Military Ground Vehicles of Your Nation [NO FUN] Mark IX

[North Arkana]

Ooh.

Is there anything you can tell us about how "trunks" operate in the US?

Questers once made a primer to trunks as a concept, I was wondering if you had anything particularly enlightening you were willing to share.

Something something opsec, something something I just get sat in front of a radio instead of my real staff job.

[Fordorsia]

how many people have you killed

[Autonomous Eastern Ukraine]

Have a gallery of some more Middle Eastern stuff I have saved

[Fordorsia]

Have a gallery of some more Middle Eastern stuff I have saved

That killdozer is beautiful

[Rich and Corporations]

actually I'm pretty sure the automotive parts would have to be replaced entirely, and the hull would be pretty rusted.
maintaining it would be too expensive

you'd be better off actually building a T-34 then maintaining one that has been continuously used since the final production run.

this isn't D20 apocalypse, where you scavenge for mechanical and electronic replacement parts and it's good as new

Hull rust is literally a non-issue. This is easily prevented by regular, yearly, basic maintenance: painting the tank. Can't afford enough fuel and such to have the crew actually drive the tank much? Make them paint it, it's far cheaper. Even the most backwoods terribad militias with tanks can do this, and often do.

Automotive parts would be replaced frequently over the course of its life. This is again, a surprisingly non-issue. Most of those parts can be found in other vehicles or machinery, or can simply be taken and refurbished from wrecked tanks.

It's actually far fa easier to keep a tank operational continuously for decades than it is to take one out of a field or a pedestal after decades of nothing and make it useful. And the latter has been done many times (So has the former).

The problem is it's just as easy (and cheap) to keep T-55s or T-62s running like that as it is with T-34s, if you have them. And since both the T-55 and T-62 are arguably far better tanks than the T-34, it's just not worth doing. You can even use many components from the T-55 to keep your T-34s running, although that would be idiotic because you can do the reverse as well.

Any decent mechanic can keep an old tank operational, especially at the level of abuse third-world crap-holes would put it through. It really is just a matter of knowing where to get the parts (Nowhere near as hard as people think for some vehicles), and doing the work.

You're confusing fifty hour mean times between maintenance with five hundred hour.

if what you state is so easy, why doesn't the US keep the same OPFOR vehicles running for decades?

[Laritaia]

battalion commander is basically the highest position in a military where you can generally expect to be around shooting on a regular basis rather then driving a map board.

[Schwere Panzer Abteilung 502]

how many people have you killed

Yes.

What are the pros and cons of double link vs single link tracks? I am probably using the wrong terminology, but I know Sovjet tanks use single link end connectors and westerners have double link.

[Laritaia]

iirc it's supposed to be moderately easier to take double pin track apart, but they're heavier then single pin.

[The Akasha Colony]

how many people have you killed

Yes.

What are the pros and cons of double link vs single link tracks? I am probably using the wrong terminology, but I know Sovjet tanks use single link end connectors and westerners have double link.

I presume you're referring to the differences between single-pin and double-pin tracks?

Double-pin tracks have become nearly universal in MBTs because they can better transmit large forces when used with rubber bushings, as most modern tracks are to reduce metal-on-metal contact and friction. A single-pin track has half as many bushings as a double-pin track and thus the force is concentrated on a smaller number of bushings.

Theoretically, single-pin tracks are advantageous due to their lighter weight, as they do not need the connectors that join the pins of a double-pin track. Instead, the links are joined directly using the single pin as a rotating joint. In reality though it depends more on the design of the specific track link than whether it's single- or double-pin.

NATO tanks switched to double-pin tracks by necessity as tanks got heavier and some nations had switched during WWII. Others like France and Britain switched later, with the British retaining single-pin tracks all the way through the Challenger 1 and finally adopting double-pin tracks with the Challenger 2, and France using single-pin tracks with the AMX-30 until adopting double-pin tracks with Leclerc. The US with its heavier tanks adopted double-pin tracks with the Sherman and continued with the heavier Patton line. The Germans switched with the adoption of the Leopard 1.

Even the Russians have switched, both the T-80 and the T-90 use double-pin tracks and the T-64 has used them since the beginning (although the T-72 started out with simpler, single-pin tracks).

[Schwere Panzer Abteilung 502]

Cool sperg, thanks.

If only gayla could express itself like that.

EDIT: also, I'm pretty sure Sumer wrote somewhere that the 120mm M58 is one of the most powerful guns the US has put on a tank. Could the M103's armament be elaborated upon? I'm pretty sure I've also asked this question before.

[Gallia-]

Challenger 1, Abrams, and Leopard 2 all weigh the same (55-60 tons). Omani Challenger 2s have the single-pin tracks of the CR1, too, so clearly it is not a vehicle mass issue. It's perfectly plausible to have a sixty plus ton MBT with a single pin rubber bushed track. The number of pins in a track are mostly a track life thing and partially an acoustic signature thing. American double pin tracks were literally deafening (>100 db to operators) until the 1980s or so, but that was sorta tangential to the number of pins.

A single pin track will, generally, have a shorter life than a double pin track because it undergoes more stress, but it is simpler to maintain and can be made lighter by a substantial margin.

Could the M103's armament be elaborated upon? I'm pretty sure I've also asked this question before.

It's just kinetic energy. It's basically meaningless.

[Imperializt Russia]

EDIT: also, I'm pretty sure Sumer wrote somewhere that the 120mm M58 is one of the most powerful guns the US has put on a tank. Could the M103's armament be elaborated upon? I'm pretty sure I've also asked this question before.

IIRC the long 88mm gun used by the Tiger II could achieve greater muzzle energy than (certain loads of) M829 out of the M256, when using certain AP rounds.

As Galla says, it's muzzle energy, what you utilise that muzzle energy to achieve is what's important.
Maybe all-new high-class propellants and projectile designs in the M58 could outperform M256 loads.
M256 is NATO-standard and already exists and is a perfectly capable gun system, so we'll never know because why would anyone bother.

Especially when, if increased muzzle energy is what you desire, higher gun calibres like 140mm offer substantially more growth room than M58 possibly could?

[The Akasha Colony]

Cool sperg, thanks.

If only gayla could express itself like that.

EDIT: also, I'm pretty sure Sumer wrote somewhere that the 120mm M58 is one of the most powerful guns the US has put on a tank. Could the M103's armament be elaborated upon? I'm pretty sure I've also asked this question before.

The muzzle energy of M58 firing its M358 APBC round is slightly greater than that of M256 firing M829. This is somewhat meaningless though because M358's muzzle velocity is very low compared to modern APFSDS because it's an extremely heavy round and has anemic penetration compared to a modern long rod.

Before the 105 mm L7 was adopted though the US Army favored a lighter version of the M58 (T123) as their future tank armament for what would become the M60 Patton. But the T123 suffered from an extremely long loading time because unlike the M103 which had two loaders to manage the trolltastic 100+ lb AP rounds, the notional future MBT did not.

Challenger 1, Abrams, and Leopard 2 all weigh the same (55-60 tons). Omani Challenger 2s have the single-pin tracks of the CR1, too, so clearly it is not a vehicle mass issue. It's perfectly plausible to have a sixty plus ton MBT with a single pin rubber bushed track. The number of pins in a track are mostly a track life thing and partially an acoustic signature thing. American double pin tracks were literally deafening (>100 db to operators) until the 1980s or so, but that was sorta tangential to the number of pins.

A single pin track will, generally, have a shorter life than a double pin track because it undergoes more stress, but it is simpler to maintain and can be made lighter by a substantial margin.

It is rather a stretch to say that vehicle mass is no issue. It is no coincidence that track life decreased as vehicles got heavier in spite of advancements in steel and rubber formulations, therefore making it more attractive to adopt track designs with longer lives.

[Rich and Corporations]

what's the M58's gun pressure?

American double pin tracks were literally deafening (>100 db to operators)

really

[North Arkana]

how many people have you killed

You're a charmer, aren't ya'?

[Fordorsia]

Why did US tanks during WWII keep being shipped with AA M2s when most of the time they were just removed in the field? Just another case of higher ups thinking they knew better about that kind of stuff?

[Dostanuot Loj]

You're confusing fifty hour mean times between maintenance with five hundred hour.

if what you state is so easy, why doesn't the US keep the same OPFOR vehicles running for decades?

You conveniently keep ignoring that I specify low use situations. US OPFOR units run their equipment I to the ground because they are the most active units on the continent.

In regards to the M58 stuff (double quoting on a phone is hard) I originally pointed out that the muzzle energy on the M58 is greater than M256 when sections of the NS"realisim" community were starting to adopt ME as the end measure of tank-gun-goodness. Like buckyballs and quasiturbines before it.

[North Arkana]

(Image)


Why did US tanks during WWII keep being shipped with AA M2s when most of the time they were just removed in the field? Just another case of higher ups thinking they knew better about that kind of stuff?

Because M2HBs are really good meat choppers, and there were units which WOULD use them?

[Consortium Indemnitas]

Hey y'all I have decided to design an IFV(Infantry fighting vehicle)

Features
-armed with Anti-tank TOW missiles
-armed 25mm autocannon(main gun)
-has explosive reactive armor
-has wide tracks
-has a "scuba tube"

Is this good?

[Fordorsia]

(Image)


Why did US tanks during WWII keep being shipped with AA M2s when most of the time they were just removed in the field? Just another case of higher ups thinking they knew better about that kind of stuff?

Because M2HBs are really good meat choppers, and there were units which WOULD use them?

When it's a twin or quad mount it's a good meat chopper. Otherwise when you stick it on a pole on top of a tank, it just gets in the way, hits overhead obstacles, is horribly exposed, and is ineffective in both anti air and anti infantry roles.

[Schwere Panzer Abteilung 502]

Because M2HBs are really good meat choppers, and there were units which WOULD use them?

When it's a twin or quad mount it's a good meat chopper. Otherwise when you stick it on a pole on top of a tank, it just gets in the way, hits overhead obstacles, is horribly exposed, and is ineffective in both anti air and anti infantry roles.

Obviously not. A caliber .50 is a tremendously powerful machine gun with a very long range. A single one is unquestionably effective in the anti-infantry role; as anti-air, one of them might not pose much of a risk, but four of them(such as the four tanks per platoon) might make a strafing airplane think twice about attacking them and that's virtual attrition.

In the jungle, standard practice was to have two infantry on each tank; one of them would be manning the .50 and facing to the right, another would have a Garand and be covering the left. Add that to the tank's coax and ball mount, that's more bullets being thrown out than modern tanks can do.

[North Arkana]

When it's a twin or quad mount it's a good meat chopper. Otherwise when you stick it on a pole on top of a tank, it just gets in the way, hits overhead obstacles, is horribly exposed, and is ineffective in both anti air and anti infantry roles.

Obviously not. A caliber .50 is a tremendously powerful machine gun with a very long range. A single one is unquestionably effective in the anti-infantry role; as anti-air, one of them might not pose much of a risk, but four of them(such as the four tanks per platoon) might make a strafing airplane think twice about attacking them and that's virtual attrition.

In the jungle, standard practice was to have two infantry on each tank; one of them would be manning the .50 and facing to the right, another would have a Garand and be covering the left. Add that to the tank's coax and ball mount, that's more bullets being thrown out than modern tanks can do.

Five tanks per platoon (for US Shermans) to be precise Which was the smallest doctrinal maneuver element which would be sent against a target. Whether it be a StuG, a bunker, a PaK, or a Tiger, it was a platoon of 5 tanks. Thus leading to "hurr durr, five tanks to kill a big cat".

And a single fifty not being effective must be why allied infantry disliked being near an emplaced 50 cal... you know, cus it attracted tons of fire as such a good killing weapon and was a legitimate threat to lightly armored half-tracks and armored cars.

[Tule]

how many people have you killed

Three... Today.

I was in a good mood.

[Rich and Corporations]

You're confusing fifty hour mean times between maintenance with five hundred hour.

if what you state is so easy, why doesn't the US keep the same OPFOR vehicles running for decades?

You conveniently keep ignoring that I specify low use situations. US OPFOR units run their equipment I to the ground because they are the most active units on the continent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creep_(deformation)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wear

An M103 torsion bar can snap if not driven lately.

It's complex, but a T-34 is not known for quality control.

---

In other news, Australia is upgrading each M113 for a rather high price.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/aus ... des-05133/

[Imperializt Russia]

how many people have you killed

Three... Today.

I was in a good mood.

What are you, single-handedly filling in Iceland's murder quota?