Soviet tanks as far as the eye can see

[Stealhead]

That Challenger II also appears to have a thermal "blanket" on the turret I have also seen pictures of T-72s and later Russian model tanks with the blankets as well.They are supposed to reduce the thermal signature of the tank.

Another interesting bit of armor are those chain chain balls that are on the bottom of turrets.the IDF has them and I am pretty sure I have other MBTs so equipped in photos but I cant find any right now.
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/Mekava.htm

Here is a shot of the chain link fence RPG armor from Vietnam:http://www.vhpamuseum.org/11thcav/images/RoyComp3.jpg
Not sure how or if they used it while in motion but it is explained here sort of: http://www.vhpamuseum.org/11thcav/11thcav.shtml
when they stopped for a rest they took the fence off the tank and placed it a few away feet all around the tank to stop RPG/B40 rockets.I have also seen pictures in a book on Vietnam War armor a set much like as on the Red Army T-34s on US Army AFVs in Vietnam.

The modern version on a Stryker :http://home.comcast.net/~pgmurray/bedframe1.jpg

There is a book called "Armored Thunderbolt" by Steven Zaloga all about the M4 Sherman during WWII troops came up with all manner of armor mods during the war and it varied by theater.
In the Pacific Japanese troops tossing explosives at the tanks and also trying to hop onto the hull and open the hatches made many Pacific based tanks crew men have penny nails welded to the top of the hatches to keep someone from opening the hatch with ease from outside.Here is a Iwo Jima based M4 if you look closely you can see the nails.
http://www.ww2incolor.com/d/661775-2/8765431

[Oberon]

If it works!

I recall some bright spark came up with the idea of the 'Bocage buster' in WWII, didn't always enable the tank to go through first time:

http://www.criticalpast.com/video/65...4-Sherman-tank (ignore the wording of the URL, whoever wrote it obviously didn't know what he was writing about...)

But it worked!

I also like the wooden boards on the side for avoiding magnetic devices.

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by Oberon

If it works!

I recall some bright spark came up with the idea of the 'Bocage buster' in WWII, didn't always enable the tank to go through first time:

http://www.criticalpast.com/video/65...4-Sherman-tank (ignore the wording of the URL, whoever wrote it obviously didn't know what he was writing about...)

But it worked!

I also like the wooden boards on the side for avoiding magnetic devices.

Yes there where several versions of hedge row busters some worked others did not.

The Germans had Zimmerit anti-magnetic paste which is what the pattern that you see on later war German tanks was the paste.Of course as the war progressed German armor become more brittle because they did not have a source of the minerals that make steel strong but bot brittle.

Wood was actually smarter as an anti-magnetic because it would have been easier to repair.I also understand that the Zimmerit was often of poor quality and tended to flake off.

[Jimbuna]

'Bocage busters'

[Stealhead]

From what I have read the need to deal with the bocage/headgerows was a unique problem to the Normandy break out and was a concern primarily to US tank units as most Commonwealth tank units where in more open country. Basically every units motor pool had to come up with some rigging quickly most of the time they made use of the German steel beach defenses and just welded them to the hull.

As I understand there is a bit of a myth that some un named American solider came up with the most effect design if the person remains unnamed that usually means that he does not really nor ever existed.The bocage busters where really an example of the quick thinking of many people to solve the same problem.

What happened was the ones that worked got copied by neighboring units that either had not yet come up with a design or had come up with a poor one and therefore copied the better example.

One unsuccessful design was supposed to punch holes into the earth under the hedge and then a sapper was supposed to come in and place explosives into the holes created by the implement apparently it failed because it took too much explosives to blow the hedge away not to mention that the poor sapper was exposed to every defending small arm just 10 or 15 feet away from him.

[Penguin]

I have no idea how thick and dense the bocage is, so I wonder if there were any attempts to use the Sherman Crab to clear it.

[August]

I've heard the Normandy hedgerows described as a tangled mass of tree roots, dirt and rocks which were on average 10 feet wide and 10 feet high in places. I don't think a flail would make much headway through something like that. I'm even kind of surprised that the hedgehog managed to be effective. I'll bet they couldn't just break through anywhere but had to pick a weak spot and hope there wasn't an 88mm lined up on it.



http://www.lonesentry.com/normandy_lessons/index.html

[Stealhead]

This page gives a good view of how effective the defense could be inside a hedgerow.Not a place that you would want to be forced to attack to say the least.Even in a tank you are placing yourself in point blank Panzerfoust range sounds exciting and the German troops could easily have a very fluid defense and retreat from a row about to be overrun into another one further back and you would not even see them.Interlocked fire as well.

http://wwii-letters-to-wilma.blogspo...june-1944.html

[nikimcbee]

@August
If you got one of those T-72s, you'ld have a problem attracting these:



I think you'll need a bigger fly-swatter.

[August]

Originally Posted by nikimcbee

@August
If you got one of those T-72s, you'ld have a problem attracting these:



I think you'll need a bigger fly-swatter.

In Vietnam the NVA would sometimes set up a bunch of soldiers in a grid pattern about 5 feet apart in some natural choke point. When an aircraft passed overhead on command they'd all shoot their rifles on full auto straight up. The bullet streams were impossible to avoid and it would at least cause damage if not bring the aircraft down.

[Karle94]

Originally Posted by August

In Vietnam the NVA would sometimes set up a bunch of soldiers in a grid pattern about 5 feet apart in some natural choke point. When an aircraft passed overhead on command they'd all shoot their rifles on full auto straight up. The bullet streams were impossible to avoid and it would at least cause damage if not bring the aircraft down.

That won`t work on an A-10. It is completely immune to anything smaller than 20mm. Even the cockpit glass. Also, the A-10 is made to take enormous damage and still return to base.

[Oberon]

If they have that many T-72s and the like there I'm sure that somewhere in there is one of these:



Or quite possibly one of these:



Either which would be somewhat more effective than the shoot-straight-up-with-rifle approach.

Heck, you buy the tank and the AAA together you might get a discount!

[Stealhead]

A ZSU-23-4 is a serious threat to any low flying aircraft even an A-10.Let us not forget that the A-10 has never had to operate in type of air defense environment that it would have faced against the Warsaw Pact.


The closest it has come was Iraq in 1991 and some where taken down with the loss of the pilot.The A-10 is a tough bird but one should never ever underestimate the threat of air defenses.

[August]

Originally Posted by Karle94

That won`t work on an A-10. It is completely immune to anything smaller than 20mm. Even the cockpit glass. Also, the A-10 is made to take enormous damage and still return to base.

The A10 is indeed a tough aircraft but it is not invulnerable. Even some damage might be enough to make it RTB without dropping it's load.

Besides, protected though the aircraft might be its ordinance is not. A few AP rounds into a missile slung under the wing probably won't cause it to explode but it also probably won't work as intended either.

The key to pulling off that tactic though is to di di mau out of the area right afterwards so the pilot can't call in an artillery or airstrike on the source of the ground fire.

[August]

Originally Posted by Oberon

If they have that many T-72s and the like there I'm sure that somewhere in there is one of these:



Or quite possibly one of these:



Either which would be somewhat more effective than the shoot-straight-up-with-rifle approach.

Heck, you buy the tank and the AAA together you might get a discount!

Truth be told though an MBT wouldn't be my first choice of campsite AFV's. I'd much rather have a M113 or even a BMP which has some cabin room inside.

My favorite AFV turned camping vehicle would be the M577 Carrier Command Post.



Amphibious, on board 5kw generator, roomy interior, TOC extension. The ultimate camping vehicle!