Page 29 of 33 FirstFirst ... 2021222324252627282930313233 LastLast
Results 421 to 435 of 494

Thread: Russia claims new tank invisible to radar/IR

  1. #421
    Senior Contributor Mihais's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Apr 08
    Location
    Transylvania
    Posts
    5,099
    Quote Originally Posted by Triple C View Post
    How has the balance between tanks and infantry antitank weapons changed since then, in your opinion?
    In theory,each mechanized Bde has 27 inf Plt's and the 40 tanks armd btn. Given that not all tanks are operational,is about the same.
    Those who know don't speak
    He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

  2. #422
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    18 Jun 04
    Posts
    1,845
    Quote Originally Posted by jlvfr View Post
    I was referring to the imperative need of giving tanks proper infantry cover. If pre-Panzerfaults/shrecks tanks might survive moving around alone (or close to it), after such weapons started to show up...
    Completely agreed. Panzerfaust was a final point which made tanks without infantry meaningless..... I misunderstood you.

    ps. I remember thinking while watching "Fury" - I doubt that any commander in 1945 would be that dump to send a platoon of M4 tanks without infantry to takeover an important crossroad.... if it was so, this would be a murder of tankers.

  3. #423
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    18 Jun 04
    Posts
    1,845
    Quote Originally Posted by TopHatter View Post
    Logistics and lack of training no doubt. Even an export M1 is a totally different beast than a T-55.

    It's also relatively brand new to the region, whereas the Soviet models have been around for decades.
    that is probably a reason. They simply don't have trained crews to use them. Besides that, they might lack proper personnel for maintenance..... that is why in Yemen, Khysids are not trying to capture M1s and Iveco's from Saudis (simply burn them, even if captured intact) but always capture HMMWVs and BMP3..... former Saddam army personnel help them run/maintain t-55 + they have former Syrian army pesonnel

  4. #424
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    18 Jun 04
    Posts
    1,845
    Quote Originally Posted by Triple C View Post
    How has the balance between tanks and infantry antitank weapons changed since then, in your opinion?
    I am an ammature observer..... but looks like armies in the world keep on forgetting this simple rule from time to time.... Grozny 1996.... Syria 2012.... Sinai 1967, Donetsk 2014 and 2015...
    And only after losses they return to good old wisdom

    today, ATMs are widely used. Their range is far longer than RPG7 of WW2 Panzerfaust.... tanks cannot afford close engagement with enemy infantry. Especially in a daylight.
    Last edited by Garry; 24 Nov 16, at 08:21.

  5. #425
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    18 Jun 04
    Posts
    1,845
    Quote Originally Posted by Albany Rifles View Post
    1) Tanks to must be supported with infantry
    2) Tanks must have infantry units LOYAL to the tanks (do not abandon them alone)
    3) Infantry goes ahead first.... tanks are merely a sniper/assault gun which covers infantry from behind, a close support gun with armor.... whenever tanks go ahead => tanks are burned by multiple ATMs.


    This is at the very heart of standard doctrine at the brigade and below level in all Western armies. There may be times where the tanks lead but they are supported by mounted Infantry ready to dismount and fight the ATGMs.

    Or more importantly accompanied by fire support officers who will rain down steel from supporting fires on the ATGMs.
    I also noted, to my armature observation - your last statement is most important part of the victory.... a decisive factor in Donetsk and Syrian war - fire support officers call MASSIVE artillery cover - victory comes along.... good old WW2 wisdom still rules. Whenever logistics fails to bring ammunition to artillery - defeat is around.... this is what happened to Ukrainian army in Izvarino and Illovaisk traps.... they had artillery but no ammunition to make it decisive.

    In Debaltsevo, they had artillery, they had lots of ammunition, but dump command line was breaking communication with front troops => artillery was blind => Ukrainian artillery support was always hours late. Despite artillery domination, they lost all important engagements. DNR/LNR had less artillery, it was shorter range, less favorable logistics for ammunition supply. However, they were covering at direct call from advancing troops => they managed to surround larger and stronger army in good fortified positions.

  6. #426
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    18 Jun 04
    Posts
    1,845
    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    The Muscovite army was there... we captured a T90 at Debaltsevo. Denial of facts doesn't stop the truth being truth:

    snapper, you are so much afraid to call it civil war. I understand that admitting that is painful. But this is part of a process which leads to peace. Russia supports DNR/LNR, clear fact. But if Russian army openly engaged Ukrainian army => Kiev would fall in less than a week since start.

    would you admit Ukrainians are at both sides? This is what makes it a civil war.... and yes, foreigners are at both sides. Just like in Spain in 1930es..... but it is still a civil war.

  7. #427
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 08
    Posts
    1,835
    Quote Originally Posted by Garry View Post
    Completely agreed. Panzerfaust was a final point which made tanks without infantry meaningless..... I misunderstood you.

    ps. I remember thinking while watching "Fury" - I doubt that any commander in 1945 would be that dump to send a platoon of M4 tanks without infantry to takeover an important crossroad.... if it was so, this would be a murder of tankers.
    "Fury" has so much stupid in it, I don't even want to see it again. Saw it once and it was enough...

  8. #428
    Senior Contributor Toby's Avatar
    Join Date
    06 Nov 16
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    1,244
    Quote Originally Posted by jlvfr View Post
    "Fury" has so much stupid in it, I don't even want to see it again. Saw it once and it was enough...
    The story line was ridiculous. However the action sequences were good apart, from the never ending supply of bullet catching Germans. A good opportunity missed!

  9. #429
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 08
    Posts
    1,835
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    The story line was ridiculous. However the action sequences were good apart, from the never ending supply of bullet catching Germans. A good opportunity missed!
    Well, the action sequences involving the tank were exactly the ones I thought were stupid. Right at the start, they move slowly and in a straight line in front of concealed guns they know are there, without so much as trying to cover with smoke.. and then all the guns miss or bounce. In the fight against the Tiger? Why did the Tiger charge them?! Tigers were long range snipers, all it had to do was move from the smoke, and shot them all up. And then the insane night fight of one imobilized Sherman against, apparently, the dumbest troops germany ever had...

  10. #430
    Resident Curmudgeon Military Professional Gun Grape's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Mar 05
    Location
    Panama City Fl
    Posts
    8,443
    Quote Originally Posted by Albany Rifles View Post
    [B]1)
    Or more importantly accompanied by fire support officers who will rain down steel from supporting fires on the ATGMs.
    Let me fix that for you
    "Or more importantly Fire Support Officers, who will rain down steel from supporting fires on the ATGMS are often accompanied/escorted by Tanks"
    Its called Tourist Season. So why can't we shoot them?

  11. #431
    Resident Curmudgeon Military Professional Gun Grape's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Mar 05
    Location
    Panama City Fl
    Posts
    8,443
    Quote Originally Posted by Garry View Post
    I also noted, to my armature observation - your last statement is most important part of the victory.... a decisive factor in Donetsk and Syrian war - fire support officers call MASSIVE artillery cover - victory comes along.... good old WW2 wisdom still rules. Whenever logistics fails to bring ammunition to artillery - defeat is around.... this is what happened to Ukrainian army in Izvarino and Illovaisk traps.... they had artillery but no ammunition to make it decisive.

    In Debaltsevo, they had artillery, they had lots of ammunition, but dump command line was breaking communication with front troops => artillery was blind => Ukrainian artillery support was always hours late. Despite artillery domination, they lost all important engagements. DNR/LNR had less artillery, it was shorter range, less favorable logistics for ammunition supply. However, they were covering at direct call from advancing troops => they managed to surround larger and stronger army in good fortified positions.

    How many times do you have to be told before you finally accept the truth

    Name:  king-of-battle.jpg
Views: 148
Size:  215.2 KB
    Its called Tourist Season. So why can't we shoot them?

  12. #432
    Senior Contributor Toby's Avatar
    Join Date
    06 Nov 16
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    1,244
    Quote Originally Posted by jlvfr View Post
    Well, the action sequences involving the tank were exactly the ones I thought were stupid. Right at the start, they move slowly and in a straight line in front of concealed guns they know are there, without so much as trying to cover with smoke.. and then all the guns miss or bounce. In the fight against the Tiger? Why did the Tiger charge them?! Tigers were long range snipers, all it had to do was move from the smoke, and shot them all up. And then the insane night fight of one imobilized Sherman against, apparently, the dumbest troops germany ever had...
    You clearly know your stuff. I was just looking at it from a cinematography angle.... clearly from what you say there were mega errors else where. Agreed on the dumb Germans and the silly tiger fight..like you say Tigers just sit in a good position and shoot

  13. #433
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    18 Jun 04
    Posts
    1,845
    Sorry for sideline. But it relates to tanks as well. I went to the 28 Panfilov soldiers movie. Very impressive. I don't know when it comes to your box offices but it is worth going.
    http://28panfilovcev.com/en/

    I dropped 50$ to them when they launched crowdfunding two years back. And I am satisfied.

    This movie comes closest to what actually happened then in November 1941 on Dubosekovo crossroad.... though figure 28 is made up.... today we know that at start of the 5th attack, the last attack, when Germans took most of the fortified hill, there were between 50 and 60 soldiers still fighting. We also know that there not 2 45mm AT guns but 4.... we know that there were 4 AT rifles not 2.... That field battery of 75mm were generously shelling Germans from over the forest (3 km behind), until German Ju 87 forced them to leave and retreat (this is why Germans took Dubosekovo finally).

    However, one reinforced company of 120, one 45mm AT battery, one squad of AT rifles, one machine gun squad (4 machine guns Maxim) hold the hill against one infantry battalion and on tank battalion.

    More important that German attack was supported by 2 divisions of German artillery!!!!! over 30 high caliber cannons were pulverizing that hill after each unsuccessful attack! Germans were anything but not a dump enemy. They knew how to call artillery to shell resistance points. So it was very hot for the 4th company.... Modern critics like to site that German battalion had only 60% of staff that day, and that tank battalion had only 24 tanks from normal staff of 32.... well.... I wish those critics sit into that hill and engage 24 tanks and 350 German infantry.... full or weak, but that were battalions of 2nd Panzer Div of Guderian. They were veterans, there were good in war, and deadly enemy....

    By the end of the battle company seized to exist. And AT battery as well, and other units.... remaining 20-25 soldiers retreated in the night to new positions. Not only 4th company was destroyed... battles were at other places as well, and whole regiment 1075 lost half of its soldiers holding the attacks of German 2nd Panzer, regiment retreated to new fortified positions. However German 2nd Panzer division lost one day. And that day was very important. Because at this time on Eastern stations of Moscow were receiving many trains full of fresh new divisions from Far East and Siberia.... by the time 316th Panfilov division was destroyed, it was too late to advance for German troops. it was far from the joy ride in France that Guderian had year back.

    Also anybody who doubts that Panzer III and Panzer IV were real force.... it is worth watching.... indeed in 1941 these were dangerous enemy. And short 50mm/75mm gun was quite capable....

    I recommend watching. Nobody asked money back ))))

    ps. Critics like to raise argument of how many tanks 2nd Panzer actually lost at Dubosekovo.... Red Army reported 18 tanks, battle journal of Guderian reports 14-15 tanks hit, the logistics/supply documents report reduction of serviced tanks by 12 next day.... well, this is because German army reported losses of only BURNED tanks.... if tanks were recollected from the battle field and send back for repair, these were not reported as loss. And difference in counting on both sides normal to all wars... What we know is that between 12 and 18 tanks out of 24 were hit.... and that 12 were burned forever. For an infantry company, 4 45mm cannons, and 4 AT rifles this is good result! I doubt those critics could have scored more if they were fighting that day! What is also know that German battalions were not able to fight next day due to losses, they lost over 250 solders of which 150 dead! Germans had to send other troops to the attack next day. I think it is good result.

    if you want more details, read the book by Issayev. It is based on the materials of Soviet Millitary Prosecutor office who investigated that case in 1950-es.... that was because of the captured soldiers from that battle later turned to German side and served Polizei... while being awarded a Hero Medal for Dubosekovo fight.... but this is all another strory
    Last edited by Garry; 25 Nov 16, at 07:12.

  14. #434
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    4,204
    Quote Originally Posted by Garry View Post
    snapper, you are so much afraid to call it civil war. I understand that admitting that is painful.
    I do not know who you think you are fooling any more.... A 'little green man' who is actually a soldier, payed, supplied and taking orders from Moscow in their national forces is still a Muscovite soldier whether he wears insignia or not. You may recall that Putin admitted that the 'little green men' in Crimea were Muscovite troops. The International Criminal Court last week classed Muscovite presence in Crimea as "occupation" further adding "The Russian federation employed members of its armed forces to gain control over parts of the territory of Ukraine without the consent of the government of Ukraine." We have identified 75 unite of the so called 'Russian' army that have been or are in Donbass now - the whole chain of command is controlled directly by the Muscovite army. Buryats, serving within the Muscovite army, do not up and off half a continent to take part in a battle without help or orders.... You are no longer fooling anyone so stop trying to fool yourself.

    Nor, unsurprisingly, is this 28 panfilovtsev, anything but propaganda: It is certainly not an accurate depiction as you claim. For starters not all of them died; two (Kuzhebergenov and Dobrobabin) were later interviewed by the NKVD (KGB predecessor) for alleged contacts with the enemy. Later a commission found 4 others still alive... The military judge who lead the commission of inquiry, Lieutenant-General Nikolai Afanasyev, concluded the whole story "did not occur. It was a pure fantasy." These inconvenient facts you were presumably unaware of when describing the the film as accurate... but I somewhat doubt that.
    Last edited by snapper; 25 Nov 16, at 10:01.

  15. #435
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 08
    Posts
    1,835
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    You clearly know your stuff. I was just looking at it from a cinematography angle.... clearly from what you say there were mega errors else where. Agreed on the dumb Germans and the silly tiger fight..like you say Tigers just sit in a good position and shoot
    From that angle, there's no question it's well done. Top marks. I just wish they'd done some realistic fights... :(

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Russia Invites U.S. To A 'Tank Biathlon'
    By Doktor in forum World Affairs Board Pub
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 16 Aug 13,, 01:04
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 14 Apr 12,, 19:14
  3. The Invisible Tank
    By Kernow in forum Ground Warfare
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 09 Dec 08,, 09:41
  4. Russia claims China backing in Georgia conflict
    By Nauticus in forum Europe and Russia
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 31 Aug 08,, 15:46
  5. Russia plays spoilsport in T-90S tank deal
    By Yusuf in forum Europe and Russia
    Replies: 70
    Last Post: 25 Apr 08,, 11:56

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •