Abrams

[Sea Skimmer]

AK-101 requires more maintenance than the M16? Source?

The AK-101 is just an AK-74M rebored for 5.56 instead of 5.45. If it required more maintenance than the M16, the AK-74 wouldn't have entered Soviet Army service, period. The AK-74M is a modernized AK-74. It has a new muzzle brake over the original AK-74 (also used in the AK-100 series).
The use of wood in the design was eliminated. The fore grip, stock and hand guard are made of glass filled polyamide, which is much lighter and more durable than wood, is not influenced heavily by pests and does not lose its quality after long keeping. The rifle also has a totally black finish. The magazine, as on the original AK-74, is made of plastic, but the plastic is no longer reddish/brown, but black.
The AK-74M has a full size folding buttstock; which is both lighter and contains the rifles cleaning tools.

Those are the sum of the differences between the AK-74M/AK-101/AK-103 and the AK-74 (which in turn is essentially an AKM rebored for 5.45)

Most of the AKMs relative inaccuracy comes from the 7.62x39mm.

As for the OICW? No way will it be general issue. Each of them costs $35,000. There may be a place for the 20mm grenade launcher in a squad, but as a general infantry weapon not a chance in hell. Where did you hear about the prototype being dropped and thrown?

Btw, the A3 doesn't have full auto. The A4 does, but this hasn't been adopted. The difference between the A2 and A3 lies in the rail system for M4 SOPMOD style mods.

Source on the AK-101 is word of mouth from A G Williams published author on infantry ammunition. He's prove highly reliable in the past.

The current plans for the OICW production run is enough to equip several divisions at the least, and the related OCSW will be seeing army wide service. Deleting the FLIR would cut the cost massively, and such a model is far more likely to see universal service in the active Army then an import job. The information on it ruggedness testing came from Online newspaper article.

My mistake on the A3, I thought both the A3 and A4 had full auto and it was the A4, which had a differing rail system.

[Vympel]

"Since WW2 the US Army has bungled every small arms program it has handled at the cost of billions. It’s list of failures include the T-20/T-25/T-44/M-14 rifle development and production program (1944-1963); the abortive special purpose individual weapon (SPIW) ‘super rifle’ program (1958-1974); and its criminal negligence in the management of the M16 rifle program is well-known. There was also an abortive ‘son of SPIW’ with caseless ammunition, and most recently the $300 million spent on the ‘Advanced Combat Rifle’ program, which produced arms inferior to the standard issue M16A2 rifle.
The OICW is a very uncertain proposition. On paper the weapons capabilities look extremely impressive.
The OICW is also known as the SABR (Selectable Assault Battle Rifle … yet another example of the US practice of designing a fearsome acronym first then fitting words into it) and fires both 5.56x45mm ammunition and a 20mm grenade capable of both air bursting and point detonation. The magazine-fed 20mm grenade launcher is the primary part of the weapon, and is mounted on top of the 5.56x45mm carbine. The carbine is based on the H&K G36K, the carbine version of the new standard German Bundeswehr assault rifle, the G36. Interestingly the carbine fires a two-round burst as on the Russian AN-94 rather than a three-round burst, as tests have show the third round tends to be off-target.
The grenade launcher and carbine can be separated from each other and used separately. The OICW includes a battery powered fire control system mounted on the grenade launcher that includes a laser range finder, which, when used, sets the fuse on the 20mm grenades to determine at what point in their time of flight they will detonate. Fragments from the bursting grenade can defeat current US PASGT armor. Specific goals include hit probability greater than 0.5 out to 500 meters and 0.3 to 0.5 out to 1,000 meters. Effectiveness against personnel and light armor targets, given a hit, will be greater than those of the 40mm grenade fired from the M203 Grenade Launcher and the M855 5.56x45mm round fired from the M16A2 rifle. Specific goals include a 0.5 probability of incapacitation to 300 meters (point target) and a 0.2 probability of incapacitation to 300 meters (defilade target).
Key features of the OICW include a range of 1 km, a 500% increase in the probability for incapacitation (also known as killing), the ability to defeat targets in defilade (trenches, foxholes etc), and ergonomic design.
The OICW cost is exorbitant to say the least. Originally having a cost of $20,000 per weapon, costs have risen to $35,000 each. The 20mm ammunition costs $500 per round. At this point it should be noted that the US Army intends to replace every M16 assault rifle with an OICW (the Marine Corps is less enthusiastic). With such high costs, it is inconceivable that the OICW will ever become a standard issue weapon.
There are also the issues of training costs. With sophisticated fire control instead of iron sights the average solider will have to spend much more time with the weapon before he becomes proficient. Even if it were adopted to replace only the M16\M203, costs would still be high. Soldiers who trained on the M203 for an entire month still had problems with the relatively simple grenade launcher.
The OICW design as it stands is also fraught with problems. Of primary concern is the weight. The weapon now weighs 8kg, yet the requirement is for a 6kg weapon. Also, the current weapon does not include the features the final weapon will have, which will make the weapon even heavier. The final features not included include an eight-round rather than a six-round magazine for the 20mm grenades and a thermal imaging module. Equipping every infantryman with even a 6kg weapon is a questionable decision. The M16A2 weighs only 4kg.
The 5.56x45mm carbine mounted underneath the grenade launcher is also not without problems. The 5.56x45mm M855 round depends on sufficient muzzle velocity for lethality, and for that it needs a barrel 16-18 inches long at least. The barrel of the weapon on the OICW is only 10 inches long. It is doubtful that it will be an effective back up weapon.
Recent testing by Army infantrymen has additionally brought forth complaints of the weapon's excessive weight and bulk (the prototype is very large), lack of durability (it does not perform well in harsh conditions) and the short life of its batteries.
There may be a niche for the OICW to replace the M16A2/M203 grenade launcher weapon, if it is perfected. But it shall never be a standard infantry weapon."

Correction edit: I wrote this last year, but its a composite of articles i have previously read.

It's a good idea- but they should 'dumb' the weapon down a bit. For example, manual fuzing for the 20mm grenade- deletion of the thermal imager as you suggest, etc. Maybe even dump the 5.56x45mm portion all together and just us it as a next gen M79 (a real classic!)

[Sea Skimmer]

I dont think another heavy pure grenade launcher is a good idea. The air bursting option is what makes the 20mm such a great thing, and thats always going to be fairly heavy. A 20mm and a MP-5 might work, but it would be better to combind them.

The general opinion over on warships1 where we've had many long conversations on this weapon was to drop the 5.56 in favor of a 20 round drum, and load that with a mix of 20mm and flechette rounds. Another consideration was to mount a 9 or 10mm submachine gun in place of the 5.56 with a quad stacked 50 round magazine like that of the Spectra.

At the ranges the 5.56 is really meant for, they should work just fine on full auto, though little would beat hit with a impact 20mm. Either that or just start using JHP rounds. You could easily argue that there more human then FMJ in small caliber weapons since they are more lethal and wont inflict fatal wounds that take a long time to bleed out as often. Stupid half century old conventions..

Keeping the FLIR on at least some units however would be of great use, as it really is a huge advance in sensors. An eventual replacement might be a double-barreled Metal Storm weapon with flechettes in one and 20mm in the other. Probably the only sane use for Metal Storm, if a suitable barrel quick release can be devised.

I'm pretty sure the 500-dollar cost of the 20mm rounds only for the current trails rounds, which are practically hand, produced. The Mass production rounds should cost around 20 or less dollars depending on just how many are finally ordered.


Don’t confuse incapacitation goals with lethality. For evaluation purposes they are most certainly not the same. Incapacitation can just mean fill the guys fore arms with shrapnal, lethaility is more like fill his upper chest.

[Vympel]

I agree with that entire post

a FLIR for say the squad leader of each squad would be good.

[MKSheppard]

"The AK-47 is in many ways interesting because when you study the history of it you see just how unusual it was nearly every step along the way. It's seen by most people as the epitome of Soviet military engineering. The reality is that it's almost unique, one of the few things they ever did which actually was any good."

So I guess I just imagined the following Soviet armoured vehicles:

T-34 (most innovative tank to come after the Mark I.)

Shit engine life, shit track life, shit one-man turret, and NO RADIOS
at all? The T-34/85 may get the nod, but the first few marks of the -34
were shit.

[Vympel]

"The AK-47 is in many ways interesting because when you study the history of it you see just how unusual it was nearly every step along the way. It's seen by most people as the epitome of Soviet military engineering. The reality is that it's almost unique, one of the few things they ever did which actually was any good."

So I guess I just imagined the following Soviet armoured vehicles:

T-34 (most innovative tank to come after the Mark I.)

Shit engine life, shit track life, shit one-man turret, and NO RADIOS
at all? The T-34/85 may get the nod, but the first few marks of the -34
were shit.

In context to their prime enemy (Panzer III and Panzer IV tanks) they kicked ass, despite their flaws- the Pz III and Pz IV may have been comfy for the crew but on the level that matters, they were POS compared to the T-34: expensive to build, suboptimal design, outdated ballistic shape, tiny main guns (in the case of the Pz III) hell the Pz III had to use tungsten rounds for its 50mm gun just to have a chance of penetrating a T-34 from the front. Again, the key to the early German victories was training. The T-34 had excellent ballistic shape and thick skin for its time, powerful main gun, worked in winter, and could be produced in large numbers with little compromise in combat effectiveness. In that it inspired the Panther design, it could be said it was the world's first main battle tank, however flawed in retrospect, just as the BMP was the world's first infantry fighting vehicle, however flawed (and boy does it have flaws!). BMP-2 and BMP-3 get 'the nod' though

[Rubberanvil]

On the subject of grenade launchers, wouldn't it be more cost effective to design a better 40mm round with the same functions as the new 20mm for the M16\M203?

[Sea Skimmer]

"The AK-47 is in many ways interesting because when you study the history of it you see just how unusual it was nearly every step along the way. It's seen by most people as the epitome of Soviet military engineering. The reality is that it's almost unique, one of the few things they ever did which actually was any good."

So I guess I just imagined the following Soviet armoured vehicles:

T-34 (most innovative tank to come after the Mark I.)

Shit engine life, shit track life, shit one-man turret, and NO RADIOS
at all? The T-34/85 may get the nod, but the first few marks of the -34
were shit.

In context to their prime enemy (Panzer III and Panzer IV tanks) they kicked ass, despite their flaws- the Pz III and Pz IV may have been comfy for the crew but on the level that matters, they were POS compared to the T-34: expensive to build, suboptimal design, outdated ballistic shape, tiny main guns (in the case of the Pz III) hell the Pz III had to use tungsten rounds for its 50mm gun just to have a chance of penetrating a T-34 from the front. Again, the key to the early German victories was training. The T-34 had excellent ballistic shape and thick skin for its time, powerful main gun, worked in winter, and could be produced in large numbers with little compromise in combat effectiveness. In that it inspired the Panther design, it could be said it was the world's first main battle tank, however flawed in retrospect, just as the BMP was the world's first infantry fighting vehicle, however flawed (and boy does it have flaws!). BMP-2 and BMP-3 get 'the nod' though

The BMP's not real bad, at least not on a total nuclear battlefield. Plus there was one in 1982 which had the entire turret torn off by a 105mm round and remained mobile and runaway.

Good old BMP-3, wonder how long it takes the crew to decide what to shoot back with?

[Pablo Sanchez]

Shit engine life, shit track life, shit one-man turret, and NO RADIOS at all? The T-34/85 may get the nod, but the first few marks of the -34 were shit.

The fact that it absolutely kicked the crap out of every tank in service in the entire world until the Tiger rolled out is apparently not important. The fact that German PZ-III and IV had to close to point blank range or kiss their asses goodbye is apparently not important. All that is important is your beloved "Der Soviet ist shiesse! Duestch ist gut!" complex.

Despite its flaws, the T-34 was still a fundamentally superior tank.

On the NO RADIO point, that was not a problem with the T-34 design. The problem lay with the lamentable state of the Soviet electronics industry.

[Sea Skimmer]

On the subject of grenade launchers, wouldn't it be more cost effective to design a better 40mm round with the same functions as the new 20mm for the M16\M203?

No, in addition to an all-new round, you'd need an all-new launcher for it with the fuse setter, and you still need the sighting system, fire control computer and laser.

Basically you'd end up with a single shot weapon, with less range and accuracy that would cost more since you have to scale up several things.

Theres alot more to it then just the round.

[Pablo Sanchez]

The BMP's not real bad, at least not on a total nuclear battlefield. Plus there was one in 1982 which had the entire turret torn off by a 105mm round and remained mobile and runaway.

Provided that it didn't get hit by tank-killing weapons, and nobody wandered in front of it as it was firing, the BMP can be described as adequate.

The point I was trying to make was the fact that it ushered in a whole new concept of infantry combat. No more men with rifles walking around and plinking off shots. Instead, overwhelming firepower and speed.

[Sea Skimmer]

The BMP's not real bad, at least not on a total nuclear battlefield. Plus there was one in 1982 which had the entire turret torn off by a 105mm round and remained mobile and runaway.

Provided that it didn't get hit by tank-killing weapons, and nobody wandered in front of it as it was firing, the BMP can be described as adequate.

The point I was trying to make was the fact that it ushered in a whole new concept of infantry combat. No more men with rifles walking around and plinking off shots. Instead, overwhelming firepower and speed.

I known.

What I'm always a bit amused by is that in ½ the world, the concept came after the IFV's had entered service. Everyone needed a BMP counter. The other half the world bought them from Russia and got told how to use them.

Don't you just love main guns, which don’t work in the wind?

[MKSheppard]

The fact that it absolutely kicked the crap out of every tank in service in the entire world until the Tiger rolled out is apparently not important. The fact that German PZ-III and IV had to close to point blank range or kiss their asses goodbye is apparently not important. All that is important is your beloved "Der Soviet ist shiesse! Duestch ist gut!" complex.

Did you know what the Germans actually called the T-34?

"The Soviet Sherman"

Seems the krauts were having their Pz IIIs and IVs blown up from long range
by the M-3 and M-4s long barreled 75mm guns in North Africa,
while their own shots bounced off the Sherman/Grant's hull, which was
designed to stop 47mm AT rounds.....

I still stick to my point that if the tank comes from the factory equipped
with a sledgehammer for the driver to shift gears in the transmission, it's
inferior.

[Sea Skimmer]

The fact that it absolutely kicked the crap out of every tank in service in the entire world until the Tiger rolled out is apparently not important. The fact that German PZ-III and IV had to close to point blank range or kiss their asses goodbye is apparently not important. All that is important is your beloved "Der Soviet ist shiesse! Duestch ist gut!" complex.

Did you know what the Germans actually called the T-34?

"The Soviet Sherman"

Seems the krauts were having their Pz IIIs and IVs blown up from long range
by the M-3 and M-4s long barreled 75mm guns in North Africa,
while their own shots bounced off the Sherman/Grant's hull, which was
designed to stop 47mm AT rounds.....

I still stick to my point that if the tank comes from the factory equipped
with a sledgehammer for the driver to shift gears in the transmission, it's
inferior.

Useful if your local Sturmovik unit has a bent propeller in need of repair.

[Pablo Sanchez]

Did you know what the Germans actually called the T-34?

"The Soviet Sherman"

Source? I find it hard to believe that they would abruptly switch their name for the T-34 after a year of combat against it.

Seems the krauts were having their Pz IIIs and IVs blown up from long range by the M-3 and M-4s long barreled 75mm guns in North Africa,
while their own shots bounced off the Sherman/Grant's hull, which was
designed to stop 47mm AT rounds.....

Wow, congratulations. Unfortunately, this doesn't address the point that the T-34 was superior at its debut to any service tank in the entire world.

I still stick to my point that if the tank comes from the factory equipped with a sledgehammer for the driver to shift gears in the transmission, it's inferior.

Oooh, so the tank sucks because its hard to drive. Who cares about its sloped armor, powerful main gun, and excellent mobility? Who cares that all of these things were designed in an era where nobody had even heard of anything but vertical armor, heavy armament was a short 75 or a long 47, and tanks weren't expected to perform in the mud and snow? The driver needs to think he's driving a Mercedes!

I said that the T-34 was revolutionary, and you have failed to adress this point at any time, instead choosing to nitpickabout how it wasn't refined and easy to use.

Well, Albert Einstein was an absentminded fool, and Augustus Caesar was a sickly little man.

[Vympel]

Good old BMP-3, wonder how long it takes the crew to decide what to shoot back with?

"Comrade, American capitalist pig dog Bradley and infantry direct front!"
"100mm HEF, up, Comrade!"
"Nyet, use the anti-tank raketa!"
"Nyet, use the 30mm autocannon!!"
"Nyet you fools, use them all, and fire all three machine guns too for good measure!"

[MKSheppard]

Oooh, so the tank sucks because its hard to drive. Who cares about its sloped armor, powerful main gun, and excellent mobility? Who cares that all of these things were designed in an era where nobody had even heard of anything but vertical armor, heavy armament was a short 75 or a long 47, and tanks weren't expected to perform in the mud and snow? The driver needs to think he's driving a Mercedes!

It sucks. The Russians said so.

http://www.battlefield.ru/t34_76_2.html

The point is that two Pz-IIIs were bought in Germany and delivered to Kubinka for comparative tests. Soviet documentation does not clarify the exact modification of the Pz-III, in all cases it was named as "German T-III". The results were unfavourable for the Soviet T-34.

The T-34 was superior in terms of protection and firepower, but that's all. The Pz-III had a cosy three-man turret with a commander's cupola. Each crewman had an internal communication device at his service. In contrast, the T-34 had a very cramped two-man turret without a commander's cupola. Only the tank commander and the driver had internal communication.
The German tank had a very smooth motion and wasn't as noisy as the T-34: moving with maximum speed the Pz-III could be heard from 150-200 metres while the T-34 could be heard from 450-500 metres.

Soviet engineers were surprised by Pz-III's maximum speed. It was far superior and could run up to 69.7 km/h whereas the T-34's best result was 48.2 km/h. The BT-7, which was used as a standard model, could run on wheels at only 68.1 km/h. The report of those tests indicates that the Pz-III had better suspension, a high quality of German optics, a handy layout of ammunition and radio, and a reliable engine and transmission.

You severely underestimate the power a good turret layout brings, along
with a DEDICATED GUNNER. The T-34 commander had to load, fire, and
spot for the big gun.

He'd have to pop out of the turret, find a target, duck back in, aim the gun,
fire it, then reload, then pop back out. Pz IIIs had a ROF 3-4 times greater
than the early -34 models.

[Sea Skimmer]

Good old BMP-3, wonder how long it takes the crew to decide what to shoot back with?

"Comrade, American capitalist pig dog Bradley and infantry direct front!"
"100mm HEF, up, Comrade!"
"Nyet, use the anti-tank raketa!"
"Nyet, use the 30mm autocannon!!"
"Nyet you fools, use them all, and fire all three machine guns too for good measure!"

LOL , I'm stealing that for incorperation into one of my own works.

Now all they need to do is add a mortar in the infantry comparment, coaxial flamethrowers with the hull machine gun, a roof mounted Sherman style rack of rocket launchers and a quad pack of SA-16's alongside the main gun. And of course reactive armor!

Nothing could stand against such a monstrosity short of the new nine turreted T-100 tank.

[Pablo Sanchez]

Oooh, so the tank sucks because its hard to drive. Who cares about its sloped armor, powerful main gun, and excellent mobility? Who cares that all of these things were designed in an era where nobody had even heard of anything but vertical armor, heavy armament was a short 75 or a long 47, and tanks weren't expected to perform in the mud and snow? The driver needs to think he's driving a Mercedes!

It sucks. The Russians said so.
[snip]

The Russians said no such thing. The said that the Panzer-III was faster and could fire on targets more efficiently. Very nice, and creditable.

I've always liked the little tank. But again I'll say: What's your point. You keep diverting the issue away from the T-34's advantages, and focussing on flaws. So it was ergonomically inferior. It still had a better gun and armor than either early-war Panzer, and it maintained its mobility in conditions that stymied the Panzers.

He'd have to pop out of the turret, find a target, duck back in, aim the gun,
fire it, then reload, then pop back out. Pz IIIs had a ROF 3-4 times greater
than the early -34 models.

That matters quite a bit less when your enemy has to close to arms length to inflict damage on your tank.

[MKSheppard]

That matters quite a bit less when your enemy has to close to arms length to inflict damage on your tank.

Actually, they don't have to. Can we say "partial penetrations" and "interior
armor spalling?"

Why else do you think the ATR was so useful against the Panzers? You don't
have to send a big whacking round ALL the way through and out the back
to fuck a tank up. Hit it repeatedly, and cause interior spalling of armor,
which in turn wounds the crew, causing them to bail out in pain before
they get shredded by their own armor.

[Typhonis 1]

Didnt the turret on the T-34 hinge forward? so that you couldn`t pull an Isralei in it?

[Oberleutnant]

Good old BMP-3, wonder how long it takes the crew to decide what to shoot back with?

"Comrade, American capitalist pig dog Bradley and infantry direct front!"
"100mm HEF, up, Comrade!"
"Nyet, use the anti-tank raketa!"
"Nyet, use the 30mm autocannon!!"
"Nyet you fools, use them all, and fire all three machine guns too for good measure!"

Heh

I'm not fond of BMP-3 myself, though. It has several faults, including the horrible crew compartment design, weak aluminium armour and antiquated combat systems. Latter problem can be relatively easily corrected up to western standards, but it also increases the price of the vehicle.

Aluminium armour makes the BMP-3 also several tons lighter. The firepower is superior to any IFV in the world, I believe, and at 60* angle the 30mm cannon can be used against aerial targets such as helicopters.

Still, compared to the excellent Swedish CV90, BMP-3 has only one clear advantage -- its price. This is, of course, only the opinion of an armchair general.

CV9030FIN

[Soulman]

The T-34 was the perfect tank for the Russians, by no means as refined as American, German or British tanks it had a big gun, good armour, good mobility and was very easy to churn out in large numbers with a poorly trained workforce in poor facilities.

Early models were pants with loads of flaws, these were however largly solved by the time Barbarossa began and the T-34 and KV-1 were far superior to German tanks of the time despite optics that weren't much better than Mk.1 eyeball and crude construction.

Bad spalling was limited to early production models which had far too hard, and therefore brittle, armour. Some batches of later tanks did have armour which spalled badly but these were isolated.

The superiority of the T-34 in the eyes of German tankers was such that they wanted a complete copy of the T-34 but political considerations led to the Panther. A T-34 copy with German optics, gun, armour and engine would have actually been better than the Panther because of reduced cost.

And a few quote from Germans on the T-34:

"Very worrying", Colonel-General Heinz Guderian, Commander of Second Panzer Army.
"We had nothing comparable", Major-General F.W. Mellenthin, Chief of Staff of XLVIII Panzer Corps.
"The finest tank in the world", Field-Marshal Ewald von Kleist, First Panzer Army.

And T-34s in German service:

[MKSheppard]

And T-34s in German service:

And:


Caputred Crusader


Captured Dutch Pantserwagen M 39 (DAF P.T.3),
18th Infantry Division, Western Europe, 1940.
Source: Nederlandse Pantservoertuigen, Dr C.M. Schulten/J.Theil, (c) 1979, Unieboek BV, Bussum.


French Somua S35 medium tank as part of Panzerzuge 27 (Armored Train No.27) in Russia, 1941.


Captured French Renault FT 17/18 light tank.


Captured American M4A3 Sherman in the Ardennes, January of 1945.


Captured British Sherman VC "Firefly" (armed with 17 pounder gun) in Normandy, 1944.


Captured Russian KV-2 mounted with commander's cupola.


Panzerkampfwagen KV-I(r) mit 7.5cm KwK.
Captured Soviet KV-I rearmed with 75mm KwK 40 L/43 gun and
mounted with PzKpfw IV commander's cupola.


Captured Soviet M3 Lee used by the Germans in Mzensk region near Leningrad in January 1943.

The Germans used EVERYTHING because their own war industries could
never keep up production.

[Soulman]

A lot of the tanks in that pictoral overload were used in security roles. The M4A3, Firefly, KV-1 and even the M3 were superior to at least some German tanks of the era (I could even see Pz-II crews using captured Crusaders). The 75mm gun on the M3 was better than the 50mm on the Pz-III at the time.

The bit at the end with the pictures wasn't important anyway. Please stick to responding to the important parts like the quote from Heinz Guderian and the fact that the spalling was limited to very early tanks and isolated batches contrary to what you said earlier.