Someone commented that people keep thinking an APC is bulletproof. Heck, even
today (or not long ago at any rate, there may have been a refit), I saw a TV
program indicating the Bradley was succeptible in some locations to fire from
infantry support arms (Dshk I think).
The Israelis have discovered that a tank hull makes a good APC. I can't
remember if it is a T-55 or T-62 hull or what, but they've created an
APC
that holds 8-10 guys, is real low slung to the ground (a la Tank which
is what the hull is) and has good heavy armour. It's hard to spot, hard to
hit, and hard to kill if it is hit. And this was done from old tanks that were
no longer combat viable, as tanks. But they make a darn good APC.
> "Thomas.Barclay" wrote:
> Someone commented that people keep thinking an APC is bulletproof.
Heck,
> even today (or not long ago at any rate, there may have been a refit),
By bullet proof if you mean small arms, and shrapnel yes they are. 50 cals,
Dshks and whatnot are not small arms. The only people under that illusion that
IFVs are as impervious as tanks are pundits and civilians. Anyone riding in
APCs/IFVs, working on them or fighting with them is not under that
illusion.
The IDF have used old Centurion hulls in the versions I've seen photos of!
That really isn't sporting is it!
Owen
> -----Original Message-----
> At 7:33 PM -0500 1/30/00, Thomas.Barclay wrote:
Heck,
> even today (or not long ago at any rate, there may have been a refit),
Bulletproof is a good design goal though.
> The Israelis have discovered that a tank hull makes a good APC. I can't
That would be the Merkava. Custom hull and turret, MkIII & IV models ise a
120mm smoothbore (for compatibility with NATO hardware IIRC). The engine is in
front, doors in the rear allow for access to the stowage compartment. They can
carry 90 rounds for the main gun (was 105mm, must be less for the 120), or 45
rounds plus an infantry squad or a couple of stretchers (now THAT is a
battlefield ambulance you'll feel safe in). There was a proposal for buying
Merkavas in place of
M-1s, but the domestic design won out; and did alright in Iraq so it
can't have been a bad decision.
http://www.dmi.usma.edu/Milresources/Weapons/merkava.htm
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/merkava/index.html
> Thomas.Barclay wrote:
> The Israelis have discovered that a tank hull makes a good APC. I
This idea has a long and honourable history. A few Old Mk IV tanks were
converted to APCs in 1918. But the largest scale use was by the
Commonwealth in Europe, 1944-45, with the Sherman/Ram/Defrocked Priest
Kangaroos. The Kangaroo conversions were basically tanks with the turrets
taken off, and used as APCs. Used in large numbers in Italy and France.
The Israelis use both old Centurions (which are extensively converted,
In a message dated 1/31/00 2:16:10 AM Central Standard Time,
> aebrain@dynamite.com.au writes:
<<
The Israelis use both old Centurions (which are extensively converted,
not just a quick turret-off job) and I believe, T-55s in the same role.
Their MBT, the Merkava (Chariot) (which is really an infantry tank) can take a
stretcher to evacuate casualties, but the rear doors are for loading ammo not
debarking troops.
> [quoted text omitted]
Actually at times the ammo storage can be sharply reduced and a few troops
can use the bay - at least in the early Merks.
> Los wrote:
> (I suppose it'll be time for our semi-annual thread on how IFVs suck
<whine>
Man, I tell ya, IFVs *suck*! I took a bunch up against a few MBTs, and they
ALL got WASTED!! And not ONE of my opponent's MBTs were so much as scratched!
I'm
telling you, IFVs are a piss-poor substitute for a tank!
</whine>
:-)
Mk
> Michael Llaneza wrote:
> >The Israelis have discovered that a tank hull makes a good APC. I
[snip]
> That would be the Merkava. Custom hull and turret, MkIII & IV models
No, it wouldn't. The Merkavas are able to carry an infantry squad - up
to 10 men for the MkI and MkII (but only by reducing the number of main gun
rounds by half). I haven't seen any figures on the MkIII, but it only carries
48 120mm rounds at full load (*no* infantry carried), so I imagine that
they're not too keen on carrying full squads in those... 24 rounds isn't that
much when you want to carry at least two ammo
types :-/
The MkIV is still under development and will take some more years before being
deployed in its primary role, much less being rebuilt as a pure APC.
The Merkavas are quite impressive vehicles... too bad you can't build
anything like them using the DSII vehicle design rules :-/ (Ultra-light
artillery with a decent amount of ammo, room for a 2-element infantry
squad and a size-4 gun... no mechanism for reducing the main gun
magazine in DSII - yet <g>)
However, the Israelis have also re-built lots of old tanks - the
Merkava MkIII's aren't old - into pure APCs, just like Thomas said. I
don't remember which type they used either, but I can check that tomorrow.
Later,
> Indy wrote:
> > (I suppose it'll be time for our semi-annual thread on how IFVs
much as scratched!
You're obviously using the wrong IFVs, then. Get a platoon of CV90120s
- with a nastier main guns than the M1A2 or Leopard 2S, and still
enough room for a 6-man squad (IIRC, might be 8-man instead), and at a
fraction of the price... and make sure you get to fire first ;-)
...'course, this is another modern combat vehicle which can't be built in
DSII. You can't fit both a turreted class 4 gun *and* an infantry
squad in a size-3 vehicle :-( You can simulate it by giving it extra
stealth levels, but a CV90 isn't big enough to rate size 4 IMO <sigh>
Later,
> Los wrote:
Indy whined:
> <whine>
Yeah, well, we told you not to try to convert IFV to Tank by putting a plasma
torp on it, but you wouldn't listen.
In message <200001312253.XAA16336@d1o903.telia.com> "Oerjan Ohlson" writes:
> However, the Israelis have also re-built lots of old tanks - the
Jane's Armour and Artillery will have the specs. Centurions and
T-62's, IIRC, increased in height. The troops have to bundle out
of a big hole in the top of the vehicle, suspiciously turret-ring-
sized. It's a cheap way to produce an APC fleet but the fuel efficiency must
be awful... I suppose that, since this is Isreal, the American taxpayer picks
up the fuel tab one way or another.
Oddest looking Israeli APC has to be the M113's with the really
shallow-sloping reactive panels, sloped to about 30 degrees. At
the side of the vehicle these slope out, then in, then out and then in again.
Having such an extreme slope, they're supposed to
stop a LAW rocket or RPG-n, such as might be used for sniping at
Isreali occupying forces by disgruntled locals.
Shouldn't that be DFFG for Dirtside?
Neath Southern Skies - http://users.mcmedia.com.au/~denian/
[mkw] Admiral Peter Rollins; Task Force Zulu
[pirates] Prince Rupert Raspberry; Base Commander
> -----Original Message-----
> Indy whined:
Brendan muttered:
> Shouldn't that be DFFG for Dirtside?
The point is that when Indy's opponent said "Sure! No problem! Go right
ahead!" when Indy discussed weapons mods, Indy should have known better to
proceed. Whether you call it DFFG or PTorp, a 1 on the die is a 1 on the die.
(Pondering: should we perhaps ask St^3 Jon to sanction a game
where rolling _low_ is good? We could call it "Reverse Thrust"
and dedicate it to Indy, Beth, and other pioneers of this art form).
G'day,
> (Pondering: should we perhaps ask St^3 Jon to sanction a game
Thanks for the thought, but in his usual saintly fashion St^3 Jon has
already beat you to the punch... its called threshold checks - thats
when we get our own back!;)
Cheers
Beth
> Laserslight wrote:
> > Yeah, well, we told you not to try to convert IFV to Tank by
Brendan asked:
> Shouldn't that be DFFG for Dirtside?
No, no, no. The reason Indy's IFVs couldn't hurt the tanks was that
their starship weaponry didn't work inside the atmosphere :-)
> Laserlight wrote:
> (Pondering: should we perhaps ask St^3 Jon to sanction a game
It won't matter. They'll just start rolling high in those games instead
;-)
> At 01:47 PM 2/1/00 +1000, Beth Fulton wrote:
Beth, you *really* don't know the true power of the Kochte Field, or you'd
know that the same thing that forces a '1' when rolling for Pulse Torp hits
also insists on making the dice roll '6' when checking for thresholds.
. .
In a message dated 1/31/2000 11:13:23 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> kochte@stsci.edu writes:
> Man, I tell ya, IFVs *suck*! I took a bunch up against a few MBTs, and
You have the wrong IFVs. Do you use size 3 grav, stealth 2, GSM/H, 4
troopers, turreted RFAC/2 IFVs? (kind of a grav version of a BFV, maybe
it
should be along the lines of size 2, RFAC/1, GSM/S, 4 troopers, fast
tracked for the real thing)
-Stephen
***
> Beth, you *really* don't know the true power of the Kochte Field, or
.
Mark is fairly accurate in this statement. I roll a bit above average
when doing Threshold Checks. :-/
***
Very true, though I've discovered that I seem to have been inflicted with a
version of the field that manifests a diminishing retarder I'll humbly call,
*ahem*, the Evans Dampening Effect, where the field fails to effect the dice
outcomes at initial play, but increasingly does so effect with each subsequent
play of a particular game.
The unscientific call it 'beginners luck', but it can show bizarre effects
that are entirely opposing what the die roller considers 'good'. I've been at
a point in a game where I'm so hosed, I'd just like die gracefully and try
something else. Of course, impossible dice rolls keep me barely in the game.
The_Beast
Worst series of die rolls I ever encountered was for initiative rolls in
FASA's Interceptor. Fortunately I wasn't the one rolling the dice. My opponent
lost initiative for 11 consecutive turns over three games. So we started
keeping track; over the next 38 turns played, he had initiative
TWICE. Making his record 2/49. We were even adding modifiers and started
giving him the ties (well, tie). My own personal gremlins show up in SFB, I
can NOT hit reliably with heavy weapons against my regular opponent, who
rolls well above average with his own.
> At 08:48 AM 2/1/00 -0600, you wrote:
> ***
> David Brewer wrote:
> > However, the Israelis have also re-built lots of old tanks - the
I know :-) I have access to the on-line Jane's Defence Library at work
but not from my home computer, thus the "can check tomorrow" part <g>
> Centurions and T-62's, IIRC, increased in height. The troops have to
Centurions have been refitted into Puma combat engineer APCs and Nagmash'ot
and Nakpadon heavy APCs, but JAA gives no specs on either beyond that the
turret has been removed and the hull has been more or less rebuilt. The IDF
also uses the Nagmachon, which seems to be the same as the Nagmash'ot but
built on an M48 hull instead of a Centurion. Judging from the pictures in JAA
the hull has been raised on all of these, but the overall height seems to be a
bit less than the original turreted tanks.
The Achzarit is built on T-54 and T-55 hulls. Overall height of the
Achzarit
is "about two meters" while the T-55 is 2.35m over the commander's
cupola, so they must have raised the hull on the Achzarit somewhat -
the T55 turret is low, but not *that* low :-/ The Achzarit section says
"Specifications: Not available" so I don't have any more exact measurements
than this, but the text says that the new power pack has
left enough space in the rear of the hull to fit a door - it still has
roof hatches, of course, but the grunts don't have to dismount through them.
The Russian BTR-T is a T-54/55 turned into an APC which lacks rear or
side doors. This may be the one you're thinking of, or it could be the
Centurion and M48 conversions.
Couldn't find any mention of T-62s being used, though. They are
mentioned as having been considered for the Achzarit conversion and some
prototypes seem to have been made, but in the end the IDF opted
for the T-54/55 version instead.
> It's a cheap way to produce an APC fleet
I don't think the refits aren't that cheap compared to, say, buing more
M113s... but they are probably cheaper than replacing the extra casualties
they'd take with lighter APCs.
> Oddest looking Israeli APC has to be the M113's with the really
Just as importantly, the extreme slopes helps stopping the ERA back plate
from going through the ERA through the thin M113 hull :-/ Avoiding
potentially serious damage frpm the own ERA has been one of the major problems
with designing ERA upgrades for lightly armoured vehicles.
Regards,
I knew I had seen a few of these pics on line, as people were asking about
them....
The site has a pretty good collection of IDF armour. Including the
Achzarit (T54/55 APC) and the PUMA (Centurion Combat Engineer APC).
There are also some great shots of M113's with all sorts of armour upgrades
and modifications...
http://members.tripod.com/idf-sp/gallery.htm
Note the roof mounted hatches for the crunchies and the rear door next to the
powerpack.
I also found this site
http://www.life.sci.qut.edu.au/david/pics/latrun/latrun.htm
One last link is a great Janes article about APCs
http://www.janes.com/defence/editors/jaa96/jaa9604.html
enjoy...
G'day Mark,
> Beth, you *really* don't know the true power of the Kochte Field, or
. .
Only if their PDS/FC/FTL or criticals! <sigh> Well thats teh Fulton
field effect anyway;)
Cheers
Beth
In message <200002012231.XAA12390@d1o903.telia.com> "Oerjan Ohlson" writes:
> David Brewer wrote:
Jane's books are marvellous. Every so often I hit the public library to rifle
through one of the recent one. It's quite
remarkable what's out there on tanks... point-defence systems, ECM
devices and so on. Tuffers had it all first in DS1.
Always rememeber that Jane's started as a wargaming publication...
> >Centurions and T-62's, IIRC, increased in height. The troops have to
[...]
> Couldn't find any mention of T-62s being used, though.
Ah well, that'll just be me grouping all old Russian tanks
together as "T-whatevers". Much more interesting to look at the
newer tanks.
[...]
> > It's a cheap way to produce an APC fleet
I suppose, especially if you mean politically cheaper.
> On Mon, 31 Jan 2000, David Brewer wrote:
> Jane's Armour and Artillery will have the specs. Centurions and
The T62's were never converted beyond the prototype stage. They were getting
US made M60s at that point. The Achzarit has a rear door that runs past the
powerpack for debussing the crunchies. It does have a but load of hatches up
top though...
> On Wed, 2 Feb 2000, David Brewer wrote:
> I suppose, especially if you mean politically cheaper.
Politics nothing, Israel can't survive a war of attrition. They have to cut
their opponents off at the knees to win a war, otherwise trading crew for crew
will result in their having noone left to fight.