RPG Forums

Go Back   RPG Forums > Role Playing Game Section > Archive

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-22-2010, 01:10 AM
kato13's Avatar
kato13 kato13 is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chicago, Il USA
Posts: 3,337
Send a message via ICQ to kato13
Default Tanks for the memory

Brit 02-15-2006, 06:49 AM Hello everybody.


I wonder if anybody may find these pics interesting? I found them on a German modelling website: http://www.mc-modellbau.de/bundeswehr.html then 'click' on the vehicle of your choice for more pics.


From the look of it somebody had some bits left over from a Leopold 2 conversion and put new MGs, smokedischargers, etc, on both, swoped the barrel on the Jagdpanther and then gave them a modern camo scheme...


And for anybody who believes there may be a few T-34s at the back of a warehouse in 1995 this may help: http://www.mc-modellbau.de/t-34-sammlung.html


There's a Panther and Jagdpanther at Bovington but I don't think they are runners.

********************

graebardeII 02-15-2006, 09:20 AM Nice! The diorama of the T-34 was HUGE to say the least. Is that based on a real memorial site?

********************

Brit 02-15-2006, 09:47 AM Sorry, graebardeII, I don't know.


I'm gradually working my way through the various T-34 models using Babelfish. I've figured that the German for 'turret' translates as 'tower' using this but some of the other 'translations' have confused me... Times like this I wish I'd paid more attention to languages at school! I think it's not a real memorial site as some of the German modified ones certainly didn't survive War II. The statue in the middle maybe be based on a real one however.


I've been thinking about the Jagdpanther model. Replacing an 88mm gun with a 120mm? Seems a bit of an upgrade to me. Hope they added to the suspension and on rough terrain would the barrel dig in? Maybe a 105mm would be a better choice? Still I can see me having a go.


Given the high-tech of today's MBTs and the lack of repair facilities as The War went on there must have been a lot of tanks whose weapons systems just couldn't be repaired. Maybe a few had their turret removed and an artillery piece mounted on them. The canon books say that some Bradleys were used as mortar carriers after their turrets were u/s.

********************

ReHerakhte 03-01-2006, 04:01 AM G'Day All,

Having just returned from holidays in which I visited Bovington, the Tiger they have is a definite runner as are some of the other vehicles including a Challenger 1, a late model Centurion and I think the M60A3 & S-Tank are in running order as well.

What's somewhat worrying is that some of the WW1 tanks are runners as well! More attractive however is the Rolls Royce armoured car, it is apparently in perfect working order even though it's 80 years old or so.


They have number of other vehicles that are in good condition and may be in running order including a DUKW, Panther, JagdPanther, Universal Carrier, SdKfz251, Matilda II, Feret, Saladin, T34/85 and M48. However the harsh reality is that the Tiger was only made a runner sometime in the early 2000s but some of the other vehicles I've mentioned were probably in running condition as of the mid 1990s. The Rolls Royce has been in running condition for a good many decades and although the armour is thin my todays standards, it mounts a .303 Vickers Gun in a revolving turret.


As for the model JagdPanther being fitted with a 120mm piece, I think the barrel is not that much longer than the barrel of the original 88mm.

And as has been mentioned, I'd hope they modernize the suspension and even more so the transmission on either of these Panthers!


Cheers,

Kevin

********************

Brit 03-01-2006, 06:54 AM Hope you enjoyed your time there. The last time I was there I arrived just after opening time and left about five! Certainly got my money's worth, although developing all the films cost a bit! Did you see the 'modified' Centurion parked off the road on the way in? Looked like it had been made to look like a Soviet MBT with ERA. (I tried to attach a photo to this post but the file is too big).


I also had a crafty look in through the open doors of the workshops on the way out. There seemed to be maintainance of some sort going on.


Other sites in the UK were vehicles could have been found for The Twilight War include The Military Vehicle Museum in Newcastle http://www.24hourmuseum.org.uk/museu.../NE000044.html and The Museum of Army Transport in Beverley http://www.4wdonline.com/Museums/Bev...Transport.html (The latter seems to have been shut to the public since 2004 but they would have been there for anyone in the T2K universe... http://www.cmvmag.co.uk/cgi-bin/news.cgi?article=040501).

********************

ReHerakhte 03-01-2006, 09:16 AM Brit, I was there about a week ago. You know what I really love about digital cameras? Big memory cards. I spent two days at Bovington, the first day I took just over 500 pics and on the second day just under 500 (I averaged about 4 photos per vehicle plus a few sundry items).


As for the maintenance workshop, unfortunately it was closed but in one of the sheds you could just manage to peer through the grime on the windows and it looked as though they had a Warrior further in (closer to the window they had an SPz11-2, one of the earliest AFVs of the Bundeswehr of the 1950s/1960s. For pics have a look at http://www.panzerbaer.de/types/bw_spz_kurz_11-2.htm Unfortunately the site is in German but the pics are clear! There were a small number of these vehicles left over after the Heer adopted the Marder and they qualify as one of my favourite choices for a small tracked vehicle for a PC group - as long as they remember it's a light fighting vehicle and not a tank, they should get some good use out of it!)


I saw the modified Centurion you mentioned, from a distance the visual mods make it look like a T-72. There was another Centurion on the way out that was modified to act as a target tank. They have also completed their restoration (to display status) of a number of tanks including the TOG2, a massive design from WW2 that is a throwback to WW1, for pic see http://www.reocities.com/Pentagon/Qu.../7413/tog.html


My only complaint with the place is that they desperately need larger premises, some of the vehicles are packed in so close you can't get decent photos.

But enough from blathering from me, I could talk about Bovington for hours!

Cheers,

Kevin

********************

ChalkLine 03-01-2006, 02:07 PM they had an SPz11-2, one of the earliest AFVs of the Bundeswehr of the 1950s/1960s. For pics have a look at http://www.panzerbaer.de/types/bw_spz_kurz_11-2.htm Unfortunately the site is in German but the pics are clear! There were a small number of these vehicles left over after the Heer adopted the Marder and they qualify as one of my favourite choices for a small tracked vehicle for a PC group - as long as they remember it's a light fighting vehicle and not a tank, they should get some good use out of it!)


Whoa! I love it!

Stats! We need stats!

********************

copeab 03-01-2006, 08:55 PM Okay, looks a lot like what one of my books calls the Hotchkiss SP.1A. Stats for that vehicle are:


Crew: 5

Engine: 164 hp petrol

Performance: 58 kph road, 390 km range, 330 l fuel

Armament: 1x20mm cannon (elevation +75 degrees, depression -10 degrees), 500 rounds ammo

Armor: 8-15mm

Dimensions: 4.51m x 2.28m x 1.97m

Weight: 8,200 kg loaded

Ground pressure: 0.58kg/cm2


(_Modern Fighting Vehicles_, Bob Lewis (editor), Longmeadow Press, 1988)


EDIT: Another source lists 3 smoke dischargers. Some 2,374 vehicles were received by Germany. The vehicle had twin hatches in the rear and an escape hatch underneath.


_Military Vehicles_, Chris McNab, Lewis International Inc., 2003


Brandon

********************

ChalkLine 03-02-2006, 12:27 AM Cheers mate!


Now, upgrades . . .


Better engine, applique armour, ERA . . .

********************

Brit 03-02-2006, 01:07 AM I don't know if this counts as an upgrade but "they've" fitted a Challenger 2 with a smoothbore 120mm barrel...


http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/index.p...t=33301#586598


Can anybody out there explain the differences / effects of smoothbore v rifled to me v-e-r-y simply?

********************

Targan 03-02-2006, 01:18 AM Rifled barrels fire ammunition designed to spin to maintain accuracy. Smoothbore barrels fire fin-stabilised ammunition. It is my understanding that smoothbore ammo travels at higher velocity, but its terminal range as far as accurate fire is concerned is less than that of ammo fired from rifled barrels. I would assume that it is easier to make discarding sabot rounds work in smoothbore barrels than rifled ones, but I'm not sure about that. I would also assume that rifled barrels would be more expensive to manufacture and require replacement more often as the rifling wears down. I think I remember hearing somewhere that the record for the longest range kill by a tank was by a British crew firing a rifled barrel 120mm. Anyone able to confirm that?

********************

Brit 03-02-2006, 01:27 AM Thanks Targan for the help. I didn't know about the fins.


Re: ReHerakhte's AFV I found this site: http://miniatures.de/html/int/schuetzenpanzer-kurz.html

********************

ReHerakhte 03-02-2006, 02:19 AM Okay, looks a lot like what one of my books calls the Hotchkiss SP.1A...


Brandon


Brandon, you are right on the mark, that is exactly the vehicle. Originally it was developed for the French army but they felt they didn't have a requirement for it and the design was looking as though it would pass into obscurity. However, the Heer was in desperate need of modern armoured vehicles, (they were equiped with former UK or US WW2 models) and so they took some designs that weren't doing so well in their country of origin.


The Hotchkiss vehicle became the SPz11 but was more commonly refered to as the SchutzenPanzer Kurz or SPz Kurz (Kurz = short) while a similar looking but unrelated design from Switzerland, the HS30, became the SPz12 more commonly known as the SchutzenPanzer Lang or SPz Lang (Lang = long).

The SPz Kurz was used in various other models including command, ambulance, mortar carrier and personnel carrier.

The Spz Lang probably deserves credit for being the world's first IFV and not the BMP as is commonly reported (the HS30 being built from 1958) and was available in ATGW form with 2 x SS-11 missile launchers, mortar carrier, command vehicle and artillery fire control and also served as the development model for the 90mm JagdPanzer Kanone and HOT or TOW armed JagdPanzer Rakete. Bizarre but true, the SPz12 was manufactured by Henschel and Hanomag for the West German army but also by Leyland of Great Britain.


For some pics of the SPz12, try http://members.fortunecity.de/fleckt...-heer129-b.htm


Cheers,

Kevin

********************

copeab 03-02-2006, 05:59 AM The Hotchkiss vehicle became the SPz11 but was more commonly refered to as the SchutzenPanzer Kurz or SPz Kurz (Kurz = short) while a similar looking but unrelated design from Switzerland, the HS30, became the SPz12 more commonly known as the SchutzenPanzer Lang or SPz Lang (Lang = long).


For some pics of the SPz12, try http://members.fortunecity.de/fleckt...-heer129-b.htm



Ah, my book has stats for this one, too


Crew: 3+5

Engine: 220 hp petrol

Performance: 58 kph road, 270 km range, 340 l petrol

Armament: 1x20mm (same elevation and depression as SPz 11-2) w/2000 rounds, 1x7.62mm MG (optional), 2x4 smoke grenade launchers

Armor: 8-30mm

Dimensions: 5.56m (hull only) x 2.54m x 1.85m

Weight: 14,600 kg loaded

Ground pressure: 0.75 kg/cm2


My book notes that the vehicle was not well-liked by the West Germany Army and was replaced by M113's as soon as possible. As of 1988, some were still being used by territorial battalions for the defense of rear areas.


EDIT: Another source gives 235 hp and 51 kph. It also says there were problems with the vehicle, which caused it's replacement with the Marder (not the M113). Only about 2,176 were built. Like the SPz 11-2, it was neither amphibious nor had NBC protection.


Brandon

********************

pmulcahy 03-02-2006, 09:32 AM Rifled barrels fire ammunition designed to spin to maintain accuracy. Smoothbore barrels fire fin-stabilised ammunition. It is my understanding that smoothbore ammo travels at higher velocity, but its terminal range as far as accurate fire is concerned is less than that of ammo fired from rifled barrels. I would assume that it is easier to make discarding sabot rounds work in smoothbore barrels than rifled ones, but I'm not sure about that. I would also assume that rifled barrels would be more expensive to manufacture and require replacement more often as the rifling wears down. I think I remember hearing somewhere that the record for the longest range kill by a tank was by a British crew firing a rifled barrel 120mm. Anyone able to confirm that?


You have right, both in real life terms and by the game rules. However, the game rules also have the rifled gun rounds has hitting slightly less hard than rounds from smoothbore guns; does anyone know if this is accurate IRL?

********************

Brit 03-13-2006, 09:27 AM I think I remember hearing somewhere that the record for the longest range kill by a tank was by a British crew firing a rifled barrel 120mm. Anyone able to confirm that?


I don't know if this is the record but in an article 'What's the Baddest Tank of All?' by Harold C. Hutchison (http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/20051123.asp) he states that "in Desert Storm, a Challenger killed an Iraqi tank five kilometers away".


Seems about the right distance I'd like to be from an enemy tank...


Just found this site. Nice drawing / pic of a Black Eagle tank here: http://www.nemo.nu/ibisportal/5pansar/index.htm It's the bottom link on the left hand side...

********************

Brit 03-22-2006, 06:46 AM Hello,


Help needed! Does anybody know the weight of a Sheridan and Bradley turret? (I've tried Googling for the former but no luck so far...) I figure that most of the info to botch up some T2K stats is out there but I don't know what the weight will be.


Whilst looking for info on M1 MBTs I found this posted on a message board by -archy-/-:


"I suspect that due to air transportability requirements, we'll also in the future see something akin to a tank destroyer, possibly mounted on a Bradley chassis, and possibly mounting the Hellfire missile, which outranges [8000 meters] any present tank gun, or something similar or improved. The possibility of an interim airborne *semi-tank* has also been considered; the turret of the old M551 Sheridan on a Bradley turret [I]has been suggested, at least until it's seen how the *Stryker* armoured cars have performed in combat - we don't seem to have heard much about them lately.... ".


Trying to look up info for this (no joy) I found this: http://www.reocities.com/Pentagon/Qu.../m113a3cev.gif

An M113 with a Sheridan turret. Would it work? Could the hull take the strain of a 152mm gun going off?


I'm thinking of swoping a few bits around on a few kits this Summer and seeing what happens...

********************

ReHerakhte 03-22-2006, 10:40 AM Trying to look up info for this (no joy) I found this: http://www.reocities.com/Pentagon/Qu.../m113a3cev.gif

An M113 with a Sheridan turret. Would it work? Could the hull take the strain of a 152mm gun going off?


I have my doubts about this combination, not because the M113 hull couldn't take a turreted gun but because the reports of the M551 main gun firing mentioned that it shakes the hell out of the vehicle. If you shake a vehicle that much you start to damage the obvious delicate gear found in modern vehicles like electronics and optics. I think that the Sheriden vehicle was too early for its technology and the gun/missile combination was never entirely satisfactory.

For a tank hunter type M113, there is already the M901 TOW vehicle or you could mount a 60mm high velocity gun on an M113 like the Israelis did or any of the turrets mounting suitable 90mm guns.


As for the weights of turrets, I suspect the earlier editions of Jane's Armour And Artillery might have such info or the Jane's AFV Upgrades yearbooks.


Cheers,

Kevin

********************

pmulcahy 03-22-2006, 10:55 AM Forget about mounting a Sheridan's turret on an M-113, for the reasons that ReHerakhte mentioned. You might even tip the poor 113 over backwards! I also think the physical size of Sheridan's turret is also too much for the 113.


But Re's also right about mounting a low-pressure 90mm gun turret on a 113; the Italians have already done it (though they found no large orders for their vehicle). I'll have to whip up some stats on that one for you. Another possibility (though I don't think it has been done yet) is a turret with the low-pressure 105mm gun used on the Stingray series.


As far as the turret weights, I don't know them, but I can probably find out over at Ft. Sam Houston, if I ever get back over there -- time, commitment, and gas-price pressures have kept me away for several months (it's literally on the other side of San Antonio from me). I'll let you know when I do make it over there, provided someone else doesn't get the info for you first.

********************

copeab 03-22-2006, 02:22 PM But Re's also right about mounting a low-pressure 90mm gun turret on a 113; the Italians have already done it (though they found no large orders for their vehicle). I'll have to whip up some stats on that one for you. Another possibility (though I don't think it has been done yet) is a turret with the low-pressure 105mm gun used on the Stingray series.



Of course, during Vietnam the Australians dropped the turret from a Saladin armored car (short 76mm gun) into an M113 and later dropped Scorpion light tank turrets in some M113's.


Worth noting that the M113A1 weighs about 5 tons less than the Sheridan, which is probably somewhat close to the weight of the Sheridan's turret. However, the Sheridan's hull was about a foot wider, so you are probably correct that the Sheridan's turret simply wouldn't fit. OTOH, in WW2 it wasn't unheard of to lengthen/widen hulls so that other things could fit


Brandon

********************

copeab 03-22-2006, 02:26 PM I think that the Sheriden vehicle was too early for its technology and the gun/missile combination was never entirely satisfactory.



There were two main problems. First, when a regular shell was fired, it shook the vehicle badly enough to often damage the targeting equipment for the missiles. Secondly, when the missile was fired, it fouled the barrel badly enough to noticably impair the use of conventional shells.


Brandon

********************

Targan 03-23-2006, 12:08 AM There were two main problems. First, when a regular shell was fired, it shook the vehicle badly enough to often damage the targeting equipment for the missiles. Secondly, when the missile was fired, it fouled the barrel badly enough to noticably impair the use of conventional shells.

Third, the 152mm gun uses a screw-type breech, giving it a very long reload time compared to most modern tank guns.

********************

Brit 03-23-2006, 01:14 AM Thanks for all the help and input.


I'll keep looking and I'll probably find it when I'm looking for something else on the net. (I think I have weights / info on LAV-25 and their posible upgrade turrets somewhere that I found on a manufacturer's site). Shame the concept won't work, still think I might try the M2 Bradley / Sheridan combo. (The Bradley turret could then go on an M113, sort of shortened E!FV). Of course then what do I do with the Sheridan hull?

********************

Targan 03-23-2006, 01:31 AM Of course then what do I do with the Sheridan hull?

Mortar carrier. Recovery/salvage/engineering vehicle. Single launch box MLRS vehicle.

********************

ReHerakhte 03-23-2006, 04:11 AM Thanks for all the help and input.


I'll keep looking and I'll probably find it when I'm looking for something else on the net. (I think I have weights / info on LAV-25 and their posible upgrade turrets somewhere that I found on a manufacturer's site). Shame the concept won't work, still think I might try the M2 Bradley / Sheridan combo. (The Bradley turret could then go on an M113, sort of shortened E!FV). Of course then what do I do with the Sheridan hull?


Turrets similar to that used on the Bradley (i.e. 2 man, fitted with autocannon) have been mated with the M113 so that should not prove to be a problem.

As for the Sheridan hull, it's worth remembering that light tanks with their turrets removed have been used for recce duties in WW2. The lower profile made them harder to see and the reduction in weight gave them better handling and sometimes increased speed and fuel consumption.

If you do some handyman work and fit a suitably armoured roof over the hole where the turret used to be, you still have a reasonably protected vehicle. It might be 'over protected' for many tasks but a tracked vehicle can still be used to haul trailers, help recover other vehicles or even be used to damage walls and buildings.


Just some thoughts!

Cheers,

Kevin

********************

ChalkLine 03-23-2006, 04:48 AM Swo-o-o-o-o-s-h !


It's Chalkline, SHERIDANMAN!


Yes, I'm an unashamed lover of the M551 Sheridan, a nifty vehicle as well as a tried and true warfighter that was never given a real chance.

I've got reams of info on it, and if I can't get any info for you, ask Muns who conned one in Panama.


There's no need to put the Sheridan turret on a Brad, because there's nothing wrong with the Sheridan hull anyway. The original track shedding and so on was eventually cured. The Sheridan uses the Detroit 300HP 6V53T engine, a slightly more powerful version of the same donk in the M113 (and many other Textron, Cadillac-Gage and similiar vehicles). They're making a 400HP 6V53T now, which will bolt straight in and give more power and better fuel economy. This will allow you to uparmour the hull, but don't expect it to float any more. Yep, the M551 is amphibious. The latest model before retirement had a laser sight and thermal sight.


Problems with the little beastie are large but great for roleplay, and I've mentioned them all before on this list anyway. Essentially, it's too much gun for too small a vehicle. Still, that gun will seriously screw up anything it hits, just treat the vehicle like a WW2 assault gun and dont get shot. That's an aluminium hull there, this vehicle is the sidekick of the M113 APC, not the most heavily armoured APC in the world (although a good vehicle in it's own right as well.)

********************

Brit 03-23-2006, 05:58 AM Chalkline have you read this book?


"Fire Arrow is one of the favorite NOVELS of C.I.B. Media president Frank R. Cambria. Guaranteed to keep you on the edge of your seat from the first page to the last. By Franklin Allen Leib, author of FIRE DREAM.

Terrorists hijack a chartered DC-8 filled with U.S. Navy dependents who are taken to Libya. Russians are backing the terrorists. Operation Fire Arrow is launched to free the hostages. The operation will have to be even better than Entebbe. SEALs parachute into a reservoir at night -- Naval gunfire takes out Russian tanks & AA weapons -- carrier-based fighters establish air superiority -- 82nd Airborne drops paratroopers and Sheridan tanks -- Marines assault forces storm ashore. Written with extraordinary realism. 350pp. Battle maps. Terrorism"

********************

Targan 03-23-2006, 06:02 AM I mentioned Fire Arrow in the thread about favourite books but I couldn't remember the title. It is very good and extols the virtues of the Sheridan better than any other fiction I have ever read. Really good descriptions of the LAPES system used to offload Sheridans from ultra-low flying cargo aircraft. I highly recommend this book.

********************

copeab 03-23-2006, 06:15 AM Problems with the little beastie are large but great for roleplay, and I've mentioned them all before on this list anyway. Essentially, it's too much gun for too small a vehicle. Still, that gun will seriously screw up anything it hits, just treat the vehicle like a WW2 assault gun and dont get shot. That's an aluminium hull there, this vehicle is the sidekick of the M113 APC, not the most heavily armoured APC in the world (although a good vehicle in it's own right as well.)


It was certainly better than the vehicle that preceeded it, the M56 Scorpion


For best use in play, probably best to just use conventional rounds and forget about firing the Shillelagh missile.


Brandon

********************

DeaconR 03-23-2006, 06:26 AM Never even heard of it, though I'd like to. However in spite of all this interesting discussion my players are allergic to tanks or afraid of them or something. I don't have them in my game a lot as an asset players have access to but one time when they captured a Patton tank I think it was they gave it away to a local village militia in exchange basically for them agreeing to support Civgov.

********************

Targan 03-23-2006, 06:29 AM Never even heard of it, though I'd like to. However in spite of all this interesting discussion my players are allergic to tanks or afraid of them or something. I don't have them in my game a lot as an asset players have access to but one time when they captured a Patton tank I think it was they gave it away to a local village militia in exchange basically for them agreeing to support Civgov.

Hmm, PCs trading military weapons to civilian militia groups in return for political alliegance? Our campaigns have even more parallels than I previously supposed (LOL).

********************

Brit 04-04-2006, 06:26 AM Another sourse of vehicles could be private collecters and re-enactment groups. A magazine article about The Munster Vehicle and Re-enactment Group, which is based in Eire, states that they have at the least:


"An Abbott SPG, 432 APC, 4 Ferrets, 5 Willys Jeeps, Unimogs, 4 Kubelwagons, 4R75 and Zundapp outfits [motorscycles?], Opel Blitz truck, 2cm Flak gun, 251 Halftrack, Austin Champ, Dodge Weapons carrier, Hotchkiss and a few more bikes and light vehicles".


All runners I believe.


Their website, with the trad disclaimer, is: http://www.battlegroupsouth.com/


This amount of vehicles should keep any group happy for a while!

********************

ReHerakhte 04-04-2006, 07:37 AM Hey Brit, you are right about the R75 and Zundapp being motorcycles. They are German WW2 era bikes and are the bikes most often seen with the sidecar combination.


And there are a bunch of military vehicle collector/preservation groups in Europe. A particularly strong group is a Dutch group who focus on WW2 American vehicles so you have a large number of general service trucks from 2 to 5 ton and lighter vehicles in the 0.75 and 1.5 ton class as well as M8 Greyhound armoured cars and various tanks.


And not forgetting that France had a very large collection of 0.75 and 1.5 ton Dodge WC series vehicles that they were in military service up till the 1950s and then put into civilian disposal. This is now one of the major sources of good condition WC trucks for European collectors.

In an earlier thread somewhere I posted my stats for the 6x6 Dodge WC62 truck, the thread was started by DeaconR from memory asking about stats for older vehicles.


Cheers,

Kevin.

********************

Brit 04-05-2006, 09:16 AM Swo-o-o-o-o-s-h !


It's Chalkline, SHERIDANMAN!


While looking for other info I found this in 'Jane's World Armoured Fighting Vehicles' - Christopher F. Foss, Second Impression 1978


"The Sheridan was to have been the basic member of a whole family of vehicles but none of these entered production and in most case only reached the drawing-board stage.


Mauler anti-aircraft missile carrier with a total of nine missiles in ready-to-launch position.

Flamethrower.

Mortar carrier with 107mm mortar.

155mm Self-Propelled Gun.

Bridgelayer, this has now reached the prototype stage, it's bridge is 18.28m in length when opened out and can take a load of 30,000kg.

Engineer vehicle.

Fitted with 105mm gun, developed to prototype stage.

Fitted with 76mm M76 gun, developed to prototype stage.

Mechanized Infantry Combat Vehicle.

Anti-Aircraft gun vehicle.

Cargo carrier, similar to the M548.



I also found the attached info about a British AA Vehicle based on the Abbot SPG chassis. Drawing of this can be found at http://www.reocities.com/gpmatthews/FV433Abbot.html


The same book states that there were only four Value Engineered versions of the Abbot SPG at BATUS in Canada.

********************

ChalkLine 04-05-2006, 06:59 PM While looking for other info I found this in 'Jane's World Armoured Fighting Vehicles' - Christopher F. Foss, Second Impression 1978


"The Sheridan was to have been the basic member of a whole family of vehicles but none of these entered production and in most case only reached the drawing-board stage.


Mauler anti-aircraft missile carrier with a total of nine missiles in ready-to-launch position.

Flamethrower.

Mortar carrier with 107mm mortar.

155mm Self-Propelled Gun.

Bridgelayer, this has now reached the prototype stage, it's bridge is 18.28m in length when opened out and can take a load of 30,000kg.

Engineer vehicle.

Fitted with 105mm gun, developed to prototype stage.

Fitted with 76mm M76 gun, developed to prototype stage.

Mechanized Infantry Combat Vehicle.

Anti-Aircraft gun vehicle.

Cargo carrier, similar to the M548.





Unfortunately, when the M551 was being designed, the Soviet PT-76 came out and the design was changed to 'must be amphibious'. Before this the vehicle had been air insertable reconaissance only. Once people started changing things, well, everyone got into the act. The Shillelagh missile demanded a unique gun tube and unfortunately the missile wasn't by Hughes (a superior missile manufacturing firm). Still, until Javelin, it was the meanest missile in the ground arsenal, capable of knocking out the heaviest OPFOR tanks.


I'd deploy them in 1997 in mixed units with Stingrays, a vehicle with similiar armour and mobility, although a higher ground pressure (the M551 has a lower ground pressure than an M113) and a heavy platoon of M60A4s. Keep the troops in M113s and you have a high commonality of parts and ammunition.

I'd have the turret electronics updated in a crash program, some electronic company could do this on a war contract, and install a turret torque limiter that engaged with the gun/launcher firing. Shillelaghs aren't liable to last long into the war, and although Javelins and TOW are both 152mm I shudder to think of the complexity in making them gun launchable. I'd trust in the Stingray's 105mm at intermediate ranges and the 152mm HEAT at short ranges.

It may be possible to marry the breech of the M551 to a cased cartridge and ejector system, which would make supply much easier, and you could use Sov 152mm howitzer shells for the basis.

While not up to prewar standards, this unit would have agility and the M551s can follow the infantry and support them with direct fires from the 152mm HE or Canister. Two shots of Canister in Vietnam killed 250 found-dead enemy, an unknown amount recovered by the enemy.

********************

Brit 04-06-2006, 12:54 AM If the Stringrays were M-551 Sheridan / Stingrays it could make maintainance easier...

********************

ChalkLine 04-06-2006, 03:12 AM Yep, although I was thinking of utilising existing chassis and making a workable unit.


The M551 and the M113 have a lot of commonality, and the weapon system of the M551 is very good for close support of infantry. The Stingray is more suited to an armour-hunter role; it's low, nippy and the L7 gun is a potent killer (although it must be said, the 105mm is a little too much gun here too, even the low-recoil version). If you hade spare stingray turrets, it's more likely you'd keep the parts for your stingrays than convert other vehicles with working weapons systems.


That turret fits on anything built by Cadillac-Gage or Textron, so you could find M1114s lurking about with a LAV-150 + Stingray turret in (suprising I'd bet) support.

********************

copeab 04-08-2006, 09:14 AM Yep, although I was thinking of utilising existing chassis and making a workable unit.


The PCs could, somehow, get their hands on a working and stocked BMP-3.


Edit: I am of course referring to the real BMP-3 (the one that the Russians tried to cram with every wepaon known to man), not the one from the T2K Soviet vehicle guide.

********************

Brit 06-15-2007, 10:09 AM If anybody remembers... That Wiesel...


Whoa! I love it!

Stats! We need stats!


Courtesy of General Pain here you are... http://thebigbookofwar.50megs.com/DO...ed%20Vehicles/

********************

copeab 06-15-2007, 10:43 AM If anybody remembers... That Wiesel...




Courtesy of General Pain here you are... http://thebigbookofwar.50megs.com/DO...ed%20Vehicles/


An official version appears on p.78 of the NATO Vehicle Guide.


Brandon

********************

Targan 06-16-2007, 08:12 AM Somewhere packed away I have a novel (the name of which and author I can not remember) which is about a US operation to free a commercial airliner-load of US citizens being held hostage by a terrorist group at a huge former US airbase on the coast of Libya. In this novel the USN SEALS HALO-jump into a water filled reservoir near the centre of the airbase at night and secure the buildings where the hostages are being held. Shortly afterwards a troop of M-551 Sheridans were deployed using the LAPES system by C-130s flying as low as possible directly over one of the main runways. The C-130s were provided air cover by F-14s, and the Sheridans and SEALs were supported by USMC AH-1 Cobras, both deployed from a carrier battlegroup in the Mediterranean.


The author seemed to know alot about operating Sheridans, and made particular note of the high failure rate of systems such as fire control in Sheridans deployed using LAPES, and of the very slow reload time for the 152mm gun due to its screw-type breech.


Wikipedia says that unlike the hull which was made of aluminium, the turret of the Sheridan is steel. It also says that around 88,000 Shillelagh missiles were manufactured but hardly any were ever fired in anger, and that as well as standard HEAT 152mm rounds the M657 HE round and the M625 canister round were also produced for the M81E1 152 mm Gun/Launcher.

********************

copeab 06-16-2007, 10:42 AM Wikipedia says that unlike the hull which was made of aluminium, the turret of the Sheridan is steel. It also says that around 88,000 Shillelagh missiles were manufactured but hardly any were ever fired in anger, and that as well as standard HEAT 152mm rounds the M657 HE round and the M625 canister round were also produced for the M81E1 152 mm Gun/Launcher.


Here is the color text from a GURPS write-up I did of the M551:


In the 1950's, to equip the American 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions with some type of air-droppable heavy anti-tank weapon, the unsatisfactory M56 Scorpion was introduced. The vehicle provided insufficent protection for the crew (most were only protected by the 90mm gun shield) and the cannon was too powerful for the chassis, frequently pushing it back several feet when fired. In the early 1960's, a replacement was sought. At the same time, the US Army was also looking for a new armored reconnaissance vehicle, the M41 Walker Bulldog being over a decade old. The M551 Sheridan was the result, entering production in 1966 and service in 1968, but proved little better than the vehicles it replaced and in some ways markedly worse.


While the steel turret was moderately well-armored and sloped, the aluminum hull was vulnerable to heavy machineguns and mines (in Vietnam, hitting a mine with an M48 medium tank generally left the tank immobile but easily repairable and the crew alive, while with the M551 the driver was usually killed and major repairs were needed). On the bright side, there were reports than rocket-propelled grenades had some difficulty penetrating the polystyrene foam-filled hull sides (to aid floatation) -- this may be treated as an unreliable form of laminate armor, at the GM's option. Early Sheridan's had no armor shield for the commander when standing in his hatch or operating the A/A MG. However, after experience in Vietnam where several commanders were killed, a front and rear shield for the hatch was often mounted (PD/DR 4/25). The vehicle was partially amphibious, requiring a small floatation screen to be raised.


However, of all the M551's problems, it's main armament was perhaps the biggest. The 152mm M81 was designed to fire both conventional ammo (HEAT-T-MP, white phosphorous, TP-T and -- used to very good effect in Vietnam -- cannister) and the MGM-51 Shillelagh command IR-guided missile, which had started development in 1959. The two related amament problems were: (1) when the missile was fired, the rocket residue tended to foul the barrel and (2) when conventional ammo was fired, the recoil (which was really too much for such a light vehicle) often knocked out the gunner's missile guidance hardware. In any event, no MGM-51's were ever fired in combat.


Some 1700 Sheridans were built from 1966 to 1970, with most now out of service. The US Army got rid of the M551's in the recon role in 1978 while the 82nd Airborne kept theirs until 1996 (with no replacement in sight). Aside from Vietnam (where some 60-65 saw action), M551's also saw service in Operation Just Cause (Panama, 1989) and were among the first vehicles on the ground in Operation Desert Shield with the 82nd Airborne division. Some 330 were visually modified and used at the NTC at Fort Irwin as enemy vehicles, most serving as T-62s.


Other models:

M551A1: The first 700 hundred Sheridans had problems with hot debris from the breech being drawn back into the turrent when the cannon breech was opened. A new system was devised (and was also retrofitted to existing tanks) which blew the debris out the barrel. The air tanks for pressurization reduced missile load to eight. The M240 also replaced the M73 as the coaxial MG. Also, a laser rangefinder was added for the commander and anti-laser vision blocks were provided for the driver.


Brandon

********************

Antenna 06-16-2007, 10:59 AM Swo-o-o-o-o-s-h !


It's Chalkline, SHERIDANMAN!


Yes, I'm an unashamed lover of the M551 Sheridan,...


You are not alone my dear friend =)

Me to is a lover of the sheridan especially becouse the University library code for methrology is 551.5-6, which was my speciallity in the airforce (military wheater observer).


Antenna

********************

Brit 06-18-2007, 12:31 AM Somewhere packed away I have a novel (the name of which and author I can not remember) which is about a US operation to free a commercial airliner-load of US citizens being held hostage by a terrorist group at a huge former US airbase on the coast of Libya.


I think it might be mentioned on this string or another here but it is 'Firearrow' by Franklin Allen Leib. http://www.amazon.com/Fire-Arrow-Fra...p/0804104212;y


And now I'll start the week with a potentially very daft question: Did the crew of the Sheriden parachute down seperately and then get in the tank or come down to earth inside it?

********************

Targan 06-18-2007, 01:08 AM Brit, you legend! Firearrow it was. Well done that man.


Not a very daft question at all, the Sheridan crews parachuted in separate from the vehicles, then spent some minutes removing the packaging and strapping which held the vehicles to the LAPES pallets, and getting some of the stowed fragile systems reattached and working. Bear in mind, these vehicles were issued to the 82nd Airborne Division, so their crews were paratroopers.

********************

Brit 06-18-2007, 02:00 AM Not a very daft question at all, the Sheridan crews parachuted in separate from the vehicles, then spent some minutes removing the packaging and strapping which held the vehicles to the LAPES pallets, and getting some of the stowed fragile systems reattached and working. Bear in mind, these vehicles were issued to the 82nd Airborne Division, so their crews were paratroopers.


And they do all that in a combat zone? Rather them than me!

********************

Targan 06-18-2007, 03:03 AM Brit, I can recommend Firearrow, it really didn't piss me off at all (which is something I definitely can't say for all the modern combat novels I have read). It is quite dated now, but perfect for T2K era technology and tactics, and yes, the paratroopers do have a lot of troubles with the mission. US military planners apparently factor in a high failure rate for LAPES-type insertions. The airbase where the novel is set is apparently a real place, and the novel includes maps of it. If it interests you and you can find this novel, I don't think you will be disappointed if you buy it.

********************

Brit 06-18-2007, 03:13 AM Thanks for the info. I've actually read it and still have my copy - the cover of which features a Sheridan exiting a very large transport 'plane. I've also read a sort of earlier novel in the series set in Vietnam but didn't hang on to that.


You are right about the maps in it. They are V. good.

********************

Brit 07-06-2007, 05:22 AM For all you Sheridan fans out there...


If you scroll down this page there's some photos of a Sheridan LAPEs out of an aircraft and floating gently down to Earth...


http://www.reocities.com/armorhistory/

********************

Last edited by kato13; 02-06-2010 at 07:03 AM.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:52 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.