Jarmo Posted August 5, 2000 Share Posted August 5, 2000 Was there a suddden need for even more feeble and incompetent tank than Sherman? What was it for? Why not do something better? ------------------ Now, would this brilliant plan involve us climbing out of our trenches and walking slowly towards the enemy sir? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy A Posted August 5, 2000 Share Posted August 5, 2000 The M24 Light tank (Chaffee) was designed because the U.S Army saw a need for a recce vehicle with a bigger punch(75mm) than their existing Light tank,the M5 Stuart(37mm). ------------------ "They don't like it up em,Captain Mainwareing!" [This message has been edited by Andy A (edited 08-05-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mace Posted August 6, 2000 Share Posted August 6, 2000 Recon AFVs are generally a lot smaller than the MBT equivalent. Their role is to locate, or fix the enemy, while trying not to be spotted themselves. Mace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patboivin Posted August 6, 2000 Share Posted August 6, 2000 Recce armour is designed for speed, and designed to be destroyed. Doesn't the m2 Bradley have armour made out of some aluminum alloy?! Sheesh. Please correct ome on this one, say it isn't so... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KeyserSoze Posted August 6, 2000 Share Posted August 6, 2000 They carry soldiers in the Bradley, it's an apc =( and yes it is made of aluminum... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mace Posted August 6, 2000 Share Posted August 6, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by patboivin: Recce armour is designed for speed, and designed to be destroyed. Doesn't the m2 Bradley have armour made out of some aluminum alloy?! Sheesh. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Isn't the recon version the M3? Mace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mirage2k Posted August 6, 2000 Share Posted August 6, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Isn't the recon version the M3?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes. The M2 Bradley is an aluminum-armored IFV is designed to carry an infantry squad and their gear, personal weapons, etc. IIRC, The M3 version has an extra crew member and carries extra TOW rounds and more sophisticated communications equipment, while giving up some passenger room. -Andrew ------------------ Throw me a frickin' smiley, people! Your one-stop-shop for gaming news is www.SiegersPost.com ! Hit it! [This message has been edited by Mirage2k (edited 08-05-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bullethead Posted August 6, 2000 Share Posted August 6, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Was there a suddden need for even more feeble and incompetent tank than Sherman?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeah. Production of the M3/M5 series ended in 1944, so they were getting pretty much used up before the war ended. Hence the need for another target... er, recon vehicle ------------------ -Bullethead It was a common custom at that time, in the more romantic females, to see their soldier husbands and sweethearts as Greek heroes, instead of the whoremongering, drunken clowns most of them were. However, the Greek heroes were probably no better, so it was not so far off the mark--Flashman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Formerly Babra Posted August 6, 2000 Share Posted August 6, 2000 Oh yeah -- that 2cm armed Lynx is MUCH more useful than the piddly 75mm armed Chaffee... (I'm kiddin'. Y'all know I'm kiddin', right?) ------------------ It's a mother-beautiful bridge and it's gonna be THERE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatAWilson Posted August 6, 2000 Share Posted August 6, 2000 The Chaffee's 75mm gave it the ability to pop some infantry that just wasn't available in the Stuart. Not a bad thing in a recce tank. The Stuart probably had to bug as soon as it encountered two guys in a building for fear that one of them might have a potato masher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest grunto Posted August 6, 2000 Share Posted August 6, 2000 The built the Chaffee because, "Speed Kills." Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freyland Posted August 6, 2000 Share Posted August 6, 2000 Actually the Chaffee is not much faster than the lighter Shermans (<5 mph faster, I believe). However, I love the tank because they are relatively cheap (~ half the cost of a sherman), and very potent tank-killers, as well as having 3 MG's. However, if you really want a "speed killer", get a Hellcat. 76mm gun with a speed of 55mph, and they cost only 16pts more than the Chaffee. The main advantage the Chaffee has over both the Hellcat and the Sherman is, however, that it is much less likely to bog because of its lightness. Enjoy Jonathan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freyland Posted August 6, 2000 Share Posted August 6, 2000 Oh, please note that all three tanks have very similar ground pressures, which in CM is what is supposed to primarily determine risk of bogging. However, the sherman seems to me to bog more than the other two. Antecdotal, I know Jonathan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patboivin Posted August 6, 2000 Share Posted August 6, 2000 Aluminum armour. What will they use next? Butter? Maybe papier mâché, or just plain paper like those WW-I biplanes... Do they paint them bright red too, so everyone can see them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mirage2k Posted August 6, 2000 Share Posted August 6, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Aluminum armour. What will they use next? Butter?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually they've used aluminum compounds as armor for some time, mainly when mobility is an important factor. Like on APCs and IFVs. -Andrew ------------------ Throw me a frickin' smiley, people! Your one-stop-shop for gaming news is www.SiegersPost.com ! Hit it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark IV Posted August 6, 2000 Share Posted August 6, 2000 The Bradley is only intended to protect occupants from shrapnel and light small arms fire. It was not designed to deflect main gun rounds and direct artillery hits. Being "multi-purpose" it may encounter heavier guns, but that was never its intended role. It's just a lightly armored transport for infantry to a (modern) fluid front. Check out the "I" in IFV. If you put it in front of ATGMs and tanks, you're the idiot, not the designers. Whaddya want, a 60-ton high-speed troop transport? Fries with that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Formerly Babra Posted August 6, 2000 Share Posted August 6, 2000 The M113 (and presumably the Bradley) used aluminium to make them airmobile. Hate the damn things. ------------------ It's a mother-beautiful bridge and it's gonna be THERE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMC Posted August 6, 2000 Share Posted August 6, 2000 The Chaffee is a great tank. It is fast and with the gyro can do pretty good shooting on the move. In the Elsdorf scenaro, I had one kill a Tiger while moving and on thelast turn of the game take out the Kingtiger with a side turret shot. It is a hit an run tank not meant to stand toe to toe with Über panzers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
von Lucke Posted August 6, 2000 Share Posted August 6, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jarmo: What was it for? Why not do something better?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> First off, the Chaffee was designed to replace the M5 Stuart, and not as an MBT. Built by Cadillac, with a smooth suspension, powerful engine, well-sloped armor, and a 75mm main gun (the M6 was developed from an AA gun, and completely different from the M3 used in the Shermans), the M24 was possibly the best light tank of WWII. There where several variants built, mounting everything from twin 40mm Bofors, to 155mm howitzers. The M24 continued to serve with distinction in Korea and Viet-Nam (with the French), and a heavily modified version mounting a 90mm gun is still in use by the Taiwanese. So, to answer your question, there was nothing better --- assuming you use it as it was intended (much as the M2 Bradley, I might add). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vyper Posted August 6, 2000 Share Posted August 6, 2000 And by all accounts, the crews that took the Chaffee into combat loved it. I've never come across a negative comment about the M24. Anyone else have varying information? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Formerly Babra Posted August 6, 2000 Share Posted August 6, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RMC: The Chaffee is a great tank. It is fast and with the gyro can do pretty good shooting on the move. In the _____ scenaro, I had one kill a Tiger while moving and on thelast turn of the game take out the Kingtiger with a side turret shot. It is a hit an run tank not meant to stand toe to toe with Über panzers.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Way to spoil, RMC! ------------------ It's a mother-beautiful bridge and it's gonna be THERE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PzKpfw 1 Posted August 6, 2000 Share Posted August 6, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vyper: And by all accounts, the crews that took the Chaffee into combat loved it. I've never come across a negative comment about the M24. Anyone else have varying information?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Only vs NKPA T-34-85's . Regards, John Waters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Aitken Posted August 6, 2000 Share Posted August 6, 2000 Vyper wrote: > I've never come across a negative comment about the M24. The M24 sucks! There, you got one now. =) David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panic Posted August 6, 2000 Share Posted August 6, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV: The Bradley is only intended to protect occupants from shrapnel and light small arms fire. It was not designed to deflect main gun rounds and direct artillery hits. Being "multi-purpose" it may encounter heavier guns, but that was never its intended role. It's just a lightly armored transport for infantry to a (modern) fluid front. Check out the "I" in IFV. If you put it in front of ATGMs and tanks, you're the idiot, not the designers. Whaddya want, a 60-ton high-speed troop transport? Fries with that?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, yeah - a Merkava. Seems to work alright for the Israelis... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CommanderC Posted August 6, 2000 Share Posted August 6, 2000 "The Bradley is only intended to protect occupants from shrapnel and light small arms fire. It was not designed to deflect main gun rounds and direct artillery hits. Being "multi-purpose" it may encounter heavier guns, but that was never its intended role. It's just a lightly armored transport for infantry to a (modern) fluid front. Check out the "I" in IFV. If you put it in front of ATGMs and tanks, you're the idiot, not the designers. Whaddya want, a 60-ton high-speed troop transport? Fries with that?" Well, if the M2 or M3 Bradley IFV wasn't designed to go up against tanks, why is it fitted with TOW missiles? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts