±Recent Visitors

Recent Visitors to Com-Central!

±User Info-big


Welcome Anonymous

Nickname
Password

Membership:
Latest: HighestAce
New Today: 0
New Yesterday: 0
Overall: 6648

People Online:
Members: 0
Visitors: 456
Total: 456
Who Is Where:
 Visitors:
01: Photo Gallery
02: Community Forums
03: Home
04: Community Forums
05: Community Forums
06: Community Forums
07: Home
08: Photo Gallery
09: Community Forums
10: Community Forums
11: Community Forums
12: Home
13: Home
14: Community Forums
15: Community Forums
16: Photo Gallery
17: Community Forums
18: Community Forums
19: Home
20: Home
21: Community Forums
22: Search
23: Home
24: Community Forums
25: Community Forums
26: Community Forums
27: Community Forums
28: Home
29: Home
30: Home
31: Downloads
32: Home
33: Community Forums
34: Home
35: Your Account
36: Home
37: Home
38: Home
39: Home
40: Community Forums
41: Community Forums
42: Community Forums
43: Community Forums
44: Home
45: Photo Gallery
46: Home
47: Home
48: Member Screenshots
49: Community Forums
50: Community Forums
51: Home
52: Community Forums
53: Photo Gallery
54: Community Forums
55: Community Forums
56: Home
57: Community Forums
58: Community Forums
59: Home
60: Photo Gallery
61: Home
62: Community Forums
63: Community Forums
64: Home
65: Photo Gallery
66: Community Forums
67: Community Forums
68: Home
69: Home
70: Home
71: Home
72: Home
73: Home
74: Community Forums
75: Community Forums
76: Community Forums
77: Community Forums
78: Community Forums
79: Home
80: Community Forums
81: Community Forums
82: Downloads
83: Home
84: Home
85: Home
86: Home
87: Home
88: Community Forums
89: Home
90: Home
91: Home
92: Community Forums
93: Home
94: Community Forums
95: Community Forums
96: Community Forums
97: Photo Gallery
98: Home
99: Photo Gallery
100: Home
101: Community Forums
102: Community Forums
103: Community Forums
104: Home
105: Home
106: Home
107: Home
108: Photo Gallery
109: Community Forums
110: Community Forums
111: Downloads
112: Photo Gallery
113: Community Forums
114: Community Forums
115: Community Forums
116: Home
117: Community Forums
118: Photo Gallery
119: Photo Gallery
120: Home
121: Community Forums
122: Member Screenshots
123: Community Forums
124: Photo Gallery
125: Home
126: Home
127: Community Forums
128: Home
129: Home
130: Community Forums
131: Home
132: Home
133: Home
134: Home
135: Community Forums
136: Home
137: Home
138: Community Forums
139: Home
140: Community Forums
141: Photo Gallery
142: Home
143: Home
144: Home
145: Home
146: Home
147: Photo Gallery
148: Home
149: Community Forums
150: Community Forums
151: Search
152: Community Forums
153: Home
154: Community Forums
155: Community Forums
156: Community Forums
157: Home
158: Community Forums
159: Home
160: Home
161: Home
162: Home
163: Community Forums
164: Home
165: Downloads
166: Member Screenshots
167: Community Forums
168: Photo Gallery
169: Home
170: Community Forums
171: Community Forums
172: Home
173: Home
174: Photo Gallery
175: Community Forums
176: Home
177: Community Forums
178: Home
179: Community Forums
180: Home
181: Home
182: Community Forums
183: Community Forums
184: Community Forums
185: Photo Gallery
186: Downloads
187: Member Screenshots
188: Home
189: Home
190: Home
191: Home
192: Downloads
193: Community Forums
194: Home
195: Home
196: Home
197: Photo Gallery
198: Home
199: Community Forums
200: Member Screenshots
201: Community Forums
202: Home
203: Home
204: Home
205: Home
206: Community Forums
207: Photo Gallery
208: Community Forums
209: Community Forums
210: Community Forums
211: Community Forums
212: Community Forums
213: Community Forums
214: Community Forums
215: Community Forums
216: Community Forums
217: Community Forums
218: Home
219: Home
220: Home
221: Home
222: Home
223: Community Forums
224: Community Forums
225: Home
226: Home
227: Downloads
228: Community Forums
229: Community Forums
230: Community Forums
231: News Archive
232: Home
233: Community Forums
234: Home
235: News
236: Home
237: Community Forums
238: Photo Gallery
239: Community Forums
240: Community Forums
241: Community Forums
242: Community Forums
243: Home
244: Community Forums
245: Home
246: Community Forums
247: Photo Gallery
248: Photo Gallery
249: Home
250: Community Forums
251: Home
252: Photo Gallery
253: Community Forums
254: Home
255: Home
256: Community Forums
257: Photo Gallery
258: Photo Gallery
259: Community Forums
260: Community Forums
261: Photo Gallery
262: Home
263: Community Forums
264: Home
265: Photo Gallery
266: Community Forums
267: Community Forums
268: Home
269: Your Account
270: Home
271: Home
272: Photo Gallery
273: Home
274: Home
275: Photo Gallery
276: Photo Gallery
277: Community Forums
278: Community Forums
279: Home
280: Community Forums
281: Home
282: News Archive
283: Home
284: Community Forums
285: Home
286: Home
287: Home
288: Home
289: Home
290: Home
291: Photo Gallery
292: Community Forums
293: Photo Gallery
294: Home
295: Home
296: Home
297: Home
298: Home
299: Community Forums
300: Home
301: Community Forums
302: News
303: Community Forums
304: Community Forums
305: Community Forums
306: Home
307: Home
308: Home
309: Community Forums
310: Community Forums
311: Photo Gallery
312: Home
313: Community Forums
314: Community Forums
315: Home
316: Photo Gallery
317: Home
318: Community Forums
319: Community Forums
320: Community Forums
321: Community Forums
322: Community Forums
323: Community Forums
324: Community Forums
325: Home
326: Home
327: Photo Gallery
328: Home
329: Home
330: Photo Gallery
331: Community Forums
332: Supporters
333: Home
334: Downloads
335: Home
336: Photo Gallery
337: Home
338: Home
339: Home
340: Member Screenshots
341: Home
342: Community Forums
343: Home
344: Home
345: Home
346: Community Forums
347: Home
348: Home
349: Home
350: Member Screenshots
351: Home
352: Community Forums
353: Community Forums
354: Photo Gallery
355: Community Forums
356: Member Screenshots
357: Home
358: Community Forums
359: Photo Gallery
360: Home
361: Home
362: Community Forums
363: Home
364: Home
365: Home
366: Home
367: Downloads
368: Community Forums
369: Home
370: Community Forums
371: Community Forums
372: Community Forums
373: Home
374: Home
375: Downloads
376: Photo Gallery
377: Home
378: Photo Gallery
379: Home
380: Home
381: Home
382: Home
383: Community Forums
384: Home
385: Home
386: Home
387: Your Account
388: Photo Gallery
389: Home
390: Photo Gallery
391: Home
392: Home
393: Home
394: Home
395: Home
396: Community Forums
397: Community Forums
398: Photo Gallery
399: Community Forums
400: Photo Gallery
401: Downloads
402: Home
403: Home
404: Home
405: Community Forums
406: Downloads
407: Photo Gallery
408: Home
409: Home
410: Home
411: Community Forums
412: Community Forums
413: Home
414: Home
415: Home
416: News
417: Home
418: Community Forums
419: Downloads
420: Home
421: Community Forums
422: Home
423: Home
424: News Archive
425: Home
426: Home
427: Photo Gallery
428: Community Forums
429: Community Forums
430: Photo Gallery
431: Home
432: Home
433: Community Forums
434: Home
435: Home
436: Home
437: Home
438: Home
439: Community Forums
440: Home
441: Photo Gallery
442: Community Forums
443: Home
444: Home
445: Community Forums
446: Member Screenshots
447: Community Forums
448: Community Forums
449: Home
450: Community Forums
451: Home
452: Community Forums
453: Community Forums
454: Community Forums
455: Home
456: Home

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 ([email protected])
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 ([email protected])
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