Re: [GZG] Subject: Re: What are the pitfalls of standardised forces?

At 12:58 AM +0200 7/14/08, Oerjan Ariander wrote:
>Michael Blair wrote:
>
>>Same chassis and the same mechanical spares but not
>>necessarily the armour. Particularly now as 
>>modular armour seems to the coming
>>thing -
>
>Like I wrote in the previous post, modular MBT armour results in a
*very*
>heavy vehicle. With integrated armour the armour carries its own weight
as
>well as most of the weight of the vehicle's turret etc.; with modular
>armour the unarmoured chassis has to provide all of the structural
>integrity to carry both the heavy armour *and* everything else.

There are of course problems. Bolt on armor can 
be upgraded. ARmor that's a part of the unit 
structure cannot be easily upgraded and has to in 
essence be remanufactured from ground up. The 
structural integrity is interesting. A unit 
structure of RHA was not as often as a strong 
unit as say cast and rolled units bolted or 
welded to an extant subframe from what I've seen 
of WWII vehicle designs. Of course, when you look 
at modern armors, they're rarely RHA and are very 
likely a large and broad range of ceramics, 
spaces and armor plates plus other fancy things.

>Out of favour? The Stryker MGS is essentially a 
>lightly-armoured assault gun...

I would technically call it an Armored Car since 
it has a turreted gun in the near tank range 
(lighter side now). It's not unlike the Panhard 
with the long 50mm or the AEC or Coventry ACs 
when equipped with a 6 pounder or 75mm.

>Depends entirely on what you want them to do. If you want to transport
>them, or drive them over non-reinforced road bridges, then at least the
>western types are awkwardly big; if you want them to survive being shot
at
>by one another it is more like the eastern types being a bit too small
:-/

BMD's are cozy! :-D

>
>Not just weight IIRC. If you're thinking of the same project I am the
main
>problem was that the tank chassis were pretty much worn out, and
would've
>cost rather more money to operate than new-built hulls  would.

There's a rather interesting thread a while back 
over on Tank net about the Chieftan Assault Gun 
proposal that was done. Nothing more than a 
mockup, but the proposed armament was 
astonishing. A 110mm or 120mm in the 1970s.
Here's the thread...
http://63.99.108.76/forums/index.php?showtopic=24864&hl=centurion

-- 
--
Ryan Gill	       rmgill@SPAMmindspring.com
----------------------------------------------------------
      |        |		   |	     -==----	  
      | O--=-  |		   |	    /_8[*]°_\	   
      |_/|o|_\_|       | _________ |	    /_[===]_\	  
      / 00DA61 \       |/---------\|	 __/	     \--- 
   _w/|=_[__]_= \w_    // [_]  o[]\\   _oO_\	     /_O|_
  |: O(4) ==	O :|  _Oo\=======/_O_  |____\	    /____|
  |---\________/---|  [__O_______W__]	|x||_\	   /_||x| 
   |s|\        /|s|   |s|/BSV 575\|s|	|x|-\|	   |/-|x| 
   |s|=\______/=|s|   |s|=|_____|=|s|	|x|--|_____|--|x| 
   |s|		|s|   |s|	  |s|	|x|	      |x| 
'60 Daimler Ferret '42 Daimler Dingo '42 Humber MkIV (1/3)
----------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l