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