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

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

From: Ryan Gill <rmgill@m...>
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 00:57:02 -0400
Subject: Re: [GZG] What are the pitfalls of standardised forces?

At 10:34 PM -0500 7/12/08, Don M wrote:
>One thing I notice here is an assumption that when using the MBT
chassis
>that the same amount of armor will be used. You could use the same
drive
>train and general hull but lesson or increase armor to fit the role
that the
>vehicle will fill. This of course is not full standardization, but it
would
>greatly reduce the more prevalent supply issues which are drive systems
and
>frame.

Use the same roadwheels, tracks, hull design, 
powerpack, gear box, torsion bars, damping 
springs and go with a lighter hull with less 
frontal armor but similar side and rear armor, 
and you'll have a LOT of weight left over for 
system payload. That means you'll be able to get 
a bigger turret with space for say, an AA system 
and associated sensors. Say like the Gepard and 
Leopard tanks.

An artillery vehicle on the same chassis may or 
may not be able to have a common gear box given 
how you generally have to put the engine in front 
rather than the usual rear location for tanks.

>
>I'm going by my experience here, granted it was in the US army it has
it's
>own way of doing things. Our tanks were designed from the ground up
>component by component to be a heavy tracked monster. As a consequence
>virtually none of the parts are interchangeable with lighter vehicles.

Or if the design board has their heads REALLY up 
their backsides, they'll base a NEW vehicle on an 
OLD chassis design that's being phased out of the 
MBT business. Say like the Sgt York which was 
based on a M48 chassis and was supposed to 
somehow provide support to M60A3s and M1s which 
could more or less get up and leave it behind.

-- 
--
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


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