Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ask An Expert- LAND Forces.

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
    Tube artillery gives you a 24 hour all weather continuous fire support UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE MANEUVER COMMANDER. That is key. You also have a wider range of options with arty than air. Cruise missiles take to long and costs too much.
    This was a huge lesson of the Yom Kippur war...the Israelis learned some painful lessons by depending too much on air. There is A whole thread on this topic.
    Can't find it under Military Affairs & Equipment Discussion, help/hint/link? Thanks
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Doktor View Post
      Can't find it under Military Affairs & Equipment Discussion, help/hint/link? Thanks
      I'll look it up and post link later.
      “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
      Mark Twain

      Comment


      • #78
        AR,

        This was a huge lesson of the Yom Kippur war...the Israelis learned some painful lessons by depending too much on air. There is A whole thread on this topic.
        which they seemed to promptly forget!

        wait, my AF brain is kicking in...what, there's NO SUCH THING as depending too much on air!!
        There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by astralis View Post
          ar,



          which they seemed to promptly forget!

          Wait, my af brain is kicking in...what, there's no such thing as depending too much on air!!
          riiiiiigggghhhhht!
          “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
          Mark Twain

          Comment


          • #80
            They forgot,but they re-learned quickly.Until the next time they forget and so on.:)

            Air power is also a form of artillery.In this world were,are and will be only infantry cavalry and archers,no matter how you call them.

            Yep,one can never have enough of the air farce
            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

            Comment


            • #81
              Does anyone know the correct meaning of the stamp " 76MM, M26, Lot 64 DB/C 1943 KOP-4-132 M28A2" on a shell casing. Based on a variety of sources, I believe this is a shell casing for a 76x539R tank gun used on Sherman's, Hellcats and a few Pershings. Thanks.

              Comment


              • #82
                "76mm M26" = case designation
                Lot 64 = lot number for case
                DB/C = Dominion Bridge Company (made the case)
                KOP = Kingsbury Ordnance Plant (assembled the shell)
                -4-132 = lot number for shell
                M28A2 = primer used

                Comment


                • #83
                  Did the Cold War era Soviet tanks like the T-64 and T-72 classified as MBTs?

                  I seem to remember reading somewhere that Soviet tanks were really medium tanks rather than the MBTs in the western armies.
                  "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by gunnut View Post
                    Did the Cold War era Soviet tanks like the T-64 and T-72 classified as MBTs?

                    I seem to remember reading somewhere that Soviet tanks were really medium tanks rather than the MBTs in the western armies.
                    Well, according to Wiki (which we ALL know is always right!), the T-64/72's WERE considered MBT's, but I think the whole MBT classification thing is actually a Western construct; maybe one of our Russian friends (Andrew? NUS?) can help us out here. My opinion is that the Russians just considered the T-64/72/80/90's as TANKS, and nothing more; they tried to keep things simple, since it's easier to deal with sheer numbers, rather than types of tanks. According to wiki, "any weapon advancement making the MBT obsolete could have severely devastated the Soviet Union's fighting capability", so I think the USSR was pretty serious about keeping their tanks up-to-date, and didn't really care about what they were called.
                    "There is never enough time to do or say all the things that we would wish. The thing is to try to do as much as you can in the time that you have. Remember Scrooge, time is short, and suddenly, you're not there any more." -Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Stitch View Post
                      Well, according to Wiki (which we ALL know is always right!), the T-64/72's WERE considered MBT's, but I think the whole MBT classification thing is actually a Western construct; maybe one of our Russian friends (Andrew? NUS?) can help us out here. My opinion is that the Russians just considered the T-64/72/80/90's as TANKS, and nothing more; they tried to keep things simple, since it's easier to deal with sheer numbers, rather than types of tanks. According to wiki, "any weapon advancement making the MBT obsolete could have severely devastated the Soviet Union's fighting capability", so I think the USSR was pretty serious about keeping their tanks up-to-date, and didn't really care about what they were called.
                      With 13 thousand T62 and 25 thousand T72 they can call them anything they wanted. We tankies, in West Germany waited in our little tanks but the must have been scared because they didn't come.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by dave lukins View Post
                        With 13 thousand T62 and 25 thousand T72 they can call them anything they wanted. We tankies, in West Germany waited in our little tanks but they must have been scared because they didn't come.
                        Of course they were MBT;s , hey Nuts which little tanks did we have , the little Cent or the miniscule Chieftain the ones I didnt want to be in if they did come were the scorps n scimmies :slap:

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Soviet Union used to have heavy tanks and medium tanks. The Iosef Stalin series were in use until the 1960s and then put in reserve, I guess. After that the frontline formation used T-64 and T-72. I thought they were not classified as "MBT" because they weighed much less than western MBTs due to less armor protection. They were really mediums with huge guns.
                          "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by gunnut View Post
                            I thought they were not classified as "MBT" because they weighed much less than western MBTs due to less armor protection.
                            Actually, the weight difference isn't particularly big.

                            M60 - 49 tons
                            M48 - 45 tons
                            Leo 1 - 42.5 tons
                            T-64 - 42.5 tons
                            T-72 - 41.5 tons
                            AMX-30 - 36 tons

                            (the AMX-30 being the smallest tank usually called an MBT, leaving aside the TAM)

                            And that doesn't translate to armor levels - the M60 was a monster sizewise at the time.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by kato View Post
                              Actually, the weight difference isn't particularly big.

                              M60 - 49 tons
                              M48 - 45 tons
                              Leo 1 - 42.5 tons
                              T-64 - 42.5 tons
                              T-72 - 41.5 tons
                              AMX-30 - 36 tons

                              (the AMX-30 being the smallest tank usually called an MBT, leaving aside the TAM)

                              And that doesn't translate to armor levels - the M60 was a monster sizewise at the time.
                              Good point, weight relative to their contemporaries.

                              Why did MBTs like M1, Challenger 2, and Leopard 2, all of a suddent balloon to 70 tons?

                              Is the new armor composition that much heavier than steel?
                              "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by tankie View Post
                                Of course they were MBT;s , hey Nuts which little tanks did we have , the little Cent or the miniscule Chieftain the ones I didnt want to be in if they did come were the scorps n scimmies :slap:
                                I liked the scims and scorps because you could run away..I mean tactically withdraw faster

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X