Register Register

Author Topic: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.  (Read 81533 times)

Sabelkatten

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5292
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
« Reply #1410 on: 10 September 2019, 06:35:47 »
Pretty much limited to Spike and Javelin in practice, the French MMP will does also include a secondary trajectory mode for that. Tradeoff is higher susceptibility to active countermeasures.
Rbs 56 BILL is dedicated top arrack as well.

hoosierhick

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 249
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
« Reply #1411 on: 10 September 2019, 07:45:57 »
Pretty much limited to Spike and Javelin in practice, the French MMP will does also include a secondary trajectory mode for that. Tradeoff is higher susceptibility to active countermeasures.

Wasn't there also a flavor of TOW that did top attack?

Ursus Maior

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 438
  • Just here for a little mayhem.
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
« Reply #1412 on: 10 September 2019, 08:39:31 »
There are a lot of ATGMs that have top-attack capabilities, I think you might refer to the BGM-71F TOW-2B. Other models e. g. are the Swedish BILLs, the South Korean Raybolt or the German PARS 3 LR. The thing is, not many models are in widespread use. And then there is the destinction between hand-held, tripod-mounted and vehicle-borne ATGMs. Of the latter, there seem to be more, but of the first kind, there are only few, as kato mentioned.
liber et infractus

kato

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1874
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
« Reply #1413 on: 10 September 2019, 09:01:23 »
Rbs 56 BILL is dedicated top arrack as well.
Not through lofted trajectory though - it's simply a downward-firing EFP that overflies its target, same as e.g. TOW 2B.

Top-attack through lofted/arcing trajectory in those missiles that do use it also are used for their main effect: Giving the missile a considerably higher range compared to flat trajectories. That's realistically the main reason the Spike missile family for example uses it.

As for types - it's not like there are that many ATGM types remaining anyway. Just look at Europe. Almost everyone uses Spike, and those that don't do use Javelin (France excluded as usual - they're replacing their adhoc Javelin buy with MMP).

Garrand

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 333
  • "Nicht kleckern, klotzen!"
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
« Reply #1414 on: 10 September 2019, 10:43:27 »
In trials for Ecuador in 1989 it performed way ahead of its competitors - the Textron Stingray, Steyr SK-105 and upgraded AMX-13-105.

And yet they went with the upgraded AMX-13...

I've noticed that Ecuador took delivery of a bunch of Leopard 1A5s, IIRC ex-Dutch vehicles. My GF is from Ecuador, was thinking of building a model of one -- if I could find some decent pictures.

Apparently they have a bunch of T-55s sitting around somewhere too.

Damon.
Book Blog: bookslikedust.blogspot.com
Minis Blog: minislikedust.blogspot.com

hoosierhick

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 249
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
« Reply #1415 on: 10 September 2019, 17:08:51 »
Not through lofted trajectory though - it's simply a downward-firing EFP that overflies its target, same as e.g. TOW 2B.

Top-attack through lofted/arcing trajectory in those missiles that do use it also are used for their main effect: Giving the missile a considerably higher range compared to flat trajectories. That's realistically the main reason the Spike missile family for example uses it.

As for types - it's not like there are that many ATGM types remaining anyway. Just look at Europe. Almost everyone uses Spike, and those that don't do use Javelin (France excluded as usual - they're replacing their adhoc Javelin buy with MMP).

OK, I didn't realize you were making a distinction between a lofted flight profile and one that just overflies the target.

worktroll

  • Ombudsman
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 21207
  • 504th "Gateway" Division
    • There are Monsters in my Sky!
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
« Reply #1416 on: 12 September 2019, 14:08:10 »
More armour, that's what this thread needs! Some unusual BMP modifications seen in Syria ..







And a very unusual mod found in a Pakistani armour museum:



No-one's quite sure if it's a 17-lbr, or 76mm, or what, but I want some for my next militia unit ... looks very BT.

And talking of looking very BT ... the South Korean K2 Black Panther. I'm using a 3D model because it shows the very non-box turret to best effect:



But here's the real thing

* No, FASA wasn't big on errata - ColBosch
* The Housebook series is from the 80's and is the foundation of Btech, the 80's heart wrapped in heavy metal that beats to this day - Sigma
* To sum it up: FASAnomics: By Cthulhu, for Cthulhu - Moonsword
* Because Battletech is a conspiracy by Habsburg & Bourbon pretenders - MadCapellan
* The Hellbringer is cool, either way. It's not cool because it's bad, it's cool because it's bad with balls - Nightsky
* It was a glorious time for people who felt that we didn't have enough Marauder variants - HABeas2, re "Empires Aflame"

nerd

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1882
  • Nunc Partus-Ready Now
    • Traveller Adventures
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
« Reply #1417 on: 12 September 2019, 15:48:49 »
And a very unusual mod found in a Pakistani armour museum:



No-one's quite sure if it's a 17-lbr, or 76mm, or what, but I want some for my next militia unit ... looks very BT.

Looks like an M3 Lee/Grant with a really long gun, and no 37mm turret. Interesting SPG or testing setup.
M. T. Thompson
Don of the Starslayer Mafia
Member of the AFFS High Command

truetanker

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6660
  • Clan Hells Horses 666th Mech. Assualt Cluster
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
« Reply #1418 on: 12 September 2019, 15:52:12 »
That's a Lee with a Long Tom Cannon upgrade!

TT
Khan, Clan Iron Dolphin
Azeroth Pocketverse
That is, if true tanker doesn't beat me to it. He makes truly evil units.Col.Hengist on 31 May 2013
TT, we know you are the master of nasty  O0 ~ Fletch on 22 June 2013
If I'm attacking you, conventional wisom says to bring 3x your force.  I want extra insurance, so I'll bring 4 for every 1 of what you have :D ~ Tai Dai Cultist on 21 April 2016
Me: Would you rather fight my Epithymía Thanátou from the Whispers of Blake?
Nav_Alpha: That THING... that is horrid
~ Nav_Alpha on 10 October 2016

I am Belch II

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7929
  • It's a gator with a nuke, whats the problem.
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
« Reply #1419 on: 12 September 2019, 16:50:15 »
What a odd upgrade to that tank.
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.

ANS Kamas P81

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10344
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
« Reply #1420 on: 12 September 2019, 17:39:17 »
It's identified as a 17pdr elsewhere, and...also as a CDL variant of some kind.  Muzzle break is very similar to the 17pdr the Brits made, but it doesn't have the lip at the back of it and just tapers into the smooth barrel.  There's a claim on one site that it's a carelessly done "restoration" rather than a real prototype.  In all honesty I can't imagine a recoil system that big would fit at all in the Lee's sponson.

Still a tempting thought, as it is...oh, and it's at the Army Museum in Lahore, Pakistan.

worktroll

  • Ombudsman
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 21207
  • 504th "Gateway" Division
    • There are Monsters in my Sky!
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
« Reply #1421 on: 12 September 2019, 18:34:50 »
In all honesty I can't imagine a recoil system that big would fit at all in the Lee's sponson.

There's lots of room in a Lee/Grant; was up close & personal earlier this year at Puckapunyl.



And in the early 70s, was inside that beast (the museum at the time being a paddock, and access was untrammelled.) So if you can fit a 17-lbr in a Sherman turret (the bustle on the back is stuffed with wireless, IIRC), and four 6' plus late teens into a Lee, you can fit a 17-lbr into a Lee sponson ;)

The muzzle brake - can't help but wonder if it's an improvised field repair, after that tank dug the barrel into a ditch.

And given I have a friend who will 3D print for me, I see several variant Hetzers carrying UAC-10s in my future.
* No, FASA wasn't big on errata - ColBosch
* The Housebook series is from the 80's and is the foundation of Btech, the 80's heart wrapped in heavy metal that beats to this day - Sigma
* To sum it up: FASAnomics: By Cthulhu, for Cthulhu - Moonsword
* Because Battletech is a conspiracy by Habsburg & Bourbon pretenders - MadCapellan
* The Hellbringer is cool, either way. It's not cool because it's bad, it's cool because it's bad with balls - Nightsky
* It was a glorious time for people who felt that we didn't have enough Marauder variants - HABeas2, re "Empires Aflame"

ANS Kamas P81

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10344
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
« Reply #1422 on: 12 September 2019, 20:54:32 »
Roomier than it looks, that's for darn sure.  Well...I guess 'maybe' but it's probably like the 76mm-armed Matilda II.  Yeah, it works, but there's better options that were built for the vastly better gun.

beachhead1985

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3542
  • 1st SOG; SLDF. "McKenna's Marauders"
    • Kilroy's Wall
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
« Reply #1423 on: 13 September 2019, 22:13:25 »
Yeah; looks like they did their best with something leftover in a scrap yard from the tail end of the Burma campaign.
Epitaph on an Army of Mercenaries

These, in the day when heaven was falling,      Their shoulders held the sky suspended;
The hour when earth's foundations fled,         They stood, and earth's foundations stay;
Followed their mercenary calling,               What God abandoned, these defended,
And took their wages, and are dead.             And saved the sum of things for pay.
     
A.E. Housman

ANS Kamas P81

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10344
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
« Reply #1424 on: 15 September 2019, 02:07:58 »
So for those of you tankies, of any nation, a writing project that probably won't go anywhere prompts me to ask.  What kind of responsibilities, duties, and day-in-the-life shenanigans does a newly commissioned 2nd lieutenant have in an armor BN?  Specifically something peacetime, playing around with ideas mostly.

Unrelated, really, you can't not color this anything else.

kato

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1874
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
« Reply #1425 on: 15 September 2019, 02:30:13 »
Not a tankie, but in my Bn depending on which company you'd have been either the errant boy for the "real officers" in the staff with the usual intern duties - or you'd get the "grateful" task of overseeing half a company's enlisted while they do maintenance and the NCOs will look at you with contempt as you're "just standing around".

ANS Kamas P81

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10344
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
« Reply #1426 on: 15 September 2019, 03:40:21 »
I suppose you're expected to keep your hands OFF anything and not try to make things worse by helping your troops out.

Also, anybody got funny stories of the armor days?
« Last Edit: 15 September 2019, 05:53:02 by ANS Kamas P81 »

Fat Guy

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2706
  • I make beer disappear. What's your superpower?
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
« Reply #1427 on: 16 September 2019, 09:30:49 »
Australia has selected Korean and German industries for Next Gen IFV/APC evaluation.



Australia has shortlisted two contenders to replace their M-113s: The Rheinmetall Lynx KF-41 and the Hanwha Defense System AS21 Redback.
I have spoken.


HobbesHurlbut

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2905
  • Live Free or Die Hard
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
« Reply #1428 on: 16 September 2019, 10:52:55 »
Australia has selected Korean and German industries for Next Gen IFV/APC evaluation.



Australia has shortlisted two contenders to replace their M-113s: The Rheinmetall Lynx KF-41 and the Hanwha Defense System AS21 Redback.
"What happened?

The owner of this website (defense-update.com) does not allow hotlinking to that resource (/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Land400Phas3_1021.jpg)."
Clan Blood Spirit - So Bad Ass as to require Orbital Bombardments to wipe us out....it is the only way to be sure!

Fat Guy

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2706
  • I make beer disappear. What's your superpower?
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
« Reply #1429 on: 16 September 2019, 13:54:36 »
Let's do it this way then.

KF-41:


AS21:


I have spoken.


Black_Knyght

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1897
  • Nisi mors certum est in bello
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
« Reply #1430 on: 16 September 2019, 14:33:25 »
There's lots of room in a Lee/Grant; was up close & personal earlier this year at Puckapunyl.



And in the early 70s, was inside that beast (the museum at the time being a paddock, and access was untrammelled.) So if you can fit a 17-lbr in a Sherman turret (the bustle on the back is stuffed with wireless, IIRC), and four 6' plus late teens into a Lee, you can fit a 17-lbr into a Lee sponson ;)

The muzzle brake - can't help but wonder if it's an improvised field repair, after that tank dug the barrel into a ditch.

And given I have a friend who will 3D print for me, I see several variant Hetzers carrying UAC-10s in my future.

Now THAT would be interesting indeed! :thumbsup:

Garrand

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 333
  • "Nicht kleckern, klotzen!"
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
« Reply #1431 on: 16 September 2019, 15:45:12 »
I got to crawl around in an M3 Grant a few years ago, & I'm not sure I agree with the "a lot of room" comment. Still, with the turret removed mounting a 17pder shouldn't be impossible. It might work well as a fully armored SP anti-tank gun system...

Damon.
Book Blog: bookslikedust.blogspot.com
Minis Blog: minislikedust.blogspot.com

worktroll

  • Ombudsman
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 21207
  • 504th "Gateway" Division
    • There are Monsters in my Sky!
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
« Reply #1432 on: 16 September 2019, 17:51:30 »
Compared to a T-54, M13-40, or similar ... a lot of room. As mentioned, four 6'+ teens had no problems with the Lee. Of course, our circumference was smaller in the 70s ...

Centurion was moderately roomy IIRC. Wish they'd had the T-72 back then, but ... Not allowed to climb in them.

Room in a BMP-1 is ridiculously small.



And there are the gas tanks!
* No, FASA wasn't big on errata - ColBosch
* The Housebook series is from the 80's and is the foundation of Btech, the 80's heart wrapped in heavy metal that beats to this day - Sigma
* To sum it up: FASAnomics: By Cthulhu, for Cthulhu - Moonsword
* Because Battletech is a conspiracy by Habsburg & Bourbon pretenders - MadCapellan
* The Hellbringer is cool, either way. It's not cool because it's bad, it's cool because it's bad with balls - Nightsky
* It was a glorious time for people who felt that we didn't have enough Marauder variants - HABeas2, re "Empires Aflame"

ANS Kamas P81

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10344
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
« Reply #1433 on: 16 September 2019, 19:09:09 »
And then there's the MTLB, a meter shorter than the Bimp...


worktroll

  • Ombudsman
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 21207
  • 504th "Gateway" Division
    • There are Monsters in my Sky!
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
« Reply #1434 on: 16 September 2019, 20:15:26 »
Now fit two platoons in there, and you have a BT Heavy APC ...
* No, FASA wasn't big on errata - ColBosch
* The Housebook series is from the 80's and is the foundation of Btech, the 80's heart wrapped in heavy metal that beats to this day - Sigma
* To sum it up: FASAnomics: By Cthulhu, for Cthulhu - Moonsword
* Because Battletech is a conspiracy by Habsburg & Bourbon pretenders - MadCapellan
* The Hellbringer is cool, either way. It's not cool because it's bad, it's cool because it's bad with balls - Nightsky
* It was a glorious time for people who felt that we didn't have enough Marauder variants - HABeas2, re "Empires Aflame"

Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 14195
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
« Reply #1435 on: 16 September 2019, 20:23:22 »
Those things are 20 tons?!  ???

MoneyLovinOgre4Hire

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 17522
  • Wipe your mouth!
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
« Reply #1436 on: 16 September 2019, 20:57:26 »
Yup.
Warning: this post may contain sarcasm.

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

Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 14195
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
« Reply #1437 on: 16 September 2019, 20:59:17 »
Wow... that really drives home the material advances of the BTU...  :o


Dave Talley

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 3015
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
« Reply #1439 on: 16 September 2019, 21:26:15 »
nah
 the BT  writers started with Traveller, a ton is based on water,
so in addition to mass it represents a cubic meter, so for 30 men,
you would need at least 30 cubic meters of space, so you still need
a damned bus
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