TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

The Armored Vehicle Thread

Go To

MajorTom Since: Dec, 2009
#3376: Dec 17th 2015 at 4:57:52 AM

So for the first time in 75 years someone's actually made a "tank" in the sense of medium/heavy/MBT that can be defeated by a guy with an M2HB on a tripod or DP pintle mount.

Teemo from Nottingham, UK (Before Recorded History) Relationship Status: In another castle
#3377: Dec 17th 2015 at 8:00:01 AM

M 2 HB? Heck, a guy with a BAR could take it out, with a single mag.

SabresEdge Show an affirming flame from a defense-in-depth Since: Oct, 2010
Show an affirming flame
#3378: Dec 17th 2015 at 11:07:17 AM

This wild development in tank technology comes from the Ghana Kantanka company, headed by the great Christian minister, owner of the Kantanka car company, and now tank designer, Dr. Kwadwo Safo.

Now there's a novel take on spreading the Word.

Charlie Stross's cheerful, optimistic predictions for 2017, part one of three.
MajorTom Since: Dec, 2009
#3379: Dec 17th 2015 at 7:22:21 PM

Now I can't help but imagine seeing a tanker spouting Ezekiel 25:15 before busting an APFSDS in an enemy tank's ass.

Night The future of warfare in UC. from Jaburo Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Drift compatible
The future of warfare in UC.
#3380: Dec 18th 2015 at 8:04:08 PM

The M3 Stuart and M4 Sherman were noted in the Paraguay military until recently, and may still be active (at least in parades.)

They've been employed in narcotrafficking suppression out in the mountains, too. An M3 engaged and destroyed a narco-tank built on a truck body in 2001, and one with improvised cage armor is reported to have survived an RPG hit while engaged in narcotrafficking suppression last year.

Nous restons ici.
AustinHinton Since: Aug, 2015 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
#3381: Dec 18th 2015 at 8:11:24 PM

A real world tank, build solely on Rule of Cool

The platypus is my spirit animal.
dRoy Professional Writer & Amateur Scholar from Most likely from my study Since: May, 2010 Relationship Status: I'm just high on the world
Professional Writer & Amateur Scholar
#3382: Dec 21st 2015 at 4:11:50 PM

RUSSIA!!

Continuously reading, studying, and (hopefully) growing.
Demetrios Lucky Seven from Des Plaines, Illinois (unfortunately) Since: Oct, 2009 Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
SabresEdge Show an affirming flame from a defense-in-depth Since: Oct, 2010
Show an affirming flame
#3384: Dec 21st 2015 at 7:32:17 PM

[up][up]Looks like a BTR-D, which is in long service with the VDV. It looks like a new airdrop method, though, since the Russians have traditionally liked to use rocket-slowed airdrop pallets. (The rockets fire just before impact.)

Charlie Stross's cheerful, optimistic predictions for 2017, part one of three.
dRoy Professional Writer & Amateur Scholar from Most likely from my study Since: May, 2010 Relationship Status: I'm just high on the world
Professional Writer & Amateur Scholar
#3385: Dec 21st 2015 at 7:41:47 PM

I just looked up Wikipedia and that stuff weighs 8 tonnes.

...Jesus, what kind of planes would have to use to even carry those?

Continuously reading, studying, and (hopefully) growing.
SabresEdge Show an affirming flame from a defense-in-depth Since: Oct, 2010
Show an affirming flame
#3386: Dec 21st 2015 at 7:45:09 PM

Pretty standard cargo planes, well below Hercules level. And the Herk isn't anything particularly special in terms of cargo payload.

Charlie Stross's cheerful, optimistic predictions for 2017, part one of three.
dRoy Professional Writer & Amateur Scholar from Most likely from my study Since: May, 2010 Relationship Status: I'm just high on the world
Professional Writer & Amateur Scholar
#3387: Dec 21st 2015 at 7:47:15 PM

Huh, so C-130 can carry up to 20 tonnes. I always thought it was a fraction of that.

Continuously reading, studying, and (hopefully) growing.
TuefelHundenIV Night Clerk of the Apocalypse from Doomsday Facility Corner Store. Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: I'd need a PowerPoint presentation
Night Clerk of the Apocalypse
#3388: Dec 21st 2015 at 7:48:01 PM

IIRC Part of that light weight is because much like the M-113 it's armor is made to only resist common small arms rather then anything with real AP value.

Who watches the watchmen?
dRoy Professional Writer & Amateur Scholar from Most likely from my study Since: May, 2010 Relationship Status: I'm just high on the world
Professional Writer & Amateur Scholar
#3389: Dec 21st 2015 at 8:08:52 PM

For a second I thought "THAT is light?" then I realized that MB Ts are like 50~70 tons. XD

Say, does anyone know what kind of tank is shown in this scene? Is that an actual one or just a CGI prop?

Continuously reading, studying, and (hopefully) growing.
SabresEdge Show an affirming flame from a defense-in-depth Since: Oct, 2010
Show an affirming flame
#3390: Dec 21st 2015 at 8:27:49 PM

Looks like a CGI attempt at mating a Challenger 2 turret, minus things like smoke grenade launchers and machine guns, to a fictional chassis. (Jesus, that huge cockpit for the driver—that just screams "weak point here!")

Chally 2, by the way.

Incidentally, the reason the Russians have had so much experience in designing and paradropping armored vehicles out of airplanes is that they figured that airborne troops wouldn't be very useful once you dropped them, especially in an environment where everyone else would be riding APCs, and also would be both vulnerable and immobile. The solution was to give them their own rides; at their height the VDV were practically airborne mechanized troops. You need a shitton and a half of airlift to be able to drop all of it, and you wouldn't be able to drop it very far, but the Sovs could have done that easily enough by pressing Aeroflot into service, and all their airborne drop zones were intended to be relieved by armored spearheads ASAP.

Once the VDVs converted over to helicopters, I don't know what their doctrine called for in regards with the armored vehicles. Presumably the helis would air-assault the infantry in while Aeroflot dropped their armored vehicles, and the composite units would do the fighting?

Charlie Stross's cheerful, optimistic predictions for 2017, part one of three.
entropy13 Since: Nov, 2010 Relationship Status: Drift compatible
#3391: Dec 22nd 2015 at 6:51:16 AM

[up]The tank is mostly CGI. They had to have a reference though, so they customized a Centurion. Or a Challenger 1. tongue

edited 22nd Dec '15 6:54:48 AM by entropy13

Greenmantle V from Greater Wessex, Britannia Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: Hiding
V
#3392: Dec 22nd 2015 at 7:09:43 AM

[up] Chieftain, I suspect — probably one of several floating around Hollywood, usually as a false M1 Abrams. IMCDB seems to confirm that.

Keep Rolling On
Balmung Since: Oct, 2011
#3393: Dec 22nd 2015 at 8:31:49 AM

Ugh, and the things that cockpit would do to the forwards gun depression.

TamH70 Since: Nov, 2011 Relationship Status: Faithful to 2D
#3394: Dec 22nd 2015 at 8:57:14 AM

Yeah. Depressing that barrel would be all like, "well, we don't really need that driver, do we?"

AFP Since: Mar, 2010
#3395: Dec 22nd 2015 at 9:10:46 AM

With paratroopers and air assault troops, you'd probably also have them assaulting positions you'd later use to reinforce them, like airfields, bridges, etc.

They kick in the door, and then their friends walk in to keep their fat out of the fire.

Balmung Since: Oct, 2011
#3396: Dec 22nd 2015 at 9:16:23 AM

[up][up]Well, as World Of Tanks has taught me, you don't need a driver. Sure, you'll go a bit slower, but so long as there's at least one crewman left alive, the tank can still operate. Red Orchestra even informs me that having more than one crewman is a hindrance and that one guy hopping between driving than gunning can both drive and aim better than any actual crew.

LeGarcon Blowout soon fellow Stalker from Skadovsk Since: Aug, 2013 Relationship Status: Gay for Big Boss
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
#3397: Dec 22nd 2015 at 9:18:05 AM

That is some fucking chain though.

Oh really when?
Flanker66 Dreams of Revenge from 30,000 feet and climbing Since: Nov, 2009 Relationship Status: You can be my wingman any time
Dreams of Revenge
#3398: Dec 22nd 2015 at 9:37:20 AM

@AFP:

If I recall, Soviet doctrine was basically for airborne troops to seize key locations (for example, bridges, river crossing points, etc.) and targets ahead of the regular forces, who would join up with them during the course of their advance. Hence they did not anticipate that airborne units would need much sustainment, though they did recognise the relative vulnerability and firepower deficit of airborne troops and aimed to remedy this with the use of air-droppable AFVs. I would also not be surprised if it was a bid to increase their mobility post-deployment as well; the Russians seemed to be all about rapid rates of advance during that time period.

I've always wondered if retrorocket methods of slowing down an air-dropped armoured vehicle would be reliable enough, though - what if they fail to fire? I'm guessing the main advantage is that it ensures the vehicle is in the air (and hence vulnerable) for as short a period of time as possible.

Locking you up on radar since '09
SabresEdge Show an affirming flame from a defense-in-depth Since: Oct, 2010
Show an affirming flame
#3399: Dec 22nd 2015 at 10:14:00 AM

What I've read about Soviet doctrine generally concurs with that assessment. The VDV weren't designed as an expeditionary contingency force like the US Airborne units, but rather as specialists with a designated role to play in the Red Storm Scenario. Said role is basically that of a massive forward detachment.

Basically, think the Dnieper River airborne operation, only, well, with less failure.

The retrorockets seem designed to cushion the landing in conjunction with a main parachute, and the Sovs seem to have worked out the major issues with it. At least, the production-model landing platforms wouldn't be suffering from Hajile-style comedy. The biggest headache I can immediately see is that airlift requirements would be absolutely monstrous. An Il-76 strategic airlifter would barely be able to carry a platoon of vehicles and their crew.


Speaking of airborne forces, I am reading through this paper: a cross-country comparison of the evolution of airborne forces. And here's something that is of perpetual interest: organizational changes in the Russian Airborne Forces following the Georgian War.

Charlie Stross's cheerful, optimistic predictions for 2017, part one of three.
AFP Since: Mar, 2010
#3400: Dec 22nd 2015 at 6:06:15 PM

Just air drop the armored vehicles before your soldiers. Worst-case scenario, at least they'll soften up the LZ. [lol]


Total posts: 6,519
Top