Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
On 3/25/2018 at 8:46 AM, Bulletpoint said:

I'm not sure it's an AFV as such, at least it's not a tank. But I've come to like the Stummel a lot:

Schtzenpanzerwagen7.5cmKwK37b600x302.jpg

Unfortunately, they rarely get to shine in CM, because as soon as even just light tanks appear on the battlefield, it's curtains for these little devils.

SdKfz_251-9_Ausf_D_mit_7_5_cm_KwK_37_L24

Certainly an AFV. I have a soft spot for the Stummel, as well. 

sdkfz234-puma_6.jpg

3025_rd.jpg

Sd. Kfz. 234/3 and Sd. Kfz 250/8, respectively.

In my experience, if you have these babies over-watch infantry advances -- it'll blast any bugger that gets wise. I also like the HEAT round on these. It can defend itself against armour, if need be. I've had success using these guys to ambush tanks (T-70s) in close range. However, such tactics were used in utter desperation and lack of AT weapons.

Even the Panzer 3/StuG Stummel HEAT can be preferable to early German AT weapons -- if they can hit, of course.

Edited by DerKommissar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Earlier, I posted four of the original heavy tanks. Those were the dawn of the concept -- and here is the dusk.

800px-M103_heavy_tank.jpg

j9XvzNl.jpg

11229556104_e141d7b12a_b.jpg

M103, Conqueror and T-10m -- 59, 64 and 52 tons, respectively.

Made pretty useless by ATGMs and APSDFS -- and replaced by the lighter MBTs. Hailing from the era of manual loading, RHS-only, and coincidence rangefinders. I really hope we see a CM set in the 60s.

Interestingly enough, modern MBTs are around the same weight and generally sport the same diameter of cannon. Maybe the heavy tank is gone, but its memory lives on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, DerKommissar said:

Interestingly enough, modern MBTs are around the same weight and generally sport the same diameter of cannon. Maybe the heavy tank is gone, but its memory lives on.

If modern tanks are the same weight and have the same size cannon, then why are they not classified as heavy tanks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bulletpoint said:

If modern tanks are the same weight and have the same size cannon, then why are they not classified as heavy tanks?

Because "heavy tank" refers to a tank's intended doctrinal role, and not an arbitrary physical quality like weight?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Saint_Fuller said:

Because "heavy tank" refers to a tank's intended doctrinal role, and not an arbitrary physical quality like weight?

The way I understand it is that "heavy" is a way to distinguish it from medium and light tanks, and therefore a relative term. I think of it as weight classes in sports -- they are relative to their specific sport (country) and change with time. As light tanks became dedicated recon vehicles, the medium and the heavy merged into the main battle tank concept. As such, I think it is incorrect to equate medium tanks with MBTs and assume that modern MBTs don't fill the previous role of the heavy tank.

16 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Wouldn't the Soviet designs be classified as 'Breakthrough Tanks'? 

Russian Wikipedia entries seem to use the adjective "тяжёлый" which translates to heavy. Here's their entry on heavy tank , which seems to be relative to World War 2. Interestingly enough, the original role of the heavy tank was to support medium tanks with heavier guns to break fortifications and, only later, to battle tanks at long ranges and support mediums. They refer to the proposed T-14 variant with the 152mm to be a "heavy breakthrough tank."

What I find funky about the inter-war period is how the German and Soviet tank doctrines evolved from the cavalry/infantry tank roles to the light/medium/heavy tank roles. Which is no coincidence because their tank theorists trained together. The British, too, experimented with the light/medium/heavy concept, but never went anywhere. The Soviets, at the start of the war had light, medium, heavy, cavalry and infantry tanks, in service. Which tripped me out when I was making my force in WinSPWW2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The thing I find ironic is that Nazi Germany and the Soviets were allied, Germany did much of their clandestine military development on Soviet territory to avoid prying eyes (just look at their respective 1940 era light antitank guns.....They're the same weapon, at least until the Soviets stuck a 45mm on theirs).....Yet the Germans still had no clue whatsoever about the tanks that the Soviets were actually developing!  ;)

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing I find ironic is that Nazi Germany and the Soviets were in a non-aggression pact, Germany did much of their clandestine military development on Soviet territory to avoid prying eyes...yet the Soviets still had no clue whatsoever about Panzer tactics! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, DerKommissar said:

What I find funky about the inter-war period is how the German and Soviet tank doctrines evolved from the cavalry/infantry tank roles to the light/medium/heavy tank roles. Which is no coincidence because their tank theorists trained together. The British, too, experimented with the light/medium/heavy concept, but never went anywhere. The Soviets, at the start of the war had light, medium, heavy, cavalry and infantry tanks, in service. Which tripped me out when I was making my force in WinSPWW2.

I don't see how the Germans could have "evolved from the cavalry/infantry tank roles" when they never, afaik, subscribed to any such ideas about tanks in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Rinaldi said:

The thing I find ironic is that Nazi Germany and the Soviets were in a non-aggression pact, Germany did much of their clandestine military development on Soviet territory to avoid prying eyes...yet the Soviets still had no clue whatsoever about Panzer tactics! ;)

I think Stalin accidentally the officer corps.

27 minutes ago, Saint_Fuller said:

I don't see how the Germans could have "evolved from the cavalry/infantry tank roles" when they never, afaik, subscribed to any such ideas about tanks in the first place.

Prior to the Treaty of Versailles, the Germans tried to capture the successes of the British tanks. They built the A7V and later tried to develop a cavalry tank via Sweden (reverse engineered the whippet). However, in the context of 1930s Germany, I completely agree. I guess, calling the light tractor, "cavalry tractor", and the heavy tractor, "infantry tractor" -- would probably raise a few eyebrows. Could the origin of light/medium/heavy be the result of sneaky euphemisms? I doubt it, but it's fun to imagine.

Here's some British inter-war designs:

vickers-mkva-light-tank-3rd-kings-own-hu

vickers-armstrong-medium-tank.jpg

00000000000a.jpg

Vickers Light Mk. VI, Vickers Medium Mk. II and Vickers Medium Mk. III

The previously mentioned Independent being the heavy tank that would complete the trinity of light, medium and heavy. It also built by Vickers and could go 32 km/h, which was faster than the Matilda II -- let alone, infantry tanks at the time. According to Tank Encylcopedia, in 1926, Soviet spies captured the plans and even sold a copy to Germany. Speaking of which, is it just me, or does the Medium Mk. III look a lot like the T-28 medium?

t-28-russia.jpg

 Curious, isn't it? Considering Soviet light tanks also, famously, came from Vickers 6-ton Mark E Light tank (pictured below). 

300px-Vickers6ton_front.JPG

May I suggest that the Soviets copied their entire light/medium/heavy tank doctrine from the British and shared it with the Germans?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DerKommissar said:

What I find funky about the inter-war period... 

Can't really imagine James Brown singing.. "Make it funky, and gimme some German inter-war tank doctrine. Make it funky, and blow yer horn President Hindenburg." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Rinaldi said:

The thing I find ironic is that Nazi Germany and the Soviets were in a non-aggression pact, Germany did much of their clandestine military development on Soviet territory to avoid prying eyes...yet the Soviets still had no clue whatsoever about Panzer tactics! ;)

Touché!  :D

Perhaps they just had no clue how to counter them.....Certainly looked that way for a while (they were far from alone on that front).

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

The thing I find ironic is that Nazi Germany and the Soviets were allied, Germany did much of their clandestine military development on Soviet territory to avoid prying eyes (just look at their respective 1940 era light antitank guns.....They're the same weapon, at least until the Soviets stuck a 45mm on theirs).....Yet the Germans still had no clue whatsoever about the tanks that the Soviets were actually developing!  ;)

 

7 hours ago, Rinaldi said:

The thing I find ironic is that Nazi Germany and the Soviets were in a non-aggression pact, Germany did much of their clandestine military development on Soviet territory to avoid prying eyes...yet the Soviets still had no clue whatsoever about Panzer tactics! ;)

You think that they kept secrets from each other?!!  OMG!!! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 3/22/2018 at 12:31 PM, DerKommissar said:

Here's a thread to post pictures of your favourite IFVs, and explain why you like them! APCs, MBTs, IFVs, WW2, Cold War or current -- anything goes! This thread isn't necessarily about which vehicles are the best, but which ones you like -- and why you like them. Photos, videos, artwork, and models are all accepted!

This seemed wildly out of place to me, as in belongs on the GDF, not the CM GDF, but it's grown on me, despite the jarring "IFV only orientation," but that is the curse of the timed Edit lockout. Have been its victim on many an occasion! Frankly, though, I'm thrilled by loads of AFV photos I've never seen before and find this to be reminiscent of the ID the AFV feature on AFV News and something similar on AFV-G2.

Was going to zing Michael Emrys for being a Hurricane tankbuster cannon grog, but he must yield prode of place to Andy's astonishing LWS groggery. Having seen exactly one picture of the thing until now, I was blown away in. general, but when he got into LWS suspension types... 

Bulletpoint's "A Disquisition on the AFVness of the "Stummel" Halftrack Variant" was roughly akin to a Gibbs head chuck in its impact on me, for it was inconveivable that an armored vehicle which fights (shooting from it with a full-blown cannon would seem to qualify) would somehow not be an AFV! Ceretainly, there are some interesting cases on the margin, such as the unarmored SdKfz 7 which was fitted with an armored cab with materials salvaged, I believe, from a T-34 wreck and had a shield for a Flakvierling made from the carcass of a 251. And I'm certainly not willing to count an RSO with PAK 40 on it as an AFV, since it's not the structure of the vehicle which is armored. It's an FV, but no AFV.

Returning to the Stummel, while the cannon firing HE worked to considerable range, The Stummel is for i direct fire support, not direct fire engagements,  though I suppose given the right conditions you could. In CMBN, I've used a M8 HMC  as a tank in spitting range fights and lived to tell the tale, but I had favorable ground and used it to the uttermost to first suppress and then destroy some guns operating as ATGs. I've  read the Stummel's HEAT round was effectively useless beyond 400 meters because it was so light and looping in its trajectory it couldn't be fired accurately beyond that distance. Am not sure whether PzGr 39 was carried on these fire support AFVs by D-Day, if not earlier, and expect the load would've been HE and smoke.

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited by John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/23/2018 at 10:13 AM, Sgt.Squarehead said:


Leave it to mature for a while, in the presence of Australians, and it can even do this:

 

 

 

We learn from the necessities of our wildlife. Kill it with fire. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cent, Saladin and Ferret

5abcf6bc12234_CentSaladinFerret.jpg.0fa84986920b0ccccfe08bbda8501bfb.jpg

Images taken in Aden in the 1960s when there was a bit of bother there ... oh hang on, that's still going on. Unfortunately this chap is no longer with us - he would have fixed it:

5abcf6cbc0d3e_ColinMitchell.jpg.13339c5b7736cca2430fcb89265a0177.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Ithikial_AU said:

I don't know why but I've always had a soft spot for the Panzer III. And a Panther but only when I'm not facing them. :)

01_bovington_panzer_ausf_l_iii_by_wolfen

That's the Bovington one, isn't it? I have a love for the P. 3, as well. My favourite German tank. It was way ahead of its time with the 3-man turreted, and soon was adopted by the entire world. To this day, the concept has not changed. This is the grand daddy of the MBT concept. It is rightfully associated with the early German victories, a jack of all trades and the master of all. Even as its pre-war weapon became obsolete, its chassis was still the basis for the StuG -- a very successful design in its own right.

I have to admire the P. 3 for its practicality. The P. 4 was a good companion, but a make-shift replacement. I do not understand how the Panther got so many basic tank details wrong, after the P. 3's superb results. For all its glory, it still had thin side armour and shot-traps on the turret. What were they thinking with the interleaved suspension? Did the Germans specifically design vehicles to get stuck in the dirt?

Panzer_III_12_Panzer_Division_1941.jpg

3 hours ago, Combatintman said:

Cent, Saladin and Ferret

5abcf6bc12234_CentSaladinFerret.jpg.0fa84986920b0ccccfe08bbda8501bfb.jpg

Images taken in Aden in the 1960s when there was a bit of bother there ... oh hang on, that's still going on. Unfortunately this chap is no longer with us - he would have fixed it:

5abcf6cbc0d3e_ColinMitchell.jpg.13339c5b7736cca2430fcb89265a0177.jpg

I'm a Centurion fan-boy. The 3-inch armed wheeled vehicles have always been a curiosity. How effective is that concept, in reality?

12 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

This is the kind of thing I like.....A StuG with an identity crisis:

1305a1a79737c4066a22b7b31aaaf674.jpg

You ain't gonna build that one 'out of the box'!  :P

What IS that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

An Ausf C or D (there's no external differences) rebuilt with a long 75mm in a mid-late (no MG) saukopf mantlet from an Ausf G.  It may have some mods to the engine deck too.

Here's one for the Sherman experten:

M4_Sherman_88Flak_36.jpg

Is this a picture of the borderline mythical (only 100 built, most were used as DDs) M4A1 Big Hatch 75mm with dry stowage?  Or is it a hybrid?  It's definitely not an ex-DD tank and that's for sure.

10 minutes ago, DerKommissar said:

What were they thinking with the interleaved suspension?

In part it compensates for the rather thin armour under the sponsons.....Bugger if you run over a mine though.  ;)

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Flotation. MMP. All that. Getting more torsion bars per side, as well. Plus, it looks cool going over bumpy ground. Chicks dig that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Bovington Tank Museum's Pz.IV is a hybrid on par with the StuG above, it's one of the rebuilds (IIRC assigned to 21Pz. in Normandy):

bovington-tank-museum-panzer-iv-51261.jp

Coincidentally I believe this one's an Ausf D rebuilt with bits from a late(ish) Ausf G again.  ;)

Their 'Porsche' Kingtiger is odd too:

10961866.jpg

It was formerly used for training, so it appears never to have received zimmeritt and it lacks the guard collar around the turret ring that minimises the shot trap caused by the overhang (& Dr. Porsche being an ego-maniac).

Decent (modelling) thread on Bovvy's example, here: 

http://www.armorama.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=SquawkBox&file=index&req=viewtopic&topic_id=165449&page=1&ord=1

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

image.jpeg.bcb13e5db3319b1053734b99e37e3e6f.jpeg

For whatever reason the BMP-1 look appeals to me a lot.  But not as huge a fan of the way the BMP-2 and BMP-3 look.  

Image result for T-62

As for proper AFVs I like a lot of Soviet tanks in general.  I like the green color scheme they have a lot of the time and the way they look with and without reactive armor and other equipment on the tank.  T-55 and T-62 look the best of the major Soviet MBTs imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×