Surviving British Tankettes, Light and Medium Tanks Last Update : 10 August 2021
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
COMBAT DAMAGE ASSESSMENT TEAM A-10/GAU-8 LOW ANGLE FIRINGS VERSUS INDIVIDUAL SOVIET TANKS (February - March 1978)
NPS56-79-005 NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL Monterey, California COMBAT DAMAGE ASSESSMENT TEAM A-10/GAU-8 LOW ANGLE FIRINGS VERSUS INDIVIDUAL SOVIET TANKS (February - March 1978) R.H.S. Stolfi J.E. Clemens R.R. McEachir August 1979 Approved for public release; distribution unlimited •7 Prepared for: A-10 System Program Office Wright Patterson Air Force Base Ohio 45433 FEDDOCS D 208.1 4/2:NPS-56-79-005 r NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL Monterey, California Rear Admiral Tyler F. - Dedman Jark R Rnrct1 nn Superintendent Borsting jjj^J' he r ed he rein P was supported by the A-10 System Program OfficI Wr?nht p fl r 9 ,T r F° r " BaSe Ohio ' The " ' reproduction of allai\ oror'oarpart of thisf"reportt' is authorized. UNCLASSIFIED SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (Whan Dili Bnlarad) READ INSTRUCTIONS REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE BEFORE COMPLETING FORM NO 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER t. REPORT NUMBER 2. GOVT ACCESSION NPS56-79-005 S. TYPE OF REPORT ft PERIOD COVERED 4. TITLE (and Subtltlt) Special Report for Period Combat Damage Assessment Team A-10/GAU-8 February - March 1978 Low Angle Firings Versus Individual Soviet 6. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER Tanks (February - March 1978) B. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBERf*.) 7. AUTHOR^; R.H.S. Stolfi None J.E. Clemens R.R. McEachin 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT, PROJECT, TASK 9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS AREA ft WORK UNIT NUMBERS Naval Postgraduate School F 47615-78-5209 and Monterey, California 93940 FY 7621-78-90220 12. REPORT DATE II. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS A-10 System Program Office January 1979 Wright Patterson Air Force Base 13. -
The Evolution of British Tactical and Operational Tank Doctrine and Training in the First World War
The evolution of British tactical and operational tank doctrine and training in the First World War PHILIP RICHARD VENTHAM TD BA (Hons.) MA. Thesis submitted for the award of the degree of Master of Philosophy by the University of Wolverhampton October 2016 ©Copyright P R Ventham 1 ABSTRACT Tanks were first used in action in September 1916. There had been no previous combat experience on which to base tactical and operational doctrine for the employment of this novel weapon of war. Training of crews and commanders was hampered by lack of vehicles and weapons. Time was short in which to train novice crews. Training facilities were limited. Despite mechanical limitations of the early machines and their vulnerability to adverse ground conditions, the tanks achieved moderate success in their initial actions. Advocates of the tanks, such as Fuller and Elles, worked hard to convince the sceptical of the value of the tank. Two years later, tanks had gained the support of most senior commanders. Doctrine, based on practical combat experience, had evolved both within the Tank Corps and at GHQ and higher command. Despite dramatic improvements in the design, functionality and reliability of the later marks of heavy and medium tanks, they still remained slow and vulnerable to ground conditions and enemy counter-measures. Competing demands for materiel meant there were never enough tanks to replace casualties and meet the demands of formation commanders. This thesis will argue that the somewhat patchy performance of the armoured vehicles in the final months of the war was less a product of poor doctrinal guidance and inadequate training than of an insufficiency of tanks and the difficulties of providing enough tanks in the right locations at the right time to meet the requirements of the manoeuvre battles of the ‘Hundred Days’. -
Tank Gunnery
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com MHI Copy 3 FM 17-12 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY FIELD MANUAL TANK GUNNERY HEADQUARTERS, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY NOVEMBER 1964 Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com PREPARE TO FIRE Instructional Card (M41A3, M48, and M60 Tanks) TANK COMMANDER GUNNER DRIVER LOADER Commond: PREPARE TO Observe looder's actionr in Cleon periscopes, Check indicotor tape for FIRE. making check of replenisher in. lower seat, close proper amount of recoil oil Inspect coaxial machine- dicotor tope. Clean nd inspect hoatch, nd turn in replenilher. Check posi- gun ond telescope ports gunner s direct-fire sights. Check on master switch. tion of breechblock crank to ensure gun shield operaoion of sight covers if op. stop. Open breech (assisted cover is correctly posi- cable. Check instrument lights. by gunner); inspect cham- tioned ond clomps are Assist loader in opening breech. ber ond tube, and clote secure. Clean exterior breech. Check coxial lenses and vision devices. mochinegun and adjust and clean ond inspect head space if opplicble. commander's direct-fire Check coaxial machinegun sight(s). Inspect cupolao mount ond odjust solenoid. sowed ammunilion if Inspect turret-stowed am. applicable. munitlon. Command: CHECK FIR- Ploce main gun safety in FIRE Start auxiliary Place moin gun safety ING SWITCHES. position if located on right side engine (moin en- in FIREposition if loated If main gun has percus- of gun. Turn gun switch ON. gin. if tank has on left side of gun. If sion mechanism, cock gun Check firing triggers on power no auxiliary en- moin gun hoaspercussion for eoch firing check if control handle if applicable. -
115 Mm, 120 Mm & 125 Mm Tank Guns
CHARACTERISATION OF EXPLOSIVE WEAPONS ANNEX D 115 MM, 120 MM & 125 MM TANK GUNS The Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining (GICHD) is an expert organisation working to reduce the impact of mines, cluster munitions and other explosive hazards, in close partnership with states, the UN and other human security actors. Based at the Maison de la paix in Geneva, the GICHD employs around 55 staff from over 15 countries with unique expertise and knowledge. bhenkz2) Our work is made possible by core contributions, project funding and in-kind support from more than 20 governments and organisations. photobucket The research project was guided and advised by a group of 18 international experts dealing with credit: weapons-related research and practitioners who address the implications of explosive weapons in humanitarian, policy, advocacy and legal fields. This document contributes to the research of the (Photo characterisation of explosive weapons (CEW) project in 2015-2016. gun main its firing Characterisation of explosive weapons study, annex D – 115 m m, 120 mm & 125 mm tank guns GICHD, Geneva, February 2017 T-90MS-V ISBN: 978-2-940369-65-2 Tank Russian The content of this publication, its presentation and the designations employed do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining (GICHD) regarding the legal status of image: any country, territory or armed group, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. All content remains the sole responsibility of the GICHD. Cover CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 4 TANK GUNS 6 High Explosive Tank Gun Ammunition 8 TANK GUN CASE STUDIES 11 Brief Descriptions 11 CASE STUDIES 13 Case Study 1 13 Case Study 2 17 Case Study 3 21 Case Study 4 24 Case Study 5 26 Annex D Contents 3 INTRODUCTION This study examines the characteristics, use and effects of tank guns and tank projectiles. -
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 ........................................ -
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. -
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 -
KV-IV in Bolt Action
KV-IV in Bolt action Points: Inexperienced (650 points) includes 15 crewmen and 1 commissar Damage Value: 10+ (Heavy Tank) Options • Spotter +10 points • Four man rocket reload crew + 28 points Weapons Hard point Weapons Range Shots Pen Special Rules Bow Bow MMG 36” 5 - Team, Fixed, forward arc Forward turret Medium Anti Tank Gun 60” 1 +5 Team, Fixed, forward, right, left arcs, HE(1”) coax MMG 36” 5 - Team, Fixed, forward, right, left arcs rear MMG 36” 5 - Team, Fixed, right, left arcs Forward sub turret Vehicle flame throwers 12” D6+1 +3 Team, Fixed, Forward, right, left arcs, Flamethrower Pintel HMG 36” 3 1 Team, Fixed, Flak Deck MG turret Twin MMG 36” 10 - Team, Fixed, Right arc Deck MG turret Twin MMG 36” 10 - Team, Fixed, Left arc Midships turret Twin heavy Howitzer (36”-84”) 2 HE Team, Fixed, forward, Left, right arcs, 72” Howitzer HE(4”) Rear MMG 36” 5 - Team, Fixed, Left Right arcs Pintel HMG 36” 3 1 Team, Fixed, Flak Midships sub Light Anti Tank gun 48” 1 +4 Team, Fixed, forward, right, left arcs, turret: HE(1”) Coax MMG 36” 5 - Team, Fixed, Left Right arcs Rear MMG 36” 5 - Team, Fixed, Left Right arcs Deck MG turret Twin MMG 36” 10 - Team, Fixed, Right arc Deck MG turret Twin MMG 36” 10 - Team, Fixed, Left arc Rear turret Medium Anti Tank Gun 60” 1 +5 Team, Fixed, rear, right, left arcs, HE(1”) coax MMG 36” 5 - Team, Fixed, rear, right, left arcs rear MMG 36” 5 - Team, Fixed, left, right arcs Katyusha Multiple launcher (12”-72”) 1 HE Team, Fixed, rear, right, left arcs, HE(3”) Special Rules Slow: maximum move of 6 inches Poor turning circle: instead of pivoting 90 degrees the front of the tank can be moved up to 3 inches to the left or right when the tank pivots. -
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. -
The Soviet-German Tank Academy at Kama
The Secret School of War: The Soviet-German Tank Academy at Kama THESIS Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Ian Johnson Graduate Program in History The Ohio State University 2012 Master's Examination Committee: Jennifer Siegel, Advisor Peter Mansoor David Hoffmann Copyright by Ian Ona Johnson 2012 Abstract This paper explores the period of military cooperation between the Weimar Period German Army (the Reichswehr), and the Soviet Union. Between 1922 and 1933, four facilities were built in Russia by the two governments, where a variety of training and technological exercises were conducted. These facilities were particularly focused on advances in chemical and biological weapons, airplanes and tanks. The most influential of the four facilities was the tank testing and training grounds (Panzertruppenschule in the German) built along the Kama River, near Kazan in North- Central Russia. Led by German instructors, the school’s curriculum was based around lectures, war games, and technological testing. Soviet and German students studied and worked side by side; German officers in fact often wore the Soviet uniform while at the school, to show solidarity with their fellow officers. Among the German alumni of the school were many of the most famous practitioners of mobile warfare during the Second World War, such as Guderian, Manstein, Kleist and Model. This system of education proved highly innovative. During seven years of operation, the school produced a number of extremely important technological and tactical innovations. Among the new technologies were a new tank chassis system, superior guns, and - perhaps most importantly- a radio that could function within a tank. -
Style Attacks and the Threat from Lashkar-E-Taiba
PROTECTING THE HOMELAND AGAINST MUMBAI- STYLE ATTACKS AND THE THREAT FROM LASHKAR-E-TAIBA HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON COUNTERTERRORISM AND INTELLIGENCE OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION JUNE 12, 2013 Serial No. 113–21 Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/ U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 85–686 PDF WASHINGTON : 2013 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001 COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas, Chairman LAMAR SMITH, Texas BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi PETER T. KING, New York LORETTA SANCHEZ, California MIKE ROGERS, Alabama SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan, Vice Chair BRIAN HIGGINS, New York PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania RON BARBER, Arizona JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah DONDALD M. PAYNE, JR., New Jersey STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi BETO O’ROURKE, Texas LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii CHRIS STEWART, Utah FILEMON VELA, Texas RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina STEVEN A. HORSFORD, Nevada STEVE DAINES, Montana ERIC SWALWELL, California SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania MARK SANFORD, South Carolina GREG HILL, Chief of Staff MICHAEL GEFFROY, Deputy Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel MICHAEL S. TWINCHEK, Chief Clerk I. LANIER AVANT, Minority Staff Director SUBCOMMITTEE ON COUNTERTERRORISM AND INTELLIGENCE PETER T.