User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 9:01:35 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Same idea. What is it? The Rapid Deployment/Light Tank was developed by AAI Corporation to meet a specification requested by the US Army in 1980. The first RDF/LT shown in the brochure was fitted with a high velocity 76mm cannon similar to the one fitted to the M-41 Walker Bulldog. The nexts version was fitted with an AAI developed cannon that fired caseless telescoping 75mm rounds that could be fired in burst and had an extreme elevation for engaging slow moving aircraft or helicopters. AAI claimed that 75mm cannon could defeat modern main battle tanks by hitting them with a five round burst in the same area of the armor. Three versions of the RDF/LT with the ultra modern full auto 75mm cannon were developed. The first two color photo shows the first model. It had a crew of three with one in the hull and two in the turret. The second version had only a crew of two with both in the hull and the turret unmanned. The last version was a combined antiarmor and antiair fitted with two pods that carried four Stinger missiles each. The RDF/LT was never seriously considered by the US Army because they wanted any so called "light tank" to mount the same cannon as was fitted to most modern main battle tanks. http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product4488.html Although externally these two look very similar they are in fact two different tanks. The top one is the HSTV-L and the bottom one is the RDF-LT. The major differences being the speed of the HSTV-L was significantly higher than the RDF-LT. The turret configuration is also different, and the HSTV-L suspension used Sheridan track and roadwheels whereas the RDF-LT used M-113 components. Also while on the topic of light tanks I always thought the Teledyne AGS (not to be confused with the M-8 AGS) was pretty cool. Checkout the low ass profile. It had nearly the same turret as our now fielded MGS but many years prior. It used a HEMITT engine and M-109 suspension components. They also had a concept of a 6 roadwheeled 120mm armed configuration as well, but that was only on paper. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 9:08:18 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Agreed - but the idea of using an air droppable light vehicle to carry the heavy motars (and other weapons) to the fight - then dismount and use them (when not in direct line of fire). You guys don't air drop trucks for the troops to ride in do you? (I honestly don't know - I was aviation not 11 series) Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
That's a parade. The M274 was not capable of havng a 107mm / 120mm mortar fired from it. Maybe a 60mm once or twice - but it would have been inoperable quick. Mortars settle their baseplates 2-3 inches in HAR packed dirt when fired. A mortar carrier has to be designed for that and the mortar is in a recoil dampening mount. Agreed - but the idea of using an air droppable light vehicle to carry the heavy motars (and other weapons) to the fight - then dismount and use them (when not in direct line of fire). You guys don't air drop trucks for the troops to ride in do you? (I honestly don't know - I was aviation not 11 series) 60s are dropped on people, 81s in door bundles or secondary loads on platforms, and 120s with a truck. We drop all sorts of vehicles and weapons systems out the back of planes, anywhere from HMMWVs to bulldozers to 105 and 155 howitzers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 9:13:05 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
60s are dropped on people, 81s in door bundles or secondary loads on platforms, and 120s with a truck. We drop all sorts of vehicles and weapons systems out the back of planes, anywhere from HMMWVs to bulldozers to 105 and 155 howitzers. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That's a parade. The M274 was not capable of havng a 107mm / 120mm mortar fired from it. Maybe a 60mm once or twice - but it would have been inoperable quick. Mortars settle their baseplates 2-3 inches in HAR packed dirt when fired. A mortar carrier has to be designed for that and the mortar is in a recoil dampening mount. Agreed - but the idea of using an air droppable light vehicle to carry the heavy motars (and other weapons) to the fight - then dismount and use them (when not in direct line of fire). You guys don't air drop trucks for the troops to ride in do you? (I honestly don't know - I was aviation not 11 series) 60s are dropped on people, 81s in door bundles or secondary loads on platforms, and 120s with a truck. We drop all sorts of vehicles and weapons systems out the back of planes, anywhere from HMMWVs to bulldozers to 105 and 155 howitzers. I've heard of the small vehicles (mules, jeeps, and even bulldozers being dropped). I guess I'm asking if trucks are dropped so the airborne don't have to carry the heavy weapons while walking from the LZ. I was always under the impression once the troops hit the ground their boots provided for their transportation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 9:16:11 AM EDT
[#4]
Do they still do LAPES?
Quote HistoryQuoted:
60s are dropped on people, 81s in door bundles or secondary loads on platforms, and 120s with a truck. We drop all sorts of vehicles and weapons systems out the back of planes, anywhere from HMMWVs to bulldozers to 105 and 155 howitzers. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That's a parade. The M274 was not capable of havng a 107mm / 120mm mortar fired from it. Maybe a 60mm once or twice - but it would have been inoperable quick. Mortars settle their baseplates 2-3 inches in HAR packed dirt when fired. A mortar carrier has to be designed for that and the mortar is in a recoil dampening mount. Agreed - but the idea of using an air droppable light vehicle to carry the heavy motars (and other weapons) to the fight - then dismount and use them (when not in direct line of fire). You guys don't air drop trucks for the troops to ride in do you? (I honestly don't know - I was aviation not 11 series) 60s are dropped on people, 81s in door bundles or secondary loads on platforms, and 120s with a truck. We drop all sorts of vehicles and weapons systems out the back of planes, anywhere from HMMWVs to bulldozers to 105 and 155 howitzers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 9:17:27 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I've heard of the small vehicles (mules, jeeps, and even bulldozers being dropped). I guess I'm asking if trucks are dropped so the airborne don't have to carry the heavy weapons while walking from the LZ. I was always under the impression once the troops hit the ground their boots provided for their transportation. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That's a parade. The M274 was not capable of havng a 107mm / 120mm mortar fired from it. Maybe a 60mm once or twice - but it would have been inoperable quick. Mortars settle their baseplates 2-3 inches in HAR packed dirt when fired. A mortar carrier has to be designed for that and the mortar is in a recoil dampening mount. Agreed - but the idea of using an air droppable light vehicle to carry the heavy motars (and other weapons) to the fight - then dismount and use them (when not in direct line of fire). You guys don't air drop trucks for the troops to ride in do you? (I honestly don't know - I was aviation not 11 series) 60s are dropped on people, 81s in door bundles or secondary loads on platforms, and 120s with a truck. We drop all sorts of vehicles and weapons systems out the back of planes, anywhere from HMMWVs to bulldozers to 105 and 155 howitzers. I've heard of the small vehicles (mules, jeeps, and even bulldozers being dropped). I guess I'm asking if trucks are dropped so the airborne don't have to carry the heavy weapons while walking from the LZ. I was always under the impression once the troops hit the ground their boots provided for their transportation. They do, but the main purpose of forcible entry is to seize/expand the airhead in order to allow follow on forces to arrive. You're not really moving anywhere for awhile. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 9:18:18 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do they still do LAPES? I think they stopped after they drove a C130 into the trees at the end of Sicily's FLS. ETA: 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 9:18:23 AM EDT
[#7]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 9:20:31 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryI'll admit I hit up youtube and found that earlier, along with the C5 drop of 4 of them. 
Growing up at Bragg, I kind of miss the buggers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 9:22:26 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'll admit I hit up youtube and found that earlier, along with the C5 drop of 4 of them.
Growing up at Bragg, I kind of miss the buggers. Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'll admit I hit up youtube and found that earlier, along with the C5 drop of 4 of them.
Growing up at Bragg, I kind of miss the buggers.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 9:25:40 AM EDT
[#10]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 9:46:41 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They do, but the main purpose of forcible entry is to seize/expand the airhead in order to allow follow on forces to arrive. You're not really moving anywhere for awhile. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That's a parade. The M274 was not capable of havng a 107mm / 120mm mortar fired from it. Maybe a 60mm once or twice - but it would have been inoperable quick. Mortars settle their baseplates 2-3 inches in HAR packed dirt when fired. A mortar carrier has to be designed for that and the mortar is in a recoil dampening mount. Agreed - but the idea of using an air droppable light vehicle to carry the heavy motars (and other weapons) to the fight - then dismount and use them (when not in direct line of fire). You guys don't air drop trucks for the troops to ride in do you? (I honestly don't know - I was aviation not 11 series) 60s are dropped on people, 81s in door bundles or secondary loads on platforms, and 120s with a truck. We drop all sorts of vehicles and weapons systems out the back of planes, anywhere from HMMWVs to bulldozers to 105 and 155 howitzers. I've heard of the small vehicles (mules, jeeps, and even bulldozers being dropped). I guess I'm asking if trucks are dropped so the airborne don't have to carry the heavy weapons while walking from the LZ. I was always under the impression once the troops hit the ground their boots provided for their transportation. They do, but the main purpose of forcible entry is to seize/expand the airhead in order to allow follow on forces to arrive. You're not really moving anywhere for awhile. Thanks! |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 10:01:59 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistorySo what's your job in the army? I'm an airborne fucking tank crewman 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 10:04:48 AM EDT
[#13]
Why not gators to carry shit and drones that can carry 2-6 anti-tank missiles with folding wings so it's c-130 compliant?
No armor needed |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 10:06:13 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So what's your job in the army? I'm an airborne fucking tank crewman Quote HistoryQuoted:
So what's your job in the army? I'm an airborne fucking tank crewman
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 10:08:09 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:A 100mm low velocity main gun. It fires only missiles or explosive shells, not KE rounds.
It's an APC, but only carries a 4 or 5 guys. It has much the same limitations as the 73mm on the BMP-1. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 10:13:46 AM EDT
[#16]
Could a UTV/Mule type vehicle tow/carry a gun big enough (and enough ammo) to be worth having around?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 10:16:12 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Could a UTV/Mule type vehicle tow/carry a gun big enough (and enough ammo) to be worth having around? We already have plenty of trucks and weapons systems on the ground. No need to reinvent the wheel there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 10:33:26 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think they stopped after they drove a C130 into the trees at the end of Sicily's FLS. ETA:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4L50eMI8gYQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Do they still do LAPES? I think they stopped after they drove a C130 into the trees at the end of Sicily's FLS. ETA: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4L50eMI8gYThe Sicily incident didn't keep them from doing more LAPES missions. I worked a few in Germany a couple of years after the NC crash. For all you guys that spent time in Germany, Bunker DZ on Grafenwoehr Training Area. It's interesting to see a LAPES mission up close and personal at ground level. ETA: Hopefully my memory isn't too far off...it was in the 80s, I was young and stationed in Germany.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 10:41:48 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We already have plenty of trucks and weapons systems on the ground. No need to reinvent the wheel there. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Could a UTV/Mule type vehicle tow/carry a gun big enough (and enough ammo) to be worth having around? We already have plenty of trucks and weapons systems on the ground. No need to reinvent the wheel there. Point taken... but this whole exercise seem to be reinventing the wheel... turning airborne forces into mechanized infantry... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 10:44:39 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Getting rid of the M551 Sheridan was a smart move it was always a booger. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Getting rid of them was silly to begin with. But i wonder what kind of hell the procurement and development for a new light tank will be like .Getting rid of the M551 Sheridan was a smart move it was always a booger. We used to turn the fans on when the 11Bs came walking by and complain about the A/C being too cold. More than a few fell for it. Seeing a Sheridan burn in on a drop was a sight to see - they'd bury themselves four feet into the ground. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 10:57:26 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Sicily incident didn't keep them from doing more LAPES missions. I worked a few in Germany a couple of years after the NC crash. For all you guys that spent time in Germany, Bunker DZ on Grafenwoehr Training Area. It's interesting to see a LAPES mission up close and personal at ground level. ETA: Hopefully my memory isn't too far off...it was in the 80s, I was young and stationed in Germany. As a side note, the C-17 was designed with a LAPES capability, but later the USAF decided it wasn't going to perform the mission. Would be pretty cool, seeing one of those boogers coming in just a few feet off the deck and dumping war weapons out the back. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 10:59:37 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
An up armored Bradley wont fill this roll?? I though that I read that Brads were taking out Iraqi tanks in GW1. This is going to be a trillion dollar black hole.  Brads were credited with destroying more Iraqi armor than the M1's. My old squadron (I had just PCS'd a couple of months before they deployed) ran head on into the Republican Guard and fought it out (4/7 Cav). Several Bradleys were damaged with about a dozen wounded. Unfortunately the only deaths were from friendly fire when the M1's caught up near the end and put a Sabot round through a turret killing the TC and gunner. (SSG Gentry and Sgt Kuhns) IIRC 21 Bradleys were destroyed in GW1. Only two or three were from enemy fire, the rest were from friendly fire. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 11:00:46 AM EDT
[#23]
Me too. Wonder if we can get together on a group buy?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 11:06:11 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So what's your job in the army? I'm an airborne fucking tank crewman Quote HistoryQuoted:
So what's your job in the army? I'm an airborne fucking tank crewman Sheridans in the 82nd were manned by Cavalry Scouts. Scouts don't take being called tankers kindly. Goddamn DATs! (****Dumb Ass Tankers)
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 11:13:02 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sheridans in the 82nd were manned by Cavalry Scouts. Scouts don't take being called tankers kindly. Goddamn DATs! (****Dumb Ass Tankers) Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So what's your job in the army? I'm an airborne fucking tank crewman Sheridans in the 82nd were manned by Cavalry Scouts. Scouts don't take being called tankers kindly. Goddamn DATs! (****Dumb Ass Tankers) Ren & Stimpy became Airborne tankers in one episode.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 11:22:22 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Point taken... but this whole exercise seem to be reinventing the wheel... turning airborne forces into mechanized infantry... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Could a UTV/Mule type vehicle tow/carry a gun big enough (and enough ammo) to be worth having around? We already have plenty of trucks and weapons systems on the ground. No need to reinvent the wheel there. Point taken... but this whole exercise seem to be reinventing the wheel... turning airborne forces into mechanized infantry... No it's not. It is providing a mobile, lightly armored, heavy weapons system for the niche mission of joint forcible entry. Useful for all sorts of things such mobile support by fire position, take out barricade/bunkers, and better defend against an attack while they wait for follow on forces. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 11:25:36 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A 100mm low velocity main gun. It fires only missiles or explosive shells, not KE rounds. It's an APC, but only carries a 4 or 5 guys. I would rather have a missile system and a coax than a main gun capable of firing KE. Missiles can take down armor as well as being explosive and able to work against other targets. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 11:31:14 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No it's not. It is providing a mobile, lightly armored, heavy weapons system for the niche mission of joint forcible entry. Useful for all sorts of things such mobile support by fire position, take out barricade/bunkers, and better defend against an attack while they wait for follow on forces. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Could a UTV/Mule type vehicle tow/carry a gun big enough (and enough ammo) to be worth having around? We already have plenty of trucks and weapons systems on the ground. No need to reinvent the wheel there. Point taken... but this whole exercise seem to be reinventing the wheel... turning airborne forces into mechanized infantry... No it's not. It is providing a mobile, lightly armored, heavy weapons system for the niche mission of joint forcible entry. Useful for all sorts of things such mobile support by fire position, take out barricade/bunkers, and better defend against an attack while they wait for follow on forces. They did a great job clearing Noriega's Commandancia during the Panama Invasion. One window at a time.......... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 11:32:44 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ren & Stimpy became Airborne tankers in one episode. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So what's your job in the army? I'm an airborne fucking tank crewman Sheridans in the 82nd were manned by Cavalry Scouts. Scouts don't take being called tankers kindly. Goddamn DATs! (****Dumb Ass Tankers) Ren & Stimpy became Airborne tankers in one episode. I saw that one. Ren and Stimpy rocked........ "You sick little monkey......." |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 11:35:14 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I would rather have a missile system and a coax than a main gun capable of firing KE. Missiles can take down armor as well as being explosive and able to work against other targets. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
A 100mm low velocity main gun. It fires only missiles or explosive shells, not KE rounds. It's an APC, but only carries a 4 or 5 guys. I would rather have a missile system and a coax than a main gun capable of firing KE. Missiles can take down armor as well as being explosive and able to work against other targets. We actually screwed around with that recently with an infantry company(A 511 PIR) testing it out before it was cancelled in 2005ish. Oddly enough they were assigned to XVIII ABN Corps Arty  .
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 12:03:22 PM EDT
[#31]
The Russians boot BMDs out with the crew in them. I saw a clip of it once taken from onboard and external cameras.
I'm giving that a Lana Kane " nooooooope" |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 12:06:33 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Russians boot BMDs out with the crew in them. I saw a clip of it once taken from onboard and external cameras. " 
After watching the Sheridans come down in the video I can't imagine what it would be like to be inside something like that. I |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 12:13:32 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I would rather have a missile system and a coax than a main gun capable of firing KE. Missiles can take down armor as well as being explosive and able to work against other targets. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
A 100mm low velocity main gun. It fires only missiles or explosive shells, not KE rounds. It's an APC, but only carries a 4 or 5 guys. I would rather have a missile system and a coax than a main gun capable of firing KE. Missiles can take down armor as well as being explosive and able to work against other targets. I wasn't saying it was bad, just trying to point out that it wasn't quite comparable to something like the 105mm M68 which fires KE rounds. And HEAT. And at least two kinds of HE. And cannister. And missiles too. ETA: forgot about White Phosphorous. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 12:18:11 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Russians boot BMDs out with the crew in them. I saw a clip of it once taken from onboard and external cameras. I'm giving that a Lana Kane " nooooooope" How do you say "fuck this noise!" in Russian? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 12:19:40 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As a side note, the C-17 was designed with a LAPES capability, but later the USAF decided it wasn't going to perform the mission. Would be pretty cool, seeing one of those boogers coming in just a few feet off the deck and dumping war weapons out the back. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The Sicily incident didn't keep them from doing more LAPES missions. I worked a few in Germany a couple of years after the NC crash. For all you guys that spent time in Germany, Bunker DZ on Grafenwoehr Training Area. It's interesting to see a LAPES mission up close and personal at ground level. ETA: Hopefully my memory isn't too far off...it was in the 80s, I was young and stationed in Germany. As a side note, the C-17 was designed with a LAPES capability, but later the USAF decided it wasn't going to perform the mission. Would be pretty cool, seeing one of those boogers coming in just a few feet off the deck and dumping war weapons out the back. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 12:21:19 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I wasn't saying it was bad, just trying to point out that it wasn't quite comparable to something like the 105mm M68 which fires KE rounds. And HEAT. And at least two kinds of HE. And cannister. And missiles too. ETA: forgot about White Phosphorous. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
A 100mm low velocity main gun. It fires only missiles or explosive shells, not KE rounds. It's an APC, but only carries a 4 or 5 guys. I would rather have a missile system and a coax than a main gun capable of firing KE. Missiles can take down armor as well as being explosive and able to work against other targets. I wasn't saying it was bad, just trying to point out that it wasn't quite comparable to something like the 105mm M68 which fires KE rounds. And HEAT. And at least two kinds of HE. And cannister. And missiles too. ETA: forgot about White Phosphorous. They have a version called the Sprut armed with a 125mm gun. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 12:22:38 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I saw that one. Ren and Stimpy rocked........ "You sick little monkey......." They're on Amazon Prime instant watch if you have the hookup. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 12:27:01 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So what's your job in the army? I'm an airborne fucking tank crewman Quote HistoryQuoted:
So what's your job in the army? I'm an airborne fucking tank crewman That sorta like being an in-flight missile mechanic? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 12:35:11 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They have a version called the Sprut armed with a 125mm gun. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
A 100mm low velocity main gun. It fires only missiles or explosive shells, not KE rounds. It's an APC, but only carries a 4 or 5 guys. I would rather have a missile system and a coax than a main gun capable of firing KE. Missiles can take down armor as well as being explosive and able to work against other targets. I wasn't saying it was bad, just trying to point out that it wasn't quite comparable to something like the 105mm M68 which fires KE rounds. And HEAT. And at least two kinds of HE. And cannister. And missiles too. ETA: forgot about White Phosphorous. They have a version called the Sprut armed with a 125mm gun. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Yup, Sprut-SD. It uses the same ammunition as the 125mm on the T-64/72/80/90etc so it's kind of an airborne amphibious tank destroyer. I guess the only problem with it is that it's got the combination of thin armor, combustible case ammunition, and a T-72 style auto loader...................................... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 12:42:40 PM EDT
[#40]
A Sheridan with a dozer blade and the 165mm Gun from the old M728 CEV would be neat.
Just because. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 12:53:30 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So what's your job in the army? I'm an airborne fucking tank crewman http://youtu.be/1tQQyXUZDmoI was thinking of this when the Sheridan was mentioned. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 1:09:05 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It has much the same limitations as the 73mm on the BMP-1. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:A 100mm low velocity main gun. It fires only missiles or explosive shells, not KE rounds.
It's an APC, but only carries a 4 or 5 guys. It has much the same limitations as the 73mm on the BMP-1. Low Velocity guns? That worked well with the Sherman! |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 2:19:49 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Can you retro fit a large bore onto an MRAP? I hear they are free. DHS is already doing T&E for a large bore solution on the MRAP  |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 2:23:35 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Or... how about a semi-autonomous driver-optional robotic Gator ATV with a pile of mortar rounds, Javelins, and precision-guided goodies on the bed. Make a pure cargo version, a light engineering version (for quicker entrenchment in difficult terrain and basic obstacle clearing/road construction), and a light armored version (rated for small arms fire and maybe the RPG-7 and light fragmentation type grenades/IEDs if it can be done without too much weight). Done. That would provide the necessary firepower, be more mobile, be harder to find (and thus knock out), and be more versatile. You could probably deliver them with many more platforms including Ospreys or helos, as well as fixed wing, which let you get closer to the objective despite air defenses. You could probably mass a ton of small, light, unmanned "mules" or gators instead of delivering a handful of vulnerable light armored vehicles. Something like this thing: Unmanned Mule Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Why in gods name are we still hung up on the C130 requirement? God forbid I give any credence to Sparky, but I do think that a large mobile gun can be of use to the infantry in LIC, not for anti-tank combat, but for the reduction of obstacles to the infantry.....like bunkers, machine guns etc. Or... how about a semi-autonomous driver-optional robotic Gator ATV with a pile of mortar rounds, Javelins, and precision-guided goodies on the bed. Make a pure cargo version, a light engineering version (for quicker entrenchment in difficult terrain and basic obstacle clearing/road construction), and a light armored version (rated for small arms fire and maybe the RPG-7 and light fragmentation type grenades/IEDs if it can be done without too much weight). Done. That would provide the necessary firepower, be more mobile, be harder to find (and thus knock out), and be more versatile. You could probably deliver them with many more platforms including Ospreys or helos, as well as fixed wing, which let you get closer to the objective despite air defenses. You could probably mass a ton of small, light, unmanned "mules" or gators instead of delivering a handful of vulnerable light armored vehicles. Something like this thing: Unmanned Mule |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 2:25:25 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Low Velocity guns? That worked well with the Sherman! Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted:A 100mm low velocity main gun. It fires only missiles or explosive shells, not KE rounds. It's an APC, but only carries a 4 or 5 guys. It has much the same limitations as the 73mm on the BMP-1. Low Velocity guns? That worked well with the Sherman! ETA- That's before you get into the hard data that came from WW2 showing the Sherman actually being a battlefield rape machine. But, if you base everything off "fields of armor" on the old history channel and only think of Sherman's as roman candles then yes, it didn't work well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 2:26:13 PM EDT
[#46]
This is a cool subject matter, but it is out of my lane.
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 2:53:24 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Low Velocity guns? That worked well with the Sherman! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:A 100mm low velocity main gun. It fires only missiles or explosive shells, not KE rounds.
It's an APC, but only carries a 4 or 5 guys. It has much the same limitations as the 73mm on the BMP-1. Low Velocity guns? That worked well with the Sherman! More of a hot-rodded recoilless rifle that can launch a guided missile. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 3:11:50 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Doesn't take much velocity for Infantry support. ETA- That's before you get into the hard data that came from WW2 showing the Sherman actually being a battlefield rape machine. A But, if you base everything off "fields of armor" on the old history channel and only think of Sherman's as roman candles then yes, it didn't work well. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:A 100mm low velocity main gun. It fires only missiles or explosive shells, not KE rounds.
It's an APC, but only carries a 4 or 5 guys. It has much the same limitations as the 73mm on the BMP-1. Low Velocity guns? That worked well with the Sherman! ETA- That's before you get into the hard data that came from WW2 showing the Sherman actually being a battlefield rape machine. A But, if you base everything off "fields of armor" on the old history channel and only think of Sherman's as roman candles then yes, it didn't work well. Agreed, the BMP gun was designed with that in mind. Taking out fortified positions etc. not taking out armor. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 3:14:31 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Doesn't take much velocity for Infantry support. ETA- That's before you get into the hard data that came from WW2 showing the Sherman actually being a battlefield rape machine. But, if you base everything off "fields of armor" on the old history channel and only think of Sherman's as roman candles then yes, it didn't work well. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted:A 100mm low velocity main gun. It fires only missiles or explosive shells, not KE rounds. It's an APC, but only carries a 4 or 5 guys. It has much the same limitations as the 73mm on the BMP-1. Low Velocity guns? That worked well with the Sherman! ETA- That's before you get into the hard data that came from WW2 showing the Sherman actually being a battlefield rape machine. But, if you base everything off "fields of armor" on the old history channel and only think of Sherman's as roman candles then yes, it didn't work well. Couldn't ya just sabot the ammunition? I bet a 75mm gun with a DU sabot could fuck up a T-72. This is all complete theory on my part though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 4:06:32 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryBack in late 90's there were 2-3 of these at Ft. Polk |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
