Op Sun, 3 Jun 2012 00:30:53 +0100, Bill <blackuse...@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 ...
Eugene L Griessel
A statesman is a dead politician. We need more statesmen.
>> > 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.
>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.
>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?
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.
>> 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....
> 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 ?
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.
-- William Black
When you hear the words 'Our people are our greatest asset' then it's time to leave.
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'.
But that's not what I mean either.
-- William Black
When you hear the words 'Our people are our greatest asset' then it's time to leave.
>> 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.
> >> 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.
-- William Black
When you hear the words 'Our people are our greatest asset' then it's time to leave.
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.
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?
>> >> 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.
> >> >> 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...
-- William Black
When you hear the words 'Our people are our greatest asset' then it's time to leave.
>> >> >> 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.
> >> >> >> 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.
The Abrams tank is surprisingly agile for its weight, possibly because of its gas turbine power plant.
-- William Black
When you hear the words 'Our people are our greatest asset' then it's time to leave.
>> >> >> >> 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.
>The Abrams tank is surprisingly agile for its weight, possibly because >of its gas turbine power plant.
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.
> >> >> >> >> 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.
> >The Abrams tank is surprisingly agile for its weight, possibly because > >of its gas turbine power plant.
> 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?
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.
-- William Black
When you hear the words 'Our people are our greatest asset' then it's time to leave.
Op Sun, 3 Jun 2012 15:43:25 +0100, Bill <blackuse...@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!
Eugene L Griessel
UNIX is a very user-friendly operating system.
However, it is very particular about just who it makes friends with.
>>> 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.
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.
> Op Sun, 3 Jun 2012 15:43:25 +0100, Bill <blackuse...@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...
-- William Black
When you hear the words 'Our people are our greatest asset' then it's time to leave.
> 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?
> Op Sun, 3 Jun 2012 15:43:25 +0100, Bill<blackuse...@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.
