T92 Light Tank Video

[Tied]

What I can't understand is the project to mount the 76 mm gun onto the M551, that was basically a worse M41. Why do this? 

 

repeat the mantra of the M551 design committee:

 

why not? 

 

that makes the 152mm seem sane

 

i cant imagen the thought behind it

 

"hey guys, lets get ride of the super complex missile and HE system and replace it with a 76mm. So instead of just have inaccurate infantry support and limited AT capability, we have almost zero infantry support and almost no AT capability. Did i mention this tank still has the armor of a grilled cheese sandwhich?" 

[Meplat]

What I can't understand is the project to mount the 76 mm gun onto the M551, that was basically a worse M41. Why do this? 

There were others,  including a 90mm, a 105mm,  An ENTAC with any of the conventional gun systems, and the then new TOW missile.

 

Either way you still ended up with a vehicle who's sole advantage over the (by then) well developed T92 was it's dubious ability to float.

 

 

repeat the mantra of the M551 design committee:

 

why not? 

 

that makes the 152mm seem sane

 

i cant imagen the thought behind it

 

"hey guys, lets get ride of the super complex missile and HE system and replace it with a 76mm. So instead of just have inaccurate infantry support and limited AT capability, we have almost zero infantry support and almost no AT capability. Did i mention this tank still has the armor of a grilled cheese sandwhich?" 

 

I've seen a design committee in action. They likely debated the day's lunches with more logic and vigor.

[Walter_Sobchak]

repeat the mantra of the M551 design committee:

 

why not? 

 

that makes the 152mm seem sane

 

i cant imagen the thought behind it

 

"hey guys, lets get ride of the super complex missile and HE system and replace it with a 76mm. So instead of just have inaccurate infantry support and limited AT capability, we have almost zero infantry support and almost no AT capability. Did i mention this tank still has the armor of a grilled cheese sandwhich?" 

Probably no less useful than an ASU-85, which was the standard armored vehicle of Soviet airborne forces at the time, eh?  Lets face it, any armored vehicle that is designed to be dropped out of an airplane is going to pretty much suck.  

 

(I hope Mike Sparks heard me say that)

[Tied]

Probably no less useful than an ASU-85, which was the standard armored vehicle of Soviet airborne forces at the time, eh?  Lets face it, any armored vehicle that is designed to be dropped out of an airplane is going to pretty much suck.  

 

(I hope Mike Sparks heard me say that)

 

to be fair to the ASU, atleast the gun it was designed around actually worked 

 

85mm HE beats hand grenades any day, and it could probably pen a M-48

 

besides, i would not mind having this bad boy around for some much need HE support

 

[Collimatrix]

Not terribly so, there were examples of industrial or mining equipment that was heavier, using that trackform.

 

 

 

Interesting.  Per Ogorkiewicz you don't want to go much over 15 T with band tracks on combat vehicles.

[Xlucine]

Mining and industrial equipment are a lot slower, so the wear on the tracks should be lower

[Meplat]

Interesting.  Per Ogorkiewicz you don't want to go much over 15 T with band tracks on combat vehicles.

 

That likely has more to do with the size of the sections required and their manageability versus conventional systems, since you are dealing with sections instead of individual links.  Breaking a track involved two or more fairly large sections, and that limit likely has to do with those sections becoming too cumbersome without the use of heavy equipment to assist.

 

Mining and industrial equipment are a lot slower, so the wear on the tracks should be lower

Slower ground speed, but a far more harsh operating environment.  You will see conditions and loading with mining or quarry work that would be far too rough for most armored vehicle tracksystems.