Surviving Post WWII Vehicles Based on T-34 Tanks Last Update: January 11, 2019
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
M6 Heavy Tank the Newly-Formed Heavy Tank Platoons Are Lieutenant Giving a Good Account of Themselves
HEAVY TANK PLATOON Lieutenant M6 HEAVY TANK The newly-formed heavy tank platoons are Lieutenant giving a good account of themselves. DEVELOPMENT Heavy Tank Platoons are rated as: Confident Trained At the outbreak of World War II the US Army DESIGN FEATURES possessed few tanks, and no heavy tanks. In OON May 1940 the US Army Ordnance Department When the specifications were laid down PLatooN T for the M6 heavy tank it was normal for Command M6 heavy tank started to work on the T1, 50-ton heavy LA heavy tanks, such as the Soviet T-35, HQ Tank multi-turreted tank. This was similar in 3 M6 heavy tanks ...... 510 points P concept to the Soviet T-35 and other 1930s to follow the ‘land battleship’ model, ‘land battleship’ designs. By October 1940, having multiple turrets mounting a 2 M6 heavy tanks ...... 340 points Sergeant CorporalSergeant the Department reached the same conclusions variety of guns and machine-guns. The 1 M6 heavy tank ....... 170 points of excessive size, difficulty in crew co- T1 heavy tank specification featured a ordination and high production cost that had slightly more modern arrangement with led to the abandonment of the land battleship both of its guns mounted in the same REPLACING StANDARD EQUIPMENT concept in Europe. turret and its twin .50 cal machine- Any US company may replace a Tank Platoon guns in a relatively conventional bow M6 heavy tank M6 heavy tank A new T1 heavy tank design was laid down with mounting. taken as a Support platoon with a Heavy a single turret retaining the mixed armament Tank Platoon. -
Tank Destroyer Field Manual
MHI FM 18-5 Copy 3 WAR DEPARTMENT TANK DESTROYER FIELD MANUAL ORGANIZATION AND TACTICS OF TANK DESTROYElR UNITS June 16, 1942 I~~~~~JI soZII FM 18-5 TANK DESTROYER FIELD MANUAL ORGANIZATION AND TACTICS OF TANK DESTROYER UNITS UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 1942 WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, June 16, 1942. FM 18-5, Tank Destroyer Field Manual, Organization and Tactics of Tank Destroyer Units, is published for the infor- mation and guidancQ ofall concerned. [A. G. 062.11 (5-26-42).] BY ORDER OF THE SECRETARY OF WAR: G. C. MARSHALL, Chief of Staff. OFFICIAL: J. A. ULIO, Major General, The Adjutant General. DISTRIBUTION: Bn and H 1-7, 17, 18 (3); I C 2-7, 9-11 (3); C 17, 18 (20). (For explanation of symbols see FM 21-6.) TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1. Armored combat. Paragraphs Page SECTION I. Characteristics of armored forces_ 1-3 1 II. Tank tactics ____________________ 4-8 4 CHAPTER 2. Tank destroyer characteristics and or- ganization. SECTION I. Mission and characteristics ______ 9-11 7 II. Moral qualities___- _______---____ 12-13 8 III. Weapons ---_______ ______________ 14-16 8 IV. Communications ________________ 17-25 11 V. General organization _____-_____. 26-31 14 CHAPTER 3. Combat. SECTION I. Duties of commanders _____- _____ 32-35 16 II. Allocation and employment of units___-----_________.------- 36-56 18 III. Positions and areas ______--- ___- 57 24 CHAPTER 4. Tank destroyer company. SECTION I. Tank destroyer squad and sec- tion____-- ______________------- 58-63 27 II. Antiaircraft section ____________- 64-67 35 III. -
Projected Acquisition Costs for the Army's Ground Combat Vehicles
Projected Acquisition Costs for the Army’s Ground Combat Vehicles © MDart10/Shutterstock.com APRIL | 2021 At a Glance The Army operates a fleet of ground combat vehicles—vehicles intended to conduct combat opera- tions against enemy forces—and plans to continue to do so. Expanding on the Army’s stated plans, the Congressional Budget Office has projected the cost of acquiring such vehicles through 2050. Those projections include costs for research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) and for procurement but not the costs of operating and maintaining the vehicles. CBO’s key findings are as follows: • Total acquisition costs for the Army’s ground combat vehicles are projected to average about $5 billion per year (in 2020 dollars) through 2050—$4.5 billion for procurement and $0.5 billion for RDT&E. • The projected procurement costs are greater (in constant dollars) than the average annual cost for such vehicles from 2010 to 2019 but approximately equal to the average annual cost from 2000 to 2019 (when spending was boosted because of operations in Iraq). • More than 40 percent of the projected acquisition costs of Army ground combat vehicles are for Abrams tanks. • Most of the projected acquisition costs are for remanufactured and upgraded versions of current vehicles, though the Army also plans to acquire an Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle, which will replace the Bradley armored personnel carrier; an Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle, which will replace the M113 armored personnel carrier; and a new Mobile Protected Firepower tank, which will be lighter than an Abrams tank. • The Army is also considering developing an unmanned Decisive Lethality Platform that might eventually replace Abrams tanks. -
Errors in American Tank Development in World War II Jacob Fox James Madison University
James Madison University JMU Scholarly Commons Masters Theses The Graduate School Spring 2013 The rW ong track: Errors in American tank development in World War II Jacob Fox James Madison University Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.lib.jmu.edu/master201019 Part of the History Commons Recommended Citation Fox, Jacob, "The rW ong track: Errors in American tank development in World War II" (2013). Masters Theses. 215. https://commons.lib.jmu.edu/master201019/215 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the The Graduate School at JMU Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Masters Theses by an authorized administrator of JMU Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Wrong Track: Errors in American Tank Development in World War II Jacob Fox A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty of JAMES MADISON UNIVERSITY In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Department of History May 2013 ii Table of Contents Abstract ........................................................................................................... iii Introduction and Historiography ....................................................................... 1 Chapter One: America’s Pre-War tank Policy and Early War Development ....... 19 McNair’s Tank Destroyers Chapter Two: The Sherman on the Battlefield ................................................. 30 Reaction in the Press Chapter Three: Ordnance Department and the T26 ........................................ -
PDF Download M103 Heavy Tank, 1950-74 Ebook, Epub
M103 HEAVY TANK, 1950-74 PDF, EPUB, EBOOK Kenneth W. Estes,Richard Chasemore | 48 pages | 19 Mar 2013 | Bloomsbury Publishing PLC | 9781849089814 | English | United Kingdom M103 Heavy Tank, 1950-74 PDF Book Army tank engineering of the late s. About This Item. Best for. The heavy tank proved fairly popular with its crews, who above all respected the powerful armament it carried. M7 Priest mm Howitzer Motor Carriage. While the US Army deactivated its heavy armor units with the reception of the new M60 series main battle tanks in , the remaining Ms stayed within the US Marine Corps inventory until they began receiving the M60 series main battle tank. Post—World War II armies have shifted to the Main Battle Tank concept, in which a single model is expected to fulfill the breakthrough functions of a heavy tank while retaining the mobility of medium and light tanks. It may have been the unwanted 'ugly duckling' of the Army, which refrained from naming the M alone of all its postwar tanks. The M is a bit of a footnote in the history of US armour. Welcome to Wargaming. Standard US Army armor battalions at the time had three companies per battalion, each with three five-tank platoons, with 17 tanks per company two tanks were in headquarters platoon. The last Ms were withdrawn from service in Walmart Services. Flag as inappropriate. See all related content. Hannie leads a double life, one as a wife and mother in a Devon manor Range A, Camp Pendleton, California. Ask a question Ask a question If you would like to share feedback with us about pricing, delivery or other customer service issues, please contact customer service directly. -
The M1A2 Abrams: the Last Main Battle Tank?
The M1A2 Abrams: The Last Main Battle Tank? by Stanley C. Crist With its superb integration of fire- Although Longbow Hellfire was de- is expected to enter production around power, mobility, and armor protection, signed for the AH-64D Apache heli- 2015, replacing the M1-series tanks. the M1A2 Abrams is very nearly the copter, there is no obvious reason it Since the next generation armored ultimate incarnation of the main battle couldn’t be fired from an armored ve- fighting vehicle is no longer referred to tank (MBT). Although more advanced hicle. Indeed, at least one nation is ap- as an MBT, can it be inferred that the design concepts have been published in parently developing a similar system. future combat system need not be a recent years, it will likely prove quite According to the August/December tank as we know it today? difficult to produce an MBT suffi- 1993 issue of ASIAN MILITARY RE- If self-guided missiles are chosen for ciently superior (to the M1A2) to jus- VIEW, India has developed the NAG, a tify the cost, so why not look for a bet- fire-and-forget antitank missile with a the primary armament of the FCS, a ter idea? range of six kilometers. It was planned number of advantages present them- that the NAG would be the armament selves. For one, it ought to be possible to eliminate the turret assembly; this The Missile Option for a tracked combat vehicle. With would greatly simplify construction, ground surveillance radar (GSR) incor- When Egyptian Saggers surprised Is- porated into its fire control system, with a corresponding decrease in pro- duction cost and vehicle weight. -
LIBERTY UNIVERSITY Master's Thesis the M26 Pershing
LIBERTY UNIVERSITY Master’s Thesis The M26 Pershing: America’s Forgotten Tank - Developmental and Combat History Author : Reader : Supervisor : Robert P. Hanger Dr. Christopher J. Smith Dr. David L. Snead A thesis submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master’s of Arts In the Liberty University Department of History May 11, 2018 Abstract The M26 tank, nicknamed the “General Pershing,” was the final result of the Ordnance Department’s revolutionary T20 series. It was the only American heavy tank to be fielded during the Second World War. Less is known about this tank, mainly because it entered the war too late and in too few numbers to impact events. However, it proved a sufficient design – capable of going toe-to-toe with vaunted German armor. After the war, American tank development slowed and was reduced mostly to modernization of the M26 and component development. The Korean War created a sudden need for armor and provided the impetus for further development. M26s were rushed to the conflict and demonstrated to be decisive against North Korean armor. Nonetheless, the principle role the tank fulfilled was infantry support. In 1951, the M26 was replaced by its improved derivative, the M46. Its final legacy was that of being the foundation of America’s Cold War tank fleet. Contents Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………..1 Chapter 1. Development of the T26 …………………………………………………..………..10 Chapter 2. The M26 in Action in World War II …………...…………………………………40 Chapter 3. The Interwar Period ……………………………………………………………….63 Chapter 4. The M26 in Korea ………………………………………………………………….76 The Invasion………………………………………………………...………77 Intervention…………………………………………………………………81 The M26 Enters the War……………………………………………………85 The M26 in the Anti-Tank Role…………………………………………….87 Chapter 5. -
Simonov SKS (& Close Derivatives)
Weapon Identification Sheet Simonov SKS (& close derivatives) Variants and their distinguishing features VARIANTS BARREL DESIGN Simonov SKS (& close derivatives) (Model/manufacturer) Grenade-launching muzzle No grenade launcher • SKS; Russia ■ TYPE: RIFLE ■ ALSO REFERRED TO AS: SKS, SIMONOV • Type 56 ‘carbine’; China • Type 63; China • Type 63; North Korea • M59/66; Yugoslavia (Serbia) The Chinese Type 63 is not exactly a derivative of the SKS, but the M59/66 All other models weapon is sufficiently similar in appearance to include it in this Weapons ID Sheet. North Korean GAS REGULATOR Type 68 rifles are distinguishable from Chinese Type 56 versions Protrusion forward of the because they are stamped with gas regulator No protrusion a proof mark featuring a five- pointed star in a circle. Model illustrated: Simonov SKS, Russia Technical Information The SKS was developed in the Soviet Union Type 63, China All other models Calibre during the Second World War. It is a gas-operated, self-loading rifle. The weapon’s most distinctive 7.62 x 39 mm M1943 MAGAZINE Length features are the tubular appearance of the 20-round detachable box 10-round integral box 1023 mm receiver, which ends abruptly at the neck of the Weight (unloaded) stock, and a folding bayonet, which is permanently 3.8 kg attached to the barrel. Barrel length 524 mm Feed device 10-round internal box magazine Type 63, China All other models PROBABLE GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION Sighting systems: Sighting systems Region State forces Non-state/illicit Fore: Post Western Europe BAYONET DESIGN Rear: Tangent, notch Eastern Europe ◗ Triangular ‘spike’ Single-edged ‘knife’ Operating system Middle East & North Africa ◗ ● Gas, self-loading Sub-Saharan Africa ● ● Points to include when recording Muzzle velocity information about the weapon: Central Asia ◗ ◗ 735 m/s 1. -
(12) United States Patent (10) Patent No.: US 9,082,219 B2 Haanpaa Et Al
US009082219B2 (12) United States Patent (10) Patent No.: US 9,082,219 B2 Haanpaa et al. (45) Date of Patent: *Jul. 14, 2015 (54) ORIENTATION INVARIANT OBJECT (52) U.S. Cl. IDENTIFICATION USING MODEL-BASED CPC .............. G06T 15/10 (2013.01); G06K9/0063 IMAGE PROCESSING (2013.01); G06K9/3241 (2013.01); G06T 15/00 (2013.01) (71) Applicant: Cybernet Systems Corporation, Ann (58) Field of Classification Search Arbor, MI (US) CPC .............................. G06K9/0063; G06T 15/10 USPC .......................................... 382/103, 206, 209 (72) Inventors: Douglas Haanpaa, Dexter, MI (US); See application file for complete search history. Charles J. Cohen, Ann Arbor, MI (US); Glenn J. Beach, Grass Lake, MI (US); (56) References Cited Charles J. Jacobus, Ann Arbor, MI (US) U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS (73) Assignee: Cybernet Systems Corporation, Ann 3,976,999 A 8, 1976 Moore et al. Arbor, MI (US) 3,992,710 A 11/1976 Gabriele et al. (*) Notice: Subject to any disclaimer, the term of this (Continued) patent is extended or adjusted under 35 Primary Examiner — Gregory M Desire U.S.C. 154(b) by 0 days. (74) Attorney, Agent, or Firm — Gifford, Krass, Sprinkle, This patent is Subject to a terminal dis Anderson & Citkowski, P.C. claimer. (57) ABSTRACT (21) Appl. No.: 14/242,560 A system for performing object identification combines pose determination, EO/IR sensor data, and novel computer graph (22) Filed: Apr. 1, 2014 ics rendering techniques. A first module extracts the orienta tion and distance of a target in a truth chip given that the target (65) Prior Publication Data type is known. -
Rebel Forces in Northern Mali
REBEL FORCES IN NORTHERN MALI Documented weapons, ammunition and related materiel April 2012-March 2013 Co-published online by Conflict Armament Research and the Small Arms Survey © Conflict Armament Research/Small Arms Survey, London/Geneva, 2013 First published in April 2013 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means without the prior permission in writing of Conflict Armament Research and the Small Arms Survey, or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organisation. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the secretary, Conflict Armament Research ([email protected]) or the secretary, Small Arms Survey ([email protected]). Copy-edited by Alex Potter ([email protected]) Reviewed by Alex Diehl and Nic Jenzen-Jones Cover image: © Joseph Penny, 2013 Above image: Design and layout by Julian Knott (www.julianknott.com) © Richard Valdmanis, 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS About 4 3.7 M40 106 mm recoilless gun 11 Abbreviations and acronyms 5 4. Light Weapons Ammunition 12 Introduction 6 4.1 12.7 x 108 mm ammunition 12 4.2 14.5 x 115 mm ammunition 12 1. Small Arms 7 4.3 PG-7 rockets 13 1.1 Kalashnikov-pattern 7.62 x 39 mm assault 4.4 OG-82 and PG-82 rockets 13 rifles 7 4.5 82 mm mortar bombs 14 1.2 FN FAL-pattern 7.62 x 51 mm rifle 7 4.6 120 mm mortar bombs 14 1.3 G3-pattern 7.62 x 51 mm rifle 7 4.7 Unidentified nose fuzes 14 1.4 MAT-49 9 x 19 mm sub-machine gun 7 4.8 F1-pattern fragmentation grenades 15 1.5 RPD-pattern 7.62 x 39 mm light 4.9 NR-160 106 mm HEAT projectiles 15 machine gun 7 1.6 PK-pattern 7.62 x 54R mm general-purpose 5. -
France Historical AFV Register
France Historical AFV Register Armored Fighting Vehicles Preserved in France Updated 24 July 2016 Pierre-Olivier Buan Neil Baumgardner For the AFV Association 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................4 ALSACE.................................................................................................................5 Bas-Rhin / Lower Rhine (67)........................................................5 Haut-Rhin / Upper Rhine (68)......................................................10 AQUITAINE...........................................................................................................12 Dordogne (24) .............................................................................12 Gironde (33) ................................................................................13 Lot-et-Garonne (47).....................................................................14 AUVERGNE............................................................................................................15 Puy-de-Dôme (63)........................................................................15 BASSE-NORMANDIE / LOWER NORMANDY............................................................16 Calvados (14)...............................................................................16 Manche (50).................................................................................19 Orne (61).....................................................................................21 -
The Uncertain Role of the Tank in Modern War: Lessons from the Israeli Experience in Hybrid Warfare
No. 109 JUNE 2016 The Uncertain Role of the Tank in Modern War: Lessons from the Israeli Experience in Hybrid Warfare Michael B. Kim The Uncertain Role of the Tank in Modern War: Lessons from the Israeli Experience in Hybrid Warfare by Michael B. Kim The Institute of Land Warfare ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY AN INSTITUTE OF LAND WARFARE PAPER The purpose of the Institute of Land Warfare is to extend the educational work of AUSA by sponsoring scholarly publications, to include books, monographs and essays on key defense issues, as well as workshops and symposia. A work selected for publication as a Land Warfare Paper represents research by the author which, in the opinion of ILW’s editorial board, will contribute to a better understanding of a particular defense or national security issue. Publication as an Institute of Land Warfare Paper does not indicate that the Association of the United States Army agrees with everything in the paper but does suggest that the Association believes the paper will stimulate the thinking of AUSA members and others concerned about important defense issues. LAND WARFARE PAPER No. 109, June 2016 The Uncertain Role of the Tank in Modern War: Lessons from the Israeli Experience in Hybrid Warfare by Michael B. Kim Major Michael B. Kim currently serves as the Squadron Executive Officer for the 8th Squadron, 1st Cavalry Regiment, 2d Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 2d Infantry Division. Prior to his current position, he graduated from the Command and General Staff College (CGSC), Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, and completed the Art of War Scholars Program.