Register Register

Author Topic: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III  (Read 79395 times)

Kidd

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 3068
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #1140 on: 04 January 2018, 03:07:29 »
Prior to the 2016 restructure the US Army's Armored Brigade Combat Teams had their main maneuver battalions consisting of two companies of mech infantry in Bradleys and two companies of Abrams tanks. (The 2016 restructure cut a company from each battalion, with two battalions with 2 tank/1 mech infantry and 1 battalion with 1 tank/2 mech infantry and the spare company of tanks moved over to the cavalry squadron making it a 3 recon troop/1 armored troop squadron).
As I understand the initial ABCT idea was to create 3 manoeuvre battalions of 4 companies each, evenly split between tanks and mechanised infantry.

Why was the change made?

Are there any other armies these days which operate square mech/motor/foot infantry battalions? I believe the Indian Army does.
« Last Edit: 04 January 2018, 03:14:13 by Kidd »

ANS Kamas P81

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9384
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #1141 on: 04 January 2018, 03:47:54 »
    There's a number of reasons:
    The straight-up only benefits of the M230 are:
    • its higher muzzle velocity imparting more immediate effects (we're talking 2-3 vs 10 seconds for the same range, which is rather significant)
    I suppose that last factor especially, along with the significantly greater range, is why the Apaches use it.  The M230 does reach out, supposedly, to 4000 meters compared to the Mk 19's 2200 max.  I do wonder, though, how the Mk 19 would fare against the 25mm Bushmaster, if we're comparing guns.  I'd like to see how they all line up alongside each other.

    VhenRa

    • Captain
    • *
    • Posts: 1802
    Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
    « Reply #1142 on: 04 January 2018, 04:16:27 »
    As I understand the initial ABCT idea was to create 3 manoeuvre battalions of 4 companies each, evenly split between tanks and mechanised infantry.

    Why was the change made?

    Are there any other armies these days which operate square mech/motor/foot infantry battalions? I believe the Indian Army does.

    originally it was only two battalions. But yeah, I have no idea.

    Probably budget because it results in dropping something like 20 mech infantry companies across the entire US army.

    kato

    • Lieutenant
    • *
    • Posts: 1534
    Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
    « Reply #1143 on: 04 January 2018, 11:40:03 »
    I suppose that last factor especially, along with the significantly greater range, is why the Apaches use it. 
    Need the muzzle velocity to combat wind speed primarily... the US used to put 40mm AGLs in chin turrets experimentally (only ones to do that), but pretty quickly abandoned that.

    The M230 does reach out, supposedly, to 4000 meters compared to the Mk 19's 2200 max.
    That's just the maximum fire range in either case. The effective targeted range is 1500m for both.

    marauder648

    • Major
    • *
    • Posts: 5861
    Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
    « Reply #1144 on: 09 January 2018, 13:35:46 »
    Found this adorable thing on tumblr.





    http://peashooter85.tumblr.com/post/169486452578/the-skoda-mu-2-designed-by-the-czechoslovakian

    And to quote the source.

    Quote

    The Skoda MU-2

    Designed by the Czechoslovakian company Skoda in 1931, the MU-2 was the first Czech attempt to get into the tankette market. These small tracked vehicles were popular in the 1930′s but quickly phased out in early World War II because of their lack of armor and armament. The Skoda MU-2 wieghed only two tons with armor around 4-5mm thick. It’s 33 horsepower engine could produce a road speed of 30 kmh, although speed was severely limited by rough terrain. With a two man crew (a driver and gunner) it was 1.44m in height, 3.2 meters long, and 1.7m wide. It’s only armament was an 8mm machine gun.

    The MU-2 was tested in 1932 and immediately discontinued after it was found severely deficient in several areas. It’s armor offered little to no protection for the crew, which was jammed into the tank like sardines in a can. It’s small 33 horsepower engine was not enough to propel the tank across rough terrain, and in combat conditions it could easily become stuck in mud, or trapped by obstacles. Most MU-2′s produced were demolished and sold for scrap metal in 1933.
    Ghost Bears: Cute and cuddly. Until you remember its a BLOODY BEAR!

    sadlerbw

    • Lieutenant
    • *
    • Posts: 1390
    Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
    « Reply #1145 on: 09 January 2018, 16:27:10 »
    4-5mm? Are you even allowed to call that armor? I'm not sure exactly what the state of armor steel was back in those days, but I'm guessing we have managed to produce notably better steels since then. Even now, 5mm of some of the best steel out there isn't going to stop an armor-piercing rifle round unless it's several hundred yards away. 4-5mm is fine for pistols and most non-armor-piercing rifle rounds, but that is about it. Heck personal body armor plates often have thicker steel than that!

    Also, if you are bored and want a quick read about a modern armor steel test: www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA493654

    Liam's Ghost

    • Major
    • *
    • Posts: 5311
    • naps, noms, and more naps.
    Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
    « Reply #1146 on: 09 January 2018, 17:28:54 »
    They put two people in that thing?!
    Good news is the lab boys say the symptoms of asbestos poisoning show an immediate latency of 44.6 years. So if you're thirty or over you're laughing. Worst case scenario you miss out on a few rounds of canasta, plus you've forwarded the cause of science by three centuries. I punch those numbers into my calculator, it makes a happy face.

    (indirect accessory to the) Slayer of Monitors!

    MoneyLovinOgre4Hire

    • Colonel
    • *
    • Posts: 15710
    • Wipe your mouth!
    Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
    « Reply #1147 on: 09 January 2018, 17:47:09 »
    Two people who really liked each other, apparently.

    The thing that scares me the most is that the forced perspective in that photo is making it look bigger compared to the men in the background than it really was.

    Our Officer's Club is better than your Officer's Club.

    Warning: this post may contain sarcasm.

    "I think I've just had another near-Rincewind experience," Death, The Color of Magic

    ColBosch

    • Lieutenant Colonel
    • *
    • Posts: 8353
    • Legends Never Die
    Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
    « Reply #1148 on: 09 January 2018, 18:14:37 »
    *mentally runs through possible jokes* Nope, that'd be a warning...another warning...that one would get me banned...

    Ahem. "It's not the size tha..." you know, never mind.
    BattleTech is a huge house, it's not any one fan's or "type" of fans.  If you need to relieve yourself, use the bathroom not another BattleTech fan. - nckestrel
    1st and 2nd Succession Wars are not happy times. - klarg1
    Check my Ogre Flickr page! https://flic.kr/s/aHsmcLnb7v and https://flic.kr/s/aHsksV83ZP

    Weirdo

    • Painter of Borth the Magic Puma
    • Global Moderator
    • Lieutenant General
    • *
    • Posts: 32100
    • Divided States of SMASH
    Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
    « Reply #1149 on: 09 January 2018, 18:47:56 »
    *mentally runs through possible jokes* Nope, that'd be a warning...another warning...that one would get me banned...

    Ahem. "It's not the size tha..." you know, never mind.

    Let's just say

    and call it good. :)
    "Thanks to Megamek, I can finally play BattleTech the way it was meant to be played--pantsless!"   -Neko Bijin
    "It's just that the Hegemony had one answer to every naval problem. 'I kills it with my battleships.'" - Liam's Ghost
    "...finally, giant space panties don't seem so strange." - Whistler
    "The BT universe is startlingly deficient in both wisdom and hindsight." - Cray
    "Damn you, Weirdo... Damn you for being right!" - Paul
    There's no shame in designing customs, so long as you keep them private and wash your hands afterwards.

    Feenix74

    • Captain
    • *
    • Posts: 2993
    • Lam's Phoenix Hawks
    Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
    « Reply #1150 on: 09 January 2018, 20:21:53 »
    It even looks like a coffin with tracks.
    Incoming fire has the right of way.

    The only thing more accurate than incoming enemy fire is incoming friendly fire.

    Always remember that your weapon was built by the lowest bidder.


                                       - excepts from Murphy's Laws of Combat

    Deadborder

    • Lieutenant Colonel
    • *
    • Posts: 6890
    • Technical Victory!
      • Elmer Studios Blog
    Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
    « Reply #1151 on: 09 January 2018, 21:32:21 »
    Found this adorable thing on tumblr.





    http://peashooter85.tumblr.com/post/169486452578/the-skoda-mu-2-designed-by-the-czechoslovakian

    Okay, that's adorable all right. It's like it shrunk in the wash
    Author of BattleCorps stories Grand Theft Agro and Zero Signal



    Whenever you use terms like 'fiat' or 'stupid pills', you render your argument invalid

    How to Draw MegaMek Icons the Deadborder Way

    Kidd

    • Captain
    • *
    • Posts: 3068
    Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
    « Reply #1152 on: 09 January 2018, 22:07:10 »
    1st pic, left chappie: "Um, yes, well... it looked bigger on paper."

    Orin J.

    • Captain
    • *
    • Posts: 2504
    • I am to feared! Aw, come on guys...
    Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
    « Reply #1153 on: 09 January 2018, 22:15:58 »
    Found this adorable thing on tumblr.





    http://peashooter85.tumblr.com/post/169486452578/the-skoda-mu-2-designed-by-the-czechoslovakian

    And to quote the source.
    Apparantly soldiers in the chechoslovakian army don't keep secrets from each other.

    ....was there ever REALLY a "tankette" market?
    The Grey Death Legion? Dead? Gotcha, wake me when it's back.....
    --------------------------
    Every once in a while things make sense.


    Don't let these moments alarm you. They pass.

    MoneyLovinOgre4Hire

    • Colonel
    • *
    • Posts: 15710
    • Wipe your mouth!
    Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
    « Reply #1154 on: 09 January 2018, 22:38:35 »
    I think Japan was the only country that widely used them in combat.

    Our Officer's Club is better than your Officer's Club.

    Warning: this post may contain sarcasm.

    "I think I've just had another near-Rincewind experience," Death, The Color of Magic

    Liam's Ghost

    • Major
    • *
    • Posts: 5311
    • naps, noms, and more naps.
    Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
    « Reply #1155 on: 09 January 2018, 23:20:15 »
    The Italians used a lot of these guys.



    They called them light tanks, but they were 3.2 tons and carried two machineguns.
    Good news is the lab boys say the symptoms of asbestos poisoning show an immediate latency of 44.6 years. So if you're thirty or over you're laughing. Worst case scenario you miss out on a few rounds of canasta, plus you've forwarded the cause of science by three centuries. I punch those numbers into my calculator, it makes a happy face.

    (indirect accessory to the) Slayer of Monitors!

    VhenRa

    • Captain
    • *
    • Posts: 1802
    Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
    « Reply #1156 on: 10 January 2018, 06:12:38 »
    Oh how I recognize that thing.

    glitterboy2098

    • Lieutenant Colonel
    • *
    • Posts: 7947
      • The Temple Grounds - My Roleplaying and History website
    Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
    « Reply #1157 on: 10 January 2018, 12:10:29 »
    I think Japan was the only country that widely used them in combat.
    a lot of nations used them in late ww1 and interwar, though their combat effectiveness was debatable.
    by WW2 most nations had realized they were not 'tanks' at all, and aside from a few desperate attempts to throw obsolete interwar models into battle early in the war, and the japanese, most nations had basically rebranded the class as 'gun carriers' or "universal carriers" or the like and were basically using them as mobile machinegun nests to support the infantry units.

    ColBosch

    • Lieutenant Colonel
    • *
    • Posts: 8353
    • Legends Never Die
    Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
    « Reply #1158 on: 10 January 2018, 12:26:43 »
    The problem with the tankette concept isn't so much that they're so wee ickle, it's that they're still heavy, both in mass and required maintenance. As others have said, they were also barely armored and very vulnerable to anti-tank rifles and even certain heavy machine guns. The US practice of sticking an M2HB on anything that could take the recoil - and a few things that really couldn't - was the final nail in their coffin. Plenty of Japanese tankettes were destroyed by USMC .50-caliber rounds.

    Mmm, the Ma Deuce. We're going to be using those for another century, I'm sure.
    BattleTech is a huge house, it's not any one fan's or "type" of fans.  If you need to relieve yourself, use the bathroom not another BattleTech fan. - nckestrel
    1st and 2nd Succession Wars are not happy times. - klarg1
    Check my Ogre Flickr page! https://flic.kr/s/aHsmcLnb7v and https://flic.kr/s/aHsksV83ZP

    Matti

    • Major
    • *
    • Posts: 4815
    • In Rory we trust
    Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
    « Reply #1159 on: 10 January 2018, 14:03:27 »
    most nations had basically rebranded the class as 'gun carriers' or "universal carriers" or the like and were basically using them as mobile machinegun nests to support the infantry units.
    British Universal Carrier



    What I could quickly check on Wiki, it wasn't a tankette to begin with anymore than M10 is a tank. It [Universal Carrier] is an utility vehicle.
    You know what they say, don't you? About how us MechWarriors are the modern knights errant, how warfare has become civilized now that we have to abide by conventions and rules of war. Don't believe it.

    MoneyLovinOgre4Hire

    • Colonel
    • *
    • Posts: 15710
    • Wipe your mouth!
    Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
    « Reply #1160 on: 10 January 2018, 14:47:02 »
    The M10 was built on a modified Sherman hull, though.

    Our Officer's Club is better than your Officer's Club.

    Warning: this post may contain sarcasm.

    "I think I've just had another near-Rincewind experience," Death, The Color of Magic

    glitterboy2098

    • Lieutenant Colonel
    • *
    • Posts: 7947
      • The Temple Grounds - My Roleplaying and History website
    Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
    « Reply #1161 on: 10 January 2018, 14:55:03 »
    the Universal carrier was a redesign of the Carden Loyd Tankette. thus why i called it a rebranding. same fundemental hardware, different terminology and role.


    Siden Pryde

    • Warrant Officer
    • *
    • Posts: 518
    • Papermaster
    Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
    « Reply #1162 on: 10 January 2018, 15:59:03 »
    Mmm, the Ma Deuce. We're going to be using those for another century, I'm sure.
    Hard to improve upon near perfection.

    Daryk

    • Lieutenant Colonel
    • *
    • Posts: 7977
    • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
    Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
    « Reply #1163 on: 10 January 2018, 20:19:25 »
    *snip*
    Mmm, the Ma Deuce. We're going to be using those for another century, I'm sure.
    Honestly, I think a good argument can be made that the "Support Machine Gun" in AToW/Tech Manual IS the Ma Deuce...

    Matti

    • Major
    • *
    • Posts: 4815
    • In Rory we trust
    Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
    « Reply #1164 on: 11 January 2018, 14:24:23 »
    the Universal carrier was a redesign of the Carden Loyd Tankette. thus why i called it a rebranding. same fundemental hardware, different terminology and role.
    That's why I made M10 to tank comparison ;)
    You know what they say, don't you? About how us MechWarriors are the modern knights errant, how warfare has become civilized now that we have to abide by conventions and rules of war. Don't believe it.

    PsihoKekec

    • Captain
    • *
    • Posts: 1910
    • Your spleen, give it to me!
    Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
    « Reply #1165 on: 26 January 2018, 04:01:13 »
    Somebody made diorama of my favorite tank fail.



    Shoot first, laugh later.

    Feenix74

    • Captain
    • *
    • Posts: 2993
    • Lam's Phoenix Hawks
    Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
    « Reply #1166 on: 26 January 2018, 06:29:54 »
    Awesome work, but I think they have way too much spare time on their hands.
    Incoming fire has the right of way.

    The only thing more accurate than incoming enemy fire is incoming friendly fire.

    Always remember that your weapon was built by the lowest bidder.


                                       - excepts from Murphy's Laws of Combat

    HobbesHurlbut

    • Captain
    • *
    • Posts: 2797
    • Live Free or Die Hard
    Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
    « Reply #1167 on: 26 January 2018, 11:01:27 »
    Awesome work, but I think they have way too much spare time on their hands.
    Depending on the subject, you can get paid commissions for those kinds of things.
    Clan Blood Spirit - So Bad Ass as to require Orbital Bombardments to wipe us out....it is the only way to be sure!

    ColBosch

    • Lieutenant Colonel
    • *
    • Posts: 8353
    • Legends Never Die
    Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
    « Reply #1168 on: 26 January 2018, 11:26:19 »
    Awesome work, but I think they have way too much spare time on their hands.

    He says, on a game company's forum for a single product line. ::)
    BattleTech is a huge house, it's not any one fan's or "type" of fans.  If you need to relieve yourself, use the bathroom not another BattleTech fan. - nckestrel
    1st and 2nd Succession Wars are not happy times. - klarg1
    Check my Ogre Flickr page! https://flic.kr/s/aHsmcLnb7v and https://flic.kr/s/aHsksV83ZP

    Cannonshop

    • Captain
    • *
    • Posts: 1620
    Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
    « Reply #1169 on: 26 January 2018, 20:16:25 »
    Somebody made diorama of my favorite tank fail.





    every time I see that pic, I wind up wondering weird stuff, like how that 120mm Rhinemetall  mount is holding it up at that angle, and what in heck was going on with the crew that they ended up doing that (and HOW they ended up doing that.)
    I beats the Urbie to death with my CHARGER!!!