r/TankPorn • u/HokieTanker • 4d ago
Cold War The U.S. HSTV-L is now fixed up, repainted, and on display at the Fort Benning Armor Collection.
49
u/ElectricalYak7236 4d ago
Fixed up how? Only cosmetically? Just outside or is the interior done too? Or can it drive too?
104
u/DeeAitch132B 4d ago
The museum cannot maintain functioning vehicles due to engine fires on vehicles like the Panther II.
The interior, all things considered, was in great shape for an abandoned and rotting prototype. I doubt they fixed it up? But it won’t get much worse in that controlled environment. I know they cleaned it out at least.
57
u/Object-195 Tanksexual 4d ago
that but also they just don't have the same level of funding like Bovington and the Musée des Blindés
41
u/Spekx-savera 4d ago
Musée des Blindés
Which is impressive because Musée des Blindés might be the filthiest tank museum I've been, but it might just be the French way I suppose.i mean the tanks are in great shape but the building feels like its in disrepair.
I mean even the Munster tank museum feels like they've invested money in the overall building and to keep it tidy.
8
u/DeeAitch132B 4d ago
Eh, it’s entirely because it’s literally banned. If they tried to keep “running” vehicles they would get literally zero funding.
5
u/Object-195 Tanksexual 4d ago
Its literally banned???
why?
19
u/DeeAitch132B 4d ago
Damage to historical artifacts and safety hazards.
The two (?) fires Panther II suffered driving around at APG or Knox (can’t remember which one) on display drives caused the rule to be put in place back in the 90s I think.
2
u/LastDanceInFulda 4d ago
It was made a rule a little after that, but the Panther II incident in the 1990s was listed as part of the reasoning. The rule was also largely put in place informally before the actual ban because of the changes in physical boundaries at Knox (the Armor collection was separated from the base's driving areas with more gates). It isn't a blanket ban either, the M48s still run about at Knox and there are other ceremonial drives at most bases down to the Reserve Center level, and APG to my knowledge continues demonstration drives with the collection that remains (or were doing it in around 2017, I've been out of the circle for around that long).
1
u/Object-195 Tanksexual 4d ago
Thats it????
19
u/MrKeserian 4d ago
Never underestimate the ability for Army brass to overreact and come up with monumentally stupid rules because of an incident.
2
u/DeeAitch132B 4d ago
There’s probably more issues relating to the whole subject but the main catalyst for it was Panther II yeah.
1
u/RetroUzi 2d ago
There are some historical vehicles the Army owns that aren’t in the Armor and Cav collection that are runners, but the purpose of the Collection is not to be a public, for-profit museum but to be an in-service education and training tool that the public is sometimes given access to because it’s good PR.
The way the Curator puts it at the open houses when the question comes up is that filling a vehicle with fuel, oil, and lubricants creates an environmental time bomb that now requires constant, ongoing maintenance, which costs more money than it’s worth to the Collection and does not serve its primary mission.
They do have to add lubricant/oil sometimes when tractoring vehicles around, which is why you will see drip pans under the final drive of some vehicles if you catch one of their open house events.
-31
u/P-204F 4d ago
Excuses me, Panther II? The prototype that never existed ? Do you mean Panther F?
37
u/DeeAitch132B 4d ago
Panther II existed and was a complete hull, it sits at the museum with a Panther G (?) turret. They used to drive it around at the Patton Museum until it caught fire one day.
It does in fact exist.
-34
u/P-204F 4d ago
Well just like E-100 only hull.
24
u/DeeAitch132B 4d ago
It had an engine and tracks and was driven. It just lacked a dedicated turret.
12
u/KingWestBound 4d ago
Nope they have the panther ll prototype, but since it never had a turret built they put a G turret on for display.
37
u/HokieTanker 4d ago edited 4d ago
From the crew that worked on it:
-Major corrosion removal/mitigation was done. -The suspension, which had been collapsed and prevented the vehicle from rolling, has been fixed. -repairing the glass on the optics -fixing the gun travel lock that had been bent. -"a boatload of miscellaneous little things".
The engine was not repaired (it's a turbine that's currently beyond their shop's abilities) but the engine bay was completely cleaned up to prevent further degradation. Work took 6 months.
17
u/Grizzly2525 Challenger II 4d ago
YAY!!!
I’m going down in December and I’m so happy I’ll be able to see it in good condition!
31
u/KommandantDex MBT-70 my beloved 4d ago
Spookston leaving the Armor Collection with a suspiciously HSTV-L shaped pocket
10
19
5
u/BonjinTheMark 4d ago
Looks like the GI Joe tank from the 80s
3
3
2
u/BluStrykeYT M1 Abrams 3d ago
https://reddit.com/link/p6kgfiz/video/s9k0cpotl9mh1/player
Just saw it in the shop back in July!
glad it’s in a controlled and safe environment now.
2
1
u/SpecterGaming23 4d ago
can it fire
3
u/IcyRobinson Sabrah Light Tank 4d ago
Unfortunately no. It's a Cold War prototype vehicle and not maintained in running order
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/NationalPut6939 3d ago edited 3d ago
And to his right gentlemen, we can see a beautiful stridsvagn 103
1
1
1
0
u/SupportCommon8951 4d ago
He was so good, but why did the US cancel him?
9
u/MrKeserian 4d ago
Simple answer? The US Army has always struggled to figure out where light tanks fit into doctrine. Ground based recon is better done by vehicles with more crew (like the recon versions of the Bradley), they tend not to be that much faster than MBTs like the Abrams, and not much more protected than IFVs like the Bradley. The best thing you could say is that they are fire support for airborne units, but that's a very niche role that can be filled by other (aviation) assets. It's the same reason the M8, Stryker MGS, and Booker got canned.
1
u/TahoeLT 4d ago
It then begs the question - why do they keep re-proposing these programs when they've apparently decided they do not have a role in the US military? (Besides the true answer, which is to send taxpayer money to the contractors)
Don't get me wrong, I have always loved these vehicles (the HSTV-L in particular, but also the Stingray, M8, even the Twister and the M114).
4
u/Cobra102003 M1 Abrams 4d ago
Most of these programs started as a result of needs statements by different army units. They requested the vehicle so the army tried to get them or develop something to fill the role. The issue the army keeps running into isn’t that these vehicles aren’t useful but that they would rather spend that money on maintaining other capabilities. This was the main thing that killed the booker(along with some other shenanigans detailed by the chieftain), the m8, and the Stryker MGS. Everytime the army has looked for fat to cut, light tanks ended up on the chopping block since they’re normally redundant and expensive because of their low procurement numbers.
1
u/SupportCommon8951 4d ago
The HSTVL should be Russia's BMD 4; it should drop in with the troops and provide support.
3
u/Cthell 4d ago
Difficult to do when the HSTVL is 33% heavier than a BMD-4 (20 tons vs 15 tons)
1
u/Aleskander- 3d ago
i mean it aint ment to be deployed it's just a test bed the RDF-LT is the one that supposed to be deployed and it's around 13 tons
so that could be the US's BMD-4
0
104
u/Competitive_Bed_4860 4d ago
What is the name of his cannon and what caliber is it again?