Prev: Re: Core Systems Next: Re: Core Systems

Re: Supertank?

From: Chen-Song Qin <cqin@e...>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 19:40:10 -0700 (MST)
Subject: Re: Supertank?

On Tue, 17 Nov 1998, John M. Atkinson wrote:

> 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,
> as long as you want to have lighter APCs than tanks, there won't be
> overlap.  Of course, now with IFVs, possibly.

This sort of thing would save money with IFV/APC's, but light vehicles
certainly can't have the chassis of tanks and still be cost-effective.
But one hull type for light/support vehicles and one for tanks would
be a much bigger improvement on what a lot of armies have nowadays.

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

Yes, the Kangaroo.  This was basically a turretless Sherman. My
is that this was a Commonwealth thing and not just Canadian, but not I'm
not too sure about that.  I bet the infatry liked it a lot. <g>

Abkai juse, fucihifusa, ejen sefu, coohai janggin, guwan i besise!

Prev: Re: Core Systems Next: Re: Core Systems