|
Valtonen posted:(sleeping him directly on it) Typo or awesome word I didn't know?
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 05:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 02:59 |
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:Typo or awesome word I didn't know? Typo Late post, fixed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 05:38
|
|
|
Valtonen posted:Typo Late post, fixed. Word up. No shade. Was just excited if that was a new term.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 05:44
|
|
|
Wait did the ramming ships not get mentioned yer, like the HMS Polyphemus. Some insane brit decides to go back to Ancient warfare and arm modern ships with rams, pure lunacy. Most famously depicted owning some martians at the end of War of the Worlds.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 05:49
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:If you have good stuff to tell about the starship and what they were working on other than 'lmao the gun and missile didn't really work so we canned it', I'd love to know more, especially about stuff like fire control and crew workflow. The M60A2 kind of comes out of a whole bunch of programmes and ideas clashing together into one tank. This'll mostly be cribbed from Hunnicutt with some assessments added: first is the 1958 ARCOVE report that lays down the direction US tank development will go in: light/medium/heavy tanks are out, Main Battle Tanks and Airborne Reconnaissance/Airborne Assault Vehicles is in, and the US should focus on adding ATGM capabilities to their tanks. At the same time, the US have been pursuing the hot new thing to replace the M48 for close to a decade but no matter how hard they try they just end up with fancy-looking M48s. Now, the M48 is not a bad tank but it has some problems, especially that it's humongous: it's very tall, which comes from being a rushed replacement for the interim solution that replaced the interim solution that replaced the Pershing, which was made at a time when the standard for US tanks was set by the M4 Sherman, which had to fit the turret like half a metre off the floor to fit the driveshaft because it had to run on aircraft engines. This leads to three priorities going into the development of US tanks in the 1960s: 1) They want to make them smaller, because currently they present big targets that are easy to hit and can't go turret down in terrain easily; 2) They want to fit them with barrel-launched ATGMs to allow US tanks to destroy any tank in the world with accurate shots from 2,000 meters; 3) They want to focus on the development of the Initially the idea for the Starship was pretty modest: fit the new 152 mm XM81 gun-missile-launcher to the M60A1, which is a small upgrade that requires the new gun, a new gun shield, and a few pieces of electronics and telescope to control the missiles. This would result in a significant capability-increase for the M60A1 (and even the M48s, which can fit the same turret) because it allows the entire M60 park to be fitted with the new wondergun. At the same time, there's interest in solving the silhouette problem with a new turret. A series of new turrets are considered, and eventually the Department of the Army picks one initially planned for the MBT(MR), which is shaped like an upside down T. Hunnicutt doesn't really say why this was incorporated into the simple, low-risk gun upgrade programme, but I imagine it's a case of scope creep from trying to combine two programmes that are already in the works to simplify integration. If you need a new gun shield to fit the XM81 to an M60A1 turret, and you're planning to replace the M60A1 turret anyway, why not design the new turret first, so it can fit the XM81? There's also the idea that once this tank with the new turret and gun has entered service it can quickly be upgraded with the long-barrel 152 mm XM150 gun from the MBT-70 once it is finalized, further increasing the capabilities of the upgraded M60s. This leads to the 2.5 problems that would plague the M60A2: 1) The narrow profile of the turret meant that standard optical rangefinding (where accuracy is proportional to the distance between the left and right objective lenses) could not be used, requiring the development and installation of a laser rangefinder. Which is per se not a bad idea, but it added to the M60A2s requirement for highly skilled technical maintenance; 2) The M81 gun-missile launcher was not great. It had fully combustible casings that wouldn't fully combust, instead smoldering inside the chamber where they'd ignite and premature fire the next round that was loaded. This had to be solved with a high-pressure blowout system, which added to the M60As requirement for highly skilled technical maintenance; 2.1) The M81 gun-missile launcher was not great: it was a low-pressure gun that couldn't fire modern saboted armour-piercing rounds, reducing the anti-armour options to HEAT rounds and the Shillelagh missile--which couldn't be used at night. Additionally, to allow accurate placement of slow-moving, low-pressure HE and HEAT shells at long distances it was vital that the Starship have a very advanced fire-control computer, which added to the M60As requirement for highly skilled technical maintenance; 3) There were additional complex systems: The stabilizer would be standard on M60s by the time the Starship met troops, giving the commander a main gun optic as complex as the gunner's less so, and fitting the commander's cupola with a fully stabilized machine gun probably didn't help. For whatever reason, the plan to fit the XM150 (which could fire sabot AP rounds) in place of the M81 never happened. This resulted in a tank that was crippled by lack of a sabot ammo, and disliked because of the heavy maintenance requirements. The scope creep also meant the M60A2 took a while to arrive, and the Army had already started development of the second programme to upgrade the M60 fleet. This would essentially take a bunch of M60A2 components and fit them to the M60A1, resulting what was essentially two competing programmes to upgrade the M60s with new technology: both would fit stabilizers, night vision systems, laser rangefinders, and advanced electronic fire-control systems, but the M60A2 also had the troublesome M81 gun and required a new turret. Ultimately the US would buy very few M60A2s and a whole lot of stuff from the second upgrade programme (which was easily split into numerous smaller programmes like AOS, RISE, RISE-Passive, and part of what eventually became the M60A3 programme). Davin Valkri posted:Since you brought up Starship, and other people are dunking on how they couldn't make the gun/missile combo work, I'd like to jump in and ask: The Soviet programmes to fit ATGMs to their tanks had one major advantages over the US' attempts: The Soviet missiles could be fired from standard guns. This allowed their tanks to retain their usual high-pressure, sabot-firing guns while adding ATGM capability. Putting ATGMs on your tanks is also pretty great, all in all: the traditional trade-off in Cold War tank munitions is between highly accurate, very fast discarding sabot penetrators and HEAT warheads. AP(FS)DS are accurate at long range, but as air resistance slows the penetrator down it loses much of its ability to penetrate. HEAT retains its ability to penetrate at any range, but are big, sluggish projectiles that are very hard to fire accurately at long ranges. ATGMs carry HEAT warheads, but are guided and therefore extremely accurate--even more accurate than APFSDS!--which allow engaging basically any armoured target at extreme, even stand-off, range. The disadvantages of ATGMs are that they're hideously expensive compared to conventional unguided munitions and slow to reach their target. Slow enough, in fact, that a trained crew can deploy countermeasures like smoke, disappear behind cover, or even kill the tank that launched the missile before the missile can be guided onto its target.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 06:13
|
|
|
Modernwise, ATGMs are falling out of fashion again due to HEAT-resistant armour aren't they?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 06:21
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:Modernwise, ATGMs are falling out of fashion again due to HEAT-resistant armour aren't they? No; if anything it’s accelerating and the part of the reason Active protection is the new trend in all AFVs. Both the US and Germany have purchased Trophy kits in the last few years as an example. In the vein of the earlier discussion, There’s a good chance as active protection improves over the next 20 years we will see AFVs trending down in passive armor protection to improve tactical/strategic mobility and reduce size/silhouette. We’ve really only seen the first handful of systems you could call successful in the last ~20 years, but they have proven themselves a few times now, Trophy specifically. Mazz fucked around with this message at 06:46 on Mar 3, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 06:27
|
|
|
How do you deal with reactive armour, laminates etc in a modern missile? Duplex warhead and top-attack? Just use a bigger warhead and bull through?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 06:31
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:How do you deal with reactive armour, laminates etc in a modern missile? Duplex warhead and top-attack? Just use a bigger warhead and bull through? All of the above, depending on the missile. Tandem charges for ERA, top attack, larger missiles with improved warheads. RPG-29s, Kornets, TOW-2Bs; the missiles have all realistically kept up with the armor advances, and that’s not even including leaps like Javelin or SPIKE, or the bigger, scarier poo poo like Brimstone II or GBU-53s Mazz fucked around with this message at 06:52 on Mar 3, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 06:35
|
|
|
Looking at the King Tiger vs Abrams LP, I'm pretty certain that I recognize the thread that inspired it. I could say a lot about the OP and the apparent political motivations for his thesis that the Heer would be able to fight modern militaries on equal terms, or his aggressive misuse of Trevor Dupuy's findings, but instead I'll just highlight how he thought the Germans would be able to stop an Abrams.quote:The germans probably won't disitegrate on the ground, either, even though they'll have to face lots and lots of abrams tanks. Some commentors like to obsess about the invulnerability of MBT and how they'd decimate all opposition, but there are ways for a WW2 force to deal with them. I think JagerIV made a good point about this on another thread:
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 07:41
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:So, how does this all pan out in practice? Thankfully because we live in the grim darkness of the far future of 2021, unlike Pierre Sprey in the benighted year of 2007, linear time has been invented and we can look back to combat experience in 1991. I don't actually think it's perfectly representative, but 73 Easting is pretty illustrative in my opinion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72XLTfmcaAw Here's a good time-lapse of the thing. At very close range Abrams, and more importantly for my overall point, Bradleys run into a major force of armor. They take return fire, but they do not take killing hits in the very short amount of time they allow the Iraqi opposition. One of the recon troops' fights is 9 abrams and 13 bradleys against 39 Iraqi tanks, 54 armored vehicles and 200 infantry at close range. It's a massacre. After about 22 minutes, all 21 vehicles are intact after destroying a whole battalion. Other formations don't crest a ridge right into an enemy formation, so they are able to pick the Iraqis apart with impunity. I get the feeling that in the analysis when they mentioned minor differences in weapons characteristics, this is at or beyond the magnitude of what they'd count as a major difference in weapons. Fantastic thanks for posting! Two questions I had from the video that may be dumb or you might not know, but at around 6 minutes he says the goal is to have the 7th armored cav regiment find the enemy, but left the 1st infantry division move forward to do the fighting, why would the goal be to have the desired outcome be to have the infantry division fight a tank division rather than the armored or armored cav groups present? Also why are the 7th armored cav regiment advancing first with the Bradleys in front if there's expectation of fighting? Are the optics that much better that it makes sense for the Bradleys to be up front of the Abrams if you're not expecting truly heavy fighting? In the end it seems that both were able to withstand the Iraqi T-72's so maybe it wasn't all that important, but the ordered switch had me thinking about it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 07:47
|
|
|
Gaius Marius posted:Wait did the ramming ships not get mentioned yer, like the HMS Polyphemus. Some insane brit decides to go back to Ancient warfare and arm modern ships with rams, pure lunacy. Most famously depicted owning some martians at the end of War of the Worlds. The War of the Worlds ship was HMS Thunderchild, a torpedo ram that, as described by Wells, did not match anything on the actual Royal Navy's rolls. Drachinifell did a good video on what she might actually have been given RN design development at the time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQBund8uLmo mllaneza fucked around with this message at 08:14 on Mar 3, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 08:10
|
|
|
zoux posted:This is an interesting question, well to me at least: how did y'all get into military history? I built fighter jet models when I was That Age. Also I was terrified of nuclear war and whenever I was scared of something as a kid I'd research it exhaustively in order to discover the One Weird Trick that would protect me from it. Dad's boss gave him a model kit to build with me when I was about 5. It was a Tamiya Ju-87 and it had options for completion as a dive bomber, or the tank buster model; of course I thought the latter looked more interesting and we built it as that. What I didn't understand was what those things were and so I asked Dad about it because Dad and Mum knew everything right? We had just watched Star Wars so Dad said they were proton torpedoes. I was reasonably sure that wasn't true so when we next went to the library I went looking for answers. This event helped spur me into reading and triggered a lifelong interest in history, and also taught me that when Dad said something that sounded like he was full of poo poo he probably was. I did a BA that focused heavily on military history, but also a broader sense also looked at religious conflict as well. I started an MA in Military History but after a couple of years and starting a new job I realized that academia held no allure for me and what I was really interested in was people's stories and how those shaped who they are and now I'm a social worker.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 08:33
|
|
|
Gaius Marius posted:Wait did the ramming ships not get mentioned yer, like the HMS Polyphemus. Some insane brit decides to go back to Ancient warfare and arm modern ships with rams, pure lunacy. Most famously depicted owning some martians at the end of War of the Worlds. The Polyphemus was primarily a torpedo ship. The ram was a secondary weapon, more a function of not really knowing how this whole torpedo thing would work out. So the designers opted to keep the spar torpedo concept in place. Torpedo Rams as a class tended to be based around the idea of sneaking into ports, firing a bunch of torpedoes at ships at anchor and run away. The design that this calls for shares a lot of stuff with early submarines. You want it be kinda stealthy so you have a very low freeboard, which makes it less likely to stand out. To pass in front of something and have an obvious silhouette at night. And with torpedoes as your primary weapon, then you can go very low in the water. The British went to more of the extreme with this than the Americans did. The optimized for stealth over firepower. The Intrepid and Alarm both had more naval guns, although they kept the spar torpedo as well. The idea behind keeping the torpedo ram is to make them a credible threat to any vessel that might impede their escape. The Admiralty knows the spar torpedo idea works. It's not ideal, and the automotive torpedo is probably gonna be a way better weapon but no one has proved that yet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 08:38
|
|
|
So if this guy thinks the WW2 german army could fight a modern army on reasonable terms, how does he explain the fact that they lost?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 08:54
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:So if this guy thinks the WW2 german army could fight a modern army on reasonable terms, how does he explain the fact that they lost? Guy blames lack of fuel. It isn't clear how he thinks it wouldn't be a problem against future armies.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 09:25
|
|
|
Gaius Marius posted:Wait did the ramming ships not get mentioned yer, like the HMS Polyphemus. Some insane brit decides to go back to Ancient warfare and arm modern ships with rams, pure lunacy. Most famously depicted owning some martians at the end of War of the Worlds. I mean it wasn't because he'd been spending a bit too much time reading about the Punic Wars while on the port. There weren't many major naval battles to take lessons from at the time, and at one of those major battles, Lissa, the winning side's admiral successfully rammed like 3 different ships with his flagship, sinking this one outright. You can see why people might think it was worth a spin especially given the relative strength of armour to cannon at the time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 11:22
|
|
|
Carillon posted:Fantastic thanks for posting! Two questions I had from the video that may be dumb or you might not know, but at around 6 minutes he says the goal is to have the 7th armored cav regiment find the enemy, but left the 1st infantry division move forward to do the fighting, why would the goal be to have the desired outcome be to have the infantry division fight a tank division rather than the armored or armored cav groups present? Also why are the 7th armored cav regiment advancing first with the Bradleys in front if there's expectation of fighting? Are the optics that much better that it makes sense for the Bradleys to be up front of the Abrams if you're not expecting truly heavy fighting? In the end it seems that both were able to withstand the Iraqi T-72's so maybe it wasn't all that important, but the ordered switch had me thinking about it. Keep in mind that the 1st infantry division is an infantry division in name only. By this time, the difference between a US infantry division and armored division is somewhat notional. The true blue infantry divisions in the US army were the various 'light' infantry brigades.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 11:26
|
|
|
mllaneza posted:It was the model section at the local hardware store that got me. First a US destroyer with a kamikaze attack for the box art. As my first model it's no surprise that it ended up looking like it had been hit by a few. Then a bright green P-47 with an awful lot of glue showing... So I started reading everything the library had about ships and planes and basically never stopped. Similar but the little plastic 1:72 mans then finding a book on wargaming in the school library. I was researching the correct shako pom pom colours for French line infantry regiments by the time I was, like, 12.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 11:53
|
|
|
This may be a really dumb question but does modern infantry even have the capability to march anymore? If there was some EMP disaster or whatever and all the trucks stopped working would the 1st infantry even be able to march from Kansas to Minnesota to prevent the Canadian invasion or is there just no plan for that?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 13:23
|
|
|
Pryor on Fire posted:This may be a really dumb question but does modern infantry even have the capability to march anymore? If there was some EMP disaster or whatever and all the trucks stopped working would the 1st infantry even be able to march from Kansas to Minnesota to prevent the Canadian invasion or is there just no plan for that? Marching is still a requirement for basic training, at least here in Germany.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 13:26
|
|
|
Pryor on Fire posted:This may be a really dumb question but does modern infantry even have the capability to march anymore? If there was some EMP disaster or whatever and all the trucks stopped working would the 1st infantry even be able to march from Kansas to Minnesota to prevent the Canadian invasion or is there just no plan for that? I think you need to add qualifiers for what country, what formation, and what vehicles you're taking away in your thought experiment here. There are still troops today training to walk places on foot while carrying their supplies in backpacks sure. Are you asking for a list and how many days/range, or for what a specific battalion would do if they forgot where they parked their cars?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 13:30
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:What is the stupidest warship design IRL? What is the silliest thing someone actually built in the 20th century and expected to accomplish things as a warship? My submission: the Shinano. Battleship/carrier hybrids just don't work.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 13:38
|
|
|
If a deuce and a half happens to be running at the time of the pulse, or it’s parked on a hill and the air’s not too cold to push start, you could drive it right to Canada with no electrics.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 13:38
|
|
|
FPyat posted:Looking at the King Tiger vs Abrams LP, I'm pretty certain that I recognize the thread that inspired it. I could say a lot about the OP and the apparent political motivations for his thesis that the Heer would be able to fight modern militaries on equal terms, or his aggressive misuse of Trevor Dupuy's findings, but instead I'll just highlight how he thought the Germans would be able to stop an Abrams. I mean yeah, if you start with a 4:1 numerical advantage in heavy weaponry and somehow get them close enough undetected to deliver several seconds' worth of uninterrupted fire while the targets do gently caress all, they might come out pretty well. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 13:41
|
|
|
Pryor on Fire posted:This may be a really dumb question but does modern infantry even have the capability to march anymore? If there was some EMP disaster or whatever and all the trucks stopped working would the 1st infantry even be able to march from Kansas to Minnesota to prevent the Canadian invasion or is there just no plan for that? You could put some ammo and rations in people's backpacks and send em walking off on their merry way but you better come up with something (pack goat caravan?) regarding what you'll do once the stuff they're carrying is used up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 13:49
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:My submission: the Shinano. Battleship/carrier hybrids just don't work. On a related note, Graf Zeppelin with its ridiculous armament of sixteen 15cm guns and room for only 42 aircraft is definitely a strong contender for "worst ship design of the war," even if she was never technically completed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 13:50
|
|
|
Marching is a requirement, but you absolutely could not deliver the logistics trail for a modern (even demotorised) force if any army in the world were asked to do it today. You can march to the Canadian border, but what do you eat when you get there? And once you've shot through the ammo you carried there, what are you going to do? If all the engines stopped working then you would need to do an enormous horse-and-cart procurement programme, re-establish all of the skills and professions necessary, establish processes and forward bases and fodder reserves. All in the meantime the infantry arms are furiously working out what they can keep and what they can ditch if their supply pipeline is suddenly 1/10th the size it used to be. e: Graf Zepplin kinda makes sense as a Commerce raiding CV. That concept being loving terrible, you can see how Germany might try to put a lone carrier in the middle of the Atlantic with an air wing optimised to do convoy hunting rather than fight fleet battles. Alchenar fucked around with this message at 14:00 on Mar 3, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 13:55
|
|
|
Can you imagine the lawsuits if you had to try and feed your horses of some agribusiness land lol Just endless cycles of biofuel producers suing farmers suing the soldiers whose horses ate their crops.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 14:05
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:e: Graf Zepplin kinda makes sense as a Commerce raiding CV. That concept being loving terrible, you can see how Germany might try to put a lone carrier in the middle of the Atlantic with an air wing optimised to do convoy hunting rather than fight fleet battles. Well probably operating alongside something like Scharnhorst. Not like the KM didn't plan to do surface raiding already.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 14:33
|
|
|
Thank you! I'm somewhat chuffed that my feelings wrt the T-64/72/80 are reflected in the report of the time and Aleksey Khlopotov's commentary. It really seems like a T-72 with the wheels of a T-80 and the FCS/gun-system of the T-64B was the tank the Soviets really were looking for in the end, which they sort of got in the T-72B. Tulip posted:Very cool! This in particular was a striking takeaway: As EE mentioned, getting that fuel to the sharp end is always a major issue, and having tanks that are nearly twice as thirsty as other types is uh not great especially when in practical terms that extra speed is hardly used. You'll need more trucks to move that fuel, and that means more fuel is spent on moving those trucks, which means more fuel to the depot, which means.. etc. Edit: I forgot to mention it's also an issue with the way the turbine engine runs. It runs at full consumption rate constantly, tank moving or sitting still, which was quite the problem in the first Chechen war were poorly trained crews used up all their fuel on the defensive and then couldn't maneuver. With a diesel it can idle at a reduced rate of consumption. Davin Valkri posted:Since you brought up Starship, and other people are dunking on how they couldn't make the gun/missile combo work, I'd like to jump in and ask: GL-ATGMs were added to the T-64B, T-80B/U and T-72B because they were a useful addition to their capabilities. Being able to reach out and touch an enemy kilometers beyond what they can accurately return fire is a very good thing to have. It's also useful in being a way for tank groups to be of increased threat against hovering or slow flying helicopters. An AH-1 shooting TOWs at 3km away with a slight drift of movement is a tough target to hit with an APFSDS dart. With a missile? Much easier to manage. Another thing is that these missiles in later versions make for good delivery vehicles for those fancy tandem charge HEAT warheads which can punch right through those NERA sections of what you're shooting at. Another factor was that they were concerned that the 2A46, even with LRF/FCS and darts didn't match the long range capabilities of a NATO 120mm gun and FCS, so ATGMs were a way to close this gap and exceed it in other respects. Mazz posted:No; if anything it’s accelerating and the part of the reason Active protection is the new trend in all AFVs. Both the US and Germany have purchased Trophy kits in the last few years as an example. I know I've posted this conjecture before, but I disagree. Any reduction in passive armor will make an AFV more vulnerable to KE threats, which won't be going away. Instead I can see the Armata T-14 design pattern becoming the norm, more due to sensor improvements and the aforementioned threat evolution. The hard question is "what is the focus of protection?" and the answer is "the crew compartment". By moving the crew into the hull, you put them in a less threatened zone, and can concentrate your armor budget on the hull front, skimping on the turret's, which can still be "protected" in the sense that its profile has been radically reduced from the front, and can be given better elevation limits too. Xerxes17 fucked around with this message at 15:49 on Mar 3, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 15:47
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Posted truths In other words; No, there are no contingency plans for existing motorised transportation being magicked away from infantry formations or logistical supply, and losing it is not a thing that could happen irl. As an aside, EMP wouldn't immobilise mil vehicles en masse in any case and a hypothetical emp created by a nuclear device is going to trigger a response. That's why it's not a thing that has contingency planning. Troops don't need to walk like in ww2 anymore, logistics is important and has some resilience for friction, and light infantry can walk *a* distance if told to (useful endurance might preclude support weapons + am), and need resupply at the latest when personally carried MREs/Water is depleted. They can't carry enough ammunition to last long of course, so if they get contact and no supply/med evac is available they'll need to walk home again. The question was basically, if I understood the motivation behind it - Is anyone trying for, and what can you expect to achieve with, soldiers on foot today? A good answer would be equivalent to Finland's ww2 Sissi units on long range patrol wich some people are still training for in some capacity. No, not to be expected beyond ad hoc/special forces or other light infantry and they'll almost always have easier options besides.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 15:49
|
|
|
LatwPIAT posted:I mean, yes, but also the M48A2 is from the early fifties, so it's an absurd comparison: why haven't early 50s tanks progressed as much from WWII as late-60s aircraft did from WWII? Of course. The analysis also misses the fact that the M-48 wasn't the top-tier tank in the US arsenal at the time either. It was used in Vietnam and still used by the Israelis and other Western allies (FRG), but the top MBT was the M-60A1. LatwPIAT posted:Now, I know it's terrible, and you know it's terrible, but if we're going to compare the fruits of technological advancement in 1970, it's not Panther/M48A2 Pattern, but Panther/M60A2 Starship. Space-age computer-gun-missile with lasers! That's the technological development tanks had made since WWII. Or, if we're comparing "maybes," the MBT-70 with all of it's high tech devices. But again, that's not the point. The fact that the tanks of the 70s were in the same league as late WWII tanks was seen as proof that tanks might be a dead end.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 15:52
|
|
|
Gaius Marius posted:Some insane brit decides to go back to Ancient warfare and arm modern ships with rams, pure lunacy. And just a few years later they managed to successfuly sink a battleship by ramming.  Sure, it was one of their own, but - hey, proof the concept worked, you know?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 15:57
|
|
|
At least Finnish Army trains not only foot marches, But ski and bicycle as well. The problem on your scenario is logistics train, which has since history of war begun been powered by sail or draft animals, then with train and combustion engine. A soldier on the move, even with a transportation method that allows more payload such as bike, can inly carry So much consumable equipment in terms of ammo and food,
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 16:02
|
|
|
Yeah, USMC infantry - and even non-infantry - trains constantly for "humps" (marches). I don't know where the idea that modern militaries don't do this came from.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 16:05
|
|
|
Gaius Marius posted:Wait did the ramming ships not get mentioned yer, like the HMS Polyphemus. Some insane brit decides to go back to Ancient warfare and arm modern ships with rams, pure lunacy. Most famously depicted owning some martians at the end of War of the Worlds. As usual Perfidious Albion was copying Glorious French Scientific Shipbuilding Achievements. Dupuy de Lome designed an ironclad ram in 1860. The fascination wasn't totally incorrect, as CSS Virginia and SMS Erzherzog Ferdinand Max did ram ships and sink them. Invention of the torpedo and advances in gunnery killed it off, but it probably wasn't a totally bad idea in that 1860ish time period. Of course there were a lot of guys who took it Too Far and thought that ramming would replace all forms of naval combat in the glorious steam-powered triremes of the modern era.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 16:07
|
|
|
Xerxes17 posted:I know I've posted this conjecture before, but I disagree. Any reduction in passive armor will make an AFV more vulnerable to KE threats, which won't be going away. Instead I can see the Armata T-14 design pattern becoming the norm, more due to sensor improvements and the aforementioned threat evolution. The hard question is "what is the focus of protection?" and the answer is "the crew compartment". By moving the crew into the hull, you put them in a less threatened zone, and can concentrate your armor budget on the hull front, skimping on the turret's, which can still be "protected" in the sense that its profile has been radically reduced from the front, and can be given better elevation limits too. If that tank skimps on armour for the main gun and drive train, wouldn't every marginal hit now be effectively devastating? Few things are as big a multiplier in combat as diminishing enemy fires, like. A soldier without a weapon can't fight
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 16:08
|
|
|
Cessna posted:Yeah, USMC infantry - and even non-infantry - trains constantly for "humps" (marches). People have a hard time distinguishing between strategic, operational, and tactical mobility/movement.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 16:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 02:59 |
|
|
LatwPIAT posted:This resulted in a tank that was crippled by lack of a sabot ammo, and disliked because of the heavy maintenance requirements. The scope creep also meant the M60A2 took a while to arrive, and the Army had already started development of the second programme to upgrade the M60 fleet. This would essentially take a bunch of M60A2 components and fit them to the M60A1, resulting what was essentially two competing programmes to upgrade the M60s with new technology: both would fit stabilizers, night vision systems, laser rangefinders, and advanced electronic fire-control systems, but the M60A2 also had the troublesome M81 gun and required a new turret. Ultimately the US would buy very few M60A2s and a whole lot of stuff from the second upgrade programme (which was easily split into numerous smaller programmes like AOS, RISE, RISE-Passive, and part of what eventually became the M60A3 programme). Lovely post, thanks for all the info. I really ought to make time to read Hunnicutt one of these days. Do you know what capabilities this mess had, was the crew situation largely analogous to the M60A3 apart from having a nice normal turret and gun? Cessna posted:But again, that's not the point. The fact that the tanks of the 70s were in the same league as late WWII tanks was seen as proof that tanks might be a dead end. Yeah, I find it real interesting what people believe that's wrong and why they believe it, it's part of why I went into the detail I did.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 16:13
|
|
