Af/Pak & Other News (5/31/2012)

[dump...@hotmail.com]

India fears for Afghanistan after NATO pullout:

http://india.nydailynews.com/newsarticle/978dcf99ce106467be1a783578e951ad/india-fears-for-afghanistan-after-nato-pullout




Emir tells of Taliban's rise to power in remote Pakistani tribal
agency:

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2012/05/taliban_emir_discuss.php



Pakistani militants vow death for 'CIA doctor':

http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/afp/pakistani-militants-vow-death-for-cia-doctor/521431



Pakistan Conducts 4th Missile Test in a Month:

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120531/DEFREG03/305310002/Pakistan-Conducts-4th-Missile-Test-Month?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE




QinetiQ’s Q-Net: Fabric Beats Rocket:

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/QinietiQs-Q-Net-Fabric-Beats-Rocket-07410/



'Very clear' signs of Iran sanitizing military site, Western diplomat
says:

http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/31/11985224-very-clear-signs-of-iran-sanitizing-military-site-western-diplomat-says?lite




Iraqi police to take over security responsibility in Baghdad:

http://www.longwarjournal.org/threat-matrix/archives/2012/05/iraqi_police_to_take_responsib.php



Bomb attacks in Iraq kill 18, wound 53:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/story/2012-05-31/iraq-bomb-attacks/55304438/1




Syria rebels say they're preparing for war:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/middleeast/la-fg-syria-rebels-rearm-20120531,0,4611470.story



Video: Flamethrowers, Syrian Rebel Style:

http://defensetech.org/2012/05/30/makeshift-flamethrowers-syrian-rebel-style/



IDF may act to stop Syria weapons smuggling:

http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?id=272117



Israel says Hamas as strong as Hezbollah:

http://tribune.com.pk/story/386784/israel-says-hamas-as-strong-as-hezbollah/



Israel's military gets ready for Plan Oz:

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Israels_military_gets_ready_for_Plan_Oz_999.html



Terror group al-Shabaab's appeal grows in Africa:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47615551/ns/world_news-africa/



Russia to Buy 60 An-70 Propfans:

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/135594/russia-to-buy-60-an_70-transports.html



Klub Begat Kaliber:

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htsurf/articles/20120531.aspx




Selex to equip more RAF Chinooks with Titan cameras:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/selex-to-equip-more-raf-chinooks-with-titan-cameras-372468/



Silica gel mishap grounds Vulcan bomber:

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2012/05/silica-gel-mishap-grounds-vulc.html



BAE To Close Last U.K. Armored Vehicle Production Site:

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120531/DEFREG01/305310004/BAE-Close-Last-U-K-Armored-Vehicle-Production-Site?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE



Romania could procure second hand F-16 from Portugal or the
Netherlands:

http://actmedia.eu/daily/romania-could-procure-second-hand-f-16-from-portugal-or-the-netherlands/40268



Columbia: An Embarrassing Past:

http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/colombi/articles/20120531.aspx



Report: Chavez's cancer in 'end stage':

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2012/05/31/Report-Chavezs-cancer-in-end-stage/UPI-76701338470253/



Japan plans to deploy Aegis destroyers closer to North Korea:

http://alert5.com/2012/05/31/japan-plans-to-deploy-aegis-destroyers-closer-to-north-korea/



China spy cloud 'threatens Japan minister':

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/world/13830959/china-spy-cloud-threatens-japan-minister/



S. Korea police arrest two for spying for North:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5juJEL8ovV1lqodp8eYFR_DbseSpw?docId=CNG.ce6366f1aabfd1b42c4b222e17a7eb07.4e1



Northrop Grumman, L-3 MAS propose Polar Hawk for Canada:

http://alert5.com/2012/05/31/northrop-grumman-l-3-mas-propose-polar-hawk-for-canada/



Cyber Warfare...Brought To You By J.C. Wylie:

http://www.informationdissemination.net/2012/05/cyber-warfarebrought-to-you-by-jc-wylie.html



New Stealth Sub Is Fully Networked, But Cut Off From the Outside
World:

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/05/sub-bandwidth/



Second X-37B coming home:

http://alert5.com/2012/05/31/second-x-37b-coming-home/



F-22 Will Fly Ops If Needed; Bio Research Next 'Revolutionary'
Science: DepSecDef:

http://defense.aol.com/2012/05/30/f-22-will-fly-ops-if-needed-bio-research-next-revolutionary-s/?icid=trending2



Navy: ‘Solid’ LCS 1 will be ready to deploy:

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/05/31/navy-solid-lcs-1-will-be-ready-to-deploy/

[Andrew Swallow]

On 31/05/2012 18:01, dump...@hotmail.com wrote:
> BAE To Close Last U.K. Armored Vehicle Production Site:
>
> http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120531/DEFREG01/305310004/BAE-Close-Last-U-K-Armored-Vehicle-Production-Site?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE

My ex-employer is leaving the tank making business.

I hope this does not mean that Britain's next enemy is a technologically
advanced country.

Andrew Swallow

[Bill]

In article <RLqdncBMr4AnCVTS...@bt.com>,
am.sw...@btinternet.com says...

Who did you have in mind?

And I think there's still an Armstrong run factory making tanks in
India.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/india/avadi.htm

--
William Black

When you hear the words 'Our people are our greatest asset' then it's
time to leave.

[Andrew Chaplin]

Andrew Swallow <am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote in
news:RLqdncBMr4AnCVTS...@bt.com:

Don't vorry, der Tchermans are still making gutt tanks.

And they can be had for quite a good price if you pick them up second-hand
from the Dutch, as we Canuckistanis have done.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[Eugene Griessel]

Op Sat, 2 Jun 2012 11:50:32 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Chaplin

<ab.ch...@yourfinger.rogers.com> wrote:

>Andrew Swallow <am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote in
>news:RLqdncBMr4AnCVTS...@bt.com:
>
>> On 31/05/2012 18:01, dump...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> BAE To Close Last U.K. Armored Vehicle Production Site:
>>>
>>> http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120531/DEFREG01/305310004/BAE-Clo
>>> se-Last-U-K-Armored-Vehicle-Production-Site?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|F
>>> RONTPAGE
>>
>> My ex-employer is leaving the tank making business.
>>
>> I hope this does not mean that Britain's next enemy is a
>> technologically advanced country.
>
>Don't vorry, der Tchermans are still making gutt tanks.
>
>And they can be had for quite a good price if you pick them up second-hand
>from the Dutch, as we Canuckistanis have done.

Und mostly in ein poor schtate if mein informants are to be believed!

Eugene L Griessel

'I'm lost - but I'm making record time!'
- Pilot somewhere over the Pacific.

[Andrew Swallow]

On 02/06/2012 11:22, Bill wrote:
> In article<RLqdncBMr4AnCVTS...@bt.com>,
> am.sw...@btinternet.com says...
>>
>> On 31/05/2012 18:01, dump...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> BAE To Close Last U.K. Armored Vehicle Production Site:
>>>
>>> http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120531/DEFREG01/305310004/BAE-Close-Last-U-K-Armored-Vehicle-Production-Site?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE
>>
>> My ex-employer is leaving the tank making business.
>>
>> I hope this does not mean that Britain's next enemy is a technologically
>> advanced country.
>
> Who did you have in mind?
>
> And I think there's still an Armstrong run factory making tanks in
> India.
>
> http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/india/avadi.htm
>

I have no country in mind but the United Nations appears to consist of
countries that the British have fought in. Sometimes more than once.

Andrew Swallow

[Bill]

In article <gNadnTxl--GqwlfS...@bt.com>,
am.sw...@btinternet.com says...

I seem to remember a thread once that claimed we'd actually fought
everybody.

However the design and manufacture of very heavy armoured fighting
vehicles seems to be a technology that is dying.

I suppose a valid question would be 'Could a modern high technology army
without heavy armour beat a less well equipped army that had tanks?'

[Eugene Griessel]

Op Sat, 2 Jun 2012 19:58:02 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>However the design and manufacture of very heavy armoured fighting
>vehicles seems to be a technology that is dying.
>
>I suppose a valid question would be 'Could a modern high technology army
>without heavy armour beat a less well equipped army that had tanks?'

The tank was pronounced dead in the late sixties. Then those pesky
Israelis made a lot of dust. Chobham seemed to give them a new lease
on life. But they are big, expensive and few nations can afford many
these days and anti-tank technology has in many ways defeated tank
defences again.

Eugene L Griessel

A fool sees a person's clothing. A wise man sees the person.

[Alex Potter]

On 02/06/12 19:58, Bill wrote:
> I suppose a valid question would be 'Could a modern high technology army
> without heavy armour beat a less well equipped army that had tanks?'

Hasn't the modern attack-helicopter made tanks obsolete?

--
Alex

[Eugene Griessel]

Op Sat, 02 Jun 2012 20:55:42 +0100, Alex Potter

In many cases the tank is a land battleship and struggles with many of
the same problems that made the battleship obsolete. Air power being
but one of them. One problem is that the original reasons to own
tanks has all but disappeared and the main reason you have tanks now
is to destroy the other chap's tanks. But there are often cheaper and
more effective ways to do that these days. So justifying the things
gets ever more problematical. They are large, noisy, expensive and
attract a lot of unwelcome attention on any battlefield.

Eugene L Griessel

Positive: Mistaken at the top of one's voice.

[Bill]

In article <jqdr3u$2hi$1...@dont-email.me>, spa...@ap-consulting.co.uk
says...

Not if the bad guys are dug into a large complex tench network with
decent AA defences.

You can't really assault something like that without a trench crossing
wire entanglement crushing vehicle of some kind.

So to an extent we're back where we started in 1916/17.

Prepared defences have to be assaulted by something that can cross them
or outflank them and attack from the rear or side.

[Gordon]

On Jun 2, 1:27 pm, Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <jqdr3u$2h...@dont-email.me>, spam...@ap-consulting.co.uk

> says...
>
>
>
> > On 02/06/12 19:58, Bill wrote:
> > > I suppose a valid question would be 'Could a modern high technology army
> > > without heavy armour beat a less well equipped army that had tanks?'
>
> > Hasn't the modern attack-helicopter made tanks obsolete?
>
> Not if the bad guys are dug into a large complex tench network with
> decent AA defences.
>
> You can't really assault something like that without a trench crossing
> wire entanglement crushing vehicle of some kind.
>
> So to an extent we're back where we started in 1916/17.
>
> Prepared defences have to be assaulted by something that can cross them
> or outflank them and attack from the rear or side.

Or ignore them, like Fortress Maginot.

[Weatherlawyer]

On Jun 2, 9:27 pm, Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <jqdr3u$2h...@dont-email.me>, spam...@ap-consulting.co.uk

> says...
>
>
>
> > On 02/06/12 19:58, Bill wrote:
> > > I suppose a valid question would be 'Could a modern high technology army
> > > without heavy armour beat a less well equipped army that had tanks?'
>
> > Hasn't the modern attack-helicopter made tanks obsolete?
>
> Not if the bad guys are dug into a large complex tench network with
> decent AA defences.
>
> You can't really assault something like that without a trench crossing
> wire entanglement crushing vehicle of some kind.
>
> So to an extent we're back where we started in 1916/17.
>
> Prepared defences have to be assaulted by something that can cross them
> or outflank them and attack from the rear or side.

The army of pretty nearly every country insists on arming its ground
troops with a 9mm or 303 whatever shell. That was old fashioned in
1918.

We fought another WW with the same And now, nearly 100 years after
becoming obsolete, we still have troops armed with little guns with
pointed sticks on the ends.

Of course "we" are sending troops to fight poppy farmers and goat
herders whose idea of an anti tank weapon is some buried fertiliser.
So it is all still fairly effective -if extremely expensive.

It boils down to who is going to run out of weapons first. The people
with tanks or the people with the shit for them.

If "they" were using modern cable boring equipment instead of shovels,
"they" could end the Iraq and Afghanistan wars with diesel and
compressed air.

In fact, thinking aboutit now, it seems the only side in the modern
conflicts who haven't learned anything from Viet Nam is the one with
the USA in it.

The Iraq conflict seems to have settled down to a very low key affair
compared to the North Vietnamese offensives. Today the natives seem
content to just do enough to keep the colonists keyed up and spending.

Do they know that sooner or later there will be a revolution and all
the troops will be recalled (again) in ignominy?

Where does it say in the Koran:

"They will pitch their royal tents between the seas.
Yet they will come to this end:
No one will help them."?

[Bill]

In article <794d2482-4f02-4d4b-9866-
fe9f54...@oe8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>, Gor...@oldboldpilots.org
says...

Did the word 'outflank' escape you?

[Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.]

Eugene Griessel wrote:
>
> In many cases the tank is a land battleship

Nonsense.

> and struggles with many of
> the same problems that made the battleship obsolete. Air power being
> but one of them.

Son, *every* military entity in battle requires air power...or hadn't you noticed.

> One problem is that the original reasons to own
> tanks has all but disappeared

Oh bullshit, you peabrained windbag. Just ask infantry.

> and the main reason you have tanks now
> is to destroy the other chap's tanks.

You don't think very much, do you, son?

> But there are often cheaper and
> more effective ways to do that these days.

No, there are not, son.

> So justifying the things
> gets ever more problematical.

"Problematic" is sufficient, son.

> They are large, noisy, expensive and
> attract a lot of unwelcome attention on any battlefield.

So? Large is good...noisy and expensive will continue to be worked on.


> Eugene L Griessel

Once again, demonstrating his peabrain.
;-)

[Bill]

In article <9oydnSYIeLfCFFfS...@supernews.com>,
dr...@jameford.edu says...

Now the good doctor will tell us all what his solution is.

Seeing as just about every major military power has stopped MBT
development and has either mothballed their factories or is running them
at very slow speeds indeed.

[Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.]

oh please, let's not do the maginot line yet again....

[Alex Potter]

On 02/06/12 21:27, Bill wrote:
> Not if the bad guys are dug into a large complex tench network with
> decent AA defences.

...and they don't have attack-helicopters...

--
Alex

[Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.]

Solution to what? Tanks will continue to be manufactured and used.

[Eugene Griessel]

Op Sat, 2 Jun 2012 23:02:01 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
wrote:

The good doctor is still yearning to be a father - even though he is
incapable of procreating or copulating, yearning to be an academic
though every sentence he writes screams out that he does not have the
smarts for it, yearning for credibility when he has destroyed all hope
of gaining any and yearning for friends as he has none - which is why
he frequents this group despite knowning he is universally loathed.

Poor man. Does anyone consider him to outside of a prison?

Eugene L Griessel

My software never has bugs. It just develops random features.

[Bill]

In article <sPCdnWkGLO2GElfS...@supernews.com>,
dr...@jameford.edu says...

Who by?

The Russians and the British are out of the business (The T-99 isn't an
MBT)

The US is shutting it big tank factory next year.

France has a factory ticking over, making half a dozen vehicles a year.

The German Leopard is slowly turning into an 'I tank', which is
ironic...

The only people still in the game are Japan, China, Pakistan and India,
and India makes what is more or less a licensed Armstrong design.

The Chinese , Pakistani and Japanese designs can be discounted until
after they win a battle with them, and I don't mean the traditional
Chinese conflict where they get driven over students who'd like a vote
now and again...

[Jim Yanik]

Eugene Griessel <eug...@dynagen.co.za> wrote in
news:k5sks79lde5nivc5u...@4ax.com:

> Op Sat, 02 Jun 2012 20:55:42 +0100, Alex Potter
><spa...@ap-consulting.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On 02/06/12 19:58, Bill wrote:
>>> I suppose a valid question would be 'Could a modern high technology
>>> army without heavy armour beat a less well equipped army that had
>>> tanks?'
>>
>>Hasn't the modern attack-helicopter made tanks obsolete?

perhaps modern MANPADS and air defenses have made the modern attack helo
"obsolete"....?
it's certainly hard to suppress MANPADS that can be carried anywhere by
foot soldiers,and the newest are very hard to decoy/evade.

>
> In many cases the tank is a land battleship and struggles with many of
> the same problems that made the battleship obsolete. Air power being
> but one of them. One problem is that the original reasons to own
> tanks has all but disappeared and the main reason you have tanks now
> is to destroy the other chap's tanks. But there are often cheaper and
> more effective ways to do that these days. So justifying the things
> gets ever more problematical. They are large, noisy, expensive and
> attract a lot of unwelcome attention on any battlefield.
>
> Eugene L Griessel
>
> Positive: Mistaken at the top of one's voice.
>

I suspect there will be more MBT battles in the Middle East,that they
aren't "obsolete" just yet.

right now,I don't see the US using theirs in the near future,say next 10
years. After Afghanistan and Iraq,we're kinda subdued now,plus there's all
the anti-war/PC folks to clog things up.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

[Eugene Griessel]

Op Sat, 02 Jun 2012 18:15:05 -0500, Jim Yanik <jya...@abuse.gov>
wrote:

>I suspect there will be more MBT battles in the Middle East,that they
>aren't "obsolete" just yet.
>
>right now,I don't see the US using theirs in the near future,say next 10
>years. After Afghanistan and Iraq,we're kinda subdued now,plus there's all
>the anti-war/PC folks to clog things up.

You now get armoured cars which carry tank calibre guns - much faster,
have longer ranges and are a lot cheaper - both to build and maintain.
They go most places a tank will. They don't carry nearly as much
armour as a tank but speed and reactive blocks make up for a lot of
that. That and the price - you can buy more of them for the same
bucks a tank will cost.

Eugene L Griessel

A statesman is a dead politician. We need more statesmen.

[Bill]

In article <XnsA066C3E7EB304...@216.168.3.44>,
jya...@abuse.gov says...

>

> right now,I don't see the US using theirs in the near future,say next 10
> years. After Afghanistan and Iraq,we're kinda subdued now,plus there's all
> the anti-war/PC folks to clog things up.

The anti-war/PC folks never stopped anyone going tow war.

It all tends to have blown up before they can have a meeting, elect a
committee and work out a 'democratic system of internal governance', all
of which they have to do before they can raise a buck or print a
banner.

[Bill]

In article <vm7ls79op4jffe8j6...@4ax.com>,
eug...@dynagen.co.za says...

'Cruiser tanks'...

Mind you, the old Leopard II and Merkava tanks are busy being modified
into the new infantry tanks; big, slow, full of first aid packs and
clever communications equipment and studded with machine guns.

I wonder, when they start pulling the main guns out for more machine
gun ammunition stowage, if they'll call them 'female' tanks again...

[Bay Man]

"Bill" <black...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.2a34728e9...@news.eternal-september.org...

>
> I suppose a valid question would be 'Could a modern high technology army
> without heavy armour beat a less well equipped army that had tanks?'

Many modern theorists claim the tank is a weapon of yesteryear.

[Eugene Griessel]

Op Sun, 3 Jun 2012 00:30:53 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Mind you, the old Leopard II and Merkava tanks are busy being modified
>into the new infantry tanks; big, slow, full of first aid packs and
>clever communications equipment and studded with machine guns.

Merkava was alway intended to have a secondary APC role - hence the
rear opening door. Never worked on one - but was told the trial
models were an absolute bitch to service. M60s were bad enough ...

[Bill]

In article <jqe85c$j95$1...@dont-email.me>,
xyxbay...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam says...

And they've been claiming it for a half a century now...

But it is starting to look as if politics rather than warfare is killing
them off now.

There's nobody interested in having big tank battles except possibly
Pakistan and China (and perhaps North Korea), and they always lose...

[peter skelton]

"Eugene Griessel" wrote in message
news:5o3ls7tlpmvb0vro8...@4ax.com...

Are mental institutions in prisons there?

[Moramarth]

On Jun 3, 12:02 am, Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The only people still in the game are Japan,  China, Pakistan and India,
> and India makes what is more or less a licensed Armstrong design.

There's also Israel and South Korea...
>
Cheers
>
> William Black
Moramarth

[Moramarth]

On Jun 3, 12:30 am, Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I wonder,  when they start pulling the main guns out for more machine
> gun ammunition stowage,  if they'll call them 'female' tanks again...

Nope, they take off the turret completely and call them heavy APCs.
The Israelis did it first with Centurions and captured T55 hulls, now
the Russians are doing it with their obsolete tanks.
>
>
Cheers,
> William Black

Moramarth.

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Il 03/06/2012 01:20, Eugene Griessel ha scritto:

>> right now,I don't see the US using theirs in the near future,say next 10
>> years. After Afghanistan and Iraq,we're kinda subdued now,plus there's all
>> the anti-war/PC folks to clog things up.
>
> You now get armoured cars which carry tank calibre guns - much faster,
> have longer ranges and are a lot cheaper - both to build and maintain.
> They go most places a tank will.

.. and also gets Neapolitan car drivers to instantly remember the
forgotten rules of road (witnessed more than once, the passage of a
column of Centauro AFV is anticipated by a sudden absolute respect of
the road code

but the real military issue in my eyes, is that the MBT/AFV relationship
indeed looks too similiar to the BB/BC one of a century ago, and even
taking into account that land give much more tactical & operational
cover for scouting & fast manoeuvres in general (think Thermopylae, AFV
doing Hydarnes's outflanking) I'm remain really perplexed....

Best regards from Italy,
dott. Piergiorgio.

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Il 02/06/2012 23:20, Weatherlawyer ha scritto:

> The army of pretty nearly every country insists on arming its ground
> troops with a 9mm or 303 whatever shell. That was old fashioned in
> 1918.
>
> We fought another WW with the same And now, nearly 100 years after
> becoming obsolete, we still have troops armed with little guns with
> pointed sticks on the ends.
>
> Of course "we" are sending troops to fight poppy farmers and goat
> herders whose idea of an anti tank weapon is some buried fertiliser.
> So it is all still fairly effective -if extremely expensive.

OK if you suggest that there's a being geared to fight yesterday's war,
I can point you that last year was actually fought the day before
yesterday's war ?

[Bill]

In article <b4728091-38ff-4316-bfb0-
ec6ae4...@d17g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,
Mora...@moramarth.demon.co.uk says...

>
> On Jun 3, 12:02 am, Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > The only people still in the game are Japan,  China, Pakistan and India,
> > and India makes what is more or less a licensed Armstrong design.
> There's also Israel and South Korea...

Israel's tank is certainly not an MBT, it's an I tank, South Korea
doesn't count.

[Bill]

In article <86017682-36c8-49f3-beef-1fb0a50d0233
@m3g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, Mora...@moramarth.demon.co.uk says...

Actually it was first done by the Allies in WWII to Sherman tanks, and
they called them 'Kangaroos'.

But that's not what I mean either.

[Eugene Griessel]

Op Sun, 3 Jun 2012 13:50:44 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>In article <b4728091-38ff-4316-bfb0-
>ec6ae4...@d17g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,
>Mora...@moramarth.demon.co.uk says...
>>
>> On Jun 3, 12:02 am, Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > The only people still in the game are Japan,  China, Pakistan and India,
>> > and India makes what is more or less a licensed Armstrong design.
>> There's also Israel and South Korea...
>
>Israel's tank is certainly not an MBT, it's an I tank

That would certainly come as a massive surprise to Zahal. On what do
you base this assessment?


Eugene L Griessel

A fake fortuneteller can be tolerated. But an authentic one should
be shot on sight. Cassandra did not get half the kicking around
she deserved.

[Bill]

In article <qknms75hap7jpi47a...@4ax.com>,
eug...@dynagen.co.za says...

>
> Op Sun, 3 Jun 2012 13:50:44 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <b4728091-38ff-4316-bfb0-
> >ec6ae4...@d17g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,
> >Mora...@moramarth.demon.co.uk says...
> >>
> >> On Jun 3, 12:02 am, Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > The only people still in the game are Japan,  China, Pakistan and India,
> >> > and India makes what is more or less a licensed Armstrong design.
> >> There's also Israel and South Korea...
> >
> >Israel's tank is certainly not an MBT, it's an I tank
>
> That would certainly come as a massive surprise to Zahal. On what do
> you base this assessment?

Those blokes sat in the back with rifles, and the low speed.

[Moramarth]

On Jun 3, 1:51 pm, Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <86017682-36c8-49f3-beef-1fb0a50d0233

> @m3g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, Morama...@moramarth.demon.co.uk says...

>
>
>
> > On Jun 3, 12:30 am, Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I wonder,  when they start pulling the main guns out for more machine
> > > gun ammunition stowage,  if they'll call them 'female' tanks again...
> > Nope, they take off the turret completely and call them heavy APCs.
> > The Israelis did it first with Centurions and captured T55 hulls, now
> > the Russians are doing it with their obsolete tanks.
>
> Actually it was first done by the Allies in WWII to Sherman tanks,  and
> they called them 'Kangaroos'.

They also used Canadian Rams, which were better suited because of
their side access hatches. ISTR they may have used Priest/Sexton SPGs
too. But none had overhead protection (or in some cases, seating).
Tank based APCs date to WW1 (the Mk IX tank), and the French had fully-
enclosed articulated APCs based on the Lorraine Schlepper at the start
of WW2.
The new stuff have armoured casemates and multiple machine guns or
Remote Weapon Stations (one Russian specialises in the use of crew-
launched thermobaric weapons), and function more in the role of
"Female" tanks, especially in an urban environment, in that they are
meant to be fought from. Like the Kangaroos, there are still problems
with being able to dismount any infantry carried without them being
exposed while doing so.

>
> But that's not what I mean either.

Neither did I.
>
>
Cheers,
> William Black
>
Moramarth

[Moramarth]

On Jun 3, 1:50 pm, Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <b4728091-38ff-4316-bfb0-
> ec6ae4bb6...@d17g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,
> Morama...@moramarth.demon.co.uk says...

>
>
>
> > On Jun 3, 12:02 am, Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > The only people still in the game are Japan,  China, Pakistan and India,
> > > and India makes what is more or less a licensed Armstrong design.
> > There's also Israel and South Korea...
>
> Israel's tank is certainly not an MBT,  it's an I tank,  South Korea
> doesn't count.

Why doesn't South Korea count - it produces it's own MBT?
>
> --
> William Black
>

[Eugene Griessel]

Op Sun, 3 Jun 2012 14:17:50 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>In article <qknms75hap7jpi47a...@4ax.com>,
>eug...@dynagen.co.za says...
>>
>> Op Sun, 3 Jun 2012 13:50:44 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <b4728091-38ff-4316-bfb0-
>> >ec6ae4...@d17g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,
>> >Mora...@moramarth.demon.co.uk says...
>> >>
>> >> On Jun 3, 12:02 am, Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > The only people still in the game are Japan,  China, Pakistan and India,
>> >> > and India makes what is more or less a licensed Armstrong design.
>> >> There's also Israel and South Korea...
>> >
>> >Israel's tank is certainly not an MBT, it's an I tank
>>
>> That would certainly come as a massive surprise to Zahal. On what do
>> you base this assessment?
>
>Those blokes sat in the back with rifles, and the low speed.

40 mph is a low speed? The 65 ton weight and the 120mm gun don't
count? The philosophy behind the Merkava design - mainly on Tal's
insistence - was to sacrifice speed for armour. At the time the
original Mk1 entered service it was faster than most of the tanks in
service with the IDF. Initially the 105mm gun was used - it was in
local production - and use justified by the fact that almost all the
Sinai engagements had taken place at less than 1000 metres while the
Golan ones mostly at 300 metre range. However it was designed to
accept a 120 mm gun from the outset. As to speed - the dry-pin tracks
don't really lend themselves to high speed in desert terrains. The
dry-pin was adopted because of it's high reliability as proved on the
Ben Gurion. The Merkava was designed from the outset as a tank killer
- an MBT. As far as I know the IDF philosophy on that has not
changed. The high proportion of APFSDS/HEAT/HESH rounds usually
carried speaks for itself in this regard. Another high priority was
crew comfort - the 73 war saw much fatigue in the tank crews due to
less than adequate suspensions and the IDF reaped the results of
having crews that needed to rest when they could have gone on
fighting.

Eugene L Griessel

Don't feel bad. A lot of people have no talent.

[Bill]

In article <hipms750vh9ib80a1...@4ax.com>,

eug...@dynagen.co.za says...
>
> Op Sun, 3 Jun 2012 14:17:50 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <qknms75hap7jpi47a...@4ax.com>,
> >eug...@dynagen.co.za says...
> >>
> >> Op Sun, 3 Jun 2012 13:50:44 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <b4728091-38ff-4316-bfb0-
> >> >ec6ae4...@d17g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,
> >> >Mora...@moramarth.demon.co.uk says...
> >> >>
> >> >> On Jun 3, 12:02 am, Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The only people still in the game are Japan,  China, Pakistan and India,
> >> >> > and India makes what is more or less a licensed Armstrong design.
> >> >> There's also Israel and South Korea...
> >> >
> >> >Israel's tank is certainly not an MBT, it's an I tank
> >>
> >> That would certainly come as a massive surprise to Zahal. On what do
> >> you base this assessment?
> >
> >Those blokes sat in the back with rifles, and the low speed.
>
> 40 mph is a low speed? The 65 ton weight and the 120mm gun don't
> count?

Yes, it is very heavy for an MBT.

But not for an 'I' tank...

[Eugene Griessel]

Op Sun, 3 Jun 2012 14:57:27 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>In article <hipms750vh9ib80a1...@4ax.com>,
>eug...@dynagen.co.za says...
>>
>> Op Sun, 3 Jun 2012 14:17:50 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <qknms75hap7jpi47a...@4ax.com>,
>> >eug...@dynagen.co.za says...
>> >>
>> >> Op Sun, 3 Jun 2012 13:50:44 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <b4728091-38ff-4316-bfb0-
>> >> >ec6ae4...@d17g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> >Mora...@moramarth.demon.co.uk says...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Jun 3, 12:02 am, Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > The only people still in the game are Japan,  China, Pakistan and India,
>> >> >> > and India makes what is more or less a licensed Armstrong design.
>> >> >> There's also Israel and South Korea...
>> >> >
>> >> >Israel's tank is certainly not an MBT, it's an I tank
>> >>
>> >> That would certainly come as a massive surprise to Zahal. On what do
>> >> you base this assessment?
>> >
>> >Those blokes sat in the back with rifles, and the low speed.
>>
>> 40 mph is a low speed? The 65 ton weight and the 120mm gun don't
>> count?
>
>Yes, it is very heavy for an MBT.
>
>But not for an 'I' tank...

Better write and tell the Yanks that on account of weight all their M1
MBTs have morphed into I tanks. They'll be just as surprised as Zahal
will.

Eugene L Griessel

Laziness is nothing more than the habit of resting before you get tired.

[Bill]

In article <vprms7le39qqr57t7...@4ax.com>,

The Abrams tank is surprisingly agile for its weight, possibly because
of its gas turbine power plant.

[Eugene Griessel]

Op Sun, 3 Jun 2012 15:09:04 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>

One of the design criteria of the Merkava was agility. And range -
something you cannot achieve with a gas turbine. The Merkava Mk3 has
the same horsepower as an M1. Mobility and agility were always high
on the list of any IDF tank. Any new lame excuses?

Eugene L Griessel

UNIX is a very user-friendly operating system.
However, it is very particular about just who it makes friends with.

[Bill]

In article <16sms7h8ng7oi9pgn...@4ax.com>,

OK let's consider what's actually being made today.

The Merkava currently in production, well, what few are actually being
built which is about 25 a year, is armed and configured for urban
conflict.

The Abrams is only in very limited production and the US Army plans to
close the Lima manufacturing site in the next couple of years.

What's really interesting is that nobody seems to be designing a new MBT
to replace the rather elderly designs currently in use by the major
powers.

[Eugene Griessel]

Op Sun, 3 Jun 2012 15:43:25 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>The Merkava currently in production, well, what few are actually being
>built which is about 25 a year, is armed and configured for urban
>conflict.
>
>The Abrams is only in very limited production and the US Army plans to
>close the Lima manufacturing site in the next couple of years.
>
>What's really interesting is that nobody seems to be designing a new MBT
>to replace the rather elderly designs currently in use by the major
>powers.

In many cases I think the lack of anything new is a combination of
factors one of which is they are probably pushing the limit of the
envelope with current technology. Engines are not likely to rise
significantly in power to weight ratio, armour is unlikely to become
lighter and stronger and who needs a bigger gun? So if that's the
case one might as well stick with what one's got - especially as not
many countries get involved in tank battles. As we have said here -
the tank has been declared dead many times in the past but it has
refused to lie down. Who knows what the future might bring.
Personally, for my local scenario - although we still are continuously
upgrading our tanks - a far better bet is high speed, high mobility
armoured cars. Which have proved themselves in local service of being
adequate to kill tanks very well. Our local beast will run 1000 km
non-stop at 120 km/h. By the time you drag your tank there on it's 18
wheeler transporter the armoured car has got there, finished the
battle, and the crews have drunk all the beer available so the tankers
have to go without. Whereas we can afford around 200 tanks we can
afford about 1200 armoured cars! Our local arms industry, in a flurry
of enthusiasm, designed an all-singing-all-dancing MBT a few years
back. The prototype was called "The Tank Technology Demonstrator" -
but it never got off the ground as the army could really see no need
for it in the foreseeable future. The Olifant Mk2b soldiers on!

[Jim Yanik]

Eugene Griessel <eug...@dynagen.co.za> wrote in

news:qknms75hap7jpi47a...@4ax.com:

ISTR that India is now making a licensed copy of Russia's T-90.
because it's backwards compatible with their T-72s,the crews are already
familiar with the basic controls,etc.

[Bill]

In article <ph0ns7loic9ec2kja...@4ax.com>,
eug...@dynagen.co.za says...

>
> Op Sun, 3 Jun 2012 15:43:25 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >The Merkava currently in production, well, what few are actually being
> >built which is about 25 a year, is armed and configured for urban
> >conflict.
> >
> >The Abrams is only in very limited production and the US Army plans to
> >close the Lima manufacturing site in the next couple of years.
> >
> >What's really interesting is that nobody seems to be designing a new MBT
> >to replace the rather elderly designs currently in use by the major
> >powers.
>
> In many cases I think the lack of anything new is a combination of
> factors one of which is they are probably pushing the limit of the
> envelope with current technology. Engines are not likely to rise
> significantly in power to weight ratio, armour is unlikely to become
> lighter and stronger and who needs a bigger gun?

<snip>

Our local arms industry, in a flurry
> of enthusiasm, designed an all-singing-all-dancing MBT a few years
> back. The prototype was called "The Tank Technology Demonstrator" -
> but it never got off the ground as the army could really see no need
> for it in the foreseeable future. The Olifant Mk2b soldiers on!

The Russians built something that looked very nasty indeed, called the
T-95, but it didn't go anywhere either.

1500 HP engine, 150mm smooth-bored fully auto-loading gun, three man
crew in armoured pod deep inside the vehicle, it was all looking deeply
scary. Then, cancelled, no money and no desire to thunder across the
plains of Europe in them either...

[Paul F Austin]

On 6/3/2012 10:16 AM, Eugene Griessel wrote:
>
> One of the design criteria of the Merkava was agility. And range -
> something you cannot achieve with a gas turbine. The Merkava Mk3 has
> the same horsepower as an M1. Mobility and agility were always high
> on the list of any IDF tank. Any new lame excuses?

One blindingly unexpected aspect of the Abrams/Bradely designs was
unprecedented automotive reliability, even in the desert. That showed up
in the Desert Storm operations where very long road marches by the 24th
ID that experienced no tracks falling out. How has the Merkava shown in
this respect?

Paul

[Paul F Austin]

On 6/3/2012 11:46 AM, Eugene Griessel wrote:
> Op Sun, 3 Jun 2012 15:43:25 +0100, Bill<black...@gmail.com>
> wrote:

>> What's really interesting is that nobody seems to be designing a new MBT
>> to replace the rather elderly designs currently in use by the major
>> powers.
>
> In many cases I think the lack of anything new is a combination of
> factors one of which is they are probably pushing the limit of the
> envelope with current technology. Engines are not likely to rise
> significantly in power to weight ratio, armour is unlikely to become
> lighter and stronger and who needs a bigger gun? So if that's the
> case one might as well stick with what one's got - especially as not
> many countries get involved in tank battles. As we have said here -
> the tank has been declared dead many times in the past but it has
> refused to lie down. Who knows what the future might bring.
> Personally, for my local scenario - although we still are continuously
> upgrading our tanks - a far better bet is high speed, high mobility
> armoured cars. Which have proved themselves in local service of being
> adequate to kill tanks very well.

One finding from OIF was that 25mm/137 cannon could kill any of the
Soviet MBTs at any aspect except the front quadrant. Bradelys and
wheeled armored vehicles were much more lethal than expected against
Iraqi MBTs since nose-to-nose engagements were the minority and good
mobility, fire control and human factors allowed the lighter vehicles to
maneuver to get a side or rear shot before the MBT could get a shot off.

I imagine that the next clean-sheet MBT design will have a more balanced
armor array around the vehicle.

Paul

[Eugene Griessel]

Op Sun, 03 Jun 2012 17:46:21 +0200, Eugene Griessel

<eug...@dynagen.co.za> wrote:

>afford about 1200 armoured cars! Our local arms industry, in a flurry
>of enthusiasm, designed an all-singing-all-dancing MBT a few years
>back. The prototype was called "The Tank Technology Demonstrator" -
>but it never got off the ground as the army could really see no need
>for it in the foreseeable future.

http://www.military-today.com/tanks/tank_technology_demonstrator.htm

has some pictures of the TTD.

Eugene L Griessel

Give a woman an inch - and she will try to park a car in it.

[David E. Powell]

I was thinking there might be a use for something with lighter armor
but a tank sized main gun, maybe surplus 105mms, for urban fighting as
seen in Iraq. Throw in reactive panels and/or stand off metal
scaffolding to protect against anti armor weapons. One could even put
a mount on for guided missiles in launcher units. I think the U.S.
Army considered a 105mm gun package for some modified Strykers at one
point.

AFVs with rocket launchers available can do a lot of damage but a tank
style gun is nice to have for bunker blasting. The problem of course
comes with the temptation to use the "Tank Destroyer" or "Armored
Vehicle" as a tank, because it looks like one.

[Bill]

In article <e93ab92c-6518-4ffb-8554-4ca26fb8f793
@o17g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, David_Po...@msn.com says...

Like a late model AMX-13 you mean?

The French dropped those and got a wheeled one instead.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/amx-10.htm

You'd probably want to put an extra machine gun on it for the sort of
close up urban fighting the US goes in for but as a counter sniper
weapon it looks just fine...

[Eugene Griessel]

Op Mon, 4 Jun 2012 19:39:18 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Or try a Rooikat
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/rooikat.htm