> At 01:17 PM 3/22/00 -0500, Thomas.Barclay wrote:
I remember seeing concept designs for "cherry picker" (a telescoping arm type
deal that could elevate weapons quite a bit above the hull of the vehicle)
mounts for weapons somewhere. The benifit is you could park the vehicle behind
cover, then have the weapon pop up and fire, and you could cover those dead
zones.
I don't know how feasable this would be with current tech, seems like the
whole thing would hinge on having very reliable sensors and some sort of
reload work-around for large caliber weapons. It should go with out
saying that I could be talking out my ass here.
In Dirt Side, where you have grav MBTs with lasers and fusion guns, I wouldn't
let silly little things like that get in the way of using it for
some good old fashoned techno-babble about why you don't really have to
plot out dead zones.
I'm waiting for the Future(TM) where our cloths will all be one-piece
coveralls, doors will slide into the wall when you walk up to them, and
miniatures will have little laser pointers built into their weapons so you can
determine LOS on the fly.
There already is two deployed type and a second that was in advanced
development
when it was canceled due to post-cold war budgets. All were missile
systems. Both the U.S. M901 ITV and Dutch YPR 765 use a two round TOW cherry
picker. It only lifts the missiles about meter (best guess) above the vehicle.
This allows the vehicle to be behind a hill and engage enemy tanks. A very
good idea considering that both are on APC (M113) and IFV (YPR 765 is an IFV
derived from the M113) hulls. More missile were carried in side the vehicles,
but the crew had to open the top hatch to reload the cherry picker. The German
Jaguar
RocketPanzers (three variant, one with SS-11 missiles, one with TOW
missiles, and one with HOT missiles) have some ability to fire while behind
cover. The missile launcher is not as high above the hull as with the TOW
Cherry picker, but it had the advantage of an automated reloading system. I
don't know of any pictures of actual vehicles on the web, but GHQ does have
pictures of their miniatures at their site...
http://www.ghqmodels.com/modern.html
The advanced prototype I referred two was based on a German Marder hull and
had a cherry picker that could extend many meters up(good for shooting over
trees, houses, hills, and I'm not joking...). I know there was a 2 and 4 round
versions. There are some other missile systems, but none deployed in any
number that I know of. There have been experiments with large caliber guns in
external turrets, but none have been adopted. I suspect due to problems with
reliable automatic feeding. One was based on the Marder hull. There are
turrets with autocannons in pods above the turret roof, such as the German
Marder (are we seeing a trend here???). You can park the vehicle behind cover
with just the gun pod exposed. There is variant of that turret with a 35mm
autocannon, but none one deployed it. The dutch use a one man version of the
Marder turret in their M114 reconasance vehicles.
IAS
> Ndege Diamond wrote:
> At 01:17 PM 3/22/00 -0500, Thomas.Barclay wrote:
> At 01:01 PM 3/22/00 -0800, Ndege wrote:
[elevation/depression of turrets]
> Now, if one was using a casement turret (unmanned), one might have
The Luki-IX, IIRC. It's the basis for Jon's Rommel Medium Hover Tank,
SF25-30 or DSM-110. There was also a Manchurian tank that could elevate
the entire turret by a meter or so, specifically so that the rest of the tank
would not be exposed to fire.
[snip]
> I'm waiting for the Future(TM) where our cloths will all be one-piece
Personally, I'd like to see remote controlled 1/300 scale tanks rolling
across the field.... <grin>
On Wed, 22 Mar 2000 13:01:56 -0800, Ndege Diamond <nezach@earthlink.net>
wrote:
> I remember seeing concept designs for "cherry picker" (a telescoping
I have a book, "Tank Versus Tank" by Kenneth Macksey, a Canadian tanker. This
book came out in 1988, and is a good overview of tank development to that
date. The book lists a "gun over hull" AFV. Basically, instead of a manned
turret you have a protected gun, with autoload system. The gun sits much lower
than a turret, and could be elevated about a metre or so. The crew reside
entirely in the hull.
The advantage of this design is that it's about the same size as an assault
gun/tank destroyer but it has the advantage of a rotating main gun. Even
if the gun is targeted, it's harder to hit than a turret and if it hit the
crew is still okay.
I don't know how far, if far at all, this kind of design was carried to. The
book said that most of the technical problems had been overcome, but I'd
imagine we're still talking about a pretty finicky system.
Note, this book comes out prior to the Gulf War. The Abrams is listed as not
having been tested in battle. As anyone will tell you, nothing affects weapon
development like actual combat. (Can you say, "aluminum hulled warships"? I
thought you could...).
> I don't know how far, if far at all, this kind of design was carried
It is one of the rapid deployment prototype tanks. If I remember correctly it
has a 75mm autoloading main gun. Good for older medium tanks, APC's, IFV's and
other
lightly armored vehicles. I wouldn't want to use one against T-80 or M1
or other modern tank. An interesting vehicle that was not accepted. There was
a varient with a traditional turret (can't extend up) and 90mm gun. I forgot
about it in my earlier post.
As I recall, this really is only an issue with in @50 to 100 meters. Not
really an issue at the scale of DS or SG. One of those details that are good
for anorak points.
Michael Brown (CPT, Armor, USAR with experience on M60 and M1 series tanks)
[quoted original message omitted]
> At 10:49 PM 3/22/00 -0800, Michael Brown wrote:
Not
> really an issue at the scale of DS or SG. One of those details that are
Yeah, but if you collect enough points you can redeem them for valuable
prizes.
I agree though. In the granularity of the FMA system it is a not much of an
issue. It ranks slightly above trying to determine the effects of barrel wear
and air density and slightly below determining the actual degree of armor
slope and and how good the fuzzy logic your pattern recognition software is
using. Plenty of anorak points, no fun points.
> As I recall, this really is only an issue with in @50 to 100
Like a +5 Throw-and-Return Flaming Holy Vorpal Greatsword ? :-)
Either on SJ Games site, or the linked Warehouse 23, there is a book on How to
Be a Munchkin. Along with much other weirdness.