Register Register

Author Topic: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.  (Read 81275 times)

ANS Kamas P81

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10343
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
« Reply #1470 on: 18 September 2019, 20:37:15 »
We need a title for version 5 of this thread soon right now!

Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13990
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
« Reply #1471 on: 18 September 2019, 20:43:15 »
Well, the Mark V was deployed toward the end of the Great War...  ^-^

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 #1472 on: 18 September 2019, 20:44:25 »
Mark 5 Hermaphrodite? (there's obscure for you. Bet several dozen here will get it.)

And on the topic,



The Mark IX. Distortion of a Mark V chassis, weighed 27 tons, and carried 30 (or 50, some assert) troops. Over 30' long, with a top speed of 4.6mph - eg. moves 1 hex every other turn ;)
* 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: 10343
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
« Reply #1473 on: 18 September 2019, 20:47:47 »
How about version BT-5?

Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13990
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
« Reply #1474 on: 18 September 2019, 20:51:50 »
Worktroll, are you sure about that picture?  The Wiki article described it as having one 6-pounder sponson, and one with Vickers...  ???

glitterboy2098

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8533
    • The Temple Grounds - My Roleplaying and History website
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
« Reply #1475 on: 18 September 2019, 21:07:51 »
Worktroll, are you sure about that picture?  The Wiki article described it as having one 6-pounder sponson, and one with Vickers...  ???
the Mk.V hermaphrodite did. but the pic he posted is the of the Mk.IX, which was an early effort at what we would call an APC.

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 #1476 on: 18 September 2019, 21:17:18 »
Sorry for any confusion! Glitterboy has the right of it.
* 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"

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 #1477 on: 19 September 2019, 08:09:53 »
M5 Stuart

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 #1478 on: 19 September 2019, 09:07:20 »
Let us not kid ourselves.... Obviously Panzer V Panther should be the King of the 5s!
Clan Blood Spirit - So Bad Ass as to require Orbital Bombardments to wipe us out....it is the only way to be sure!

beachhead1985

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3541
  • 1st SOG; SLDF. "McKenna's Marauders"
    • Kilroy's Wall
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
« Reply #1479 on: 19 September 2019, 09:14:52 »
I still have bad dreams of being jammed in to 'cattle car' trailers in basic training at Fort Dix

Trailers?!

Until recently; the US military was still hauling troops about the country in box cars!
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

beachhead1985

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3541
  • 1st SOG; SLDF. "McKenna's Marauders"
    • Kilroy's Wall
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
« Reply #1480 on: 19 September 2019, 09:16:15 »
Worktroll, are you sure about that picture?  The Wiki article described it as having one 6-pounder sponson, and one with Vickers...  ???

Normally hotchkiss .303s in the pics i've seen. Although many females did have vickers guns...and many Males had either Hotchkiss or Lewis guns.
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

beachhead1985

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3541
  • 1st SOG; SLDF. "McKenna's Marauders"
    • Kilroy's Wall
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
« Reply #1481 on: 19 September 2019, 09:37:29 »
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.



Was doing some unrelated research recently; T-14 Armata implications, if it even *half works*. Western 14cm-class gun tank development...and I had the World of Tanks forum open.

Yet more complaining about the russian bias.

Which is real and exists for a reason.

And then it hit me.

I glanced over and thought to myself; "Duh; of course russian tanks in WWII were better than they had any right to be; their rail gauge is/was 5ft. Ours was mainly 4.855ft. All over the world tank design was dictated by what could be easily moved by rail. No one builds a tunnel or even a transport plane any bigger than they have to, silly. Why just look at the Sherman; could the Americans have made a better tank? Sure! Hell. They put the M7 into production, then stopped it and tore down the factory. if the Russians can move tank production to the other side of the Urals; then the Americans could have made a better tank. They didn't because the damn transports were only so big; even a slightly larger tank would have taken up more than 2 Sherman's worth of space. Wouldn't have mattered. Size directly correlates to turret rings, track width and sloping armour. The Maus looks like that for a reason, ditto the Sherman; the Russians can build a wider tank from day one and never have to make them ship by sea...unless WWII goes REALLY well.

After WWII; they go to smaller tanks to save resources, get around better on narrower-gauge Pact-Track and maximize the manpower advantage they think they will have forever. They go away from heavy tanks.

Then I glance over at the 140mm and 135mm tanks...That's not many rounds. And that's the biggest turret-ring we can get without making the tank that much higher, which cubes the weight of armour and 50-70 tons is already a lot...We can't wake wider tanks and still have turrets. Looks at Armata...if even *half* of that works...HOW ARE THE LASERS COMING? THE RAIL GUNS?
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

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 #1482 on: 19 September 2019, 10:34:50 »
Fortunately for us, the Armata is an unmigrated disaster.

Russia is only buying 100, and mainly to throw the factory a bone after all they spent to develop it
I have spoken.


ANS Kamas P81

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10343
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
« Reply #1483 on: 19 September 2019, 11:01:00 »
Don't forget the crane capacities for lifting tanks onto ships for transport (and vice versa at destinations) - IIRC Nick Moran mentioned this as being part of the reason Shermans weighed what they did, because of the lifting capacity for ship transport and the relative lack of cranes that could load heavier things like Pershing and so on.

Kidd

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3535
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
« Reply #1484 on: 19 September 2019, 11:52:20 »
Yes, the issue of support infrastructures is probably one of the most crucial and underlooked limiting factors in this area

Simple question: Why not just build an 80 ton mega Abrams?

Because then you now need railways and gauge capable of ferrying that 80 ton tank, a fleet of mega-C5 Galaxys capable of ferrying that 80 ton tank, a fleet of mega-LPDs, each with a bunch of mega-LCACs, not to mention mega-wreckers and mega-bridgelayers and oh speaking of you need to reinforce/rebuild all the bridges in the countries you operate in

Let us not kid ourselves.... Obviously Panzer V Panther should be the King of the 5s!

I second this

MoneyLovinOgre4Hire

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 17471
  • Wipe your mouth!
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
« Reply #1485 on: 19 September 2019, 12:04:06 »
Why just look at the Sherman; could the Americans have made a better tank? Sure! Hell. They put the M7 into production, then stopped it and tore down the factory. if the Russians can move tank production to the other side of the Urals; then the Americans could have made a better tank. They didn't because the damn transports were only so big; even a slightly larger tank would have taken up more than 2 Sherman's worth of space. Wouldn't have mattered. Size directly correlates to turret rings, track width and sloping armour. The Maus looks like that for a reason, ditto the Sherman; the Russians can build a wider tank from day one and never have to make them ship by sea...unless WWII goes REALLY well.

What M7 are you talking about?  The only one I'm aware of was an intended replacement to the M3/M5 Stuart.  Compared to the M4 it had only marginally better speed with the same main gun and markedly inferior armor.
Warning: this post may contain sarcasm.

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

Matti

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5061
  • In Rory we trust
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
« Reply #1486 on: 19 September 2019, 12:45:40 »


The Mark IX. Distortion of a Mark V chassis, weighed 27 tons, and carried 30 (or 50, some assert) troops. Over 30' long, with a top speed of 4.6mph - eg. moves 1 hex every other turn ;)
What's the point of having PBI inside with that speed!? I could understand it as armoured ammo carrier for other tanks.


Don't forget the crane capacities for lifting tanks onto ships for transport (and vice versa at destinations) - IIRC Nick Moran mentioned this as being part of the reason Shermans weighed what they did, because of the lifting capacity for ship transport and the relative lack of cranes that could load heavier things like Pershing and so on.
Yes. He also makes a note that Sherman is relatively more reliable and easier ( = faster) to maintain than most other tanks. Crew has more elbow space to work with (except in Firefly), which means increased efficiency ( = shorter reload times). And something about optics and periscopes. And gun stabilizer, which was so secret that most crews didn't get training for it. Gun also had some excellent type of ammunition, which wasn't produced much, possibly for rule #4 reasons.
« Last Edit: 19 September 2019, 12:57:10 by Matti »
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.

Kidd

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3535
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
« Reply #1487 on: 19 September 2019, 13:06:53 »
What's the point of having PBI inside with that speed!?

Protection and conservation of human effort

I am Belch II

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7926
  • It's a gator with a nuke, whats the problem.
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
« Reply #1488 on: 19 September 2019, 13:25:12 »
The first troop carrier. Use the armor to break the trenches than unload the troops and  hold the land you just took over.
Wasn't there a problem with the exhaust of the Mark tanks and would poison the crew inside??
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.

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 #1489 on: 19 September 2019, 13:33:17 »
Basically there was no separate engine compartment. The engine was in there with the crew and everything else.
I have spoken.


Matti

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5061
  • In Rory we trust
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
« Reply #1490 on: 19 September 2019, 13:35:18 »
Wasn't there a problem with the exhaust of the Mark tanks and would poison the crew inside??
Yes, I have read about it. It may not have been to the point of dying, but they may have suffered of nausea and possibly vomiting. Also huge engine is in the middle of the tank and in the first models it didn't have any kind of protection, so crew members were likely to fall on it and burn themselves. If I have understood correctly, Mark IV had a fence around the engine.
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.

God and Davion

  • excelencia Steiner
  • Administrator
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4858
  • Xmas is here!
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.
« Reply #1491 on: 19 September 2019, 13:56:00 »
Closing the thread for reaching the 50 pages limit.

Here's the new one, with 100% more Maus:

https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=66977.0
We are back again... but we never forget Albatross

 

Register