±Recent Visitors

Recent Visitors to Com-Central!

±User Info-big


Welcome Anonymous

Nickname
Password

Membership:
Latest: cgsimpson
New Today: 0
New Yesterday: 0
Overall: 6645

People Online:
Members: 0
Visitors: 219
Total: 219
Who Is Where:
 Visitors:
01: Community Forums
02: CPGlang
03: Community Forums
04: Photo Gallery
05: Photo Gallery
06: Community Forums
07: Photo Gallery
08: Community Forums
09: Photo Gallery
10: Community Forums
11: Photo Gallery
12: Downloads
13: Home
14: Community Forums
15: News
16: Community Forums
17: Photo Gallery
18: Photo Gallery
19: Downloads
20: Community Forums
21: Community Forums
22: Downloads
23: Photo Gallery
24: Community Forums
25: Photo Gallery
26: Photo Gallery
27: Home
28: Photo Gallery
29: Community Forums
30: Photo Gallery
31: Community Forums
32: Community Forums
33: Photo Gallery
34: Photo Gallery
35: Photo Gallery
36: Community Forums
37: Photo Gallery
38: Community Forums
39: Photo Gallery
40: Community Forums
41: Community Forums
42: Photo Gallery
43: Community Forums
44: Photo Gallery
45: Your Account
46: News
47: Community Forums
48: Community Forums
49: Photo Gallery
50: Photo Gallery
51: Community Forums
52: Community Forums
53: Community Forums
54: Photo Gallery
55: Downloads
56: Community Forums
57: Community Forums
58: Your Account
59: Your Account
60: CPGlang
61: Photo Gallery
62: Photo Gallery
63: Photo Gallery
64: Your Account
65: Photo Gallery
66: Search
67: Community Forums
68: Home
69: Community Forums
70: Photo Gallery
71: Home
72: Community Forums
73: Home
74: Member Screenshots
75: Photo Gallery
76: Photo Gallery
77: Community Forums
78: News Archive
79: Community Forums
80: Community Forums
81: Community Forums
82: Community Forums
83: Home
84: News Archive
85: Community Forums
86: Photo Gallery
87: Community Forums
88: Your Account
89: Photo Gallery
90: Photo Gallery
91: Photo Gallery
92: Community Forums
93: Community Forums
94: Statistics
95: Search
96: Community Forums
97: Photo Gallery
98: Community Forums
99: Community Forums
100: Photo Gallery
101: Member Screenshots
102: Community Forums
103: Photo Gallery
104: Community Forums
105: Community Forums
106: Community Forums
107: Photo Gallery
108: Community Forums
109: Home
110: Community Forums
111: Photo Gallery
112: Community Forums
113: CPGlang
114: Community Forums
115: Member Screenshots
116: Photo Gallery
117: Photo Gallery
118: Community Forums
119: Community Forums
120: CPGlang
121: Community Forums
122: CPGlang
123: Photo Gallery
124: Photo Gallery
125: Photo Gallery
126: Photo Gallery
127: Community Forums
128: Photo Gallery
129: Photo Gallery
130: Photo Gallery
131: Home
132: Downloads
133: Community Forums
134: Downloads
135: Photo Gallery
136: Community Forums
137: Photo Gallery
138: Community Forums
139: Member Screenshots
140: Photo Gallery
141: Community Forums
142: Photo Gallery
143: Photo Gallery
144: Community Forums
145: Home
146: Statistics
147: Community Forums
148: Your Account
149: Your Account
150: Photo Gallery
151: Home
152: Photo Gallery
153: CPGlang
154: Community Forums
155: Photo Gallery
156: Photo Gallery
157: Community Forums
158: Community Forums
159: Photo Gallery
160: Photo Gallery
161: Community Forums
162: Photo Gallery
163: Photo Gallery
164: Community Forums
165: Photo Gallery
166: Member Screenshots
167: Community Forums
168: Community Forums
169: Photo Gallery
170: Community Forums
171: Home
172: Community Forums
173: Photo Gallery
174: Community Forums
175: Community Forums
176: Community Forums
177: Photo Gallery
178: Community Forums
179: Photo Gallery
180: Photo Gallery
181: Photo Gallery
182: Photo Gallery
183: Photo Gallery
184: Community Forums
185: Member Screenshots
186: Community Forums
187: Home
188: Downloads
189: Photo Gallery
190: Community Forums
191: Photo Gallery
192: Photo Gallery
193: Community Forums
194: Community Forums
195: Photo Gallery
196: Photo Gallery
197: Community Forums
198: Downloads
199: Community Forums
200: Your Account
201: Community Forums
202: Community Forums
203: Community Forums
204: Your Account
205: Downloads
206: Photo Gallery
207: Community Forums
208: Photo Gallery
209: Photo Gallery
210: Community Forums
211: Community Forums
212: Photo Gallery
213: Community Forums
214: Your Account
215: Home
216: Photo Gallery
217: Photo Gallery
218: Community Forums
219: Community Forums

Staff Online:

No staff members are online!
Hey Roy!
The AFV ASSOCIATION was formed in 1964 to support the thoughts and research of all those interested in Armored Fighting Vehicles and related topics, such as AFV drawings. The emphasis has always been on sharing information and communicating with other members of similar interests; e.g. German armor, Japanese AFVs, or whatever.
Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Post new topic    Reply to topic    Printer Friendly Page     Forum Index ›  AFV News Discussion Board

View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
DCCLarke
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 62

PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 1:42 am
Post subject: Hey Roy!

Sorry to be so rude as to call you out on the forum, my good friend. But, I need a professional opinion from a Scout! I know you're not a German Armor afficionado--no one's perfect--but I wanted to ask you what you thought of this vehicle for scouting purposes:


Okay, four man crew, 20 mm. automatic cannon, 60 Km/hr (30Km/hr. cross country), 15.3 horsepower per metric ton, two radios in some versions, one of which was short range, the other good for 25 Km. while moving and armor sufficient to stop 7.62mm rounds from the sides, 20mm rounds from the front. Total weight, about 12 tons, range about 138 miles or eight hours of operation without refueling.

So my friend, does it cut it as a reconnaissance vehicle in your opinion? Smile Smile Smile What would you like changed in a WWII envirnment?

Best,
David
Back to top
View user's profile
bsmart
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 2523
Location: Central Maryland
PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 2:07 am
Post subject: Re: Hey Roy!

Is it a fully automatic 20mm? I thought it was a clip fed weapon that was used in a semiautomatic mode and not a 'Machine cannon' similar to the Oerlikon or Hispano 20mm that were used in aircraft or antiaircraft roles

_________________
Bob Smart (bsmart@xecu.net)
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail
DCCLarke
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 62

PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 2:13 am
Post subject: Re: Hey Roy!

Quite right Bob! Sorry, an excess of enthusiasm!

If memory serves, the Luchs carried 33 clips, each of 8 rounds of 20mm ammunition.

Thanks for the correction! Smile

Best,
David
Back to top
View user's profile
Roy_A_Lingle
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 1997
Location: El Paso & Ft Bliss, Texas
PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 7:04 am
Post subject: Re: Hey Roy!

Hi David! Hi Folks!

"Sorry to be so rude as to call you out on the forum, my good friend."

No problem Sir! That is why I hang out at places like this!

"I wanted to ask you what you thought of this vehicle for scouting purposes"

I only saw a red "X", no photo, but from your second post I am guessing you are talking about the Luchs light tank.

"four man crew, 20 mm. automatic cannon, 60 Km/hr (30Km/hr. cross country), 15.3 horsepower per metric ton, two radios in some versions, one of which was short range, the other good for 25 Km. while moving and armor sufficient to stop 7.62mm rounds from the sides, 20mm rounds from the front. Total weight, about 12 tons, range about 138 miles or eight hours of operation without refueling."

"So my friend, does it cut it as a reconnaissance vehicle in your opinion? What would you like changed in a WWII envirnment?"

I would think it would make a very good LIGHT recon vehicle. Much better than a US M3 Scout Car, M8 Armored Car, or the M3/M5 light tanks with and without turrets. Anything would be better than a jeep with a machine gun. But then a jeep with a heavy machine gun is better that a walking infantry that is carrying any machine gun.

I some ways, the WWII German Luchs light tank is a bit like the M114A2 and M113 1/2 Lynx C&R vehicles. If it was mechanical sound and didn't break down like the M114 did, I would think it would be OK.

That would be this old Scout's professional opinion.
Sgt, Scouts Out!

_________________
"You can never have too much reconnaissance."
General G.S. Patton Jr.
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail
recon4ww2
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 117
Location: western Ohio
PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 11:35 am
Post subject: Re: Hey Roy!

David,

I'm a former Scout myself. First I rode a Kawasaki KL250 in the 101st AB,
B troop 2/17th Cav. in 83.Then I was a driver and later gunner on an M-3 Bradley. I gotta tell ya, the Bradley was a fun toy but most of the Scouts in my platoon were not impressed with it as a Scout vehicle! Too big, too loud and the early trany sucked! But worst of all, once we got them we virtually quit training a Scouts It was all gunnery gunnery gunnery! We would have been very weak on the basic scout skills after that such as route recon, bridge classification etc. Sure we loved the firepower we had but a Scout should never need that much to do what Scouts should do. I would have preferred something like a M-114.
So I guess I would also have preferred the Luchs at that time, as a matter of fact I would have preferred the Current Spahapanzer Luchs over the M3!

Sorry for the long post and I'll probably get nuked by the Bradley lovers out there, but it's just my opinion.

Mike Haines
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail
Dontos
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 3436
Location: Vine Grove, KY
PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 11:45 am
Post subject: Re: Hey Roy!

Mike

Not a 'Bradley lover' I agree about the modern SP Luchs.

In WWII era:
US: The Jeep was perhaps the best for recon vehicle along with the M20.

German: I would chose the Sd Kfz 222 over the 'Luchs'. Its smaller (?) quieter, and still retains the 2cm/MG42 for protection. For lightweight, perhaps the Kubel/Schwimwagen ?

British: The 'land rover' truck used in Africa. Not sure of the name.

I'm sure this will generate some postings as it may become a 'popularity' contest of armament over stealth.

Let the discussions begin....

Don
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger Photo Gallery
David_Reasoner
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 127
Location: South Central Kentucky
PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 1:13 pm
Post subject: Re: Hey Roy!

- Dontos

British: The 'land rover' truck used in Africa. Not sure of the name.

Don


The LRDG used a variety of trucks during the war. The most popular and best remembered was the 30cwt (1 1/2 ton) Chevy. These were actually 4x2 trucks without a driven front axle. The LRDG later received 4x4 Ford CMP based vehicles, but doesn't seem to have been as impressed with them. Evidently the advantage of four-wheel-drive was not seen as adequate compensation for the increase in weight. Desert patrols were a real endurance test for both men and machines, most patrols included a fitter's vehicle stocked with spare leaf springs and spring shackles, amongst other things.

David
Back to top
View user's profile
bsmart
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 2523
Location: Central Maryland
PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 2:30 pm
Post subject: Re: Hey Roy!

As I see it the problem with the Luchs is that it is probably almost as resource intensive to produce as a Pz III or PZ IV. You have the complexity of a turret including the machining of a turret ring, a very complex suspension and drive train, etc. All requiring a complex assembly process that could have been better occupied turning out medium tanks.

An M3 scout car has he advantage of being much simpler to produce and can be produced by any medium truck assembly line. The M20 is a little more complex but still uses mass produced drivetrain parts.

So from a 'total war' point of view where you have to consider the impact of a weapon system in terms of the resources it takes to field it I'm not sure the Luchs is the better scout vehicle

_________________
Bob Smart (bsmart@xecu.net)
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail
DCCLarke
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 62

PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 11:53 pm
Post subject: Re: Hey Roy!

Hi Bob, I really wasn't considering the Luchs in terms of its cost effectiveness. All Luchs production, as you know, was finished by February 1943 and I believe that fact alone indicates that the Germans agreed with you that the Luchs was sort of a "luxury" vehicle. In fact, probably the most often used German scout vehicle by the late war years was the Sd. Kfz. 250 series of halftracks.

Say Roy, I don't know why you get a red "X" instead of a photo. The photo shows for me on both my AOL and Netscape browser.

But, anyway, I was interested in how the Luchs stacked up against other vehicles designed for reconnaissance.

So, I'm a little curious as to the similarities between it and the legendary M-114 "Lingle" of the sixties and seventies.

The "Lingle" weighed in at slightly over 6 tons and had about the same Hp/weight ratio--15hp/ton. The Lingle used an 8 cylinder gasoline engine producing 160 hp at 4200 rpms vs. the Luch's 180 hp at 3200 rpms.

Length:
14.64 ft. (Lingle)
14 ft. 2 1/2 inches (Luchs)
Height:
7 ft. over 50. cal. MG (Lingle)
6 ft. 7ins. (Luchs)
Width:
7.64 feet (Lingle)
8 ft. 2ins. (Luchs)
Ground pressure:
5.1 psi. (Lingle)
.77kg/square cm (I can't do this conversion, help?) Luchs

Physically, the two vehicles seem to have a lot of similarities, which is a little odd, considering they were produced in different decades!

So, any opinions on the great Lingle vs. Luchs debate? Laughing Laughing Laughing

Best,
David
Back to top
View user's profile
Dontos
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 3436
Location: Vine Grove, KY
PostPosted: Sat Feb 04, 2006 12:19 am
Post subject: Re: Hey Roy!

David

I think the biggest difference with recon in mind, is that the 'Lingle' carries additional personnel to successfully cover more terrain while dismounted thus the operating crew can be prepared to 'bug out' should the occasion arise.

I assume the Luchs has a crew of 3 or 4. This would prevent dismounting unless leaving the vehicle short crewed.

Just a few thoughts on the two
Don
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger Photo Gallery
DCCLarke
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 62

PostPosted: Sat Feb 04, 2006 12:22 am
Post subject: Re: Hey Roy!

Hi Don! The Luchs carried a crew of 4--commander, radio operator, driver and gunner. And it was really tight inside. The Lingle definitely has the edge on interior space, but I always thought the crew was three, didn't know that dismounts were normally carried.

Best,
David
Back to top
View user's profile
Neil_Baumgardner
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 3942
Location: Arlington, VA
PostPosted: Sat Feb 04, 2006 12:59 am
Post subject: Re: Hey Roy!

- recon4ww2
David,

I'm a former Scout myself. First I rode a Kawasaki KL250 in the 101st AB,
B troop 2/17th Cav. in 83.Then I was a driver and later gunner on an M-3 Bradley. I gotta tell ya, the Bradley was a fun toy but most of the Scouts in my platoon were not impressed with it as a Scout vehicle! Too big, too loud and the early trany sucked! But worst of all, once we got them we virtually quit training a Scouts It was all gunnery gunnery gunnery! We would have been very weak on the basic scout skills after that such as route recon, bridge classification etc. Sure we loved the firepower we had but a Scout should never need that much to do what Scouts should do. I would have preferred something like a M-114.
So I guess I would also have preferred the Luchs at that time, as a matter of fact I would have preferred the Current Spahapanzer Luchs over the M3!

Sorry for the long post and I'll probably get nuked by the Bradley lovers out there, but it's just my opinion.

Mike Haines


Nope, scouts definately got screwed in the late 70s/early 80s by the decision to cancel ARSV and merge the requirement with the emerging MICV program that lead to the Bradley. Its probably a good IFV, but its "scouting in a winnebago."

IMO, the XM800T would have made a good scout vehicle and would probably still be in service today - upgraded with a second gen FLIR, etc. I think the XM800s often get a bad rap. Yet note the following from Hunnicutt's Bradley (page 244):

"In comparing the two XM800 vehicles with the baseline M113A1, the test report concluded that the XM800T was superior to both the M113A1 and the XM800W in overal performance as an ARSV. The XM800W performed well on roads and its quiet operation and high road speed were goals to be achieved for future scout vehicles. However, its limited cross country capability and safety hazards associated with lateral instability and directional control made it less effective than the M113A1."

XM800T



Gotta love the plaque: "Armor will achieve this ground mobility [ie the scout role] by organization, training, mission and a state of mind."



XM800W



Neil
Back to top
View user's profile
DCCLarke
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 62

PostPosted: Sat Feb 04, 2006 1:50 am
Post subject: Re: Hey Roy!

Nice post Neil, do you have any specs for the XM800T? I can't seem to find mine and I'd like to compare its autmotive performance with the Luchs and Lingle.

Best,
David
Back to top
View user's profile
recon4ww2
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 117
Location: western Ohio
PostPosted: Sat Feb 04, 2006 2:29 am
Post subject: Re: Hey Roy!

Hi Neil,

I forgot about the XM 800t, I love that concept. When I first saw it at Knox I couldn't believe it never was fielded.

Mike
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail
DCCLarke
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 62

PostPosted: Sat Feb 04, 2006 3:00 am
Post subject: Re: Hey Roy!

Hi Mike, I always wondered why it never made it to the troops as well. But look at the picture of it and then scroll up to the picture of the Luchs--it doesn't look like the concept has changed much, just the equipment. Perhaps, like the Luchs, it was regarded as too much of a "luxury".

Best,
David
Back to top
View user's profile
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    Reply to topic    Printer Friendly Page    Forum Index ›  AFV News Discussion Board
Page 1 of 3
All times are GMT - 6 Hours
Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next



Jump to:  


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum