T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor

[Admiral Yi]

By the way, can you identify this tank?
I'll give you a clue: It ain't a T-55.

T-54?

[Siege]

By the way, can you identify this tank?
I'll give you a clue: It ain't a T-55.

T-54?

T-54/55 are very easy to identify because of the empty space between the the 1st and 2nd roadwheel.

[Admiral Yi]

Haha, his american crews with T-62s argument is a quote from GEN Schwarzkof who said that in an interview, that if the iraqis had the M1 and the americans the T-72s the iraqis would still have lost.

Possibly.  Just wait longer for the Air Force to blow them up before invading.

[Siege]

T-55




And T-62



Notice the diferences in the carriage and turret.
The one in my picture is a T-62.

[CountDeMoney]

I get my name all over all sorts of things.  I am:  Famous.

Written under "For good head call" is not the same as being famous.

[Razgovory]

Haha, his american crews with T-62s argument is a quote from GEN Schwarzkof who said that in an interview, that if the iraqis had the M1 and the americans the T-72s the iraqis would still have lost.

Well, that part is probably true.  The training of the crew, organization and doctrine are probably more important then the tanks themselves.  I remember reading the US crews fired off 12 times as many live fire rounds as their Soviet counterparts in training (this was written the 80's).  God knows how much more they did then their Iraqi counterparts.

[CountDeMoney]

lol, I found the thread:

Except for the Auto-Loader, Russian Tanks are superior to US tanks. That's nothing new. The Russians have always been ahead of NATO in Tank Technology. The only country who (historically) has been close is Britain but, they haven't come up with anything new since the '70s.

The 'Improved Export' models of the T-62 and T-72 are a hell of a lot better than anything we americans make.

If we had the T-62s and Iraq had M1s, we would have still won. Why? It's because:

No Country in the World can match the Training that the US Army gives it's crews.

No no no, you have to find the one where he transferred out of the Rangers and went to armor.

[Monoriu]

Can someone enlighten me about what's wrong with leaving the rangers for armour? 

[Neil]

I get my name all over all sorts of things.  I am:  Famous.

Written under "For good head call" is not the same as being famous.

You seem to have mistaken me for Martinus.

[CountDeMoney]

I get my name all over all sorts of things.  I am:  Famous.

Written under "For good head call" is not the same as being famous.

You seem to have mistaken me for Martinus.

All you foreigners look alike.

[Siege]

Haha, his american crews with T-62s argument is a quote from GEN Schwarzkof who said that in an interview, that if the iraqis had the M1 and the americans the T-72s the iraqis would still have lost.

Well, that part is probably true.  The training of the crew, organization and doctrine are probably more important then the tanks themselves.  I remember reading the US crews fired off 12 times as many live fire rounds as their Soviet counterparts in training (this was written the 80's).  God knows how much more they did then their Iraqi counterparts.

The iraqis, not many.
Arabs hate LFX (live fire exercises) because it is shameful for them to miss the target.
When they train, they only do dry fires, and blanks when doing complex excercises.

There is nothing wrong with dry firing. We dry fire near 50% of our weapons training. Dry firing is how you drill the fundamentals of marksmanship on your soldiers, how you iron out any mistakes in applying the fundamentals. During our LFXs, we always do our stick lanes (infantry battledrills 1 through 8) with Dry fire first, then Blanks, and finally with live ammo. The same for sniper drills.

[Neil]

I get my name all over all sorts of things.  I am:  Famous.

Written under "For good head call" is not the same as being famous.

You seem to have mistaken me for Martinus.

All you foreigners look alike.

No we don't.

[Siege]

Can someone enlighten me about what's wrong with leaving the rangers for armour? 

To be a ranger is to be part of SOCOM, special operations command, with a higher pay, far more training resources, faster advance through the ranks, and shorter deployments (3 to 6 months). You also get the CIB (combat infantry badge).

As a 19Kilo (armor crewman), you are still combat arms, but now you are combat support, you are no longer the star of the game. Your unit is not gonna get assigend to the hottest Area of Operations, but to the quietst one, since you are basicly a POG, with no combat skills to enter and clear a building, let alone a compound, or assault terrorist safehouse and camps. You ain't gonna be riding in your tank through a city, but rather in a HUMMVEE, and since you ain't infantry, your higher command will not assign you any of the high value targets or hot zones.

Also, you ain't getting the CIB, but rather the CAB (combat action badge) which pogs get for escorting convoys, getting mortared while in line for Burger King inside the FOB, and so on.

I would say that going from Ranger to Armor is one big step back. Something no true infantryman would do.

And lets not mention Ranger school. He claimed to have graduated from Ranger. There is no way a fucking ranger would go into armor. I've been in the infantry for a while, and I am not ranger qualified. Rangers are the elite of the infantry. Just the mentality that comes with it would not allow you to take such an step as going armor.

You must keep in mind that in the US Army the infantry is the real deal, and everybody else is support. In other countries, the infantry is the last place you want to be. In the US, Israel, and the UK, the infantry is the shit. Its the branch that gets all the respect and the support. In America, when you say Army, civilians automatically think of the infantry. They don't think of the combat engineers, or the medics, or the supply guy, or the fuel dude, or the mechanics, or the cavalry guys, or the forward observers, or the truck drivers, or even of the helicopter pilots.

[LaCroix]

Can someone enlighten me about what's wrong with leaving the rangers for armour? 

i'm not sure of a perfect analogy within the Great Hive, but it might be the difference between leaving the cog for the gear. it is simply not done

[jimmy olsen]

As an aside, I discovered that the US 90mm gun used the same mantlet and mounting as the 76mm gun on the M-10 and M4 (76).  There was nothing whatever keeping the US from field-modding the M4/76 (particularly the Easy 8 version with the improved turret rotation capability) to an M4/90, other than the competition between the armor and tank destroyer bureaucracies in DC that caused the tank boys to turn their noses up at whatever the TD boys developed.  The M4/90 could have been fielded for D-Day.  Some were, in fact, produced as the M36B1 (but without the turret tops, as the TD boys couldn't abide turret tops).

That's fucking awful