Register Register

Author Topic: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.  (Read 89251 times)

Fat Guy

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2925
  • I make beer disappear. What's your superpower?
The 82nd  let their  Sheridans go only because the M8 Buford was just around the corner. Unfortunately the M8 was canceled in the post cold war defense drawdown, more just to save money than for any other reason.

The 82nd misses them to this day. The Sheridan could actually be pretty scary if the bad guys have no tanks of their own, and the 152mm was an excellent bunker buster  if nothing else.

The Army is again looking at a light tank, but don't call it that!  It's Mobile Protected Firepower!
I have spoken.


Matti

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5085
  • In Rory we trust
WW2 tank performance needs re-examination in context especially logistics. For example, no one would dispute an M1A2 is probably one of if not the best tank in existence, but how much fuel would it need to operate as the Germans were operating their tanks?
The Chieftain addresses that in this video. To sum it up: USA has supply and transport capacity to provide the fuel for Abrams, and willingness to pay it up.

Main point of the video is Tiger tank, and his point is Tiger was a good tank for what it was designed to do: to assault fortified positions AND take the time to maintain it properly. Problem with that tank was it was used for combat it wasn't designed for and wasn't given enough downtime for maintenance. Good tank, but wrong doctrine.


Gear wrt the arab armies kind of highlights it, though-they had technically superior equipment in every war against Israel up to about 1980, but they lacked the focus on communication and teamwork, which is why they lost every war from 1948 onward against the Israelis-individually it's arguable that they were adequately trained and equipped, but that inbuilt lack of teamwork and cooperation killed their flexibility and rendered their equipment and numerical advantage a non-factor.
I remember seeing a documentary about tank battle between Israel and Syria. Flat plains, both sides committed only tanks, Syria had significant numerical superiority, but lost. Reason was Israel had better crews: they aimed faster, they moved their tanks between shots to throw off enemy's aim, and Syrian tanks were sitting ducks.
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.

Cannonshop

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3596
The Chieftain addresses that in this video. To sum it up: USA has supply and transport capacity to provide the fuel for Abrams, and willingness to pay it up.

Main point of the video is Tiger tank, and his point is Tiger was a good tank for what it was designed to do: to assault fortified positions AND take the time to maintain it properly. Problem with that tank was it was used for combat it wasn't designed for and wasn't given enough downtime for maintenance. Good tank, but wrong doctrine.

I remember seeing a documentary about tank battle between Israel and Syria. Flat plains, both sides committed only tanks, Syria had significant numerical superiority, but lost. Reason was Israel had better crews: they aimed faster, they moved their tanks between shots to throw off enemy's aim, and Syrian tanks were sitting ducks.
indeed.  but 'better crew' really does tie into that teamwork thing; there are four pairs of eyes in a western tank (well, except the french thing with the autoloader), this is four chances to spot them, before they spot you.  with only voice coms, there's a great opportunity for someone to spot, and then be not understood before things go all white hot and flashy (With attendant concussion, shockwaves, heat, pain and death and "Oh bugger the tank's on fire!")

nonverbal communication, is useful for reducing that problem...a lot.
The core rules for interacting with me:

1.) I am not a moderator, game developer, member of Cryptic staff, relative of any members of cryptic staff, not close friends with anyone involved with the game, not a distributor of product, not an employee, employer, professional reviewer, or member of any powerful conspiracies.  What I think is my own and has no impact on the Battletech franchise in any way, shape, or form.

2) If you don't like something I've said, refer to rule 1.  If you do, god help you poor soul, you're screwed up.

CDAT

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 291
WW2 tank performance needs re-examination in context especially logistics. For example, no one would dispute an M1A2 is probably one of if not the best tank in existence, but how much fuel would it need to operate as the Germans were operating their tanks?

...

I see the argument that the M1 is to much of a fuel hog and all that, so I today I looked up other tanks and figured our their fuel/mile ration. With one (kind of two) outlier the M1 is not that bad (no one will ever say that it gets great fuel economy).

Starting WWII working our way to today (not using every tank, but trying to hit most and make sure to get the highlights)
Light Tanks
M3/M5 Stuart (104 gallons/100 miles) got .96 mile per gallon, M24 Chaffee (110 gallons/100 miles) .90 mile per gallon, M41 Walker Bulldog (140 gallons/100 miles) .71 mile per gallon

Medium Tanks
M3 Lee/Grant (175 gallons/119 miles) got .68 mile per gallon, M4 Sherman (138 to 175 gallons/100 to 150 miles) got between .57 and 1.08 mile per gallon (many different versions, most gas but some diesel, and this is the kind of second outlier. My guess is that the 100 miles is gas, and the 150 is diesel but could not find what fuel tank went to what version).

Heavy
M26 Pershing (183 gallons/100 miles) got .54 mile per gallon

Post WWII tanks
M46 Patton (232 gallons/80 miles) got .34 mile per gallon, M47 Patton (233 gallons/100 miles) got .42 mile per gallon, M48 Patton (200 gallons/70 to 310 miles) got between .35 and 1.55 mile per gallon (this is the outlier it is the last US gas tank, switching late in its life to diesel, but the massive jump does not look right, a almost 4.5 times the 1.5 of the Sherman I can believe but this is just to massive for me to believe with out more research. It is however what the numbers say.) M60 Patton (385 gallons/300 miles) .77 miles per gallon, and the M1 (500 gallons/295 miles) .59 miles per gallon.

So no the M1 is not fuel efficient but at least to me it is not historically as bad as opponents try to make it sound.

Best to worst
M48 Patton - 1.55 mile per gallon (changes to much going gas to diesel to look right, included for completeness)
M4 Sherman - 1.04 mile per gallon (changes a fair amount going gas to diesel but may be right, included for completeness)
M5 Stuart - .96 mile per gallon
M24 Chaffee - .90 mile per gallon
M60 Patton - .77 mile per gallon
M41 Walker Bulldog - .71 mile per gallon
M3 Lee/Grant - .68 mile per gallon
M1 Abrams - .59 mile per gallon
M4 Sherman - .57 mile per gallon
M26 Pershing - .54 mile per gallon
M47 Patton - .42 mile per gallon
M48 Patton - .35 mile per gallon
M46 Patton - .34 mile per gallon

Magical average
- .95 mile per gallon (.89 when outliers taken out) for all tanks
- .68 mile per gallon (.53 when outliers taken out) for medium and larger tanks only.

Dave Talley

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 3094
the diesel shermans should be the marine models for the pacific
Resident Smartass since 1998
“Toe jam in training”

Because while the other Great Houses of the Star League thought they were playing chess, House Cameron was playing Paradox-Billiards-Vostroyan-Roulette-Fourth Dimensional-Hypercube-Chess-Strip Poker the entire time.
JA Baker

ANS Kamas P81

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10436
You want atrocious mileage, look up the M103 or Conqueror.  At least the 103 got a diesel in the end that nearly quadrupled its range; the gasoline-powered model made it 80 miles on a tank...of 280 gallons.  Conqueror does slightly better, a whole 95 miles on 266 gallons.  You want thirsty beasts, they're it.

Which prompts a question, why DID the Americans and Brits keep making gasoline tanks instead of diesel - while making diesel tanks! - into the late '50s?

MoneyLovinOgre4Hire

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 17907
  • Wipe your mouth!
Cost?  Kickbacks from the company that was making the engines?  A desire to keep the ability to confiscate civilian fuel stations for refueling in the event of a ground war with Russian in Europe?

Also, I'm now wondering what the gas mileage of the T28 was.
Warning: this post may contain sarcasm.

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

"When in doubt, C4." Jamie Hyneman

ANS Kamas P81

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10436
Quarter mile to the gallon, on a 400 gallon tank netting it a whole hundred miles.

Matti

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5085
  • In Rory we trust
Which prompts a question, why DID the Americans and Brits keep making gasoline tanks instead of diesel - while making diesel tanks! - into the late '50s?
I have understood that gasoline engine provides more HP for the weight. Can someone more knowledgeable confirm/deny this?
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.

Sabelkatten

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5413
AFAIL the problem with turbines isn't the MPG - turbines can in fact be very efficient - it's the fact that you can't really idle a turbine. Which means that when you're crawling down a dirt road at 5 mph you're still burning as much fuel per minute as when you're doing 30 mph.

That's why the old S tank used a (rather complicated) diesel/turbine combo.

DoctorMonkey

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2574
  • user briefly known as Khan of Clan Sex Panther
You want atrocious mileage, look up the M103 or Conqueror.  At least the 103 got a diesel in the end that nearly quadrupled its range; the gasoline-powered model made it 80 miles on a tank...of 280 gallons.  Conqueror does slightly better, a whole 95 miles on 266 gallons.  You want thirsty beasts, they're it.

Which prompts a question, why DID the Americans and Brits keep making gasoline tanks instead of diesel - while making diesel tanks! - into the late '50s?


Because there wasn't a diesel fuel supply infrastructure in Europe at the time - that was also the rationale for the brief multi-fuel engine idea in NATO that led to the Chieftain's Achilles' heel - and the expectation was that if the Warsaw Pact attacked then the fuel dumps would be lost and they would need to rely on civilian infrastructure for fuel


The other reason is/was that a lot of the tank engines of WW2 were derived from aero engines which were piston powered - often ones that failed the quality control for aeroplane use but weren't too awful for some use
Avatar stollen from spacebattles.com motivational posters thread

ChanMan: "Capellan Ingenuity: The ability to lose battles to Davion forces in new and implausible ways"

Kidd

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3535
I have understood that gasoline engine provides more HP for the weight. Can someone more knowledgeable confirm/deny this?
Well yes, but the diesel engines give a bigger base mana pool, so if you want a battle mage build, then you go diesel instead...

....I'll see myself out

marauder648

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6724
Wasn't the issue with range also kind of a "Well nukes will fly pretty quick, they won't need much range really." too?
Ghost Bears: Cute and cuddly. Until you remember its a BLOODY BEAR!

I am Belch II

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8005
  • It's a gator with a nuke, whats the problem.
Considering that the Abrams tank is 1500hp about twice the size of the M60 tank. That gas mileage isn't that bad.
Walking the fine line between sarcasm and being a smart-ass

500 is the number of Warships Now. 500 looks like it will stay for a long time.

snewsom2997

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2187
Considering that the Abrams tank is 1500hp about twice the size of the M60 tank. That gas mileage isn't that bad.

To top it off they spend more time on trailers than actually driving around.

Kidd

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3535
Guys, it was just an example.

But I suspect the M1 shouldn't be compared against its forebears, but against its contemporaries. Say the Chally 2, Leo 2 and T-72.

I am Belch II

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8005
  • It's a gator with a nuke, whats the problem.
In history even the best Invasions can only really go so far until supply issues have a problem. From the Blitz in France, to Operation Cobra, to Iraq War...its ends up being around 200 to 300 miles before things need to slow down and resupply and regroup. Modern armies need incredibly large supply lines and the numbers to move it. Most of the larger more well balanced forces still have that problem.
Walking the fine line between sarcasm and being a smart-ass

500 is the number of Warships Now. 500 looks like it will stay for a long time.

CDAT

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 291
Guys, it was just an example.

But I suspect the M1 shouldn't be compared against its forebears, but against its contemporaries. Say the Chally 2, Leo 2 and T-72.

Fair enough, but I had one issue doing this. Only the Challenger 2 gives its off road fuel efficiency so need to take the rest of them with a grain of  salt, as yes they get better on road efficiency than the Abrams but as the Abrams gets about the same on or off road, however how do they stack up off road?

Leopard II has 317 gallons and can go 340 miles giving it the best fuel efficiency of any tank at 1.07 miles/gal on road. Now the question is one why is it so much better than every other tank in the world when it is one of the largest and heaviest but still gets the best fuel efficiency? And second what is its efficiency off road?

Challenger 2 has 421 gallons and can go 340 miles on road giving it .80 miles/gal on road, off road it can only go 160 miles dropping the rate to .38 miles/gal. If we average together it becomes .58 miles/gal.

Leclerc has 450 gallons and can go 400 miles giving it .88 miles/gal on road, it is about ten tons lighter than all the rest of NATO tanks, but how does it do off road?

T-72 has 320 gallons and can go 290 miles giving it a .90 miles/gal on road, it is also about twenty tons lighter, and once again how does it do off road?

So we have the modern tanks running between .80 and 1.07 miles/gal on road, and only one that we know its off road at .38 miles/gal and if it spends half its time on road and half off it averages out to .58 miles/gal. The M1 get about .59 miles/gal on or off road, so is it really that much worse?

ANS Kamas P81

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10436
And bringing the thread back around with an M4, in Uvalde TX, with...something odd?  Battle damage? 

Fire this up: https://youtu.be/xpJ8EoGmLuE  It's the Slow Mo Guys doing shooting with a tank, and I saw something odd right at the beginning of the video.

Check out the right side of the turret, there's four holes fairly roughly drilled into it starting just behind the mantlet.  Checking in paint gives me a main gun bore of 70 pixels vertically, so it's fairly close 1px/mm.  Measuring those holes, they look at most about 30 pixels wide, which suggests 30mm cannon fire at close range, or possibly 20mm if the inner part of the hole is smaller. I couldn't tell for sure.

I did do a little looking at other E8s and they didn't have those same hole patterns, and don't have anything mounted there, so I'm not sure if it was something removed and just not welded over, or if it's actual damage from gunfire of some kind.  Anyone know?

Whoever owns it down there has a second E8 with the longer barrel gun, named Easy Eva.  The damaged(?) one I screenshotted is a different one, which looks like an M4A3E8 model with the shorter barrel.

chanman

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2383
  • Architect of suffering
Shaped charge strikes? There were a good number of panzerfausts around late in the war

MoneyLovinOgre4Hire

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 17907
  • Wipe your mouth!
Wasn't the Panzerfaust known for making much larger holes in enemy armor than that?
Warning: this post may contain sarcasm.

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

"When in doubt, C4." Jamie Hyneman

DoctorMonkey

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2574
  • user briefly known as Khan of Clan Sex Panther
Did it spend time on a gunnery range?
Avatar stollen from spacebattles.com motivational posters thread

ChanMan: "Capellan Ingenuity: The ability to lose battles to Davion forces in new and implausible ways"

kato

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1958
Wasn't the Panzerfaust known for making much larger holes in enemy armor than that?
The shaped charge jet from a Panzerfaust struck very clean, sharp perfectly round holes of around 30mm diameter in armor, the explosion to create the jet would usually smudge the armor within 100mm around the hole. The edges of the holes in the tank in the video are too frayed and slightly conical in comparison, definitely gunfire.

ANS Kamas P81

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10436
No idea the history or provenance of said tank, just thought it was odd - and it could be gunfire or industrial, but it looks like small versions of shell hits I've seen pictures of in other WWII tanks.

So how about that 152mm at the end, and the cloud of fruit juice steam the second shot created?  And that terrifying sound as the round went downrange; when I heard that I knew exactly what it was...a very rapidly tumbling shell going hellbent for the horizon.  It's a much lower pitch version of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ABGIJwiGBc

(cringing is permitted)

chanman

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2383
  • Architect of suffering
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
« Reply #1374 on: 08 September 2019, 01:01:53 »
It's now been 40 years since the first Leopard 2 entered service


kato

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1958
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
« Reply #1375 on: 08 September 2019, 03:45:39 »
That's technically one of the prototypes assembled 43 years ago.

Differences to the 0-series 40 years ago are mostly in the glacis (no forward swoop-down), the still unarmored track covers, the different H-K sight and placement and design of some fixtures like lights and footholds.

I am Belch II

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8005
  • It's a gator with a nuke, whats the problem.
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
« Reply #1376 on: 08 September 2019, 08:35:27 »
Happy 40th to the Leopard II. 40 years later and getting better and more deadly. 
Walking the fine line between sarcasm and being a smart-ass

500 is the number of Warships Now. 500 looks like it will stay for a long time.

Kidd

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3535
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
« Reply #1377 on: 08 September 2019, 08:42:12 »
So what's the most capable Leopard 2 variant now?

kato

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1958
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
« Reply #1378 on: 08 September 2019, 10:56:20 »
So what's the most capable Leopard 2 variant now?
The entire Leopard 2 line is so messed up no one will be able to tell you a definitive answer.

Full package, as fielded? Probably Leopard 2A7+ right now, the version bought by Qatar.
Defensive-wise? Strv 122D probably, i.e. the recent upgrade of the Strv 122B MEXAS-H + mine protection variant of the Leopard 2A5.
Offensive-wise? Leopard 2A7V as planned by the Bundeswehr for next year due to refitting the EMES-15 gunner sight with a 3rd generation IR set that isn't 40 years old like in all other Leos...


ANS Kamas P81

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10436
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
« Reply #1379 on: 08 September 2019, 14:13:53 »
Don't forget the PSO, a specific purpose-built model just for urban warfare and peacekeeping.  Shortbarreled gun, bulldozer blade, camera systems for visibility, improved 360 protection, and even "non-lethal armament" onboard. 

 

Register