Armored snowmobile.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

A modest IED would probably put that thing in orbit....

Yeah, it's not an Abrams. But they cost a lot less than an Abrams.

[CJ]

A modest IED would probably put that thing in orbit....

Agreed.

1 man tanks have none of the advantages of an MBT and all the disadvantages of a tank which is unsupported by infantry. 1 man tanks suffer from operator overload. One can drive it or fight it but not both, thus it can run into trouble or out of it but while it's fighting it has to be a sitting duck. It's noisy, it'll never be able to sneak up on anybody and it would be singularly hard to hide in it! If it breaks down the operator can't fix it AND watch for potential attack.

Faced with that

• Dig and cover a hole, full of water if you can do it.
  Small shaped charge mine.
  A trench.
  Concrete blocks would force onto an IED killing zone.
  Armco barrier.
  A canvas bag.
  Fire bomb.
  Large pot of paint to blind it.
  RPG up the arse.
  Tip it on it's side.
  Any canon 20mm or grater.
  Probably vulnerable to 50 cal MG or the soviet equivalent firing Armour Piercing Tracer rounds.
  Smoke bombs to disorientate the driver.
  Draw into a wooded area.
  Draw onto sloping ground.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Sorry, but the PAV1 promises one thing even Clinton would approve of, the return of the cavalry. As for killing them, ANYTHING can be killed or stopped. Even an Abrams.

[Clinton Huxley]

Sorry, but the PAV1 promises one thing even Clinton would approve of, the return of the cavalry. As for killing them, ANYTHING can be killed or stopped. Even an Abrams.

If we are to bring back cavalry, let's have proper mechanical horses. Preferably steam-powered.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Sorry, but the PAV1 promises one thing even Clinton would approve of, the return of the cavalry. As for killing them, ANYTHING can be killed or stopped. Even an Abrams.

If we are to bring back cavalry, let's have proper mechanical horses. Preferably steam-powered.

[CJ]

Sorry, but the PAV1 promises one thing even Clinton would approve of, the return of the cavalry. As for killing them, ANYTHING can be killed or stopped. Even an Abrams.

Of course, but it's the relative ease with which the 1 man tank can be killed that is the issue here. Sorry a vehicle that size can't have a reasonable firepower/armour/manoeuvrability compromise to make it worthwhile. Sufficient armour to repel an RPG would either be heavy or if spaced armour it would be bulky. Heavy armour requires more power which increases fuel consumption and noise output.

Firepower would be limited to a .3 or .5 cal MG and how many rounds of ammunition could it carry, well more than a single trooper so it may have an application as a local fire support source.

Faced with just one enemy APC with a 20mm cannon these would be worse off than a normal infantryman who can hide.

Sorry. A big boys toy but not practical really.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

CJ, they showed it stopping a .50 cal., and they taped a Mills bomb on it and it didn't do anything but scratch the paint.

And, you don't want to think of this as a one trick pony. It needs to be used as a combined arms weapon. If you want to think of it as a Bren Gun Carrier that's fine, you'll remember that they didn't mass those and charge the enemy lines either.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Oh, and last night they blew one up, one track landed a hundred meters away. The shock indicators on the "driver" indicated no more than 50 Gs shock, not enough to cause any serious injury.

[maiforpeace]

"Howe & Howe Tech". This show has potential!

Episode guide.

pav1.png

How fun is that? No normal sized person could fit in it.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"Howe & Howe Tech". This show has potential!

Episode guide.

pav1.png

How fun is that? No normal sized person could fit in it.

The guys in the picture at top all fit. One at a time, of course. The Howes are big boys from the show.

[CJ]

Oh, and last night they blew one up, one track landed a hundred meters away. The shock indicators on the "driver" indicated no more than 50 Gs shock, not enough to cause any serious injury.

http://www.ejectionsite.com/ejectfaq.htm#5 Old style ejector seats managed 22G's and now as low as 14G. I recall that 35G separates the retinas from the back of the eye.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Oh, and last night they blew one up, one track landed a hundred meters away. The shock indicators on the "driver" indicated no more than 50 Gs shock, not enough to cause any serious injury.

http://www.ejectionsite.com/ejectfaq.htm#5 Old style ejector seats managed 22G's and now as low as 14G. I recall that 35G separates the retinas from the back of the eye.

"serious" injury.

[CJ]

Oh, and last night they blew one up, one track landed a hundred meters away. The shock indicators on the "driver" indicated no more than 50 Gs shock, not enough to cause any serious injury.

http://www.ejectionsite.com/ejectfaq.htm#5 Old style ejector seats managed 22G's and now as low as 14G. I recall that 35G separates the retinas from the back of the eye.

"serious" injury.

50G
Head weighs 10lb
500lb stress on neck
Do the maths.

In an ejection seat all the forces are carefully directed as the direction the G is exerted is known. The main force is vertically down the spine with no twisting or tangential forces. In addition in an ejection the action is initiated by the ejector and they are braced for the shock. This would not be the case in a random attack on this vehicle.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Oh, and last night they blew one up, one track landed a hundred meters away. The shock indicators on the "driver" indicated no more than 50 Gs shock, not enough to cause any serious injury.

http://www.ejectionsite.com/ejectfaq.htm#5 Old style ejector seats managed 22G's and now as low as 14G. I recall that 35G separates the retinas from the back of the eye.

"serious" injury.

50G
Head weighs 10lb
500lb stress on neck
Do the maths.

In an ejection seat all the forces are carefully directed as the direction the G is exerted is known. The main force is vertically down the spine with no twisting or tangential forces. In addition in an ejection the action is initiated by the ejector and they are braced for the shock. This would not be the case in a random attack on this vehicle.

The difference here is that the driver is strapped in and not being blasted into thin air.

[CJ]

Oh, and last night they blew one up, one track landed a hundred meters away. The shock indicators on the "driver" indicated no more than 50 Gs shock, not enough to cause any serious injury.

http://www.ejectionsite.com/ejectfaq.htm#5 Old style ejector seats managed 22G's and now as low as 14G. I recall that 35G separates the retinas from the back of the eye.

"serious" injury.

50G
Head weighs 10lb
500lb stress on neck
Do the maths.

In an ejection seat all the forces are carefully directed as the direction the G is exerted is known. The main force is vertically down the spine with no twisting or tangential forces. In addition in an ejection the action is initiated by the ejector and they are braced for the shock. This would not be the case in a random attack on this vehicle.

The difference here is that the driver is strapped in and not being blasted into thin air.

Last thing I saw pilots are strapped into their seats as well and subjected to lower levels of G and in a planned manner. The pilot is also blasted into thin air, not around the inside of an armoured metal coffin.