±Recent Visitors

Recent Visitors to Com-Central!

±User Info-big


Welcome Anonymous

Nickname
Password

Membership:
Latest: JerryH
New Today: 0
New Yesterday: 0
Overall: 6595

People Online:
Members: 0
Visitors: 341
Total: 341
Who Is Where:
 Visitors:
01: Photo Gallery
02: Photo Gallery
03: Community Forums
04: Community Forums
05: Photo Gallery
06: Community Forums
07: Community Forums
08: Home
09: Community Forums
10: Photo Gallery
11: Community Forums
12: Community Forums
13: Community Forums
14: Downloads
15: Photo Gallery
16: Downloads
17: Photo Gallery
18: Photo Gallery
19: Community Forums
20: Community Forums
21: Community Forums
22: Photo Gallery
23: Community Forums
24: Community Forums
25: Community Forums
26: Community Forums
27: Your Account
28: Photo Gallery
29: Photo Gallery
30: Community Forums
31: Community Forums
32: Community Forums
33: Community Forums
34: Community Forums
35: Photo Gallery
36: Community Forums
37: Community Forums
38: Photo Gallery
39: Photo Gallery
40: Photo Gallery
41: Photo Gallery
42: Community Forums
43: Photo Gallery
44: Photo Gallery
45: Photo Gallery
46: Photo Gallery
47: Community Forums
48: Community Forums
49: Your Account
50: Community Forums
51: Photo Gallery
52: Photo Gallery
53: Photo Gallery
54: Photo Gallery
55: Photo Gallery
56: Community Forums
57: Photo Gallery
58: Photo Gallery
59: Community Forums
60: Community Forums
61: Photo Gallery
62: Photo Gallery
63: Photo Gallery
64: Photo Gallery
65: Community Forums
66: Community Forums
67: Community Forums
68: Community Forums
69: Community Forums
70: Downloads
71: Community Forums
72: Home
73: Downloads
74: Downloads
75: Downloads
76: Community Forums
77: Photo Gallery
78: Community Forums
79: Community Forums
80: Community Forums
81: Community Forums
82: Photo Gallery
83: Photo Gallery
84: Photo Gallery
85: Photo Gallery
86: Community Forums
87: Photo Gallery
88: Community Forums
89: Downloads
90: Downloads
91: Photo Gallery
92: Community Forums
93: Home
94: Home
95: Photo Gallery
96: Photo Gallery
97: Photo Gallery
98: Community Forums
99: Photo Gallery
100: Community Forums
101: Community Forums
102: Home
103: Photo Gallery
104: Photo Gallery
105: Photo Gallery
106: Photo Gallery
107: Community Forums
108: Community Forums
109: Photo Gallery
110: Community Forums
111: Community Forums
112: Photo Gallery
113: Photo Gallery
114: Community Forums
115: Community Forums
116: Photo Gallery
117: Community Forums
118: News
119: Community Forums
120: Community Forums
121: Community Forums
122: Community Forums
123: Community Forums
124: Community Forums
125: Community Forums
126: Community Forums
127: Community Forums
128: Downloads
129: Photo Gallery
130: Community Forums
131: Photo Gallery
132: Photo Gallery
133: Photo Gallery
134: Photo Gallery
135: Community Forums
136: Downloads
137: Community Forums
138: Photo Gallery
139: Community Forums
140: Photo Gallery
141: Photo Gallery
142: Photo Gallery
143: Community Forums
144: Community Forums
145: Community Forums
146: Community Forums
147: Photo Gallery
148: Community Forums
149: Community Forums
150: Community Forums
151: Community Forums
152: Community Forums
153: Community Forums
154: Community Forums
155: Community Forums
156: Photo Gallery
157: Community Forums
158: Community Forums
159: Community Forums
160: Community Forums
161: Photo Gallery
162: Community Forums
163: Community Forums
164: Community Forums
165: Community Forums
166: Photo Gallery
167: Photo Gallery
168: Community Forums
169: Photo Gallery
170: Photo Gallery
171: Community Forums
172: Photo Gallery
173: Community Forums
174: Photo Gallery
175: Community Forums
176: Photo Gallery
177: Photo Gallery
178: Photo Gallery
179: Community Forums
180: Community Forums
181: Photo Gallery
182: Photo Gallery
183: Photo Gallery
184: Community Forums
185: Community Forums
186: Community Forums
187: Photo Gallery
188: Photo Gallery
189: Photo Gallery
190: Photo Gallery
191: Community Forums
192: Community Forums
193: Community Forums
194: Home
195: Community Forums
196: Community Forums
197: Photo Gallery
198: Photo Gallery
199: Community Forums
200: Photo Gallery
201: Photo Gallery
202: Photo Gallery
203: Photo Gallery
204: Community Forums
205: Photo Gallery
206: Home
207: Community Forums
208: Community Forums
209: Community Forums
210: Photo Gallery
211: Home
212: Photo Gallery
213: Photo Gallery
214: Home
215: Photo Gallery
216: Photo Gallery
217: Photo Gallery
218: Photo Gallery
219: Photo Gallery
220: Photo Gallery
221: Photo Gallery
222: Photo Gallery
223: Photo Gallery
224: Photo Gallery
225: Community Forums
226: Photo Gallery
227: Photo Gallery
228: Photo Gallery
229: Downloads
230: Downloads
231: Downloads
232: Home
233: Photo Gallery
234: Photo Gallery
235: Community Forums
236: Photo Gallery
237: Photo Gallery
238: Community Forums
239: Community Forums
240: Community Forums
241: Community Forums
242: Photo Gallery
243: Community Forums
244: Photo Gallery
245: Community Forums
246: Community Forums
247: Downloads
248: Downloads
249: Downloads
250: Downloads
251: Downloads
252: Home
253: Community Forums
254: Downloads
255: Community Forums
256: Photo Gallery
257: Community Forums
258: Community Forums
259: Photo Gallery
260: Photo Gallery
261: Community Forums
262: Community Forums
263: Photo Gallery
264: Photo Gallery
265: Photo Gallery
266: Search and Rescue
267: Community Forums
268: Community Forums
269: News
270: Community Forums
271: Community Forums
272: Photo Gallery
273: Photo Gallery
274: Photo Gallery
275: Community Forums
276: Community Forums
277: Photo Gallery
278: Photo Gallery
279: Community Forums
280: Community Forums
281: Photo Gallery
282: Photo Gallery
283: Community Forums
284: Photo Gallery
285: Community Forums
286: Photo Gallery
287: Community Forums
288: Community Forums
289: Photo Gallery
290: Photo Gallery
291: Photo Gallery
292: Community Forums
293: Community Forums
294: Community Forums
295: Photo Gallery
296: Community Forums
297: Community Forums
298: Photo Gallery
299: Community Forums
300: Photo Gallery
301: Photo Gallery
302: Photo Gallery
303: Community Forums
304: Community Forums
305: Community Forums
306: Community Forums
307: Photo Gallery
308: Photo Gallery
309: Community Forums
310: Community Forums
311: Photo Gallery
312: Search and Rescue
313: Photo Gallery
314: Community Forums
315: Community Forums
316: Photo Gallery
317: Photo Gallery
318: Community Forums
319: Photo Gallery
320: Community Forums
321: Photo Gallery
322: Community Forums
323: Community Forums
324: Community Forums
325: Community Forums
326: Community Forums
327: Community Forums
328: Home
329: Community Forums
330: Community Forums
331: Photo Gallery
332: Community Forums
333: Photo Gallery
334: Photo Gallery
335: Photo Gallery
336: Community Forums
337: Community Forums
338: Community Forums
339: Community Forums
340: Community Forums
341: 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 23, 2006
Posts: 62

PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2006 7:42 pm
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 22, 2006
Posts: 2516
Location: Central Maryland
PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2006 8:07 pm
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 23, 2006
Posts: 62

PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2006 8:13 pm
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 23, 2006
Posts: 1997
Location: El Paso & Ft Bliss, Texas
PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 1:04 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 23, 2006
Posts: 117
Location: western Ohio
PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 5:35 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 23, 2006
Posts: 3436
Location: Vine Grove, KY
PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 5:45 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 23, 2006
Posts: 127
Location: South Central Kentucky
PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 7:13 am
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 22, 2006
Posts: 2516
Location: Central Maryland
PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 8:30 am
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 23, 2006
Posts: 62

PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 5:53 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 23, 2006
Posts: 3436
Location: Vine Grove, KY
PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 6:19 pm
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 23, 2006
Posts: 62

PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 6:22 pm
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 23, 2006
Posts: 3941
Location: Arlington, VA
PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 6:59 pm
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%20love%20the%20plaque:%20\"Armor%20will%20achieve%20this%20ground%20mobility%20[ie%20the%20scout%20role]%20by%20organization,%20training,%20mission%20and%20a%20state%20of%20mind.\" XM800W

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

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 62

PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 7:50 pm
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 23, 2006
Posts: 117
Location: western Ohio
PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 8:29 pm
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 23, 2006
Posts: 62

PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 9:00 pm
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