Re: Supertank?

Michael Blair wrote:

> 1. Future APCs and other tracked battlefield vehicles should share as
> many parts as possible with the MBT to simplify maintenance and reduce
> overall costs (compare and contrast with Germany in WW II as an
example
> of how not to do it). If, instead of making 100 tanks, 200 APCs and
200
> other tracks you build all 500 on a common chassis and drive train you
> can now afford 600 of them.

That's a good idea, unfortunately very difficult to put into practice. 
We saw in 1960s (? 70s?) the British produce a whole family of light
armored vehicles with a high degree of commonality, and for many years
most of the tracked vehicles in US Army were varients on the M-113, but
as long as you want to have lighter APCs than tanks, there won't be much
overlap.  Of course, now with IFVs, possibly.

> Society of Twentieth Century Wargamers (I think) they mentioned a new
> Israeli APC, converted from captured T-?? Tanks (cannot remember
which).

T-55s.	This sort of thing was also done by Canadians in WWII, called
Kangaroo?

> This brings me to another question, how sensible are IFVs, surely they
> are there to get the infantry to where they are needed, not to fight
> with the troops on board and to stay away from hostile panzers. I
> realize that TOW etc. gives them a good stand off punch to supplement
> the panzers' guns but will they survive long enough to use them?

The problem is that a TOW has an effective range of 3,750m.  GMS/H has
4,800m.  It is to the ATGM-armed vehicle's advantage to keep the range
open.  However if you drop off the infantry 3,750m from the target, then
you might as well not have an armored ride for them.  If you close with
your infantry inside and fight with the TOW, you're risking your
troops.  This is why in Dirtside II, my IFV designs have a RFAC/2 or
MDC/1, and an infantry batallion also has an Anti-tank company with 15
Tank destroyers armed with 2xGMS/H.

John M. Atkinson