Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armor Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Fundamentally useless armoured vehicles
gf0012-aust    6/8/2004 9:40:41 AM
and now for something completely different. I thought I'd start a thread on armoured vehicles that were niche specific and in real terms sitting ducks for an enemy. Starting off with the Ontos. 4 Recoilless rifles mounted on an armoured letter box and fitted with tracks.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4   NEXT
PuckaMan    RE:Fundamentally useless armoured vehicles   6/9/2004 4:38:48 AM
I thought the 106 RR round were beehive, sort of cannister cros with FRAG........ couple into the side of a building and no more snipers......... I think the Brits took a few Centurion (may Chieftan) AVRE 155mm engineer vehilces to GW '91...... The Churchill AVRE in WW2 with the 280mm petard mortar was short range, but could remove the front of a large building in one shot, but had to be reloaded on the outside. I'll be Buggered if I'm doing that during a battle! Pucka
 
Quote    Reply

eon    RE:Fundamentally useless armoured vehicles-Ontos, etc.   6/9/2004 10:19:11 AM
Ontos was issued with 6 105 RRs, but a friend of mine (USMC) who briefly crewed on one in Vietnam said they often took two off, usually the bottom one on each side, because it made reloading faster. (Less chance of tangling breech levers, I suppose.) The M60A2, aka the "Starship" for its odd looks and (for the '70s) sophisticated systems, was like the M551 Sheridan a victim of the 152mm Shillalagh debacle'. Like M551, every time you fired the regular 152mm HE round from the gun/launchet, the recoil shock knocked the sight sytem for the missile out of alignment. (In fact, on the Sheridan, it often plain wrecked the sight- unbolt it, bolt another one in, and recalibrate.) Another feature of the "Starship" that didn't endear it to its crews was the large flat vertical area on each turret side, made to order to be a target for an RPG or ATGW. AFAIK, most "Starships" were never issued to the troops in Europe as intended- they were kept Stateside, and eventually swapped their 152mm turrets for improved 105mm turrets, becoming the first batch of M60A3s..
 
Quote    Reply

bombard    RE:Fundamentally useless armoured vehicles-Ontos, etc.   6/9/2004 10:38:24 AM
Was'nt there a WW2 tank from New Zeeland made of tin? Believe I've seen a picture, showing corrugated sides. During the war in the the Congo, the sepratists captured an old ford armoured car and tried to up armour it. Suspension broke, though.
 
Quote    Reply

AlbanyRifles    USMC vehicle Can't remember its name and a few more   6/9/2004 1:28:35 PM
There was a small tracked logistics vehicle the USMC used which had pneumatic, inflatable road wheels. The one problem was when things like shell fragements and bullets hit it. You ended up with (I am not kidding) a tracked vehicle with flat tires! Every one of them at Khe Sahn were inop after the first few days. Vickers MAtilda I Bren Carrier with a Boys 55 caliber AT Rifle
 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier    RE:Fundamentally useless armoured vehicles   6/11/2004 10:48:14 PM
>>I think the Brits took a few Centurion (may Chieftan) AVRE 155mm engineer vehilces to GW '91...... The Churchill AVRE in WW2 with the 280mm petard mortar was short range, but could remove the front of a large building in one shot, but had to be reloaded on the outside. I'll be Buggered if I'm doing that during a battle!<< The Gulf War-era AVRE used the same 165mm demolition gun as the US M728 CEV (believe it was a British design) - thing only fired HESH (HEP for use Americans) and was very short legged as was noted earlier. Supposed to be quite a sight to see terminal effects on a building or bunker. In US service the 728s (based on M60 hulls) went away because they just couldn't keep up with the M1s and Brads. I think there may have also been a cost issue since it was fielded in small numbers which made various costs higher than they would be for M1s, etc. I've never heard much said about the gun -- good or bad -- in official US military stuff.
 
Quote    Reply

Sam    RE:USMC vehicle Can't remember AlbanyRifle   6/12/2004 1:16:14 AM
Are you sure it was tracked? It sounds like a Mechanical Mule except for the track part. The Army nomenclature was M-274
 
Quote    Reply

Sam    RE: Mule picture link   6/12/2004 1:18:37 AM
http://www.olive-drab.com/idphoto/id_photos_m274.php3 I would also nominate the Gamma Goat.
 
Quote    Reply

oregon_x_marine    RE: Mule picture link   6/12/2004 1:52:50 AM
Hell, I remember seeing those at Camp Schwab on Okinawa in 1981-82!!
 
Quote    Reply

mike_golf    RE: Mule picture link   6/12/2004 2:35:55 AM
Sam wrote: "I would also nominate the Gamma Goat" That had to be the most useless small truck ever designed. Somebody got stinking rich off that piece of you know what.
 
Quote    Reply

ChdNorm    RE: Mule picture link   6/12/2004 9:11:56 PM
I might be stretching this a little here as far as armored vehicles, but I'm gonna throw my vote towards the armored HMMWV.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics