Tango01  | 01 Oct 2013 3:44 p.m. PST |
Nice!.
See here
link Hope you enjoy!. Amicalement
Armand |
| Katzbalger | 01 Oct 2013 6:06 p.m. PST |
"Updated" (or junked up, depending upon your viewpoint) M24. Kind of Mad-Maxish looking with all the stuff bolted on. I didn't know they served into the 1990s! Rob |
| Dennis0302 | 01 Oct 2013 6:25 p.m. PST |
They had problems dealing with T 34's in Korea.I can't imagine trying to take on a BMP or T 72 in this thing. |
| Garand | 01 Oct 2013 8:15 p.m. PST |
They had problems dealing with T 34's in Korea.I can't imagine trying to take on a BMP or T 72 in this thing.
They were rearmed with a 90mm low pressure cannon. Even the old 75mm would have been effective against BMPs, but the 90mm firing HEAT rounds would have kept it competitive as a light tank for several years… Damon. |
| James Wright | 01 Oct 2013 9:49 p.m. PST |
Still would not have wanted to be sitting in one of these facing the Soviet armor… |
| mckrok | 02 Oct 2013 11:06 a.m. PST |
Sure, an M1A1, Leo II, Challenger II, LeClerc are all more effective tanks, but I suspect the Norwegians could have used the NM-116 effectively (and at a small fraction of the price of the above other tanks). I ran some numbers on the NM-116 vs. the T-72 and was favorably suprised. The Leningrad MD wasn't exactly first in the queue for equipment and Russian tanks weren't necessarily covered with ERA in the 70's and 80's. The 90mm LPG with a laser range finder firing HEAT has a fairly high pK vs. the T-72 (especially if not covered with ERA). And as Garand said, the NM-116 will tear up BMPs, MTLBs, etc… Using the rugged Norwegian terrain the Norwegian tanker probably knows well, I think I'd much rather be in the NM-116 sitting in ambush than the T-72 driving down the road. Pot one or two from a keyhole, then beat feet to the next ambush position. pjm p.s. Wish I had this pic before I had painted my NM-116es. |
 Legion 4  | 02 Oct 2013 12:08 p.m. PST |
Yes, if the M24 had that 90mm instead of that 75mm it would have fared better against the Nork's T34/85, in 1950s … of course that version of the 90mm was not around at the time … |
| Tango01 | 02 Oct 2013 3:10 p.m. PST |
Glad you enjoyed it boys!. Amicalement
Armand |
| Rittmester | 03 Oct 2013 3:01 a.m. PST |
The biggest pre's for the NM116 was its good night fighting capability and that it was small and easy to hide in the terrain. Although its cross-country mobility was not very good, it was sufficient to get it into good positions with dismounted recce. Dismounted recce/guiding can often be decisive for all types of AFVs in dchallenging terrain, both in defensive and offensive ops.
Combined with the NM142 (TOW) it was a good panserjager (panzerjäger), but was definately no tank and offensive weapon. |
| Marc33594 | 03 Oct 2013 4:48 a.m. PST |
Nice even for us doing the M-24. Especially appreciate the shots of the track. While obviously stationary for a good deal of time, an operational version wouldn't have quite as prominent rust on the tracks, still a good reference when weathering. Also nice for rain streaking. Thanks for the post. |
| Jemima Fawr | 03 Oct 2013 10:41 a.m. PST |
As Rittmeister says, it was not a tank. It was designed to be a tank-destroyer, working in conjunction with M113 w/TOW or NM142 TUA. Also worth remembering that the South Africans did extremely well with 90mm Cockerill guns and vastly inferior fire-control than that fitted to the NM116 against T-54/55 in the close terrain of Angola. |
| Panfilov | 03 Oct 2013 10:51 p.m. PST |
Actually, the Russians they most likely would have faced were still equipped with T-34/85 and ZIS-3 Anti Tank Guns as late as the mid 1980's. |
| Rittmester | 04 Oct 2013 3:48 a.m. PST |
"@Nice even for us doing the M-24. Especially appreciate the shots of the track."
Just a small detail; the tracks on the NM-116 were different from those on the M-24, as the rubber pads were designed to be replaced with steel "X"-es in winter to give better grip in snow and ice conditions.
From my experience, tracked AFV's has to be stationary for several days for rust to be visible on the tracks. However, then it becomes very visible because tracks are ground free from any corrosion protective paint/adherents very quickly. Rust would be ground away within minutes when moving cross country. Weathering AFV models should therefore only be made with rust on tracks for vehicles left on the battlefield for several days (and with rain during that period).
Cheers |
| MaahisKuningas90 | 04 Oct 2013 11:09 a.m. PST |
@Panfilov: You have a source for that? IIRC, the T-34/85 were long gone from the soviet inventory of 1980s, though still being field by some of the w-pacts reserves. |
| Rittmester | 07 Oct 2013 12:09 a.m. PST |
The most common material in the Leningrad Military District then would have been T-72 (1st echelon/frontline) T-55 (reserve) and MTLB + T-55/PT-76 and BTR-60/BTR-70 in the Naval Infantry.
The T-55 was introduced in the 1960-ies. The T-34/85 would have been as last reserve conserved somewhere centrally in the (then) Soviet Union. |
bases up the start of his 1:72 scale WWII Russians.
