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

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