Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Name that AFV: The New Tank ID thread


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 230
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Since nobody got it, I'll finish this one off.  It's the Martel "Mechanical Coffin".  Page 47, David Fletcher's book "Mechanized Force: British Tanks Between the Wars".  Martel had created some of the

Since Xlucine suggested it in the general AFV thread, here is a new version of the old Tank ID thread that used to exist at the WoT forums, back before the great exodus to SH.   The rules ar

From a Japanese magazine PANZER screenshot, it says:  This is a Type 61 tank with a sort of ad-hoc spaced armour, using for target practice in exercise.  The armour plates surrounding the tu

So, this is clearly a Lee or Sherman based design, as indicated by the engine, drive shaft, and roadwheels. I had originally thought it to be some earlier design for the Ram 3.7in spg, and later, possibly something related to the T53e1.  This second post of the top-down view throws that off for me, as it shows the turret having limited travese.  It still says the gun could be point up high though.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Scolopax said:

So, this is clearly a Lee or Sherman based design, as indicated by the engine, drive shaft, and roadwheels. I had originally thought it to be some earlier design for the Ram 3.7in spg, and later, possibly something related to the T53e1.  This second post of the top-down view throws that off for me, as it shows the turret having limited travese.  It still says the gun could be point up high though.  

Your correct that it's related to the Ram 3.7" Evolution of that. Designed but never built.


3.7" Assault SPG

 

Y5AocWJ.png

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
8 minutes ago, That_Baka said:

su57s01-7de33bfbbafcb73d892dd367ad130efb

 

Something related to the SU-76 I am sure. Same T-70 chassis, same superstructure, but the gun is elongated and lacks a muzzle break. 

Hmmm.

EDIT: It's a 57mm gun, so it's the SU-57. 

 

I understand now why I haven't found it on the webz. It always showed me that inferior Sukhoi bird instead.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

 

Something related to the SU-76 I am sure. Same T-70 chassis, same superstructure, but the gun is elongated and lacks a muzzle break. 

Hmmm.

EDIT: It's a 57mm gun, so it's the SU-57. 

 

I understand now why I haven't found it on the webz. It always showed me that inferior Sukhoi bird instead.

May i presume that Warspot watermark helped in search? I should used SU-85B rear picture.

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

May i presume that Warspot watermark helped in search? I should used SU-85B rear picture.

The watermark didn't help. I don't know who Warspot are. 

 

I knew from the beginning it was related to the SU-76 and remembered that there was a version with a 57mm gun, perhaps named SU-57.

 

But what finally confirmed this was a SU-57 was the fact that the link to the image contains the name. Right in the middle.

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

The watermark didn't help. I don't know who Warspot are. 

 

I knew from the beginning it was related to the SU-76 and remembered that there was a version with a 57mm gun, perhaps named SU-57.

 

But what finally confirmed this was a SU-57 was the fact that the link to the image contains the name. Right in the middle.

 

I taken this picture from Yuri Pasholok article on upgunning of Su-76M

https://warspot.ru/12623-lyogkie-sau-s-bolshimi-pushkami

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

204812qjzvatev6v7tsvs7.jpg

From a Japanese magazine PANZER screenshot, it says: 

This is a Type 61 tank with a sort of ad-hoc spaced armour, using for target practice in exercise. 

The armour plates surrounding the turret and side skirts make it looks like a WW2 German Panzer IV. 

The crew tried to pull out a practice round stucking in the side skirt, this round was fired from a recoilless rifle. 

According to the vegetation of the exercise range, the vehicle was painted in a 4-colour camouflage. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 9 months later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Content

    • By Monochromelody
      70 years ago, January the 2nd, 1951. To the North of Seoul, in the mountains and hills near Go-yang-tong(高阳洞), British 1RUR dug in and fought against advancing PVA forces. 1RUR got a task force called Cooperforce to support, this is a tank unit from Royal Tank Regiment and Royal Artillery, equipped with Cromwell tanks. 
      When Matthrew Ridgeway assigned the order of withdraw in this afternoon, the US force covering British force's left flank quickly escaped from their sector, leaving the British were completed unawared and uncovered. 
      When the night falls, was cold and dark in the valley. 1RUR had to withdraw in the darkness. All of a sudden, a US spotter aircraft flew over the valley, drop some illumination flares upon the retreating convoy. 
      Fierce battle broke out when flares fall down, PVA firing from all directions, the cold valley became deadly kill zone. Some PVA soldiers put away their rifles, assaulting with hand grenades, satchel charges and Bangalore torpedoes. They even set up mortars on the hill, laying shells with direct fire. 
      200 British soldiers and artillerymen were killed or captured in one night. 1RUR's Battalion Commander Tony Blake was believed KIA. Cooperforce was completely knocked out, all 12 tanks were destroyed or captured by light infantry. Leader Ashley Cooper were also killed. 


    • By SH_MM
      Found a few higher resolution photographs from the recent North Korean military parade. We didn't have a topic for BEST KOREAN armored fighting vehicles, so here it is.
       
      New main battle tank, Abrams-Armata clone based on Ch'ŏnma turret design (welded, box-shaped turret) and Sŏn'gun hull design (i.e. centerline driver's position). The bolts of the armor on the hull front is finally visible given the increased resolution. It might not be ERA given the lack of lines inbetween. Maybe is a NERA module akin to the MEXAS hull add-on armor for the Leopard 2A5?
       
      Other details include an APS with four radar panels (the side-mounted radar panels look a lot different - and a lot more real - than the ones mounted at the turret corners) and twelve countermeasures in four banks (two banks à three launchers each at the turret front, two banks à three launchers on the left and right side of the turret). Thermal imagers for gunner and commander, meteorological mast, two laser warning receivers, 115 mm smoothbore gun without thermal sleeve but with muzze reference system, 30 mm grenade launcher on the turret, six smoke grenade dischargers (three at each turret rear corner)
       


       
      IMO the layout of the roof-mounted ERA is really odd. Either the armor array covering the left turret cheek is significantly thinner than the armor on the right turret cheek or the roof-mounted ERA overlaps with the armor.
       


      The first ERA/armor element of the skirt is connected by hinges and can probably swivel to allow better access to the track. There is a cut-out in the slat armor for the engine exhaust. Also note the actual turret ring - very small diameter compared to the outer dimensions of the turret.
       
      Stryker MGS copy with D-30 field gun clone and mid engine:

      Note there are four crew hatches. Driver (on the left front of the vehicle), commander (on the right front of the vehicle, seat is placed a bit further back), gunner (left side of the gun's overhead mount, next to the gunner's sight) and unknown crew member (right side of gun's overhead mount with 30 mm automatic grenade launcher mounted at the hatch). The vehicle also has a thermal imager and laser rangefinder (gunner's sight is identical to the new tank), but no independent optic for the commander. It also has the same meteorological mast and laser warner receivers as the new MBT.
       
      What is the purpose of the fourth crew member? He cannot realistically load the gun...
       
      The vehicle has a small trim vane for swimming, the side armor is made of very thin spaced steel that is bend on multiple spots, so it clearly is not ceramic armor as fitted to the actual Stryker.

       
      The tank destroyer variant of the same Stryker MGS copy fitted with a Bulsae-3 ATGM launcher.
       

      Note that there is again a third hatch with 30 mm automatic grenade launcher behind the commander's position. Laser warning receivers and trime vane are again stand-out features. The sighting complex for the Bulsae-3 ATGMs is different with a large circular optic (fitted with cover) probably being a thermal imager and two smaller lenses visible on the very right (as seen from the vehicle's point of view) probably containing a day sight and parts of the guidance system.
       

      Non line-of-sight ATGM carrier based on the 6x6 local variant of the BTR, again fitted with laser warning receivers and a trim vane. There are only two hatches and two windows, but there is a three men crew inside.
       
       
      There are a lot more photos here, but most of them are infantry of missile system (MLRS' and ICBMs).
    • By Toxn
      So I got a request recently from {NAME REDACTED} as to whether we have a how-to guide or something for competitions. After a few moments of bitter, bitter laughter at the decade-plus of my life that I've spent cobbling together things that can maybe, sort-of, squint-your-eyes produce a facsimile of a realistic vehicle, I thought I'd share my process:
       
       
      Note: I was half-right - we definitely have supplementary info for aspiring pretend tank designers pinned to this very board.
       
      Finally, I'm inviting our forum grognards and past winners to share their process for folk that haven't been here since before the last ice age, so that all can benefit.
    • By Proyas
      Hi guys,
       
      Does anyone know of any military studies that analyzed the reload speeds for different tanks? The question occurred to me when I watched this video tour of the T-55's interior: 
       
      https://youtu.be/TEDhB9evPvw
       
      At the 10:00 mark, Mr. Moran demonstrates how the loader would put a shell into the tank's cannon, and the effects of the turret's small size and of the loader's awkward seating make it clear that the process would be slow. My question is: how slow? 
       
      Side question: Am I right to assume that storing the tank shells all over the inside of the turret like that is an inherent design flaw of the T-55 that makes it inferior in that regard to modern tanks? 
       
      Thanks in advance. 

×
×
  • Create New...