Begleitpanzer 57 / German (1977)

[Mercedes4321 4,695]

4 minutes ago, WulfPack said:

That is the ugliest thing I've ever seen.

Looks really stupid, doesn't it?

[Dark_Lord__94@psn 1,900]

7 minutes ago, WulfPack said:

That is the ugliest thing I've ever seen.

It is in trying to find the source but it has a fit for atgms. 

[WulfPack 1,693]

Just now, *Lightening_Drake said:

It is in trying to find the source but it has a fit for atgms. 

Seems like an equal to the BMP-2.

[Ruslan_DR 686]

On 11/15/2016 at 3:23 PM, Results45 said:

 

Um.....it fired HOT & TOW missiles?

 

So does the Sheridan.

[Dark_Lord__94@psn 1,900]

5 minutes ago, WulfPack said:

Seems like an equal to the BMP-2.

I feel it could be added with this. Its not composite fired atgms if I ever find the source and possible a bmp to follow with. 

[WulfPack 1,693]

1 minute ago, *Lightening_Drake said:

I feel it could be added with this. Its not composite fired atgms if I ever find the source and possible a bmp to follow with. 

And the BMP-2 didn't have composite armor?

[Results45 2,200]

25 minutes ago, *Lightening_Drake said:

http://russian-tanks.com/infantry-combat-vehicle-xm701.php

 

".....the XM701 was expected to operate for 24 hours in buttoned-up condition, a stove and toilet were included."  Definitely ugly  

Edited November 17, 2016 by Results45

[Ruslan_DR 686]

as for this IIRC it just has 11mm steel armor on top, a little more on the lfp, but it's at such a high angle it doesn't suck that bad... Still sucks but at least this is a small, fast light tank with a proper turret so, again, it's a faster, non-aquatic sheridan with a better gun.

[Results45 2,200]

1 hour ago, *Lightening_Drake said:

Explain?

 

3 generations of APCs that compliment US MBTs (or at least developed concurrently):

• XM701 <~> MBT70
• M113 <~> M60
• M2 Bradley <~> M1 Abrams

[Ruslan_DR 686]

 

1 minute ago, Results45 said:

 

3 generations of APCs that compliment US MBTs (or at least developed concurrently):

• XM701 <~> MBT70
• M113 <~> M60
• M2 Bradley <~> M1 Abrams

You're forgetting this isn't an APC, it's a light tank. the closest thing would be IFV's and armored cars.

[Nope 10,634]

1 minute ago, Ruslan_DR said:

You're forgetting this isn't an APC, it's a light tank. the closest thing would be IFV's and armored cars.

 

I'd say it's more like an IFV/light tank crossover. You know, crossovers. The plague that is infesting the car industry right now. Those crossovers.

[Results45 2,200]

6 minutes ago, Ruslan_DR said:

 

You're forgetting this isn't an APC, it's a light tank. the closest thing would be IFV's and armored cars.

 

I guess it would be more of an IFV, but couldn't carry troops besides the crew?

 

 

SOURCE: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1002565.pdf

Edited November 17, 2016 by Results45

[Ruslan_DR 686]

46 minutes ago, Results45 said:

 

I guess it would be more of an IFV, but couldn't carry troops besides the crew?

 

 

SOURCE: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1002565.pdf

 

an IFV is like early british tank building logic. It is not heavily armored and was built for fighting alongside troops, instead of dueling other tanks directly, more of a support vehicle. (this is why some british tanks in game are referred to as "infantry tank")

an early example would be the Brummbar, who's role as stated in the first lines of it's wiki

"The Sturmpanzer (also known as Sturmpanzer 43 or Sd.Kfz. 166) was a German armoured infantry support gun based on the Panzer IV chassis used in the Second World War."

Similarily, here's the role of an IFV;

" Generally, IFVs have thinner and less complex armour than tanks to ensure mobility; for instance, variants of the U.S. Bradley weigh around 30 tonnes, while its MBT stablemate, the M1 Abrams, is roughly twice that. Most IFVs are resistant against heavy machine guns, artillery fragments, and small arms. The IFV's mission does not include anti-tank duties except in support of tank units or in emergencies; therefore, it needs less protection from heavy weapons fire. Instead, the IFV, as its name implies, is supposed to carry riflemen and their weapons into the battlefield where they dismount and fight outside the vehicle with the support of the IFV's main armament. "

 

Generally, most IFV's dont' actually have infantry inside, those are APC's like the BTR-60, and M113, as well as the OT-64. the Bradley, PT-76, and BMP all just combine this role into their construction, but are mainly meant to be IFV's.

For this reason, the Begleitpanzer 57 should slot in under OUR light tanks, and be used to support the main force instead of fighting 1v1 against a t-62. Though it can, and win, it is better to think more tactically in it than trying to rush in.

By it's name, "Begleitpanzer" supposedly means "Infantry Support Tank", and translated directly (spacing it's words out as 'Begleit Panzer') means; "Accompanying armor"

 

Edited November 17, 2016 by Ruslan_DR
clarity, more info.

[Ruslan_DR 686]

I figure I should further clarify, as i've said, the Bglpz 57 is one of the muddy "APC/IFV/FSV" class with light armor, and these vehicles are what replaced the ww2 and late-50's to 60's lights like the sheridans, which is why we no longer see such vehicles anymore.

 

That's why it belongs in the light branch. The PT-76 is an aquatic APC, the sheridan is an actual light, etc.

Edited November 17, 2016 by Ruslan_DR

[WulfPack 1,693]

32 minutes ago, Ruslan_DR said:

I figure I should further clarify, as i've said, the Bglpz 57 is one of the muddy "APC/IFV/FSV" class with light armor, and these vehicles are what replaced the ww2 and late-50's to 60's lights like the sheridans, which is why we no longer see such vehicles anymore.

 

That's why it belongs in the light branch. The PT-76 is an aquatic APC, the sheridan is an actual light, etc.

Light tanks are still a thing.

PT-76B is a reconnaissance vehicle.

[Ruslan_DR 686]

3 minutes ago, WulfPack said:

Light tanks are still a thing.

PT-76B is a reconnaissance vehicle.

 

Name the light tanks of all the countries. must be specifically classed as "light tank" to be a thing :P

[WulfPack 1,693]

8 minutes ago, Ruslan_DR said:

 

Name the light tanks of all the countries. must be specifically classed as "light tank" to be a thing :P

I don't feel like listing them.

http://www.military-today.com/tanks.htm

 

[Ruslan_DR 686]

1 minute ago, WulfPack said:

I don't feel like listing them.

http://www.military-today.com/tanks.htm

 

 

None of those is classed as a light tank, so again, this vehicle will fulfill that role, just as light tanks did.

[Results45 2,200]

On 11/15/2016 at 3:22 PM, WulfPack said:

empty quote

.

45 minutes ago, Ruslan_DR said:

None of those is classed as a light tank, so again, this vehicle will fulfill that role, just as light tanks did.

 

Yet Gaijin classifies multipurpose platform APC-IFV-FSVs like the FV430 and M113 (both of which should be eventually merged into the armoured car line(s)) as TDs in the SPG-TD line.

 

Little doubt that the M113 TOW (not the M901 ITV) will be added soon:

 
A BGM-71 TOW missile launcher mounted atop an M113 armored personnel carrier; color

 

Edited November 17, 2016 by Results45

[WulfPack 1,693]

51 minutes ago, Ruslan_DR said:

 

None of those is classed as a light tank, so again, this vehicle will fulfill that role, just as light tanks did.

2S25,Type 63A, ZBD 2000, China's new light tank, Stryker MGS, Marder, K21-105, CV90-105, PL-01, CV90-120T, IKV-91, VMF-5, M8, Stingray....

Edited November 17, 2016 by WulfPack

[Ruslan_DR 686]

23 hours ago, Results45 said:

.

 

Yet Gaijin classifies multipurpose platform APC-IFV-FSVs like the FV430 and M113 (both of which should be eventually merged into the armoured car line(s)) as TDs in the SPG-TD line.

 

Little doubt that the M113 TOW (not the M901 ITV) will be added soon:

 
A BGM-71 TOW missile launcher mounted atop an M113 armored personnel carrier; color

 

 

they do that and i'll actually go and petition to get the company shut down if we don't get our BGPZ57. 

 

 

or you know, just, leave like many others before me. Seriously it would be unfair, because that one can swim too so it can be a very hard to hit target if it's out in the river just sniping everything, ours can't, if you're using say large HE shells to kill it and hitting only water. ?That, and there's the element of surprise and hiding on islands unreachable by other tanks because these maps are so small.

Edited November 18, 2016 by Ruslan_DR

[Ruslan_DR 686]

On 11/17/2016 at 5:50 PM, WulfPack said:

2S25,Type 63A, ZBD 2000, China's new light tank, Stryker MGS, Marder, K21-105, CV90-105, PL-01, CV90-120T, IKV-91, VMF-5, M8, Stingray....

i was reading through and writing out explanations of all but i hit the back button and i'm not doing it again.

point is you've only reaffirmed my point. I didn't mean light tanks don't exist, but that they are VIRTUALLY nonexistant. Most of those are either IFV's, SPG's, etc. at least half of them are.

 

the point, really, is that light tanks can have roles taken by other vehicles in modern day, really anything with a gun to support troops. 



Back to it though, do we know any of the specs? Top speed, engine, full ammo capacity, internal layout, etc?

 

Edited November 18, 2016 by Ruslan_DR

[WulfPack 1,693]

2 hours ago, Ruslan_DR said:

Most of those are either IFV's, SPG's, etc. at least half of them are.

Which ones? All have 105-MM+ guns and are meant for direct fire.

[Ruslan_DR 686]

On 11/18/2016 at 7:52 PM, WulfPack said:

Which ones? All have 105-MM+ guns and are meant for direct fire.

 

drop it :P 

but, the IKV-91 for instance, has a 90.

The point is, their main role is NOT dedicated to being tank destroyers.


Now, does anyone know the internal layout or other specs for this thing? i can't find much on it.

[WulfPack 1,693]

20 minutes ago, Ruslan_DR said:

Now, does anyone know the internal layout or other specs for this thing? i can't find much on it.

Is there any left or were they all scraped? 

Edited December 4, 2016 by WulfPack