Jump to content


Photo

History Of Us Army Afvs

Cold War US Army upgrades history M60 M1 Abrams M113

  • Please log in to reply
834 replies to this topic

#821 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 53,983 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 19 July 2019 - 0944 AM

 

Beer-a-gavin?


  • 0

#822 Mr King

Mr King

    Fat Body

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,418 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Muppetville

Posted 20 July 2019 - 1546 PM

ix5Nxsv.jpg​


  • 0

#823 Mr King

Mr King

    Fat Body

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,418 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Muppetville

Posted 20 July 2019 - 1548 PM

VEgPCOo.jpg​


  • 0

#824 Mr King

Mr King

    Fat Body

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,418 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Muppetville

Posted 02 August 2019 - 1009 AM

NLOS-C

 

86ftpoghnsd31.jpg


  • 0

#825 Mr King

Mr King

    Fat Body

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,418 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Muppetville

Posted 02 August 2019 - 1121 AM

gp4pip2hjld31.jpg


  • 0

#826 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,362 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Teutonistan

Posted 02 August 2019 - 1337 PM

https://i.redd.it/gp4pip2hjld31.jpg

 
From when is this concept? I think in an actual Abrams there is not enough space to store ammo  in the hull this way.
  • 0

#827 Mr King

Mr King

    Fat Body

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,418 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Muppetville

Posted 02 August 2019 - 1834 PM

 

https://i.redd.it/gp4pip2hjld31.jpg

 
From when is this concept? I think in an actual Abrams there is not enough space to store ammo  in the hull this way.

 

 

 

The title on reddit said 

 
Autoloader layout for the M1-based XM291 140mm testbed

 

 


  • 0

#828 Adam Peter

Adam Peter

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,318 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sopron, Hungary
  • Interests:history, music

Posted 06 September 2019 - 0014 AM


  • 0

#829 Rich

Rich

    intellectual bully ilk

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,427 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:WW II, Current Defense Issues, Military History in General

Posted 09 September 2019 - 2257 PM

 

I'm not sure where the idea comes from that there was a "myth"? It seems the only myth is that it was a zero-sum game...75mm or 76mm and that was it. As I've said many times, the original concept, going back to the Medium Tank T6, was that it be capable of armament with a 75mm or 3" gun as well as a 105mm howitzer. The delay getting the 76mm into the field was a different issue that led to the lack of interest in deploying it in the assault phase of NEPTUNE (none were interested in a hasty introduction of a new tank gun), but it was always expected the 76mm and 105mm combination was the future...albeit the desire was that it would be in a ratio of three 105mm to one 76mm. So, in a sense at least, the actual "replacement" for the 75mm was not the 76mm, but the 105mm. The 105mm was a better anti-material and anti-personnel weapon than either and it was well recognized that the primary target of tanks in an absolute sense rather than in the old "tanks don't fight tanks" sense were infantry and material.

 

Then what happened of course was that all those happy assumptions ran into harsh reality...the Panther and at the worst possible time when the war was winding down and there was little time to get anything else in place before the German collapse. The fallout from that encounter was Hanson Baldwin's calls for Congressional investigations and the postwar careful CYA exercise by the US Army Ordnance Department, facilitated by the failure of AGF and Armor to adequately present their side of the story, mostly due to the death of McNair and the loss of status of Armor from "Force" to "Center" and its failure to achieve full Branch status until 1950...at the same time the Ordnance Department was elevated to "Corps" status. So the failure of Ordnance to meet the AGF and Armor request for a true high-velocity tank gun in the 3" class equivalent to the Pak 42 and Ordnance's insistence on the 90mm as a "solution", while ignoring Armor's desire for greater ammo stowage, and Ordnance's failure to adequately test its projectile and fuse designs, have long been overshadowed.

 

If anything, it isn't a myth, it's a red herring.


  • 0

#830 Rick

Rick

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,956 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Muncie, Indiana

Posted 10 September 2019 - 0355 AM

 

 

I'm not sure where the idea comes from that there was a "myth"? It seems the only myth is that it was a zero-sum game...75mm or 76mm and that was it. As I've said many times, the original concept, going back to the Medium Tank T6, was that it be capable of armament with a 75mm or 3" gun as well as a 105mm howitzer. The delay getting the 76mm into the field was a different issue that led to the lack of interest in deploying it in the assault phase of NEPTUNE (none were interested in a hasty introduction of a new tank gun), but it was always expected the 76mm and 105mm combination was the future...albeit the desire was that it would be in a ratio of three 105mm to one 76mm. So, in a sense at least, the actual "replacement" for the 75mm was not the 76mm, but the 105mm. The 105mm was a better anti-material and anti-personnel weapon than either and it was well recognized that the primary target of tanks in an absolute sense rather than in the old "tanks don't fight tanks" sense were infantry and material.

 

Then what happened of course was that all those happy assumptions ran into harsh reality...the Panther and at the worst possible time when the war was winding down and there was little time to get anything else in place before the German collapse. The fallout from that encounter was Hanson Baldwin's calls for Congressional investigations and the postwar careful CYA exercise by the US Army Ordnance Department, facilitated by the failure of AGF and Armor to adequately present their side of the story, mostly due to the death of McNair and the loss of status of Armor from "Force" to "Center" and its failure to achieve full Branch status until 1950...at the same time the Ordnance Department was elevated to "Corps" status. So the failure of Ordnance to meet the AGF and Armor request for a true high-velocity tank gun in the 3" class equivalent to the Pak 42 and Ordnance's insistence on the 90mm as a "solution", while ignoring Armor's desire for greater ammo stowage, and Ordnance's failure to adequately test its projectile and fuse designs, have long been overshadowed.

 

If anything, it isn't a myth, it's a red herring.

 

Very informing and excellent second paragraph Rich to this ex-sailor. 


  • 0

#831 DB

DB

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,271 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hertfordshire, England

Posted 10 September 2019 - 0659 AM

The abuse of certain words in YouTube video titles is entirely ad revenue driven.

Clickbait trigger words must be used to get recommendations, even if the content is good without them.

Edited by DB, 10 September 2019 - 0700 AM.

  • 0

#832 Harkonnen

Harkonnen

    Andrei

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,443 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Planet Arakkis, Dune
  • Interests:Tanks, Art, history

Posted 10 September 2019 - 1837 PM

Hi, what is the date of this photo?

 

VEgPCOo.jpg​


  • 0

#833 Harkonnen

Harkonnen

    Andrei

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,443 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Planet Arakkis, Dune
  • Interests:Tanks, Art, history

Posted 10 September 2019 - 1838 PM

gp4pip2hjld31.jpg

 

Seen this (patented in Korea), but  Were is the engine )))


Edited by Harkonnen, 10 September 2019 - 1838 PM.

  • 0

#834 DKTanker

DKTanker

    1strdhit

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,604 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

Posted 10 September 2019 - 1842 PM

 

Hi, what is the date of this photo?

 

VEgPCOo.jpg​

 

1st pilot T-43 was completed November 1951.


  • 0

#835 Harkonnen

Harkonnen

    Andrei

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,443 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Planet Arakkis, Dune
  • Interests:Tanks, Art, history

Posted 10 September 2019 - 1851 PM

Thanks! But when it did roll out from factory - is this the same day?


  • 0





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Cold War, US Army, upgrades, history, M60, M1 Abrams, M113

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users