|
More specifically, if you're caught under the business end of a NATO airstrike, you're just as dead in a T-80 as in a T-55. You'd also probably fare just as well shooting against a M1 Abrams in the T-55 as in the T-80 (also dead). So why not use the older hardware.
|
#
?
May 31, 2011 04:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 17:51 |
|
|
One also has to understand the main difference between the T-64 (and subsequent T-80) and the T-72 (and subsequent T-90) design purposes. The T-64/T-80 was always designed to be the frontline and best armour available, and the T-72 was purposefully built to fill in production line queues to fill rear-echelon units. The T-72 was always the mass produced tank to fill in gaps, while the T-80 was the only one designed to really go head on head with western tanks. That being said though, the T-72s 120mm gun is still a very powerful thing, and has capabilities of firing ATGMs as well. The armour, sighting and electronics have lots of room but still, that wasnt he design purpose of them T-72s also, with stripped versions, were designed for export to allied nations. Thats why you never saw T-64s and T-80s being sold abroad.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2011 05:06
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:There are still T-55s and T-72s in service? A modernized T-55 is still a useful workhorse for infantry support when engaging MBT's is not expected, like in Chechnya. Improved fire control systems, ATGM's fired from the gun barrel, Kontakt ERA, better engine, modern night vision etc. help to extend their life time, with small cost compared to renewing the entire tank arsenal.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2011 10:56
|
|
I thought the oldest stuff the Russians fielded were T-80s.
|
INTJ Mastermind posted:More specifically, if you're caught under the business end of a NATO airstrike, you're just as dead in a T-80 as in a T-55. You'd also probably fare just as well shooting against a M1 Abrams in the T-55 as in the T-80 (also dead). So why not use the older hardware. Kind of interested in this since I don't know much about tanks - is M1 Abrams considered to be the best tank currently in service right now? (and a joke question, how many WWII tanks it would take to beat one?)
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2011 13:09
|
|
|
I personally wouldn't say there is a 'best' tank really.
|
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2011 13:15
|
|
|
When was the last time MBTs engaged each other? It looks like Georgian tanks were all destroyed before they reached the front lines, so the 2003 invasion of Iraq? And before that, the Persian Gulf War? It's not a particularly common occurrence in the modern world, so a tank built for infantry support is probably more useful on today's battlefield anyways.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2011 13:39
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:Kind of interested in this since I don't know much about tanks - is M1 Abrams considered to be the best tank currently in service right now? DarkCrawler posted:(and a joke question, how many WWII tanks it would take to beat one?)
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2011 14:09
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:Kind of interested in this since I don't know much about tanks - is M1 Abrams considered to be the best tank currently in service right now? All the NATO tanks are pretty much the same thing. The biggest difference is if they use diesel or turbines, and even that doesn't make a huge difference performance wise. Tanks are obsolete anyway. 
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2011 14:22
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:Kind of interested in this since I don't know much about tanks - is M1 Abrams considered to be the best tank currently in service right now? It would take several WWII tanks, but I think 5-10 WWII tanks, in the right terrain (dense, exceedingly short line of sight), with infantry support, could kill one alone. It would just take a couple hits on the tracks to immobilize the Abrams, and then the infantry sneak up and throw some grenades in the hatch. The issue is one of terrain - anything the Abrams sees is dead within 5 seconds, so you need to spot it with the stealthy infantry, maneuver such that you have as many tanks as possible all getting LOS at the same time at as short of possible range from as many different angles as possible, then you hope somebody gets the hit you want before you're all dead. Really, not too different from what the Russians had to do back in the day to kill Tigers and King Tigers, just much less margin for error.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2011 14:23
|
|
|
The question is almost as practical as asking how many angels can fit on the head of a needle. Even a BMP-1 could defeat a WW2 Tiger II due to its ATGM's, not to mention mobility, smaller size and other factors that make it harder to hit. If it ran out of missiles, the 73mm HEAT rockets its main gun fires would still be able to take any WW2 tank out albeit at shorter distance. So if a 1960's IFV can do that, the only limitation a 21st century MBT would have is limited main gun ammunition. Even the most modern MBTs can be defeated, but usually the crew walks away on their own feet which is considered to be a great benefit compared to WW2 Shermans. It's easier to build replacement tanks than it is to find veteran crewmen.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2011 15:54
|
|
gohuskies posted:It would take several WWII tanks, but I think 5-10 WWII tanks, in the right terrain (dense, exceedingly short line of sight), with infantry support, could kill one alone. It would just take a couple hits on the tracks to immobilize the Abrams, and then the infantry sneak up and throw some grenades in the hatch. The issue is one of terrain - anything the Abrams sees is dead within 5 seconds, so you need to spot it with the stealthy infantry, maneuver such that you have as many tanks as possible all getting LOS at the same time at as short of possible range from as many different angles as possible, then you hope somebody gets the hit you want before you're all dead. Really, not too different from what the Russians had to do back in the day to kill Tigers and King Tigers, just much less margin for error. Not to continue a really dumb conversation but this specific instance is one of many reasons that tanks operate in sections. If infantry are crawling all over one tank in the section, then the other can "scratch it's back" and hose it down with coax fire. On topic: Does anyone know anything about the last 2 Chechnyan wars? Or Northern Ireland? vains fucked around with this message at 18:01 on May 31, 2011 |
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2011 17:55
|
|
|
Won't the crews just be cut down by the enemy tank's coaxial machine gun when they try to bail? Edit: In your WW-II scenario, I guess the Abrams will run out of gas or ammo eventually. Now if you have a hypothetical Abrams that has infinite fuel and ammo, and a magical crew of elves that don't need to eat, sleep, or poo poo, then I guess 1 tank can carry on for the whole war launching hit and run attacks. Edit2: I guess if it's still early WWII then your one hypothetical Abrams can just drive straight for Berlin, shrugging off hits and gunning down everything it sees, until it pulls up to Hitler's house and shoots him in the face. Now that would make a cool movie. INTJ Mastermind fucked around with this message at 18:04 on May 31, 2011 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2011 18:00
|
|
|
For those of you interested in Napoleonic history I recommend this website: http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/index.html It features a summary of Napoleons armies, and the armies of his main adversaries of the era, what their forces were made up of, and how they fought etc. By the way, does anybody know of a good website that has pictures/descriptions of napoleonic era uniforms and equipment? I searched everywhere but cant find any comprehensible sites, its just bits and pieces here and there.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2011 20:38
|
|
|
Veins McGee posted:On topic: Does anyone know anything about the last 2 Chechnyan wars? Or Northern Ireland? Do you have a specific question? "Anything" is pretty broad. 
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2011 22:15
|
|
|
INTJ Mastermind posted:a magical crew of elves that don't need to eat, sleep, or poo poo
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2011 23:48
|
|
|
Nesnej posted:Speaking of this, I had some time ago an argument with a friend over whether having a toilet in an IFV such as the Swedish apparently have in their Strf 90 is a retarded idea or not. Uh... are you really sure about that?  The CV90 is in use by several armies, and I have not heard of any version of it having 'toilets' installed.If there was such a version, well yes, that would be retarded because space is precious inside any combat vehicle, so the 'toilet seat' would have to double as a passenger seat, and men would have to shuffle around to take turns, and they would have to be crapping in front of the entire squad.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2011 23:57
|
|
|
The "poop chute" will also compromise its survivability against say an anti-tank mine. I'd hate to be the one sitting on that seat when one of those goes off.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2011 00:14
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Uh... are you really sure about that? INTJ Mastermind posted:The "poop chute" will also compromise its survivability against say an anti-tank mine. I'd hate to be the one sitting on that seat when one of those goes off. Jasper Tin Neck fucked around with this message at 00:40 on Jun 1, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2011 00:26
|
|
|
Nesnej posted:Speaking of this, I had some time ago an argument with a friend over whether having a toilet in an IFV such as the Swedish apparently have in their Strf 90 is a retarded idea or not. My position was that making sure that the crew didn't have to wait for one of their members to return from a poo if poo poo hit the fan was a pretty good idea. Are there any examples of military manoeuvres that went wrong because someone just had to drop a log at the wrong moment? If you were caught short at a very inopportune time in an IFV or tank, surely you'd just take a poo poo in an empty ration pack or the driver's helmet or whatever else. Let the NBC kit take care of the smell. No need to install extra facilities. Cool thread, BTW. I've recently ordered a couple of books based on the recommendations here. I have a nebulous question for the experts here relating to autonomous systems, such as the UAV drones used by a few nations now. When were these first used and why? What use do you think military people would have for autonomous/remote control systems in the future, in both the short and long term? Where do you think the research money is going to be spent?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2011 00:57
|
|
|
gohuskies posted:..and then the infantry sneak up and throw some grenades in the hatch. Uh you know in a modern MBT this is next to impossible right? Those hatches are not gonna be pried open like some call of duty game. Anyways onto a question of mine. It seems like in a lot of WWII movies and shows (Saving Private Ryan, Band of Brothers) you'd have entire platoons and companies bunched up real tight, let alone squads. In modern infantry ops when in most terrain you want a couple metres (3-5m in daylight open terrain i believe was what I remember from my infantry course) between guys, so that could spread a squad out pretty far. It seems in all these shows/movies, squads are right next to eachother, sometimes shoulder to shoulder. Is this like I think it is just because of cinematography so they can get as many people into the shot as possible or was this generally the tactics at the time in terms of bunching? I just keep thinking how in a modern scenario, any LMG could easily burst a few rounds and take out like half of the section in these films, let alone a grenade).
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2011 04:54
|
|
|
swagger like us posted:Is this like I think it is just because of cinematography so they can get as many people into the shot as possible Yes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2011 05:01
|
|
|
swagger like us posted:Is this like I think it is just because of cinematography so they can get as many people into the shot as possible or was this generally the tactics at the time in terms of bunching? I just keep thinking how in a modern scenario, any LMG could easily burst a few rounds and take out like half of the section in these films, let alone a grenade). Speaking from my experience w/ a few different military forces, I think it's more realistic than most people would like to admit, but it's poor field-craft, not a tactical decision. If you look at clips from firefights in Iraq and Afghanistan, soldiers just love to bunch up. It's a really really tricky part of human nature to unlearn. For example - in all the training exercises i've participated in, we kept nice professional distances, we moved quickly and methodically, and everyone repeats the commands so the LMG and DM at the corners can hear. In combat, everyone just bunches the gently caress up unless told otherwise. Being more than 3m from the closest friendly can make you feel alone and abandoned, which is by far the worst feeling in a firefight. I'm talking about fighting in open terrain of course. Urban combat formations are much denser by design.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2011 05:12
|
|
|
Zionist_en_fuego posted:Speaking from my experience w/ a few different military forces, I think it's more realistic than most people would like to admit, but it's poor field-craft, not a tactical decision. If you look at clips from firefights in Iraq and Afghanistan, soldiers just love to bunch up. It's a really really tricky part of human nature to unlearn. Interesting. I haven't deployed yet so its interesting to hear about what actually happens in terms of battle drills and fieldcraft once in combat. Any other examples you have in terms of the differences in a real life TIC/firefight?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2011 05:15
|
|
|
swagger like us posted:Uh you know in a modern MBT this is next to impossible right? Those hatches are not gonna be pried open like some call of duty game. Yeah I mean it isn't COD but even an Abrams is going to be a bad place to be when alone, blind, and immobile, with men outside with explosives and bad intentions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2011 06:14
|
|
|
What happens when modern tanks get hit by artillery? What kind of ranges do modern artillery pieces have? Have the actual shells gotten much better, or are they just firing more accurately / at longer range than in WW2?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2011 09:30
|
|
|
ManicParroT posted:What happens when modern tanks get hit by artillery? The first two questions aren't really military history and you can find out artillery ranges from Wikipedia if you want. But I'll comment on the last one: in many ways yes, yes and yes. Basic HE shells haven't changed drastically, if at all, but since late WW2 proximity fuses have become a common item. Before proximity fuse was invented, artillery shells either used contact fuses, which either detonated on impact with the surface or if set to act on delay, could penetrate eg. a bunker or tank roof before detonating. Or they used timed fuses, which were supposed to explode just at the right time after firing, preferably just over the target so shrapnel would fly down into enemy trenches and foxholes. But as you can imagine, this was fiddly to get right - if you set the time too short, the shells exploded too high in the air, if too long then they would just detonate on impact. But with proximity fuses all of this is automated, the fuse has a sort of radar and when it says there is an obstacle a few metres away, it detonates. Then there's new shell types, like bomblets, anti-tank missiles and so on, and rocket artillery which was still novel in WW2 has improved greatly. Maximum ranges have vastly improved, and with laser guided shells you can get pin-point accuracy. Then there is 'Multiple Rounds Simultaneous Impact' which means that a single self-propelled gun could fire a number of shells into the air, along different trajectories which land on the same spot at the same time. There's all kinds of things, too numerous to list them all, that make an older artillery general drool.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2011 09:55
|
|
|
HeroOfTheRevolution posted:When was the last time MBTs engaged each other? It looks like Georgian tanks were all destroyed before they reached the front lines, so the 2003 invasion of Iraq? It was 2008, where did you get the impression that air power did all the work? Many of them were destroyed in city fighting and I can find a picture of at least one destroyed by another tank.  Good (or lucky) shot as well. Right in the turret ring. There was some tank fighting in 2003, and a number of tanks were taken out by CAATs as well. Before then the various Balkan wars put a lot of tanks against each other, including Leopard 1s and T-72s. 1991 probably had the most major tank-to-tank fighting in the last 20-some years, though I am more familiar with the Marine and Tiger Brigade perspective on that, and at the end of the day I still don't know very much.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2011 12:47
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:Before then the various Balkan wars put a lot of tanks against each other, including Leopard 1s and T-72s. I haven't heard about that. Are you sure?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2011 13:16
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:I haven't heard about that. Are you sure? Sorry, I phrased that poorly. I did not mean T-72s fought Leopards, just that they both fought in the theatre. Unless of course you were asking about Leopard 1 combat at all, in which case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Amanda And of course the M-84, the Yugoslav variant of the T-72, was used throughout the wars.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2011 14:40
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:It was 2008, where did you get the impression that air power did all the work? Many of them were destroyed in city fighting and I can find a picture of at least one destroyed by another tank. Post about the Battle of the 73 Easting or Battle of Khafji please. HeroOfTheRevolution posted:Do you have a specific question? "Anything" is pretty broad. Hmm...what, if any, changes to doctrine/organization/material(ex BMP-T or BTR-T) resulted from lessons learned in Chechnya? How did Chechnya influence western thought regarding counter-insurgency? What was Russian civilian reaction to the fighting? Was it analogous to American reactions to Vietnam or OIF/OEF or did the Russians not really give a gently caress or what?
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2011 17:58
|
|
|
Veins McGee posted:Post about the Battle of the 73 Easting or Battle of Khafji please. I know nothing about 73 Easting and everything I will be able to tell you about Khafji can be found in this work. It is basically a preview chapter of the upcoming definitive history of the Marine Corps in the Gulf War and will have a companion book of oral history interviews. I was interning for the author at the time which is why I know anything at all. If you want a truncated version I can type something up, but I will just be copying wholesale from the History Division piece.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2011 18:24
|
|
|
Our battalion sergeant major when I was in ROTC was a TC at 73 Easting, he was in Troop G which was one of the troops that found itself right in the middle of it all. We didn't know this until late in the year, and of course we grilled him relentlessly about it when we found out as it was sensationally cool and there were no veterans of any armor on armor battles anywhere else. Basically what happened was the 2nd Armored Cav Regiment was doing a pretty classic recon in force mission out ahead of the main body of 1st ID and 3rd AD. This was classic WWII/Cold War doctrine: the scouts go out ahead of the main body, they fix the enemy position, and then the heavies roll on through. As expected, they ran into enemy armor, but instead of fixing the position and waiting for the big fist to come on through, they just started wrecking poo poo. Unit circled here in red:  It really wasn't a particularly remarkable battle except that it showed just how effective the decades of anti-Soviet armor development had really been. The M1 was pretty much invulnerable to any of the Iraqi guns, and the M1's main gun wasn't just penetrating the Iraqi armor: it was going in one side and out the other in most cases. They also had an element of Apaches with them who joined in the wrecking of poo poo to great effect. While this isn't surprising to anyone today, at the time we really did not have a good pulse on how our newest weapons (specifically the M1) stacked up against the Soviet stuff. Throughout WWII and for most of the Cold War it was assumed that American armor was quite inferior to what the Soviets had (rightly so), and we really did not know what to expect from the M1 when it came up against the Russian hardware. Essentially it turned out like the "WWII tanks versus M1" discussion above, which was a bit shocking because we were expecting the Russian armor, particularly the T-72, to be the equal of the M1 (as such we were expecting significant armor losses). One thing that SGM said has always stuck with me: "It would have really sucked to be in one of them Iraq tanks". bewbies fucked around with this message at 18:46 on Jun 1, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2011 18:44
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Essentially it turned out like the "WWII tanks versus M1" discussion above, which was a bit shocking because we were expecting the Russian armor, particularly the T-72, to be the equal of the M1 (as such we were expecting significant armor losses). It's worth mentioning that the T-72s used by the Iraqi forces were not only poorly crewed but were export or indigenous versions, lacking in advanced optics or sighting equipment, and firing steel penetrators rather than missiles and DU. I think, although it would probably win, an Abrams fighting a late-Soviet T-72 would have a harder time than the USA did in the Gulf War with an enemy that was essentially happy to stand around in flat terrain while Abrams picked them off beyond the reach of their ineffectual guns. I'm not saying that T-72s would have proven equal or near-equal to the M1, but it is unfair to treat the Iraqi versions, poorly crewed, as remotely equivalent to Soviet stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2011 19:39
|
|
GyverMac posted:For those of you interested in Napoleonic history I recommend this website: I'll be happy to try and answer any old Napoleonic era uniform and equipment questions.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2011 19:59
|
|
|
Are there any good non-biased books about the Sino-Vietnamese war and or PAVN's incurson in to Cambodia/Kampuchea.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2011 20:30
|
|
|
A Fistful of Dicks posted:
Here it is: dividebyzero posted:First off, the Baltic countries have been NATO members since 2004, it's not really that recent of a development and is one that, considering the Balt's experience with Russia, should've been expected. The Air Force's abysmal performance of what should have been a fairly straight forward SEAD operation, including the embarrassing loss of one of their premier strategic bombers, really cuts against the argument that Russian intel was effective.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2011 21:48
|
|
|
Sorry, I hosed up my previous post. I'm on my phone so poo poo is confusing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2011 21:52
|
|
|
Nesnej posted:Speaking of this, I had some time ago an argument with a friend over whether having a toilet in an IFV such as the Swedish apparently have in their Strf 90 is a retarded idea or not. The toilet in the Strf 90 and variants is just a hole in one of the seats and a holder for a plastic bag underneath. It's intended to be used when the vehicle is operating within a CBRN contaminated area and opening the doors and hatches would be inadvisable. You poo poo, put the bag in a cut off piece of pvc pipe, tape it up and toss it out when you can. It's not intended for combat making GBS threads.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2011 22:11
|
|
|
combat engineer posted:combat making GBS threads. Aaah, one of the most mysterious and honorable tasks in the Swedish Armed Forces  I didn't know the CV90 had a toilet, I guess it didn't in 04/05 or they never bothered to put in the LVKV...
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2011 22:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 17:51 |
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:It's worth mentioning that the T-72s used by the Iraqi forces were not only poorly crewed but were export or indigenous versions, lacking in advanced optics or sighting equipment, and firing steel penetrators rather than missiles and DU. From what I've read elsewhere, Battle of 73 Easting isn't really a testament to the prowess of Abrams. Cav units, equipped with Bradleys, killed most of the enemy armor. That mean's they were doing so from within 3600m or whatever the max effective of a TOW is against T-72s with similar max effective ranges. But, you're other points still stand true. Export T-72s are inferior to Soviet/Russian military T-72s and, not only that, are inferior to T-64s and T-90s which were/are used in their front line tank formations. Regarding Battle of Khafji: Thanks, that piece cleared up a lot of questions I had. Except for some memoirs, there isn't a lot of history available about LAR. vains fucked around with this message at 23:52 on Jun 1, 2011 |
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2011 22:41
|
|