The Best That Never Was 2 (Prototypes)

[Draq]

So I'm sure many of you are very familiar with the extensive site : http://www.pmulcahy.com/PDFs/pdf_page.htm. while scrolling through the best vehicles that never were section, I was surprised by the lack of one particular tank. (I know pmulcahy is very busy). http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_279 i would love to see this tank fleshed out in t2k. Anybody have any other suggestions?

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I think the biggest problem with Object 279 is that there wasn't enough technical info available to calculate some of the game data even a few years ago but now that there is enough info, it's recognized as being a dead end for tank design.
However I'd still like to see it given some game stats :D

Other vehicles I'd like to see are from about the same period of time (the mid 1940s to the early 1970s) as there were number of vehicles designed or in service that are little known and are almost completely absent from any games (not just RPGs)
For example: -
The Canadian Bobcat APC (particularly as it was also being considered for a light tank by fitting it with the turret from the Scorpion light tank and as a carriage for a self-propelled gun).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobcat_%28armoured_personnel_carrier%29

No pics on the wiki page unfortunately so here's what it looked like.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-oQsLnKWQ6O0/UZyKV7yn7mI/AAAAAAAAyCI/8_ILnl_8wAQ/s1600/bobcat2.jpg

The Nazi Germany Vollkettenaufklarer 38(t) Kätzchen APC
http://strangevehicles.greyfalcon.us/Katzchen.htm
http://tasmancave.blogspot.com.au/2011/11/katzchen-apc.html

The West German Lkw (truck) 0.75t Borgward B2000 as
1. Borgward B2000 A/O Kübelwagen - unarmoured wheeled personnel carrier
2. Borgward B2000 A/O Pritsche - general service (GS) truck
The GS variant apparently served up to the mid 1970s.
Google translate page
http://translate.google.com.au/translate?hl=en&sl=de&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.panzerbaer.de%2Fhelper%2Fbw_lkw _00-75t_gl-a.htm

The Swiss Nahkampfkanone 2 tank destroyer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nahkampfkanone_2
To really appreciate how ugly it is, check out this page
http://flickriver.com/photos/deckarudo/sets/72157632533745483/

The Swiss MOWAG Taifun tank destroyer. I love the look of this vehicle despite how lightly armoured it was!
http://ftr.wot-news.com/2013/07/11/jagdpanzer-from-the-70s-mowag-taifun/

The Swiss MOWAG Pirat IFV
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mowag_Pirat

The Swiss Saurer Tartaruga
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saurer_Tartaruga

The Hungarian 1 ton 4x4 truck Csepel 130
Simply because I really like the Dodge WC series of light trucks and the 130 was patterned on them.
Google translate page
http://translate.google.com.au/translate?hl=en&sl=hu&u=http://www.retromobil.hu/2013/07/02/csepel-130/&prev=search

The Japanese Toyota 2FQ-15 (which I believe was also known as the FQ-10 to FQ-15 series). Another vehicle patterned on a Dodge but this time the M37 model (although they seem to have made it ugly in the process!)
http://www.favcars.com/images-toyota-2fq-15l-1960-184854.htm
http://forum.ih8mud.com/threads/toyota-fq-15.87882/

The French ELC project
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELC_project
And again, a Google translate page
http://translate.google.com.au/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://chars-francais.net/new/index.php%3Foption%3Dcom_content%26task%3Dview%26i d%3D714%26Itemid%3D36&prev=search

The French AMX-50, much bigger brother to the AMX-13!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMX-50

The French Somua SM, a French take on the Nazi German Tiger II
More Google translate pages :D
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chars-francais.net%2Fnew%2Findex.php%3Foption%3Dcom_cont ent%26task%3Dview%26id%3D53%26Itemid%3D41&edit-text=

The French Lorraine 40t, while the Somua SM was inspired by the Tiger, the 40t was inspired by the Panther. And yes, it did use rubber tyres instead of steel for the running gear.
Another Google translate page
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chars-francais.net%2Fnew%2Findex.php%3Foption%3Dcom_cont ent%26task%3Dview%26id%3D700%26Itemid%3D36&edit-text=

And another set of French vehicles but a personal favourite of mine, the Hotchkiss-Rive EVEN ELC series (AKA as the Light Fighting Unit or LFU series).
http://www.jedsite.info/tanks-echo/echo/elc_series/elc-series.html
And the last Google translate page... I swear it's the last...
http://translate.google.com.au/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://chars-francais.net/new/index.php%3Foption%3Dcom_content%26task%3Dview%26i d%3D714%26Itemid%3D36&prev=search


Apologies for the heavy reliance on Google translate, unfortunately some of the vehicles here also feature in the game World Of Tanks. The web is dominated by pages devoted to representations in that game so I have to search on French language sites to get real world info!

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Someone oughta send Mike Sparks a picture of that German personnel carrier and tell him his beloved Gavin was a product of Nazi science.

Talk about your beep-boop-short circuit moments :D

[Draq]

That's what I'm talking about. Now I have more vehicles to study. Thanx

[Cdnwolf]

Hey Stainless.... half the tanks you mentioned are actually in play on World of Tanks...

http://worldoftanks.com/encyclopedia/vehicles/

[pmulcahy11b]

Time to get to work...I was taking some time off T2K after finishing the UH-1 page (and it will be a page of its own).

[Draq]

Yay! Pmulcahy, you sir are awesome and with all the work you've done, a break was probably in order. Here's another: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM800_Armored_Reconnaissance_Scout_Vehicle I'm so excited I love your work.

[Draq]

Also has the pdfs page been updated to reflect the site? I know you have lots of stuff to do. I have most of your PDFs on my phone, and I read them constantly.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Hey Draq, you're welcome :) I have a somewhat irregular interest in military vehicles and I've kind of become obsessed with proving the claim from The Greenhill Armoured Fighting Vehicles Data Book (http://books.google.com.au/books/about/The_Greenhill_Armoured_Fighting_Vehicles.html?id=Z NdlQgAACAAJ&redir_esc=y) wrong. The front cover proclaims that it covers "Every armoured fighting vehicle that has ever existed" and before I'd even got through more than the first 50 pages I'd found three or four missing vehicles (like the Canadian Bobcat APC for example).
Although that focuses on armoured vehicles, I've checked for pretty much any little known military vehicle whether it was armoured or not.

Hey Stainless.... half the tanks you mentioned are actually in play on World of Tanks...

http://worldoftanks.com/encyclopedia/vehicles/

Yeah the people behind World Of Tanks (Wargaming Public Co. Ltd.) are very interested in all the various tanks that were kicking around in the 40s and 50s but as mentioned, I wanted to avoid relying solely on them because although they present some real world info, some of their vehicles are tweaked to better fit the game and the info would be misleading for anyone wanting to make T2k stats.

In fact Wargaming Public Co. are helping fund the restoration of the Panzer VIII Maus that's at the Kubinka tank museum and contributed to the recovery and restoration of the last known Dornier "flying pencil", the Do17 now displayed at RAF Cosford as well as paying for the education centre at the Bovington tank museum along with sponsoring the USS Iowa. The guys behind WoT love contemporary military history!

The best aspect of their inclusion of so many tanks of that era is that it's generated a bit more interest for those vehicles and a lot of info that was previously only available in Russian books is being put on the net (and sometimes even translated into English!)


And while I think about it, here's a few more vehicles I'd like to see...
The Jeep cabover truck from the US military M670 series (just because it's kinda quirky and normal jeeps bore the crap outta me)
http://olive-drab.com/idphoto/id_photos_willys_fc.php
http://thefcconnection.com/dan_devries_1964_m-677.htm
http://thefcconnection.com/history_&_general_information.htm

The ZiL-4906 "Blue Bird" series, used for the locating and recovery of cosmonauts when they returned to Earth. Not strictly military but it's amphibious and just "kinda cool" (well, in my opinion!)
http://www.oldrussiancars.com/zil-4906-bluebird/

The Bedford Traclat (directly inspired by captured German SdKfz7 halftracks although the war ended before serious production was begun).
http://www.nevingtonwarmuseum.com/united-kingdom---bedford-traclat-halftrack.html
http://www.militarymodelling.com/forums/postings.asp?th=21142

The Russian GAZ-62 in its early Dodge WC inspired version (before it became the cabover truck that went on to become the GAZ-66)
http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&prev=search&rurl=translate.google.com.au&sl=ru&u=http://xn----7sbb5ahj4aiadq2m.xn--p1ai/guide/army/tr/gaz62.shtml&usg=ALkJrhhaEU6cRxv71zV85z-c1E1kk5vx4w

[unkated]

I think the biggest problem with Object 279 is that there wasn't enough technical info available to calculate some of the game data even a few years ago but now that there is enough info, it's recognized as being a dead end for tank design.
However I'd still like to see it given some game stats :D



I found a number of pages, mostly in Russian, and came up with the attached via my magic spreadsheet.

The fuel tanks area a guess based on doubling the size of the internal tank, one in the rectangular chassis pieces between each pair of tracks (consumption seems about right). The gun is a guess based on existing guns (though I forgot to look at the SU-130, though that was not real either).

It would have done well driving across the open steppe covered in snow or (mild) mud, but God help it if it needed to maneuver - say turn a street corner or follow a curvy forested trail...

The fun part was that after they started testing the tank, Nikita Khrushchev cancelled all Soviet heavy tank development, limiting them to tanks weighing 37 tons. Why? Because otherwise, the Soviets would have to spend too much to rebuild roads and bridges (and probably railroads and rail bridges) to be able to transport them, much less produce them in the first place.

It does look futuristic, though.

Uncle Ted

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Uncle Ted, one word... "awesome".
And very neatly packaged onto one page with a great picture to boot!
The only other thing I can think of that may have been relevant was that the hull shape was (allegedly) helpful in resisting blast waves from nuclear weapons that may cause a vehicle to flip over.

[Draq]

I always imagined it used as a spearhead/blitzkrieg tank used for invasion in conjunction with nukes. Ship it via train or boat to the front lines, press the button, and start rolling them in. Maybe in an alternate timeline, they would've only built 10 or so. Sent 5 through Europe and 5 to america. Maybe also used it for some propaganda.

[unkated]

I always imagined it used as a spearhead/blitzkrieg tank used for invasion in conjunction with nukes. Ship it via train or boat to the front lines, press the button, and start rolling them in. Maybe in an alternate timeline, they would've only built 10 or so. Sent 5 through Europe and 5 to america. Maybe also used it for some propaganda.

You're not thinking Russian/Soviet.

Battalion per front! Employed in multiple spearheads at at least company strength. Soviet doctrine ran toward hit heavy in multiple spots, and strongly follow up on the spots that succeed.

When designed and the prototype was built, The Soviets had a lot of T-55s, backed by remaining T-34/85s.

On to the Rhine!

Uncle Ted

[Draq]

Touché

[pmulcahy11b]

Also has the pdfs page been updated to reflect the site? I know you have lots of stuff to do. I have most of your PDFs on my phone, and I read them constantly.

Yep.

[Draq]

.

[Draq]

Also stats for the Davey Crockett would be awesome, mostly for shiggles.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I thought someone had done stats for the Davey Crockett?

[Draq]

Very possible, but I haven't found it.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

And I think I know why...
After checking a few old websites for game, I found a large number of them are dead links and I'm sure one of them had stats for the Davy Crockett.
Some of these sites must have been dead for a while because I can't even find them on the Internet Wayback Machine!
Show's how often I actually checked them haha.

[Draq]

So... While cruising through soviet-afghan war picture on pintrest I came across a picture of a leopard 1 with a t-72 turret... But I haven't been able to find any info at all. Seems like the kind of franken-tank that would be done in t2k... Providing its a feasible feat of mechanical engineering.

[Draq]

.

[Brit]

A quick Google of 'Leopold 1 T72 turret' brings up a 'colourised' version of that picture and some other sites / photos... none of which I have access too! The JED site is one of them.

I don't have the link anymore but I did once see a model somebody had made of a T72 hull with a Leopold 2 turret. The back story was that Poland had in, I believe , the 'real world' decided to update their tanks that way. It was said they then realised it was cheaper and easier to simply buy surplus Leopold 2 tanks from Germany and presumably sell on or scrap the T72s...

[Brit]

I couldn't find the site where I originally saw it but there are pictures here of I think the same model T72 with Leopold 2 turret. Very 'Twilight 2000'!

http://home.comcast.net/~mksheppard/SPCAMO/PolishT72/PolishT72.htm


There is a bit more about the T72 / Leopold 1 hybrid here:

http://z12.invisionfree.com/ScaleModelsMalaysia/ar/t4035.htm

[Draq]

Thanx Brit

[Brit]

That's OK. Prowling the 'what if?' modelling websites is one of my interests...

Of course, having now properly read what you posted I now realise that it was a Leopold 1 hull with a T72 turret... so... is the opposite version therefore a possibility?

I have also seen photos of a 'testbed' tank which was an M48 (I think) with a Leopold 2 turret. Again, all very 'Twilight 2000'. And when the Merkava was being developed I think it's turret was first fitted to an M48 or M60 hull... or was it the other way around?

[Draq]

Or the m60 with a m1 turret

[Tegyrius]

I want an M1 with an M1 turret with a Bradley turret with an AAVP7A1 turret.

- C.

[swaghauler]

Also stats for the Davey Crockett would be awesome, mostly for shiggles.

I remember reading somewhere that the Nominal Yield was between 2 and 5 KiloTons. The older Nukes often had variable yield warheads (the old 8" with its variable yield package immediately comes to mind). If Ft Sill has its artillery museum on line, you may be able to find more info there. They have one on display. They also have "Atomic Anne," the first Nuke capable howitzer.

[ArmySGT.]

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSRY3ZCbWoQDsIaXxHFnhO_wYxx-Jycv5Q7ZXvBOpEsz8nCXLHA_g

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRt0_LiUY3lrBGjPjKxvt2jiI98w_1w_ VHg7MMQRvIT_v-wuHEJ

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTJ97XTJMCOnzFJARV_PXpE-mzWpOXEXXWOwKPJnNic9x-ssBXg

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQUZguFY8P9wUROCiC0ra3TUF5KJaGhI d3CN5eGUkBaCXH-hv_S

http://media.moddb.com/cache/images/groups/1/3/2074/thumb_620x2000/4871.jpg

http://i60.fastpic.ru/big/2013/1029/d3/bf75059b385750643371cb0a65b3c7d3.jpg

http://i58.fastpic.ru/big/2013/1029/ef/9e8f5c41d5c34ab62479533ffefa58ef.jpg

http://i60.fastpic.ru/big/2013/1029/4a/b023bae74dd951b961610a72691ad14a.jpg

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CAcQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffas.org%2Fman%2Fdod-101%2Fsys%2Fland%2Fgrizzly.htm&ei=G4oLVc6OHca1sQSi_ILYDg&bvm=bv.88528373,d.cWc&psig=AFQjCNEWtBhHye2_oTFy4Irh0N_7hk8-AA&ust=1426905999546238

[Draq]

I'm glad to see my threads actually matter enough for people to reply. Thanx guys.

[ArmySGT.]

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CAcQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.deviantart.com%2Fmorelikethis %2Fartists%2F333798885%3Fview_mode%3D2&ei=YYoLVbDpB6-ZsQTo14D4Cg&bvm=bv.88528373,d.cWc&psig=AFQjCNEWtBhHye2_oTFy4Irh0N_7hk8-AA&ust=1426905999546238

http://i631.photobucket.com/albums/uu38/kilomuse/Air%20Defense/agdsl.jpg

http://gunpoint-3d.com/images/view/agds.f.jpg

http://th03.deviantart.net/fs10/PRE/i/2006/136/1/5/M1_Abrams_Grizzly_by_DarkWizard83.jpg

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/grizzly21.jpg

http://40.media.tumblr.com/4da364d9ea4dbad494f9464712f6a137/tumblr_nij9dmYjvN1txx6x7o2_500.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-LuERZ9STSJE/U1YvLPOQu6I/AAAAAAAA8VQ/JIKKDDzPlzA/s1600/agds2.jpg

[Draq]

In context of the later stages of the war, would it be more complicated to build casemated turrets or traditional ones?

[ArmySGT.]

http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/cv/tank/M1/Abrams_PantherII_00.jpg

[Brit]

And when the Merkava was being developed I think it's turret was first fitted to an M48 or M60 hull... or was it the other way around?

There are some photos of that vehicle on this thread: http://cs.finescale.com/fsm/modeling_subjects/f/3/t/149626.aspx plus a line drawing of a 'what if?' Merkava variant.

[Brit]

Or the m60 with a m1 turret

I think I've seen other names for it but that would / could be the M60-2000:

These are 'drawings' but there are photos on the web:

http://www.armedassault.info/index.php?cat=news&id=1576&game=0

[Brit]

Something else I found. The M111 Self-Propelled Anti-Aircraft.

(Found here: http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,39423.0/highlight,m48.html & http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=4777.0 ).

[CDAT]

I would have loved to have seen one of the early thoughts for the M1 had made it. As I understand it early on the plan was to have the 25mm Bushmaster be the Coaxial so they could use it rather than the main gun against MICV.

[copeab]

A 25mm Bushmaster and a useful amount of ammo will eat up significantly mote turret space than a 7.62mm MG and it's ammo. What do you strip out of the turret to make room?

[copeab]

In context of the later stages of the war, would it be more complicated to build casemated turrets or traditional ones?

Historically, assault guns/tank destroyers with casemate mounts are cheaper to build than tanks built on the same hull, but are more limited tactic a lly.

[CDAT]

A 25mm Bushmaster and a useful amount of ammo will eat up significantly mote turret space than a 7.62mm MG and it's ammo. What do you strip out of the turret to make room?

Now how much ammo is needed to be "Useful"? If you pull the M240 and the 10,000rds of 7.62 how much 25mm could you fit with the gun? I do not know, but even say it is only 1000rds 25mm I would find that very useful as it would have your 120mm last longer. Of the 40 main gun rounds that the tank carries only 17 of them are in your ready rack and can be used easily. Yes you can use the other 23rds, but they are much more difficult to use. Normaly they are used to reload the ready rack.

[Draq]

OK, this actually exists, but it an interesting gun. The TP-82 survival rifle for cosmonauts. Two shotgun barrels mounted over a 5.45x39mm rifled barrel, with a detachable stock that doubles as a machete.

[jester]

Hmm, all steel and three barrels, so, weight wasn't a factor. I wonder what its effective range was and accuracy.

[pmulcahy11b]

OK, this actually exists, but it an interesting gun. The TP-82 survival rifle for cosmonauts. Two shotgun barrels mounted over a 5.45x39mm rifled barrel, with a detachable stock that doubles as a machete.

I alerted everyone to this one some time ago, though I haven't done anything with it.

[pmulcahy11b]

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CAcQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.deviantart.com%2Fmorelikethis %2Fartists%2F333798885%3Fview_mode%3D2&ei=YYoLVbDpB6-ZsQTo14D4Cg&bvm=bv.88528373,d.cWc&psig=AFQjCNEWtBhHye2_oTFy4Irh0N_7hk8-AA&ust=1426905999546238

http://i631.photobucket.com/albums/uu38/kilomuse/Air%20Defense/agdsl.jpg

http://gunpoint-3d.com/images/view/agds.f.jpg

http://th03.deviantart.net/fs10/PRE/i/2006/136/1/5/M1_Abrams_Grizzly_by_DarkWizard83.jpg

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/grizzly21.jpg

http://40.media.tumblr.com/4da364d9ea4dbad494f9464712f6a137/tumblr_nij9dmYjvN1txx6x7o2_500.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-LuERZ9STSJE/U1YvLPOQu6I/AAAAAAAA8VQ/JIKKDDzPlzA/s1600/agds2.jpg

I did the AGDS on my Best SPAA that never Were Page.

[ArmySGT.]

Now how much ammo is needed to be "Useful"? If you pull the M240 and the 10,000rds of 7.62 how much 25mm could you fit with the gun? I do not know, but even say it is only 1000rds 25mm I would find that very useful as it would have your 120mm last longer. Of the 40 main gun rounds that the tank carries only 17 of them are in your ready rack and can be used easily. Yes you can use the other 23rds, but they are much more difficult to use. Normaly they are used to reload the ready rack.
Real world example>>> AMX-30

[copeab]

Real world example>>> AMX-30

Also, very early Centurions mounted a 20mm coaxisl gun. IIRC, it was capable of elevating higher than the main gun, specifically for AA use.

[Draq]

I alerted everyone to this one some time ago, though I haven't done anything with it.

And that's why you are awesome sir. The amount and quality of work you and several others here do should earn you money, and lots of it. Hats off.

[Brit]

In context of the later stages of the war, would it be more complicated to build casemated turrets or traditional ones?

These are all I believe 'what if?' vehicles but the sort of thing that I think could have been produced:

"Hypothetical T-55 based tank destroyer":
http://ambushalleygames.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=12105

"KaJaPa Zehn-Fünf":
"Well, it IS a Jagdpanzer Kanone, with a proposed/theoretical upgrade from 90mm to 105mm".
http://www.lead-adventure.de/index.php?topic=21355.0

The Goliath tank "as pictured in Kenneth Macksey's Tank Versus Tank book":
http://www.network54.com/Forum/169232/message/1226466728/Here%27s+An+Oldie+But+A+Goodie....Chimera
http://www.network54.com/Forum/169232/message/1226628682/Goliath+Image

I've also seen a 'what if' casement tank built on I think a M48 chassis. The 'back story' quoted Twilight 2000 and said it was a war damaged tank rebuilt.

[CDAT]

Real world example>>> AMX-30Also, very early Centurions mounted a 20mm coaxisl gun. IIRC, it was capable of elevating higher than the main gun, specifically for AA use.

The prototype that I saw at the Patton Museum implied that it had been done before and I had heard that the french did it but did not know for sure who had.

[copeab]

The prototype that I saw at the Patton Museum implied that it had been done before and I had heard that the french did it but did not know for sure who had.

It appears the Mk I and II Centurions mounted the 20mm but the Mk III, which went from a 17-pdr to a 20-pdr, had to drop to a BESA MG.

Worth noting that it was common for most WWII tanks to have the coaxial MG be removable by the crew in the field and a tripod provided so it could be operated from the tank. I think this was most common in American and German tanks.

[CDAT]

It appears the Mk I and II Centurions mounted the 20mm but the Mk III, which went from a 17-pdr to a 20-pdr, had to drop to a BESA MG.

Worth noting that it was common for most WWII tanks to have the coaxial MG be removable by the crew in the field and a tripod provided so it could be operated from the tank. I think this was most common in American and German tanks.

We had a field kit to add a stock to our, not the best GPMG as no sights. But if the tank was knocked out better than nothing four man crew would have two M240, one M16, and four Pistols.

[Brit]

A "could have been (?)" the 'Jagdchieftain':

http://arcaneafvs.com/chieftain_concept.html

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,1359.0.html?PHPSESSID=s9lrr89r3vg9peihu69i68 hm62

I'm sure I read that it was / maybe still is a runner although it seems that the gun may have been a dummy.

A similar vehicle with two guns was built around the same time on the Leopold 1 chassis.

Second photo down here:
http://www.tank-net.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=37398&page=3

[Brit]

Most photos here. It seems that the Leopold version was tested / planned in both 105mm and 120mm versions.

http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=4506.msg73281#msg73281

[copeab]

There was the British Tortoise:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortoise_heavy_assault_tank

and American T28:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank

both designed in WWII.

[unkated]

For ArmySgt, since you asked:

VW Type 2 (T3) of the 1980s - a.k.a. the Microbus

(T2 similar)


"So we took the half-a-ton of garbage, put it in the back of a red VW
Microbus, took shovels and rakes and implements of destruction, and headed
On toward the city dump."
- Alice's Restaurant, A Guthrie

[ArmySGT.]

For ArmySgt, since you asked:

VW Type 2 (T3) of the 1980s - a.k.a. the Microbus

(T2 similar)


"So we took the half-a-ton of garbage, put it in the back of a red VW
Microbus, took shovels and rakes and implements of destruction, and headed
On toward the city dump."
- Alice's Restaurant, A Guthrie

Thanks....... If I ever get the time off to go to GhengisCon or TactiCon I will have to spring this on a GM....... I really want to play a NCO that has given up on high moral reasons for war, and just wants to get by on comforts and guile.

[unkated]

Thanks....... If I ever get the time off to go to GhengisCon or TactiCon I will have to spring this on a GM....... I really want to play a NCO that has given up on high moral reasons for war, and just wants to get by on comforts and guile.

Ah. Take a T3 that has been converted to a camper (very popular in Europe), paint it Army Green or camo and list it as non-tactical/Admin borrowed from the Air Force, preferably from a destroyed airbase. :)

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/G17ALmV1Omo/hqdefault.jpg https://vivawestfalia.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/chc-crosssec1.gif?w=450

Uncle Ted

[unkated]

OK, this actually exists, but it an interesting gun. The TP-82 survival rifle for cosmonauts. Two shotgun barrels mounted over a 5.45x39mm rifled barrel, with a detachable stock that doubles as a machete.

I didn't design this, but I found it on a Dark Conspiracy site:


Uncle Ted

[unkated]

I post these under the best that never was: the initial tanks available (for the original nations) in the on line game World of Tanks. I know there are some players out there.

They fall under this topic because (except for the French FT-17), known of these faced actual combat.

The file includes...


T7 Combat Car (US)
T1 Light Tank (US)
LT-31 (Germany)
FT-17 (France)
NC-27 (Japan)
NC-31 (China)
MS-1/T-18 (USSR)
Vickers Medium Mk I (GB)


For each one, there is a T2K style vehicle sheet and a description of the vehicle, its development, and how reality differed from it depiction in WoT.

I did these as an exercise for the fun of it (compare these vs T2K light AFVs). Admittedly, they have little direct use in T2K...

Uncle Ted

[CDAT]

I post these under the best that never was: the initial tanks available (for the original nations) in the on line game World of Tanks. I know there are some players out there.

They fall under this topic because (except for the French FT-17), known of these faced actual combat.

The file includes...


T7 Combat Car (US)
T1 Light Tank (US)
LT-31 (Germany)
FT-17 (France)
NC-27 (Japan)
NC-31 (China)
MS-1/T-18 (USSR)
Vickers Medium Mk I (GB)


For each one, there is a T2K style vehicle sheet and a description of the vehicle, its development, and how reality differed from it depiction in WoT.

I did these as an exercise for the fun of it (compare these vs T2K light AFVs). Admittedly, they have little direct use in T2K...

Uncle Ted

Very cool, thank you. One minor nitpick the stats for the T7 Combat Car I think list the ammo amount for the A2E1 Vickers Medium Mk IA, as it is the same.

[Legbreaker]

They were TERRIBLE even compared to what came a decade or so later! :o
Still, I suppose they had to be made didn't they? Got to develop somehow.

[CDAT]

They were TERRIBLE even compared to what came a decade or so later! :o
Still, I suppose they had to be made didn't they? Got to develop somehow.

And look what we have today, more or less 100 years later. How long did it take to lose the Sail?

[Legbreaker]

And we can only imagine what we'll have in another hundred+ years!
Give it another thousand and warfare may not even look like anyone's even fighting to our "primitive" minds.

[unkated]

Part of the fun of the exercise is that they were terrible. Another part is that I like teh research.

The other part is that most of these were not built to fight other tanks - but that's how they are used in WoT. Shown here, they are even more worthless vehicle vs vehicle...

They are useful vs infantry armed only with small arms...

Uncle Ted

[Legbreaker]

The armour values seem a bit high on some of them though if they were only ever supposed to protect against small arms and shrapnel. There's modern IFVs with less (mainly Soviet).
How'd you arrive at those values?

[ArmySGT.]

XM800T with Chrysler ITV turret.
http://img.bemil.chosun.com/nbrd/files/BEMIL085/upload/2007/07/XM800T%20with%20Chrysler%20ITV%20turret_01.jpg

http://preservedtanks.com/Handler.ashx?UniqueID=2371&Size=E

XM800T with conventional Hispano Suiza 20mm and M60D
https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7055/6859705711_911b348475_b.jpg

[pmulcahy11b]

And we can only imagine what we'll have in another hundred+ years!
Give it another thousand and warfare may not even look like anyone's even fighting to our "primitive" minds.

I get the idea that in 100 years that armored vehicles will be UGVs, aircraft will be UCAVs with a single controlling station or stations aboard JSTARS-type aircraft, and that infantry will be cyborgs.

[pmulcahy11b]

XM800T with Chrysler ITV turret.
http://img.bemil.chosun.com/nbrd/files/BEMIL085/upload/2007/07/XM800T%20with%20Chrysler%20ITV%20turret_01.jpg

http://preservedtanks.com/Handler.ashx?UniqueID=2371&Size=E

Demands to be statted! Already doing the research.

[Rockwolf66]

Demands to be statted! Already doing the research.

Not much to be found unfortunatly.

Crew: 3 (Commander, Driver, Gunner)

Armor: unknown, Possibly similar to an Early M2 Bradley,

Weapons Systems:
Main Turret
Hispano Suiza 20mm with Unknown amount of ammo
M60D with Unknown amount of ammo

Alternate Turret
twin TOW launchers.

Mobility level was similar to the M113.


Video of third surviving prototype (https://youtu.be/qitsOkEsMlU)

[CDAT]

I get the idea that in 100 years that armored vehicles will be UGVs, aircraft will be UCAVs with a single controlling station or stations aboard JSTARS-type aircraft, and that infantry will be cyborgs.

Then there is the Hammer Slammer version where nothing that flies survives.

[ArmySGT.]

Rapid Infantry Transport

https://8583b52b4a309671f69d-b436b898353c7dc300b5887446a26466.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.c om/8664759_electric-rollerblades-go-off-the-beaten_4c4dd9f_m.jpg?bg=6E6F6F

[rcaf_777]

http://www.hisstank.com/forum/g-i-joe-general-discussion/392366-speculative-comparative-analysis-vehicles-equipment-created-gi-joe-3.html

[pmulcahy11b]

I have that on my site, courtesy of Antenna.

[unkated]

The armour values seem a bit high on some of them though if they were only ever supposed to protect against small arms and shrapnel. There's modern IFVs with less (mainly Soviet).
How'd you arrive at those values?

Fair question. I will explain below.

1. Thank you for making me take another look. You made me spot an error. I have a table of co-efficients used for adding an effect for different armor types (explained below). I had added a entry to the table, but had not udpated the table's definition to include an additional row; "Steel Riveted" stopped being within the defined table; Steel riveted (less effective plates of steel riveted together) was being picked up as the stronger "Steel" (basic steel armor, 1940 to 1955)

After correcting the table, a soem of the armor values changed; 5s becoming 4s, some 4s becoming 3s.

2. How does Uncle Ted make armor sausage?

I built a spreadsheet (of course). The armor section works like this. I had collected a raft of data for WW2 and post-WW2 military vehicles for Advanced Tobruk, including armor (detailed to facings and slope of armor). Using that analysis, i compared those sheets to some of the existing older vehicles in the T2K cannon (which is, not surprisingly, inconsistent, even with specific time periods)

What I came up with was that for steel armor:
for WW2 steel armor (1940 - 1955ish) = an armor point for every 7mm;
for more modern steel armors, one for every 5mm

Modern armor/5
Older armor/7

This is complicated by average slope of the given armor face, which may drive increase the value of by up to a factor of 2.

This is complicated by the armor type. For vehicles in the period of steel armor (basically, every tank before 1975, and several since), this breaks down into solid or welded armor and bolted (bolted includes most armored vehicles built before 1940).

Remember that coefficient I mentioned above? This is where armor type gets factored in. These vehicles are mostly all endowed with bolted armor plates.
(exceptions: VK-31 & A2E1 Medium Mk I have steel)

Now, T2K uses one armor scale for vehicle vs Vehicle and personnel combat, which leads to a few peculiarities at the bottom o f the scale. Using the scale outlined above, many of these early tanks would have an armor factor of 2, which would not keep out contemporary small arms (Lee-Enfield rifle, 8mm Mauser, Lebel etc).

So I include a check to provide "design for effect" - if I have armor values and the process above gives an armor value of less than 3.6, it adds 1. This ensures that these early vehicles can shake off small arms.

Modern MBTs (and some recent IFVs), where they seldom mention armor thickness directly, and their armor type is not steel are handled differently.

Corrected version attached

And now I have some other files I need to correct.....

Uncle Ted

[Legbreaker]

With the early tanks, the crew would often be injured from spalling when rifle and machinegun bullets hit the armour near them - the reason spall liners are basically standard equipment in AFVs today.
Have you modelled that somehow?

[ArmySGT.]

Standard Manufacturing Excalibur 20mm Vulcan SHORAD

3699

3700

3701

3702

[ArmySGT.]

Standard Manufacturing Rough Terrain variable height transporter.

3707

3708

3709

3710

[unkated]

With the early tanks, the crew would often be injured from spalling when rifle and machinegun bullets hit the armour near them - the reason spall liners are basically standard equipment in AFVs today.
Have you modelled that somehow?

Nope. None of the versions of T2K have it modeled in vehicle combat, and T2K includes HEAT which creates spalling.

I wanted to have vehicles to compare to existing ones in T2K, not re-invent the combat system, particularly where at the moment I don't contemplate actually using these designs in a game. But i'll bear that in mind for if an when I consider using these vehicles.

Uncle Ted

[Legbreaker]

Pretty much any projectile which hits has the potential to cause spalling - the thicker the armour, the larger the impact or explosion needs to be though. For more modern vehicles spalling is not much of an issue as they're almost invariably fitted with spall liners.
For early AFVs (up to the late 1930's and into the 40's I believe) spall liners where not standard and from what I can find were really only developed in response to the introduction of HESH rounds by the British in the 1940's.
In WWI, AFV crews had to wear armoured masks similar to the one pictured to protect the face and especially eyes from flying shrapnel spalled off the inside of their vehicles armour. Even just the impact of ordinary rifle bullets could be enough to blind a crewman close to the point of impact (a gunner for example looking for targets).

While this is not an issue for T2K era vehicles, probably not even the left over WWII ones (which were likely retrofitted with liners) it is probably something which should be kept in mind if an earlier vehicle was used.

3711

[Draq]

Ok, so there have been plenty of vehicles designed and tested over the years, and the best is not always chosen, for various reasons. What vehicles do you guys think should have been adopted instead of the ones the military picked?

[CDAT]

Ok, so there have been plenty of vehicles designed and tested over the years, and the best is not always chosen, for various reasons. What vehicles do you guys think should have been adopted instead of the ones the military picked?

I would have liked to see the prototype Abrams with 25mm coax. Once you up-gunned to the 120mm having a coax that can take out the light armor would have been nice.

[WallShadow]

I would have liked to see the prototype Abrams with 25mm coax. Once you up-gunned to the 120mm having a coax that can take out the light armor would have been nice.

You mean like the 20mm secondary anti-soft-skin gun the MBT-70 had?

[CDAT]

You mean like the 20mm secondary anti-soft-skin gun the MBT-70 had?

Very close, I remember way back when I was at Knox (93') and stopped by the Patton Museum they had one of the XM1's and it had a 25mm (same as the Bradley) as its coax, before it went to production they had swapped it with the M240 of today as the ammo carried was not enough they thought (I think it was something like a 1000rds for the coax, but do not remember for sure.)

[mark w]

Hi there
it's a pleasure to have found this board.

I'd like to contribute

The Iron Cow

from The Zone by James Rouch.


FV499 Hover armoured personnel carrier (HAPC).

Crew: commander, driver, gunner, radio/radar operator, plus eight infantry.

Armament: 30mm Rarden cannon, 7.62mm AA machine-gun.

Armour: classified, believed to be composite hull, Chobham turret.

Combat weight: 15.4 tons.

Engines: late production models fitted with twin Allison turbofans developing 2,480 hp max speed; classified.

Systems fitted include NBC, night vision, automatic fire-suppression, ECM, decoy and smoke generation, passive and active locators.

A planned production of 300 was cut to 60 due to shortage of engines. Issue is limited to Armoured Reconnaissance and Special Anti-tank units. In both roles they have proved highly popular with users, exceptional speed and cross-country performance giving them a survival rate three times that of any other NATO combat vehicle. A major drawback of the type is the difficulty of recovery if battle damage results in total loss of power. Plans for a special transporter were shelved when production was curtailed.

* * * * * * *

that's the backstory printed in the 1st book, it needs tweaking to fit into the T2K universe

my attempt at stating it is below

* * * * * * *


Price: $155,000 (---/—)
Armament: 30mm RADEN autocannon, GPMG (c)
Ammo:200x30mm. 500x7.62N
Fuel Type: D, A
Load: 400 kg
Veh Wt: 15.4 tonnes
Crew: 4+8
Mnt: 30
night vision: head lights, image intensifier, ground surveillance radar

also equipped with aircraft style chaff, flare and radar jammer pods
(from the nautical/ aviation handbook)

Tr Mov: 240/195
Com Mov: 55/45
Fuel Cap: 250
Fuel Cons: 50

Combat Statistics Config: Shielded
HF: 6-sp Susp: P(8)
HS: 6-sp
HR: 4-sp
TF: 6
TS: 4
TR: 2

* * * * *

DESIGN NOTES
I've ignored the description of a Chobham turret as that does seem to make much sense for an APC.
The hull armour matches that of the level 2 protection for M8 AGS listed in the BYB.
This weighs 6 tonnes and is the difference in weight between the details listed for the Iron Cow & the SK 25 from T2K

regards

mark

[unkated]

XM800T with conventional Hispano Suiza 20mm and M60D


In the bottom picture of the XM800T (see above), is that an IR Spotlight on the right of the turret?

Uncle Ted

[StainlessSteelCynic]

The XM800 project was developed for the reconnaissance role but from what little info I could find specifically about the XM800T, it also had the ability to designate targets for other vehicles/aircraft so I think it's probably the surveillance/target designator sight.

[unkated]

The XM800 project was developed for the reconnaissance role but from what little info I could find specifically about the XM800T, it also had the ability to designate targets for other vehicles/aircraft so I think it's probably the surveillance/target designator sight.

Hmm I though that was developed in the late 80s; the XM800T was developed in the mid-1970s. Did we have that capability then?

Uncle Ted

[ArmySGT.]

In the bottom picture of the XM800T (see above), is that an IR Spotlight on the right of the turret?

Uncle Ted

I don't really know... From the appearance I can only guess......

Appears to me to be either a thermal imager or a low light tv system.

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j218/ArmySGT_photos/TW2K/New%20Picture.png

[dragoon500ly]

Supposed to have been a low light tv...

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Hmm I though that was developed in the late 80s; the XM800T was developed in the mid-1970s. Did we have that capability then?

Uncle Ted

In regards to Precision Guidance, The knowledge itself is quite old, both the Germans and USA were using precision guided weapons in the later years of WW2 and although these were radio-controlled, the technology advanced quite quickly with the US developing an infra-red homing missile for anti-ship use in 1945.
Laser guided weapons were developed in the 1960s with the US making use of them and other PGMs from 1972 (specifically during the Vietnam War).

[Rockwolf66]

Not much to be found unfortunatly.

Crew: 3 (Commander, Driver, Gunner)

Armor: unknown, Possibly similar to an Early M2 Bradley,

Weapons Systems:
Main Turret
Hispano Suiza 20mm with Unknown amount of ammo
M60D with Unknown amount of ammo

Alternate Turret
twin TOW launchers.

Mobility level was similar to the M113.


Video of third surviving prototype (https://youtu.be/qitsOkEsMlU)

I've just found that the 20mm had 500 rounds of ammunition and the M60 had 2,000 rounds of ammunition for it.

[nuke11]

Details of the XM800T ARSV

You have to dig around in your library of Jane's Armored Fighting Vehicle Guides from around 1976 to get the details of this.

The XM242 25 mm Chaingun was being developed to be fitted to the winner of the ARSV competition either the tracked or the wheeled. The test vehicles mounted the M139 20 mm autocannon.

Crew: 3
Weight Loaded: 8618 kg
Weight Empty: 7980 kg
Length: 4.673 m
Width: 3.438 m
Height Turret: 2.399 m
Height Hull: 1.663 m
Ground Clearance: 40.6 cm
Track Width: 0.482 m
Length of Track on Ground: 2.743 m
Ground Pressure: 0.32 kg/cm2
Maximum Road Speed: 88.5 km/h
Maximum Cross Country Speed: 25 km/h
Maximum Water Speed: 7.2 km/h
Acceleration 0-48 km/h: 10 seconds
Range: 725 km
Fuel: 397 liters
Amphibious: Yes
Gradient: 60%
Side Slope: 40%
Vertical Obstacle: 0.762 m
Trench: 1.828 m
Engine: GM 6V53 AT Diesel
Armament: M139 20 mm Cannon, M60D LMG
Ammunition: 500 rds 20 mm, 2000 rds 7.62 mm

[Draq]

I hope Paul is taking notes. He is the one who inspired this thread.

[nuke11]

I don't really know... From the appearance I can only guess......

Appears to me to be either a thermal imager or a low light tv system.

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j218/ArmySGT_photos/TW2K/New%20Picture.png

That is the day/night sight. It was developed by Delco Electronics Division of General Motors. It has high and low power day channels and high and low power night channels.

[unkated]

I found most of the data from a Blog describing the XM800T's development...

The M-139 was a licensed copy of the French HS.820 20mm autocannon, used in aircraft and AAA. When Oerlikon bought Hispano-Suiza, they replaced their current 20mm design with it. The US used it only for a/c, where it was equipped with 2x 75-rd magazines. (This weapon, while excellent, saw little US use, as we developed the rotary M61 cannon and put that on aircraft.)

Anyway, see the attached...

[Draq]

Xm-734. One of the developmental evolutions of the m113 leading to the Bradley. I find it fascinating.

[Draq]

Also m113s were tested with lav-25 turrets.

[Draq]

And as far as small arms, I have certain marine and special forces units equipped with Robinson m-96 rifles (greatly improved stoner-63s). More reliable, less sensitive, simple 7.62x39 conversion, and all the classic features that made the SEALS fall in love with it.

[Draq]

https://youtu.be/j8ZP0z0Vccc

[rcaf_777]

You could also put the Air Defense Anti-Tank System (ADATS) although is was adopted by the Canadian Army, it was originally to be a US Weapon System. This system would morph into Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle (MMEV) which was canceled in 2007

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Defense_Anti-Tank_System

[rcaf_777]

I give you the Thunderblast MBT


http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/Bulletproof_(1988)

I want one of these in my next game

[unkated]

You could also put the Air Defense Anti-Tank System (ADATS) although is was adopted by the Canadian Army, it was originally to be a US Weapon System. This system would morph into Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle (MMEV) which was canceled in 2007

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Defense_Anti-Tank_System

I believe you will find the M917 ADATS in US Armored Vehicles sourcebook.

Uncle Ted

[chico20854]

Here's one for you... the Midgetman missile system, with one of the coolest looking vehicles!

see attached or https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1iWKi-cwRMLbHdyMDRkLS1DbGs/view?usp=sharing

[unkated]

Here's one for you... the Midgetman missile system, with one of the coolest looking vehicles!


... in 2014, (16 years post TDM), the last known HML was driven through the Utah deserts by a woman only known as Furiosa.... :)

Uncle Ted

[ArmySGT.]

3844The L7A3 105mm main gun and appliqué armor packacge, along with track skirts, offered improved protection and firepower relative to the factory model M48.


3845
Arisgator, a modernized, amphibious upgrade for M113

[Draq]

https://youtu.be/t4LQhTCWhiE

[ArmySGT.]

https://youtu.be/t4LQhTCWhiE

I would kick a puppy and slap a toddler, if that would make that music go away.

Ugh.

[Draq]

I would kick a puppy and slap a toddler, if that would make that music go away.

Ugh.
My apologies. I didnt have to sound on

[The Dark]

Just about the only thing 1940s Germany was good for was coming up with wacky weapons. One I ran across today for the first time is the Fliegerfaust/Luftfaust, which was supposed to be a man-portable anti-aircraft rocket system. It didn't really work, but it's at least interesting in theory. The Fliegerfaust B was a 9-tube launcher that weighed 6.5 kilograms (loaded), firing spin-stabilized 20mm high-explosive rockets. The firing method, per Ian Hogg, was that five rockets would fire from non-adjacent barrels, followed a tenth of a second later by the other four rockets, giving a dispersal pattern intended to improve the odds of a strike against an enemy aircraft. The warhead was the standard 20mm AA shell. Reloads were carried in a canvas "bucket" carried on the right hip via shoulder strap, and looked a bit like a speedloader for a revolver. It was barely deployed before the end of the war (three were photographed in rubble in Berlin), and accuracy problems were never ironed out, which made it of dubious effectiveness as an AA weapon.

[Draq]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krummlauf

[pmulcahy11b]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krummlauf

I have that. Look under the description for the Sturmgewehr 44 in German Assault Rifles.

[pmulcahy11b]

You could also put the Air Defense Anti-Tank System (ADATS) although is was adopted by the Canadian Army, it was originally to be a US Weapon System. This system would morph into Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle (MMEV) which was canceled in 2007

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Defense_Anti-Tank_System

I have this too, on Canadian Tracked Antiaircraft Vehicles.

[pmulcahy11b]

You could also put the Air Defense Anti-Tank System (ADATS) although is was adopted by the Canadian Army, it was originally to be a US Weapon System. This system would morph into Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle (MMEV) which was canceled in 2007

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Defense_Anti-Tank_System

When the US was experimenting with the ADATS system, they put it on a Bradley chassis for better mobility. Then they went crazy and put it on a Bradley chassis, retained the Bradley turret minus the TOWs, with the ADATS missile tubes on the sides of the turret, and then topped the whole quivering mass off with an M-2HB sub-turret.

I have both on my Best Antiaircraft Vehicles That Never Were page.

[Draq]

Forgive us Pmulcahy11b, we're not worthy 😢

[The Dark]

Just about the only thing 1940s Germany was good for was coming up with wacky weapons. One I ran across today for the first time is the Fliegerfaust/Luftfaust, which was supposed to be a man-portable anti-aircraft rocket system. It didn't really work, but it's at least interesting in theory. The Fliegerfaust B was a 9-tube launcher that weighed 6.5 kilograms (loaded), firing spin-stabilized 20mm high-explosive rockets. The firing method, per Ian Hogg, was that five rockets would fire from non-adjacent barrels, followed a tenth of a second later by the other four rockets, giving a dispersal pattern intended to improve the odds of a strike against an enemy aircraft. The warhead was the standard 20mm AA shell. Reloads were carried in a canvas "bucket" carried on the right hip via shoulder strap, and looked a bit like a speedloader for a revolver. It was barely deployed before the end of the war (three were photographed in rubble in Berlin), and accuracy problems were never ironed out, which made it of dubious effectiveness as an AA weapon.

Running the rocket warhead through FF&S, it should be either damage -1 or 1, Burst 4, Pen Nil (it works out to Dam 0.40, Burst 4, Pen -4 for a TL 5, 2cm HE warhead).

[rcaf_777]

Not sure where this came from? not sure if it is movie prop or something the the US Army was testing.

Are those AGM-114 Hellfire or AGM-65 Maverick missiles?

[ArmySGT.]

Appears to be a mock up of a Hellfire II (http://www.army-technology.com/projects/hellfire-ii-missile/).

[rcaf_777]

Are you sure? the picture and truck are pre 2000 I think

[ArmySGT.]

Are you sure? the picture and truck are pre 2000 I think

The truck is a CUCV (a military version of a Chevy 2500) and the mount looks like tripod for a TOW in ground mount.

I think it is a clever photoshop. There has been on again off again prototypes for a ground launcher version of the hellfire.

The missile is a Hellfire and the mount looks like the hard point for a Apache.

I think it is a clever photoshop with elements taken from several sources.

[swaghauler]

Not sure where this came from? not sure if it is movie prop or something the the US Army was testing.

Are those AGM-114 Hellfire or AGM-65 Maverick missiles?

ArmySGT's right. There is no CLU (command/launch guidance unit) in the system, and firing the missiles from that truck would blow ALL of the windows out. I'd say it's photoshopped too.

[Panther Al]

Not sure where this came from? not sure if it is movie prop or something the the US Army was testing.

Are those AGM-114 Hellfire or AGM-65 Maverick missiles?

Hellfire: The Swedes use a ground mount version of it for various things.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-qIq6Gmsm2cs/UhBBfbSTVoI/AAAAAAAAKG4/Sda--oqd9LI/s1600/Sweden+amf+20.jpg

[The Dark]

Hellfire: The Swedes use a ground mount version of it for various things. Primarily an anti-ship missile, as the RBS 17. It's a modified (by Bofors) AGM-114A. The intent was to use them against landing craft to allow longer-ranged weapons to focus on other ships. The warhead was modified for this role, detonating after penetration of the hull, so it wouldn't be as effective in an anti-vehicular role. Norway had some as well (I don't know if they still do).

[lordroel]

Hellfire: The Swedes use a ground mount version of it for various things.


How is it targeted.

[The Dark]

How is it targeted.Laser designation. Except for the Longbow variant (AGM-114L, which is radar-guided), all Hellfires are laser-guided. The designator does not have to be at the same location as the launcher; as long as the missile can see the dot, it'll go for it. This also gives it limited re-targeting capability, since if the dot is moved to a different target within the field of view, the missile will steer accordingly.

[Damocles]

My guess is that the pic is 9th ID HTLD. They were doing a lot of stuff with CUCVs in the mid-80s as they waited to receive HMMWVs. They had a ground launched hellfire unit. The unit expected to receive UAVs, so they used surrogate manned aircraft, which likely included laser designation capability. They also had forward lasing teams to designate targets.

The 22 meg file in the second link is worth a read. There's a terrible pic at the back that looks like a CUCV firing a Hellfire to me...

https://books.google.pl/books?id=zi3MKBsYe10C&pg=PA45&lpg=PA45&dq=Ground+Launched+hell+Fire+9th+Infantry+Division&source=bl&ots=XeJolPyYEN&sig=I7HjoViKMqwBG6puhCeulB7MyPA&hl=pl&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjWj5PEhJDSAhXmBZoKHRglBsIQ6AEIKDAB#v=on epage&q=Ground%20Launched%20hell%20Fire%209th%20Infantry %20Division&f=false

http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA370233

[lordroel]

Laser designation. Except for the Longbow variant (AGM-114L, which is radar-guided), all Hellfires are laser-guided. The designator does not have to be at the same location as the launcher; as long as the missile can see the dot, it'll go for it. This also gives it limited re-targeting capability, since if the dot is moved to a different target within the field of view, the missile will steer accordingly.

So could one designator be use to home in more than one missile into a target at once.

[pmulcahy11b]

Laser designation. Except for the Longbow variant (AGM-114L, which is radar-guided), all Hellfires are laser-guided. The designator does not have to be at the same location as the launcher; as long as the missile can see the dot, it'll go for it. This also gives it limited re-targeting capability, since if the dot is moved to a different target within the field of view, the missile will steer accordingly.

They never thought of making a GPS-guided version?

EDIT: Just remembered that GPS guidance doesn't work well against moving targets.

[The Dark]

They never thought of making a GPS-guided version?

EDIT: Just remembered that GPS guidance doesn't work well against moving targets.That, and Hellfire only has a 5 mile range. It's less than 2 seconds from weapon release to maximum range, so you're talking about potentially very short lasing times. The shortest-ranged weapon I can think of with GPS guidance is the AGM-176 Griffin, which has ~12-15 miles of range when air-launched.

[pmulcahy11b]

A lot of these limited issue/experimental light vehicles could be placed in in the 9th LMD, which would still have its experimental mission by the early 1990s.

Light armor could be placed into the 82nd and light infantry units, and rumors like the Rangers having about a platoon worth of Wiesels fior testing and a single Stryker for testing could be included, along with SOCOM-type HUMWWVs and Ninja Jeeps.

[Draq]

Paul has the Colt cmg 2 listed in the 'best that never was' weapons list, but what about the cmg 3? https://youtu.be/g3aayF-S2ps

[Draq]

Oh also about the em-2 in .280... https://youtu.be/_wdhN5_RpX4

[Draq]

A preview for future videos including the 308 Sterling rifle, and the 280 fal
https://youtu.be/O5vLAY2k9dc

[pmulcahy11b]

I have the Enfield on the Best Assault Rifles that Never Were pages, and the .280 FAL in the FAL entry as an experimental "what if."

[Draq]

Ok so here's one of the fraken-guns... An sks-gatling gun. https://youtu.be/MH2xsQcIUYI

[Draq]

Actual firing and disassembly of the .280 em-2.
https://youtu.be/fcYj2SpUHvE
https://youtu.be/m-grTPqgETk

[Draq]

I have the Enfield on the Best Assault Rifles that Never Were pages, and the .280 FAL in the FAL entry as an experimental "what if."

There's very little you don't have good sir, I'm mearly providing more information for interested individuals.

[pmulcahy11b]

Ok so here's one of the fraken-guns... An sks-gatling gun. https://youtu.be/MH2xsQcIUYI

OK, that's just plain weird...

[Draq]

Kinda like the short barreled belt fed shotgun thing?

[pmulcahy11b]

Kinda like the short barreled belt fed shotgun thing?

Tell me more!

[pmulcahy11b]

Paul has the Colt cmg 2 listed in the 'best that never was' weapons list, but what about the cmg 3? https://youtu.be/g3aayF-S2ps

Must...do...research...:confused:

[rcaf_777]

Colt made a few weapons like this

Colt CMG #3
Colt Auto Rilfe
Diemaco(Now Colt Canada) Light Support Weapon

[ArmySGT.]

Tell me more!

iX7vwivR6cE

[WallShadow]

ArmySGT, is that a country cousin/nephew of the Mk 18 Honeywell hand-cranked 40mm GL of the 'Nam era?

[Draq]

This doesn't exactly belong, but I figured you guys might be interested, and Paul might want to add it to his page.
https://youtu.be/iQxwVY7ziKs part 1
There are 5, each about an hour long, and pretty technical. It's the... 'reproduction/redesigned from the ground up/modernized' stg-44 with caliber interchangeability: 5.56,7.62x39,.300 blackout, and the original 8mm kurz

[The Dark]

Poking around on Paul's site (because what else am I going to do on a Thursday night? :p ), I noticed that the XM8 entry in Best Assault Rifles That Never Were has the Carbine, Compact Carbine, and Designated Marksman variants, but not the Automatic Rifle. That variant had a heavy 20" barrel and could use a 100-round drum magazine for sustained fire. It also had a bipod (per HK Systems, the 12.5" and 20" barrels had bayonet lugs and only the 20" barrels had a bipod interface). It appears to be a different 20" barrel than the DMAR, based on the venting at the end of the barrel.

HK Systems also listed a 10 round magazine that isn't in the BARTNW entry. That seems a bit small to me, but maybe there'd be a use for it that's not immediately obvious.

[ArmySGT.]

ArmySGT, is that a country cousin/nephew of the Mk 18 Honeywell hand-cranked 40mm GL of the 'Nam era?

Sorry, just saw this today.

No, that Rube Goldberg contraption was followed by the XM174E3 a belt fed 40mm that uses the same ammunition as the M79/M203. The ammunition is loaded into 12 round belts. Then along came them MK19 another belt fed grenade launher also designated a grenade machine gun for its rate of fire. The MK19 uses ammunition with a longer ase and more propellant which would destroy a M79/M203 if a person were to attempt firing through them this high velocity 40mm.

3976

3977

3978

3979

[.45cultist]

Oh also about the em-2 in .280... https://youtu.be/_wdhN5_RpX4

That's as old as the 4.6MM G36 prototype!

[Draq]

Sorry, just saw this today.

No, that Rube Goldberg contraption was followed by the XM174E3 a belt fed 40mm that uses the same ammunition as the M79/M203. The ammunition is loaded into 12 round belts. Then along came them MK19 another belt fed grenade launher also designated a grenade machine gun for its rate of fire. The MK19 uses ammunition with a longer ase and more propellant which would destroy a M79/M203 if a person were to attempt firing through them this high velocity 40mm.

3976

3977

3978

3979

High velocity qnd low velocity 40mm grenade shells. An important distinction to make. It's much the same as .44 special/.38speciql vs their Magnum versions.

[ArmySGT.]

High velocity qnd low velocity 40mm grenade shells. An important distinction to make. It's much the same as .44 special/.38speciql vs their Magnum versions.

Fortunately revolvers have forcing cones and one is not able to load .44 magnum in a .44 special revolver, same as .357 into a .38. While the reverse is true for specials into magnums that is not true of the Mk19. That ammunition is arrives belted. Even loading a round only separates a link from the next without removing the link from the case unlike MGs or autocannon. One is not able to load regular 40mm for the M203/M320/M79 into a Mk19 and get same to fire.

[Draq]

Fortunately revolvers have forcing cones and one is not able to load .44 magnum in a .44 special revolver, same as .357 into a .38. While the reverse is true for specials into magnums that is not true of the Mk19. That ammunition is arrives belted. Even loading a round only separates a link from the next without removing the link from the case unlike MGs or autocannon. One is not able to load regular 40mm for the M203/M320/M79 into a Mk19 and get same to fire.

Touche

[ArmySGT.]

Touche

Wasn't meant as a snarky reply.

Some persons have never had their hands upon the tremendous and odious fecal sample that spawned from the most diseased recesses of the Naval weapons design bureaus bowels called the Mk19 Mod 3.

[pmulcahy11b]

ArmySGT, is that a country cousin/nephew of the Mk 18 Honeywell hand-cranked 40mm GL of the 'Nam era?

I have that on my site, under US GL. It took a bit of thinking on how to simulate hand-cranking.

[Draq]

https://youtu.be/FuZmAtrRsN0 and now for a classic t2k weapon... The m231 fpw. a visual supplement to Paul's article

[The Dark]

I just ran across a reference today to an air defense vehicle I hadn't previously heard about, the Liberty I and II. Both were M1A1 Abrams derivatives, the Liberty I carrying a pair of .50 cal MGs and either 6 Shahine or 12 VT-1 (Crotale NG) missiles, while the Liberty II had a pair of 25mm Bushmasters and 12 VT-1 missiles. They were one of the losing entries in the the LOS-F-H (Line Of Sight, Forward, Heavy) part of the FAADS (Forward Area Air Defense System) program, intended to replaced the DIVAD/Sgt. York.

The LOS-F-H competition ended up being won by the ADATS based on an M113A2 chassis, which was canceled after the end of the Cold War without its inability to operate in inclement weather being corrected.

[pmulcahy11b]

I just ran across a reference today to an air defense vehicle I hadn't previously heard about, the Liberty I and II. Both were M1A1 Abrams derivatives, the Liberty I carrying a pair of .50 cal MGs and either 6 Shahine or 12 VT-1 (Crotale NG) missiles, while the Liberty II had a pair of 25mm Bushmasters and 12 VT-1 missiles. They were one of the losing entries in the the LOS-F-H (Line Of Sight, Forward, Heavy) part of the FAADS (Forward Area Air Defense System) program, intended to replaced the DIVAD/Sgt. York.

The LOS-F-H competition ended up being won by the ADATS based on an M113A2 chassis, which was canceled after the end of the Cold War without its inability to operate in inclement weather being corrected.

You have any links? Sounds interesting to stat. I'm coming up blank on Bing.

[The Dark]

You have any links? Sounds interesting to stat. I'm coming up blank on Bing.

I pieced it together from reading a few sites/forum threads elsewhere:
Secret Projects (https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,696.0.html)
Imgur pictures of Abrams mock-ups, including Liberty II (https://imgur.com/a/WWegH)
Article on Shahine missiles that describes the Liberty proposal, including basic technical information on its radar (http://www.cmchant.com/nexterthales-giatthomson-csf-shahine-sp-surface-to-air-missile-system)

[James Langham]

How much interest would there be in an article on the FV499 Hover APC mentioned above?

[The Dark]

The Iron Cow was statted out in this very thread a couple years ago (http://forum.juhlin.com/showpost.php?p=72296&postcount=85), but a full article could be interesting/useful.

[pmulcahy11b]

I pieced it together from reading a few sites/forum threads elsewhere:
Secret Projects (https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,696.0.html)
Imgur pictures of Abrams mock-ups, including Liberty II (https://imgur.com/a/WWegH)
Article on Shahine missiles that describes the Liberty proposal, including basic technical information on its radar (http://www.cmchant.com/nexterthales-giatthomson-csf-shahine-sp-surface-to-air-missile-system)

I've seen that vehicle before! I wonder if I have it in one of my books or old Jane's...

[ArmySGT.]

M1A2 System Enhancement Package Version 3 (https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2017/10/25/army-receives-upgraded-abrams-tank-and-more-improvements-are-on-the-way/)

[The Dark]

There's always the venerable MBT-70. Intended to replace the M60 and Leopard 1, it was a joint German-American project armed with a longer-barreled (L/43.5) version of the 152mm gun/launcher used by the M60A2 and M551. It carried 42 rounds (some of which could be tungsten APFSDS), 6 Shillelagh missiles, 660 rounds of 20x139mm ammunition for an Rh 202 L/85 autocannon mounted on the turret roof, and 2700 rounds of 7.62x51mm for either an M73 (US) or MG-3 (German) machine gun. Top speed was 69 km/h, and 1300 liters of fuel was supposed to give it a range of ~645 kilometers.

One innovation was the use of spaced armor to disrupt HEAT warheads. I haven't found actual armor thicknesses, but estimated RHA equivalents (probably to be taken with an entire shaker of salt) are 101mm for the outer front hull and 152mm for the inner front hull, while the sides were 76-105mm (lower-upper), the mantlet around 450mm, the turret sides 63mm and 131 mm (outer and inner), and the turret rear 63mm.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

There's always the venerable MBT-70. Intended to replace the M60 and Leopard 1, it was a joint German-American project armed with a longer-barreled (L/43.5) version of the 152mm gun/launcher used by the M60A2 and M551. It carried 42 rounds (some of which could be tungsten APFSDS), 6 Shillelagh missiles, 660 rounds of 20x139mm ammunition for an Rh 202 L/85 autocannon mounted on the turret roof, and 2700 rounds of 7.62x51mm for either an M73 (US) or MG-3 (German) machine gun. Top speed was 69 km/h, and 1300 liters of fuel was supposed to give it a range of ~645 kilometers.

One innovation was the use of spaced armor to disrupt HEAT warheads. I haven't found actual armor thicknesses, but estimated RHA equivalents (probably to be taken with an entire shaker of salt) are 101mm for the outer front hull and 152mm for the inner front hull, while the sides were 76-105mm (lower-upper), the mantlet around 450mm, the turret sides 63mm and 131 mm (outer and inner), and the turret rear 63mm.

I wrote up the MBT70 a year or so back, if you search the forum for it.

[The Dark]

I wrote up the MBT70 a year or so back, if you search the forum for it.

Would you believe it was three years ago? After looking, I do remember seeing that before, but I hadn't saved it because it's V1, and vehicles changed a lot between V1 and V2.

[swaghauler]

Not sure where this came from? not sure if it is movie prop or something the the US Army was testing.

Are those AGM-114 Hellfire or AGM-65 Maverick missiles?

I think I found this launcher's origin. It is a "real" launcher but NOT a complete one. The reason there's no CLU (the black box which energizes the missiles) or any cable running from one (like the cable running down the side of the second launcher shown in the field with the two soldiers) is because one is not normally attached to this launch rail. The rail shown made an appearance on the US Navy's Cyclone Class Patrol Ships and the rail launcher is a "plug and play" assembly that connects to the ship's command and control systems (and therefore needs no external power/launch system). I'm guessing the pickup is a delivery vehicle taking it to a ship or test site.

[Draq]

I have that on my site, under US GL. It took a bit of thinking on how to simulate hand-cranking.

https://youtu.be/09RKpXYuxyQ speak of the devil...

[pmulcahy11b]

I think I found this launcher's origin. It is a "real" launcher but NOT a complete one. The reason there's no CLU (the black box which energizes the missiles) or any cable running from one (like the cable running down the side of the second launcher shown in the field with the two soldiers) is because one is not normally attached to this launch rail. The rail shown made an appearance on the US Navy's Cyclone Class Patrol Ships and the rail launcher is a "plug and play" assembly that connects to the ship's command and control systems (and therefore needs no external power/launch system). I'm guessing the pickup is a delivery vehicle taking it to a ship or test site.

The Swedes use a ground-mount Hellfire launcher as a shore defense weapon.

[The Dark]

The Swedes use a ground-mount Hellfire launcher as a shore defense weapon.

The Swedish launcher looks different. It has a tripod, a U-shaped swivel mount, and a crossbeam at the top that the Hellfire is suspended from. The launcher on the back of the truck doesn't have anything to the outside of the missile, where the Swedish launcher would.

[swaghauler]

The Swedish launcher looks different. It has a tripod, a U-shaped swivel mount, and a crossbeam at the top that the Hellfire is suspended from. The launcher on the back of the truck doesn't have anything to the outside of the missile, where the Swedish launcher would.

I question whether the rig I saw on the USS Firebolt(?) is anything more than a testing rig. While it is clearly shown mounted amidships with the missiles slung on it, I cannot imagine such a rig going to sea with the missiles hanging exposed to the weather. Even the Griffin Missile Launchers and Stinger Missiles USS Firebolt carries are mounted in enclosed boxes resembling the boxes that Penguin Missiles come it (but smaller, of course).

[ArmySGT.]

Pop goes the Wiesel 2 with a 30mm remote turret.
4032

[shrike6]

I always find Hellfire concept vehicles interesting but then again that goes back to the old M2A3 Bradley Hellfire and the like in the Twilight Vehicle Guides.

http://heartlandmuseum.com/album/album1/Museum_Photos/museum_photos_7.html

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I know this is not a "Best that never was" vehicle but speaking of SPAA vehicles based on the M113, I always liked the Italian SIDAM 25.

However to stay on topic and also with the theme of SPAA, there's always the ZSU-37-2 nicknamed "Yenisei".
Developed at the same time as the ZSU-23-4 but determined to be better suited for defence of tank units and SPAAM units but never entered service despite being considered acceptable (and also desirable) for service.

http://media.moddb.com/cache/images/groups/1/3/2587/thumb_620x2000/7469d6ba6d69a777bfbc7ba67b20b147.jpg

Some good images on the following page although the text appears to be a bad machine translation: -
http://survincity.com/2010/12/zsu-37-2-yenisei-not-the-shilka-one/

And there's this discussion on wiki that reveals more details about the design/development and failure to enter service: -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:ZSU-37

[cawest]

I was watching the Expendables 3. the armored train was kind of cool. that might be something to add.

[Matt Wiser]

How about this: this was a real-world concept for an M-1 Air-Ground Defense System...two 35-mm cannon and 12 ADATS missiles in pop-up launchers. Not proceeded past the paper stage.

[dylan]

2s38

[pmulcahy11b]

How about this: this was a real-world concept for an M-1 Air-Ground Defense System...two 35-mm cannon and 12 ADATS missiles in pop-up launchers. Not proceeded past the paper stage.

I have it, in http://www.pmulcahy.com/best_stuff_that_never_was/best_spaa_that_never_were.htm; it is listed as the GDLS M-1002 Miller AGDS.

[rcaf_777]

Or the m60 with a m1 turret

M60-2000 Main Battle Tank or 120S made by General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M60-2000_Main_Battle_Tank

[pmulcahy11b]

M60-2000 Main Battle Tank or 120S made by General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS)

Should I say it?

[Draq]

Should I say it?

I don't think everyone has spent as inordinate amounts of time as I have reading the PDF database...

[swaghauler]

Pop goes the Wiesel 2 with a 30mm remote turret.
4032

I like that for a Recon Vehicle.

[Matt Wiser]

M60-2000 Main Battle Tank or 120S made by General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M60-2000_Main_Battle_Tank

I see someone lifted that from the Red Dawn fiction page!

[rcaf_777]

While the Roland SAM is an actual weapon system used by the French and few others. It was a one time consider as US Army SAM system mounted on an M109 chassis (see below), while this system was not picked up, the system was modified by the USAF and used as a training tool for anti SAM training. Which is the second picture of the system mounted on a truck.

[WallShadow]

While the Roland SAM is an actual weapon system used by the French and few others. It was a one time consider as US Army SAM system mounted on an M109 chassis (see below), while this system was not picked up, the system was modified by the USAF and used as a training tool for anti SAM training. Which is the second picture of the system mounted on a truck.
French system, eh? Would be tricky trying to get reloads from the French post-whoops without selling your soul.

[rcaf_777]

Franco-German actually, the US had plans to make the missile in the US like many other foreign weapons systems

If this system was used by the US that would mean that three NATO countries would have been using it

I don't France would say no to money during the conflict

[Draq]

Franco-German actually, the US had plans to make the missile in the US like many other foreign weapons systems

If this system was used by the US that would mean that three NATO countries would have been using it

I don't France would say no to money during the conflict

Considering France is in deep isolation, with a few concentrated force abroad, Im not sure money is really what they would want... But we don't know for sure because there's no damn french source book 😣😭

[StainlessSteelCynic]

The West German forces used the Roland on a Marder chassis as well as shelter versions mounted on MAN 6x6 & 8x8 trucks and while it was a joint French-German project, West Germany was the lead partner for the all weather version (France being the lead for the day/clear weather version.
The Germans had the system in service before 1980 (I think it was 1977 or 1978).

So there would be a potential supply line in Germany and as mentioned, the US was going to produce the missile domestically if the system had been taken into service. I think it would be easy enough to justify the system going into US service with the increasing tensions during the build-up to the Twilight War including producing the missiles in the US.

However... Spain also used the day/clear-weather version on the AMX-30 chassis (like the French). While I don't know of any missile production in Spain, it's a potential resupply for the fair-weather missile albeit in limited numbers.
And the other interesting bit of information, in relation to the US, is that Argentina, Brazil and Venezuela all acquired the system (but in tiny numbers although Brazil did get the Marder version while the other two got shelter versions). I don't recall when these countries purchased the Roland but I believe it was no later than the 1980s (considering that British forces captured one Argentine example during the Falklands War in 1982).

[The Dark]

The West German forces used the Roland on a Marder chassis as well as shelter versions mounted on MAN 6x6 & 8x8 trucks and while it was a joint French-German project, West Germany was the lead partner for the all weather version (France being the lead for the day/clear weather version.
The Germans had the system in service before 1980 (I think it was 1977 or 1978).1978, with the Roland II (the Roland I was the French clear-weather-only version, which entered service in 1977).

So there would be a potential supply line in Germany and as mentioned, the US was going to produce the missile domestically if the system had been taken into service. I think it would be easy enough to justify the system going into US service with the increasing tensions during the build-up to the Twilight War including producing the missiles in the US.

However... Spain also used the day/clear-weather version on the AMX-30 chassis (like the French). While I don't know of any missile production in Spain, it's a potential resupply for the fair-weather missile albeit in limited numbers.
And the other interesting bit of information, in relation to the US, is that Argentina, Brazil and Venezuela all acquired the system (but in tiny numbers although Brazil did get the Marder version while the other two got shelter versions). I don't recall when these countries purchased the Roland but I believe it was no later than the 1980s (considering that British forces captured one Argentine example during the Falklands War in 1982).Spain license-manufactured 18 AMX-30R, 9 each of the Roland 1 and Roland 2, and purchased 414 missiles. 8 of each system were deployed with 1 in reserve, forming 2 batteries each of 2 Roland 1 and 2 Roland 2. The procurement was announced in April 1984. They may have made missile spares, but I don't believe they built entire missiles.

Nigeria acquired 16 Roland 2/AMX-30R, and Qatar ordered 3 in 1986 that were delivered in 1989.

Argentina acquired the Roland "shortly before the outbreak of hostilities," according to Making and Marketing Arms, and they were still waiting for delivery of some missiles when the Falklands War began.

Brazil purchased 4 systems and 50 missiles. The order was placed in 1975, but I don't have a definite year for delivery.

Venezuela acquired 6 or 8 (reports vary) shelter units in 1985.

Iraq was a large user; they mounted 100 shelter units on MAN 8x8 trucks as mobile launchers, and also had 13 AMX-30R launchers, with deliveries early enough that some were in active service by 1982. Based on an analysis of Desert Shield/Desert Storm, it looks like the AMX-30R systems were Roland I and the shelter units were Roland II.

[WallShadow]

In the 70s through the 90s, several vehicle systems were produced overseas by NATO allies.
The M-60 was produced in Ialy by OTO Melara, as was, IIRC the M-47 and the M-113.
The Netherlands worked with the M-113 , reconfiguring it to be a m ore effective battle taxi.
West Germany produced the M-47 and the M-48 prior to adopting the home-grown Leopard.
India was licensed to manufacture a copy of the105mm-armed Vickers Mk.1 called Vijayanta

[Matt Wiser]

This one was a failed competitor in the DIVAD competition (which gave us that POS known as the SGT York). Entered by General Electric, it's an M-48 hull with new turret for radar and a GAU-8 30-mm cannon (same as in the A-10).

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I get that they wanted to make use of available vehicle parts, off the shelf tech and so on but I still shake my head over the Sgt York.
I can't get over the idea that they thought it was a good idea to base the system on a vehicle (the M48) that had been phased out of service and a vehicle that couldn't keep up with the tanks it was meant to protect. :confused:

Edit: If they were so intent on using a twin 40mm set-up, they probably would have been better off upgrading the M42 Duster to the latest tech and all-weather performance. At least the M42 had the speed to keep up with the M1.

[CDAT]

This one was a failed competitor in the DIVAD competition (which gave us that POS known as the SGT York). Entered by General Electric, it's an M-48 hull with new turret for radar and a GAU-8 30-mm cannon (same as in the A-10).

Now I know that it never did make it into full production and all that but I am not sure that I would go so far as to cal the Sgt York a POS, here is a link to an article from a pilot involved in the testing of it and his thoughts on it.
https://www.quora.com/How-effective-would-an-M247-Sergeant-York-have-been-at-shooting-down-helicopters

[The Dark]

Now I know that it never did make it into full production and all that but I am not sure that I would go so far as to cal the Sgt York a POS, here is a link to an article from a pilot involved in the testing of it and his thoughts on it.
https://www.quora.com/How-effective-would-an-M247-Sergeant-York-have-been-at-shooting-down-helicopters

The criteria in its design were flawed. It was supposed to be able to engage a pop-up target within 8 seconds and have a 50% chance of striking a target at 3 kilometers with a 30 round burst. Soviet helicopter-mounted anti-tank missiles of the time had at least a 6 kilometer range, so they could stand off and destroy an armored column from outside the York's (marginally) effective range.

I'd also question the anecdote of its effectiveness, given that in its OT&E testing in 1984, the M247 wasn't able to hit drones until they were limited to hovering and were carrying four radar reflectors to increase their signature. Maybe it worked perfectly in every non-official test and failed miserably any time someone was looking, but I'll tend to lean towards the side of the recorded testing, because anecdote is not the singular of data.

Edit: If they were so intent on using a twin 40mm set-up, they probably would have been better off upgrading the M42 Duster to the latest tech and all-weather performance. At least the M42 had the speed to keep up with the M1.It wouldn't have been able to keep up once the whiz-bang features from DIVAD were added - the additional mass on the Patton (17 tons) was almost equal to the total mass of a Duster (22 tons). Add in the short range of the Duster (100 miles), and you're looking at a slow, short-ranged SPAAG. With the DIVAD weight added, you'd be looking at a vehicle with perhaps 2/3 the power to weight ratio of an M1 or M2, and less than 1/3 of their range. They also weren't insistent on using a 40mm; no other DIVAD entry used that caliber (it's rumored Ford had some sort of side deal with Bofors, and also that they only won the competition because of back room shenanigans, since the XM246 consistently out-performed the XM247).

What could be interesting from the standpoint of the original topic would be to look at the other ARGADS/DIVAD entries:
Sperry-Rand: 35mm Vigilante with 1,464 rounds of ammo. Two radars and IFF.
General Electric: 30mm GAU-8. One radar (AN/MPQ-49).
Raytheon: 35mm turret from Gepard, with Hollandse radar and Oerlikon FCS.
General Dynamics: Side-by-side mounting of 35mm guns (same as Gepard), with Phalanx CIWS radar.

[Matt Wiser]

Any artists' concepts of those other entries?

[rcaf_777]

Does this help

[rcaf_777]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1K17_Szhatie

[Matt Wiser]

Gepard on an M-1 chassis would've made perfect sense-but the NIH Syndrome would strike...

[cawest]

yea I kind of like guns on trains. the m18 I saw going down the track back when I was running around the Kosovo areas

[The Dark]

yea I kind of like guns on trains. the m18 I saw going down the track back when I was running around the Kosovo areas

That's one reason I wish FF&S had included trains. WW1 had a lot of armored trains (and a lot of temporary narrow-gauge rail built to supply trenches), which it would have been nice to have good rules for statting out. Wet navy ships at least got a treatment in Challenge for MegaTraveller that's theoretically convertible to the system used in 2.0/2.2.

[Draq]

https://youtu.be/kK88EsjZCrc
This... I know it doesn't exactly belong, but it kind of does. Very much a mysterious unicorn sporting shotgun, both in design and history.

[WallShadow]

I just ordered a copy of Jane's Afv Retrofit Systems1994-95 (JANE'S ARMOURED FIGHTING VEHICLE RETROFIT SYSTEMS) Hardcover – July 1, 1994
from Amazon, for the princely sum of $25 U$D. This will go nicely with copy of the same book for 1999-2000. Lots of interesting things that were available for AFV's at the turn of the millenium. Now I'll get to see "what might have been" available for AFV's at the opening of the conflict.
I'll share all the iffy goodness with my mates here as soon as my sweaty hands start turning the pages.

[rcaf_777]

Has anyone heard of this weapon?

Paul?

http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/Knight%27s_Armament_Revolver_Rifle
https://www.mythicarmory.com/kac-silenced-revolver-rifle.html
http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?24981-Knight-Armament-s-Silent-Revolver-Rifle


https://www.rugertalk.com/articles/the-super-silent-super-secret-ruger-redhawk-rifle.96/

Most sources say it was a one of one

[pmulcahy11b]

That's a heck of a long technical path to take for a suppressed weapon...

[copeab]

That's a heck of a long technical path to take for a suppressed weapon...

And an essentially stupid weapon as well, an oversized semi-suppressed revolver. Probably more expensive than an original bolt-action design firing subsonic ammo, as well.

[Draq]

And an essentially a stupid weapon as well, an oversized semi-suppressed revolver. Probably more expensive than an original bolt-action design firing subsonic ammo, as well.

But are any of us really surprised!? I'd hope not. Lol

[The Dark]

And an essentially stupid weapon as well, an oversized semi-suppressed revolver. Probably more expensive than an original bolt-action design firing subsonic ammo, as well.

Sure, but part of the RFP (per the article) was the capability for rapid follow-up without ejecting cases. I can think of a couple other ways to do that, but all of them have varying disadvantages.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

As The Dark mentioned, the RfP requires the ability to retain the cases (i.e. non-ejection of the cases) but having the ability for rapid follow-up shots. A revolver is the simplest way to achieve that and also without having to remove your trigger hand from the weapon (e.g. bolt-action).
So rather than thinking of the weapon as a strange or long, tech path, it's actually an easier tech path given the requirements (aside from the special ammo it used).

[The Dark]

As The Dark mentioned, the RfP requires the ability to retain the cases (i.e. non-ejection of the cases) but having the ability for rapid follow-up shots. A revolver is the simplest way to achieve that and also without having to remove your trigger hand from the weapon (e.g. bolt-action).
So rather than thinking of the weapon as a strange or long, tech path, it's actually an easier tech path given the requirements (aside from the special ammo it used).

Even the special ammo doesn't sound that bizarre - it's basically the same as the Soviet SP-4 round that was used in the Stechkin and PSS or the 10mm QSPR round used in modified S&W Model 29 revolvers. Rare and specialized, certainly, but both the US and USSR had already played with that concept.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Even the special ammo doesn't sound that bizarre - it's basically the same as the Soviet SP-4 round that was used in the Stechkin and PSS or the 10mm QSPR round used in modified S&W Model 29 revolvers. Rare and specialized, certainly, but both the US and USSR had already played with that concept.

You're quite right, I've even read of some people who reload their own ammo playing with the concept of semi-telescoped rounds so it's not as if it requires a high-tech factory to produce. I added the part about the ammunition as an afterthought and probably should have put more thought into the statement! :o
:D

[copeab]

Sure, but part of the RFP (per the article) was the capability for rapid follow-up without ejecting cases. I can think of a couple other ways to do that, but all of them have varying disadvantages.

Put a cage over the ejection port, as was tested for the M1911 in WWI to allow it to be used inside an aircraft without spitting hot brass casings into the interior.

Revolvers are almost impossible to effectively suppress due to the lack of an highly effective seal between cylinder and barrel.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

The key word here is almost, most are too troublesome to bother with due to the lack of gas sealing but there are some designs that are more suited to the task.
The Nagant M1895 revolver used gas sealing as part of its normal operation. This allowed it to be suppressed at around the same noise level as any supressed semi-auto pistol.

The point being, that supressing a revolver can be done. And with the idea being to produce a rapid, single shot, supressed weapon that retains the cases, putting a metal cage over the ejection port of a semi-auto would likely cause a distinctive noise as the shell hit the cage. There's also the problem of just how big do you make the cage to allow it to effectively capture all the cases without filling up to the point of jamming the action and how unwieldy does that make the weapon?

[ArmySGT.]

As The Dark mentioned, the RfP requires the ability to retain the cases (i.e. non-ejection of the cases) but having the ability for rapid follow-up shots. A revolver is the simplest way to achieve that and also without having to remove your trigger hand from the weapon (e.g. bolt-action).
So rather than thinking of the weapon as a strange or long, tech path, it's actually an easier tech path given the requirements (aside from the special ammo it used).

The Nagant M1895 revolver is one of the few that an armorer might be able to mount a silencer on. With a revolver, you don't have failure to feed problems, the powder charge has no direct action on the loading cycle.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

With a revolver, you don't have failure to feed problems, the powder charge has no direct action on the loading cycle.
And this is probably a more important feature than any of the things that I have mentioned (I wish I had thought of it haha!).
When this situation occurs, you can cycle the next round faster (and without taking your hands from their positions on the weapon) with a revolver rifle than you can with a semi-auto or even bolt-action rifle - and there's less chance of shifting the point of aim when you do so.

[The Dark]

The key word here is almost, most are too troublesome to bother with due to the lack of gas sealing but there are some designs that are more suited to the task.
The Nagant M1895 revolver used gas sealing as part of its normal operation. This allowed it to be suppressed at around the same noise level as any supressed semi-auto pistol.There was also a suppressed S&W 625 made for a German police unit that used a clamshell covering over the cylinder to contain the gap gases. The PSDR 3 used a subsonic .45 ACP round and a large suppressor to get the sound down to 90 dB.

The point being, that supressing a revolver can be done. And with the idea being to produce a rapid, single shot, supressed weapon that retains the cases, putting a metal cage over the ejection port of a semi-auto would likely cause a distinctive noise as the shell hit the cage. There's also the problem of just how big do you make the cage to allow it to effectively capture all the cases without filling up to the point of jamming the action and how unwieldy does that make the weapon?

Yeah, a cage/bag over the ejection port was one of the other ideas I had thought of, but it tends to be unwieldy (as you shoot, you get more weight hanging off one side of the gun), it's not truly silent (even with a canvas bag, you'll have brass hitting brass), and if you have any problem with ejection, it's much slower and harder to clear.

Another idea was a forward-ejecting system (similar to Kel-Tec's RFB) with a manually locked tube, but that would be severely limited in capacity, and if it wasn't cleared, it could do nasty things to the rifle's innards.

[ArmySGT.]

Have you considered just using the sub sonic piston type ammunition with a silenced revolver? Not that it may need a can with piston ammo.

[ArmySGT.]

Lever action rifles are also very good for silencing. .44 special out of .44 mag slowed to under 1150 fps is a option as you are able to keep large grain (mass) bullets to retain stopping power.

[ArmySGT.]

And this is probably a more important feature than any of the things that I have mentioned (I wish I had thought of it haha!).
When this situation occurs, you can cycle the next round faster (and without taking your hands from their positions on the weapon) with a revolver rifle than you can with a semi-auto or even bolt-action rifle - and there's less chance of shifting the point of aim when you do so.

The Nagant is designed to cam the cylinder forward to mate with the barrel to retain all the pressure from the powder charge. The idea was that the poor quality control of the Czar's arsenals gun powder would be overcome this way. There isn't any cylinder blow by.

[copeab]

Yeah, a cage/bag over the ejection port was one of the other ideas I had thought of, but it tends to be unwieldy (as you shoot, you get more weight hanging off one side of the gun), it's not truly silent (even with a canvas bag, you'll have brass hitting brass), and if you have any problem with ejection, it's much slower and harder to clear.

I doubt the brass hitting brass is much louder than the revolver's hammer hitting the base of the firing pin. In a rifle configuration with a bipod, a cage with fired casings is unlikely to unbalance the weapon. After all, many successful SMGs had side-mounted magazines that were more unweildy.

[Draq]

For those of you wanting I little more intimate relationship with the stoner 63 https://youtu.be/ZSFbXT6ZPjc hopefully this means more stoner videos.

[ArmySGT.]

4094

[Draq]

Ooh perfect. Another wonderful turret/body hybrid. I always thought this type of thing would be rather common.

[copeab]

For those of you wanting I little more intimate relationship with the stoner 63 https://youtu.be/ZSFbXT6ZPjc hopefully this means more stoner videos.

It was nice that even with only parts for the automatic rifle present, Ian was able to give viewers some idea as to how the other weapons were assembled using the receiver.

[pmulcahy11b]

Ooh perfect. Another wonderful turret/body hybrid. I always thought this type of thing would be rather common.

I agree. I think that by 1999-2002, turrets and chassis would be mixed and matched, depending upon the support available, compatibility, and what was available and working.

[Draq]

It was nice that even with only parts for the automatic rifle present, Ian was able to give viewers some idea as to how the other weapons were assembled using the receiver.

Indeed. And he alludes to future videos, I'm so excited.

[shrike6]

Interesting concept, a Hum-vee howitzer
https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2018/04/26/infantry-units-need-more-mobile-light-artillery-to-counter-russian-capabilities/

[Olefin]

For those of you wanting I little more intimate relationship with the stoner 63 https://youtu.be/ZSFbXT6ZPjc hopefully this means more stoner videos.

as long as the videos are about the vehicle and not the stoners I knew in college

[Draq]

https://youtu.be/aKj9FuF5-xQ
So apparently there's a shop where I used to live that makes semi auto conversions and semi auto reproductions of ww2 machine guns. and apparently he took the rp-46/dpm conversion and made it better.

[copeab]

Forgotten Weapons covered the Steyr ACR today:

http://www.forgottenweapons.com/steyr-acr-a-polymer-flechette-firing-bullpup-from-the-90s/

[swaghauler]

Interesting concept, a Hum-vee howitzer
https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2018/04/26/infantry-units-need-more-mobile-light-artillery-to-counter-russian-capabilities/

There is REAL promise in the system. To reduce recoil, that 105mm operates under the concept of "constant recoil." The barrel is pushed forward just before firing so that it has farther to travel before it hits the recoil stop (and thus transmitting the recoil to the carriage). The barrel then arrests just short of maximum travel so it never contacts the stop. This lightens the "felt recoil" of the weapon. The reduction can be quite significant. The same system is used in the newest version of the AA12 Assault Shotgun as well.

[Raellus]

This totally looks like something from the G.I. Joe toy line of the mid-1980s, and would make an interesting, if unconventional PC vehicle for T2K. I'm kind of surprised it didn't make the cut for the v1-2.2 U.S. Army Vehicle Guides.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/21002/excalibur-was-a-vulcan-gatling-gun-wielding-air-defense-vehicle-straight-out-of-g-i-joe

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Somewhere I've got a folder with pictures of the 8x8 VADS system in...over at the AFV forums there was some discussion on it. The vehicle itself was abandoned (as in, dropped and no longer considered for procurement) and the lone example is sitting in someone's yard (minus the gun and supporting turret).

[shrike6]

This totally looks like something from the G.I. Joe toy line of the mid-1980s, and would make an interesting, if unconventional PC vehicle for T2K. I'm kind of surprised it didn't make the cut for the v1-2.2 U.S. Army Vehicle Guides.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/21002/excalibur-was-a-vulcan-gatling-gun-wielding-air-defense-vehicle-straight-out-of-g-i-joe

You need to read more posted about that a few months back
http://forum.juhlin.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=4050&d=1515873888
http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?p=76882#post76882

[cawest]

the Chimera

http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/cold-war-british-prototypes-fchimera-1984/

[StainlessSteelCynic]

One vehicle that I don't think we've mentioned before is the Bobcat APC.
This was a 1950s Canadian design that, had the concept been pursued, might have seen the Canadians getting the leap on the UK and the US in APC design (and sales).

When I first learnt about it, none of the following sites even mentioned the Bobcat let alone had any information about it. I read about it in an obscure book on armoured vehicles (by a German author, translated into English).

Anyway, the Bobcat: -
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/canada/bobcat.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobcat_(armoured_personnel_carrier)
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/moderncanadianvehicles/bobcat-apc-t531.html
https://www.snafu-solomon.com/2013/05/blast-from-past-bobcat-canadian-apc.html

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ODx4VqDRju0/UZyKeb7QCcI/AAAAAAAAyCY/wtWa5FFK3gY/s1600/6078591900_c83364254d_z.jpg

[Vespers War]

Time to raise this thread from the dead for a weapon I learned about while doing WW1 research. Patented in 1901, the Thorneycroft (http://armamentresearch.com/british-thorneycroft-bolt-action-rifle/) was a bolt-action bullpup rifle, with the bolt retracting along the butt of the rifle and five rounds of rimmed .303 British being fed by a charger into a magazine that sloped into the semi-pistol grip, eliminating the chance for rimlock by having the rounds horizontally held on an inclined plane, meaning the rims were not overlapping. While shorter and lighter than the Lee-Enfield, it was rejected for poor ergonomics and excessive recoil, as well as concerns about accuracy.

v2 stats for Rifle of 1906:
Weight: 3.36 kg
Ammo: 5
ROF: BA
Damage: 4
Pen: 2-3-Nil
Bulk: 7
Recoil: 5
Range: 95 (would round to 100 per rules, I always provide raw numbers for people who don't follow the rounding rule)
Reload: 1

By my calculations, the SMLE is recoil 4 and range 104, so the complaints of the evaluation board match up with the game stats.

[copeab]

Ian did a video on the Thorneycroft last year ;)

https://www.forgottenweapons.com/thorneycroft-a-victorian-bullpup-rifle-with-volley-sights/

[Legbreaker]

Ian did a video on the Thorneycroft last year ;)

https://www.forgottenweapons.com/thorneycroft-a-victorian-bullpup-rifle-with-volley-sights/
Yes, that video is in the article Vespers War linked to.

[Legbreaker]

One vehicle that I don't think we've mentioned before is the Bobcat APC.

Well actually, you mentioned it in pretty much your first post in this thread.
I think somebody likes the bobcat... ;)

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Well actually, you mentioned it in pretty much your first post in this thread.
I think somebody likes the bobcat... ;)

Did I? :confused:
Sheesh, I really have to get into the habit of re-reading the threads before I post a reply, as in 'read the entire thread' (or at least do a search). :o

Mine was the second post on this thread and I even included a pic. of the little beast!
And yes, I do like it a bit. I think the Canadians could have captured a large part of the market that the US M75, M59 and M113 vehicles dominated (although to be fair, the only other user besides the US for the M75 was Belgium so that partcular part of the market was never big).

[Vespers War]

Another one that I know Ian has done videos on in the past is the Volcanic pistol and carbine. In particular, the ones I have information for are the later ones produced by the New Haven Arms Company (the post-S&W one with B. Tyler Henry running the factory for Oliver Winchester). The firearms produced came in seven models, a pair of pistols firing Rocket Ball #1 (.31 caliber), and a pair of pistols and three carbines firing Rocket Ball #2 (.41 caliber).

The Rocket Ball was an early self-contained caseless cartridge, using a Burton ball with the cavity at the base filled with gunpowder and a percussion cap, sealed with a brass disc to keep out moisture. They were notably anemic due to the lack of space for powder. I don't have good information on the powder charges for these guns, but I calculated them at 4.5 grains of black powder for #1 and 8 grains for #2. I do have the prices for each of these late-1850s firearms and the ammunition. Weights are calculated per Fire, Fusion & Steel since technical data are somewhat hard to come by.

Pocket Pistol - Rocket Ball #1 (.31") - 0.64kg loaded weight, Ammo 6i. Dam 1, Pen Nil, Bulk 1, Recoil 2, Lever-Action, Range 7. $12.00

Target Pistol - Rocket Ball #1 (.31") - 0.80 kg loaded weight, Ammo 10i. Dam 1, Pen Nil, Bulk 1, Recoil 2, Lever-Action, Range 8. $13.50

Short Navy Pistol - Rocket Ball #2 (.41") - 0.91 kg loaded weight, Ammo 8i. Dam 1, Pen Nil, Bulk 1, Recoil 2, Lever-Action, Range 11. $18.00

Navy Pistol - Rocket Ball #2 (.41") - 1.07 kg loaded weight, Ammo 10i. Dam 1, Pen Nil, Bulk 1, Recoil 2, Lever-Action, Range 11. $18.00

Carbine (16" barrel) - Rocket Ball #2 (.41") - 3.01 kg loaded weight, Ammo 20i. Dam 1, Pen Nil, Bulk 5, Recoil 1, Lever-Action, Range 35. $30.00

Carbine (20" barrel) - Rocket Ball #2 (.41") - 3.33 kg loaded weight, Ammo 25i. Dam 1, Pen Nil, Bulk 6, Recoil 1, Lever-Action, Range 35. $35.00

Carbine (24" barrel) - Rocket Ball #2 (.41") - 3.66 kg loaded weight, Ammo 30i. Dam 1, Pen Nil, Bulk 7, Recoil 1, Lever-Action, Range 35. $40.00

Rocket Ball #1 - $10 per 1,000 rounds, 130 rounds per pound.
Rocket Ball #2 - $12 per 1,000 rounds, 66 rounds per pound.


Edit: on further thought, I'm not sure this is the best of anything, but it's a fascinating predecessor to the Henry and Winchester rifles.

[Draq]

https://youtu.be/vCNw9Z2Q3T0 ok folks the whole damn thing. The entire stoner system

[Vespers War]

I posted this in the Dark Conspiracy FB group, but it works just as well for this thread.

A space gun I didn't know about until today, the TOZ-81 "Mars." It never entered production, the TOZ-82/TP-82 being preferred. This one's interesting because it's a revolver that fires from the bottom of the cylinder, it's set up so the barrel and chamber combined are 33.6 of the gun's 35.5 centimeters of overall length, and the barrel can be swapped out to fire either 5.45x39mm or .410. It also has an over-barrel swiveling bayonet, which seems a bit over-the-top in more ways than one.

For purposes of calculating recoil, I used a mass of 1 kilogram since I couldn't find an actual mass. If it had entered production, my guess it it would have been issued with 10 rounds of each type of ammunition.

5.45x39mm: ROF DAR, Dam 2, Pen 1-Nil, Bulk 2, Mag 5R, SS 6, Rng 9
.410 (buck): ROF 3 (buckshot), Dam 1, Pen Nil, Bulk 2, Mag 5R, SS 6, Rng 8
Bayonet: Rng S, Hit Mod +2, Dam 1d6+(Str/2)

The bayonet is modified from the one in the core T2K v2.2 rules based on my interpretation of the guidance in FF&S regarding bayonets mounted on guns with Bulk less than 4.

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/02/27/toz-81-mars-russian-space-revolver/

[copeab]

Ian covered the XM-8 rifle system on today's Forgotten Weapons:

https://www.forgottenweapons.com/almost-adopted-the-hk-xm8-family/

[Vespers War]

Back in September, Ian took apart (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9bULArrKs4) the worst gun ever and then, for some mad reason, took it to the range (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3fd4goVs-4). This really isn't a best that never was, it's a worst that never should have been.

USFA Zip 22
Weight 0.43 kg
Ammo .22 LR
ROF SA, Dam 1, Pen Nil, Blk 1, Mag 10, SS 6, Rng 13

On a 17-19, the gun jams and requires 1/1d2/1d3 actions to unjam (for a 17, 18, or 19 respectively). On a 20, the gun jams so badly it must be disassembled to be reset. This is being generous.

Accessories for the gun include a belt clip, a hold-open lever for the bolt, and a top cover that replaces the iron sights with a Picatinny rail (in case you want to mount a red dot sight to your short-barreled low-bulk .22 pistol).

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I watched both those episodes and I think you're right... you are being generous.

:D
Back in September, Ian took apart (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9bULArrKs4) the worst gun ever and then, for some mad reason, took it to the range (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3fd4goVs-4). This really isn't a best that never was, it's a worst that never should have been.

USFA Zip 22
Weight 0.43 kg
Ammo .22 LR
ROF SA, Dam 1, Pen Nil, Blk 1, Mag 10, SS 6, Rng 13

On a 17-19, the gun jams and requires 1/1d2/1d3 actions to unjam (for a 17, 18, or 19 respectively). On a 20, the gun jams so badly it must be disassembled to be reset. This is being generous.

Accessories for the gun include a belt clip, a hold-open lever for the bolt, and a top cover that replaces the iron sights with a Picatinny rail (in case you want to mount a red dot sight to your short-barreled low-bulk .22 pistol).
I'm inclined to think that a roll of 14-17 should be a jam and 18-20 should be a jam requiring disassembly.

[Vespers War]

This time I'm bringing in a rather divisive firearm that did see military service with extremely mixed results during the US Civil War. Some units loved it, some hated it, and in the end the guns were sold for pennies on the dollar. I'm speaking, of course, of Colt's Model of 1855, the Root Revolving Rifle.

The gun had multiple calibers, but in military service was chambered in .56 with a 5-round cylinder, fired by percussion cap. The one held by Springfield Armory Museum has a 78.9 cm barrel and is 125 cm in total length.

Soldiers were afraid of the effects of chain fire. However, I'm aware of no reports of this happening with the rifle in service, and when Joseph Bilby tried to induce a chain fire, he was only able to do so by using poorly-fitted caps - even covering the face of the cylinder with powder would not cause chain fire because the bullets were slightly over-sized and swaged down to fit the chamber bore when rammed. They were used to fine effect by the 37th Illinois at Prairie Grove. They would spit lead fragments from the cylinder gap when fired, so it was recommended to place the off-hand under the trigger guard rather than on the forestock.

Colt M1855 Revolving Rifle
Wt 4.17 kg, SAR, Mag 5i, Dam 2, Pen Nil, Bulk 8, SS 2, Rng 83

Note that this is not a metallic cartridge revolver, and it should reload 1 round per action because it requires loading 45 grains of powder and the bullet, ramming, and capping. Thus, the Mag is 5i rather than 5R to reflect the slower loading.

[copeab]

On Christmas Day, Ian posted a half hour video on the G-11k2, the gun actually approved for issue to West German troops. You get a detailed view of how th thing operated.

https://www.forgottenweapons.com/kraut-space-magic-the-hk-g11/

[Legbreaker]

Watched that earlier today. Beautifully complex while oh so simple!
Such a shame it had to be dropped by the Germans - the world would all probably be using caseless rounds by now I'm guessing after nearly years of military service to iron out the last few problems.

[Vespers War]

The Panzermuseum got a new display last month, receiving the sole example of an experimental Leopard 1 with anti-radar and anti-IR systems. Director Ralf Raths describes it here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9r0Ssd2jR2U).

[StainlessSteelCynic]

The Panzermuseum got a new display last month, receiving the sole example of an experimental Leopard 1 with anti-radar and anti-IR systems. Director Ralf Raths describes it here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9r0Ssd2jR2U).

:)
Very happy that the Panzermuseum chose to present that tank in both German language and English language videos*

* for those who haven't checked out the Panzermuseum's youtube channel, they only started doing English language videos at the start of this year (or the end of last year).

[Vespers War]

:)
Very happy that the Panzermuseum chose to present that tank in both German language and English language videos*

* for those who haven't checked out the Panzermuseum's youtube channel, they only started doing English language videos at the start of this year (or the end of last year).

They announced they'd start doing them back in November or December, but AFAIK this was the first one (with the exception of a couple videos where English-language channels visited the Panzermuseum).

In theory, one can set up English subtitles (click CC, then click the gear, then Subtitles, then Autotranslate, then English), but Youtube is terrible at translating German to English. I've tried it with a couple videos, and it's bad.