From: Jon Shoop (shoop19@brick.net)
Date: Mon Jul 01 2002 - 03:44:38 PDT
wow....a 37mm AT gun in a Weasel......very cool..I have the gun.......anyone
want to furnish a weasel.....?
Jon
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Grammont" <islander@midmaine.com>
To: "Military Vehicles Mailing List" <mil-veh@mil-veh.org>
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 3:07 AM
Subject: Re: [MV] Armored Weasel??
> Hi Nige,
>
> >Are you referring to the "Armoured" Weasel used by the French in Indo
China
> >before they withdrew? I have seen pics of these, I think the M29c
> >amphibious version had some armour protection added - but the amount was
> >limited so they didnt sink.
>
> Hmmm... I have a bunch of pictures on the Weasels used by the French.
> There is even a book which details their employment in which a modeler
> did a synopsis of, including pictures. No mention of there ever being
> armor added, but of course this was only one source. Do you have any
> idea where I could find pictures of what you saw?
>
> I still can not fathom how enough armor to be worth anything could be
> mounted on the Weasel and still have it perform up to snuff. And on top
> of that, the French built their own tracks which are roughly double the
> weight of the originals. They found the US tracks did not last long in
> the environment of SE Asia so they made their own really heavy duty,
> robust track. This means that the vehicle already had... I dunno... 400
> extra pounds added? When you are talking rated capacity of 1200 lbs...
> that doesn't leave a lot left over for armor, not to mention the crew and
> supplies/radios it was designed to transport.
>
> I can see adding something to protect the driver from branches. Most
> pictures I have seen taken during the fighting in the forested border of
> Germany show Weasels with smashed windshields. I am going to speculate
> that someone, at some point, thought it would be good to put something
> more than glass up front to take the abuse of branches and so forth. I
> would think this to be rather important for jungles. However, I would
> hesitate to call this "armor" if that is the case. I would call it
> "shielding". The difference being one is designed to protect against
> ballistics, the other simple impact.
>
> In any case, there is only so much the Weasel can take in terms of
> weight. It was built rugged for its intended employment, but it is just a
> bunch of sheetmetal welded together on a minimal channel iron frame.
> This is why the US Army's testings of it as a weapons platform were
> disappointing. The recoilless and 37mm guns they mounted on it shook the
> thing to pieces :-) I've seen the test footage, and I wouldn't want
> anybody doing that to one of mine!
>
> Steve
>
>
> ===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list===
> To unsubscribe, send e-mail to: <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org>
> To switch to the DIGEST mode, send e-mail to <mil-veh-digest@mil-veh.org>
> To reach a human, contact <ack@mil-veh.org>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Aug 16 2002 - 11:23:40 PDT