Thanks Thanks:  216
Likes Likes:  545
Dislikes Dislikes:  17
Page 5 of 38 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 125 of 947
  1. #101
    6-40509-04014-7 yooklid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Right behind you.....
    Posts
    2,921
    Post Thanks / Like
    Check out the Ferret upgrade on that site.
    Meh.

  2. #102
    Closed Account Goldie fish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    you already know too much
    Posts
    33,440
    Post Thanks / Like
    "ferret" and "upgrade" is a sure sign of desperation. Ferrets were obsolete in the early 70s.

  3. #103
    Lt General Barry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Rancho Relaxo
    Posts
    4,701
    Post Thanks / Like
    Maybe we should ask them if they can refurbish 25 Pounders or AMLs..........but that's a different thread altogether.

  4. #104
    jang-a-lang turbocalves's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Under a rock,
    Posts
    1,757
    Post Thanks / Like
    what about brens???
    But there's no danger
    It's a professional career
    Though it could be arranged
    With just a word in Mr. Churchill's ear
    If you're out of luck you're out of work
    We could send you to johannesburg.

    (Elvis Costello, Olivers Army)

  5. #105
    Commandant Come-quickly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    2,753
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry View Post
    Maybe we should ask them if they can refurbish 25 Pounders or AMLs..........but that's a different thread altogether.
    Didn't they do that already?
    "It is a general popular error to imagine that loudest complainers for the public to be the most anxious for it's welfare" Edmund Burke

  6. #106
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,342
    Post Thanks / Like
    the last of the ferrets were off loaded after Gulf War One ..please put some context on to comments...but then again a realistic replacement has never been found
    Time for another break I think......

  7. #107
    Nemo Nos Impune Lacessit jock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Scotland.
    Posts
    16
    Post Thanks / Like
    I think the upgraded Ferrets on that site were to be used in an internal security role only, in which case they would have been more than adequate. Murph is the new Iveco MLV not the spiritual successor to the Ferret? As it was used as a general run around vehicle towards it's later years.
    Prior preparation prevents piss poor performance.

  8. #108
    Closed Account Goldie fish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    you already know too much
    Posts
    33,440
    Post Thanks / Like
    What the hell is a "spiritual successor"?
    Is that like saying the M1Abrams is the spiritual successor to the Sherman?

  9. #109
    My tank is bigger... California Tanker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    San Francisco, CA, USA
    Posts
    1,934
    Post Thanks / Like
    Not really. Sherman was more of a cavalry vehicle, M1's a tank destroyer.

    NTM
    Driver, tracks, troops.... Drive and adjust!!

  10. #110
    Closed Account Goldie fish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    you already know too much
    Posts
    33,440
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by California Tanker View Post
    Not really. Sherman was more of a cavalry vehicle, M1's a tank destroyer.

    NTM
    Exactly

  11. #111
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,465
    Post Thanks / Like
    Eh..no.The M1 is the spiritual successor as it is the primary tank of the Army, succeeding the M60 and all the Pershings/Pattons, all of which evolved from the M4 as the primary tank of the US Army/Marines.The M26 was developed to beat the tanks the M4 couldn't cope with(Panther/Tiger) and it's successors were evolved to beat the Russian equipment(t-34/85, T-55, T-62 and so on.Read Belton Y Coopers' book "Death traps" on the M4 and it shortcomings and the evolution of the M26.Lessons learned from the later Pattons came into being in the M1(such as crew protection against fire/ammunition protection against fire/suspension and roadwheel design).There is, IMHO, a clear lineage between the M4 and the M1.
    Also, BYC's opinion was that the M4 was a compromise between the demands of the infantry, the artillery and the armoured and ended up as a weak compromise.
    regards
    GttC

  12. #112
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,815
    Post Thanks / Like
    The Sherman was a big improvement on British tanks of WWII. Whatever its faults - the Germans called them 'Tommy cookers' because their tendency to burn when hit; the British nickname was 'Ronsons', after the cigarette lighter - the Shermans and their Grant predecessors were the only tanks that could take on the German panzers in the North Africa campaign.

    WWII showed that the British pre-war concept of having separate cruiser (cavalry) tanks and infantry support tanks, didn't work: the former were underarmoured and undergunned, the latter too slow. So the postwar fashion became Main Battle Tanks. But now it looks like tanks are going the way of battleships and bombers: the last big tank battles were 35 years ago, during the Yom Kippur War.

  13. #113
    Lt Colonel Connaught Stranger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Town of Deva, Transylvania Romania
    Posts
    2,200
    Post Thanks / Like
    The U.S. Grant* was not suitable for taking on German Armour in the Desert and it was quickly replaced by the Sherman.

    Sherman Units found out very quickly they would have to expend 3 Sherman's out of 4 to take out one Panther or Tiger.

    The U.S Factories were able to turn Sherman's out in far greater numbers to replace combat losses, whereas the Germans could not compete, the industry base being in ruins from the bombing and their panther - Tiger needing far more man-hours per vehicle than Allied or Soviet tanks.

    * The Grant did find favour in the Burma Campaign operating against Japanese Armour and Bunkers, but in all reality it was a stop-gap weapon.

    Connaught Stranger

  14. #114
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,465
    Post Thanks / Like
    Hi there
    The Grant, whilst it was a poor excuse for a real tank, did cause the Germans concern as it allowed the Allies to fire at equal ranges instead of having to get within deadly range of the panzers and it could outshoot the 50mm of the Pz III and the short 75 of the Pz IV.It was certainly better, in terms of gun power, speed, servicability, ease of use and stowage capacity than anything the British had.Unfortunately, it was vulnerable to even 20mm rounds and could burn as readily as a Sherman.Still, it was better than nothing.
    regards
    GttC

  15. #115
    Recruit Piranha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    22
    Post Thanks / Like

    Scorpion 90mm



    Scorpion fitted with the 90 mm gun used by the Malaysian Venezuelian and Indonesian armies.

  16. #116
    CQMS warthog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    199
    Post Thanks / Like
    i think the 90mm is the way to go,don't think we should bother with the atwg if we get the 90mm gun,

    but having just read "dusty warriors" a book about the PWRR in Iraq it seems that 90% of there firepower came from the 7.62mm co-ax in the warrior IFV, and also they mention commanders taking alot of fire from small arms and RGP while manning the hatch,even resorting to using minimi's from the roof on occasion,sounds pretty dangerous to me

    why not mount a 7.62 or 40mm GL in a remote weapons station in the turret,with the commander using it's sensors for recon aswell,this combined with the coax it would turn it into an excellent firesupport platform in the kind of guerrilla fighting we're seeing more and more of these days,combined with a 90mm gun it could certainly give us more "teeth"

  17. #117
    Closed Account Goldie fish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    you already know too much
    Posts
    33,440
    Post Thanks / Like
    Two words: Top Heavy.

    The Scorpion is a small vehicle, and would be under severe pressure to fit an RWS, and its associated electronics anywhere on the turret without deleting a crew member.

  18. #118
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,815
    Post Thanks / Like
    Doesn't the Scorpion have a 7.62mm co-ax, which is fired from under armour anyway?

  19. #119
    Closed Account Goldie fish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    you already know too much
    Posts
    33,440
    Post Thanks / Like
    Yes.

  20. #120
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,385
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by warthog View Post
    but having just read "dusty warriors" a book about the PWRR in Iraq it seems that 90% of there firepower came from the 7.62mm co-ax in the warrior IFV, and also they mention commanders taking alot of fire from small arms and RGP while manning the hatch,even resorting to using minimi's from the roof on occasion,sounds pretty dangerous to me
    Warrior's co-axial weapon is a M242 7.62mm chain gun, not a MAG.

  21. #121
    Lt General Barry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Rancho Relaxo
    Posts
    4,701
    Post Thanks / Like
    Warthog didn't say it was a MAG, he just said it was 7.62, which the chain gun is.....

  22. #122
    CQMS warthog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    199
    Post Thanks / Like
    indeed,the co-ax on the warrior is a 7.62 chaingun which seemed to jam alot,so they would return fire using minimi's from the mortar hatches or the commanders hatch,this seems really dangerous to me,and the ability to use a RWS would be great for quickly engaging the enemy to the rear or if they tried to outflank the patrol from the sides without having to traverse the turret,also if the gunner was manning the co-ax the commander could use the RWS so they could engage two targets at once,
    i've seen these fitted to HMMV'S and other soft tops,surely if they could take the weight then a scorpion could?

    is the 90mm turret any bigger than the one for the 76mm?

  23. #123
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,815
    Post Thanks / Like
    Looks like the Scorpions are history anyway, they've never been deployed overseas and there's no sign of an upgrade.

  24. #124
    My tank is bigger... California Tanker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    San Francisco, CA, USA
    Posts
    1,934
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Goldie fish View Post
    Two words: Top Heavy.

    The Scorpion is a small vehicle, and would be under severe pressure to fit an RWS, and its associated electronics anywhere on the turret without deleting a crew member.
    In fairness, if you look at the electronics upgrades that the British have managed to squeeze into the Scimitars in the last couple of years, it's not beyond the realms of possibility. Granted, the Scimitars are now absolutely cramped, but they've done it.

    NTM
    Driver, tracks, troops.... Drive and adjust!!

  25. #125
    C/S
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    3,053
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by easyrider View Post
    Looks like the Scorpions are history anyway, they've never been deployed overseas and there's no sign of an upgrade.
    Tha's partly true, but they do provide a valuable training tool, and have, with an upgrade, about ten years life left in them

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •