Register Register

Author Topic: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.  (Read 81272 times)

kato

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1870
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
« Reply #1440 on: 16 September 2019, 21:42:59 »
Those things are 20 tons?!  ???
... a MT-LB weighs 11.9 tons.

P.S.: A BTR-50 weighs 14.5 tons, is halfway inbetween MT-LB and BMP in size and fits 20 infantry...
« Last Edit: 16 September 2019, 21:48:09 by kato »

Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13990
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
« Reply #1441 on: 17 September 2019, 04:26:58 »
That's MUCH closer to what I was thinking, thanks!  :thumbsup:

worktroll

  • Ombudsman
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 21181
  • 504th "Gateway" Division
    • There are Monsters in my Sky!
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
« Reply #1442 on: 17 September 2019, 05:01:01 »
The LTV-7 weighs 30 tons, carries 3 crew plus 21-30 troops (Wiki says 21, troopers say 30, I assume OH&S is left behind at need).  The LTV-7 also has a full amphibious chassis ;)
* 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"

hoosierhick

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 249
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
« Reply #1443 on: 17 September 2019, 11:16:57 »
Still convinced BTU people become liquid when placed in a container

Maybe the aft ramp on a BTU APC works like the compactor on a trash truck?

marauder648

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6598
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
« Reply #1444 on: 17 September 2019, 11:30:29 »
When I was in Iraq there was a few abandoned BMP-1's on our base and my unit had a bit of a giggle trying to debus from BMP's. To say they are tight is an understatement and the doors at the back are tiny, especially as the guys were use to Warrior's. And don't forget on the BMP-1, those back doors are also fuel tanks for additional 'fun'.
Ghost Bears: Cute and cuddly. Until you remember its a BLOODY BEAR!

Garrand

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 328
  • "Nicht kleckern, klotzen!"
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
« Reply #1445 on: 17 September 2019, 11:49:10 »
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 ...

A lee/Grant had a crew of 6 or 7 guys!

Also I'm only 5'6" & still thought it was tight in there...

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

MoneyLovinOgre4Hire

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 17471
  • Wipe your mouth!
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
« Reply #1446 on: 17 September 2019, 11:57:28 »
There's a reason the Soviets were putting women in their tanks in World War 2.
Warning: this post may contain sarcasm.

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

kato

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1870
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
« Reply #1447 on: 17 September 2019, 11:58:29 »


And yes, it's supposed to be used like that. They're sitting on benches.

marauder648

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6598
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
« Reply #1448 on: 17 September 2019, 12:35:20 »


And yes, it's supposed to be used like that. They're sitting on benches.

What the devil is that thing?
Ghost Bears: Cute and cuddly. Until you remember its a BLOODY BEAR!

Fat Guy

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2703
  • I make beer disappear. What's your superpower?
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
« Reply #1449 on: 17 September 2019, 12:45:46 »
The LTV-7 weighs 30 tons, carries 3 crew plus 21-30 troops (Wiki says 21, troopers say 30, I assume OH&S is left behind at need).  The LTV-7 also has a full amphibious chassis ;)

And at 41 tons the LVTP-5 carried 34 troops.



I have spoken.


kato

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1870
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
« Reply #1450 on: 17 September 2019, 12:55:26 »
What the devil is that thing?
Soviet T-20 Komsomolets, 4400 units built from 1937 to 1941, captured units were also used by Germany, Finland and Romania.

Used as a prime mover for light artillery like anti-tank guns or towed heavy mortars; the benches were there to seat the gun crews. There was a canvas top much like for a truck that could be put over the seated troops for weather protection. Forward compartment was fully armored seating the driver and the commander who doubled as the machine gunner; machine gun in ball mount is a DT. Due to the armor and ball mount MG they were also occasionally used as machine gun tankettes.

They also built around 100 tank destroyers with them in 1941 in which the crew benches were removed and a portee ZIS-2 57mm gun mounted in its place.
« Last Edit: 17 September 2019, 12:57:20 by kato »

truetanker

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6658
  • Clan Hells Horses 666th Mech. Assualt Cluster
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
« Reply #1451 on: 17 September 2019, 15:39:18 »
Got a pic of that?

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

Sabelkatten

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5286
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
« Reply #1452 on: 17 September 2019, 16:24:57 »
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZiS-30


...how do they fit in front?!?

hoosierhick

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 249
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
« Reply #1453 on: 17 September 2019, 17:12:16 »
And at 41 tons the LVTP-5 carried 34 troops.



Those both had the M44 beat.  It could only hold 24 troops.


Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13990
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
« Reply #1454 on: 17 September 2019, 17:40:14 »
Really makes you wonder about the Heavy APCs... 60 troops in 20 tons??  ::)

Kidd

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3535
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
« Reply #1455 on: 17 September 2019, 19:19:16 »
Those both had the M44 beat.  It could only hold 24 troops.


This is unironically my idea of a Battletech APC

Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13990
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
« Reply #1456 on: 17 September 2019, 19:43:51 »
Sure, but not one of the heavy ones... 60 troops is a LOT of people...

Charlie 6

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1827
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
« Reply #1457 on: 17 September 2019, 19:59:57 »
The LTV-7 weighs 30 tons, carries 3 crew plus 21-30 troops (Wiki says 21, troopers say 30, I assume OH&S is left behind at need).  The LTV-7 also has a full amphibious chassis ;)
The most I've seen in a AAV-P7A1 was 24 or 25, plus crew...I forget which one I was but I do remember several members of Kilo 3/6 holding me in the vehicle as the ramp was raised.

Kidd

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3535
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
« Reply #1458 on: 17 September 2019, 20:02:35 »
Heavy APC in my mind is the size of two public buses side by side. That's your sixty right there, easy.

Arguments about volume can be put down to miniaturisation tech, bearing in mind that I'm typing this on a device with thickness measured in millimetres with capabilities beyond the wildest dreams of 80s scifi thinkers

Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13990
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
« Reply #1459 on: 17 September 2019, 20:07:12 »
I suppose they could be that wide... it starts getting into DropShip levels of armor thinness, though...

Cache

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2242
    • Lords of the Battlefield
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
« Reply #1460 on: 17 September 2019, 20:34:55 »
Heavy APC in my mind is the size of two public buses side by side. That's your sixty right there, easy.
Doesn't have to be that much... maybe 1.5 buses wide. Standard school bus capacity is 72 passengers. That's kids, not kitted troops, but you can squeeze that many adults in there. Add half-again the width and it seems plausible... not comfortable.

Garrand

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 328
  • "Nicht kleckern, klotzen!"
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
« Reply #1461 on: 18 September 2019, 09:48:31 »
APCs don't have to be super comfortable. Just comfortable enough that the troops can be fresh when they debus into combat.

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

Kidd

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3535
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
« Reply #1462 on: 18 September 2019, 11:41:11 »
Okay. Well this is a RhinoRunner armoured bus, small arms and fragment proof. It was used in Iraq for transport including VIPs and a certain former leader. Seats 20.

If you add half again the width and stretch it 5 rows of seats to make it 8x8, you get another 2 columns of seats for 60. Then you add half again the all round diameter for systems and armour and you get something like two bus widths and a bit longer.

Now mentally raise it up on monster truck wheels and a V-hull undercarriage. Battletech APC?

« Last Edit: 18 September 2019, 11:44:35 by Kidd »

kato

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1870
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
« Reply #1463 on: 18 September 2019, 11:42:18 »


German military bus. Used for peacetime larger-scale troop movement. Usually one or two deployed with base administration for each batallion. Around 40 passenger seats. Wartime role was for transport of wounded, with most seats folded over and stretchers mounted two above every six seats - replacing trucks used before them for the purpose with the same capacity of 12 stretchers.

That wasn't a theoretical capability btw, they were also deployed like that in support of KFOR - both as busses and as ambulances.

For conflict zone personnel transport twenty of these were later introduced for Afghanistan to replace busses:



Armored (tested) against IEDs, artillery, infantry-scale guns, anti-personnel- and anti-tank mines. Seats 18. Carrier vehicle is a Multi A3 FSA, similarly armored and carrying a RWS for a 40mm grenade launcher or 7.62mm MG.

ANS Kamas P81

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10343
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
« Reply #1464 on: 18 September 2019, 11:44:37 »
That six foot drop from the doorway suggests egress was a problem...

Kidd

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3535
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
« Reply #1465 on: 18 September 2019, 11:46:09 »


German military bus. Used for peacetime larger-scale troop movement. Usually one or two deployed with base administration for each batallion. Around 40 passenger seats. Wartime role was for transport of wounded, with most seats folded over and stretchers mounted two above every six seats - replacing trucks used before them for the purpose with the same capacity of 12 stretchers.

That wasn't a theoretical capability btw, they were also deployed like that in support of KFOR - both as busses and as ambulances.

For conflict zone personnel transport twenty of these were later introduced for Afghanistan to replace busses:



Armored (tested) against IEDs, artillery, infantry-scale guns, anti-personnel- and anti-tank mines. Seats 18. Carrier vehicle is a Multi A3 FSA, similarly armored and carrying a RWS for a 40mm grenade launcher or 7.62mm MG.
The first one, is it basically a civilian bus painted green? maybe with kevlar plates?

Second one is very interesting.

Sharpnel

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10835
  • Nil timere messorem
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
« Reply #1466 on: 18 September 2019, 12:13:40 »
I still have bad dreams of being jammed in to 'cattle car' trailers in basic training at Fort Dix
Takehiro 'Taco' Uchimiya, VND-1R Vindicator 'Taco', Crimson Oasis Trading Company
Tai-i Shizuko Lofgren, Third Infantry Company, Oniwaka

"Of what use is a dream, if not a blueprint for courageous action" -Adam West
It's an Omni, so I can build it into whatever I please - JHB
"Life is too short to be living someone else's dream" - Hugh Hefner

kato

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1870
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
« Reply #1467 on: 18 September 2019, 12:19:47 »
That six foot drop from the doorway suggests egress was a problem...
From the container? Main exit is in the back. Method of egress: https://youtu.be/7N0HPjafFv4?t=340
(note for context: that's a Bundeswehr recruiting-ad-campaign video in Reality-TV style from Mali)

Then again that Multi truck could just put the container on the ground - though you probably better be well strapped in when it tilts it at 40-plus degrees  ;)

The first one, is it basically a civilian bus painted green? maybe with kevlar plates?
It's a specialized version of a Mercedes-Benz O302 series civilian bus. There are some minor changes, mostly regarding lowered visibility (no chrome rims...) and making them cheaper by removing any sort of comfort for passengers (including changes to e.g. air flow systems in the bus).

No kevlar or any sort of armor.

They bought a couple hundred in the mid 60s, the base i was stationed at still ran its single unit in mid-2000, and it was used daily - that would be 20 years after civilian operators replaced the same series. As far as i know they went extinct when the Bundeswehr privatized operations of any civilian vehicles in their stock around ten years ago.

I used them pretty much every day, since base administration ran a bus shuttle service to the local railway station, and for peak times used this bus (e.g. back then the one with departure for base at 6:25 am...).

Here's one as an ambulance deployed in Kosovo:



The armored container replacements were bought after a SVBIED exploded next to two of these busses in Kabul in 2003. Four dead, ten seriously and 19 lightly wounded.
« Last Edit: 18 September 2019, 12:24:11 by kato »

Charlie 6

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1827
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
« Reply #1468 on: 18 September 2019, 18:39:03 »
This thread has taken an odd turn down the bus lane.

Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13990
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
« Reply #1469 on: 18 September 2019, 18:41:20 »
Heh... I rode in a Rhino in Baghdad.  It was only slightly more comfortable than an MRAP (which was the usual way to get across town).