60. ;) Supposedly the v4 update, scheduled for Any Day Now, will even further improve the platform. Given that I trained on a "standard" M1A2, and was able to achieve one-shot-hits while moving the first time I sat in the gunner's seat, I'd say the computer even a decade ago was pretty damn good.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 25 August 2018, 08:35:13
able to achieve one-shot-hits while moving the first time I sat in the gunner's seat, I'd say the computer even a decade ago was pretty damn good.
aimbot hax plz ban
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Matti on 25 August 2018, 16:04:42
aimbot hax plz ban
I can imagine Iraq tankers saying something like that ;D
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ColBosch on 25 August 2018, 17:56:05
I can imagine Iraq tankers saying something like that ;D

Not for long, they didn't.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 25 August 2018, 19:50:31
Considering the spot-first-shoot-first-kill-first capability of the Abrams, I think any variably-emphatic translation of "what just happened?" was their version.

So Bosch, are ALL the Strykers getting the 30mm RWS or just a few?  Articles I come across keep suggesting it's planned to be an upgrade to the whole force, not just the Germany-based units.

(https://taskandpurpose.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/CDCIM926MEDIADXO_3177-1-840x420.jpg)

That's a big notaturret.  Does it slide backwards on rails and tuck itself on the back of the vehicle so it can be airtransported, or are they still working on that...
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ColBosch on 25 August 2018, 20:15:09
So Bosch, are ALL the Strykers getting the 30mm RWS or just a few?

Hell if I know. They SHOULD, but...well...no idea.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 25 August 2018, 20:20:02
Slightly frighteningly, I come across the mention that the Kongsberg gun will run 30x173 (yay!) possibly for ammo commonality between the A-10's supply, but...it takes "less than" ten minutes to reload a 75 round magazine?  That's mildly frightening; is that just because the RWS has noone in it or what?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ColBosch on 25 August 2018, 20:43:33
That is very interesting. If it is the same 30x173mm, that's actually a credible armor killer in its own right. As for "under ten minutes," I bet it needs to be single-loaded. 30x173mm is BIG (nearly 2 lbs. a round), and a detachable magazine for it would not only be huge and unwieldy, it'd also weigh enough to be a hazard to the crew. Besides, I sincerely doubt a Stryker can survive combat long enough to dump all 75 of those rounds; if it does, the situation is hot enough that it should be advancing to the rear.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ColBosch on 25 August 2018, 20:45:40
...actually, here's the data sheet for the 30x173mm. Enjoy, and it confirms that the ammo is interchangeable between the Mk. 44 and GAU/8.

https://www.gd-ots.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/30x173mm-Ammunition-Suite-MK44-Cannon-Version-3.pdf
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ColBosch on 25 August 2018, 20:48:08
...and the Mk. 44 is the Bushmaster II. The entire turret system is the Kongsberg Protector.

That's it for now. :D
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 25 August 2018, 20:57:00
Considering the spot-first-shoot-first-kill-first capability of the
So Bosch, are ALL the Strykers getting the 30mm RWS or just a few?
Just a few. The Stryker 30mm is about as strategically mobile as an M1 Abrams, and remember the original concept is supposed to replace the Humvee and deuce-half as a battle taxi.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: marauder648 on 26 August 2018, 02:45:14
Silly question.

Why don't they put the GAU-8 on a tank or AFV?  Put it in a suitably high elevation mounting to allow it to engage targets shooting down on you and you'd have an absolutely terrifying COIN vehicle.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 26 August 2018, 03:14:10

 terrifying COIN vehicle.
What is collateral damage? Yes terrifying indeed, but in the wrong way I think.

Besides, the need isn't there for an AFV to spit out a huge volley of shells within a split-second targeting window, which is what a CAS jet dropping out of the clouds needs to do.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: marauder648 on 26 August 2018, 03:23:54
The Soviets used a simple variant of the ZSU-23/4 in Afghanistan where they just pulled the radar off it and used optical sights to engage targets that were often firing down on convoys.  Its the same kind of situation that forces find themselves in today.

This is an AU thing but still

(https://i.imgur.com/pSrzaAS.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/DjCnooS.jpg)

Quote
Magach 5 Avenger

Following the Yom Kippur War the IDF’s holdings of M48s and M60s were dramatically reduced (500 and something down to 200 and something). OTL the US resupplied with M48A5s and more M60s. In this TL, however, some of the M60s supplied were M60A2s. Whilst the IDF had no intention of fielding the M60A2's gun/missile system they were desperate for AFVs. The A2 turrets were removed and replaced with either salvaged M60 105mm gun turrets or the new twin 120mm breach loading mortar turret (another story/project). Having suffered such great losses of its MBT force to Egyptian AT missile teams, the IDF were keen to come up with/prove the concept of a tank escort support vehicle. A deal was struck with the US for the IDF to acquire a limited number of GAU-8s to be retrofitted into the discarded M60A2 narrow profile turrets. With the barrel group sticking out front, the length and width of the turret was about right - although some modification was required to accommodate the large ammunition drums. The turrets, which were entirely unmanned, were then fitted onto older M48 hulls (same sized turret ring) with the 3-man crew (Commander, Gunner and Driver) being positioned within the hull. The end result was not, and was never intended to be, a MBT. The Magach 5 Avenger proved to be highly capable in its escort/urban role and, although never produced in large numbers, proved to be extremely popular with both AFV crews and infantry alike.


Factual detail:
- The A-10 routinely carries 1150 rounds of 30mm ammunition for its GAU-8 Avenger cannon. The GAU-8 was designed to have 2 rates of fire - slow 2100rpm and fast 4200rpm. In operation the gun now has a fixed rate of fire of 3900rpm. However, I would suggest that in a ground vehicle mount the slower rate of fire would more than suffice. Thus at 2100rpm you fire 35 rounds every second. This gives you approximately 32 x 1-second bursts from 1150 rounds.
- This compares favourably to a modern SPAAG such as the Gepard, which carries only 320 rounds per gun but also only fires each gun at a cyclic rate of 550rpm. In other words, 9 rounds per gun per second for a total of approximately 36 x 1-second bursts.
- In order to prevent possible ingestion of spent cases into its engines, the A-10 keeps hold of its fired empty cases in the rear drum immediately behind the ammunition feed drum (All of this is part of the overall 5.93m length of the gun system).
- There is no ingestion problem on a ground vehicle and so no need to retain the spent 30mm cases, thus the second drum could be used to hold more ammunition, effectively doubling its capacity to 2300 rounds. This would give approximately 64 x 1-second bursts from one complete ammunition load. The bonus, of course, is that each 1-second burst fires 35 rounds down range as opposed to the Gepard which fires 18 rounds per second from its 2 barrels.
- The GAU-8 operates a linkless round system with the rounds effectively pushed along the feed rails by the ammunition drum, which is designed like a giant corkscrew. Whilst this storage and feed system could be replaced with something less linear there is, I believe, scope for some sort of gun elevation system, which would only move the front part of the gun without adversely affecting the flexible feeds. In the A-10 mount this mid section appears to be taken up with what I assume are hydraulic and/or electric motors to spin the barrel group and power the ammunition drums. Without the limitation of aircraft space and weight constraints, I am sure that the above mentioned elevation system could be worked out.
- The empty cases are ejected from a armoured port on the right-hand side of the turret. The process of reloading the ammunition drums is facilitated through an access panel on the rear of the turret which allows a reload feed belt to be attached.

The model, which represents the 2nd Vehicle, 2nd Platoon of the 2nd Magach 5 Avenger Company, is made from parts of a Tamiya M48 Sgt York, a Tamiya M60A2 and a fair bit of scratch build/bits from the spares box.

Sauce - WI/PC. GAU-8 Armed "Firefly" tanks in co-op with M1 Abrams. (http://"https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/wi-pc-gau-8-armed-firefly-tanks-in-co-op-with-m1-abrams.388814/page-2#post-12688730")
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: kato on 26 August 2018, 03:34:43
Why don't they put the GAU-8 on a tank or AFV?
This is why:

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f5/GAU-8_meets_VW_Type_1.jpg/640px-GAU-8_meets_VW_Type_1.jpg)

You also don't need the 3900 rpm ROF. At all.
A MK-30-2/ABM on a Puma for example fires the same ammunition at 700 rpm, includes air-burst capability and is elevatable to 45°.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 26 August 2018, 04:07:29
The Soviets used a simple variant of the ZSU-23/4 in Afghanistan where they just pulled the radar off it and used optical sights to engage targets that were often firing down on convoys.  Its the same kind of situation that forces find themselves in today.

The infamous Afghanskii. One of the most effective vehicles in Grozny, also became an RPG magnet as a result. Grandaddy of the BMPT "Terminator".

Again, collateral damage. Some people don't care as much for precision targeting... "And that's all Ah've got to say bout dat."

Also as Kato points out, size. AFVs can just about carry a 30mm, ammo and room for other important stuff. Six barrels AND a useful ammo load? That's steep...

P.s. see the difference between the 25mm Bush vs the 30mm GAU shells below (the two tallest rounds)

(https://s15.postimg.cc/vy6ugzi8r/USVQe_Z0_d.jpg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: kato on 26 August 2018, 05:46:19
AFVs can just about carry a 30mm, ammo and room for other important stuff. Six barrels AND a useful ammo load? That's steep...
General Electric did enter a severely cutdown GAU-8 in a specialized turret alongside the radar from the Chaparral for the 1970s DIVAD air-defense system, competing against Sperry Rand with a 35mm gatling (rebarreled from 37mm) and 15-year-old radar/fire control design, Raytheon with an adapted straight-up Gepard turret with twin 35mm, General Dynamics with the same guns as Gepard in a new turret with fire control and sensors copied over from Phalanx and Ford with a twin 40mm design and a AN/APG-66 radar adapted from the F-16. Chassis in all cases was a M48A5.

General Electric never made it past the initial selection; Ford won but later the contract was cancelled for various reasons mostly involving complete failure of the radar system.

The "Magach 5 Avenger" AU tank in the post above is a straight-up modelling of the General Electric DIVAD entry, though with the slight modification of kitbashing a heavily modified Starship turret in there instead of the original turret that was quite a bit less slim.

(http://i.imgur.com/1sLO3cn.jpg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: marauder648 on 26 August 2018, 06:45:22
Ahh yes that boondoggle that lead to the Sgt York :s
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Matti on 26 August 2018, 10:35:17
Ahh yes that boondoggle that lead to the Sgt York :s
I understand Sgt York wasn't as successful as Shilka? What went wrong?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ColBosch on 26 August 2018, 10:41:53
I understand Sgt York wasn't as successful as Shilka? What went wrong?

Everything.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: marauder648 on 26 August 2018, 10:55:34
I understand Sgt York wasn't as successful as Shilka? What went wrong?

Apparently it was one of the big US defence boondoggles of the past few decades.  To quote Wikipedia

Quote
The RAM-D (reliability, availability, maintainability and durability) tests ran from November 1981 to February 1982, demonstrating a wide range of operation concerns.[16] The turret proved to have too slow a traverse to track fast moving targets, and had serious problems operating in cold weather, including numerous hydraulic leaks. The simple electronic counter-countermeasures (ECCM) suite could be defeated by only minor jamming. The used guns taken from U.S. Army stock were in twisted condition due to careless warehousing. Perhaps the most surprising problem was that the 30-year-old M48 chassis with the new 20-ton turret meant the vehicle had trouble keeping pace with the newer M1 and M2, the vehicles it was meant to protect.

And it went worse from there, it suffered from horrific budget bloat and when called up to do a kind of 'do or die' test it couldn't hit hovering targets or ones going in straight lines and was basically about as much use as tits on a fish.  Throw in some hefty fraud and faking of stats and reports and you end out with a maelstrom of rubbish, a vehicle that couldn't do its role and was basically useless.

More data - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M247_Sergeant_York

As the good ColBosch very rightly said in answer to your question of 'what went wrong', everything is the very right answer.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 26 August 2018, 11:02:22
General Electric did enter a severely cutdown GAU-8 in a specialized turret alongside the radar from the Chaparral for the 1970s DIVAD air-defense system
(http://i.imgur.com/1sLO3cn.jpg)
How much ammo did it carry? Okay, I can see why it might be considered for the AA role.

Ahh yes that boondoggle that lead to the Sgt York :s
Is that the one which locked on a building's ventilator fan instead of the helicopter target drone, and nearly hosed down the observation stands?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: RunandFindOut on 26 August 2018, 11:07:08
Like they said, it's a replacement prototype for the M-42 Duster, and probably the last major gun-based AA system.  Everything gunwise since has been pretty close range, operating under an umbrella of missile fire instead of being the primary defense system.  Not to knock things like the M163 VADS but it's a low-and-slow killer, rather than a general all-purpose AA unit.

As for the T249, well, let's just say that the M247 Sergeant York beat it.  And you know what a wonderful platform THAT was.  Still, there's something that brings a tear to the eye when you say "37x219mm at 3000rpm" but maybe that's just me.

Sleep well, little BRRRRRRRRT.  Sleep well.
The T249 actually showed that it worked, that it could kind of hit what it was aiming at.  It didn't loose to the M247 because it was worse than the Sgt. York.  It lost to the 247 because the recoil and vibration from the main gun were so intense they damaged the machine.  The Sgt. York got the nod because they figured that while it was a dumpster fire that the problems with the York were primarily in the electronics and could with effort be fixed.  Whereas the Vigilante actually had working fire control, but every time it fired the main gun it vibrated itself to death and damaged itself.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 26 August 2018, 11:49:53
Is that the one which locked on a building's ventilator fan instead of the helicopter target drone, and nearly hosed down the observation stands?
The observation stands were, it should be pointed out, packed with top level military folks for both the US and England and congresscritters that damn near got reaped by the two Bofors.  Ever see the original Robocop?  It was almost a Poor Mr. Kinney moment...  Why did it happen?  Ford said it was because the vehicle had been 'washed' and that fouled the electronics. 

Really, though, the thing was just unreliable as hell, and whoever came up with it started with the stupid idea of using an M48 chassis and a twenty ton turret, when it was supposed to (somehow) keep up with Abrams tanks.  And it was intended to use WWII-era antiaircraft weapons against modern strike jets like Su-25 or the supersonic MiG-27 or Su-24.  I'll grant those weapons would have been glorious against the Soviet helicopters at the time and would likely have eaten the Hind alive, but...jets?  FAST jets?  Hah.  Frankly it was doomed from the start.

Oh and apparently the fan thing was a separate incident, and was a latrine fan to boot.  (almost as if **** knows where it belongs)  The one that tried to go FEED ME CONGRESSPEOPLE just decided to do that on its own, when it was first turned on.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ColBosch on 26 August 2018, 11:53:25
It didn't loose to the M247 because it was worse than the Sgt. York.

Um...

Quote
...it could kind of hit what it was aiming at...the recoil and vibration from the main gun were so intense they damaged the machine...every time it fired the main gun it vibrated itself to death...

Sounds worse to me. :D
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: kato on 26 August 2018, 12:57:41
Sounds worse to me. :D
Nah, the Sgt. York is famous for a public fire display in which it first put its full salvo into the ground. Ahead of it. While tracking targets in the air.

As well as the engineers screwing additional radar reflectors onto target drones so it could see them at all...
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: marauder648 on 26 August 2018, 13:08:38
I dunno if you guys have seen the now somewhat obscure movie 'Pentagon Wars' its about the development of the Bradley IFV

Although done with extra satire, this is pretty accurate as to how the Bradley started off and then development bloat settled in

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA

The films rather amusing, a wonderful display of military beauracracy, although its not quite the documentary that Down Perescope was.

And i'm sure that some of the stuff that went wrong with the Sgt York is featured here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iur-noEd4eA
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 26 August 2018, 13:15:59
Um...

Sounds worse to me. :D
And you'd think after the M551's gun issues, that'd be real embarrassing to run into AGAIN.  Then again that wasn't a problem limited to the Americans, but at least the Soviets didn't run into it until they put battleship-sized sixteen-inch rifles on a tracked chassis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2B1_Oka).  Kind of expected at that point.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: marauder648 on 26 August 2018, 13:17:57
Wasn't the Sherridan given the gun that it got because they couldn't get it to work on the M-60 'Starship' variant they made to carry the 155 gun/missile launcher?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: RunandFindOut on 26 August 2018, 13:55:44
Nah, it was given that gun because they'd intended that gun/launcher to go in all the next generation of tanks and the light airborne tank was unimportant enough not to blow the budget re-arming it.  And on top of that for all it's major problems with the recoil causing suspension damage it was a spectacularly effective gun.  The APERS round was enormous and could utterly flay an area large enough to cover entire platoon fronts with a single shot.  The HE round could put a hole in the side of a concrete apartment building large enough for two infantrymen to walk abreast through or to rip the glass off an entire side of an office building with the shock.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: marauder648 on 26 August 2018, 14:09:33
Oh indeed the 155 was a monster of a gun and I know it was gonna go on another over-sexed and over-engineered disaster the MBT-70, but they got the gun but not the tank which lead to the M-60 Starships and then it popping up on the Sherridan.   
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: RunandFindOut on 26 August 2018, 15:42:05
Originally the intent had been a two tier force structure with MBT70 and Light Tank (which would later become the Sheridan) both armed with the gun.  When the MBT70 fell through for reasons you nailed, they rapidly put out the M60A2 using a turret design that had been discarded to keep a MBT with that gun in service because they wanted the capabilities it was supposed to bring.  The Sheridan was always a sideshow and less important, something for the Airborne units.  So the MBT70 not materializing didn't really affect anything because it was already intended to use that gun.  The M60A2 was where the changes were because they wanted to keep using that 155 and just the Sheridan buy wouldn't have been enough to justify the production.  So they quickly shoehorned it into a new M60 variant that could be bought in numbers to justify production and not screw up their plans.  Unfortunately it turned out that their were serious issues with the gun-launched ATGM designed for it.  And it had problems with accuracy, recoil, and some other issues.  So the M60A2 went bye-bye, and they went back to 105mm.  But changing the Sheridan wasn't in the budget and so it just went forward.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: I am Belch II on 26 August 2018, 15:48:40
Was the gun/missile a failure, or did it have a little success on the Sheridan. From what Im reading it was a failure. A lot of money was put in to the Shillelagh missile, and nothing came out of it because the TOW out classed it by so much.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: marauder648 on 26 August 2018, 16:50:24
The gun was powerful and the missile worked but they were not exactly great and were overtaken by developments.  I had a quick glance at wiki and the main problem of the missile seems to be a HUGE minimum range of 800 yards, on a missile that goes out to 2200 yards.  So nearly 50% of your range the things unguided. 

The big 'ol HEAT rounds for the 155 would be nasty, but it could only fire HEAT rounds, and these were being countered by new developments in armour at the time, and there was also issues with its propellant not being all consumed. Plus as a single fixed round its HA-UGE so you can't really carry many rounds in the tank.

The HEAT rounds only is a big problem.  After WW2 and the widespread introduction of HEAT effect weapons, tanks it seemed didn't need armour, because the more armour you put on a tank, it just gives the HEAT jet more to cut through and makes it more devastating.  Its why the French and Germans with the AMX-30 and Leo 1 had very very thin armour and relied more on angling and tactics/technology to not be hit, or score the first hit before the enemy (IE elements of the 1st Guards Army storming towards you) could hit back, then fall back fast to the next firing position.

But composite armour greatly reduced the effectiveness of HEAT rounds and folks had to go back to very high velocity kenetic rounds to penetrate again.
The 551's gun system was based on the MBT-70's but the barrel was shorter, meaning it couldn't fire the APDS rounds they made for the MBT-70, and could only fire a fairly low velocity HEAT round. 

This meant that units equipped with the gun/missile system of the M-551 could be in the horrific position of not being able to hurt a hostile tank because of its ceramic and composite armour whilst it can very much hurt them. 
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: RunandFindOut on 26 August 2018, 17:07:35
The Shillelagh missile was a failure, full stop.  Aside from the huge minimum range, the electronics had serious problems handling the recoil of being launched and in practice they had a very high failure rate.  So the range was short, it couldn't be guided for nearly half it's range, had a large failure rate on its guidance system.  The missile was built on 60s technology and what they had just wasn't ready.  That's why they needed the 155mm tube, that was as small as they could get the diameter of the missile down to.

The HEAT round was nasty but new armor developments were overtaking them.  They also had a HEP and HE-FRAG round that I don't know ever went into production, intended for the infantry support role.  But as noted those never went into production.  The gun itself had problems with the barrel being too short and the propellant not fast enough burning.  The rounds were so heavy and large it seriously cut into ammo storage.  Basically the 155mm gun/launcher was a case of a good but overambitious idea built too early before the technology could really support it.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: BairdEC on 27 August 2018, 01:21:20
The main gun on a Sheridan is 152mm, not 155mm.  HEAT was not the only ammunition type available for the gun; it could also fire HE, canister, flechette, and, I believe, HEP/HESH.  I don't recall there being a sabot round listed in the manual.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: glitterboy2098 on 27 August 2018, 02:13:37
iirc, using direct fire munitions from the cannon had a tendency to damage the missile firing related computer hardware, which made the lackluster performance of the missile that much worse from a operational perspective.

i often wondered why they didn't just redesign the tank to mount a 105mm or something instead, after the missile proved insufficient.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: marauder648 on 27 August 2018, 02:30:00
iirc, using direct fire munitions from the cannon had a tendency to damage the missile firing related computer hardware, which made the lackluster performance of the missile that much worse from a operational perspective.

i often wondered why they didn't just redesign the tank to mount a 105mm or something instead, after the missile proved insufficient.

Barrel length probably, the 105mm is a longer gun and the Sherridan is a small tank.  The 155's a fairly lightweight and low pressure gun (hence its low muzzle velocity) but the 105's a different beasty.  With the MBT-70's costs spiralling and them having issues with the 155 gun they did design a 'cheaper' and low tech version that replaced the 155 with the 105 off the M-60.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: I am Belch II on 27 August 2018, 05:01:06
Wow such a terrible missile, but it seems like they went all in on that missile. Almost 90k of them made, that's a huge number for a complete failure.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: lrose on 27 August 2018, 06:13:23
i often wondered why they didn't just redesign the tank to mount a 105mm or something instead, after the missile proved insufficient.

In 1967 they did refit a Sheridan with the XM103E7 105mm howitzer.  While it was successful it was apparently not chosen as it was felt the change would reduce the firepower of the Sheridan. 
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Garrand on 29 August 2018, 17:38:00
IIRC there was also an experiment mounting the 76mm from the M41 on the Sheridan. But I'm assuming it was never adopted because it seemed like a step backwards in firepower...

Edit: looked for a reference in the Hunnicutt book, unable to find. But there is a photo in the Squadron/Signal Sheridan in Action #2028 p. 15.

Damon.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: lrose on 29 August 2018, 18:11:45

Edit: looked for a reference in the Hunnicutt book, unable to find. But there is a photo in the Squadron/Signal Sheridan in Action #2028 p. 15.

Damon.

The 76mm was successful but was not put into production since it would have reduced the firepower (Hunnicutt p. 109 - picture on 110.)

Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: worktroll on 31 August 2018, 16:10:56
Ready for the apocalypse ...

(https://78.media.tumblr.com/79870793499783e138a09913bde435de/tumblr_pe1hhbaxnu1rvhbxso1_640.jpg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Daryk on 31 August 2018, 18:00:28
THAT is hilarious, just based on its existence...  :D
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Sharpnel on 31 August 2018, 20:12:11
Ready for the apocalypse ...

(https://78.media.tumblr.com/79870793499783e138a09913bde435de/tumblr_pe1hhbaxnu1rvhbxso1_640.jpg)
Was that a Reliant Robin?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: truetanker on 01 September 2018, 01:00:50
Ready for the apocalypse ...

(https://78.media.tumblr.com/79870793499783e138a09913bde435de/tumblr_pe1hhbaxnu1rvhbxso1_640.jpg)

Is this Australian for low-rider, mate?

TT
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 01 September 2018, 03:20:41
It reminds me of Girls Last Tour.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 01 September 2018, 05:10:44
Was that a Reliant Robin?
Looks like. Or aka to me, that blue car Mr Bean really hates...

M1919 Browning AND a Vickers MG? come now, its the apocalypse, lets have some ammo commonality here
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: worktroll on 01 September 2018, 06:18:02
Note the outboard at the back. And does anyone recognise the longarm in the passenger seat?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: glitterboy2098 on 01 September 2018, 08:21:26
Note the outboard at the back. And does anyone recognise the longarm in the passenger seat?
Might be a sterling smg? The L34A1/Mk.5 integrally suppressed variant i think
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: marauder648 on 01 September 2018, 08:55:01
(https://pre00.deviantart.net/09ea/th/pre/i/2012/145/4/b/random_tank___calgary_stampede_by_guppy22-d512p6v.jpg)

Here have what I think is a Leopard I.

And just in case you forgot how absurdly huge the KV-2's turret was.

(http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/german-inspect-kv2.jpg)

and the Soviets experimented by putting a 107mm naval gun in it too.

(http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/KV-2-107mm.jpg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 01 September 2018, 09:05:58
Might be a sterling smg? The L34A1/Mk.5 integrally suppressed variant i think
Think so

Didn't even see the thing. Or the outboard.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Dave Talley on 01 September 2018, 09:08:29
yep
didnt notice the tiny outboard, i have seen bigger weed eaters, thats barely a trollling motor by texas standards
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Cache on 01 September 2018, 11:55:34
Note the outboard at the back. And does anyone recognise the longarm in the passenger seat?
Are you talking about the Sterling leaned back between the seats, or the water-cooled(?) belt fed on the mount?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Matti on 01 September 2018, 14:09:33
It reminds me of Girls Last Tour.
This one (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SdKfz_2)?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 01 September 2018, 20:14:51
Yes, that was the vehicle used in Girls Last Tour.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Garrand on 04 September 2018, 16:32:07
M1919 Browning AND a Vickers MG? come now, its the apocalypse, lets have some ammo commonality here

I believe that is actually a flex-mount M3 .50CAL machine gun. Note the spade grip at the back.

Damon.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: BairdEC on 05 September 2018, 01:10:13
I'm pretty sure that's not an M2HB- the barrel shroud cover almost the entire barrel, and the pintle mount looks far too scrawny to handle the recoil of a .50.  The .50 was pretty much just a larger, heavier version of Browning's .30 caliber machine gun.

I believe that is actually a flex-mount M3 .50CAL machine gun. Note the spade grip at the back.

Damon.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 05 September 2018, 01:28:21
I believe that is actually a flex-mount M3 .50CAL machine gun. Note the spade grip at the back.
After taking a closer look, I'd say its an AN/M2 Browning aircraft gun, with spade grip added
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: marauder648 on 09 September 2018, 13:37:05
Speaking of the Sgt York.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnlI9vSJN0A
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 14 September 2018, 07:17:43
Czech mechanised infantry unit on recent NATO exercises

Czech Pandur II IFV variant

(https://s8.postimg.cc/c5iyemkv9/Czech.jpg)

Czech Pandur II recon variant

(http://www.acr.army.cz/assets/informacni-servis/zpravodajstvi/02_1577.jpg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: truetanker on 14 September 2018, 14:13:08
Heh, wheeled MG Goblins,go fig.!

( That's the Goblin (MG) medium tank from 3026 TRO and Reinforcements, Volume 5: Vehicles, folks. Yeah I'm old!  xp)

TT

Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: glitterboy2098 on 14 September 2018, 14:24:40
Heh, wheeled MG Goblins,go fig.!

( That's the Goblin (MG) medium tank from 3026 TRO and Reinforcements, Volume 5: Vehicles, folks. Yeah I'm old!  xp)

TT
not enough weapons. the MG variant Goblin has 6 MG's and an SRM6, the above only has, at best, 1.

if anything, the above is closest to your basic Wheeled APC (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Wheeled_APC) from BT.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: truetanker on 14 September 2018, 14:26:59
Except that only carries up to 10 troopers, more like a Heavy APC, Wheeled.

TT
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: glitterboy2098 on 14 September 2018, 15:29:25
Except that only carries up to 10 troopers, more like a Heavy APC, Wheeled.

TT
heavy APC's carry ~30 though. given that our IRL infantry gear is incredibly lightweight compared to BT's (we use smaller calibers, lighter armor, fewer and lighter support weapons, etc)  1 modern squad equaling a 1 ton bay fits.

closest thing we have to the BT heavy APC's is the 1950's M44* APC prototype, which carried 24 men and was built on an M18 hellcat chassis.
http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_M44_armoured_personnel_carrier.html
(http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/US/M75_APC/M44_APC.jpg)(https://i.redditmedia.com/5yzlA0hQCIv7yjtzxbJwUZXXA5jD7KQJ-qfIMjOqge0.jpg?s=995427a7e931070928f57059e3ef4dae)(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5791/23587920169_0245c4feb9_b.jpg)
oddly, it wasn't adopted because it didn't carry enough men.. since the platoons at the time used three 12 men squads.

the design would be cut down to a single squad size vehicle, the M75, as a result. which was one of the predecessors to the M113.
(http://military-vehicle-photos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/10312.jpg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: kato on 14 September 2018, 15:39:51
I nominate the TPz Fuchs 1A4 for a proper BT heavy wheeled APC.

(https://abload.de/img/fuchsyqc07.jpg)

Fully equipped it comes with three MGs plus a Milan mounted up top. With 10 guys in the back. It's sorta the slightly smaller brother to the Heavy Wheeled APC, MG Variant.

The more current version one can buy looks like this:

https://abload.de/img/transportpanzers-fuchtueoi.jpg

Basically adds MEXAS add-on armor, AMAP-ADS active defense system, 40mm ROSY-L and 76mm SVPS multispectral smoke grenade launchers, and a RWS for armament. Uh, and a dozer blade for when you want to use that for internal security instead of as a APC...
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 26 September 2018, 14:23:52
To this day I look at the M60A2 Starship, and think, was that really a thing?!

(https://i.postimg.cc/sxwhmpTd/9toccy3ebgo11.jpg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Fat Guy on 26 September 2018, 22:48:41
Unfortunately...
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Garrand on 26 September 2018, 23:51:56
In MERDC no less! She may have been ineffectual, but she was a sexy beast...

Damon.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 27 September 2018, 01:46:56
I think the worst thing about that tank is the earworm.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: CDAT on 27 September 2018, 18:56:52
I think the worst thing about that tank is the earworm.

Earworm?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 27 September 2018, 19:57:35
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1b8AhIsSYQ
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: marauder648 on 12 October 2018, 11:00:15
Not exactly AFV's but I couldn't find the guns thread.

How to make Bayonetting worse!

(https://66.media.tumblr.com/b21294244b0cf992d22a786300bd7e72/tumblr_p01qpe5rco1rwjpnyo1_500.jpg)

(https://66.media.tumblr.com/5bc9fe8d2878333c9d4ee44f48c9a719/tumblr_p01qpe5rco1rwjpnyo3_500.jpg)

Quote
An American invention during World War I, the flaming bayonet was an attachment to the standard American M1903 Springfield or M1917 Enfield which was placed below to the bayonet. The attachment consisted of six cartridges loaded with flammable chemicals which could fire a burst of very bright flame up to ten feet. It’s purpose was not to clear out trenches like a regular flamethrower, as it could only fire a quick burst. However it was intended to be used to distract or blind the enemy so that the user could close to within bayonet range. I can’t find much info on this weapon, however it is probably unlikely this device saw much combat, if any at all.  Apparently the device had ignition problems, added to much extra weight to the front of a rifle, and was of dubious usefulness. The flaming bayonet  project was discontinued in 1919.



Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: marauder648 on 23 October 2018, 02:59:48
https://imgur.com/gallery/SB2QGM7

*quietly head canons that this is what a AC-20's loading cycle is like just sans the bloke loading the cordite charge into the rammer.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: beachhead1985 on 27 October 2018, 17:57:28
Is that the FH-77?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: grimlock1 on 30 October 2018, 13:31:30
https://imgur.com/gallery/SB2QGM7

*quietly head canons that this is what a AC-20's loading cycle is like just sans the bloke loading the cordite charge into the rammer.
What's the dangly bit on the right?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: glitterboy2098 on 30 October 2018, 14:23:43
What's the dangly bit on the right?
i believe that is a crane assembly holding the next three shells, ready to be fed into the feed tray.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Charlie 6 on 30 October 2018, 21:14:42
i believe that is a crane assembly holding the next three shells, ready to be fed into the feed tray.
Yup, a bit curious as to where/when the fuzes are affixed as it somewhat presupposes what the next three rounds are.  Great if you are firing HE but what if you need smoke or a different fuze.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 30 October 2018, 22:49:28
Arty's not quite like a tank fight; you get told what to lay down and where and only then do you start fusing, loading, and firing.  Each fire mission, anywhere from "five rounds from one gun" to "I need the entire division celebrating July 4" is going to be told ahead of time which rounds to prepare, load, and fire.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Feenix74 on 30 October 2018, 23:03:28
Yup, a bit curious as to where/when the fuzes are affixed as it somewhat presupposes what the next three rounds are.  Great if you are firing HE but what if you need smoke or a different fuze.

As the BT forum's resident ex-USMC artillery expert, how did you guys do it?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: marauder648 on 31 October 2018, 03:06:09
He's a bit hard to spot but there's a chap in front of the shell lift on the right and he's probably the one adjusting the fuses of the rounds.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Feenix74 on 31 October 2018, 06:47:29
I think youtube clip show a better view of how it is done with the FH77. Warning - this is a 8 min 12 sec youtube clip of the Indian Army doing a demonstration firing, enjoy the giggles.

https://youtu.be/w_dWEtK94Wg (https://youtu.be/w_dWEtK94Wg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: marauder648 on 31 October 2018, 07:18:00
I think youtube clip show a better view of how it is done with the FH77. Warning - this is a 8 min 12 sec youtube clip of the Indian Army doing a demonstration firing, enjoy the giggles.

https://youtu.be/w_dWEtK94Wg (https://youtu.be/w_dWEtK94Wg)

Why are they running around like their trying to loosen pressure on their gentlemans parts O_o
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Feenix74 on 31 October 2018, 07:30:06
It is called high-stepping, just consider it their version of goose-stepping.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Charlie 6 on 01 November 2018, 06:16:14
Arty's not quite like a tank fight; you get told what to lay down and where and only then do you start fusing, loading, and firing.  Each fire mission, anywhere from "five rounds from one gun" to "I need the entire division celebrating July 4" is going to be told ahead of time which rounds to prepare, load, and fire.
As a former firing battery commander, battalion and regimental operations officer I am wrestling with my response. Please wait.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Cannonshop on 01 November 2018, 09:42:33
Arty's not quite like a tank fight; you get told what to lay down and where and only then do you start fusing, loading, and firing.  Each fire mission, anywhere from "five rounds from one gun" to "I need the entire division celebrating July 4" is going to be told ahead of time which rounds to prepare, load, and fire.

is that a long-winded way of saying artillerymen are more scholarly?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Fat Guy on 01 November 2018, 10:53:41
OK, let's get some AFVs back in the AFV thread.

(https://www.janes.com/images/assets/194/84194/p1295942_main.jpg)


The Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV) will begin low-rate initial production this month.

The Bradley based vehicle will be produced in 5 variants to replace the US Army's M113 family.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Garrand on 01 November 2018, 12:57:35
its surprising it took this long for something like this to be developed. But I guess that M113 family was "good enough" for long enough...

Now we just need a model kit of it...

Damon.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Matti on 01 November 2018, 13:03:30
its surprising it took this long for something like this to be developed. But I guess that M113 family was "good enough" for long enough...
USA had plenty of armoured troop carriers in between: Bradley, Humvee (some of them anyway), Stryker, and something called MRAP. Anything else?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 01 November 2018, 13:13:12
As a former firing battery commander, battalion and regimental operations officer I am wrestling with my response. Please wait.
I defer to your knowledge and experience; my comparison was that the artillery isn't out there looking for targets and potentially running across surprises with just what's loaded but is more of an on-call service.  And speaking purely in a perfect-world setting as well, of course.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Cannonshop on 01 November 2018, 14:17:21
OK, let's get some AFVs back in the AFV thread.

(https://www.janes.com/images/assets/194/84194/p1295942_main.jpg)


The Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV) will begin low-rate initial production this month.

The Bradley based vehicle will be produced in 5 variants to replace the US Army's M113 family.

ah, so some decades after the The Pentagon Wars (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA,) the Bradley returns to its original roots?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 01 November 2018, 15:41:31
ah, so some decades after the The Pentagon Wars (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA,) the Bradley returns to its original roots?
The Circle is at last completed.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 01 November 2018, 16:34:42

(https://www.janes.com/images/assets/194/84194/p1295942_main.jpg)

Interesting.

There will be ~1,000 medical variants, ~1,000 command post variants, ~500 APCs and ~400 mortar carriers.

Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Fat Guy on 01 November 2018, 16:45:24
Two different Medical variants.

Here's the family photo:


(https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/images/ampv-image03.jpg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: glitterboy2098 on 01 November 2018, 17:20:49
last i'd heard this vehicle family wasn't being pursued. when did they finally decide to adopt it?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: CDAT on 01 November 2018, 19:54:42
USA had plenty of armoured troop carriers in between: Bradley, Humvee (some of them anyway), Stryker, and something called MRAP. Anything else?

Just semantics but the M113 was adopted in 1960, the first of the armoured Humvee's in 1996, Stryker in 2002, MRAP (stands for Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected) class of vehicles in 2007, and the Bradley in 1980 (named Bradley in 1981) so none of them would be in between the bradley, and depending on how you look at it only the Stryker could maybe be classed as an armored troop carrier if you are using that term as in APC/MICV.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Charlie 6 on 01 November 2018, 20:05:25
I defer to your knowledge and experience; my comparison was that the artillery isn't out there looking for targets and potentially running across surprises with just what's loaded but is more of an on-call service.  And speaking purely in a perfect-world setting as well, of course.
Well, I started out thinking, "No S Sherlock," but stopped when I realized you're not wrong and someone else might not know that.  Also, I didn't have a no-kidding answer to what was happening.  Fundamentally, you're correct artillery is waiting on someone to want something killed or suppressed but there are also the times where you need to obscure, illuminate, go anti-tank, or toss out a mine field.  While not wrong it is not quite that simple (wrong word but it's been a long week so forgive me) because there are priority requirements for which you have to have ready ammunition.

Today, a colleague pointed out that I had left the battalions before electronic fuzes on multi-function devices showed up.  So that pretty much covers down fuze question.  Then I figured you could interrupt the magazine feed and go manual if you need to start doing things other than high explosive which covers down on the shell problem I implied silently to myself.  So it somewhat boils down to what exactly type of rounds you are going to go magazine fed with versus what you're willing to load manually.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 01 November 2018, 21:36:36
How close is the artillery to the logistics and resupply chain anyway? Considering its preferred placement in the field, far enough behind the front line to not be threatened by direct attack but close enough that its (formidable) gun ranges can put shells on the enemy, I'd think you'd be a lot closer to the supply side of things and a lot less concerned about what's available at hand than, for example, said tanks or infantry.  Granted, there's counterbattery fire, and EVERYONE has to worry about air attack, but I'd expect a battery to have its own resupply sites nearby and a close connection to the mainline.

Again, perfect world, at least.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Charlie 6 on 01 November 2018, 22:22:14
How close is the artillery to the logistics and resupply chain anyway? Considering its preferred placement in the field, far enough behind the front line to not be threatened by direct attack but close enough that its (formidable) gun ranges can put shells on the enemy, I'd think you'd be a lot closer to the supply side of things and a lot less concerned about what's available at hand than, for example, said tanks or infantry.  Granted, there's counterbattery fire, and EVERYONE has to worry about air attack, but I'd expect a battery to have its own resupply sites nearby and a close connection to the mainline.

Again, perfect world, at least.
Now that is an astute question as a lot of it gets into, organic capability combat trains, field trains, logistics units, distribution nodes, etc.  Years ago on these forums, I posted a picture of my battery getting resupplied at Nasiriyah in '03.  If I recall, you could see two guns (M198s) with prime movers (7-tons), their ammo trucks (also 7-tons but trailers), and the battalion combat train (of which an LVS with Mk14(?) trailer was featured).  Basically, my battery carried a basic load of ammunition (800 to 900 rounds), and so did the battalion which worked out to a three battery battalion have four batteries worth of ammunition with the last being in its combat train.  The regimental field train would likely have a similar ratio and that would increase going further back the logistics train.  Factored into that is the rate of consumption which is an average over time by activity.

If you are wondering, "aren't they guessing at this point," well honestly I've thought the same but if there is enough depth further up the log chain you end up gaining time to make up the difference.  Case in point, "we" guessed wrong at Nasiriyah and ended up loaded for a medium to long range anti-armor fight but ended up in a short ranged anti-personnel fight.  Welp, in that instance you end up shooting Rocket Assisted Projectiles with the rocket OFF with your shortest ranged propellants because shooting all of the anti-armor ammunition would be less effective.

Anyway, fun times.

Please note, I haven't even touched on your (paraphrasing), "how do I protect it question," because making it happen is the first objective.  It is at this point, I wonder if I've glazed some eyes and/or not been helpful.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 02 November 2018, 17:30:43
Quite informative actually; the details on how-to-protect generally get covered by distance from the front as well as proper screening forces I imagine.  A basic load of ammunition is even more than I'd expected it to be, and wow that is a solid logistics train right there with the battery - especially when you stack up the extra rounds at battalion level and stay together.

How much extra flammable boom does an unfired RAP booster give when the shell goes off?  Or do they separate somewhere midflight and just end up in the ground?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: kato on 02 November 2018, 18:16:07
A basic load of ammunition is even more than I'd expected it to be
For battalion level that's less than i had expected it to be.

German 105mm batteries in the Cold War (as towed artillery for rear-security (!) infantry brigades) which would have featured a similar per-time consumption rate (by rounds, not throw-weight) carried a basic load of 1000 rounds just on the gun tractor trucks.

The batallion ammunition supply squads would carry another 1000 rounds - each, at one per battery. And the basic load of the brigade that its supply company carried included about another 1000 rounds for the artillery somewhere in its mobile stocks...

Part of the reason for this is probably that supply for German units worked on the "pull" principle instead of "push" as the US Army uses. I.e. the battalion supply unit would actively retrieve ammunition from the brigade or DIV supply points once ammunition in the batteries runs low. In the US principle, you get the ammunition delivered from that level instead based on estimated consumption rate at set intervals.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Charlie 6 on 02 November 2018, 20:34:05
For battalion level that's less than i had expected it to be.

German 105mm batteries in the Cold War (as towed artillery for rear-security (!) infantry brigades) which would have featured a similar per-time consumption rate (by rounds, not throw-weight) carried a basic load of 1000 rounds just on the gun tractor trucks.

The batallion ammunition supply squads would carry another 1000 rounds - each, at one per battery. And the basic load of the brigade that its supply company carried included about another 1000 rounds for the artillery somewhere in its mobile stocks...

Part of the reason for this is probably that supply for German units worked on the "pull" principle instead of "push" as the US Army uses. I.e. the battalion supply unit would actively retrieve ammunition from the brigade or DIV supply points once ammunition in the batteries runs low. In the US principle, you get the ammunition delivered from that level instead based on estimated consumption rate at set intervals.
After 15 minutes of searching I can't find the weight of a 105mm round but since it is a semi-fixed ammunition type (meaning it has a powder canister attached) it is fairly light.  A 155mm round is nearly 100lbs.  For a sense of scale the 203mm is over 200lbs.  Both of those are separate loading (no canister with powder).  Bottom line, larger rounds and separate propellants means less total rounds carried...but the boom is ultimately bigger.
How much extra flammable boom does an unfired RAP booster give when the shell goes off?  Or do they separate somewhere midflight and just end up in the ground?
Negligible as far as I know.  There is no "separation" because a plug is removed to activate the rocket.  It is actually ignited by propellant.  When shooting RAP, I'd count how many rocket dots I could see heading down range because if you didn't see one per gun you were going to have a short round by about 10 km.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 02 November 2018, 21:25:01
So here's a question when it comes to artillery.  SPG or towed?  Which is, in your opinion, more generally useful despite the drawbacks?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 03 November 2018, 02:11:31
Recently what I'd like to hear about is mortars.

Israeli Makmat 160mm SPG mortar, on a Sherman chassis

(https://i.postimg.cc/VknxTPBk/Blog-4-makmat.jpg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Matti on 03 November 2018, 02:32:03
So here's a question when it comes to artillery.  SPG or towed?  Which is, in your opinion, more generally useful despite the drawbacks?
I'd say SPG for offense and mobile reserve, and towed for defense.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: marauder648 on 03 November 2018, 06:18:26
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/ParkPatriot2015part5-54.jpg)

The Soviet 2S4 240mm SP mortar for when you REALLY want to send someone a 'to whom it may concern' HE message.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Charlie 6 on 04 November 2018, 08:33:31
So here's a question when it comes to artillery.  SPG or towed?  Which is, in your opinion, more generally useful despite the drawbacks?
Well it depends on what you're trying to do.  For some, towed is a must have for expeditionary reasons while others facing potential invasion might go heavy SP with rapid fire capabilities to dish out massive volleys and then dodge the counter battery fires.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: PsihoKekec on 05 November 2018, 02:13:01
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/ParkPatriot2015part5-54.jpg)

The Soviet 2S4 240mm SP mortar for when you REALLY want to send someone a 'to whom it may concern' HE message.
And laser guided rounds for ''especially for you'' deliveries.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: beachhead1985 on 05 November 2018, 11:57:48
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/ParkPatriot2015part5-54.jpg)

The Soviet 2S4 240mm SP mortar for when you REALLY want to send someone a 'to whom it may concern' HE message.

I love that these exist.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: The Eagle on 06 November 2018, 20:21:32
So here's a question when it comes to artillery.  SPG or towed?  Which is, in your opinion, more generally useful despite the drawbacks?

Self-propelled, at all times.  It's just so much easier to dodge counter-battery fire.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 07 November 2018, 03:50:48
Self-propelled, at all times.  It's just so much easier to dodge counter-battery fire.



The problem with that is the weight


If you are fundamentally a light infantry force (airborne, marines, etc) then hauling 30-50 tonne tracked vehicles isn't easy to do and may limit strategic mobility to an unacceptable extent


All things are a balance but most modern towed artillery pieces can be slung beneath a helicopter and their gun tractor can too


If I've got a heavy, armour centred force then I would want self propelled artillery in the same way I would want armoured or mechanised infantry and engineers and everything else so my Force can operate together
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Feenix74 on 07 November 2018, 05:12:49
In some parts of the world, a 30-50 ton SP artillery may have limited tactical mobility.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 07 November 2018, 05:38:34
CV90 with Spike ATGM and Trophy APS
(https://i.postimg.cc/qMhD3m1Q/sZfATZq.jpg)

BMP-3 with 57mm cannon
(https://i.postimg.cc/28ZT615K/abezjpv73kw11.jpg)

Chinese 6x6 MLRS, firing 40km rockets
(https://i.postimg.cc/qgVsnG7Z/zhuhai-pa01-china-0-660x425.jpg)

And I don't know what the hell this monster is... a really, really big SPAAG?
(https://i.postimg.cc/1RNYgCCB/45002813324-4654fee178-o.jpg)

In some parts of the world, a 30-50 ton SP artillery may have limited tactical mobility.
M109s are still 30 tons right? that's not too bad.

AS-90 and the Pzh2000 though, ye gods!
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Feenix74 on 07 November 2018, 05:51:27
And I don't know what the hell this monster is... a really, really big SPAAG?

What looks like a radar at the back of the turret would lead me to agree with your SPAAG hypothesis.

M109s are still 30 tons right? that's not too bad.

But compared to a M777 that comes in at 4.2 tons . . .

And you cannot do this with a M109:

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/US_Navy_090719-N-0120A-634_An_MH-53E_Sea_Stallion_helicopter%2C_assigned_to_the_Air_Combat_Element_of_the_31st_Marine_Expeditionary_Unit%2C_embarked_aboard_the_forward-deployed_amphibious_assault_ship_USS_Essex_%28LHD_2%29_lifts_an_M77.jpg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Greatclub on 07 November 2018, 09:47:30
I'm not an expert on the topic, and readily admit I could be wrong, but he story on the Bradley I've heard is this: Pentagon Wars movie distorted things a bit.

It was never intended to be primarily an APC. It's a light tank (although it's not called that) with an infantry support mission. The infantry bay in the back is icing on the cake, like the Merkava MBT - there to reduce the force's reliance on actual APCs

SOP was to be a fair distance behind the infantry lines, supporting them from the rear. Armour was designed to be sufficient to survive artillery shrapnel.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 07 November 2018, 10:52:42
I'm not an expert on the topic, and readily admit I could be wrong, but he story on the Bradley I've heard is this: Pentagon Wars movie distorted things a bit.

It was never intended to be primarily an APC. It's a light tank (although it's not called that) with an infantry support mission. The infantry bay in the back is icing on the cake, like the Merkava MBT - there to reduce the force's reliance on actual APCs

SOP was to be a fair distance behind the infantry lines, supporting them from the rear. Armour was designed to be sufficient to survive artillery shrapnel.
"The earliest specification, from 1958, called for a vehicle of no more than 8 tons, mounting a turret with a 20 mm autocannon and a 7.62 mm machine gun, with sealed firing ports for five infantry gunners." - Michael Green & James D. Brown (2007). M2/M3 Bradley at War. St. Paul, MN: Zenith Press.

Sound like she was meant to be an Infantry Fighting Vehicle from get go.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 07 November 2018, 10:55:14
And I don't know what the hell this monster is... a really, really big SPAAG?
(https://i.postimg.cc/1RNYgCCB/45002813324-4654fee178-o.jpg)

I wasn't aware that Minecraft had tanks.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: grimlock1 on 07 November 2018, 11:42:18
I wasn't aware that Minecraft had tanks.
The first thing that went through my head was a flashback to 1988.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Matti on 07 November 2018, 13:07:20
I'm not an expert on the topic, and readily admit I could be wrong, but he story on the Bradley I've heard is this: Pentagon Wars movie distorted things a bit.

It was never intended to be primarily an APC. It's a light tank (although it's not called that) with an infantry support mission. The infantry bay in the back is icing on the cake, like the Merkava MBT - there to reduce the force's reliance on actual APCs
I thought Bradley was meant to be an American equivalent of BMP-1. And what little I have seen of Pentagon Wars, movie makes it that USA invented whole IFV concept with Bradley.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: I am Belch II on 07 November 2018, 14:42:54
I thought Bradley was meant to be an American equivalent of BMP-1. And what little I have seen of Pentagon Wars, movie makes it that USA invented whole IFV concept with Bradley.

The US and the west were very scared of the BMP-1, and Im sure the Bradley was used to compete with that design.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Sabelkatten on 07 November 2018, 15:11:57
I wasn't aware that Minecraft had tanks.
My first thought was "I want that LEGO set!". ;D

IIRC wasn't there an Italian AA proposal that looked like that? A rather heavy (76mm?) naval AA gun on a heavy truck chassis?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: glitterboy2098 on 07 November 2018, 15:12:53
the XM734 was a proposal by FMC for an IFV based off a (modified) M113. basically it was a slightly bulked up M113 that had vision slits and firing ports added to the sides so the embarked troops could fight without leaving the vehicle, as well as an unmanned 20mm turret. it was a contemporary, chronologically speaking, with the BMP-1 development. this is apparently is where pentagon Wars got the idea that the Bradley started as a simple troop-taxi.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/XM734_MICV-65_Prototype.png)


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

the XM701
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/XM701_MICV.png)

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


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

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/XM723_tank.JPEG)

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

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

so the narrative that the film uses, that the M2 Bradley was a simple battle-taxi ruined by army hubris and bad decisions, is inaccurate. rather, it was a program that was always going to generate a large turret IFV, as that was what the Army wanted. the flaws in the M2 bradley derive mostly from the fact that the army basically wanted a light tank with a troop bay, but had to compromise due to weight and budget issues.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: grimlock1 on 07 November 2018, 15:30:10
I'm not an expert on the topic, and readily admit I could be wrong, but he story on the Bradley I've heard is this: Pentagon Wars movie distorted things a bit.

I've been meaning to get a copy of the book and compare the two.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: kato on 07 November 2018, 15:36:52
IIRC wasn't there an Italian AA proposal that looked like that? A rather heavy (76mm?) naval AA gun on a heavy truck chassis?
Not on a truck chassis, the OTOMATIC used the tracked chassis of the then-current Palmaria self-propelled howitzer (based off the OF-40 MBT, which some may claim was a reverse-engineered unlicensed copy of the Leopard 1).

(https://abload.de/img/otomatic-76-62k2cy4.jpg)

The Serbian PASARS-16 runs along those lines though, with a 40mm Bofors on a FAP-2026 6x6 truck looking even more like the GI Joe package...:

(https://abload.de/img/pasarsujfb5.jpg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Liam's Ghost on 07 November 2018, 16:31:29
I'm not an expert on the topic, and readily admit I could be wrong, but he story on the Bradley I've heard is this: Pentagon Wars movie distorted things a bit.

The movie distorted things a lot.

Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: grimlock1 on 07 November 2018, 16:39:30
The Serbian PASARS-16 runs along those lines though, with a 40mm Bofors on a FAP-2026 6x6 truck looking even more like the GI Joe package...:
It was the combo of the BFG and the light blue paint.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: kato on 07 November 2018, 17:24:54
The all-blue digital camo is Chinese marines btw, even if NORINCO uses it for advertising on random stuff.

Here's some ZBD2000 in that pattern:

(https://abload.de/img/20150906033158686k1d42.jpg)

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

(https://abload.de/img/cssa-1-spaag-1snoibm.jpg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: PsihoKekec on 09 November 2018, 02:14:34
More from China.
(https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/839d39a3147cbf0925bcf3c14bec93b1ff59dab683623d16dce028064bfd4c79.png)

Fould fit into BT
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: glitterboy2098 on 09 November 2018, 02:52:55
And I don't know what the hell this monster is... a really, really big SPAAG?
(https://i.postimg.cc/1RNYgCCB/45002813324-4654fee178-o.jpg)
JRVG-1 76mm self-propelled artillery weapon system, according to this site (https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=zh-CN&u=http://m.cankaoxiaoxi.com/mil/20181108/2350345.shtml&prev=search). another site (https://jqknews.com/news/93857-It_was_thought_that_the_air_show_was_to_see_how_the_plane_met_the_king_of_land_warfare.html) (which didn't have a pic but did have a description in mostly-OK-english) had more info.

grain of salt on all of it of course. but apparently it is a 76mm artillery piece, using a standard naval artillery design, adapted to ground vehicle use and fitted with hardware so it can be used as both artillery and as an AA gun. and fitted to a custom 10 wheel chassis.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: worktroll on 09 November 2018, 14:08:21
Size matters: Merkava IV, Leopard 2A5, T-90A:

(https://i.redd.it/jzkwghqiwxqz.png)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: kato on 09 November 2018, 17:12:32
Should we point out that that Leo model has AGDUS mounted?

(AGDUS is a laser-based battlefield simulation system, part of which is the "cartridge bank" that's mounted on the forward port side consisting of 17 smoke pots to simulate effects from firing the gun)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: worktroll on 09 November 2018, 17:37:11
Doesn't make less size inside ...
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Cannonshop on 10 November 2018, 12:47:44
Doesn't make less size inside ...

in the case of teh T-90, it's the inside that makes it smaller inside, (like the T72 it's derived from, the T-90 is a whole new definition of 'cozy'...)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: grimlock1 on 11 November 2018, 13:14:45
in the case of teh T-90, it's the inside that makes it smaller inside, (like the T72 it's derived from, the T-90 is a whole new definition of 'cozy'...)
I seem to recall that the decision to go with an autoloader versus a crew member let them go with a smaller turret and even with the mass of the autoloader, it still shaved something like 3 tons off the vehicle.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Cannonshop on 11 November 2018, 14:10:29
I seem to recall that the decision to go with an autoloader versus a crew member let them go with a smaller turret and even with the mass of the autoloader, it still shaved something like 3 tons off the vehicle.

I need to dig up Nick Moran's inside-and-outside examination of a T-72.  It's an ergonomic nightmare even WITH a crew of only three.  (Crew efficiency impacts vehicle efficiency, ergonomics impacts crew efficiency.)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 12 November 2018, 01:44:48
It's not Moran's, but https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krp2y88nNCo is another of the WoT crew digging his way through a T-72. 

There's also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQTHQObsGxA this one, which shows a 360 view of both of them inside a T-55 turret. 
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: PsihoKekec on 12 November 2018, 02:17:04
Non-midgets need not apply.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 12 November 2018, 02:26:57
I'm really surprised Russia stuck with that design paradigm for so long.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Fat Guy on 12 November 2018, 10:13:04
Smaller tanks take less resources to build, so you can build more.


The Russians always believed that quantity has a quality all it's own.   ::)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 12 November 2018, 11:03:14
Smaller tanks take less resources to build, so you can build more.


The Russians always believed that quantity has a quality all it's own.   ::)
well, smaller turret also use less weight to keep the same level of armor protection....
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Fat Guy on 12 November 2018, 11:27:04
well, smaller turret also use less weight to keep the same level of armor protection....


Which combat has proven to not be anywhere close to enough.   xp
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 12 November 2018, 14:07:23
The difference in resources between a top-end T-80 and an Abrams aren't that big.  You still need a high-end powerplant, high-end transmission, the best gun you can get, composite armor shaped properly, fire control/communications/other electronics.  The most you're gonna save is a ton or two of actual steel, and while that may make you lighter and smaller it's not by far the most expensive parts of the tank. 

It IS true, relatively, that a smaller tank is going to be harder to hit at the same distance as a larger tank.  With modern guns and FCS, that margin of difficulty is mostly a joke; Rheinmetall claims an accuracy of "less than" 20cm spread at 1,000 meters for the silver bullet.  That's under 8 inches at 1000 yards, rounding off; at under 0.8 MOA an Abrams is literally carrying a 4.7 inch sniper rifle...and yes, that means at a thousand yards, it's capable of putting every round in the same hole on its target.  Size of your target is going to mean little at best, with such accuracy.

P.S. more T-72 video  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTGM1n8CYyQ  (in Russian)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 12 November 2018, 14:29:34
Wouldn't the biggest cost saver on the T-80 compared to an Abrams be using a conventional diesel engine and the corresponding boost to fuel efficiency over the that freaking turbine?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: kato on 12 November 2018, 14:37:34
... the T-80B and T-80U all use gas turbines.

Only the T-80UD series, which amounts to about 5% of all built, carries a diesel.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 12 November 2018, 14:51:45
And a 1500hp diesel powerplant small enough to fit in a tank and engineered to handle that kind of tactical power-on-demand is going to be damned expensive anyway.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: CDAT on 12 November 2018, 15:07:09
Smaller tanks take less resources to build, so you can build more.


The Russians always believed that quantity has a quality all it's own.   ::)

As I was informed years ago, the Russians/Soviets are much closer to using the ideal design then the western powers, but they then go cheap. By this I mean the rounded turret does not have the bullet traps and such, but they also do not have room for the crew to work effectively and are limiting on who can be in the crew, I spent years on the M1 at 6'2", my brother spent his 20 on them at 6'5" neither of us could have been on any T-XX. The autoloader lets you go smaller but also makes you compromise other things like the ammo being around the turret so small penetrating hits kill the tank, and not as reliable as a 18-20 year old crewman. Not to mention that you are cutting the crew by 25-50% (depending on if command tank or not) when it comes to pulling maintenance.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 12 November 2018, 15:10:15
What's odd about the interior of the T-72 is that Russian men, on average, are a half-centimeter taller than American men so it's not like 'oh they're all short, they don't need the room' or anything.  I've heard that stated before, but definitely not true.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 12 November 2018, 16:07:44
But that's the average population, right?

I'd imagine that there's a maximum height requirement for being a tanker in Russia and their population is large enough that they can recruit a sufficient number of people of the right height.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: worktroll on 12 November 2018, 16:11:50
That was the Soviet way.

Uni graduate? Strategic Rocket Forces
Short? Armour
...
...
Still here ? Infantry.

See Suvorov's "Inside the Red Army". Great read; just remember it's how the author believes things.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 12 November 2018, 17:44:50

The most you're gonna save is a ton or two of actual steel, and while that may make you lighter and smaller it's not by far the most expensive parts of the tank. 

It IS true, relatively, that a smaller tank is going to be harder to hit at the same distance as a larger tank.  With modern guns and FCS, that margin of difficulty is mostly a joke

A combat-loaded T-72 is about 45 metric tons, an M1 Abrams is about 60 tons, significant difference when it comes to mobility considerations.

And, well, the small silhouette idea was something started when FCS and gun stabilisers weren't as accurate as all that, and the Soviets put some stock into it.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 12 November 2018, 18:18:44
Fair point, though that also should point out the Abrams is a good 3 feet and change longer in the hull and I think wider as well.  I'm thinking of 'taking the turret and making it larger' only really involving that amount of extra steel since the composite front end, gun, autoloader, and the hull of the Russian tank would all stay the same.  IIRC there's also a lot more armor on the Abrams hull as well compared to the T-72, but I can't name that offhand.

And as far as the T-80 goes, granted, I'll concede the price difference between it and the Abrams is pretty significant, but I don't think it comes down to a case of 'buying 100 2 million dollar tanks or 40 5 million dollar tanks' as far as resource availability.  I could be wrong!
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 12 November 2018, 19:19:15
Fair point, though that also should point out the Abrams is a good 3 feet and change longer in the hull and I think wider as well.  I'm thinking of 'taking the turret and making it larger' only really involving that amount of extra steel since the composite front end, gun, autoloader, and the hull of the Russian tank would all stay the same.  IIRC there's also a lot more armor on the Abrams hull as well compared to the T-72, but I can't name that offhand.

And as far as the T-80 goes, granted, I'll concede the price difference between it and the Abrams is pretty significant, but I don't think it comes down to a case of 'buying 100 2 million dollar tanks or 40 5 million dollar tanks' as far as resource availability.  I could be wrong!


Turret size is really limited, as I understand it, by the turret ring size; while you can increase the bustle to counter balance a larger or longer gun a lot of the hard limits on a tank are set by the turret ring diameter. I don't know if you can increase things on the T-XX series designs much.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 12 November 2018, 19:39:18
Space for the 4th crewman and general creature comforts add up. Also yes, despite having smaller dimensions and hence requiring less volume of armour to achieve similar protection, the baseline T-64/72 has really horrible armour on any location not "front turret" - sides are about 3 times thinner than Western tanks

And even then they have to resort to slathering on the ERA blocks
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: glitterboy2098 on 12 November 2018, 23:09:23
I'm really surprised Russia stuck with that design paradigm for so long.
they already have the factories, infrastructure ,and trained workers to make them. it is easier and cheaper to do an incremental update to an existing design than to create something massively different. especially when the updates largely involve internal systems like targeting system, radios, etc, and not the hull, turret, and gun.
the T-14 Armata was their "all new build" effort to break out of the T-72 standard, and look how well that worked out for them?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 12 November 2018, 23:18:03
Canceled mass production in August, they'll run two battalions of 40 of them with 1st Guards Tank Regiment in the Moscow garrison.  Everything else is going to be upgraded T-80s and 90s, and keep about 6,000 T-72s of various mark from the smelters as reserve tanks.

It was an interesting idea, two points for effort if not the best execution.  (Having your prestige machine break down at its unveiling parade didn't look so good)  I for one like the idea of a digital cockpit with cameras and decent size screens; maybe the next-gen followon to the Abrams will go gonzo for the driver and TC and go full EOTS/HMS/HMHUD.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: truetanker on 12 November 2018, 23:27:44
I for one like the idea of a digital cockpit with cameras and decent size screens; maybe the next-gen followon to the Abrams will go gonzo for the driver and TC and go full EOTS/HMS/HMHUD.

What do you think this is, a QuadVee stuck in track mode?

I jest...

Virtual World all over again...

TT
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: beachhead1985 on 12 November 2018, 23:38:04
Canceled mass production in August, they'll run two battalions of 40 of them with 1st Guards Tank Regiment in the Moscow garrison.  Everything else is going to be upgraded T-80s and 90s, and keep about 6,000 T-72s of various mark from the smelters as reserve tanks.

It was an interesting idea, two points for effort if not the best execution.  (Having your prestige machine break down at its unveiling parade didn't look so good)  I for one like the idea of a digital cockpit with cameras and decent size screens; maybe the next-gen followon to the Abrams will go gonzo for the driver and TC and go full EOTS/HMS/HMHUD.

Old info. Another order palced for ~138 according to army recognition. https://www.armyrecognition.com/army-2018_news_russia_online_show_daily/russian_army_has_ordered_132_t-14_tanks_t-15_armata_infantry_fighting_vehicles.html
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: PsihoKekec on 13 November 2018, 02:29:23
Basically they want a low level production to keep the know-how, and then they can ramp up the production numbers when all the kinks are ironed out and they can roll out A variant.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 13 November 2018, 02:37:10
Another order, or just expanding the 100 purchase to 132?  (My info was dated August 1 2018)  If they were going to fit a third battalions, the numbers roughly crunch with spares, though how many tank BNs would Chertkovsky Regiment have in total as the armor attachment to 2nd Guards Motor-Rifle Division?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 13 November 2018, 03:20:03
It's a mix buy of IFVs and tanks.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: marauder648 on 13 November 2018, 05:27:00
Meanwhile...photo realistic Bolo!

(https://i.imgur.com/qg7vcPq.jpg)

Obviously fake but still kinda cool :D
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Elmoth on 13 November 2018, 05:32:59
Land ship?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: I am Belch II on 13 November 2018, 05:49:39
I dont know what that landship is, but I want a miniature of it.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 13 November 2018, 06:29:07
Oh hey a stealth Traction City.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 13 November 2018, 09:15:10
Meanwhile...photo realistic Bolo!


Obviously fake but still kinda cool :D
Or Homeworld: Deserts of Kharak
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Luciora on 13 November 2018, 10:48:10
Not tan enough

Or Homeworld: Deserts of Kharak
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Matti on 13 November 2018, 13:25:43
Meanwhile...photo realistic Bolo!

(https://i.imgur.com/qg7vcPq.jpg)
If that was real, how many cruise missiles could it survive?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: grimlock1 on 13 November 2018, 13:30:21
If that was real, how many cruise missiles could it survive?
Depends on if its a battleship with treads or a cruiser on tracks.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 13 November 2018, 14:09:14
Not tan enough
PFFFT you never seen some of them in players' preferred colors and symbols.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Fat Guy on 17 November 2018, 16:18:05
 The Turkish Marine Assault Vehicle (MAV). I'm wondering if it's an all new vehicle or an AAV7 with a new set of clothes?

(https://www.janes.com/images/assets/642/84642/p1723677_main.jpg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Charlie 6 on 17 November 2018, 17:16:46
Looks similar to the AAV Survivability Upgrade that was recently cancelled.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Elmoth on 17 November 2018, 17:21:03
If that was real, how many cruise missiles could it survive?
Not many. it is a vehicle, so motive criticals will take care of it real fast.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: kato on 17 November 2018, 17:27:21
I'm wondering if it's an all new vehicle or an AAV7 with a new set of clothes?
It's FNSS, so it's probably a vismodded upscaled M113 like their ACV-30...
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Matti on 17 November 2018, 18:31:13
Not many. it is a vehicle, so motive criticals will take care of it real fast.
Not a mobile structure?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 17 November 2018, 21:08:59
Not a mobile structure?

Given how much bigger it is than the tank in the picture, it has to be a mobile structure.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Sharpnel on 17 November 2018, 21:47:42
The Turkish Marine Assault Vehicle (MAV). I'm wondering if it's an all new vehicle or an AAV7 with a new set of clothes?

(https://www.janes.com/images/assets/642/84642/p1723677_main.jpg)

It looks more like it would be the latter
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: glitterboy2098 on 17 November 2018, 23:08:41
It's FNSS, so it's probably a vismodded upscaled M113 like their ACV-30...
not exactly vismod if they are actually rebuilding the hull to make it properly amphibious. but that does look like a M113's motive system under there.
https://www.janes.com/article/84642/fnss-to-show-marine-assault-vehicle-in-2019
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: hoosierhick on 02 December 2018, 10:26:18
And here we see the female tank carrying her offspring. Today, the mother willl teach the baby to hunt.

(https://i.imgur.com/IxGictu.png)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: truetanker on 02 December 2018, 17:39:00
In this photo, we see the lonely offspring trying to be stealthy on it's first solo hunt, mother is off camera prowling, watching.... and waiting.

(https://www.jaegerplatoon.net/FT17_1.jpg)

TT
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 02 December 2018, 17:56:16
What kind of tank is that?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 02 December 2018, 18:05:26
What kind of tank is that?


Renault FT-17
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Van Gogh on 03 December 2018, 16:18:26
I'm always amazed at how tiny a FT-17 is... Roughly the size of a compact car.

(Attached, the FT17 kept at the Invalides Museum in Paris. Still capable of moving on its own power IIRC)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 03 December 2018, 16:21:43
I'm always amazed at how tiny a FT-17 is... Roughly the size of a compact car.

It's barely bigger than a bloke sitting down and his mate standing up behind him.

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a8/ca/58/a8ca584ad0deca9139ce49dcd9ff7fc6.jpg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 03 December 2018, 20:17:59
Did Japan base the Type 89 off it?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 03 December 2018, 21:31:22
Did Japan base the Type 89 off it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_89_I-Go_medium_tank#History_and_development
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: glitterboy2098 on 03 December 2018, 21:42:29
It's barely bigger than a bloke sitting down and his mate standing up behind him.

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a8/ca/58/a8ca584ad0deca9139ce49dcd9ff7fc6.jpg)

Leona Ozaki approves.
(https://www.absoluteanime.com/tank_police/leona.jpg)


Did Japan base the Type 89 off it?
loosely. sorta. the Type 89 was 12 ton tank filling a similar role of the 10 ton Renault FT, but it was developed using features off both the FT and the 20 ton Vickers Medium Mk. I (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickers_Medium_Mark_I) (which btw.. sucks in WoT.)

but the US made the M1917 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1917_light_tank) as a modded copy of the Renault FT, the italians the Fiat 3000 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_3000), and the russians, after a few experiments in armament, made the T-18 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-18_tank). each included variations in suspension and armament to fit the doctrine of their military, but sadly the cutting edge they were not. the FT was a decent tank for WW1, but the nature of warfare passed them by rapidly and the design just couldn't keep up.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: truetanker on 04 December 2018, 20:56:39
Gents:

What am I looking at? I was researching the Bushmaster Autocannon and well.... this was in there!

(https://cdn8.dissolve.com/p/D378_90_150/D378_90_150_0004_600.jpg)

Color me intrigued.

TT
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: hoosierhick on 04 December 2018, 21:13:45
Gents:

What am I looking at? I was researching the Bushmaster Autocannon and well.... this was in there!

(https://cdn8.dissolve.com/p/D378_90_150/D378_90_150_0004_600.jpg)

Color me intrigued.

TT


Honest John rocket?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 05 December 2018, 01:20:04
Yeah looks like.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Sabelkatten on 05 December 2018, 05:37:52
AKA a one-shot Arrow IV with an Davey Crocket round. :)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Andy_in_Indy on 06 December 2018, 14:01:33
What am I looking at? TT


The VFW Post at 1850 S East St in Indianapolis has an Honest John out front.  Go swing by and take a look.

-Andy in Indy
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: hoosierhick on 06 December 2018, 16:38:36
I was going to ask about that!  I haven't been by there in quite a while,  but I thought that's what they had out front.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: truetanker on 06 December 2018, 19:49:19
Well color me blind... I happen to have a customer at that post that calls once in a while for pizza...

Swinging by sometime next week, got to work doubles tomorrow, 7th and 8th.

Thanks...

TT
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Wereling on 07 December 2018, 14:29:56
How about a home-built SPG?

(https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Screenshot_20181021-143206-660x424.png)

The Free Syrian Army's "Sniper Cannon", outlined here: https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2018/11/28/fsa-technicals-part-3-120mm-sniper-cannon/ (https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2018/11/28/fsa-technicals-part-3-120mm-sniper-cannon/)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Daryk on 07 December 2018, 18:21:50
How many people have to sit on the hood to keep it from flipping when it fires?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Wereling on 07 December 2018, 22:52:09
How many people have to sit on the hood to keep it from flipping when it fires?

Probably not that many. The article indicates it's a low velocity mortar shell. Sometimes homemade. Apparently for a homebuilt device it is quite accurate.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Feenix74 on 08 December 2018, 00:22:02
I love how they have gone to the trouble of painting a camo pattern the ute (aka pickup for you Americans) but leave the bright shine chrome door handles  ;D
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Luciora on 08 December 2018, 00:25:04
Guy has to pimp his ride somehow.

I love how they have gone to the trouble of painting a camo pattern the ute (aka pickup for you Americas) but leave the bright shine chrome door handles  ;D
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 08 December 2018, 03:40:08
I will no longer be satisfied until I see a camo'ed Technical with a big gun and spinnaz.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 08 December 2018, 06:30:23
I love how they have gone to the trouble of painting a camo pattern the ute (aka pickup for you Americans) but leave the bright shine chrome door handles  ;D
How else is he going to ride eternal shining and chrome to the gates of Valhalla?

V8! V8! V8!
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 08 December 2018, 08:13:16
How else is he going to ride eternal shining and chrome to the gates of Valhalla?

V8! V8! V8!
Not to mention without the handles, they can't find the truck at all!
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: beachhead1985 on 19 December 2018, 11:54:50
I will no longer be satisfied until I see a camo'ed Technical with a big gun and spinnaz.

Keep checking here: https://www.reddit.com/r/shittytechnicals/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/shittytechnicals/)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 08 January 2019, 23:36:40
Bradley with Trophy APS

So far at least 4 brigade sets of Abrams and Brads across the Army and Marines are going to be fitted with the things

(http://i.postimg.cc/P5g78trb/RADAs-CHR-on-the-Bradley-Figthing-Vehicle.png)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: grimlock1 on 10 January 2019, 12:12:52
How about a home-built SPG?

(https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Screenshot_20181021-143206-660x424.png)

The Free Syrian Army's "Sniper Cannon", outlined here: https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2018/11/28/fsa-technicals-part-3-120mm-sniper-cannon/ (https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2018/11/28/fsa-technicals-part-3-120mm-sniper-cannon/)
The gate valve style breech block is kinda interesting.  It goes back to the "how do you build something when you don't have the entire military-industrial complex to call on?"    Making the block would be 4-5 (tedious) operations on a manual milling machine. Then the slot in the tube could be 2-3 more milling operations. The last thing would be to machine the end of the tube so it could accept some kind of ring to backstop the block. Almost all this work could be speed up with some clever pre drilling.

Depending on if you are willing to remove a bit more material than strictly necessary, slot could even be done in a single operation.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Wereling on 15 January 2019, 09:59:28
Found a video of it firing:

https://i.imgur.com/oPDsYcz.gifv (https://i.imgur.com/oPDsYcz.gifv)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Garrand on 15 January 2019, 13:57:50
I can't imagine the recoil is doing anything good to the frame of that truck...

Damon.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 15 January 2019, 15:15:38
No, but they could probably take the gun out and put it into a new truck fairly easily once the damage gets bad enough.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: grimlock1 on 16 January 2019, 09:57:14
No, but they could probably take the gun out and put it into a new truck fairly easily once the damage gets bad enough.
Looks like that's already happened at least one
https://youtu.be/jDGrsi1AIl0?t=270
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Wereling on 16 January 2019, 12:07:44
Looks like that's already happened at least one
https://youtu.be/jDGrsi1AIl0?t=270

Those stabilizers on the back look like a good idea. Whoever is working on this thing is definitely still refining it.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 16 January 2019, 13:54:54
Well, you've got to figure that whoever came up with it and made it work is probably pretty clever.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Wereling on 16 January 2019, 14:06:32
I'm curious why there seems to be screening over the holes in the muzzle brake.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 16 January 2019, 14:30:16
I'm curious why there seems to be screening over the holes in the muzzle brake.
My thought: to prevent debris from entering the muzzle, inside or outside.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 21 January 2019, 23:31:42
So people are big on anti-drone AA now....

(https://i.postimg.cc/Qx6MrKh8/IMG-0521-2.jpg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: PsihoKekec on 22 January 2019, 02:01:53
It's the wave of the future, as even terrorists can cobble together attack drones now.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Wereling on 22 January 2019, 09:06:28
It's the wave of the future, as even terrorists can cobble together attack drones now.

Stingers and similar missiles seem like gross overkill against them though. Every time I see an "anti-drone" vehicle I feel like they're designed for use against full scale helicopters.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 22 January 2019, 09:39:59
This is quite a hot topic in the UK at the moment as our second biggest/busiest airport was shut down for >24 hours by drone sightings


While a cheap AAA defence might work ok against drones in most cases on a battlefield (eg a machine gun or light autocannon like the 20mm of a C-RAM), for an airport or airbase I would worry about FOD from the expended ammunition so a laser based system might be better for use in more built up areas
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: PsihoKekec on 22 January 2019, 09:55:59
There is also EW with capability to bring down the drones by overriding the ground controls, Russians had some success with this approach when defending their airbase in Syria, with the rest of drones being taken out by missiles.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Easy on 22 January 2019, 10:16:36
cleanup
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: grimlock1 on 22 January 2019, 11:39:32
Well, you've got to figure that whoever came up with it and made it work is probably pretty clever.
Depending on the machine tools to which they have access, I would go so far as to say "really frickin' smart."
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: worktroll on 22 January 2019, 15:13:39
Every time I see an "anti-drone" vehicle I feel like they're designed for use against full scale helicopters.

Thing is, there are drones

(https://target.scene7.com/is/image/Target/GUEST_80f4959e-bfb9-4c56-96d8-1632882321e8?wid=488&hei=488&fmt=pjpeg)

and drones

(https://icdn2.digitaltrends.com/image/latest-us-military-drone-features-1-625x415.jpg?ver=1)

The military is more concerned about #2, I guess. Police, #1, but their budgets aren't (yet) appealing to the arms manufacturers.

Some sort of maser half-assed EMP zapper would seem to be the logical answer - line of sight, no falling debris (other than the zorched drone), and it's unlikely that most drones could be seriously hardened.  Perhaps the Brits could resurrect their anti-crowd microwave weapon from the 1980s? ;)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 22 January 2019, 15:20:45
Don't forget the really big ones like the Piaggio Hammerhead, which is basically an executive transport aircraft turned into a giant drone.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Wereling on 22 January 2019, 15:21:50
Quote
The military is more concerned about #2, I guess. Police, #1, but their budgets aren't (yet) appealing to the arms manufacturers.

I suppose that's true, and that you're better off having too much firepower than too little. Still, I've been keeping an eye on the ones being used in places like Syria, and they look a lot more like this:

(http://debuglies.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Russian-Forces-in-Syria-Repelled-Massive-Drone-Attack-Sryrian-militants-began-using-drone.jpg)

I suppose that's what the cannon is for, but I can't help but think a smaller guided munition is in order for something like that.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Wereling on 22 January 2019, 15:23:28
Don't forget the really big ones like the Piaggio Hammerhead, which is basically an executive transport aircraft turned into a giant drone.

I don't think that thing would like ever be low enough to hit with a Stinger.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: chanman on 22 January 2019, 15:39:04
There is also EW with capability to bring down the drones by overriding the ground controls, Russians had some success with this approach when defending their airbase in Syria, with the rest of drones being taken out by missiles.

Most drones have the ability to use pre-plotted waypoints without active controls. While attacking point targets like parked aircraft would require manual control, simply buzzing through airspace would not.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Dave Talley on 22 January 2019, 17:07:43
random thought
iirc the old M79 grenade launcher had a shotgun style shell,
i wonder if you could modify a automatic grenade launcher to use them,
less issues with follow on damage, or just a belt fed 12 gauge could work
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Wereling on 22 January 2019, 17:11:15
random thought
iirc the old M79 grenade launcher had a shotgun style shell,
i wonder if you could modify a automatic grenade launcher to use them,
less issues with follow on damage, or just a belt fed 12 gauge could work

Maybe. Those rounds have a pretty low velocity though. I could see a version of the Mk 19 shell (which is a higher velocity shell IIRC) set up that way with plastic or otherwise non-metallic projectiles for drone defense over a crowd though.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 22 January 2019, 17:29:53
On the pic I posted, the thingy in back under the EO ball is a drone radar, the main sensor for the anti-drone mission. A variety of weapons are available; the autocannon, an EW scrambler somewhere, and a suicide anti-drone drone launcher somewhere else.

The Stinger can be employed too as I believe it was/will be certified for anti-drone ops but it's more for the traditional VSHORAD role which this vehicle can tackle too.

Amazing all the stuff they're throwing on the M-ATV these days.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: hoosierhick on 22 January 2019, 17:44:14
I'd be willing to be that the military is worried about things like this, too:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HESA_Ababil#Qasef-1 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HESA_Ababil#Qasef-1)  One of these was supposedly used in the last week or two to hit a military parade in Yemen.  You can see what kind of coverage it give from about 1:03 to 1:40 in this video: https://youtu.be/JOQLEoAN98o?t=63 (https://youtu.be/JOQLEoAN98o?t=63)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 22 January 2019, 17:53:47
I'd be willing to be that the military is worried about things like this, too:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HESA_Ababil#Qasef-1 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HESA_Ababil#Qasef-1)  One of these was supposedly used in the last week or two to hit a military parade in Yemen.  You can see what kind of coverage it give from about 1:03 to 1:40 in this video: https://youtu.be/JOQLEoAN98o?t=63 (https://youtu.be/JOQLEoAN98o?t=63)
Supposedly 6 KIA from that

Hard to believe at first, but think about it; crowded parade, all that shrapnel heading straight down for the tops of everyone's craniums

Then there's this - 40mm grenade with a plastic fin added, dropped from a quadcopter drone the size of most such RC toys. This particular attack killed the tank commander who was riding unbuttoned

(https://i.postimg.cc/8kF3FK0W/q-70-w-1440-url-https-timedotcom-files-wordpress-com-2017-01.jpg)

That drone is a very tiny target by military scales

(https://i.postimg.cc/6q9yP2gx/Drone-Cup-holders-2-Mitch-Utterback.jpg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Cache on 22 January 2019, 18:22:36
Stingers and similar missiles seem like gross overkill against them though. Every time I see an "anti-drone" vehicle I feel like they're designed for use against full scale helicopters.
Missiles for the big ones, cannon for the little. I would imagine a fused round or two from a small CIWS or C-RAM type system would do the job on small, slow-moving drones.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 22 January 2019, 19:55:20
Depending on the machine tools to which they have access, I would go so far as to say "really frickin' smart."

Oh, no doubt.  But I was going with clever over smart because of just how outside-the-box the thinking required to make something like that work is.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Van Gogh on 23 January 2019, 02:53:24
I'm sure someone will strap a (very) light shotgun on a small commercial quadcopter, with one or two cameras, giving birth to light fighter drones. Much like 105 years ago, when someone started dropping grenades from a Bleriot XI.
It could even be quickly efficient, with the right networking from ground-based modern senors.

... And it will be pictures for the planes thread  ;D
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Sabelkatten on 23 January 2019, 04:18:10
There are videos of people mounting (and firing) everything from handguns up to full-size MGs on commercial drones. Nut I think it will be another decade or two before it's really practical.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Feenix74 on 23 January 2019, 04:22:50
And the light fighter drones are disposable, housed and launched from a UAV blimp that loiters 24/7 in the area of operations until it is tasked to launch a light fighter drone or a ground attack drone or a heavy fighter drone :thumbsup:

(https://api.ning.com/files/6WDbjsqDTgQ12a66yix5Xy79GugRyuk9jr3XaawXu-QRokXST2Tq2PjCmB5d-bCJKvGMihSr5-hzYvZlFHLDHw__/colmainpic.png)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 23 January 2019, 04:48:18
There are videos of people mounting (and firing) everything from handguns up to full-size MGs on commercial drones. Nut I think it will be another decade or two before it's really practical.
Recoil must do wonders to accuracy and effective range...
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 23 January 2019, 04:49:57
So, how about those tanks?
(http://tank-photographs.s3-website-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/Renault-ft17-tank-saumur-ww1.jpg)
Found in Afghanistan, returned to France in 2007 and restored 90 years after it was first sent off to battle.  The first in the line towards true modern MBTs, with a proper gun mounted in a fully traversing turret with armor forward, a crew compartment, rear engine, and full tracks.  Humble beginnings.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Wereling on 23 January 2019, 07:23:47
Love the FT-17. I actually notices one on screen during the Pats @ Chiefs game this weekend because they apparently have one at a military museum in Missouri and they used it as a local background shot.

I'm always shocked how tiny they are when I see one.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 23 January 2019, 07:28:08


I'm always shocked how tiny they are when I see one.


They're tiny even compared with the Whippet light tank but things like the Panzer I and Panzer II are pretty tiny


I'm also astonished at the low horsepower of a lot of tanks up to the end of WW2 - my small car (Honda Civic) has about as many horse power!
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: marauder648 on 23 January 2019, 08:54:56
Speaking of dinky French tanks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMqbkQcDe9E
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Wereling on 23 January 2019, 09:06:53
Speaking of dinky French tanks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMqbkQcDe9E
Good show.

If we're talking about tiny armored vehicles this one is my favorite, if only for the story of Roman Orlik

(http://weaponews.com/images/2017/03/09/0b24be899a1501da06badf73791a56fa.jpg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: marauder648 on 23 January 2019, 09:30:00
Awwww! Its like someone put some armour plate and treads on one of the Walmart mobility scooters!
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Wereling on 23 January 2019, 09:43:43
Awwww! Its like someone put some armour plate and treads on one of the Walmart mobility scooters!

And Edmund Roman Orilk killed 10 Panzers with one. Admittedly mostly Panzer 35(t)s, but still...
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: marauder648 on 23 January 2019, 09:48:01
Bitey walmart scooters! Crewed by an amazingly brave (and lucky) crew!
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Wereling on 23 January 2019, 10:06:27
Bitey walmart scooters! Crewed by an amazingly brave (and lucky) crew!

And skilled. The Poles were actually pretty good at anti-armor operations.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: marauder648 on 23 January 2019, 10:08:08
oh aye, considering what hit them they fought very well.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 23 January 2019, 13:00:21
I think it's half the size of my car.  And I don't have a big car.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Dies Irae on 26 January 2019, 00:53:28
(http://i.imgur.com/r7bmey9.jpg)

Judging by the design of the German Wiesal (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJpxmmzZFag), the tankette concept never left us.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 26 January 2019, 01:39:43
The Wiesal is the last such vehicle that was built though (unless there are other vehicles that were built in response to it).
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 26 January 2019, 02:24:50
Russian T-14 vs T-90

I think that rack next to the Armata's RWS is an anti-top-attack APS - or is it chaff grenades?

(https://i.postimg.cc/28vHRBJw/Dxxv-Jmb-X4-AMARLa.jpg)

The Wiesal is the last such vehicle that was built though (unless there are other vehicles that were built in response to it).
Something 7.62mm proof that can be carried two to a CH-53? None.

The nearest analogue would be those stripped-down jeeps or ATVs which do have that transportability and carry missile launchers, MGs or 40mm AGLs. But they're not armoured.

Singapore Spider LSV
(https://i.postimg.cc/q7rxdbnB/3217162850-1082593450-o.jpg)

USMC Growler LSV
(https://i.postimg.cc/XJ7KrrQT/growler-m1161-lsv.jpg)

US Army Chenowth LSV, I think now retired
(https://i.postimg.cc/Dwr15rN9/chenowth-chenowth-advanced-light-strike-vehicle-flag-machine.jpg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 26 January 2019, 02:41:36
They're also not tracked, either.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Daryk on 26 January 2019, 09:40:06
Looks like the mortar carrier Wiesel can be done with fractional accounting... :)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: kato on 26 January 2019, 09:57:25
No need for fractional accounting, it's a small vehicle at 4780 kg and therefore runs on a kg- instead of ton-based calculation.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Daryk on 26 January 2019, 10:01:26
I prefer to use combat vehicle rules, and fractional accounting at 5 tons can fit a Mech Mortar-1...
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Sharpnel on 26 January 2019, 12:58:09
Why are support vehicles using Mech Mortars, just use the heavy mortar from the infantry weapons set.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Daryk on 26 January 2019, 13:09:33
At 5 tons, you're a combat vehicle, and the Mech Mortar has much better range and damage.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: glitterboy2098 on 26 January 2019, 13:20:21
Russian T-14 vs T-90

I think that rack next to the Armata's RWS is an anti-top-attack APS - or is it chaff grenades?
according to what i've found (which i'll admit is probably highly speculative even on the better sites) it would probably be part of the NII Stali Upper Hemisphere Protection Complex, which includes the two vertical and two horizontal steerable box launchers. apparently they are a "soft kill" system according to what little has been released. presumably smoke/chaff/flare/how-ever-you-do-it.
supposedly the larger tubes at the base of the turret are hard kill APS mounts, but there is some debate whether that is true (could just be smoke tubes and russia is hyping them up otherwise to make the vehicle seem more advanced)

nextbigfuture had this diagram made up.. grain of salt for a lot of it, i'm sure.
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ShEBi7leibc/VVzfufL2vrI/AAAAAAAA-Pw/YKpyiPhTI1g/s1600/RussiaT14tank.jpg)

and the APC model:
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-wOrKq-eTze0/VVzfyzC_11I/AAAAAAAA-P4/xhaIzyC_D1I/s1600/RussiaT15IFV.jpg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: marauder648 on 26 January 2019, 13:51:47
(https://66.media.tumblr.com/af254ea382a9a1aeb1b5563ee3040461/tumblr_plldrj3FOl1r94kvzo1_1280.jpg)

Past and present, a St Charmond tank escorting a much more modern Leclerc.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Daryk on 26 January 2019, 14:07:03
Was that an actual camo pattern they used?  It looks awfully bright...
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: kato on 26 January 2019, 14:42:11
Yes, that is the original camo pattern. Although i doubt they painted it the way they did back then.

(https://abload.de/img/st-chamond-tank-camoucvk99.jpg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Daryk on 26 January 2019, 14:50:08
Yeah, I think the modern version just picked a brighter shade of yellow, judging by the contrast in the older picture.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Matti on 26 January 2019, 17:41:13
(https://66.media.tumblr.com/af254ea382a9a1aeb1b5563ee3040461/tumblr_plldrj3FOl1r94kvzo1_1280.jpg)

Past and present, a St Charmond tank escorting a much more modern Leclerc.
Tank? Not assault gun?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Sabelkatten on 26 January 2019, 17:57:23
Arguably all the first tanks were assault guns.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 26 January 2019, 18:00:34
It was from before the concept of tanks as turreted, tracked armored vehicles was codified.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 26 January 2019, 22:13:05
These early tanks were meant to break through of a sort, but they were too big and too slow to exploit the breakthrough so you had something like FT-17 Renault to exploit the breakthrough made by the big tanks.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Wereling on 26 January 2019, 23:26:13
These early tanks were meant to break through of a sort, but they were too big and too slow to exploit the breakthrough so you had something like FT-17 Renault to exploit the breakthrough made by the big tanks.

As I understand it that's more true for the Whippet than the FT-17. For one, the FT-17 didn't have the ability to cross a full-width trench.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 27 January 2019, 02:30:18
With the fascines carried by the Mk IVs, and whatever infantry digging in filler you can, it wouldn't take long to make an obstacle passable for your Renaults.  Certainly some could be across trenches and moving into an enemy's backfield before they could get informed of the breakthrough and ready defenders.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: marauder648 on 27 January 2019, 04:23:32
by modern parlance the St Charmond could be called an assault gun, but that term didn't exist back in 1916 so it was a tank.  The FT-17 though was really the great grandfather of all modern tanks as it got the layout correct, with a driver in the front and a turret in the middle with an engine at the back.  Whilst the Mark I's got the ball rolling the FT-17 is the real genesis of modern tank layout.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPkMn158Fwo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tb6OYZERMh4
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 27 January 2019, 05:03:49
The difference between an "assault gun" and a "tank" is debatable anyway

Which would a Stridsvagn 103 be?

(https://defenceoftherealm.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/strv-103b-2.jpg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 27 January 2019, 06:05:35
Typically an assault gun, though that's not what the Swedes called it.  They said it's a tank, so presto, it's a tank.

It's like trying to call modern warships battleships or cruisers or destroyers or frigates; it's an old classification system (that works just fine) but design and build paradigms changed dramatically.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Ruger on 27 January 2019, 06:38:07
by modern parlance the St Charmond could be called an assault gun, but that term didn't exist back in 1916 so it was a tank.  The FT-17 though was really the great grandfather of all modern tanks as it got the layout correct, with a driver in the front and a turret in the middle with an engine at the back.  Whilst the Mark I's got the ball rolling the FT-17 is the real genesis of modern tank layout.

Of course, not all modern MBT's have the engine in the back...reference the Merkava...

Ruger
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Sharpnel on 27 January 2019, 07:54:35
That's because the Israelis needed/wanted to put a squad of infantry in the back
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Sabelkatten on 27 January 2019, 08:02:33
AFAIK it was about survivability. The infantry capability only came about because somebody realized the entry door in the back was large enough to pass a soldier, and there was enough space inside for a couple of grunts.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 27 January 2019, 09:20:17
As I understand it that's more true for the Whippet than the FT-17. For one, the FT-17 didn't have the ability to cross a full-width trench.
https://youtu.be/WC0fK9OaS3E
the Tail on the back is for that reason, Wereling. It help the FT-17 to cross trenches.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: marauder648 on 27 January 2019, 09:41:06
Aye with the Merkava it was more about survivability, you put the engine and the power pack between anything sharp and very fast moving or explosive and it might help the tank survive, sure its a mobility kill but when you've only got a limited number of tankers, they are harder to replace than a tank itself.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Matti on 27 January 2019, 11:24:13
Aye with the Merkava it was more about survivability, you put the engine and the power pack between anything sharp and very fast moving or explosive and it might help the tank survive, sure its a mobility kill but when you've only got a limited number of tankers, they are harder to replace than a tank itself.
I have read Israel has mission killed enemy tanks with 40 mm autocannons of Duster SPAAG: enemy crews panicked and jumped out of the tanks as 40 mm knocked on armour. I make a guess Israel has got vast reserve of tanks to replace losses, even if many of those aren't Israel's own Merkavas.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: marauder648 on 27 January 2019, 11:55:36
Not really vast reserves and thats kind of the reason for the Merkava's big focus on survivability.  The tank crews are hard to replace, very skilled professionals who have had a lot of money invested in them.  If they loose a tank but the crew survives, its not a major loss. The tank can be replaced far quicker than a competent crew.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Matti on 27 January 2019, 13:24:39
Not really vast reserves and thats kind of the reason for the Merkava's big focus on survivability.
Huh? So what has Israel done with captured & salvaged enemy tanks? Smelted them to build Merkavas?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: I am Belch II on 27 January 2019, 13:29:17
The S-Tank, I've  always called it a Armored Fighting Vehicle. Its not a tank...its a mobile gun. Its like a Hetzer or a Stug.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Van Gogh on 27 January 2019, 13:29:39
Huh? So what has Israel done with captured & salvaged enemy tanks? Smelted them to build Merkavas?
They re-gunned them and distributed them to armored brigades. See Tirdan -5 and Tirdan-6, apparently not bad tanks in the 70's and early 80's.


by modern parlance the St Charmond could be called an assault gun, but that term didn't exist back in 1916 so it was a tank.  The FT-17 though was really the great grandfather of all modern tanks as it got the layout correct, with a driver in the front and a turret in the middle with an engine at the back.  Whilst the Mark I's got the ball rolling the FT-17 is the real genesis of modern tank layout.
At the beginning tanks were 'males' or 'females' depending on the main armement (machinegun or canon ?). Classification changed when engineers discovered the concept of 'coaxial machinegun'  ;)
Classification again changed with the apparition of the MBT. Perhaps it is time to change again and let go old names?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: PsihoKekec on 27 January 2019, 13:32:35
Before Merkavas went into full production they kept number of modernized captured tanks in reserve. Afterwards the T-62 were scrapped while some T-55 were converted to Ahzarit heavy APC.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 27 January 2019, 14:25:29
Also it's not like the Israelis have only a few crews and a bunch of tanks for them to jump out of and run back to get in and drive to the front.  They mobilize all they can handle, Merkavas or Sabras or whatever; the point the Israelis consider is that their total population is less than 9 million and individual lives are very important culturally.  So like the Americans, they do a lot to protect their troops, tankers or infantry or whatever.  The idea of protecting the crew comes from that point of view, not "they can come back in a new tank" or anything.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Sabelkatten on 27 January 2019, 15:26:32
The S-Tank, I've  always called it a Armored Fighting Vehicle. Its not a tank...its a mobile gun. Its like a Hetzer or a Stug.
They were used as normal MBTs. Remember, it's a pretty old design. Up until the 80's firing on the run was still pretty much "spray and pray", so the 103 was only marginally slower than competing tanks when it came to successfully engaging targets. And its low profile meant that had a good chance of spotting (and thus engaging) the enemy first.

Of course once the really modern tanks with modern stabilization became common it was dead in a maneuver fight, and its 105mm gun was too light in a world of 120mm and 125mm guns anyway.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: lrose on 27 January 2019, 21:42:49
Aye with the Merkava it was more about survivability, you put the engine and the power pack between anything sharp and very fast moving or explosive and it might help the tank survive,

By placing the engine in the front they could add the rear hatch which was intended to be used as a escape hatch so they could bail out from a disabled tank with out being exposed to enemy fire.

Also the space used to carry troops is normally used to carry ammo for the main gun. Carrying troops greatly reduces the amount of ammo.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 27 January 2019, 21:54:03
Having that rear hatch would make loading a LOT faster than typical up-and-over through the turret hatches.  Save a few minutes (and some fatigue) per each tank crew, it adds up over a battalion or brigade.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: truetanker on 27 January 2019, 22:11:11
Wished the Merkava was in the game of Merc:2000 and Twilight:2000...

Wonder what it's game stats would have been...

TT
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: I am Belch II on 28 January 2019, 08:20:08
Wished the Merkava was in the game of Merc:2000 and Twilight:2000...

Wonder what it's game stats would have been...

TT

Big gun like the M1A1 with more armor and maybe that 60mm motor.
I thought  the Merkava have the ability to carry passengers like up to 4??
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Wereling on 28 January 2019, 09:21:44
Big gun like the M1A1 with more armor and maybe that 60mm motor.
I thought  the Merkava have the ability to carry passengers like up to 4??
As many as 6 according to Wikipedia.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: grimlock1 on 28 January 2019, 11:42:41
according to what i've found (which i'll admit is probably highly speculative even on the better sites) it would probably be part of the NII Stali Upper Hemisphere Protection Complex, which includes the two vertical and two horizontal steerable box launchers. apparently they are a "soft kill" system according to what little has been released. presumably smoke/chaff/flare/how-ever-you-do-it.
supposedly the larger tubes at the base of the turret are hard kill APS mounts, but there is some debate whether that is true (could just be smoke tubes and russia is hyping them up otherwise to make the vehicle seem more advanced)

nextbigfuture had this diagram made up.. grain of salt for a lot of it, i'm sure.
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ShEBi7leibc/VVzfufL2vrI/AAAAAAAA-Pw/YKpyiPhTI1g/s1600/RussiaT14tank.jpg)

and the APC model:
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-wOrKq-eTze0/VVzfyzC_11I/AAAAAAAA-P4/xhaIzyC_D1I/s1600/RussiaT15IFV.jpg)

Met sensor?  Meteorological sensor?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: I am Belch II on 28 January 2019, 12:13:20
Marian Hegemony light armor cav.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Fat Guy on 28 January 2019, 12:30:50
(http://img.memecdn.com/delivering-tanks-in-russia_o_5894087.jpg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: kato on 28 January 2019, 12:32:28
Met sensor?  Meteorological sensor?
Yes. To be exact it's a crosswind sensor for the ballistic computer. Pretty much standard in any tank since the mid 70s, basically introduced globally in parallel to laser rangefinders on tanks.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: marauder648 on 28 January 2019, 13:57:21
There's a huge series of military gifs of all types here

https://imgur.com/user/hw97karbine
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 28 January 2019, 14:01:19
Just been to a branch of the Royal Armouries museum at Fort Nelson just outside Portsmouth


Here's a link to the photos on Facebook (no, you don't need a Facebook account to look at them)


https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10156790903125874&type=1&l=37851e3263
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: lrose on 28 January 2019, 17:49:22
Having that rear hatch would make loading a LOT faster than typical up-and-over through the turret hatches.  Save a few minutes (and some fatigue) per each tank crew, it adds up over a battalion or brigade.

From what I understand the biggest advantage is that it only takes two crewmen to load the ammo allowing the other crewmen to work on other tasks.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: grimlock1 on 29 January 2019, 11:22:22
Also it's not like the Israelis have only a few crews and a bunch of tanks for them to jump out of and run back to get in and drive to the front.  They mobilize all they can handle, Merkavas or Sabras or whatever; the point the Israelis consider is that their total population is less than 9 million and individual lives are very important culturally.  So like the Americans, they do a lot to protect their troops, tankers or infantry or whatever.  The idea of protecting the crew comes from that point of view, not "they can come back in a new tank" or anything.

Isn't the crew compartment on the Merkova also free of oils and greases to reduce the risk of fire?  As I ask the question, I have to wonder how you could do that and still keep things sliding properly... Graphite or silicone base lubricants?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 29 January 2019, 11:33:16
Isn't the crew compartment on the Merkova also free of oils and greases to reduce the risk of fire?  As I ask the question, I have to wonder how you could do that and still keep things sliding properly... Graphite or silicone base lubricants?


Fairly sure silicon based (silicone is the stuff in breast implants) and am certain graphite would burn


I would guess they avoid having pipework for things like flammable hydraulics able to spray into the crew areas
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Istal_Devalis on 29 January 2019, 13:49:57
(https://defenceoftherealm.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/strv-103b-2.jpg)
Tank destroyer. Assault guns are meant to engage fortifications and dug in positions in direct support of Infantry. The S-Tank is meant as an Anti-tank unit.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: chanman on 29 January 2019, 14:15:00
Tank destroyer. Assault guns are meant to engage fortifications and dug in positions in direct support of Infantry. The S-Tank is meant as an Anti-tank unit.

Yeah, I agree. Conceptually, I don't know if it differs that much from the SU-85/100 or the Elefant/Ferdinand/Jagdpanther, all of which were attempts to get more protection and heavier AT guns onto a smaller chassis. Certainly, assault guns would be served by guns that fired slower rounds with better HE capacity.

As far as I can tell, the main advancements for the S-tank are to move the gun way into the hull and adding an autoloader to reduce overall length. Well, and it being called the S-tank because it didn't have a catchy name of its own.

No one called the Kanonenjagdpanzer a tank as far as I know
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d2/Kanonenjagdpanzer_Munster_2.jpg/1024px-Kanonenjagdpanzer_Munster_2.jpg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Matti on 29 January 2019, 14:30:05
Something that came to my mind: if St Charmond is a tank, why S-Tank wouldn't be? Likewise M10 isn't necessarily a tank destroyer if it isn't assigned for that combat role. Or whatever Nicholas Moran said...
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 29 January 2019, 14:45:05
Basically the difference is that the St Charmond was grandfathered in.  The distinction between tanks, tank destroyers, and SPG wasn't codified until later.  As was already stated earlier, none of the original "tanks" would actually count as tanks based on the modern usage of the word.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Matti on 29 January 2019, 15:32:31
Here we go (https://youtu.be/7ho8TU_JpoI?t=437)

Quote
A tank destroyer is not a piece of hardware per se. It is a mode of use.
Can't same apply to tanks regardless of whether main armament is on rotating turret or not?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Sabelkatten on 29 January 2019, 15:49:32
"Tank" today is really a shorthand for "Main battle tank", and any AFV intended to be used that way (typically, mobile offensive warfare) can arguably be called a tank.

In using that definition, the 103 is a tank. AFVs like the Hetzer and the SU-85 were intended to be used against fixed positions (assault guns) or in fixed (defensive) positions (tank destroyers), thought during WWII they sometimes ended up being used as tanks anyway.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 30 January 2019, 00:03:50
"Tank" today is really a shorthand for "Main battle tank", and any AFV intended to be used that way (typically, mobile offensive warfare) can arguably be called a tank.

In using that definition, the 103 is a tank. AFVs like the Hetzer and the SU-85 were intended to be used against fixed positions (assault guns) or in fixed (defensive) positions (tank destroyers), thought during WWII they sometimes ended up being used as tanks anyway.
Good one.

Then there's the Sturmgeschutz III. Used as an assault gun and infantry support tank, but armed and armoured just like any other tank. Initially classed as an assault gun simply because it wasn't organised with the Panzer Corps, but often filled the tank role as the war carried on. Eventually became one of the Wehrmacht's most prolific tanks. A tank in all but name really.

(https://i.postimg.cc/HxH8b1sF/1528407681-14286478567-a9391f68f2-b.jpg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 30 January 2019, 00:29:34
StuG IIIs were the most produced vehicle they had, certainly.  Supposedly they had the best kill ratio for the wehrmacht, and the 75mm was a good gun.  It's one of the few German panzers I actually like, admittedly, and I can't say the thing isn't humble and effective in its role.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 30 January 2019, 03:17:33
Actually, I think the Jagdtiger and Elefant beat the Stug III's kill ratio, but that was because they were rare, had frontal armor that was impenetrable to Allied anti-tank weaponry, and generally got taken out by infantry or mechanical failure.  At least I've heard that claimed a few places.  In terms of overall effectiveness, though, the Stug was superior by an extremely large margin.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 30 January 2019, 04:30:14
On the topic of casemates...there's something you don't see every day.

(http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Chieftain-tank-spg.jpg)

(http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/cheiftain-spg-side-view.jpg)

It's a Jagdchieftain!
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: kato on 30 January 2019, 13:13:00
Then there's the Sturmgeschutz III. Used as an assault gun and infantry support tank, but armed and armoured just like any other tank.
The original StuG III (versions A to E) used the 75mm StuK 37 L/24, same as on the Pz IV and not really considered a tank gun - but an infantry support gun.

With later versions from 1942 on they split the role that the StuG III and Pz IV had with new variants, creating a dedicated anti-tank version with the 75mm StuK 40 L/48 (twice as long barrel) and a dedicated infantry support assault gun with a 105mm StuH 42 (a converted artillery gun).

Armor on the StuG III was the same as on the Pz III because it was the same chassis and effectively production of the chassis was directly switched entirely over from the then outdated Pz III to StuG III around late 1942. Concurrently produced actual tanks - except for the Pz IV H (which was basically the "turreted tank version" of the Pz III by armor and armament) - all had much better protection.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Istal_Devalis on 30 January 2019, 14:12:44
Here we go (https://youtu.be/7ho8TU_JpoI?t=437)
Can't same apply to tanks regardless of whether main armament is on rotating turret or not?
Depends? Tank Destroyers are called that because their primary role was to kill tanks, usually in a defensive role. Tanks were offensive units, and meant to kill anything in their way. (Someone's bound to bring up Infantry Tanks but...well, that's a specialised role on top of things.)

The S-tank, from all I've read, was always meant to be a defensive AT vehicle as its primary function, so I have qualms with calling it an actual tank, no matter how Sweden considers it.

Now, what a vehicle was used for, and what they were designed for are two separate issues. One of the reasons we dont really design specially purposed vehicles like this anymore is because, in practically, the people using it in the field didn't really care. If you have a hardened position at point X, and a tank destroyer right next to you, they're going to send in the tank destroyer, even if it's not an optimal platform for the job. So why design something so hyperspecialised when you can just make a better general purpose vehicle...and that's the tank.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 30 January 2019, 15:11:07
The original StuG III (versions A to E) used the 75mm StuK 37 L/24, same as on the Pz IV and not really considered a tank gun - but an infantry support gun.

With later versions from 1942 on they split the role that the StuG III and Pz IV had with new variants, creating a dedicated anti-tank version with the 75mm StuK 40 L/48 (twice as long barrel) and a dedicated infantry support assault gun with a 105mm StuH 42 (a converted artillery gun).

Yes, but the infantry support gun was still quite an effective tank-killer for its time, and later on even more so.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: kato on 30 January 2019, 16:15:15
The 75mm KwK/StuK 37 L/24 ?

Not really. It relied virtually entirely on HEAT for anti-tank effect fired at low velocities and was pretty inaccurate firing them too beyond low ranges. Up till halfway into the war the performance of these HEAT shells was also pretty lackluster (as in you could've barely scratched a T-34 with them).
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 30 January 2019, 16:39:20
There's a reason there are stories of lone KV-1s and Char B1-bis taking on entire companies of Panzers and winning in the early war.  Germany just didn't have a good anti-tank gun until they developed the Kwk 40 7.5 cm.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Smegish on 30 January 2019, 17:48:15
Good anti-tank gun in a tank anyway. 88s did a number on just about everything for the duration of the war
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 30 January 2019, 20:21:03
That was an anti-aircraft gun that was pressed into service as an anti-tank gun due to the fact that nothing else the Germans had in Africa was able to penetrate the frontal armor of a Matilda.  It was only after they realized how good it was at taking out tanks that a modified version that was a dedicated anti-tank gun was built.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 30 January 2019, 21:51:31
That was an anti-aircraft gun that was pressed into service as an anti-tank gun due to the fact that nothing else the Germans had in Africa was able to penetrate the frontal armor of a Matilda.  It was only after they realized how good it was at taking out tanks that a modified version that was a dedicated anti-tank gun was built.
Who knew a high velocity made for excellent penetration power? :D
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 31 January 2019, 00:18:02
The 75mm KwK/StuK 37 L/24 ?

Not really. It relied virtually entirely on HEAT for anti-tank effect fired at low velocities and was pretty inaccurate firing them too beyond low ranges. Up till halfway into the war the performance of these HEAT shells was also pretty lackluster (as in you could've barely scratched a T-34 with them).
Well, T-34 and KV-1 excepted, but nothing in the German army could deal with them anyway.

Against the lighter tanks of the early war it was fine.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Matti on 31 January 2019, 00:45:27
Who knew a high velocity made for excellent penetration power? :D
Americans. They considered using 57 millimeter gun to replace 75 mm ones. Then they realized that 57's shell velocity drops more rapidly and isn't fast enough for efficient penetration at ranges over 500 yards.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 31 January 2019, 01:56:36
That's because 57mm guns were being used by the Soviets as a replacement for their 76mm guns, because the Soviet 76mm was a fairly terrible gun.  And the Germans were using a 50mm gun at the time as well.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 31 January 2019, 02:08:06
That's because 57mm guns were being used by the Soviets as a replacement for their 76mm guns, because the Soviet 76mm was a fairly terrible gun.  And the Germans were using a 50mm gun at the time as well.
Said 57mm gun aka the Ordnance QF 6 pounder was practically the only effective anti-tank gun the Soviets had, and one of the most numerous items sent under Lend-Lease.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 31 January 2019, 02:36:12
Yup.  So the Americans actually had battlefield data showing that a 57mm gun was effective, since the Germans weren't fielding anything with terribly thick armor at the time.  They went with the 75mm because it had a good HE round, which the 57mm unsurprisingly lacked, something they wanted for supporting infantry and taking out enemy fortifications.  Then Germany started upgrading the armor on the Panzer IV and fielding Tigers and other more heavily armored vehicles, and the small guns like the 57mm became obsolete.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 31 January 2019, 07:06:55
Apparently the US didn't have any other 57mm rounds besides AP though the Brits had HE and (limited quantities of) canister. Plus probably by that time they figured theyd want something bigger.

I think 57mm APC could punch through even up-armoured Panzer IVs, but I'm not sure. Anyway the Brits were already moving on to the 17pdr by the time the Panthers started coming out.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: CDAT on 31 January 2019, 09:47:54
Apparently the US didn't have any other 57mm rounds besides AP though the Brits had HE and (limited quantities of) canister. Plus probably by that time they figured theyd want something bigger.

I think 57mm APC could punch through even up-armoured Panzer IVs, but I'm not sure. Anyway the Brits were already moving on to the 17pdr by the time the Panthers started coming out.

According to what I can find the best 57mm round the US had at 1000 meters could penetrate up to 91mm, the best the Pazer IV had was 80mm, and even the Panther had some spots on the front that were 80mm or less.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 31 January 2019, 10:51:32
There's a reason there are stories of lone KV-1s and Char B1-bis taking on entire companies of Panzers and winning in the early war.  Germany just didn't have a good anti-tank gun until they developed the Kwk 40 7.5 cm.


Most of those Panzers were probably, certainly in France, Panzer Mk1 and Mk2s


Driving home today, I passed by the sole Elefant on the back of a low-loader heading back to the USA from Bovington. As you do.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Matti on 31 January 2019, 12:31:50
That's because 57mm guns were being used by the Soviets as a replacement for their 76mm guns, because the Soviet 76mm was a fairly terrible gun.  And the Germans were using a 50mm gun at the time as well.
Soviet Union had great many different 76(,2) mm guns. Some were infantry guns, others were anti-tank guns, some were short (compare to Germany's short 75), and others were long (compare to Germany's long 75). With that said, not all of them were terrible, and T-34 & KV-1 with long 76,2 mm kicked serious ass.

[edit]
I recall reading from somewhere that Soviet long 76,2 mm ATG was so good that Germany used captured ones to arm their tank destroyers against T-34.

[edit2]
Oops! It's not ATG but something called divisional gun (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/76_mm_divisional_gun_M1936_(F-22)). And yes, Germany used captured ones in their tank destroyers, like Marder III.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 31 January 2019, 12:48:18
The 76.2mm gun the Soviets used kicked ass against Panzer IIs and Panzer IIIs.  Germans used captured 76.2mm guns early in the war when they'd been using 37mm and 50mm guns, but after the Pak 40 gained wide deployment they kept using the 76.2 guns only because they had them and any AT gun is better than no AT gun.  Once German vehicles started gaining more armor its stopping power dramatically decreased and the Soviets upgraded to using 85mm guns and a 122mm on the IS-2.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: kato on 31 January 2019, 13:23:41
The Soviet 76mm guns were actually reworked before they were used in German AT vehicles - basically to increase commonality in production and to improve performance (because it wasn't all that great) they simply put the shells on the cases of the German 75mm PaK 40 which was considered equivalent, and slightly lengthened the chamber of the 76mm F-22 field guns to accept these. The Soviets had previously similarly adapted the gun to fire Model 1900 cartridges left over from earlier 76mm gun models.

The reason why Germany adopted this was mostly that they captured literally half of the 76mm F-22 ever produced, and that converting them was a whole lot cheaper than building more 75mm PaK 40. They performed about equally (slightly lower penetration, heavier weight).
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Garrand on 31 January 2019, 13:29:41
The Soviet F-34 76.2mm cannon was only an L/40, & had performance similar to the US M3 75mm cannon in the Sherman. The Soviet gun gets a better rep because they were in-use as early as 1941, whereas the Sherman or Lee/Grant didn't get into combat until late '42 (with the British). Also the Soviet gun had an APCR round that was really "hot" but only at shorter ranges (IIRC performance at 500m was worse than a normal APC round), whereas the US gun never had one developed for it.

Both the Sherman & the T-34/76 did perfectly well against panzers when they only had up to 50mm frontal armor. But once you started deploying Panzer IVs with 80mm frontal armor, or Panthers with 120mm (not to mention Tigers), both tanks are going to have to use "tactics" to achieve kills. In addition, the US 76.2mm M1A1 cannon had better AP or similar performance per the information I've seen as compared to the 85mm D-5 cannon (in Korea, the M4A3E8 was mostly comparable to the T-34/85 IMHO). The biggest problem I've seen with Soviet guns is poorer performing ammunition... If they had access to ammo the quality the Germans had, they might have had a bit better performance from their weapons.

Damon.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: CDAT on 31 January 2019, 21:17:07
....
Both the Sherman & the T-34/76 did perfectly well against panzers when they only had up to 50mm frontal armor. But once you started deploying Panzer IVs with 80mm frontal armor, or Panthers with 120mm (not to mention Tigers), both tanks are going to have to use "tactics" to achieve kills. In addition, the US 76.2mm M1A1 cannon had better AP or similar performance per the information I've seen as compared to the 85mm D-5 cannon (in Korea, the M4A3E8 was mostly comparable to the T-34/85 IMHO). The biggest problem I've seen with Soviet guns is poorer performing ammunition... If they had access to ammo the quality the Germans had, they might have had a bit better performance from their weapons.

Damon.
The Sherman gets a bad rep, that is not deserved and actual figures show it to be mostly Hollywood. Below are stats that I have been collecting and refining as I find more information. There are lots of urban myths about the Sherman that like I said mostly come from Hollywood, for example that it took five Sherman's to kill a Panther, not true once we got an gun with a decent AT round . Now when we sent Sherman's out we sent them in platoons of five tanks but it does not take five to one odds to kill a Panther. For example in the movie Fury when the tanks are driving down the road and attacked at close range by the German's starting at the rear tank, Fury an M4A3E8 should have been able to kill it from where it was, with out having to close, it did not need to get to the side/rear to get a killing shot, but that did not tell the story they wanted. (Still a good movie and I suggest you see it if you have not even with the Hollywood story telling.)

Just some clarification on the states below the length is tank body - to gun muzzle when over the front. The numbers after the Tiger in [] are for the longer 88mm on the Tiger II, as the Tiger kind of has a short barrel as far as lots of German tanks go, making the longer 75 on the Panther better at most distances. I also have not been able to find any penetrations for any German gun at 1750 meters. 

Unit         Sherman (75)         Sherman (76)                         Panther                   Tiger
Weight      35.5 Tons            37.1 Tons                               45.5 Tons                  62.8 Tons
Length      20’7”-24’8”          19’3”-24’8”                              21’11.5”-29’1”            20’9”-27’9”
Width      8’9.5”                     9’9”                                        11’3”                           12’3”
Height      9’3”                       9’8”                                       10’2”                           10’4”
Crew         5                         5                                             5                                 5
Turret Armor   Front/Side/Top
87.9mm/50.8mm/25.4mm   88.9mm/63.5mm/25.4mm   110mm/45mm/16mm   120mm/80mm/26mm
Hull Armor      Front/Side-rear/bottom-top
90.8mm/38mm/25.4mm      108mm/38mm/25-19mm     80mm/40mm/16mm     100mm/80mm/26mm
Main Gun      
75MM 40 Cal (97rds)      76MM 52 Cal (71rds)               75mm 70 Cal (79rds)     88mm 56 Cal (92rds)
Penetration
         60mm@3000m         88mm@3000m                    105mm@3000m           115mm@3000m   [177]
         65mm@2500m         104mm@2500m                  124mm@2500m           128mm@2500m   [194]
         72mm@2000m         124mm@2000m                  145mm@2000m           143mm@2000m   [213]
         75mm@1750m         135mm@1750m
         79mm@1500m         147mm@1500m                  170mm@1500m          160mm@1500m   [234]
         82mm@1250m         160mm@1250m                  184mm@1250m           170mm@1250m   [245]
         86mm@1000m         175mm@1000m                  199mm@1000m           179mm@1000m   [257]
         90mm@750m           191mm@750m                    216mm@750m             190mm@750m   [269]
         95mm@500m           208mm@500m                    234mm@500m             200mm@500m   [282]
         102mm@250m         227mm@250m                    253mm@250m             212mm@250m   [296]
         109mm@100m         239mm@100m                    265mm@100m             219mm@100m   [304]
Ammo Types   
HE, Canister, Smoke, WP,    HE, APCBC, HVAP           APCBC, HVAP, HE       APCBC, HVAP, HEAT, HE
   AP, APCBC-HE         
Secondary      
2X.30 Cal MG (4,750rds)   2X.30 Cal MG (6,250rds)   2X7.92mm MG (4,200rds)    2X7.92mm MG (5,850rds)
Penetration
          2.5mm@500m         2.5mm@500m                   3mm@500m                      3mm@500m
          7.6mm@200m         7.6mm@200m      
         11mm@100m           11mm@100m                    13mm@100m                     13mm@100m
Secondary      
1X.50 Cal MG (300rds)   1X.50 Cal MG (600rds)
Penetration
          11mm@1250m         11mm@1250m
          21mm@500m           21mm@500m
          25.4mm@200m         25.4mm@200m
          28mm@100m          28mm@100m      
Power/Weight   
13.49 HP/Ton                     13.49 HP/Ton                   13.77 HP/Ton                     12.9 HP/Ton
Fuel Capacity   
175 Gallons                       168 Gallons                      190 Gallons                         141 Gallons
Range      
130 miles                          155 miles                          120 miles                               68 miles
Speed      
30mph                               26mph                              29mph                                  24mph
                     




Edit: Worked on spacing to make it readable. (What was readable here was not once posted, and what is now unreadable hopefully is once posted.)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Daryk on 31 January 2019, 21:29:10
Code tags would probably straighten out that lovely table into the glory it was intended to be...
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: chanman on 31 January 2019, 22:08:16
You know, if Sherman crews had a higher chance of surviving the destruction of their tank, then it makes sense that there would be more soldiers talking crap about the tank they were shot out of - statistically, it seems unlikely that certain crew positions on certain tanks - like T-34 drivers would have had much of a chance to complain about their vehicle on the basis of being you know, dead.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 31 January 2019, 22:19:43
In many respects, the Sherman was probably the best tank in the war.  The Panther and the T-34 both had heavily inflated reps that ignore most of their flaws: the Panther was overweight and strained its engine, suspension, and drive system.  It also had poor off-road capability, and flaws in German metallurgy caused by a mixture of lack of quality control and sabotage (slave labor is never a smart choice for building weapons) meant that its armor was often brittle and prone to shattering upon being hit.  It also needed extensive maintenance to keep in working order, while a Sherman could stay operational the entire war with nothing but regular lubrication and oil changes.

The T-34 was riddled with flaws: the original version had such bad visibility that it was prone to accidentally running into enemy tanks just because it couldn't see them.  The controls were so stiff that drivers resorted to turning the tank by striking the control bars with hammers.  The sloped armor made the interior extremely cramped.  And many of the original product run had hulls that were so badly fitted together that daylight was visible through the gaps.

Also, the line about five Shermans being needed to take on a single Tiger?  Actually originated from an offhand comment a German general made at a party.  And it wasn't a comment about the superiority of the Tiger to the Sherman, it was a comment on just how freaking many Shermans there were: the US built about 50,000 of them while Germany built about 20,000 total tanks, TDs, and SPGs combined.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Dave Talley on 31 January 2019, 22:44:16
and as the Chieftain said, you send one sherman or two you send five because thats how many were in a platoon

the brits and russians both used and loved the shermans
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 31 January 2019, 23:05:35
We've been down this road before.

When judging a thing, consider carefully if one is judging it on its own merit, or judging it on the merit of its users, system and environment.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 31 January 2019, 23:11:50
There's also the issue of the theoretical performance that can be attained if everything is working perfectly versus the actual performance attained under typical conditions.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 31 January 2019, 23:33:06
There's also the issue of the theoretical performance that can be attained if everything is working perfectly versus the actual performance attained under typical conditions.
Mmhmm. That too.

Now behold the AMX-30 ACRA, or the French peek into the gun/missile launcher concept

(https://i.postimg.cc/pLBdkw5M/yd-RZKyl-d.jpg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 31 January 2019, 23:38:39
One hell of a gun mantlet there.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 01 February 2019, 02:13:11
It looks a lot like the M103, the US's last heavy tank.

(https://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/imgs/M103-heavy-tank_2.jpg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: chanman on 01 February 2019, 03:16:25
and as the Chieftain said, you send one sherman or two you send five because thats how many were in a platoon

the brits and russians both used and loved the shermans

I just watched the Chieftain's videos through the restored Panther, and I have to say I'm impressed at how bad the crew situational awareness must have been. Only the TC seems to have had anything resembling a decent field of vision. I suspect that more than a few Panthers knocked out on the Western Front never saw their attackers coming.

As for tanks, here's an odd one:

(http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/India/photos/ref_ViyajantaMk1a.jpg)

Couple thousand built, but only used by India
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 01 February 2019, 04:41:07
Remember that India vies with China for population size and has about a billion people


They also like to have / use their own technology and industrial base, possibly also partly due to the unreliability of Western Allies (US, UK etc) for RULE 4 VIOLATION DETECTED - REDACT REDACT REDACT
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 01 February 2019, 08:53:56
National pride is a thing, of course; being able to say "we made it ourselves" is kind of nice.  And your point about allies, well...let's just say that in the past, some of the best trading partners have gone to war with each other, so having your arms factories in someone else's country is potentially a bad idea even if they're your best friend.  Plus there's always all kinds of spinoff and support industry with second- and third-order economic benefits for doing it yourself rather than simply buying export material; that's always got to be considered.

That said, you can buy a lot of stuff for cheap on the export market.

There's also the 'localization' effect - a factory in country that may have specific requirements for terrain considerations is going to understand those considerations much more than a foreign one would.  Take Japan for example; entirely apolitically, their strategic situation for tanks is homeland defense on mountainous and forested terrain with a lot of bridges over rivers.  Expecting a company in, say, the southwest USA's flat deserts to inherently understand that kind of terrain and what to consider in designing and building a tank is foolish.  Granted, you can learn a lot, but the folks who live there know it best and would be your best choice for builders, if they're technologically capable of it.

Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Sabelkatten on 01 February 2019, 09:51:38
I think India has the simple problem that the nation they've been fighting the most is Pakistan - a nation that is ALSO often "western allied". So they sometimes end up with their friends being friends with their enemy, which isn't the best thing for buying weapons...
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: grimlock1 on 01 February 2019, 09:52:21
You know, if Sherman crews had a higher chance of surviving the destruction of their tank, then it makes sense that there would be more soldiers talking crap about the tank they were shot out of - statistically, it seems unlikely that certain crew positions on certain tanks - like T-34 drivers would have had much of a chance to complain about their vehicle on the basis of being you know, dead.
That's an interesting observation.  Survivorship bias (http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacewardefense.php#wald) can have subtle but powerful effects. Consider when the US Army Air Corp asked the Statistical Research Group to determine the most critical places to add armor to B-17s, based on the location of damage found on planes that returned from missions.   The answer was to armor the places with the least damage.

Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 01 February 2019, 10:00:46
That's an interesting observation.  Survivorship bias (http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacewardefense.php#wald) can have subtle but powerful effects. Consider when the US Army Air Corp asked the Statistical Research Group to determine the most critical places to add armor to B-17s, based on the location of damage found on planes that returned from missions.   The answer was to armor the places with the least damage.




It was the least damaged or never damaged areas on returning aircraft


I had understood the British pioneered this technique in WW2, before the US entered


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operations_research
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: kato on 01 February 2019, 12:28:07
Now behold the AMX-30 ACRA, or the French peek into the gun/missile launcher concept
Unlike the 152mm gun-launchers trialled by Germany and the US, the French gun wasn't supposed to fire any standard gun-fired shells at all btw. The soft-target ammunition - i.e. other than the ATGM - was instead a rocket fired at Mach 2 (with a pretty small HE warhead, comparable effect to a 81mm mortar).

There was also a casemate tank with the gun based on the AMX-10P chassis with three prototypes built.

ACRA was abandoned for cost reasons in '74 and replaced by HOT.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Matti on 01 February 2019, 13:35:23
There's also the 'localization' effect - a factory in country that may have specific requirements for terrain considerations is going to understand those considerations much more than a foreign one would.  Take Japan for example; entirely apolitically, their strategic situation for tanks is homeland defense on mountainous and forested terrain with a lot of bridges over rivers.  Expecting a company in, say, the southwest USA's flat deserts to inherently understand that kind of terrain and what to consider in designing and building a tank is foolish.  Granted, you can learn a lot, but the folks who live there know it best and would be your best choice for builders, if they're technologically capable of it.
USA got Sherman to work in all the environments tank was used.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: MarauderD on 01 February 2019, 13:59:57
Question for you history buffs:

My grandfather passed away 19 years ago, and served in the 6th Armored Division of the US army.  He was a Captain and the XO of a Battalion of mobile field artillery, which if I remember correctly, was the 231st Armored Field Artillery Battalion.

He described his vehicles to me as a Sherman that had the turret removed and a howitzer put on top.  I've never seen one, and was curious of anyone here knew what it was and could find a picture.

Best,

Mad
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Dave Talley on 01 February 2019, 14:06:05
Question for you history buffs:

My grandfather passed away 19 years ago, and served in the 6th Armored Division of the US army.  He was a Captain and the XO of a Battalion of mobile field artillery, which if I remember correctly, was the 231st Armored Field Artillery Battalion.

He described his vehicles to me as a Sherman that had the turret removed and a howitzer put on top.  I've never seen one, and was curious of anyone here knew what it was and could find a picture.

Best,

Mad

thdre is a sherman with a 105 as its gun, but those were in armored units, he was probably referring to the M7 Priest
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: MarauderD on 01 February 2019, 14:16:10
It was definitely a Sherman of some sort, he would have said if it was a Priest.  I think he said it had a modified or open turret?  I wish I had written this all down.

Another edit after looking up the Priest:  you are probably right!  I wish I had the picture of the vehicle, because apparently it was named Baby CJ after my mom, who was born in 44. 

Thanks for the help!
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 01 February 2019, 14:19:05
The 105 variant Shermans still had turrets.  The Priest was a Lee (originally) or Sherman (after the M4 became the US's primary tank) body with the turret removed and a howitzer added in an open-top design.

Here's an image of the M7 Priest SPG

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/25/M7_Priest_at_APG.jpg/300px-M7_Priest_at_APG.jpg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 01 February 2019, 14:22:12
And just for fun, here's my favorite Sherman variant: the M4A3E2 Jumbo.  This one's packing the 75mm, though they usually were built with the 76.2mm installed crews liked the 75mm's utility enough that many Jumbos were converted back.  The 76.2mm was a better anti-tank gun, the 75 was a better anti-everything else.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/40/M4A3E2_Sherman_Jumbo_75mm_gun.jpg/330px-M4A3E2_Sherman_Jumbo_75mm_gun.jpg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Dave Talley on 01 February 2019, 14:28:36
fun part is that from a distance its very hard to tell the difference
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 01 February 2019, 14:35:00
And they often painted the barrels to make it even harder to tell them apart.  That way German crews would have a tougher time figuring out which Sherman to prioritize.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: marauder648 on 01 February 2019, 14:36:50
IIRC the Sherman Jumbo wasn't actually called that, it seems to be a name that popped up after the war possibly on a model kit and it seems to have stuck.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 01 February 2019, 14:43:54
The US didn't start assigning names to its tanks until after WW2 anyway.  "Sherman," "Lee," "Wolverine," and other names were designations the British gave the tanks.  "Jumbo" and "Easy Eight" were nicknames that were given to Sherman variants by the troops.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 01 February 2019, 14:58:05
thdre is a sherman with a 105 as its gun, but those were in armored units, he was probably referring to the M7 Priest


There were British variants with howitzers in the Sherman but I think those were the same as the US ones (105mm howitzer) and also artillery forward observer tanks that had a dummy gun and used the space for more radios - it could have been that he had one of those and considered the artillery battalion his "firepower"?


More of a conversion was fitting a 155mm howitzer as well as 105mm (and the British fitting 25 pounders)


Looking at wikipedia reminds me how many variants they made of the thing!
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 01 February 2019, 15:24:11
The Priest was more of a dedicated artillery piece compared to the shortbarreled M4(105) and its M4A3 variant.

http://the.shadock.free.fr/sherman_minutia/manufacturer/m4_105mm/m4_105mm.html

This one still had the turret, and a dinky little sawed-off four-inch gun seemed to do pretty darn good as a mix of light field artillery and assault gun.  From what I'm reading, they showed up in mid-'44 and were organized into a six-ship Assault Gun platoon for each tank battalion.  They were much better at demolitions than the 75 or 76mm tanks.  Good visibility, good protection, good firepower, fine mobility, but no power traverse for the turret.

Brits drove a bunch too, and apparently Free French units got their hands on a few that fell off the ship somewhere.  The 105 Shermans also showed up in the Philippines and Okinawa theaters; I imagine the island fighting was probably a better fit for them with the short barrels, good armor, and high boom quotient - no need for an M4A3(76) to take out a Chi-Ha for example.

However, it should be pointed out that those were all for TANK battalions.  Your granddad, God rest his soul, was in an arty BN and very definitely would have operated Priests, from what I'm reading.

https://history.army.mil/documents/ETO-OB/6AD-ETO.htm

Here's the history of the 6th Armored Division, of which the 231st Armd FA BN was one of three organic arty battalions.  They stayed with the division the whole time, joining a LOT of other artillery units attached from other divisions, arrived in France June 12, 1944 and made it all the way to the outskirts of Leipzig before the war ended, not very far from Berlin.  At the bottom of that link there's a long list of where the division (and thus, your granddad's BN) were, so you should be able to look up histories and track down a lot more info if you're interested.

And as for the Sherman 105s, well, they got a little bit Battletech in the PTO. 

(http://the.shadock.free.fr/sherman_minutia/manufacturer/m4_105mm/m4_105mm39.jpg)

That's not a dummy gun marked (1) there, that's a freakin flamethrower.  AND a 105mm howitzer.  I kinda want to make a Battletech version of this now, AC10 and Plasma Rifle on a tank...
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: CDAT on 01 February 2019, 17:20:05
Question for you history buffs:

My grandfather passed away 19 years ago, and served in the 6th Armored Division of the US army.  He was a Captain and the XO of a Battalion of mobile field artillery, which if I remember correctly, was the 231st Armored Field Artillery Battalion.

He described his vehicles to me as a Sherman that had the turret removed and a howitzer put on top.  I've never seen one, and was curious of anyone here knew what it was and could find a picture.

Best,

Mad

Like others have said, I think it was likely the Priest, but if it was a tank (with turret), the only other thought that I have would be the M8 HMC. It is not a Sherman based howitzer, but based on the M3 Light tank with an open topped 75mm howitzer.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Wereling on 01 February 2019, 17:28:50
Could also be a M40 Gun Motor Carriage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M40_Gun_Motor_Carriage (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M40_Gun_Motor_Carriage)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: marauder648 on 01 February 2019, 17:30:04
Or a TD like a Wolverine.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Wereling on 01 February 2019, 17:32:18
Or a TD like a Wolverine.
Possible, but IIRC Wolverines usually ended up in TD Battalions not Arty battalions. I could easily be wrong though.

For that matter could it be a Stuart? There's the M8 Gun Motor Carriage for that one  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howitzer_Motor_Carriage_M8 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howitzer_Motor_Carriage_M8)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Dave Talley on 01 February 2019, 21:28:04
CDAT
minor quibble, M8s were an outgrowth of the M5s which came from the M3s

but also M8s were generally assigned to cavalry units as support for M5 units

as to the M40, assuming the unit was updated with them, an XO most likely be in a command vehicle, such as what were referred to as defrocked priests, ie no gun
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: CDAT on 01 February 2019, 22:17:26
CDAT
minor quibble, M8s were an outgrowth of the M5s which came from the M3s

but also M8s were generally assigned to cavalry units as support for M5 units

as to the M40, assuming the unit was updated with them, an XO most likely be in a command vehicle, such as what were referred to as defrocked priests, ie no gun

Opps, My bad.  :-[
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 01 February 2019, 22:19:44
National pride is a thing, of course; being able to say "we made it ourselves" is kind of nice.

Most people would like as much control over their defence supply chain as possible, for obvious reasons. It also helps the balance of trade and local economy if things are built locally rather than overseas.

India is large enough that it has the economies of scale for a domestic defence industry to be viable. However they don't have the complex weapons development expertise, so they've spent a lot of money trying to get things going.

Unfortunately they have significant domestic quality control issues. Their erstwhile best friend, Russia, was also the source of significant quality control issues.

Often they just give up and buy a boatload of foreign equipment, which is a quick fix rather than a proper solution. Whichever move made, it attracts internal political squabbles.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Dave Talley on 01 February 2019, 23:51:56
Opps, My bad.  :-[

no issue
I only have picked it up by delving thru a buttload of stuff for Bolt Action,
i tend to obsess over TO&E, so I like knowing all this stuff, granted with the US in WW2, there were armor regiments both integrated and independent, recon/cav units, artillery units and the tank destroyer setup was completely separate

germans were worse on recon stuff though, huge variation in vehicles depending on whether it started as what type
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Matti on 02 February 2019, 01:10:02
i tend to obsess over TO&E
Great! Can you tell what are artillery regiments like, and does this BattleTech equivalent (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=64039.msg1473012#msg1473012) come anywhere close of it?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: CDAT on 02 February 2019, 01:38:47
Great! Can you tell what are artillery regiments like, and does this BattleTech equivalent (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=64039.msg1473012#msg1473012) come anywhere close of it?

If you want to look at some WWII TO&E's here is a page to look at http://www.niehorster.org/index.htm
Here is the page for a Armored Division Artillery http://www.niehorster.org/013_usa/44_org/div-arm/ad_arty.html
Each Artillery Battalion http://www.niehorster.org/013_usa/44_org/div-arm/ad_arty_bn.html
and each Artillery Battery http://www.niehorster.org/013_usa/44_org/div-arm/ad_arty_bty.html

So building it back up from bottom to top. Each battery has 6 105mm M7 artillery, each battalion would have 18 artillery pieces, and the Division would have 54 artillery pieces. Now they also have a lot of other stuff

Edit
Fixed Company to Battery.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Matti on 02 February 2019, 12:12:29
each battalion would have 18 artillery pieces
That few? I recall reading from somewhere that JGSDF artillery battalion has 40 guns

[edit]
And to my understanding, 4-6 howitzers (or whatever else) isn't called company but battery.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 02 February 2019, 12:13:52
Back during WW2, SPGs were in their infancy.  Artillery battalions still depended heavily on towed guns.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: kato on 02 February 2019, 12:33:48
That few? I recall reading from somewhere that JGSDF artillery battalion has 40 guns
Actually, the JGSDF traditionally has below-typical numbers of guns for a given unit size. Usual sizes are 32-48 guns per regiment (!), although that depends on the division and exact time. Usually these are spread out into a number of two-battery "direct support" battalions with only 8 guns per battalion, later enlarged to 12 (one "direct support" battalion per combat battalion in the division). Historically - Cold War - there tended to also be a "proper" artillery battalion grouping the usual 16-24 guns, although i think that has been redistributed to enlarge the "direct support" battalions instead.

does this BattleTech equivalent (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=64039.msg1473012#msg1473012) come anywhere close of it?
Suggestion: Form up each battalion as three batteries, each with a single "shooting lance" (for 12 guns per battalion) and otherwise support vehicles if you want to come close.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Matti on 02 February 2019, 12:46:14
Suggestion: Form up each battalion as three batteries, each with a single "shooting lance" (for 12 guns per battalion) and otherwise support vehicles if you want to come close.
So 1 company of self-propelled artillery, 1 company of escorts (2 platoons) & recon (1 platoon), and 1 company of J-27 trucks with trailers + Heavy APC with battalion headquarters staff and communications equipment. Something like that?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: kato on 02 February 2019, 16:16:00
So 1 company of self-propelled artillery, 1 company of escorts (2 platoons) & recon (1 platoon), and 1 company of J-27 trucks with trailers + Heavy APC with battalion headquarters staff and communications equipment. Something like that?
Nah, per artillery battalion three batteries which each have
- 1 platoon self-propelled artillery (4 guns)
- 1 platoon trucks (ammo transport)
- 1 platoon with communications equipment and similar to stand in for battery sensor/command vehicles.

Here's the Orbat of German divisional Artillery Regiment 12 in 1989 for some realism:

(https://abload.de/img/artrgt12zfjbs.jpg)

a) Staff/HQ Battery
- includes two "Special Artillery Platoons" (alternate crews for one firing platoon each, for nuclear weapons deployment; one for field artillery battalion in regiment, the other for artillery battalions of attached brigades)

b) Escort Battery
- three infantry platoons of 70 men each supported by attached 3x 20mm automatic guns (on trucks)

c) Field Artillery Battalion
- Staff Battery, includes two HQ platoons, each with 4x 20mm automatic guns for air defense
- Field Artillery Battery (three firing platoons with 3x FH70 155mm each)
- Field Artillery Battery (three firing platoons with 3x FH70 155mm each)
- Field Artillery Battery (three firing platoons with 3x M110A2 203mm each)
- Field Artillery Battery (three firing platoons with 3x M110A2 203mm each)
- attached (peacetime) medical / driver training / sports group

d) Rocket Artillery Battalion
- Staff Battery, includes one HQ platoon with 4x 20mm automatic guns for air defense
- Rocket Artillery Battery (two firing platoons with 4x light MLRS 110mm each)
- Rocket Artillery Battery (two firing platoons with 4x light MLRS 110mm each)
- Rocket Artillery Battery (two firing platoons with 4x heavy MLRS 227mm each)
- Rocket Artillery Battery (two firing platoons with 4x heavy MLRS 227mm each)
- attached (peacetime) sports group

e) Artillery Observation Battalion
- Staff Battery
- Artillery Sound Ranging Battery
- Artillery Radar Battery
- Drone Battery (three platoons with 4x CL289 rocket drone system)

Numbers in parentheses behind each line above are manpower, with a prefaced [F] it's different peacetime strength.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Charlie 6 on 02 February 2019, 20:54:07
So, in my time in USMC Artillery, we had six-gun batteries with three per battalion.  That meant back in the '90s and early '00s 10th and 11th Marines each had four battalions of 18 howitzers each:  72 guns across each regiment.  14th Marine Regiment still had five battalions in '03 and it had upwards of 90 guns.

Ideally, each of the first three battalions would provide direct support (including observers) to the three rifle regiments of a division.  The last of the battalions, 5th Battalion, was meant to be general support for the Division Commander.  The fourth battalions, disestablished in the very early 90's for 10th and 11th Marines, were meant to reinforce the direct support battalions.  Longer in caliber and potentially larger in diameter, they could reach across the battlefield to augment the direct support fires.

Why 18 guns per battalion?  Well six-gun batteries are inherently more powerful than four-gun platoons and less structurally cumbersome than a two-platoon, eight-gun battery.  At least I think so. 

So given a Real World to Battletech translation, I'd go with a six-gun battery, with three observer vehicles and three securty vehicles.  Triple that for a battalion.

Also here's a picture of my seven-gun battery back in '03.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 03 February 2019, 05:39:23
So, in my time in USMC Artillery, we had six-gun batteries with three per battalion.  That meant back in the '90s and early '00s 10th and 11th Marines each had four battalions of 18 howitzers each:  72 guns across each regiment.  14th Marine Regiment still had five battalions in '03 and it had upwards of 90 guns.

Ideally, each of the first three battalions would provide direct support (including observers) to the three rifle regiments of a division.  The last of the battalions, 5th Battalion, was meant to be general support for the Division Commander.  The fourth battalions, disestablished in the very early 90's for 10th and 11th Marines, were meant to reinforce the direct support battalions.  Longer in caliber and potentially larger in diameter, they could reach across the battlefield to augment the direct support fires.

Why 18 guns per battalion?  Well six-gun batteries are inherently more powerful than four-gun platoons and less structurally cumbersome than a two-platoon, eight-gun battery.  At least I think so. 

So given a Real World to Battletech translation, I'd go with a six-gun battery, with three observer vehicles and three securty vehicles.  Triple that for a battalion.

Also here's a picture of my seven-gun battery back in '03.



Are the security vehicles the prime movers and ammunition haulers, command/communication vehicles or a separate tasking that might also be used for reconnaissance of the next firing point?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Charlie 6 on 03 February 2019, 14:57:21

Are the security vehicles the prime movers and ammunition haulers, command/communication vehicles or a separate tasking that might also be used for reconnaissance of the next firing point?
Well in Battletech I'd assume the howitzers would be self-propelled and logistics being "off-board" so to speak.

In Real Life, very few vehicles were single-use trucks.  Four of my six prime movers had heavy machine guns on them.  Four of my other 7-ton trucks had ring mounts as well as three hardback (not armored) HMMWVs.  When my Advance Party went to recon a new position, I would take two of the hardbacks, one 7-ton along with two soft-skinned radio vehicles (also HMMWVs).  I didn't put any ring mounts on the six ammo trucks because my philosophy has pretty much been that people shoot at the things shooting at them and I'd rather not invite the bad guys to shoot at a few hundred HE rounds.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Matti on 03 February 2019, 16:17:19
Well in Battletech I'd assume the howitzers would be self-propelled and logistics being "off-board" so to speak.

In Real Life, very few vehicles were single-use trucks.  Four of my six prime movers had heavy machine guns on them.  Four of my other 7-ton trucks had ring mounts as well as three hardback (not armored) HMMWVs.  When my Advance Party went to recon a new position, I would take two of the hardbacks, one 7-ton along with two soft-skinned radio vehicles (also HMMWVs).  I didn't put any ring mounts on the six ammo trucks because my philosophy has pretty much been that people shoot at the things shooting at them and I'd rather not invite the bad guys to shoot at a few hundred HE rounds.
Well, in BattleTech trucks can be modified to have Machine Gun and/or SRM2 easily enough, though that cuts cargo capacity. Pity PBI scale weapons aren't supported, but with house rules you could declare PBI squad riding open-topped truck (is there a rule for such vehicle?) can shoot out from it without dismounting. Or in place of Humvee you can use wheeled mechanized infantry, or tracked mechanized infantry for half-tracks (or open-topped M113).
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 03 February 2019, 18:58:12
Well, in BattleTech trucks can be modified to have Machine Gun and/or SRM2 easily enough, though that cuts cargo capacity. Pity PBI scale weapons aren't supported, but with house rules you could declare PBI squad riding open-topped truck (is there a rule for such vehicle?) can shoot out from it without dismounting. Or in place of Humvee you can use wheeled mechanized infantry, or tracked mechanized infantry for half-tracks (or open-topped M113).
pintle mount
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 04 February 2019, 10:50:38
browsing around I found this website which, despite clunky graphics, has a good seeming and pretty comprehensive detail on British artillery particularly focusing on WW2


http://nigelef.tripod.com/directory.htm
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Matti on 04 February 2019, 13:41:00
pintle mount
I know it's available for small support vehicles under 5 tons, but what about combat vehicles like APC (Wheeled)?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Weirdo on 04 February 2019, 14:46:21
Make your APC small enough, you've got no problems.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Matti on 04 February 2019, 14:53:10
Make your APC small enough, you've got no problems.
Yeah, it's called Mechanized Infantry
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Weirdo on 04 February 2019, 15:15:31
Only if you choose to play that way. TW mechinf are an abstraction to keep games sane. Nothing stopping you from using small APCs and separate infantry squads if you want.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 04 February 2019, 15:52:58
Make your APC small enough, you've got no problems.


Except for grumpy infantry who don't like being kept in pressurised containers
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 04 February 2019, 21:29:45
Considering they only made twenty of these things, a trio together in one photo's pretty rare.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: glitterboy2098 on 05 February 2019, 00:58:19
The label says they are german A7V's, but the vehicles in the picture are the french Saint-Chamond. Which had 400 built. (While labelled a tank, the St.Chamond's were actually more self propelled artillery.)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Feenix74 on 05 February 2019, 01:18:21
Definitely not a German A7V, this is Mephisto the A7V that was captured and is now on display at the Brisbane Rail Museum (it is plastic preservation bubble):

(https://www.abc.net.au/news/image/9168166-3x2-940x627.jpg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 05 February 2019, 04:10:51
My bad then!  Certainly looked like the A7V there.

Mephisto must be in rough shape, considering the state of preservation of other WWI armor at Bovington.  Or else she's completely covered in original everything, and they don't want to strip it down and redo it.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: marauder648 on 05 February 2019, 04:13:53
The one with the three tanks together is a trio of French St Charmond's their first tank.  And the AV-7's in its bubble to try and prevent moisture from getting to her, she's an old lady and really any maintnenace now is purely preservative. 

Bovington did get an AV-7 replica made though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztkKJUQB4rU
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Feenix74 on 05 February 2019, 04:41:41
Mephisto lives in BrisVegas which has a humid subtropical climate (with hot, wet summers and dry, moderately warm winters).

More info on Mephisto:
 http://www.qm.qld.gov.au/Find+out+about/Histories+of+Queensland/Conflict/Mephisto#.XFlMAVUza03 (http://www.qm.qld.gov.au/Find+out+about/Histories+of+Queensland/Conflict/Mephisto#.XFlMAVUza03)

https://www.awm.gov.au/about/our-work/projects/mephisto (https://www.awm.gov.au/about/our-work/projects/mephisto)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: grimlock1 on 05 February 2019, 12:40:47
The one with the three tanks together is a trio of French St Charmond's their first tank.  And the AV-7's in its bubble to try and prevent moisture from getting to her, she's an old lady and really any maintnenace now is purely preservative. 

Bovington did get an AV-7 replica made though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztkKJUQB4rU

I wonder if modern machining tolerance, experience, and perhaps materials have made these replicas anymore reliable than the originals?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: glitterboy2098 on 05 February 2019, 16:21:40
they would almost have to be, given they'd have to meet modern safety standards in general.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: grimlock1 on 05 February 2019, 17:38:12
they would almost have to be, given they'd have to meet modern safety standards in general.
I can't speak for over the pond, but OSHA is surprisingly specific in what they require and if it's not spelled out, it's not required. Many modern safety rules are put in place by the organizations, not imposed by the government.

While that AV-7 is not original, which would grandfather it, it's not a consumer product, nor would there be any attempt to make it street legal. As long as you stay away from legal definitions like "car" or "truck," or "tractor."  It's not a "vehicle."  It's a collection of parts, that just so happens to move about under it's own power.

ATF might take issue if the cannon was live.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 05 February 2019, 17:51:33
I can't speak for over the pond, but OSHA is surprisingly specific in what they require and if it's not spelled out, it's not required. Many modern safety rules are put in place by the organizations, not imposed by the government.

While that AV-7 is not original, which would grandfather it, it's not a consumer product, nor would there be any attempt to make it street legal. As long as you stay away from legal definitions like "car" or "truck," or "tractor."  It's not a "vehicle."  It's a collection of parts, that just so happens to move about under it's own power.

ATF might take issue if the cannon was live.


The Tank Museum is in the middle of an army base


I suspect the Tank Museum's YouTube feed on their A7V may well give some details... it was in the shed when I last visited so I couldn't get up close
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 05 February 2019, 17:57:28
Linky-link


https://youtu.be/YXO9VK1uyFs


There is a photo of several A7Vs together though
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: kato on 05 February 2019, 18:12:04
The Panzermuseum at Munster also only has a A7V replica. It's set into an indoor WW1 trench warfare diorama.

English-language video on the history of the A7V (25 min) using the Munster replica for portrayal:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESKxi4EEDUQ
They go inside it at around 7:00.

The replica was built in the 80s. They claim it's "as close to accurate as possible based on existing sources". With "5% guesswork".
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: marauder648 on 08 February 2019, 10:19:12
Seeing the footage of a P-39 being started up reminded me of this vid of a ISU-152 that had been sat outside of the better part of sixty odd years without any maintenance being recovered to be put on display somewhere.  And once they basically fixed the batteries and did an oil change the damn thing still worked.  That Soviet farm machinery engineering!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plbhXcjAPIk
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Elmoth on 08 February 2019, 11:45:24
Freaking cool1!!
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Dave Talley on 08 February 2019, 16:58:02
there is also a T 34 recovered from a lake where they drained and refueled it and it was able to start
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Daryk on 08 February 2019, 18:05:58
They sure don't make 'em like they used to...  ::)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Matti on 09 February 2019, 03:01:39
They sure don't make 'em like they used to...  ::)
I have seen piece of a video where is explained that Abrams tanks crippled in battle have been recovered, repaired, and upgraded. Or were you referring to T-90?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 09 February 2019, 03:04:18
I think Daryk was referring to the fact that a tank that spent half a century underwater was able to start running after receiving nothing beyond being drained and having its fluids replaced.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Matti on 09 February 2019, 03:15:30
I think Daryk was referring to the fact that a tank that spent half a century underwater was able to start running after receiving nothing beyond being drained and having its fluids replaced.
So water did not corrode batteries and their wiring? If true, then that's pretty damn impressive, for I have experience with cars and vehicles that have needed battery maintenance and replacements.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Empyrus on 09 February 2019, 03:26:26
The tank in question was in anaerobic environment, in a bog. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34#Surviving_vehicles
Also the engine wasn't in working condition as it was.

Assuming that was what you were talking about.

Reckon anoxic lake bottom would be similar case. Sea water on the other hand...
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Daryk on 09 February 2019, 05:50:26
I was referring to both tanks (the T-34 and the ISU-152 posted by Marauder)…  8)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: marauder648 on 09 February 2019, 16:18:48
(https://66.media.tumblr.com/e818515c745057745d4b35c902692712/tumblr_plixe0qfZ01ws46zho10_500.jpg)

(https://66.media.tumblr.com/353ff03a570cfeeaa6319513268f479b/tumblr_plixe0qfZ01ws46zho3_500.jpg)

(https://66.media.tumblr.com/320351bc53af7e1e682a618e15c211cd/tumblr_plixe0qfZ01ws46zho1_500.jpg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Orin J. on 09 February 2019, 16:33:12
Shameful job parking, that.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: glitterboy2098 on 09 February 2019, 17:12:35
i am always amazed at how tiny those old tanks are.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 25 February 2019, 11:10:12
M1A2sepv3, or "M1A2C", at Yuma Proving Grounds

next to AMPV ambulance?

(https://i.postimg.cc/W3fjqvZz/D0-AP7a-AXQAAo-SCW.jpg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 04 March 2019, 16:41:55
Question: the 0.50-cal M2 Browning was around in WW2, as was the 12.7mm Dshk. Some of the lighter-skinned vehicles of the era could theoretically be penetrated by these guns.

Did it ever happen in combat?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Feenix74 on 04 March 2019, 19:02:43
Well if you consider aerial vehicles, like Bf109s and Fw190s then yes plenty of combat kills of lighter-skinned vehicles during WW2  :D
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Ruger on 04 March 2019, 19:51:41
Question: the 0.50-cal M2 Browning was around in WW2, as was the 12.7mm Dshk. Some of the lighter-skinned vehicles of the era could theoretically be penetrated by these guns.

Did it ever happen in combat?

Plenty of tales of strafe runs on trains, destroyers and the like...

Ruger
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 04 March 2019, 21:23:38
I'm pretty sure I saw something mention them punching through the sides of the little tankettes that the Japanese were using.

I mean, it was confirmed that standard-issue American rifles could penetrate the armor over the engine block on a Type 95 so a .50 cal machine gun wouldn't have had a lot of trouble.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Dave Talley on 05 March 2019, 01:35:05
basically any soft skin of course, but essentially any armored car or halftrack was dead meat, virtually any Japanese armor, Japanese destroyers or lighter ships were definitely able to be penetrated in many areas
in the ETO destroyers were better armored, tanks especially older models such as the panzer 3 and its variants, Panzer 1&2s,
on newer/heavier units such as panzer 4s, panthers and tigers, from most angles they were immune except for vision block hits and such, from higher angles such as strafing aircraft, engine decks, ventilation areas, external fuel and such were able to be damaged
now there are pilots who swear they were able to take out tanks by hitting the bellies, and there are films showing rounds bouncing off foads into tanks, but i have never heard of any after action report listing belly damage from 50 sized weapons
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 05 March 2019, 04:36:48
Rheinmetall says they're ready to roll out a C-RAM/drone laser turret

Decades of imagined chrome-barreled death rays with fins and coils hanging off 'em every which way has left me feeling a tad underwhelmed by this webcamlike thingy

(https://i.postimg.cc/SNYggTgg/laser-weapon-technology-33.jpg)

(https://i.postimg.cc/sxqwV7gP/laser-weapon-technology-4.jpg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: kato on 05 March 2019, 11:39:45
Rheinmetall says they're ready to roll out a C-RAM/drone laser turret
It's pretty much just a more compact version of the one they tested in 2012 against the same targets.

The original container version looked a whole lot more like MANTIS too - mostly because it was basically a MANTIS turret with the 35mm replaced by a drop-in multiple laser unit. Their main problem was that they didn't have any 20 kW modules, so they just jury-rigged a 30 kW version like this...

(https://abload.de/img/f69d82d7-17b3-46db-9av0kz0.jpg)

(for scale: the base is about 8' by 8')
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 26 April 2019, 17:46:29
<iframe src="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Ftankmuseum%2Fvideos%2F305477900370892%2F&show_text=0&width=560" width="560" height="315" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowTransparency="true" allowFullScreen="true"></iframe>


I hope this link works, it should be to a video of Tiger 131 running
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Dave Talley on 26 April 2019, 21:11:29
https://m.facebook.com/groups/1702825809944254

this group has several members who volunteer or work at the various museums in UK
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Orin J. on 26 April 2019, 21:22:19
Rheinmetall says they're ready to roll out a C-RAM/drone laser turret

Decades of imagined chrome-barreled death rays with fins and coils hanging off 'em every which way has left me feeling a tad underwhelmed by this webcamlike thingy

aww yes, one more step towards making a Zeus! the fanbase may have dismissed the embedded lens aperture style, but real life rewards my aesthetic once more!
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: beachhead1985 on 26 April 2019, 21:35:25
Closer aned closer to the obsolescense of combat aircraft...
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 26 April 2019, 21:38:14
They've claimed that since the 1960s with each new SAM that comes out, as well as claims that THE TANK IS DEAD with ATGMs and such.

There is no wonderweapon.  There's improvements, and then there's counters, and the cycle goes on.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: grimlock1 on 29 April 2019, 09:38:37
They've claimed that since the 1960s with each new SAM that comes out, as well as claims that THE TANK IS DEAD with ATGMs and such.

There is no wonderweapon.  There's improvements, and then there's counters, and the cycle goes on.
Don't tell me how fancy your tech is. 

Tell me how dedicated are the people operating it.

Up to a point.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Fat Guy on 29 April 2019, 11:05:25
Let's get some actual pictures back in this thread.   ;)

Every time I look at a K2 Black Panther, I've got to wonder is that turret as cramped as it looks?

(http://mil.eastday.com/m/20070427/images/00945875.jpg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Corky on 30 April 2019, 10:46:18
Flames of war and team yankee is just napoleonic games where you might as well use a pizza box to move dozens of tanks in one formation, TERRIBLE assault rules as a bonus.
Fist Full Of Tows 3 would do great with force disparity.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Matti on 30 April 2019, 12:51:38
Uhm... How did we end up talking about war games in this topic? ???
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Weirdo on 30 April 2019, 14:24:18
We didn't. C:-)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: marauder648 on 01 May 2019, 12:48:42
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=80&v=rvWfYveGIDU

A lil tankette.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Fat Guy on 02 May 2019, 16:15:43
The Akrep IIe technology demonstrator, Turkey's first electric armored vehicle:

(https://www.janes.com/images/assets/230/88230/p1745452_main.jpg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: CDAT on 02 May 2019, 19:12:09
The Akrep IIe technology demonstrator, Turkey's first electric armored vehicle:

(https://www.janes.com/images/assets/230/88230/p1745452_main.jpg)

Looks cool, but with all the windows I am not sure how well it would work as an armored vehicle. Yes you can have ballistic glass but maybe it is just me, I expect an armored vehicle to be able to take at least small arms and frag with out reducing its ability to function. A few small arms rounds into the windows and I am not sure how well you would be able to see with the spider-webbing?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 02 May 2019, 19:33:27
Better than you'd think.
(https://sc01.alicdn.com/kf/UT8IW7RXetaXXagOFbXk/bulletproof-laminated-glass-anti-burglar-glass-6.jpg)
While you can't see through the circlular areas directly, there's more than enough visibiity to move your head a little and maintain complete awareness.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: CDAT on 03 May 2019, 01:28:46
Better than you'd think.
(https://sc01.alicdn.com/kf/UT8IW7RXetaXXagOFbXk/bulletproof-laminated-glass-anti-burglar-glass-6.jpg)
While you can't see through the circlular areas directly, there's more than enough visibiity to move your head a little and maintain complete awareness.

If you are able to move, I am out now, but when I was still in some times depending on the vehicle being able to move any was difficult. For example when I was driving an armored hummer with my vest and all that the steering wheel was rubbing against my magazines on my chest, so I could not bend forward or back to change my point of view I was limited to only as much as I could move my head and with as short of a neck as I have when I was wearing the IBA collar as I was supposed to that was very limited (main reason I almost never did). So that is where my concern comes from, most of these types of vehicles that I have work with in my time in uniform the testing did not look like it was done in combat gear, but more ideal settings. But the vehicle still looks super cool.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 03 May 2019, 02:29:51
I'll definitely concede the point on encumbrance and difficulty moving with all the gear, certainly.  But even if you're completely fixed, you can still get a little bit of visibility out the edges or something, unless you've taken a LOT of rounds there.  I'm thinking of things like 'emergency driving if you lose a hood latch at speed' and trying to see either through the gap at the bottom or the vent, and picking a path with limited visibility.

Not to disparage anything as well but it seems like that bulk problem's being considered; is it just me or are a lot of these lighter armored vehicles built roomier?  Looking at how much interior space there is from those windshields, compared to the armored HMMWV.  Then again, a lot of it might be taken up by that turret's hardware, so...maybe not?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 03 May 2019, 02:32:54
My guess would be it is mostly intended as an internal security vehicle in which case the appearance of being more like a normal car may be worth the risk of the windows for most operations (also added visability/situational awareness on patrol) but hopefully armoured panels can be added/swapped in if needed (or alternatively the whole vehicle swapped for something more strongly built like an MRAP)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: kato on 03 May 2019, 14:15:32
My guess would be it is mostly intended as an internal security vehicle
Otokar is positioning the Akrep II as a possible successor for its previous line of Akrep I vehicles. The Akrep I, which did in fact use automotive components from the HMMWV, is more commonly known as the Otokar Cobra and (modernized, rebuilt) Cobra II.

Turkey, Nigeria, Pakistan and Bangladesh as the main users of the Cobra all use them for internal security for the most part. The only somewhat symmetric uses were in the South Ossetia War by Georgia and in its invasion of Syria by Turkey, usually in recon or heavy infantry weapon carrier roles. There are videos from such operations showing them surviving RPG hits, though realistically they're about comparable in performance in that regard to e.g. French VBLs or German/Dutch Fenneks (which also have comparable large-sized windows btw).

is it just me or are a lot of these lighter armored vehicles built roomier?  Looking at how much interior space there is from those windshields, compared to the armored HMMWV.  Then again, a lot of it might be taken up by that turret's hardware, so...maybe not?
Interior of the Akrep II mockup, a bit too clean of course:

(https://abload.de/img/20192f042fakrep33qok1d.jpg)

Turret is presumably meant to be self-contained and remote-controlled, it's not like it'd really sell otherwise. Outer frame of the vehicle is rather comparable in size to a Cobra II.

The rather more realistic actual Cobra II is rather roomy for its purpose too (... it also weighs twice as much as a uparmored M1114 HMMWV). This is the infantry mobility version - two canvas seats for driver and commander to the right, center seat for gunner flipped forward to stand on, two benches in the back for three people sitting on each side:

(https://abload.de/img/turkish-otokar-cobra-inju2.jpg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: grimlock1 on 03 May 2019, 16:05:12
Is it an artifact or does the driver's station in that mockup look to be in the center line of the vehicle?

Wasn't someone messing with that in the early days of JLTV? 
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: kato on 03 May 2019, 16:30:14
Yeah, the driver sits centerline.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Fat Guy on 03 May 2019, 19:16:13
Want a temporary winter camouflage quickly and cheaply? These Russian BMPs are using newspaper!

(http://englishrussia.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/1-800x541.png)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: CDAT on 03 May 2019, 23:42:34
Want a temporary winter camouflage quickly and cheaply? These Russian BMPs are using newspaper!

(http://englishrussia.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/1-800x541.png)

This is one of the coolest things that I have seen in sometime. I would love to have a unit or two painted up to look like this, but not sure if it would work at 6mm.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Orin J. on 04 May 2019, 00:55:40
This is one of the coolest things that I have seen in sometime. I would love to have a unit or two painted up to look like this, but not sure if it would work at 6mm.
...maybe there's someone that makes custom water transfers?  :-\
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Feenix74 on 04 May 2019, 04:29:36
Paper mache - the ultimate in digicam (noting that most newspapers are now digitally produced).
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Van Gogh on 04 May 2019, 08:00:43
And thanks to page 3 (at least in the  UK), this camouflage comes with built-in nose "art"  ;D
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 05 May 2019, 05:30:05

This is a colourised photo taken from
http://www.womensystems.com/2018/04/50-breathtaking-wwii-colorized-photos.html (http://www.womensystems.com/2018/04/50-breathtaking-wwii-colorized-photos.html) and I think it neatly shows the British response to adversity - tank overturned but you all survived? get a quick brew on while waiting for REME[/size][/color]
The crew of an up-ended (M4A1) Sherman tank of the 7th Armoured Brigade enjoy a ‘brew’ beside their vehicle while waiting for a recovery team, on the 'Gothic Line' in Italy, 13th of September 1944. Their tank overturned after slipping off a narrow road in the dark. (Source - IWM NA 18551 - Dawson (Sgt), No 2 Army Film & Photographic Unit. Colourised by Royston Leonard UK)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 05 May 2019, 06:25:20
At least they've got the excuse of broken terrain, what about these poor guys?
(https://piximus.net/media2/52556/tank-fails-2-7.jpg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 05 May 2019, 06:36:17
Flipped during a sharp turn at high speed, my guess.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 05 May 2019, 06:40:09
a bug got into the driver's compartment and he panicked?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 05 May 2019, 06:45:16
Flipped during a sharp turn at high speed, my guess.
Same, you can see some dirt and small rock debris on the far side of the turret, but that's still impressive it didn't throw a track or something.  I feel sorry for the turret crew; there's no belly escape hatch on the T-72 series is there?  Things are uncomfortable enough as it is; stuck inside there upside down...
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Sharpnel on 05 May 2019, 07:16:48
Driver probably didn't get out either as the gun looks like it blocking the hatch.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Fat Guy on 05 May 2019, 12:18:25
Ivan needs to lay off the vodka...

(https://engineeringrussia.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/russian-military-a-t-72-main-battle-tanks-participating-in-the-exercise-of-a-sudden-lost-control-and-crashed-into-one-of-bmp-2-fighting-vehicles-4.jpg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Daryk on 05 May 2019, 12:34:04
 :o

That takes work... how on earth did they manage that "accidentally"??
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: kato on 05 May 2019, 13:12:10
there's no belly escape hatch on the T-72 series is there?
It's right behind the driver's seat.

(https://abload.de/img/escapeu6jjw.jpg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 05 May 2019, 15:59:05
Good to know.  Does the turret crew have any access to it through the basket (and ammo and autoloader) at all?  Little tunnel somewhere, I'd imagine.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: kato on 05 May 2019, 16:32:26
Best crank turret to 180° position (gun facing rear), fold the backrest of the commander's seat forward. That's where the transfer tunnel though the basket is. In the gun forward position there's a crawlspace under the gunner's controls which is a bit harder to get through.

The ammunition for the autoloader is arranged horizontally underneath the turret basket in the T-72 to facilitate this, unlike in previous iterations that had it stacked vertically around it.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: marauder648 on 06 May 2019, 05:56:15
Not an AFV but apparently the US Army is getting a new parade uniform that is very WW2 looks inspired

(https://i.imgur.com/rbnVjcz.jpg)

More info here - https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/to-stand-out-the-army-picks-a-new-uniform-with-a-world-war-ii-look/ar-AAAWewJ?ocid=spartanntp
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 06 May 2019, 06:19:08
Not an AFV but apparently the US Army is getting a new parade uniform that is very WW2 looks inspired

(https://i.imgur.com/rbnVjcz.jpg)

More info here - https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/to-stand-out-the-army-picks-a-new-uniform-with-a-world-war-ii-look/ar-AAAWewJ?ocid=spartanntp (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/to-stand-out-the-army-picks-a-new-uniform-with-a-world-war-ii-look/ar-AAAWewJ?ocid=spartanntp)


Smart but they are missing a trick to add a little flourish - stable belts a la British Army - or some other sort of distinguishing mark for branch or unit


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stable_belt#Cavalry/Armoured_regiments (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stable_belt#Cavalry/Armoured_regiments)


And I thought I would add some pictures of tanks for completeness
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Cache on 06 May 2019, 16:34:18
Smart but they are missing a trick to add a little flourish - stable belts a la British Army - or some other sort of distinguishing mark for branch or unit
Nothing is missing. It is US Army-only so no branch mark required. It appears unit patches are on the shoulder. Leave the "flair" for other countries.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: kato on 06 May 2019, 17:00:15
For some reason the trio reminds me of Starship Troopers. Dunno why.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: worktroll on 16 May 2019, 17:01:34
I. Want.

(https://static1.squarespace.com/static/545949a2e4b009b386392f52/54594f71e4b0d2b74118f12d/54594f84e4b045b2d2092c21/1415139208502/al-brady-big-old-new-2s.jpg?format=900w)

Yes, I know. Totally impractical.  :drool:
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 16 May 2019, 17:03:02
Lyran scout tank?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Matti on 16 May 2019, 17:12:06
Lyran scout tank?
We Lyrans build J. Edgars, Packrat, Warrior H-7, and Commando for scouting.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Fat Guy on 16 May 2019, 19:58:59
This one looks more BattleTechy:


(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/loPGLlR8f40/maxresdefault.jpg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 17 May 2019, 01:17:53
That looks like a freaking Bolo.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: PsihoKekec on 17 May 2019, 01:46:26
Rattler Mk. III
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 17 May 2019, 08:31:17
Lyran scout tank?
Bolo Mk. 1
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: glitterboy2098 on 20 May 2019, 19:45:01
in light of discussion going on in the aviation thread..

Marian Light Armor unit with supporting infantry..
(https://i.redd.it/qiain84vm0sy.jpg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: PsihoKekec on 21 May 2019, 01:44:53
To the tune of The Trooper.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 21 May 2019, 02:25:44
wrong tank, should those infantry should be led by a Centurion
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Smegish on 21 May 2019, 02:40:20
You also spend time at Ironfest there glitterboy? Must say I enjoyed the medieval/roman re-enactors assaulting the WWII guys mid-fight and 'stealing' some of their vehicles
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: grimlock1 on 21 May 2019, 09:06:30
You also spend time at Ironfest there glitterboy? Must say I enjoyed the medieval/roman re-enactors assaulting the WWII guys mid-fight and 'stealing' some of their vehicles
Wait... What??

There's got to be more backstory here.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Weirdo on 21 May 2019, 09:15:45
Tell me a story!
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: glitterboy2098 on 21 May 2019, 13:35:15
You also spend time at Ironfest there glitterboy? Must say I enjoyed the medieval/roman re-enactors assaulting the WWII guys mid-fight and 'stealing' some of their vehicles
never been there. just looked online for 'roman legion'+ various modern warfare gear.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Smegish on 21 May 2019, 17:43:17
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ironfest_(Lithgow)

That gives a basic rundown of the event itself.

Every year there are a bunch of different reenactment/HEMA groups ranging from Romans to various stages of the medieval era to WWII, and over the weekend they have fights to show off their groups and try to get more people into it.

They generally only fight themselves (so the viking group doesn't fight the Roman's for example) due to safety and possible differences in equipment standards, but during the WWII fight each year the others always charge onto the field to join in. Last year they did it at the end and got massacred by the MGs on the tanks - watching 30 guys in full armor go down in the most over the top ways is hilarious live btw - but this year they split into two, and took the germans and yanks/Aussies from behind halfway through their fight, then climbed into some the trucks and half tracks and did a victory lap of the field.

If l can upload the pics I have somewhere trustworthy I'll share em
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Matti on 22 May 2019, 00:13:31
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ironfest_(Lithgow)

That gives a basic rundown of the event itself.
Quote
Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Sabelkatten on 22 May 2019, 03:21:12
Last parantheses got cut. Try https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ironfest_(Lithgow) (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ironfest_(Lithgow))
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 22 May 2019, 07:42:45
Last parantheses got cut. Try https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ironfest_(Lithgow) (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ironfest_(Lithgow))
This. You just have to look at the url address when you clicked on the link.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: grimlock1 on 22 May 2019, 13:41:17
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ironfest_(Lithgow)

That gives a basic rundown of the event itself.

Every year there are a bunch of different reenactment/HEMA groups ranging from Romans to various stages of the medieval era to WWII, and over the weekend they have fights to show off their groups and try to get more people into it.

They generally only fight themselves (so the viking group doesn't fight the Roman's for example) due to safety and possible differences in equipment standards, but during the WWII fight each year the others always charge onto the field to join in. Last year they did it at the end and got massacred by the MGs on the tanks - watching 30 guys in full armor go down in the most over the top ways is hilarious live btw - but this year they split into two, and took the germans and yanks/Aussies from behind halfway through their fight, then climbed into some the trucks and half tracks and did a victory lap of the field.

If l can upload the pics I have somewhere trustworthy I'll share em
It may not be as good as live but it is on Youtube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqddgcKfjf0)!
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: worktroll on 24 May 2019, 16:48:56
Yes, I do believe this picture belongs in this thread.

(https://steemitimages.com/p/mXkfdToSwHy2xmDCHvfi23qmJ1JDb9gM9qXFCepD4TPUn7JQvdyCwXB5DHHFKRrg6Hi3owQfMtLCvkNbE2qPDHUQ8ZbZhYUNnc9H7i1En?format=match&mode=fit)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Daryk on 24 May 2019, 16:54:47
Ok, Russians do lots of crazy things, but WTF is that??  ???
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: worktroll on 24 May 2019, 16:55:48
Tango class being moved to the breakers.

(Was tempted to call it the Swiss Navy ...)

And yes, only in Russia ...
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Daryk on 24 May 2019, 17:01:45
Ah, ok... still crazy though!  :D
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: truetanker on 24 May 2019, 17:49:35
What an interesting way to destroy a city, using an overland sub!

What's next, flying Battleships?

TT
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: kato on 25 May 2019, 04:53:20
Germany did move a full squadron of submarines overland in 1942, even if it didn't look as spectacular. 300 km, from Dresden to Ingolstadt, to deploy them to the Black Sea through the Danube. Four tractors together pulling special wheeled trailers at 8 km/h on which the subs laid on their side.

(https://abload.de/img/sub1ttjbc.jpg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 25 May 2019, 11:50:50
Wow, that's a 38 hour trip without stopping to refuel, eat, or sleep.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Weirdo on 25 May 2019, 12:50:29
I imagine none of those three would be difficult. As major an operation as this likely was, you could easily have multiple driving crews so folks could take breaks, and I doubt refuelling was one of the major problems of this endeavor.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: kato on 25 May 2019, 14:42:08
Oh, it wasn't a one-off thing either. They did it pretty regularly over the next two years. Moved mostly torpedo boats and minesweepers.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 25 May 2019, 19:00:10
Meanwhile USS Batfish took to the open waters from all the flooding in Oklahoma...which is pretty bloody impressive considering she's a museum on dry ground.

(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2019/05/24/15/13913186-7067145-image-m-20_1558707253514.jpg)

Apparently it did manage to get deep enough to float her off the ground, but the boat's in a shallow bowl and didn't drift very far.  Gotta admit, that'd be one hell of a thing to see float downriver.  I also have to give mad props to her builders and the museum maintainers that she maintained stability and watertight integrity over all these years!

She had an interesting war history too, sinking IJN Samidare as well as the feat of sinking three Japanese submarines in three days, stalking them by their radar emissions and not emitting herself.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: worktroll on 28 May 2019, 04:47:20
So on the weekend I was lucky enough to visit the Australian Army Tank Museum, with one of my best friends. I'd been there as a teenager in the mid 1970s, when it was a chained off lot and you could walk around, climb on, and get in the tanks on display. Alas, no longer able to do that now, but there are over 80 vehicles which you can definitely get up close and personal with.

This is a selection of the photos I took.

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/nG49oKUvzWY_d5cA22AnHEwwcpUuEZ56mCCWSAhUT_mqQ85QwqgwCN14AZCoxusSNSPsN0AMJb6dj2DIJCkAqPqLHMisjvf9FB4FLkeXnakKRYnNJnWZGPXTrAYzTxABz6cyjtrBSmEHSpBBV3tDJn03w1VL8xNe2lRqNuJkOw1Y81SEUhtbkAFv0jS5o7NrLh4WJqlfKGH3gJawE4XTLHBI2sy1KJhkZRc-nkRFj3PTmqQRGMQxo_L62T8Yj9TEdGYbpora6GZQw9Iea_vXp33mYxCIXqmD3y4CW_I5aphVBV3Qo4hStcjF54hDX8UURKtdVA3GCOQm3lPKVEK6UHHWwr1o-rOMQH3ftedOJ4_jLo2WD7HBc_RoDCjJ8Fzk1KFpMR0x2Rn5KXZW5HuhU2rKa3R49cAEjYALabEGNyQMerZLPb-yGvswscSSvlmaETVgQyweYYlazsdv8PvVdvIX0qTri52HfCadFSLCwKYdMdAM0B2hAbTwTPX84OBC1x7RyyXMKQfeh_s_FkJLRuy5PGSVCxey2Tuc4KW6tu6k7D5Ano797gYX2GTht7BcYGybfLFHAsPaNccwTzx8VgveFdurZq9ieHpnYs59U5OnC-98y1Wd_NeulrTEV0gq0ctuei5vRDB22M3ZyQH-qwHDDVbWuSg=w1063-h797-no)

A replica Mk V male from WW1, built by engineering cadets.

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/gzTLqoytrSQLE262UIZHJ_eMvZHhEG43qFER88lyHHFpev5OecI-IwyGRlry5HULdbVdZS_XAdr-pMHgm26_wMb9mUvAWlmSurGO--6hyNp3pLaB-_hUE0C_gHDz0n2WX1Q6qGkzgEpxfCg1t90XjYQLXjXjw3pSKMnwbYBZrZPa69VZac8bkBxpii8VbQMqzV58sPpyAFCOsKl5c8MSwpl4EDR2AcxIViN1Boz5a6nS3kO6ec07t4_S5YVUqjbnOycKEyI83Ygix4fkKCjidXycgSY-eCC4kDt_nt5XUiL7MnYoDc61iIhylKPWLjvF1jh0Q38X9gli1S1BcZld73peN_TVvW13LpoXEbQLud11NMkWcXpM7sSrsKzIqmIXjidh4DOGc9lU02A75FzyrqTcfeTDhhDUnUEKtPGqBDmDKHIdYV3ZccTUBS4J8e9idTCjNtAgcpXDeyCwaJU2N7d5NyKN6U1770v4C2j12gB2-B9xA1Rfwr95RjpX0C0S4FRME96GGOmCG8Rg7HBSE9i0spiXl4Lnu-SF55w7Ko6wNio61b5l8Gb-UqJ99dShNVJxWtOli2QBTuKpZwcQFw5Zn8q9FoUgvgyTTUaaE6NVJ1rb21vDIzWQhg3vVwvWoi3RUy2MBWWdnXZ6XQKuQIsJqc_Hj9Q=w1063-h797-no)

Churchill FROG flamethrower. That's a long tank!

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/Kd5R08_ClbCd_9hTtMni6v5xo3WWrmwzPpaB_37W3qsAbNVgikvNhS7CYZOjIqqKMTBL1YcVLTdqH2XoKU_uGZxB-Nz9v2h5NQsherKUF8DjyN3CNCI4xFwbbBixVIrtr-ydOAk8_aRJVSpKDhXRgQDqE0-1wZ0vu4qNRYPgy55FVIlFxYUFEN-0thfxBgUW_8knwtJi5vdPxMXHTOHZUAm-az6GXMP3ZYyEaJ6Yx2jpCrXId-U5ZUXuh66s7x69ab8z2-8Zcju6uWHEbMf4fUMeTO5mpdq3ulLR3D4r3ULYkLtCXMwIIrPyLKD-r0asHqXsOce9DY3ZT899mqsz63dRjq-kHdldkvIzCGGFQvp4OwYCbRzAFKnoAWuMMgMoIsNhvjPVjX1PE6jQBaKTvZ4ymJoQAJSG4Ky3Qj63meGldXzbtlBXqONRUAuyich-qGGbNAiurFB8uf2jxJpBDSsCUEvyqwvvUZbNCedCI5D0VVLXJAdK5RuYMfIYMs97FC_TYtOyEKStY311yzNjVuPLGqNk8Ccrm2U4OYQNHUF7belpJU8UGz0XKevpkr0ro-a1bhrSbKcfCx9Aj6aFWkKGEg_fCz02dFe6V5-IhVdNvzGk_iMP5TFL631YtbKzYr_PE4lAIoNF-WNELEgCKFfGws9o_BY=w598-h797-no)

The label says Lee. The feeling is Bolo.

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/VwyNBbHvyijCYcGQfDzkBhi5Wz7M4Yyevu1OuF4nu4eQDiMeiwsc6563H7EluolWxVpO29kVEPU579YePdR7xoPA6JllgeO1pL1MZ7jwcHwsDLTq09AMvjOcgq2xHnikghhS1GEwvTk2z26wQLgZDgW9OOyND51Rs4s6yVoSGliKfJCwfxxzxf4vTzQZcVIkOvs-FEIzM3w5Vw8vcdqQym7bt5eKwOwJJonJJbBrLlk8VI7GalGGgNTwRflOOO4fmLlyc8UJF7iVtzq3_d5qZNc9YiclmPADAqlGxGqdbprsOP7mm9CH-io1Vwk4KFb-s2vc8un2evf2aVP9-VBre9giRGPztnsFhnunhT4N5aagoG_5Lv3yqD7pYOYJUBCGV5tkzsTTLtyr7uYMihiKnXh7F4ocdb9aP191-Spjmf2JCkz0Pl_4LRqwfkzQVKl5WY__CGESpD1meYF50LbbSykwDJz5vcoBVCUbl2EhrqNUkIUwfAEQkaCPXixcWIm3EAweb4g_b-19uQBf1MbVlmRLieamloX8Wrik_zLMdSKKBFYqA0D5-U3XpF-1NFPePiUB127fylmqxlDY_-5LLvDSfpIEpHv7GkFMed96iFF6BhSXDiXjuxs-ounMdVGkQctWyEcCmLbCnChVlZnsLjvCeJ8pdzc=w1063-h797-no)

Inside the Lee (through a hatch). There's room for a bar in here!

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/yHsdlUhJYjeQg3UGFnjt4NOn0Lndzc0Nn_L0trpaSrDwKI4jBbB6bpfpCNXBXwNVdlZ4LShhlJNx-QO7xplSiV19sV7i46_dG5K_4c9a8ncLLAJ6t35B6pbWhNg4U-7rIXzC1ccYjLdTtuKtGMFxEdE_zPngOkkfSaQtWz4T1vLvpDZuoQrWVtKUilph1g2jcW2dQLrPv2XLvpQSrkkw0KaIXIOO2Jeaih0jQ-5ocrwuf5cEKox5tw8xF-BtswvCr1WVKOEoWfrWaJcr4yhzX8gI3bJN9j7ebPe3TgPOjp3yaQ8AAATa7KNjdmqpExPTLl_4qQrnILQ5luPi0P1fcDH_jfBvxBJgFho4-LDp6mvVfrGthjJMPdChsfRjvISoUMtbLAw7YPU0gxso2KsA--Tv5QUvgF_GZWM7K5o785_StdmjR2asY-v5BI0SYjNEWxWzyBCPMvw5FCeaXD7Z02PGa-ir3rcFzvblvJuz90mHWp6t7o--pZbm7o9D5VWmR4XlDbyK7jUQ5QNF2QeLHgqlMdQh4Zk9x4h5RSTqn0_z0jqfg8JrKwu8rNJdONi_FfmKSs_lGZrc86rDNxz917Xk4-BCrFdI9BoYF5hlA5Q6Z_wcnmoj33CZ5bmg3MrShBgpTimI7_ht2GRNtfEEVdBH05TtCF8=w1063-h797-no)

A unique Australian SPG - the Yeramba, a 25 pounder on a Grant chassis.

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/HQJoee4R14denXtpKQyMu_FXr7NPKyytO15rk0BIOoFxvVg-hscqD6nJTkAVfdvkyFs4-Aow0T77KS4ek2TjPV4vB5B_ZhRMN9nEycqaav6gFfzRWt3-goYIiF9AT3eNgQEhFKwAKGd9H4-wXTl-vs7Bd9xQpqGa9XJW769zphtMMr_fZb9pH7UIAvxR44uR0lAkcESPDRN4W4P3Nx0ganIMetZQiTWNT3prVRh6qRSdpQOsVICsxaobxcqMU9san6CKPYcoZgfohxy-Z3sMWQqsU2djjI2DLfy2b1qaqfk2n_frgo0rLtpfr8uMBUU00Qh_D4PbMTFP1BzpasSq73jS7s5CrbXXUlrA_MYJ5gGBulesGwuD3dhy-0oFMwvgnT-TDkUde18TsjHz4Ln1VygYjj49M7D768gyOpKc03Mi5bsywy-kfJV8daBZ1noA6ie3bZrBLePRzECQsyDGLnmti0zapuYjoSOEARVgMraJXW5RMPvEJgCQKnnV-FUrHUFVTf0hqELzVLH9ECMi-0caXeSLU8zhArJuHVXwHl_-krUCx3LFULkCTPTSfFJwD8jS70aLq70pnwfdfGfxB1zMADXAlv4QxWWKxrNehp_BCIpui1l4MWlcTjkJJH5s5VFGso_tsJEkIAF8aixjFnCx5C9iU-E=w1063-h797-no)

A Sherman! No, seriously - I saw it in "Battle of the Bulge"! Actually an M-24 Chaffee used in the film, due to (believe it or not) a dearth of running M4s.

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/N6Q3FoaKCWOoKSmqpeg-AfaSwR6reMrFuwKd_yYuLaB13vTvaGxNO6iQlV6z2dH95OOplxbCXoHTHxoaGNbtv9DXwwQIlnQwTpJFJP9dRkKrLvKMuHTnL9LX4GPN_oY5-6gpd4EkAGiiLbr7E7hDIXrjCUuVooRHApqtjw6xCQdTD8NG1k4KY4VM7gM9JIPYftoSH3Qvvy5j3fTG6Qgs8swzKOvSqoN028iykrtOhR-2zvRABCM_WrVNUa3ouuFg_EFthDJIeQVBEUX3pRRtywfle8h4HyhZKDP9-d4cMpUDMZ5hLcaqD_hDDKCS82M-fpy2KCpjbgsLrjl-sYJ71CJlEgV0Fbz6BPPzLyHxkyjxpKohQmCSrtn6Ibes-VxdwCgLWiS9_TdLV0fph6FpESSS71F_PErlNkxOQ9W0P34jCQYLuNQECDOFSVLmwEq61M7IdTtpJvx3X78vx9VbdPgl1TAKwaraMuQFnQA-8UcgQTt06BFTYj1lVhmE_TkbJBuAaqlDVpU0ezTj5Bx_A_Kj3Me_FKKalN7_3j8nD0DCrONgmR8xD6LCAPB4p84t0c_PBo93KtP1sd8v7kcXiyU5hiXQxBgyeQAmlKy7uM_qhUmXOrr84dhVaywycLW6eQl6Jcvb3PB3KffIWzkXQFxNb8o2tNs=w1063-h797-no)

Centurion bridgelayer.

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/WfZXJFS9Di6FAR8GN4CDp9S172VCk1fDf_rz_8M6sh_ayPte1kQo4knn-nZJdrRzkHpyMc72-mbgrjX46wewFSRWPCb2uNTirXFsXhW-nXE0TuCU1TOeKtwhB52pDq1gZNBqTyhWOeGWvfrk_H1Pbj0hr68Stev6_ew__NGcHgpJlIxIBxtGLaQeMHTktRmMG1_LV1qZ4mdRHz1ekRgT527mVEwzt_7UUIqjicP1FNXN3n6OFBt_GGV5eKTTyadiWyCwmlzqETGzy1zrQOcAZJ0CVLGuJSJYeOyopPF0xz7QIwKXrDEAtUCT9rtF9s3wnNh8xxvS3VusounZOarTrFSRF7kw0Rridbx989Gjz4fwdjoqpWaSMd7Al6RWNrmAfCaXSmUq3gSei7ZTKRvlfctoVf_60CBPSk_Z_P1r_-rS-SmN6LWcnzw5RqtXYTaSJval3uoJ1oHRwGZVXRJW_Vo6HbiQalntNSbj2yuVMZGhsVYf5fMEoAEIvAMEKan4HiYUWiSxYTNDtBo38aw24PiMGcmZCgV2EBDJYrb8SMJ6iA7i30LozMDTuV6HO5dC6V89-SfMeAcBprzWFu2T_KNker3DJqq_sKoohbUwF-x6ybBpweRPfPHHlsT5pIw7TU5VEZ4_y_y1Ff1igJYGNgoY3RXJBiY=w1063-h797-no)

And this is the Centurion, I think, we famously turned the starter motor over in, back in the 1970s. Maybe that's why they don't let people in them any more?

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/J3IGSc3mSi_-R0USq2ESQ93zBqMsMWg_F2lLuwihzrVkV5584GArel1qH2egT9tnwj8O2Mp7JuAIDhopsRhgLc9vT9Vup6r-xJ2gU1Q9WU-TBonWRWZlp7TypsoBSOF3Dz3DrLakKeUbe-wqkz0iWpOL2MeJ78NCXePdxpF51aVYShLw5ibXEfo1wE3mWed4n4W4GLCMFHwxeCKRjIkRI1Lq7BdJ9WHve-mhgbzZH2e14kDF0ZAZX2_CEVfPi0BM2cutQtMD_8rTKRJtIiwfmV6KFHw21jNwJQrcXhHl0u3FuaN-QmcJTSZzGsgnjuCc504pE3VQWt56WH_0qtw-5FLicgS4obQIwFMv1-APQmK8Zr_bSNbc6CVhHs82sF5Cc_u3d3ximOkuw8PfnW-kX5xZfx8RFs9FPaR0APKurTuw-8tmGSSrD9Ka2tV-5VqSGQTRU1AMneGQC624O2Itr7TCv6EQY8Tk9FS5o-xJrvFk7klqpoAxgaQrYPBqhuu5G8HSxWeMlW2F9BykogWMrFk70FyiOcBiYwk7mg4Eyy-F40a7-BpDCwNR-8bp8df70BWvFRccSOY_BdqSNI5-fM0CKRKlu5xzq6XIwfeBi7o29o1pAAyiQ9ba9TXm0rxkcNkhj_-hOgpP9DEpBIs2RM-9BnpV6P4=w1063-h797-no)

What happens when you leave your APC parked overnight in Broadie ...

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/BGQcC0EEXsi8cPXSTQJgN5VS0c268m9YUA-fZOTa-NQTeZ89c7A611QQbuTz9xBdz8WG0Vi9osYv1tJWvjFdjkANIl4R_F7oHhaFiuK50mPsglaF_wozT_zM9aaDnu6L8UIKiZqvLfTTGfQgwd8fBg68_HLxJOp1ip56urQcbDMCiQMZEX_tyB4v5oRrBlbuQaBvntsQYFpbsPSozFeAWFzwIjK5N9K612hWcGTRH2TrkUVvUxSKFNNsFy2ndN9rkJUGgdYUF9ETro2fQ-N31E9MGuoFEdbWLliFNobXIOR5Hc-wwne5qotWstiFg3zWF4Jm_wsH0o9-QtuzJ78SGbkAcs74l9T_yQn8VV3FP9tje4zAESPSCcpj4UF0s9XmegsVHhAk7UgyiwWagfT2WRy5JDXQ44JqGI7IGBJgOe8gr4l1ju3WAuWqFfyn-pik9lXzIA7HXXur9Sz4xDcmofKt0-IuapB2XEN0tdjovvksvk5P0OQk72MwOp9ygtNs0XMqaL0C7jxi80OkN8H577PSAkhZWJCEip3ox8Dn1lQzVOR6GrKCMyCL64u_sOS1ygqmgGRfOBgAI8ZS11n_dl3fLbxOy9N1h-NxjNgZzpwiNwtF4XZER9C_RDDuu5lzWBilPgnxPFuZ9C5oCzKMFVoJxtzvL0I=w1063-h797-no)

Firing ports on a BMP-1

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/sCeb8_1krGBpEju_e7bewoy9jWSKUONhdizb5k4oh36ANuxgGVD1bBPg7catxzP7z-NWKZip9Gib1DtjLYlX9wy9Lyn1cnDZx8jhaVCcFDJc2WqrysUUoQrbuedy7GfkwA04ije49AXWLb2oGJDFzbwpo7S1xw8PuQ_r-BymNR67xR0CSH1SghaBuZxifGdKLte2X0K_Ji-6K5G0ulfPMw989KT3CSMXgSMaXlXiZW4aHm3CORb7VL8OOXiTxyIZ7dpL6fCvOlcQ2swnuNS2gfKZZfc8MJ8Jmok-JzRIEClS0Hpv80n6fGHnb1HEKOTFfC86lKaLbcJMDWaFS0xT4nRVSEAZCCgCrr3dD7sfnbqTt8wja2r7LBjpKbdDYFI6PDazxQZSPgACa_t8OeMDrxj1f-I8hWHSJxqsV4FWDrCqvnRy9UOh-cfvFI4NzU23PxkyMiuwV7w3nTmbJWdPT9RhEe6ZyoOW3kr5yA812A4X-vLnpwT8Bm6MITdMBTbEZhnv4_iiGLMed_1c0_scxog5Gp-hFWJoFd70wX2i0mOo6pQTP2d4RIa7bcT7YZAegpmXfyIwohZBRQz-4I4GdU_cTX9nVabXm36Qxbeanwva7kHLNRZ3-uzD7t8UX0ufbbm9OuU1-kSqjvGzeJUS46kaZoiajUU=w1063-h797-no)

The BMP-1's infamous rear door fuel tanks

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/Sz4VpqUbXWKNZC9BhC-FN_b9TI25I78fWWVIuEfqcU0mjIxJ3tdYkiWDkwdq1hjA7R6HyqKzsDug53nwk7FCNgc4KG_6x94vFKyHBShxEF0YahuzmfJ4lTRtm-jgNGGyuNonhZbFKrBxmd3U0byhv2G-P-POO2W46vspZdAbBo3lVEcydPILjfQZ5hwPXXRLWSVtsplnSacLauEcwDgyvlUhDeyrDl2RhTjyOlw9XhCYMNoRZsJ3ArsLGaI5ze1ZvXFhXQQplfkTqR0W5_2j-GENYt8VCRjKKtugSB_k34dXavgNdlKb61SIfN8CclhX3t1xh11LV_BeIWXGYe976wKbTg35kzFteft-lfRw5OUgd6EG57tVYluDyOp40Rdw7S9-Jg7G1OEj0lxQiQyVDl-vdMdJvbUyyv56hMPLSXz0wIcnWXYMEA9jdqEsAZv8-AX6iHrhwaU3h8Vlm0teDYlKpF7VW53CjEXHBD_inbrj3rXGCHxNd2fgmIgtkz307Ti6sORKmKlzA3JAPUvh1PXhl3XjYQCIqdoZNJBUON0TonLJb-2vCjAxlsUApsMA9Xff68yvg0x7-lsbH6PsSnwNl8j96Mh5DC7FUDVLpke0CI4HY-m2z2dcpywmERLUT5-I19Uhxz7yK84393u9e6LvB8wfaHA=w1063-h797-no)

The T-54 clone I climbed inside, back in the day. Oddly, the manual turret traverse wound up & down, while the manual elevation went round & round. Unfortunately unable to confirm they still worked.

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/pX1F3CDWDrFAei3s1JLqnsUC40d66DUdYnMjrxQKCxC8SkchOsBmJjMiyHYOH3VP7KH0Bx9m3a5gzPvEL8724l5k_0DsDT2RU8gTuvqCdTC2FtbSYEWoTL0gJOSGmksNTRkNoclNREzkMvGVORMVPUqufB5PLEcyeFRCKMZI49kUuibkz7LUZdnDs5hjpD1Q7fo_7sh40lJVAh81sRy9p6iCTzyVxtud7eTL3NX6Oz7zu25T1InZz_QUqoOo9FLjQNVIW8BR5p5EUIKYeMNVDNq7hiGa33lB5Y8-pdbFY_U5LuYxD11CA6K0bVPKiNVfUqIEh8maHyLhSmdX24BjYFkqDyTFVVtEvwr9bKgn4M2ndI3WEZjSXXgcdotuFKcm7ie7lwqX1PNLXpm-x1cQDfRWkRc-unoEqF128rb0s2Ry53s4D2Uw4vQ5EbNYxhtHK0A5NEG7wmuQ0ys2FFeQrXo_m4M4OLa8kzb-DjbWrciXk0jErzCjNgM02pPweKTxwk0dOVKmWuIGnx_iddF7WWl_zC_FKoFUyWEfiwly8qy2cKWzwBhkgieqDwow75d1nBF4ucVLOmt8OZZ1UGokLI3-_Nvrr1W36wtAUS4vBnjYb1pCgtEaFyjW9p7RXlt9xvXWjohPoUlsqKNgnkzfvoLnInDN0MM=w1063-h797-no)

Ex-Iraqi T-72. Is tank. Is good.

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/nhJDiiTBcsiLm6QnN75azW3PCXluhEURJBNE4p5uxAxco97EbYKDFZQYf9H4SjVhjY65_IIaHmoAikXR3YtvL2Ss0GjjyQHVwCe8NhEV0nZzCMxhF815EgPAwfgusdwuewFz80oD4H4o06fHgCJQ7v0s4a0ym-nDIY4tmd3bLz7gnHTFDD10BDJY8QxwW44ALEGJEAGvyeDRcOohnnFCBKYsO6EL0CdxO8Hw1fw47ruTtw9s9ixofJoY29ZynzQEkCUzf_Xm5tI03_edn9Rym-buia9eXQ3moRfFTkSOFnHBd1D0aias2wthC3ZOw41d8aPEiVJzwY9iHVXR8KrNJANqSUXd8ObJhYpBOTKwfF_k-5N2HVfhd9E6kfM2cSv5gLEmKhz7oYpzgBW45b7omFnpCm3K_5t5i0Fj7u07Zf0j-eQv4uLz7rL1RHbNtJDJhN9yiDzU9DRVuHQywWw3KkRakSjKFnO7O0qjogSmtXSZKz3RwNSijAoizCfWm4jVC8efyUcd8d_X_ATxqQ6S60VYyhe6FTvzudN_3bjXEs1ZRcuicLdfY_XVTRPTNhyPnmIjXDKjMs3FTEaHXDDpRgK4nQ7ELy8_42PsPDppVAWb-hLUj82brxy2uo4ThcVJofkt-2SCIAWxNtukMuQ89cEPS0X8mN8=w147-h197-no)(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/bHRuTnmMkD1WAKorvzAR0CMW-LAWfU-OmtOA3ZVoCnOCjNvIEgvqlT771HlV2w8LjXNmrLtaQsiMuAjFauG2KUcd0K_d4DYpdIf-Zk-z9Cimx1gLX8tqc17pOQyOeGoF-Nug0FPJqu8kV1FR1pvyrmoP_430M6ubRNttpfUr15FwvVC9lkaRDYZpDbpS5yFk-o_sDFO0X9wI_QOJKYbO4jX2mxXidmSorRHaiOxaJleigcjJWBSmW8Ppn8DuZYOZUq38mNj8ArT5-2ri4C-ISBpnB1NgvV-y9dR5Z2oDRylncBQlxDqOC_M5a03IZStDoU_q5oXkxVCm1GaZy6tPFZOdVyBAR3W1NMj-wRlkbOQoiAHWola_bw5isfmeJKAr73FAK94V-490tEHAl8ru_CxuUJjnI0IECNK1L-lj2deav574EkL8Pxa_ko5DyhtYOXHgKATKs-xIb50zvr1lRZ1VKtSoVGyQDYtq5OC8eo8JJ3izp18hMBtSU5N5t11mRzqrJhVVF-FK-1oEFZDfZ8Pi_9VjMMfBxu_tUSMn2vbLZq1RjtbW7PRAxv_cLzruBNQoSpOWswD0QVuZhJCMl5yXMDK9VnC5N8kToZXRXuDjjjeCqu5-XBQ8Q5A4UBMmD0DTOAhakmSfP94bXSDpRCx1T5HYQDo=w598-h797-no)

Yes, they cut a Leopard I in half. And painted the sections red ...

Lots more, but I'm hogging the bandwidth.

W.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Ruger on 28 May 2019, 06:10:48
Lots more, but I'm hogging the bandwidth.

W.

And I can’t see a blasted one of them on my phone. Argh!

Ruger
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Elmoth on 28 May 2019, 06:48:41
Not in a computer either :(
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: VhenRa on 28 May 2019, 06:54:17
Yeah, they don't appear at all.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Sabelkatten on 28 May 2019, 08:45:14
I could see all of them at first, now I can see two. Access limitation to the hosting site?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Luciora on 28 May 2019, 09:03:58
No pics here.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 28 May 2019, 09:48:04
Google user content links?  The URLs are for that and a giant pile of machine hash, not actual filenames.

How big are the photos?  You can always upload them direct here if they're under 900K each; I won't mind some spam for some really nice OC armor photos.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: CDAT on 28 May 2019, 11:48:57
I can still see them all.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: worktroll on 28 May 2019, 14:39:55
Well, that's wierd. Will try again.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Daryk on 28 May 2019, 17:00:28
Still nothing here...
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Orin J. on 28 May 2019, 17:36:02
i just see grey squares, mate.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: beachhead1985 on 28 May 2019, 17:50:29
Ditto
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: worktroll on 30 May 2019, 04:01:50
Sorry for the delay, folks! Please let me know how many images you can see.

So on the weekend I was lucky enough to visit the Australian Army Tank Museum, with one of my best friends. I'd been there as a teenager in the mid 1970s, when it was a chained off lot and you could walk around, climb on, and get in the tanks on display. Alas, no longer able to do that now, but there are over 80 vehicles which you can definitely get up close and personal with.

A replica Mk V male from WW1, built by engineering cadets.

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/aIAu2FEVVgpsICzym0jD2Tz8WSTZ718aHMrtyKFREY50-CLjECYsEj0DYvxhvjjWSs-49xuyFN66zTq5geO-Vlr-Gw90AVZs1Xhaqe3FJpeoXedkkzzFDd5T_RICbP8caGeHt5aX-pzDTceL-NvSBGnOfF9qge58cwuL6f4MTy-TQUhObPKv_Ba86YAnFLWiw33b3jRAzOp_qQIDgBz7rRsCcQN-p-UraDC6FKLDyT3oGTqH2ElE1v0gwo2Hnl7bDP4_FgSGjytxgz-3Ssm-eqmHXyZOcL0KEnVJetVa4P-5L0WglXviDXOYwdRHqOA6syvWTegE5gJ9r2I8szGQlZqyt6sXj_VvFJjGAWc8s-_RkgVODJ3-dU00_6nHSbNOL5t--7fmkEqh7Zk85HUxBEGX5UUbocUY28mCNJMM2CkFneaCiczObf-iOw5xh7VibOSMwHGT5qtrI-2LU24gaRs_dEC_frNzFz1_OyHWC2hIFsqU5Zp7cxRsuQ5AKbO_vLweyuj0X18ba9lrDnszcIxho5xZNpoHtVEIz6sFew1lCK_iEklUQZ4qP7xcFS3wtbe0fyBE7MI4QfTfU1we3hdCFEbCYXfBSgkHBw50MW9pCxnZ3JBykwAmVkZOQBR7jARUyOYpyDsuDRRj7oFUMzNFYUbT4LY=w1063-h797-no)


A Churchill FROG flamethrower. That's a long tank!

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/MkyL2IqtyPqXlaSHfSPnQtc5L6XZ5vPrq8JhD_NWcrd781TPTVDqfnX8dyylKn68bikA6UvIUQMxCgnyvU3tjc7PkbK8O0bJs6qoR8_7fpYGsh-P_6XldgPWOi9s6dzXYt8kXMDxYIwk-kiijKd5xXik6OBIE2UBxMfwo7HjTk_PPTn3KGkuSx3H_MvPj0j_7CgxOcesNmV-96_yFzSkL4M3Ll0r9JJiLZ2CG5wSlWBXsiaRdxYJViJMuy9egdQIq5Cwqn0U6huvgvl31PYJLYll4IH001jIi8v8f2GQ-cJLml0sRYIfdKKlVqb3Apv9iFSAbD4v36s1XkkeMDzYjpJsP_LcCgpD3rXHOSr8NEeTm06IcEG5hVtlNVHKykCgWp78D77Bmkk2bnyHYP_10XwT1rZ9YZRQJga1kx8_KFcHavXElzUzrqZxQEzBKYyXScQ4yksDbcGFpIOe_TEOqk0CuRWm11k9_uSf7r3KiP8kmnoUn4nK8OHE_22ACa4PECJsU64naQFFJMjhQriwaWZoMgFSSGukjkc5qJTjwKPNJFBrOozSd7nyVjRKn_BoLY7B_dtd_fNFhdn1hLvFN2rCJLumjJrQyAEUujiZrd2MpH_WUSEC3iT3qEASI8lv93Pw0oDqXASUoq_ShDPt7s9zrW9V4w8ks_onGV4c_nSeNkCo3a883mjlSBsb6jT8ycnnowudgC_xmhSEYnM87zjL=w1063-h797-no)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Daryk on 30 May 2019, 04:25:46
The previous post still has no images, but I can see both in the above...
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Ruger on 30 May 2019, 04:48:26
The previous post still has no images, but I can see both in the above...

Same.

Ruger
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Luciora on 30 May 2019, 09:27:04
I can see those 2
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Fat Guy on 30 May 2019, 09:29:46
Same.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 30 May 2019, 10:48:12
I've never heard of a FROG variant of the Churchill.  I've heard of the Toad, which had a mine-clearance flail on it, and the Crocodile, which had a flamethrower attached to the front.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: beachhead1985 on 30 May 2019, 11:17:50
That's a normal Churchill with a 95mm CS gun on it.

The flamethrower versions were the Crocodile and Oke.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: CDAT on 30 May 2019, 11:28:44
Sorry for the delay, folks! Please let me know how many images you can see.

...


The old images that I could see, are no longer there, but I can see the new ones.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: worktroll on 30 May 2019, 17:35:18
Cool! So here's the rest.

The label says Lee. The feeling is Bolo.

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/hhIvVdkV4gjoO_Vuf9obyw1D8qbLkH-VprKaeZw12GDfEeiaECfseVFMtafXs6CxxCBMG8YpUsH0e99YHMZWsOvSSbsqPPpWyVxgqYutUAPyzBQEJY4xdnD1NK5kfZ4P2w5JbzaIYQ1fZ-ExK9W4h9tGIR-0c_iwQc4xnfT8fGMrKWJXXod4D9Ej5aUIEN3a-7h-sAt8N6FY8hbXNr908j_nVhfC0z74kfWw-CJxSEIze6xqSyoinNJSGD2VzREhCklgwAwwlBzLTrIo7fg_eDcCqsMesoil2pLfqkJrAleXrfB1zjEu5qUboxhawomYuu2mKuyWqvDmYYbeFgF4VWrVKvmWmWMEUDt-FYEBale72TUpmm5yrPr7YFIwJjxHaDyn3wsI8c8JGOznheCFU3OIG0xw9r1zoDX0RVGc_hUfdBwz88IlJVIV9Q4SXxkVBE9XDTjygy1v7kSRwLLk8dYMrX84YyIgvxXshCwJ2zrQZA5i-SwY9sRIMzPbgFsSzF8W_Y39Ec33IfjdTy-VbmQQXWWAo8HCQkh4eXpbLWW4sTl2DxM-px9mq-9nEiNK0a9OdqyyMQoR6us674k60KYVeTgdJfyXM2HgsVdwNzTgjqNaAxIX85plqI9CdO_kK6H9ZE1-_zBYfjhSAtuUIDPaYbQxl5BAAHSbj7_MH82gRxiimOq8y9xIcl4XODOD9qqjjTExNwc_834TjUJ46YSO=w632-h842-no)

Inside the Lee (through a hatch). There's room for a bar in here!

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/WTLCinvbOWa9KurqlBf_5FHsEYfpfGzPkEvy4siQkWLqgMEQi1sCO_9QhPSO6FUWszAVbMnGRwE2r6bs05yeGG8fIEv7CN8_u1ws7PfbfBu50MHTuhIPm05ooANapS-NNI-vxmRPsaXEkXOKdACmAZN5uhDr2d04MoTeTSZhr8pQJHFZBe1k3TUSR2VsdmssBLgjZs6Nm4ORgBSxZd8w8UlswSsRAIkp9sm18hUDouuVFoSONN8IJt476hiD9IOg2oj5of9Qe0KvyZquqgr2i2b7gS3JhjAFPlTLAz13Vu3gkb2pQFOeghomTDMipRw-YfCvhAf65pTLY4B9TxSyknSsjewp2kOmV8mvoaxn7NjYRY-oXY1x7revlBKwVILwX5d-Qa9Lcw5t3r2lF1FBahXMBRIKGMpBjWny8BMyPFMtYRFk4g63pUpmu1XTkMM5n4dT-_-F0wC20oMVqTFXA9cjcddM9UsZnHxvQ7fD4UJNQBSyp1EgLtNHPBuzMnRVzKgCBb2QyxY4_C-jY2PHwk9yUoc6PJJ05eN6w6wj9C55igQplk9FLuCcSkFKR5_WOXl41SgVVA4Rro518JEJ0bUpciQpsPAEBl6Uy0qcWbd9h1yLuB07ZB-CcqOtUngfeMMvI-w5afhXd5eGD5LXlZU3rm78UJq7scpEiqbgAmlOr7iFhIWif9xN2B7hiTSy-0e8VGnJnaAzG8rsse088j1e=w1122-h842-no)

A unique Australian SPG - the Yeramba, a 25 pounder on a Grant chassis.

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/QuzNFzzaEtICpHKYGdQOK11zZHJGL2ftRLNG5liS6qZ4N4NYHftfdZ0Fd5_Ydy8YWOdVlntLsJHLgEd14V-fyfetHvTUYdp5K-DgJ-CWifD5Eg_4ElT1PUfdKMBqsAnlHgEQyX3crwaNXdsAbPzs9WX_jIs3dvGJ6uf5XozOxeArlOQDkfHSs13FeNVAc_bIlAO_0aAqu4yiEUTXbmg0sCGagh8W21X7KP10yLa-3ozGUH1vUy7Z4cLUzk6OTFQQA3lSPM3L5AsD765eTLXXlmWolZ2ur2GfK1DgcKVgkwaOX0IR1hAMbhb5_pyik-C0BdfjeGOwwYjexts4wJ19plTJ18slBGrBvtAdCD-2B6dWwg4r2XnD-g_H70IP2359EH0DRWpuoHtURPAS--whUifkl6EkS-OpaQ54V8wAh2eqz28e9k_xSymd0lr9s7qIFLSKrsusqSMIq35ceMmWr5nOjYTEKnPIg8x5ScOomx-B0J_-NoV2cdqT76exKOzkqko8aES6k2ZFQBUNAu-SjsKX8HpYeshDCAdGJF6O8TLd5eTHJh4ZDseXixdB5V8ArB3tYGl0ga8Uc2i5dhryxBOY6xJqFz-6po8sn2gqWmHZQsz8GNiLBp7-KCRy2Doqtbhgobzagd-MwhRF6S_Twvyw9iHITpns0mHYSH2FVthg3wvwu9LrKutLpuzVrPPZW7KS6GxrjvtYln-Wv1Lv_1aV=w1122-h842-no)

A Sherman! No, seriously - I saw it in "Battle of the Bulge"! Actually an M-24 Chaffee used in the film, due to (believe it or not) a dearth of running M4s.

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/MYZHfA7ehMiQ3U-XVIDY4BWJEDzNko0UX9qMPPII9DX_xW5vHgz2WmyQAr3NXyRN_0jiqCvir1eGzgzfmNiZtPzNLn2r1poPwhY65MNlzZ4pNIL3rjCwKXWoWu6kEVCTvbWy3VO_qszbk7oKTdc4m5DWUgZCwQR0hpcxPSS92QmNJCkZ0QJQBgafhZYQZEJKtv2mCvy_EEYRV8geB_Cp26BgovWjF6byFSf5MiVLE14VtO_ZF8f8EX1vUFs30YLf4W2QgPO2l8hXUV9g2wHniehcP0CAQRFg2Lb59nfrFUlRNeYBhO25GXe1CrSuKVNFY4bg05zVGp-xTRZJpzzC6NC5IFKvDZr1Gqs3Cy9Ij9TdsWKu_m2LDrMDkPd-9Ih64aYDP5JNFqvkmCIRCbgBEPyeLHJWE3RM1oexpqjpAlPDwXDLV0YkAKkwhCMMNsDmr4qzGyl_1HXVeMaM5Lkl_j4gYY2G55t52K-ribi609YMmiBlOWq6HbJx4dAYMWISTiLimy_m-QXGFb95Fdd2mdzvJl-RXi0hNIPQ4yQzGLoVbGCTTeZZO9ufpC7qNdo2WO-aFgvGmZeWWdLIuPW39ANSjpwCnlHzSCASQrl6ul8ODXK91IplLlYp4Ql8_8GWaAts0c37nP5EyL4UkVsiyRM29xELOLE6rqNYukUz2jlGI0wzzmM9vvzhKG_oPqJ-d7_zFs3OyEJcRq-nZM3mi1eb=w1122-h842-no)

Centurion bridgelayer. Not me.

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/zY5QNtdC6UgC1W2JCFpgDyyu08VbVRJXhcE66uW_g4WyPEsAOOFnFwBO6Wisuw6vzB2fcqQF1r3LZzeaa0tj76Jdl8Em9DAZ4e0wqMy-v9v22vYFXqlyoiClDecifsKXL7KDO3ZXsgDjZABHMl08sAtzfMvQSwKLLeqCZr94abpk0e0meQQsXOztHzShthbhfZexxWEO1y_UIHyCJzI49mAvQ9QaVpIRU4E6lV8D-6qBnZjjT3ymlBgsQgin78Dn-G-Qv-KhPqJmECRsomnQlh8Mb7AkXyuIl2_zEWEkQUtAjz-_z2b-Fw4R-OQp39DPih48NvvIH72dmygbRPwFR9KdYwa_m_8dW_EH-O1H2jv6dwSAfrWQdW1DnBJNrlIGPkraeExrEFgJarrAOIH-FerRoZRB1QZ-74bZuNgv-e4H5ffWqRuIHIWsK5Hq6vvV0L7gzWQq54U4VY32UanM_d8_xgCbmZ0d3izkYKOTaWL08cmTd1Wdg0qBVSmp_9CnSEQ5zRKyhZ15xBDoql5A77fJcbHdstWrJH1IVMSnyDCj1vmJo-NXUp3m5h-7ZGyG4Es_at8_RHRDrN15oKBhw8TsQbsqPE1rbnabc0wTduRQ0oxSVA2THEAWwRBt1QB-aCTp1EZtF1c5jhWZWYYRik44a4nCUyjN9wF0dvGG0I6urxOVsovHiNHJRstHiSTHEoULB9dFGNH0Acykay6PZli_=w1122-h842-no)

And this is the Centurion, I think, we famously turned the starter motor over in, back in the 1970s. Maybe that's why they don't let people in them any more?

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/IJhequ6EP4yctNlaYpO17nf5qDCZUt7PHqstR9kORPpHlm2_57Xtfktr2EyVTkzKIABEvKNl-P7e_pcOR3L8QgZ9QxjHoUAlOJp1SeCk6UjbBqB4kGbxm2gM8FDRDpFgqK7ZHZUJA6nydJ9x_wkKUdfho0bq5LXmeYSITOUQx8Ld6yIxFdtspqRCc-26Squ-8AI8Mo53uwN0ylkKVvVarI-PcQ-MZGZcwuftgq71out2mxFJpTeKgDhs3USOG1WbgfntqIbQrKRmIj-7d_GUBHIGmshFycNcRtlRPNj7Vo02YmLEVysoCXwtsuqMqeac49VrTSQmGKLST03F1IQaEXLolYUbc5_Ccjekh9iGgInmctZm5VJy4PMdNpfNxw-2hkR-mNspLFu5_SNkm0Or5WNAt3FCji0j4zRLu8nRaDD616QEyiqxuKWWAkJbWlxhrVxHXriOtAnj1gCpzVRvn71gExKH9hMiVd-kgSHVsSrdK-_plE6q20RNgcw8IOi7ryPD3mf7s5Vik4pv_n0vKWzj90CUdi5GkT51D52hbb-Dm3o8nXEzjJ4ixsilT5pejl3WaHFbS0nhM8ZbIGzIhkIjpCsgc8F58QwAkvFBJuol_q4bS1OcyHORz49ifdS-PPIm4H6XHPjmPOGdzHE6YSaO8FXRVJOaYVqAkrcmDwqP1q47OV7UhjpnrwquthRi0a2FdJkwYkLrHrD6jUQo3Vd_=w1122-h842-no)

What happens when you leave your APC parked overnight in Broadie ...

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/8yatouoRvDg6Yap9Zj7O1QGNTXKnkEz3K30wb9hhX3K2oQzrk48_rQy0S9nD0_aIqPG1MO8cEMn55DkoWY_4zIRAnykQt50kgllfP99Z0QcIwVQzRvMd9Cfh7anvl4iz6rLIgvg4VU9UXzS1BrU3KKAoLrhh8DPYXOI_jwSROzjwFe0L6LOZFJ9FAJvDlYPfJi0rADR8DZi0eImvWkjDIVU1HwRMYlx3rw8zNu5ECk6qDQqHk4aVxJoM8LsWHj9onMGdm8nMvtzU6xVIGPd8xN0NdwJte5QbTkYkjUZAFV9egKem4HMUrtHH18NEg7OVHHUYqxlKI29t9hO86DE_SF4UZb-eRvBfKWAkbqp_rs4cETJzEROT60bcPjU7O-Lmwu49LTQFcR4SGA68GoEfOk0mBG9ZxSBnVBAoGtuN5uUELSnSUtidtMCRO1dNXbhxwfZkaeuMJP1Ovvl4zgmcTkTQzaXCRRtOD_wYDwdMAjj0Pxzgv0PtEuRN2D8_2gmN6ND7t7YBeiYiJiTHM6MQ58KoN9DOVblQb9Qs6F5PIRmTruGPfEwOn-HxIBluLCIHSzHrJZCtGR41qwtXpvMIh9fattEdXJCaqCqbB0ckISxLIWhkxh0OGw_UM-HpDkM-pJDbfbvjIsfRIdUTrJyFZyD1ijNy6D1XTn3aEqfcsGTlDvODC0uf6qLaTS0lipnHcEpQfXKrn4F5GRARO3KnFWJz=w1122-h842-no)

Firing ports on a BMP-1

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/_kvc90oOgyZX2dF8z1BtKZRabREfW8hfpDSMQDvSTw3ZtOepLVb-hjf1yFzIk6nfHNQIxI-7MX3D3CLJNwRHEcxCc3W1UeuT1s0YnkDA1MKnih1isRHRFKepixe451vZboyFr2gxrEgxJzuRseGWDLKXSffKKt53MLhF3TZq01q5IL9wfP2a9AaT2GZUHrYFODT9tmG2NWELu4hY0FBLhbBtNPXq99FYrbMFWdUse6X2X8zvxSvzBR497Y8b7q4IN1rvT1raA-WPmLhiucYDHA5cxGrruC2LZO4SWEfatlAMLES-J4TKXsLsIWG72FEvq1MI6mvU0fMcT1EtLN5SQaVUOmKYGroQ6VbJonkAoGNcAN7KsUhwbfPxlp7iMlDdRHxdoXfStcArXmpMunxLGbGOBwynEfGI9v2iuoQgwaLSREgRSQ1YS4bUBAWxIpXiTs0glcNxkAQHTrn2tJ1cJTMZqmq9fVhqVdBRNo9XlLQCYImf4jOj5ae5yVSXOoTJNlWTllbpoEXhELIALiJ6rs5pvuZ4tdAE92OoHv60EOKyZ2FN2OQiUddqmKkRtV-ft43BXgzPmyFJtQPtC6hpo6kzQjjwpmYctl8xFeTkCct5Znl544EydItGsk5cWVIUlNplTd_RkdgaM1fNeQ5ByfV2HkiqMc3kgjwasXKTns3TTWMn7YhyOc8udFmrRCXShK3y8HKMNfpqgBcP4YHn6d4T=w1122-h842-no)

The BMP-1's infamous rear door fuel tanks

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/dPrV_XGlAZKuAkQDI8RsNIfzGm_YycKxOl_YBU2z3Wp8t2Z7Jo6Ty-Ip57-p7436gIpqsjLLa7FV68PtGWbhlyxM-xwhg0aT0OiG2swnIn73z6HUbbUFILLchsfJGd9XsPO7GNAd7DClzts06s7NTZnnwQzp6RYD-D-WXXhW23Uyk3LfFOnAKrG8-fADO9nEXt_iBlQ8KlnVqlbD_AkDxs3ZiHL-PctoLqMpknn6FBrmE3O5aW2s0j4f8nRLaLy47WXpiOiDaKaiiOvvqi03TIfMyuGyM-oDSBgcClWFN9XMeY3ONyTQOTMpGHCB-EyJG-OQw7KzW9Sqb40bB15VuXfP0iScZlN7eu7TzZn2r2_eb02aCgMpJ8uDCaJUVrM-bl4oIhbZ2GAUPcU8Ahy4kMBxh-3GUqaqGJXM8wTBnoMPC6oVy7MYeH_ggBE_rScZ37HOIOu2dxYWBdm1a-3s5uIWXjHo3XNGuMfjjZECpTgDeFRQZmvyzkuQ5HUC6lk236vevjexVOYUwNYELGfa6eMPFEzabuQiQQoHLX4BVbrZkkP9cKsInUSPkaRotxQ2rg5qVkXKw4dqerZ0_wQ0HloYBOP49kBKggWc4Zcf0sXCbAuBxfn9tTab3FJKELO-a8cO_2X8b0S3AJuTz6hucRHAPy1_PXVfSdi3FluKmKPO1gHel2s_ubmROVz1aeXnNkym2VlstNPRu9lzDxGPVsgn=w1122-h842-no)

The T-54 clone I climbed inside, back in the day. Oddly, the manual turret traverse wound up & down, while the manual elevation went round & round. Unfortunately unable to confirm they still worked.

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/AB0nSVL96ljD5Gy3idsa6rj6R1yKZ-oyACsIXIr2qkbMnX8F4nU85-pxE9Qka2QXdrzGr2FVSzRcsccVEJ-c5JfeIPYvD1jvJqSla5VnvHE-Q34hQorfYh4TXV6eMactHA2Ukh4nS96AQRhDMycp535YAjdlPdgVLJyOcExj4pKkPtDgrKrs3w8qzlaWdR3oWdBf7PE-P5WfhgSt5HS1uZSXoacpPrgvaB-ABn6-KCei7I61jz2hVuboIr5T4idT2VU77kyFA6DH-KhCpihb2o9yDQlBO1HdBtSOXOr1d70E4MRuE_32L_Gh3Sq-x53JqLTiNjhg3AOttUtoHnxbVEV1KyThAQZFNfJqYVDaF5zWKnSrCHN9raTJoZJbVOjxaUQNu0-CoPr9A0ECsvAo32nezJ6BYF7btCD7ZB_-mg_HcSMMHvQHjroveFK-JeqbXOxzB3KpjYhm3axUEMS0EASfoyuFqh0R6Tf11FRiCZTyRmZNv_yE_nP-RumuJLpiafys3UlKAPN2IQ-rO_eSUupxU4g8WhX4gpF44eTb82n9nFV6R_eePw4NzIKP-BPVFP7pie6-9g-AOh3oVv3loYRLAY8qU3C5Eaqd0uwCnO0RizSXjZILuk8p5PnM_5NBGb71iNb1DyXVhY97AJSqPBDKwO0vHiWBLVSyh-q4mgTnhBxLSLmg9lG8K0XDXM-ERN-mNpDuTXSJHmbtAi8k-Jrr=w1122-h842-no)

Ex-Iraqi T-72. Is tank. Is good.

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/XIiTjHFIsdXTzjPl7wdy6qUooPkDtmBzpZ7kvLjPE8MVXibKSrRis8Zh-qkC36fDuhvJAmdqzJz--TT6CgVRdJzSMA04uRnw5eU3iV8-DJtfibQ_16EAuyvXkJTss5M0-Aapai3b_0LMP7gCf7XeNqmUAdjjKYSh6pvDR0Xat3aGKLH8ma867goO4RjksoJgJMzdEJz4bXn2Rw62SeXa95SobXXZiZjIOMK8gGruoctziEIoJkYb0pa5KQNYZ-3b8iddvuRucngyil7bx6qY1cAbfM2XI1lxmVB88bDubvGoV-vvzAMH_H41VMkbL7eAQBY9C4zSXZcb_6MM1-jQlf2d_AbyFTb-KyyZMXeuOFitRWbFpCMpWNHZITwv0J6Ep3bgP2ChTfoBnLCSWjoJW7WRWEv_s-9OWkkbw0fEogIfOibltmy0rlleo6COrM7QbWXGz9IZuOroXbdFSLSrJfnxGhEtiBKyB_AnIdgc8cS4dKJZAkC97z3noL0eZPaav3S48Cu2e3RrH_CucIwATY1MUw5J_SSmaPc-8ydLjZdUb7r6DaOYJwePsigRFvLxUbtketxoFrRPu-PkfJdnk1TZOyrxSItIo-HGdEBOujT8eLeMQTwACBBU1q_aF46nXq5py-Bg--MabPCJXAjxlp-91Q-GvTFziwHBzZVns106CwYl-1OUnIBDOk7ONDMAX4lMOCyvPgZSaVAymx-c-gfz=w1122-h842-no)

Yes, they cut a Leopard I in half. And painted the sections red ...

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/4G30H9m8_ny3sMjItnMaco1XQTA_7veyK5ano-UMEGZbdVEgu5gYrHz4tBYcZW3mwac2_fuwZaOHylgmZ38tVPoxjKy_RGrZH29G2sNw51OtOCCsZAhn4i2bXk9QqYozfO9ax_efgQyDTApGI0SZxwQpHCl4JeK03rZCyWg4nel503TkB6qTGTX5DFH0k9dfK-3itznsxOAgBfjGyhlmYwmn80rAWt6dmDs-9AjzzOwwMLvSWDE1nzCK9ywrDhozgV5hoLF_V4d03rpHQ3nI4VSCA4KUFv9iTcNx8caJVnyGMEO9T9nz4CUgcE19QhRfjtUXg69Z1d9JRlVSTqfTllA--fo_MFBvEmlM1fxuTOnnk7zg5hroXlG3wqqcNAz0a410TlxqgrnTQBmP4hZx1CFKTIUliAQuE0v_ZMv508D0uXgY187_mQ5KU-wHxf0Tx8lXqXtoleVdZp0MXbfGtPH5frAY7t61yVuQyCnqplPtqMAgd-6Euzm8kMrPaf3SPKFmwJybBmh896zYZplPKl0IzyEcLKS1M8liENNagxGdknebI8Ige1vo7PXRthFScTaXTkNT8Yxoh_pRSM-u7ekV5EQrleauly2PeGYvSskSQVFEpnC2Lff9nEryr5lsp7UaSxdPjluLWK55eLJVFZ55OUFlHPp_JADXu5AiYwCTRS5ckyC_qLdI298n5-x-dM6XFHNW9A8vYB3J1Ip1I_l9=w632-h842-no)(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/8TJZ5mNqq-U8wB4DQDKqjpAOD4HQ84liPtbcCRJ106jc9ZkKw85RLdzIo1HBBgk-Id06brVyENKLDQVrJ2FLcKj6q9Q82oADsoTZmJaK791RVyUU1VDMP0e3wdwgPYoKIBy6UnNZa7Tq621QbreXjEJA1aw1buW-ZW8LFASFyc06HPoZLOnqWilKCe62bkvd-X-H0Pn4ZYPLS1xDk2sSP9EGO4_-S3k2d_jTpJczh4P6_8HDOM2rRVHYz4kSWHleTdbSzb_gtpAXtbaXINxoerH_vwWFe0wm6WSJJwOtREJ-azDhg91PvL5CjSanorcF7haE1_Q7Ps8FDfO34e33vcCi8abOXBfQ8gSQeoBsecEGjqQoZfsKzmLfTq4gKl6S2_R49eqmSEEK0JiXkQlcnOM4VH7Q0JDhyrhmF2zD7eFVzwZYJSP2eAbLFd-wWxDXhUfgOgPQsaqbRycJ7FdP7RvvZEKRO-ZFZ3514YZqKIEsxm6UCIDYchOgcQoX65crbKRQEmG1SXUjbHArCoRdd29K84FYeHff0VoPTgP3JNVP-ePDXv6AtBVBRicS6JKP8y4KR6XfhsdB0JOaoezOMoQl8pQQeW4UCgNcXI2ZyKOWp88RFsYaWMK46siu_eNd0i-fhnF4QelwxjsfmG8rmeDKpfGfAAxCfAkKe-OnV7gvDGJ7BFEwebbDi5qGjWOf7B_0OAfpPVrCh3fdUsXPxy2s=w632-h842-no)

Hopefully these work, let me know!

W.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Daryk on 30 May 2019, 17:39:00
I can see them!  Awesome Worktroll!  Thanks for taking the time to fix them!  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Elmoth on 30 May 2019, 18:05:53
great stuff!
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Ruger on 30 May 2019, 19:14:12
I can see them!  Awesome Worktroll!  Thanks for taking the time to fix them!  :thumbsup:

Agreed.

Ruger
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: worktroll on 30 May 2019, 20:26:00
I have like 150+ other photos if anyone's interested ... none containing my image! For instance, this is going to become my online avatar when I crop it.

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/oe0k_nJ1h4w19dMOMoAiIy032uwg5dIJWwtEncWd69ZwcrTe_NphhWiWL8QYPBwHQDhLgUEjFnYA4JnEy3t--uV8guzfiK1_jOHipanBj0_-YtRQvYIRDq18SJfPm2UREI0hfMv9jLlu8H5DLmixwwCvbF33b7XVM7083NvbAdyfz41_HfTbZl1iegpQA3lRZeKzWxShedwB6q_6-KmctAInd0B7g6g2inD1NNkzrLrmgSRDM66VDzIBzWF1qmcV-TorHi_d1umdgXp3ghOxKEnshBAHBaCG3Dp04SKnwtVRSP71ArYGyVchRRTJCbwQEejunLF1qolXUFoZNmAkmKWEgHs6ZWRxI1kg6PGsKa3R9Ai_sxJaE-J52oJuUTNbQyajFwwRHQmsQ3Xp5U9ndqC2Re7VGfMBUk0vuRFr6m32beRzepq_QF9mE6w3sMfoig60NYrKTRriBXpQWPHx7jODBVJXjbQ9lIj5YEy-GgWUBe7x444W9Wso6dAVavZ2EwIGNqyduaiMLzYaG7IrlY5KSm52DrwAyfC0d_-yvCqZxmy31Tult4yegbbo6qTFb5MUGlMQM6nFI54BnKH2GF7nlM_uSxN-zZSXOSkw9U5cyGuYvA1L0Nrg-0emtx92angMdkaSvr1gln1Tl1WyceeQj9cccQJcH3ZFJa5iQZYVwTyux1LoZdQkX2npMXKCX5gQjHypzBqHRNUBEqWaYDmM=w1025-h768-no)

(old folding bridge)

It was a great day, with a great friend & a good friend of his who thought it would be interesting. It's a fair drive from Melbourne, but worth it.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Daryk on 30 May 2019, 20:37:05
I like the bearded beemer!  8)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Orin J. on 30 May 2019, 20:39:44
so YOU'RE the jerk who made it so we can't clamber into the tanks?!
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: worktroll on 30 May 2019, 20:43:32
Alas, yes. Oh, that fraction of a second when the engine turned over ... then the Corporal running out screaming at us. Totally worth it!
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Ruger on 30 May 2019, 21:59:43
Alas, yes. Oh, that fraction of a second when the engine turned over ... then the Corporal running out screaming at us. Totally worth it!

Sounds like that one open house at the Air Force base in my old home town when some idiot kids started pushing buttons in the cockpit of (IIRC) a C-5 Galaxy cargo plane...and began dumping fuel. Next thing we know, military personnel running up both ends of the plane yelling at the top of their voices for everyone to get off the plane.

Think about 20 or 30 people were offloaded in about 30 or 45 seconds.

Ruger
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Orin J. on 30 May 2019, 23:15:46
Alas, yes. Oh, that fraction of a second when the engine turned over ... then the Corporal running out screaming at us. Totally worth it!

Sir, you have my admiration and contempt in equal measures.  :bow:
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 31 May 2019, 04:46:39
And now with The Chieftain's videos on how to start most of these tanks...imagine the shenanigans you could have gotten into!

I'd like to see the pics, if you want to upload them to imgur as a set perhaps - or somewhere else. 
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Garrand on 31 May 2019, 09:58:20
Trivia note: the reason M24s were used in Battle of the Bulge instead of actual Shermans was because it was filmed on location in Spain. Those are Spanish M24s (& Spanish M47s for that matter). The production crew "hired" the Spanish army as stand-ins. Same thing with Patton.

I got to crawl around inside an M3 Grant a couple years ago (there's an armor restoration company -- MilSpec -- several miles down from where I live). It is VERY cramped inside & I wonder how you'd cram 6 or 7 guys in these things. I'm only 5'6: & I felt a little clausterphobic...

Damon.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Matti on 31 May 2019, 10:12:08
And now with The Chieftain's videos on how to start most of these tanks...imagine the shenanigans you could have gotten into!
Staff should disconnect cables from batteries and remove hand cranks
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 31 May 2019, 10:33:40
Staff should disconnect cables from batteries and remove hand cranks
to be honest, I'm surprised they didn't take those steps when putting vehicles on displays.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 31 May 2019, 16:44:07
Sometimes you need to move exhibits around for various reasons - renovations, cleaning, new vehicles, etc.  Some of them are even kept in running order for demonstrations; as for having the battery systems intact, well...who knows what they were going to be doing with that vehicle after the museum closed.  Maybe it was getting prepped for something.

And it's not like tank batteries are anything on the scale of your car battery either.  Modern tanks with modern batteries are still weighing in at 40 kilos...older machines with older hardware?  Yeah.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Matti on 02 June 2019, 01:54:22
And it's not like tank batteries are anything on the scale of your car battery either.  Modern tanks with modern batteries are still weighing in at 40 kilos...older machines with older hardware?  Yeah.
Are cable connections different too? Are those welded to batteries or something and can't be disconnected without cutting tools?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: worktroll on 06 June 2019, 14:44:56
Something new in vehicle armour:

https://phys.org/news/2019-06-metal-foam-caliber-rounds-steel.html?fbclid=IwAR36Hir9TLAAd4E0IyXQcN570_QrJwAts96qCBhAcWbm5HjXYhKpyzN-lq8

Okay, it's not bi-phase carbide, but interesting nonetheless. What impressed me is the considerable room for further optimisation.

W.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Weirdo on 06 June 2019, 15:21:46
Very interesting. I like how it seems like it'll have a great many functions beyond combat armor.

I'm curious as to which properties of the spheres and which properties of the matrix affect the performance of the plating as a whole. Something tells me that team just gained themselves some serious job security, and a mandate to play with almost every material imaginable to see what works.

How long until they try diamond...? ;)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: glitterboy2098 on 06 June 2019, 16:01:50
Diamond would have to wait till they can make it in the shapes and quantities needed. Same issues facing graphene technologies.

But I'd be curious whether using say, a titanium matrix would give you even more strength and weight reduction.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 06 June 2019, 16:35:58
re: job security, I'd call that a big damn yes.

Biggest question I have is how BULKY the stuff is.  What's the density like, and how thick would we be talking for vehicle plate?  It mentions plate "less than an inch" being used to stop machine gun fire up close, but how much lighter and thicker is it compared to a similar plate of steel able to do the same thing?

I'm mostly just wondering how many layers you'd need to sandwich together to get a tank's protection, and how bulky that armor would be. 
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: worktroll on 06 June 2019, 16:40:53
re: job security, I'd call that a big damn yes.

Biggest question I have is how BULKY the stuff is.  What's the density like, and how thick would we be talking for vehicle plate?  It mentions plate "less than an inch" being used to stop machine gun fire up close, but how much lighter and thicker is it compared to a similar plate of steel able to do the same thing?


From the article, half the weight for similar or better protection.  Probably takes up an additional 14 critical slots ;)

I was impressed by the superior rad shielding.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 06 June 2019, 17:16:28
From the article, half the weight for similar or better protection.  Probably takes up an additional 14 critical slots ;)

I was impressed by the superior rad shielding.
I suppose the shielding makes some sense, if there's something to be said for surfaces - the inner spheres are all hollow, so perhaps photons are bouncing off the boundary layers that exist between the voids and solid metal that aren't in a homogenous piece of metal? 
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: worktroll on 06 June 2019, 17:20:00
May be a scattering effect.

Plus, lighter substances absorb neutrons better than heavier ones, typically*. So you could possibly fill the spheres with particular mixes to maximise that, and get some thermal ablation happening too.

Yup, bet they're drooling at the options to optimise.

* Why aerogels are so useful in two-stage physics packages

W.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 06 June 2019, 17:27:28
Plus, lighter substances absorb neutrons better than heavier ones, typically*.
Wasn't that why the BMPs had gas tanks in the rear doors, as a sort of antiradiation protection?  Or was that accidental?

Steam voids slow neutrons for capture and fission, and "solid" water keeps them fast, right?  It's this doubly-backwards thing I can't ever remember properly.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Weirdo on 06 June 2019, 17:30:48
I'm curious about a sample that goes for extremes. High hardness steel(or maybe even tungsten) spheres, aerogel in the voids, and titanium or aluminum as the containing matrix.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: worktroll on 06 June 2019, 17:32:37
No, I think it was a space-saving thing. Having recently been next to one, damn they're small inside!

And yes, neutron moderation was an art until sufficiently powerful computation became available. We could have lost Chicago, and that would have been a Bad Thing. See also "Demon Core".
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 06 June 2019, 17:41:41
No, I think it was a space-saving thing. Having recently been next to one, damn they're small inside!

And yes, neutron moderation was an art until sufficiently powerful computation became available. We could have lost Chicago, and that would have been a Bad Thing. See also "Demon Core".
http://diary-of-distant-suns.wikidot.com/film

Which I still thank you for.  Imagine a setting where everyone was So Sure it'd work they went large to begin with and hadn't run into the xenon poisoning effect.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 06 June 2019, 17:47:04
Keeping on topic, though I can't find a picture of the real thing, a Japanese NBC recon vehicle fitted with a neutron shield to deal with hot environments.

https://hlj.com/media/catalog/product/cache/image/700x700/e9c3970ab036de70892d86c6d221abfe/p/i/pitg-04s.jpg
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Daryk on 06 June 2019, 21:25:39
*snip*
Steam voids slow neutrons for capture and fission, and "solid" water keeps them fast, right?  It's this doubly-backwards thing I can't ever remember properly.
Uh, no... the denser the light nuclei, the more thermal ("slow") neutrons you get.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 06 June 2019, 21:49:10
See prior: "never remember" - and that's why I don't get to touch the big board. :D

Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Daryk on 06 June 2019, 22:02:08
Heh... that's exactly why I posted... you admitted you weren't sure, so I just wanted to introduce some clarity... :)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Euphonium on 07 June 2019, 16:56:28
British Valentine tanks on the bottom of Poole harbour.
They were lost during training for D-Day.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 07 June 2019, 17:58:56
Makes you wonder how many of the Sherman DDs are still offshore.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Dave Talley on 07 June 2019, 21:00:46
Makes you wonder how many of the Sherman DDs are still offshore.

at least 32 off omaha, they dropped a battalion in the first wave and only two made it
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: beachhead1985 on 07 June 2019, 23:51:05
Wasn't that why the BMPs had gas tanks in the rear doors, as a sort of antiradiation protection?  Or was that accidental?

Steam voids slow neutrons for capture and fission, and "solid" water keeps them fast, right?  It's this doubly-backwards thing I can't ever remember properly.

No. What that came down to was that the Russians just needed the damn things to carry more gas in order to keep up with the tanks; the majority of which had recently had an arguably even-more dubious opgrade to their fuel capacity and put simply; "Needs must when the Devil drives."

What could be more dubious than fuel tanks in the rear doors of your cramped, human-filled light tank? (Which is how the Soviets thought of the BMP)

Remember "Wet Storage" for Sherman (and possibly other allied tanks; I confess my ignorance)? Water or antifreeze in a...call it a perforated holding tank around the ammo to keep it going off?

Well the Russians were less impressed with the operational range of their early T-54/55 series tanks. it seems that basic design was quite pushed to it's limits having been developed from T-34, by way of T-44 and the larger engines that moved the tanks fast enough with their re-allocated (proto-MBT arrangement) armour and very adequate 100mm guns simply burned more fuel than had what was an adequate engine in the T-34. Surely outboard fuel tanks offered something of a solution, but with the turret now flush to the rear deck; it limited how many of those tanks you could strap-on from 6 to 2.

In addition; while these were never the fire/death hazard they appear to be; being outside the armour; they could be easily holed/destroyed, knocked off. And the Russians still had plenty of 76(w)-equipped M4A2s to study, which they had not yet scrapped or sold off.

Yes; they made extra fuel tank(s) by filling the ammo wet storage with more diesel fuel. Yes; this totally negates the purpose of wet storage, but it DID give them the range they wanted. And this feature was retained at least as far as T-62, beyond which it may have got in the way of the autoloaders or otherwise been unnecessary/no-longer worth the trouble.

Limited range was a fault found in many post-war tanks and it was solved, or not, in various ways. The Brits had the same issues with Centurion, for instance and tried a universally despised miniature mono-wheeled fuel *trailer* somewhat like a vestigial Crocodile system, but less fun. Over time, these issues were solved by switching to diesel engines, as in the M103; just *better* tank engines or *better* tank designs; IE: those built from the ground up as MBTs and not medium tanks putting on airs.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 08 June 2019, 00:09:49
Well, as long as you don't build up vapor from it, diesel in wet storage isn't the absolute worst thing you could do.  Not that it should be your first choice, of course, but as long as you can keep the tanks filled and airtight it'll work once.

AFTER THAT, noooot so sure, but still.

As far as the drum tanks on the back, I never understood why people freaked out about them.  Aircraft do it all the time, and they're smart enough to pickle the tanks (just like the T-72s do) when the shooting starts.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: worktroll on 08 June 2019, 00:34:07
At least the strap-on tanks weren't located directly above the engine air intakes, like some second-thought addon fuel was ... ;)

W.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: PsihoKekec on 08 June 2019, 03:14:43
Interstingly, empty strap on tanks still gave a bit of flame and smoke when hit, which contributed to Luftwaffe overclaims on tank kills.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 08 June 2019, 03:36:38
Wouldn't a freshly emptied tank actually be easier to ignite given the much higher amount of fuel vapor in it than in a mostly full tank?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 08 June 2019, 08:11:00
Wouldn't a freshly emptied tank actually be easier to ignite given the much higher amount of fuel vapor in it than in a mostly full tank?
Yeah, though an empty tank that goes foof is going to burn very little, since once the immediate vapor's gone there's nothing left to burn.

And if the OPFOR thinks they killed a lot more of your tanks than they did, well, that's not a bad thing.  Surprise is a *****.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 08 June 2019, 11:32:23
Generally, tankbuster fixed-wing aircraft tended to report every hit as a kill, often leading to aircraft "confirmed" kill numbers being several times higher than the total number of enemy armored vehicles in the area, right?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Matti on 08 June 2019, 11:40:16
IE: those built from the ground up as MBTs and not medium tanks putting on airs.
Irony is T-54 & T-55 are officially medium tanks without "airs".


As far as the drum tanks on the back, I never understood why people freaked out about them.
Red Army lost many tanks for glass bottles of gasoline and tar (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov_cocktail). So huge external tanks that can be penetrated by rifle or machine gun with tracer rounds like airships of First World War?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 08 June 2019, 11:58:10
So huge external tanks that can be penetrated by rifle or machine gun with tracer rounds like airships of First World War?
That are emptied first in overland travel and dumped when the shooting starts.  Or do you think fighter planes with external fuel tanks are bad ideas because the fuel tank can be penetrated by rifle or machine gun with tracer rounds?

You're also not going to ignite diesel fuel with a tracer.  At all.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: beachhead1985 on 08 June 2019, 17:33:40
Irony is T-54 & T-55 are officially medium tanks without "airs".

About that.

We actually get our modern concept of a Main Battle Tank from Russian Tank design. Once we saw examples of where they were going post-war, we eventually realized there was no-where else to go, but to play their game or lose. But the Russians had only ever had a passing familiarity with the tank design conventions of the day and had never been shy about trying different things if they seemed to work. While T-54/55 may have been thought of...somewhere...as a Medium; it was far off script with a heavy tank gun and heavy tank armour on the frontal arc (especially the turret), while retaining very high-end mobility (cross-country performance, not just speed).

But Post-war Western tanks; which is what I was referring to, suffered by comparison of being developed as other kinds of tanks; mediums for the Americans, which lacked the selective heavy armour and guns of MBTs, Centurion; which was a perfected cruiser tank and various European dumpster fires derived from their own circus/madhouse approach to tank design.

We didn't get away from that until the 1970s and later, for the most part and most of our MBTs STILL had serious issues then; such as Chieftain's chronic underpower issues and the inferior IR system on the Abrams. Thankfully, by then the Russians had their own issues trying to push too far, too fast; which got them the T-64 and it's grab-bag of problems. Only some of which were solved by the follow-on T-80, which also had new issues.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 08 June 2019, 20:11:04
Of course, the 60s and 70s also blew out the armor paradigm for the most part - look at the thicknesses on the Leopard 1 and AMX-30 for example.  Guns had overtopped armor pretty significantly, at least until ERA showed up midway through the latter decade, and composites the next, so you had speed becoming a thing in Europe.  I mean come on, the AMX-30's first run was in the weight range of the Sherman family; while the M4 might have worked fine against 75mm guns of its time that armor mass was not going to deal with the ATGM and HEAT-happy settings of the AMX's threat envelope.  They just gave up on significant protection, as did the (slightly heavier) Leopard.  It'd stop small stuff, but modern kinetic or chemical penetrators would gut the things.

Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: chanman on 09 June 2019, 01:14:49
About that.

We actually get our modern concept of a Main Battle Tank from Russian Tank design. Once we saw examples of where they were going post-war, we eventually realized there was no-where else to go, but to play their game or lose. But the Russians had only ever had a passing familiarity with the tank design conventions of the day and had never been shy about trying different things if they seemed to work. While T-54/55 may have been thought of...somewhere...as a Medium; it was far off script with a heavy tank gun and heavy tank armour on the frontal arc (especially the turret), while retaining very high-end mobility (cross-country performance, not just speed).

But Post-war Western tanks; which is what I was referring to, suffered by comparison of being developed as other kinds of tanks; mediums for the Americans, which lacked the selective heavy armour and guns of MBTs, Centurion; which was a perfected cruiser tank and various European dumpster fires derived from their own circus/madhouse approach to tank design.

We didn't get away from that until the 1970s and later, for the most part and most of our MBTs STILL had serious issues then; such as Chieftain's chronic underpower issues and the inferior IR system on the Abrams. Thankfully, by then the Russians had their own issues trying to push too far, too fast; which got them the T-64 and it's grab-bag of problems. Only some of which were solved by the follow-on T-80, which also had new issues.

Arguably the Panther paradigm (okay, its gun was more middling, especially with the poor quality ammo available to it). Which is why I laugh at the idea of the Panther being a 'medium' tank in the WW2 sense of the word - it might have the mobility, but the all-up weight was on par with the early Centurion and greater than the M26 Pershing, itself designed as a heavy tank (obviously the goalposts get shifted in the post-war shuffle)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 09 June 2019, 01:40:44
The Panther, like most German vehicles, seems to have gotten a lot of armchair analysis based on a mythical hypothetical performance on paper that it never actually did in real life.  It certainly didn't have the mobility it's often credited for, due to having an engine that was designed for a much smaller tank.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 09 June 2019, 02:26:43
T-54, Centurion and Pershing are heavy tanks compared to the T-34, Cromwell and Sherman.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: kato on 09 June 2019, 02:45:10
I mean come on, the AMX-30's first run was in the weight range of the Sherman family
The AMX-30B (non-prototype) weighed 36 tons, same as the T-54 or T-55 contemporarily. The prototypes later redesignated AMX-30A weighed 32.5 tons. The zero-series Leopard 1 prototypes also weighed only around 38 tons.

Neither the Leopard 1 nor the AMX-30A/B fulfilled the original 1957 FINABEL 3A5 requirements for a standard medium tank. Those were set to a 30-ton weight and a 30 hp/ton engine rating.

Of course, the 60s and 70s also blew out the armor paradigm for the most part
50s actually. The original idea was to improve mobility by shoving the powerpack and armament (literally the same) of the late 40s heavy tank designs into the framework of a medium tank at the cost of armor. Produced prototypes like the Char Lorraine 40t, which basically packed the AMX-50 under the armor protection of an AMX-13 - with the mobility of a modern MBT. In 1952.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: chanman on 09 June 2019, 04:29:08
T-54, Centurion and Pershing are heavy tanks compared to the T-34, Cromwell and Sherman.

Sure, and my point is that the Panther was as well
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Matti on 09 June 2019, 06:52:14
Arguably the Panther paradigm (okay, its gun was more middling, especially with the poor quality ammo available to it). Which is why I laugh at the idea of the Panther being a 'medium' tank in the WW2 sense of the word - it might have the mobility, but the all-up weight was on par with the early Centurion and greater than the M26 Pershing, itself designed as a heavy tank (obviously the goalposts get shifted in the post-war shuffle)
As I understand Panther, at first it was supposed to be medium tank, but Hitler or someone wanted more protection which increased weight. That, and inadequate reworking and testing because of hurry to get the tanks into the field, resulted a heavy tank with axles and other parts designed for lighter chassis. Result was host of various breakdowns and other reliability problems for early production runs. And shot traps too.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 09 June 2019, 11:10:51
They'd also canceled all forms of quality control by that point in order to speed up production.  And they were using POWs to build them, which meant that their workforce was motivated to sabotage production as much as they could.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: beachhead1985 on 09 June 2019, 22:40:00
Panther was a case of trying to do it all with technology that wasn't there yet and far, far too many engineering shortcuts in the drivetrain.

It had a totally adequate main gun, when the 88s were really overkill against anything up to an IS-2. But it also had a very traditional 3-2-1 armour arrangement.

It influenced post-war design most in the sense of; "What if we could do that, but actually make it work?" That thinking got really pinched off with proto-MBT concepts, which was a short-cut to doing even more by making trade-offs that were unthinkable ten years earlier.

What Panther really did most was in the Main gun; which was copied by the French and used with an autoloader in the AMX-13 and ironically in the Israeli M50 Super-Shermans hand-loaded. It was a real medium-tank gun, which when copied and refined a bit was ideal for tanks of it's class.

The class issue is confusing because when discussing tanks; you need to look at design and not designation (I feel i am being condescending here and I appologize profusely); because designations change constantly. The same Pershings were designated as mediums, heavies and then mediums again. The M46 was considered a tank destroyer briefly for truely obscure reasons, despite only having a different turret and the M47 was almost the exact same tank with a new turret again and called an MBT when it entered service.

Panther's problems were probably fixable, but not in a setting where you still have PzIIIs rolling off the lines in mid-44 and PzIVs still being refined in 1945; it's too much energy wasted on divergent lines. A recurring theme for WWII is no-one being willing to gamble enough on production to slow things down to try and come up with something better or try to really switch over fully to a new type of vehicle. The Germans wasted vast resources of all kinds producing and developing and CONTINUING to develop so many different kinds of fighting vehicles. Common sense ideas like going to the hybrid PzIII/IV chassis as seen in Hummel and Nashorn for ALL support vehicles never got off the ground. Going to King Tiger running gear and new transmission solved most of the Panther's remaining automotive issues; but that didn't happen until early 45. The main gun was still totally fine for anything but the IS right through until 1973, when the Israelis found that they really had kept the last of the M50s around too long; thus they all went to Chile and Lebanon after that, while the IDF retained the 105-armed M51s in reserve service for a while longer.

The problem for the Germans was that when you're drowning in T-34s, you don't want to shut down your Panzer III and IV lines for a few months to a year for more Panthers (that aren't there yet, developmentally) you want more tanks you know work and you want them right now. Likewise; people are screaming for more Panthers, Tigers, ect; so any issues they have need to be fixed on the production line; which leads to increased variation (bad) and the fixes may not stick (Worse).

It's easy to forget that real nations aren't run by omniscient power-gamers, willing to gamble big and then reload the game if they lose. Maybe the solution was to pour everything into STUGs/JPzIV in 1941? But who was really going to make that call?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: DaveMac on 10 June 2019, 05:10:38
at least 32 off omaha, they dropped a battalion in the first wave and only two made it

http://www.duplexdrivetanks.co.uk/DUPLEXPAGES/DDAY1.html
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Sabelkatten on 10 June 2019, 05:53:17
(I hope this doesn't get to close to rule 4)

As I understand it one of the big German problems in WWII was that, for most of the war, they didn't run a "war economy". The corporations had so much power (a defining feature of Fascism) that they could control the spending to benefit their bottom line.

So even if government wanted to shut down Pz.III/IV production in favor of Pz.V, it would only happen if the corporations thought they could get a larger profit.

Compare this to the US where the government basically said "build M4s!" and that's what happened. ;)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: marauder648 on 10 June 2019, 08:15:24
RE the T-64/T-80 did they ever fix the issue with the T-64's autoloader having a habit of trying to load the arm of the guy operating in in the T-80?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: beachhead1985 on 10 June 2019, 09:10:53
(I hope this doesn't get to close to rule 4)

As I understand it one of the big German problems in WWII was that, for most of the war, they didn't run a "war economy". The corporations had so much power (a defining feature of Fascism) that they could control the spending to benefit their bottom line.

So even if government wanted to shut down Pz.III/IV production in favor of Pz.V, it would only happen if the corporations thought they could get a larger profit.

Compare this to the US where the government basically said "build M4s!" and that's what happened. ;)

Yes and no.

Yes about the German Economy. Which was really a horrifying beast in a lot of ways. That they did so well on a peacetime footing until 42/43; some sources state until 44! Is terrifying. That they used slave labour as effectively as they did and that the allied bombing campaigns turned out to be totally ineffective, are all factors that make the WWII German economy a terrifying thing to be behold.

But, as I understand it, no; Pz III/IV and other types production was a result of a distrust in the armoured corps for the new Big Cats (they wanted something reliable) and the  Oh Cr**! factor of the insatiable demand for armoured vehicles.

A big American advantage was, as recently discussed on Quora; the depth of experience the USA had with industrial age warfare, going back; arguably to the Civil War and their capacity to meld that with an otherwise very free and open form of government to have what ammounted to a switch-on command economy.

This, in turn allowed them to, yes; make buckets of M4s in the beginning. Sticking with the M4 however and refusing to modify the design significantly, however were symptoms of other driving factors. They made their mis-steps too. Ever heard of the M7?

RE the T-64/T-80 did they ever fix the issue with the T-64's autoloader having a habit of trying to load the arm of the guy operating in in the T-80?

I'm not 100% certain, but I think; yes. In the models with the later Rapira guns, which in turn have better/safer autoloaders.

The BMP-1 had the same issue IIRC.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: marauder648 on 10 June 2019, 09:21:26
RE the German war econimy might I suggest reading the wonderfully written and darn well researched

https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/and-they-shall-reap-the-whirlwind-story-only-thread.343760/

There's a great deal about the German econimy, about how allied bombing got most of their ideas wrong (ball bearings were imported from Sweden as an example) and how in reality the US stumbled across the right target, Oil, in 44. This time in that story, things go a bit different.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: grimlock1 on 10 June 2019, 10:25:05
They made their mis-steps too. Ever heard of the M7?

No, but I'd like to. :-)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: DaveMac on 10 June 2019, 10:31:38
No, but I'd like to. :-)

http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/US/m7-medium.php
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: grimlock1 on 10 June 2019, 11:50:01
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/US/m7-medium.php
Yeah, that seems like just about the right amount of train wreck...
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Garrand on 10 June 2019, 13:37:16
The M46 was considered a tank destroyer briefly for truely obscure reasons, despite only having a different turret and the M47 was almost the exact same tank with a new turret again and called an MBT when it entered service.

Just a minor correction. The M46 was the M26 Pershing with a new powerplant & transmission. The two tanks were identical & in fact the M46 was a rebuild program of the M26 Pershing. The turrets were the same, but the engine decks & exhausts were quite different. The M47 married the M46 hull with a new turret.

Damon.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Matti on 10 June 2019, 15:13:26
The problem for the Germans was that when you're drowning in T-34s, you don't want to shut down your Panzer III and IV lines for a few months to a year for more Panthers (that aren't there yet, developmentally) you want more tanks you know work and you want them right now. Likewise; people are screaming for more Panthers, Tigers, ect; so any issues they have need to be fixed on the production line; which leads to increased variation (bad) and the fixes may not stick (Worse).

It's easy to forget that real nations aren't run by omniscient power-gamers, willing to gamble big and then reload the game if they lose. Maybe the solution was to pour everything into STUGs/JPzIV in 1941? But who was really going to make that call?
Assuming Germany had stuck with quantity of Panzerkampfwagen III, Panzerkampf... IV, and Stürmgeschutz series and left Panther & sequels on the drawing board, would they had have enough fuel to keep the numbers going? According to certain claims, fuel ran low and halftracks were used to clear the minefields. So somebody decided Germany couldn't win through the numbers and it is better to produce better tanks against opposing numerical superiority. But then appeared unexpected problems. Compare to F-35.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Fat Guy on 10 June 2019, 15:29:39
The two tanks were identical & in fact the M46 was a rebuild program of the M26 Pershing. The turrets were the same, but the engine decks & exhausts were quite different.

And the M46 had that little track tensioning wheel below the sprocket.

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-hb_DILkBewo/Tbh1dJKHmpI/AAAAAAAAH_I/HQbHx6Kg_Pk/s1600/M46+Patton+Tank+by+asian+defence+%2810%29.jpg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 10 June 2019, 16:04:46
Assuming Germany had stuck with quantity of Panzerkampfwagen III, Panzerkampf... IV, and Stürmgeschutz series and left Panther & sequels on the drawing board, would they had have enough fuel to keep the numbers going? According to certain claims, fuel ran low and halftracks were used to clear the minefields. So somebody decided Germany couldn't win through the numbers and it is better to produce better tanks against opposing numerical superiority. But then appeared unexpected problems. Compare to F-35.

Tigers and Panthers (to say nothing of the Maus) were serious gas-guzzlers.  It would have been easier keeping a fleet of Panzer IVs fueled.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: worktroll on 10 June 2019, 16:11:25
Panzer III production formally ceased in 1943, but the chassis lived on to the end for Stugs & the like.

A similar case involved the British 2-pounder. After Dunkirk, no-one was prepared to stop production of the 2-pounder  for the 6 months required to change over to the 6-pounder. A bad gun was considered better than no gun, especially given the amount of equipment left behind in France.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: kato on 10 June 2019, 16:55:19
Panzer III production formally ceased in 1943, but the chassis lived on to the end for Stugs & the like.
And the StuG-III was the attempt to go for quantity over quality. 10,000 produced between mid 1942 and 1945 - 90% were destroyed in the same three years.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 10 June 2019, 17:42:40
In fairness, I've never heard anyone say the StuG III was a bad machine at all.  It had its limitations being a casemate machine, but the guns were fine and the things worked reliably enough.  90% of them may have been lost, but how much of that high percentage is because they couldn't keep production going and replacements eventually stopped as the Germans lost the war?  I mean, from July 1944 to April 1945 the Americans lost between 4300 and 4400 M4s; assuming the start of the month to the end of the month that's about 300 days - nearly 15 tanks a day getting lost on average...but we kept on producing them, unlike the Germans.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 10 June 2019, 22:27:42
Yeah, keep in mind that the US built 50,000 M4s and the Soviets built 55,000 T-34s.  Also, the M4 had a much higher crew survival rate when the tank was destroyed compared to the T-34 and Panzer IV due to having a roomier interior that was easier to move around in and each crew member having their own dedicated escape hatches.

That's actually one of the reasons why the US just kept producing more Shermans.  The M4 was a good generalist tank: it could fight infantry, it could fight enemy fortifications, and it could fight most German tanks.  With German armor being relatively rare compared to it, especially the big scary armor like the Panther and Tiger, the US army didn't want a bunch of specialized machines.  This actually became a problem with M10, M18, and M36 tank destroyers that were pushed into serving as tanks to assault fortified locations: their open turrets and reduced armor made them very vulnerable to German infantry.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: PsihoKekec on 11 June 2019, 01:47:45
However, crews of tank destroyers (and SU-76) were more likely to survive a hit by HEAT warhead as open top meant less overpressure inside.

Also all German AFVs, not just StuGs suffered over 90% percent casualties in the last three years of war, it was just a nature of campaigns they fought.

RE the German war econimy might I suggest reading the wonderfully written and darn well researched

https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/and-they-shall-reap-the-whirlwind-story-only-thread.343760/

There's a great deal about the German econimy, about how allied bombing got most of their ideas wrong (ball bearings were imported from Sweden as an example) and how in reality the US stumbled across the right target, Oil, in 44. This time in that story, things go a bit different.
I love how he lays out all the infighting between different departments, terrible bureaucratic inertia and odious personalities of various decisionmakers. Especially Lindemann.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 11 June 2019, 03:08:59
Also all German AFVs, not just StuGs suffered over 90% percent casualties in the last three years of war, it was just a nature of campaigns they fought.
Eastern Front probably didn't have a lot of prisoners taken, I imagine, especially after '43.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 11 June 2019, 03:23:30

Also all German AFVs, not just StuGs suffered over 90% percent casualties in the last three years of war, it was just a nature of campaigns they fought.

This

Obviously German AFV casualties were high; they lost the war didn't they? But the question is, did they lose because of the inferiority of their tanks, or despite the superiority of their tanks?

So the Germans lost 100% of their Panther tanks. The Soviets lost 7 times as many T-34s... At least 70-80% of their WW2 production and prewar stock. Which is the better tank then?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Istal_Devalis on 11 June 2019, 10:05:58
I wouldn't normally consider the tank that spontaneously caught fire as the good one, that's for sure.

In this case, it's worth looking at the design philosophies behind them. The Panther was meant as a 'quality' tank. The fact that the majority of its casualties were equipment breakdown puts the lie to that. The T-34 was built with the idea of being as cheap and quick to manufacture as possible. It being essentially disposable was part of the point.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Matti on 11 June 2019, 13:15:03
A similar case involved the British 2-pounder. After Dunkirk, no-one was prepared to stop production of the 2-pounder  for the 6 months required to change over to the 6-pounder. A bad gun was considered better than no gun, especially given the amount of equipment left behind in France.
Speaking about which, in USA Grant or Lee (or both?) remained in production because the need for tanks outweighed the need for more Shermans. On otherhand, generals rejected some tanks because those hadn't gone through enough testing or just plain sucked. Likely the better choice considering reliability issues some German tanks had going on.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 11 June 2019, 13:42:12
The Lee actually got phased out of the European theater and was sent to the Pacific, where it served very well: it was well armored enough to resist Japanese anti-tank guns, its 37mm was sufficient to kill Japanese armor, and its 75mm was effective against fortifications.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Fat Guy on 11 June 2019, 18:48:20
Well, Japanese tanks were such shitboxes the Lee may as well have been a King Tiger!

Pershings never got sent to the Pacific because the Sherman was already overkill.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 11 June 2019, 19:18:43
There's also something to consider about Pershings going ANYWHERE at the time.  According to (what I remember of) Nick Moran's research, there were a whole two cranes in the US at the time that could handle the 46 ton mass of the Pershing compared to the significantly lighter Sherman.  While there were also the RORO ships and the burgeoning LST concept, they were still limited to a max of 30 tons for each vehicle onboard - and, very likely, unspecified dimensional limitations as well.

Idly, I had a terribly silly idea that I figure I'll share.  That poor driver...
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 11 June 2019, 19:57:57
That looks like something from Battletech.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 11 June 2019, 20:19:52
There's also something to consider about Pershings going ANYWHERE at the time.

Supposedly only a dozen or so actually saw combat in the ETO.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 11 June 2019, 22:39:42
They were pretty rare, though there's that Pershing-Panther duel caught on film that made it at least a little famous. 
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: beachhead1985 on 11 June 2019, 22:50:55
No, but I'd like to. :-)

Prepare to be disappointed.

The M7; for all your trainwreck needs.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: beachhead1985 on 11 June 2019, 22:51:37
Just a minor correction. The M46 was the M26 Pershing with a new powerplant & transmission. The two tanks were identical & in fact the M46 was a rebuild program of the M26 Pershing. The turrets were the same, but the engine decks & exhausts were quite different. The M47 married the M46 hull with a new turret.

Damon.

I stand corrected.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: beachhead1985 on 11 June 2019, 22:58:27
Well, Japanese tanks were such shitboxes the Lee may as well have been a King Tiger!

Pershings never got sent to the Pacific because the Sherman was already overkill.

They actually deployed Pershings on Okinawa as a test for the home islands. So at the very least we know that as part of Operation: DOWNFALL, the bridging infrastructure of Japan would have been improved significantly.
They were pretty rare, though there's that Pershing-Panther duel caught on film that made it at least a little famous. 

Where can I find this???
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Dave Talley on 11 June 2019, 23:39:42
just google Cologne panther pershing
you will find a ton of bits
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 12 June 2019, 13:56:28
It's also moderately gory, the battle is that a pair of Shermans comes around a corner and the lead tank gets ambushed by the Panther.  The camera captures the crew bailing out, with some graphic injuries; the Pershing is called up to handle the threat and puts the Panther down with three rounds - and again, the surviving crew of the Panther bails out with graphic injuries.

It's not the clearest imagery, hand-held 1940s film cameras in battle do not make the best choice, but there's stabilized and clarified versions of the sequence. 
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: truetanker on 13 June 2019, 08:36:18
Wait?  There's no stolen gold in this story...  xp

Wonders now if Kilroy was ever there...

TT
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Sharpnel on 13 June 2019, 08:58:34
Kilroy is/was everywhere
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Matti on 13 June 2019, 12:50:44
Wait?  There's no stolen gold in this story...  xp
What story?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Dave Talley on 13 June 2019, 16:30:38
probably thinking of the guys who bought a
Iraqi T72 and found a few bars of kuwaiti gold in the gas tank
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 13 June 2019, 17:54:08
Come on guys, how can you not recognize Kelly's Heroes at a glance!
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: CranstonSnord on 13 June 2019, 19:59:41
Negative waves, Moriarty!
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 14 June 2019, 17:14:39
Oddball is my spirit animal.
(https://i.imgur.com/oDhMIzR.jpg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: beachhead1985 on 14 June 2019, 20:19:37
Oddball is my spirit animal.
(https://i.imgur.com/oDhMIzR.jpg)

Woof Woof!

And very technically interesting tanks, IRL; the post-war 76mm retrofit into the original (T43?) Turrets was pretty clever, but I wonder what it was like on the crews? I loved all the WWII Gear stated out in Twilight 2000 due to it having been passed to the Yugoslavs before they lowered the curtain on themselves.

Almost as cool as the Czechs still making these bad boys for a number of years!

(https://www.valka.cz/attachments/9328/OT-810D.jpg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 14 June 2019, 21:43:51
I'd imagine it would be pretty cramped like the Firefly.  IIRC Chieftain mentions the 76 on one of his in-the-tank videos.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 15 June 2019, 07:36:52
So this happened....

(https://i.postimg.cc/509N1914/ezgif-com-webp-to-jpg.jpg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Daryk on 15 June 2019, 08:00:33
Details?  PLEASE!  ;D
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 15 June 2019, 08:25:44
Another angle, and the story

Source: https://belsat.eu/en/news/drunken-man-takes-tank-drive-in-polish-town/

A drunken man and his friend were driving a T-55 tank along the streets of a small Polish town of Pajęczno. Earlier, the tank belonged to Poland’s Armed Forces.

The local police was informed of the situation at 21.40 on Thursday evening. A few minutes later, the officers stopped the military vehicle on Mickiewicz street, Twoje Pajęczno reports. The 49-year-old ‘tankman’ was intoxicated.

As it turned out, after being repaired, the tank was to be transported on the special platform. But its owner invited his acquaintance to have an unusual ride.

The driver was detained; he spent a night in the police station. Now he may face up to 8 years of imprisonment for creating a situation of danger.

(https://i.postimg.cc/KjBpmHLm/czolg-pajeczno-thumb-576x432.jpg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Daryk on 15 June 2019, 08:29:44
Too funny... at least it looks like he didn't do much damage during the joy ride...
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Ruger on 15 June 2019, 13:52:09
Too funny... at least it looks like he didn't do much damage during the joy ride...

And the cop(s) responding to the call now have an almost once in a lifetime story to tell the kids/grandkids.

Ruger
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Daryk on 15 June 2019, 13:57:18
I'm sure they HOPE it's a once in a lifetime story!  ;D
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: kato on 15 June 2019, 14:08:03
The last time someone did that over here police stopped him on a bridge.

He was stopped on that bridge, moved over into the turret and was moving it around a bit, taking aim. With 66 rounds of live 105mm onboard. Then he thought he should get into a better position to aim, moved back to the driver's position, put the tank in reverse and kinda miscalculated his momentum.

(https://abload.de/img/0npy1kzbocr018bkss.jpg)

And yes, the water got him.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Daryk on 15 June 2019, 14:10:03
I'm sure the water had some help from the alcohol in that case too...
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: worktroll on 15 June 2019, 15:14:39
I did an image search, and it came up "Toyota Prius". If only they offered the 105mm upgrade here in Australia  :(

"But worst of all, the tank was not insured!"
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 15 June 2019, 15:45:21
God, I'm just thinking back to the guy who stole the M-60 back in San Diego; I was still in El Cajon at that time.  We were terrified he was gonna stop on the freeway, turn around, and charge south in the northbound lane and go into all the stopped cars that the police had blocked off, but instead...well, thank God it turned out the way it did.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: kato on 15 June 2019, 15:54:35
The above one in Mannheim in '82 careened through a pedestrian shopping street on saturday high-time for two hours, drove over ten cars in a side street and sliced open a tram for a 15 ft long gash.

Still only four injured overall though.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: beachhead1985 on 15 June 2019, 22:24:40
God, I'm just thinking back to the guy who stole the M-60 back in San Diego; I was still in El Cajon at that time.  We were terrified he was gonna stop on the freeway, turn around, and charge south in the northbound lane and go into all the stopped cars that the police had blocked off, but instead...well, thank God it turned out the way it did.

Years ago, I heard a story that when the US was retiring the M60s, the ended up going all sorts of places. Here in Canada, we had one delivered to a reserve armoury in Windsor. "Here; take it. Check it out, play with it. It's a gift. If you want them; you can have them. Have your people call our people."

The tank ended up on display in Borden as part of the (Quite impressive) tank park.

(https://www.flickr.com/photos/collingwoodbarry/10116196964)
http://preservedtanks.com/Locations.aspx?LocationCategoryId=8000 (http://preservedtanks.com/Locations.aspx?LocationCategoryId=8000)

Naturally; we turned them down. While we've always had our issues up north; we've never been the type to look for a vast inventory of obsolescent hardware in order to increase coverage or try for quantity over quality. We prefer a small inventory of obsolescent hardware, thankyouverymuch.

However...

Another source told me that M60s, parts and even ammuntion had been disposed of through various US Government services and ended up in some rather weird places. Someone's department of highways, for instance (State of Washington?). I have always wondered if there was any truth to this?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 15 June 2019, 22:52:45
I would imagine a Patton, with the turret pulled and covered over into an ersatz recovery vehicle, would make one unstoppable plow or wrecker.

And yeah, there's been a few rounds of surplus military hardware - even big stuff, like armored vehicles - being shipped around to various police and special services units in the US.  After the big drawdown in Iraq, probably every police chief with dreams of a SWAT team got themselves a free MRAP.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 16 June 2019, 01:02:51
I would imagine a Patton, with the turret pulled and covered over into an ersatz recovery vehicle, would make one unstoppable plow or wrecker.

Unstoppable, but also rather expensive to keep running, I'd guess.  Between the fuel costs, the issues of maintenance (because you're not just going to be able to take it to the standard garage), and problems caused by its weight on bridges and other structures, it might not be the best choice.

I've heard of multiple cases of police departments snapping up surplus military gear, then going broke trying to actually pay to keep it running.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: kato on 16 June 2019, 03:18:42
I would imagine a Patton, with the turret pulled and covered over into an ersatz recovery vehicle, would make one unstoppable plow or wrecker.
Related:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHlujDSOfCE
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 16 June 2019, 03:41:55
Nnnnnnneat.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Feenix74 on 16 June 2019, 07:05:17
Long history of converting surplus tanks to farm equipment here in Aus:

(https://www.abc.net.au/news/image/8023238-3x2-700x467.jpg)

(https://www.abc.net.au/news/image/8023696-3x2-700x467.jpg)

(http://www.ploughbooksales.com.au/info/collect/matilda-tank.JPG)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: hoosierhick on 16 June 2019, 12:27:19

Someone's department of highways, for instance (State of Washington?). I have always wondered if there was any truth to this?

They're using them for avalanche control.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZLfboCceGA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZLfboCceGA)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: I am Belch II on 16 June 2019, 13:54:45
Here are some military vehicles used in the Chernobyl clean up.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Matti on 16 June 2019, 16:06:45
Long history of converting surplus tanks to farm equipment here in Aus:
"Swords to ploughs" anyone? BattleTech book Legacy has that going too.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: beachhead1985 on 16 June 2019, 22:45:14
They're using them for avalanche control.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZLfboCceGA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZLfboCceGA)

That's pretty clever.

Would I rather be in a tank than on-foot if I got hit by an avalanche?  Surely yes?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Dave Talley on 17 June 2019, 00:59:48
well the tank wont be moved as much due to its mass
and if inside you will have air for a couple hours assuming you shut the engine
down quickly, and if close to the surface, simply moving the turret and main gun you might be able tunnel out
if not you are in a big metal box with little heat and all that metal is going conduct what heat you have away very soon
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: chanman on 17 June 2019, 02:36:35
I would imagine a Patton, with the turret pulled and covered over into an ersatz recovery vehicle, would make one unstoppable plow or wrecker.

And yeah, there's been a few rounds of surplus military hardware - even big stuff, like armored vehicles - being shipped around to various police and special services units in the US.  After the big drawdown in Iraq, probably every police chief with dreams of a SWAT team got themselves a free MRAP.

Much like everything else, it's the upkeep and maintenance that gets you. Almost sounds like some kind of company store play  :D
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Daryk on 17 June 2019, 04:27:12
There was a link from the video about a railroad company up in Alaska that uses a howitzer for the same job...
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: kato on 17 June 2019, 06:33:55
There was a link from the video about a railroad company up in Alaska that uses a howitzer for the same job...
There's also a group in the Sierra Nevada that uses a WW2 howitzer and intermittently had borrowed a M119 from the US Army for the job until they needed it back for Iraq.


In the Alps they just use bazookas (old RL-83 Blindicide) or 120mm mortars (more rare).
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Elmoth on 17 June 2019, 09:19:31
An M119 corresponds to an AC2?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 17 June 2019, 09:52:14
There was a link from the video about a railroad company up in Alaska that uses a howitzer for the same job...

If it's the group from Juneau, they once missed so badly they accidentally hit Canada.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: hoosierhick on 17 June 2019, 10:40:13
There was a link from the video about a railroad company up in Alaska that uses a howitzer for the same job...

I thought I had seen that too but I couldn't remember where I saw it.  There was also a group in the US that was using one of the large recoilless rifles at one point.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Garrand on 17 June 2019, 12:45:35
And very technically interesting tanks, IRL; the post-war 76mm retrofit into the original (T43?) Turrets was pretty clever, but I wonder what it was like on the crews?

US Army ordinance did versions of this Sherman in WWII (in '42 or maybe '43) to test the feasibility of using an M1 76mm cannon in the older 75mm turret. The conclusion was that the installation was too cramped & compromised the "fightability" of the tank. They opted to wait instead for a larger turret (i.e. the T23 turret). Post war, many surplus SHermans were upgraded with the M1A1 cannon (called M4AxE9 IIRC) & supplied to US allies. I'm pretty sure Pakistan had them, & maybe India as well.

Damon.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 17 June 2019, 14:44:12
Murica - our state troopers have 105mm artillery

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_BPcqIL0KY
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Matti on 17 June 2019, 15:08:20
An M119 corresponds to an AC2?
Neg. Try Thumper.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: grimlock1 on 18 June 2019, 09:45:12
Before he got voted out (I left not long after) the Phoenix sheriff's department had a 155mm SPG.  Demilled, but still.

(http://njtoaz.smugmug.com/Police/Maricopa-County-Sheriff/i-DDTvpXz/0/L/MCSO%20The%20Tank%20M1%20Abrams%20%28ps%29-L.jpg)
...Why?

Seems like the maintenance cost to capability ratio might be kinda high.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Weirdo on 18 June 2019, 10:06:04
It's a political statement and nothing else. The details obviously can't be discussed here.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 18 June 2019, 10:24:43
Bingo.

And, like I said, I'm not in Phoenix anymore so I dunno if they've since sold it off (there's a big collectors market for AFVs) or if it's still around or what.  Gotta admit, though, that sucker would be cool for the Fourth of July.

Meanwhile, looks like the new Abrams is finally reaching brigade-strength numbers, and is to be sent off to some lucky unit soon.  Trophy APS on the sides (note the radar emitters) and that BIG stonkin' block of armor on the turret front...that's...pretty bloody impressive.  All kinds of other improvements internally as well, of course.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: glitterboy2098 on 18 June 2019, 12:29:52
picture like that though are also a good example of why some are pushing for a new tank development program.. because the M1 is starting to run out of places they can hang additional armor and systems without impairing important bits for its job as a tank.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 18 June 2019, 12:32:14
I won't repost the photo but part of me wonders if the person pointing is saying "and this is the supporting-infantry-killer..."
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Orin J. on 18 June 2019, 16:25:55
Body language feels more like "i want to know which one of you left that open, you'll have to do the whole checklist over now" to me.

the guys in uniform all read clueless, but looking clueless through whatever is being told to you might just be a valuable skill for the armed forces....
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 18 June 2019, 19:20:58
the guys in uniform all read clueless
"Okay, see this?  This is a tank.  Can you guys spell tank?"
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Cannonshop on 20 June 2019, 10:57:39
"Okay, see this?  This is a tank.  Can you guys spell tank?"

[insert obligatory tanker joke here.]

thinking somewhat seriously, that's actually not a bad way to test military equipment.  Find a collection of the lowest-IQ people you can in uniform (actually really kind of tough in the all-volunteer services we have today), and see if they can break/misuse/screw it up, then fix the design, then repeat.  By the time you finish testing ths way, it'll be ALMOST soldier-proof and incredibly durable.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Weirdo on 20 June 2019, 11:15:02
My new boss just retired from the Marines, and just expressed this morning the same view - Give it to the privates, corporals, and lance corporals. If it can be broken, they'll figure out how to do it. :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Charlie 6 on 20 June 2019, 14:17:05
My new boss just retired from the Marines, and just expressed this morning the same view - Give it to the privates, corporals, and lance corporals. If it can be broken, they'll figure out how to do it. :thumbsup:
Hence our term, Marine-proof.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Matti on 20 June 2019, 14:27:26
I have read about a guy who thought that the best way to clean oil (or gasoline or whatever) off from his boots was to light them up on fire. While the said boots were still on his feet. He was a tank crewman. Source: Heavy Metal: A Tank Company's Battle to Baghdad
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Daryk on 20 June 2019, 15:45:36
It's not necessarily the lowest IQ people you want... as others have alluded to, it's the least experienced ones you want.  The clever 18 year old is the MOST dangerous one...
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: chanman on 21 June 2019, 17:43:22
It's not the intelligence or lack thereof. It's the combination of crushing boredom, lack of foresight, and a questionable sense of self preservation. You know... Teenagers whether in camo or not
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 21 June 2019, 19:24:31
"Hold my beer and watch this..."
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: PsihoKekec on 22 June 2019, 01:57:52
Bored soldiers are devil's paws. (https://terminallance.com/2014/09/16/terminal-lance-344-bored/)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Matti on 22 June 2019, 02:20:52
Bored soldiers are devil's paws. (https://terminallance.com/2014/09/16/terminal-lance-344-bored/)
Let's see...
Quote
Things happen when Marines get bored. There are only two possible outcomes in this very common instance: either something amazing is going to happen or something absolutely horrifying is going to happen. There’s no middle ground here.
Do we know of anything of the amazing part?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: kato on 22 June 2019, 03:50:49
Give it to the privates, corporals, and lance corporals. If it can be broken, they'll figure out how to do it. :thumbsup:
Eh. In our unit it was the sergeants and ensigns.

As in, we had a staff sergeant who commanded Fox APCs.
We also had:

By comparison, all that the privates managed was that they kinda manipulated a mobile water boiler to the point where we could pick up the parts 50 meters away behind the fence of the base after the small explosion. No one was even injured in that btw. Because they first managed to burn two 20-liter canisters of diesel creating a smoke cloud that covered that entire section of the base.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Matti on 22 June 2019, 04:48:54
As in, we had a staff sergeant who commanded Fox APCs.
Let's see... (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_armoured_reconnaissance_vehicle) How many passengers does it carry?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: kato on 22 June 2019, 05:03:41
Let's see... (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_armoured_reconnaissance_vehicle) How many passengers does it carry?
Nah, these (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TPz_Fuchs). M93 Fox in the US Army, hence why i used that name.

2-10 in the back depending on configuration.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Fat Guy on 01 July 2019, 15:33:45
The Mars A-800 logistics unmanned ground vehicle, in testing with Russia's Airborne Forces.

(https://www.janes.com/images/assets/586/89586/p1732969_main.jpg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: worktroll on 01 July 2019, 15:50:44
That looks very much like a graphic, complete with hashtag ...
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Ruger on 01 July 2019, 15:52:01
The Mars A-800 logistics unmanned ground vehicle, in testing with Russia's Airborne Forces.

(https://www.janes.com/images/assets/586/89586/p1732969_main.jpg)

I used to have a programmable/RC tank that looked very like this except it was a darker grey, with a number pad on the back, and a flashing light center front to be the “laser” it was armed with.

Anyone else remember this thing?

Edit: and I think it had wheels instead of tracks, so not a tank.

Edit 2: Ah, yes. The Big Trak by Milton Bradley.

Ruger
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Sabelkatten on 01 July 2019, 16:01:23
Well, it certainly looks like something out of G.I.Joe...
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: worktroll on 01 July 2019, 16:02:35
For a bit of fun ...

(http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/IT-1-3.jpg)

The IT-1, a dedicated AT missile tank build on a T-64 chassis. Carried 15 radio-controlled missiles, each capable of penetrating 24" of RHA. Unfortunately the control mechanism was unreliable, and they got convered into ARVs.

A very BT tank - given a Thunderbolt-10 launcher weighs the same as an AC-5, it'd be a logical militia 'upgrade' for Scorpions or Vedettes, IMHO.

On the West's side, all I can think of is the Raketenjagdpanzer:

(https://www.militaryimages.net/media/raketenjagdpanzer-4-jaguar.101234/full)

W.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Garrand on 01 July 2019, 16:35:43
IT-1 was based on the T-62 chassis. There's a model kit of it out, even!

Damon.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: worktroll on 01 July 2019, 16:37:43
D'oh! I stand (sit) corrected.

W.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Elmoth on 01 July 2019, 16:39:39
Nice!
The German one looks straight out of WW2, even if it is 20 years younger!
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: worktroll on 01 July 2019, 16:56:52
On a related note ... reloading the rail-launched missile on a BMP.

(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ILkrQQznzcs/WLjvxhvgnAI/AAAAAAAAIeI/7EjNDpGLqgEPdkQIKdItJR41-rNy4OchwCLcB/s400/pic_37.jpg)

As the fins were folded to fit through the hatch, notice the stick used to initiate fin deployment ...

W.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 01 July 2019, 16:58:52
Western contemporary would be one of the Raketenjagdpanzers, or arguably the British Striker. (Pic)

For a Western tank of identical concept? (Converted turreted MBT?) Only the Israeli Pereh I think.

(https://i.postimg.cc/Dy1Hctsg/r4pyc8xubmg01.jpg)

I wonder what that ruin is in the background. Knowing the Brits it's probably some erstwhile famous stronghold, just sitting casually in the background of the firing range.... Castle Anthrax or whatever...
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Daryk on 01 July 2019, 17:00:50
Worktroll: Sticks are very simple, and easy to use... very Soviet!  ^-^

Ruger: I think I had one of those too!  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Fat Guy on 01 July 2019, 17:08:47
And the U.S. had the M901 Improved Tow Vehicle.

(https://www.bing.com/th?id=OIP.9HZvHn0vMWdMgbBSX1z2OgHaFF&pid=Api&rs=1&p=0)

The tank killing M113.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Ruger on 01 July 2019, 17:12:51

Ruger: I think I had one of those too!  :thumbsup:

I had many hours of enjoyment from mine...until it stopped taking commands.

Ruger
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Daryk on 01 July 2019, 17:14:06
I did too... pew pew pew!  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Elmoth on 01 July 2019, 17:27:30
And the U.S. had the M901 Improved Tow Vehicle.

(https://www.bing.com/th?id=OIP.9HZvHn0vMWdMgbBSX1z2OgHaFF&pid=Api&rs=1&p=0)

The tank killing M113.

it looks like S.A.I.N.T. number 5 got bigger!
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: worktroll on 01 July 2019, 17:50:05
Okay, not used in a conventional mass warfare scenario, but how effective were the TOW-equipped M113s considered? Were they more highly regarded than TOW-carrying jeeps? Would the missiles have performed as advertised in a hostile environment? Did the Israelis use any in their hot wars?

W.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: dgorsman on 01 July 2019, 17:55:46
... and compared to the LAV-carried version?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Fat Guy on 02 July 2019, 07:29:12
They were a lot more survivable than a jeep because the hammerhead launcher allowed it to fire from behind cover, while the jeep had to be exposed. Also, the M901's armor provided protection from artillery fragments and small arms.


Then along came the Bradley which also had a two-tube TOW launcher at a similar height and the 901 became pretty redundant.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 05 July 2019, 18:15:07
Bit of an odd question, what's the point in a US armor officer's career (Marines or Army, either works) where they'll spend less and less time actually commanding from a tank, and more and more time doing overall unit command from behind the lines?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 05 July 2019, 18:23:44
Bit of an odd question, what's the point in a US armor officer's career (Marines or Army, either works) where they'll spend less and less time actually commanding from a tank, and more and more time doing overall unit command from behind the lines?



This is a guess but I'd say the transition from company (squadron in Commonwealth terminology, troop in US cavalry terminology) to battalion (regiment in Commonwealth terminology or squadron in US cavalry terminology)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Daryk on 05 July 2019, 18:29:43
Captain (O-3) is generally recognized as the highest rank that can expect to regularly lead from the front in combat.  Majors should be doing the staff work for the higher ranks to get those Captains where they need to be, when they need to be there.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 05 July 2019, 18:45:43
Captain (O-3) is generally recognized as the highest rank that can expect to regularly lead from the front in combat.  Majors should be doing the staff work for the higher ranks to get those Captains where they need to be, when they need to be there.


Elsewhere, a company/squadron officer commanding would be a Major though, it is an interesting "quirk" that at some point there was a drift among some militaries to give company command to Majors versus Captains
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Daryk on 05 July 2019, 19:26:35
I think any venture into trying to explain that drift would involve Rule 4, and recommend against it.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 05 July 2019, 19:38:17
So I suppose, if you want to be the James T. Kirk of your tank and always stay in command, never let them kick you past Major and preferably past Captain if at all possible.  "Don't let them promote you. Don't let them transfer you. Don't let them do anything that takes you off the seat of that tank."

Which for any real military means you've gotta really work your time in grade to maximums and then look really rosy for promotion...and do the bare minimum to not get RIFed and hold on to that captain's rank as long as possible.

Anyway, just curious, thanks gang!
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: chanman on 05 July 2019, 22:22:12
So I suppose, if you want to be the James T. Kirk of your tank and always stay in command, never let them kick you past Major and preferably past Captain if at all possible.  "Don't let them promote you. Don't let them transfer you. Don't let them do anything that takes you off the seat of that tank."

Which for any real military means you've gotta really work your time in grade to maximums and then look really rosy for promotion...and do the bare minimum to not get RIFed and hold on to that captain's rank as long as possible.

Anyway, just curious, thanks gang!

I'm not sure that's actually feasible for commissioned officers. Militaries generally take an up-or-out career approach to both cycle fresh blood in and to spread command experience around (filling the team bench, so to speak). If you want to do the same thing for 20 years, the appropriate track would be grizzled NCO  :D
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Daryk on 05 July 2019, 22:35:28
I believe the USAF has a track for pilots where they can keep flying for 20 years, but they're pretty much stuck at Major.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 05 July 2019, 22:46:01
Reading Every Man A Tiger, Chuck Horner at least was still driving Vipers as a general, prior to the Gulf War.  The book opens with his getting the news of the invasion mid-flight, actually.

I'm not sure that's actually feasible for commissioned officers. Militaries generally take an up-or-out career approach to both cycle fresh blood in and to spread command experience around (filling the team bench, so to speak). If you want to do the same thing for 20 years, the appropriate track would be grizzled NCO  :D
And quite true, hence my comment about not getting RIF'ed...and keeping just enough command time in.  Then again not every officer stays in for life...maybe if someone got a job as a major to transfer to a training command for a while.  For the US, say, over at Fort Irwin...but they'd have to be a REALLY crack tanker for something like that I imagine.

So a major would stand to have at least SOME track time, and still be doing things with their favorite ride rather than deskjobbing so much.  But not much, I suppose...get the promotion to major, then let your commission end and begin to exit at that point.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: BairdEC on 06 July 2019, 13:14:04
Don't forget that a naval captain is generally the equivalent of an army colonel.  It's easier to stay at a higher rank.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Daryk on 06 July 2019, 15:17:49
Commands in the Navy are fewer and farther between than the ground Services.  Most Navy officers can expect command of one ship at the O-5 level, and one at the O-6 level.  Aviators can command a squadron at O-5, and a Carrier Airwing at O-6.  From there, it's possible to move to a Destroyer or Submarine Squadron for officers in those specialties.  A few very lucky ones get command at O-4 (Minesweepers), and even fewer EXTEMELY lucky ones might get command at O-3 (the LCSs).  At 1-2 Star level, you're looking at a Carrier Strike Group or Submarine Group.  3-Stars have the Numbered Fleet Commands.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: CDAT on 07 July 2019, 04:37:19
Not a likely path, but theoretical could happen depending on when you joined (some of the positions were downgraded at later times). And yes the higher you get the less time that you would spend on the tanks, more in a office but would keep you on the tanks.
2nd Lt. Armor Platoon Leader
1st Lt. Armor Company Executive Officer
Cpt. Armor Company Commander
Maj. Armor Battalion S-3 (still has a tank)
LTC. Armor Battalion Command (still has a tank)
COL. Brigade Executive Officer (my first BDE had one Brad, and one M1 for the XO and Commander, normally one was Inf and one was Armor.)
Brigadier Gen. Brigade Commanding Officer (again see above, my first brigade was commanded by a Brigade when I first got there, later was down graded to a COL position.)
Major Gen. Division Commanding Officer (No idea how much time he spent on it, but he had one.)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: marauder648 on 07 July 2019, 05:01:04
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/21/84/83/21848325505b393b52d1788624ecef3c.jpg)
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Deadborder on 07 July 2019, 05:17:06
What is that? The dual cannon mount on the back looks like it's not meant to be there.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 07 July 2019, 05:36:24
Looks like an MTLB with a ZSU tacked on top
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: kato on 07 July 2019, 05:45:28
MT-LB armored personnel carrier with a ZU-23-2 mounted on the back. Pretty common conversion. Iraq had them regular, Russia introduced them a bit adhoc in the early 90s, Poland had some prototypes. That one in the picture above seems to be Ukrainian.

(https://abload.de/img/russiaegjpu.jpg)

This one shows presumably Chechen troops at some point before December 1994 (unless it's from around 1991, and it's Soviet troops - but i doubt that).
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Feenix74 on 07 July 2019, 07:00:41
I believe the USAF has a track for pilots where they can keep flying for 20 years, but they're pretty much stuck at Major.

I believe that is correct. RAAF has a similar program for pilots who want to keep their hands on the stick. If my memory serves me correctly they forgo promotion above Flight Lieutenant but get an extended payscale to compensate. It allows the air force to keep experienced pilots who can teach airmanship to the next generation.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 07 July 2019, 12:35:41
Ah, the MTLB pancake, the forgotten cousin of the BMP.  It's a neat and LOW profile little thing, amphibious, and decent as far as capability and variants go.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Kidd on 07 July 2019, 14:36:44
BMP gets all the attention but the MTLB is the real Soviet workhorse. IINM it's the most numerous Red Cold War AFV produced, counting variants.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 07 July 2019, 17:04:01
And the variants were pretty impressive, from that AA gun carrier (which likely would have done wonders for infantry fire support, but I'd really like a gun shield at least!) to radar carriers to SAM launchers to prime movers for artillery and other stuff.  They're also squat little things - 9'5" wide, and only 6'1" tall.  Even the "small" and "low profile" T-72's still fifteen inches taller than that; it'd make a great cavalry scout and could hide darn near anywhere.  Not to mention fully amphibious, and easy to drive - there's places in Russia where they sell rides in the thing and will even let you behind the "wheel" as it were.  One of my favorite support vehicles as far as military stuff goes.

Also belatedly:
Not a likely path, but theoretical could happen depending on when you joined (some of the positions were downgraded at later times). And yes the higher you get the less time that you would spend on the tanks, more in a office but would keep you on the tanks.
Good to note.  I suppose getting out as a Captain would be the best, though looking over the US Army pay grades it's about a 10 percent bump going to Major...and you're still gonna be spending most of your time doing tank things, even if you're teaching others at the time.  I suppose that might be the sweet spot for departing, balancing good pay and future opportunity vs tank time and doing what you'd WANT to do.  I suppose twelve years, three four-year obligations should be more than enough to hit O-3.  Or do you get more flexibility in your re-up schedule after you're in?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: PsihoKekec on 08 July 2019, 01:30:50
Quote
there's places in Russia where they sell rides in the thing and will even let you behind the "wheel" as it were.
And then some jackass steals it for alcohol shop run

(https://s14-eu5.startpage.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic.themoscowtimes.com%2Fimage%2Farticle_1360%2F79%2F4777a879d4414c1ba73a07ad902a879d.jpg&sp=18feabf7cc1e9a38e721711955e12ff8)

Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 08 July 2019, 09:54:23
I guess MTLB stands for Miller Time! Light Beer.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Weirdo on 08 July 2019, 10:09:52
Can the amount of Miller Light required to achieve that level of driving (lack of)skill even fit in that APC?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Daryk on 08 July 2019, 18:00:25
My youngest daughter brought this link to my attention when I showed her that picture: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLQiUe3HMRs

I thought it was pretty amusing overall...  ^-^
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 08 July 2019, 18:25:35
My youngest daughter brought this link to my attention when I showed her that picture: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLQiUe3HMRs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLQiUe3HMRs)

I thought it was pretty amusing overall...  ^-^
3


£500 for a tank full of diesel!
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Matti on 08 July 2019, 23:55:30
My youngest daughter brought this link to my attention when I showed her that picture: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLQiUe3HMRs

I thought it was pretty amusing overall...  ^-^
Did at the end, tank scrape oncoming car? I heard something and camera shook a bit.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Daryk on 09 July 2019, 04:42:06
Not that I noticed...
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: I am Belch II on 09 July 2019, 04:49:20
WIth the incredible price of gas in the UK, Im sure that will not be making money off that ride.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 15 July 2019, 10:53:37
I wanted to find a picture of the Caernarvon (AKA that tank that Americans can never pronounce correctly), which was a developmental variant of the British Conqueror heavy tank.

Unfortunately, it seems impossible to find pictures that aren't from World of Tanks or War Thunder.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 15 July 2019, 15:44:06
Off the top of my head, there's this:
(http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/UK/photos/FV221_caernarvon.jpg)
Problem is, they only built 22 of the things that apparently were just used for development research, and very likely either had the turrets swapped to Conquerors and eventually sent to the BAOR or were scrapped.  Good luck finding more info, though, it seems not even Bovington or Kubinka have one floating around.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: beachhead1985 on 15 July 2019, 20:20:22
Off the top of my head, there's this:
(http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/UK/photos/FV221_caernarvon.jpg)
Problem is, they only built 22 of the things that apparently were just used for development research, and very likely either had the turrets swapped to Conquerors and eventually sent to the BAOR or were scrapped.  Good luck finding more info, though, it seems not even Bovington or Kubinka have one floating around.

My Conqueror book states that all the Caernarvons were converted to Conquerors or ARVs
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 15 July 2019, 21:33:25
The former's a turret swap (though the reverse makes me giggle, Conq turrets on Centurion hulls) while the latter's a bit more involved, but still quite doable considering the manufacturing timeline.  Figured they'd been swapped back, and well...in all fairness, is there that much of a diff in the Caerny than looking at the Conq and Cent separately?

I don't see data on the Conqueror's turret ring diameter, but the Centurion is supposed to be 1880mm - which, amusingly, matches the M47 Patton.  Anyone want to consider the L7 105mm on an early Patton series?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: beachhead1985 on 15 July 2019, 21:55:31
The former's a turret swap (though the reverse makes me giggle, Conq turrets on Centurion hulls) while the latter's a bit more involved, but still quite doable considering the manufacturing timeline.  Figured they'd been swapped back, and well...in all fairness, is there that much of a diff in the Caerny than looking at the Conq and Cent separately?

I don't see data on the Conqueror's turret ring diameter, but the Centurion is supposed to be 1880mm - which, amusingly, matches the M47 Patton.  Anyone want to consider the L7 105mm on an early Patton series?

They have to fit on the same gauge of railcars ;)

But I think later on they did fit 105s to some M47s...yeah lots of experiments; Iranian new turret version of the Spanish M47E2 with RH-105 main gun.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 16 July 2019, 13:05:45
To be fair the Israelis put sawedoff 105mm F1s on their Shermans, so it's less a case of "can" you do it and more a case of "will" than anything else.

Also shows that even old tanks can still function as TDs with a modern gun, some decent guidance, and good ammo.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: beachhead1985 on 16 July 2019, 18:19:32
To be fair the Israelis put sawedoff 105mm F1s on their Shermans, so it's less a case of "can" you do it and more a case of "will" than anything else.

Also shows that even old tanks can still function as TDs with a modern gun, some decent guidance, and good ammo.

Heck yeah! I love the M51s!
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 18 July 2019, 16:41:30
I suppose the AMX-30 would count more in line with a tank destroyer than a full-up tank, considering the design decisions made in the era.  Top tier gun, make it fast, and make it light since armor's not really worth it (in 1960) against modern antitank rounds.  Even something 20 tons heavier, like the Pattons, were still vulnerable even on the bow to heavy duty HEAT sounds, since this was before the development of composite armor and ERA options.  So they built a 36 ton tank with only a couple inches of armor, though given decent slope.

(https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/banaventura/79910037/22731/22731_1000.jpg)

Now, I've always liked the thing, and I've been reading up on all the modernization it can do - and something struck me as a terribly wonderful idea, or perhaps a wonderfully terrible one.  The original 30s were designed with a 680hp engine, while the AMX-30E upgraded by the Spanish went with an 850hp engine in the same hull, and a transmission that can take a throughput up of to 1500.

I did a little digging, and the modern MTU engines that were swapped in actually make that level of horsepower now.  While they're in use in small numbers in a few countries, I wonder just how far you could really push that engine.  Maybe even be nice to the transmission and only go for 12-1300hp in it, just to get an exceptionally fast tank that still has good fuel economy.  At a power-weight ratio of 32.8hp/ton, just what kind of nutty speeds could you be looking at for a fast "raider" tank?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Daryk on 18 July 2019, 17:27:11
Sure, but can the running gear take the speed?
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: worktroll on 18 July 2019, 17:47:10
Question for trackheads - the commander's cupola (mini turret, almost) on the M60.

Worth it? Not worth the extra height/expense? Reliable?

I'm suspecting no, yes, no - otherwise we'd not see a pintle mount on the Abrams.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 18 July 2019, 19:17:27
Question for trackheads - the commander's cupola (mini turret, almost) on the M60.

Worth it? Not worth the extra height/expense? Reliable?

I'm suspecting no, yes, no - otherwise we'd not see a pintle mount on the Abrams.
Well in War Thunder, it's a very popular weak spot to shoot.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: Fat Guy on 18 July 2019, 19:24:53
The M48 had the same cupola, and the Israelis found out much to their dismay that a glancing hit off of pretty much anywhere on the turret would cause the cupola to shear off - usually decapitating the commander in the process.


They went on to develop this pintle mount cupola, which actually got retrofitted onto National Guard M48s.

(http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/pics/m48a5cupola.jpg)

M60s kept the deathtrap cupola for who knows what reasons.
Title: Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 18 July 2019, 22:24:46
AMX has something similar, and while it does stick up quite a bit it also makes the best view it can give the TC with a LOT of viewing prisms compared to the Israeli modification.  And the Abrams does have the same, lifted high enough off of the top of the turret to see over the gunner's doghouse, though it doesn't quite show up AS noticeably compared to the rest of the turret.  I think part of that is because of that long, shallow slope on the front of the turret.

This picture is HUGE (https://www.freeimageslive.co.uk/files/images005/M1_tank.jpg)

If you follow from the mantlet back, and assume a flatter roof, then the commander's cupola would stick out pretty hard from there.  As it is, it just blends into the roofline, so it doesn't seem to stick up as much.
Titl