Discovery is re-running Channel Five's "Building the Ultimate ..." series. Today: tanks. With "experts" like Tom Clancy or Bruce Dickinson or a veteran Panther commander of the Waffen SS.
01. Leopard 2A6 (Germany)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.enemyforces.net%2Ftanks%2Fleopard_2a6.jpg&hash=5b314edc325682149ddd6280f1d06b1e62ca9c6f)
02. M1 Abrams (US)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.defenseindustrydaily.com%2Fimages%2FLAND_M1A1_Abrams_lg.jpg&hash=1acabf021508a02d62cadd690080b3836a75b27d)
03. T-34 (Russia)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rctank.jp%2Fmachine%2Ft-34%2Ft-34_85.jpg&hash=d4fbb5db068f05afe090cc63d46d42e595ea5f81)
04. Merkava (Israel)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Ff%2Ffa%2FMerkava4_MichaelMass01.jpg%2F800px-Merkava4_MichaelMass01.jpg&hash=01c9489f24a68319c2ecb8c914abd7ac110d73c9)
05. Centurion (UK)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.freewebs.com%2Fashadowaponfreedom%2FCenturion.jpg&hash=bd2e53475903144b0e3af45e95e6a4fb2f6b021a)
06. Stridsvagn 103 (Sweden)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg390.imageshack.us%2Fimg390%2F3985%2Fstrv103c19of19aq2.jpg&hash=a55cf529d01cd9a9814e247c77a38c5ba1293e01)
07. T-72 (Russia)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.enemyforces.net%2Ftanks%2Ft72.jpg&hash=bef6505e148a8f783abf4e69326f682cb92e017f)
08. PzKpfW V Panther (Germany)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fworldwartwozone.com%2Fphotopost%2Fdata%2F500%2Fmedium%2FIMG_00071.jpg&hash=304d72c42be55f54ee7e8cf2b9fcbfb26f39953e)
09. M551 Sheridan (US)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mullins.cc%2FCamp_Perry_Sheridan_Tank_Vietnam_Era_Tank.jpg&hash=ad5599d46a1f062863333d545efe94acb96ecf2b)
10. M4 Sherman (US)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fd%2Fd1%2FSherman_Tank_WW2.jpg%2F800px-Sherman_Tank_WW2.jpg&hash=cb62583b3a48c81a050f822c37ce22942e5c6106)
Discuss. :nerd:
Quote from: Syt on June 17, 2009, 01:56:48 PM
09. M551 Sheridan (US)
:huh: The most the M551 has ever done is serve as a fake BMP for the OPFOR in Army exercises.
Btw is this your list or theirs?
Quote from: derspiess on June 17, 2009, 02:03:26 PM
Quote from: Syt on June 17, 2009, 01:56:48 PM
09. M551 Sheridan (US)
:huh: The most the M551 has ever done is serve as a fake BMP for the OPFOR in Army exercises.
Btw is this your list or theirs?
Theirs. I'm not hardcore enough to make such lists. :blush:
Quote from: derspiess on June 17, 2009, 02:03:26 PM
Quote from: Syt on June 17, 2009, 01:56:48 PM
09. M551 Sheridan (US)
:huh: The most the M551 has ever done is serve as a fake BMP for the OPFOR in Army exercises.
They cited its capability to drop it into combat with airlifts.
Ultimate? I find it hard to imagine a set of criteria that could result in that spread.
Quote from: Neil on June 17, 2009, 02:09:12 PM
Ultimate? I find it hard to imagine a set of criteria that could result in that spread.
They usually weigh by effectiveness and innovativeness at the time. The submarine show, e.g., had German Type IX in #1 spot.
:bleeding:
Quote from: Warspite on June 17, 2009, 02:21:39 PM
:bleeding:
Seconded.
T-34 and Panther should probably be at the top, and why are the Sherman and the airborn tank from Battlefield:Vietnam on there? Or the late model Soviet tanks?
Leopard and Abrams over Challenger (not even listed)? :blink:
The Swedish one may have been innovative but it wasn't exactly... er... ultimate.
It wasn't even innovative. Low profile SP gun? Already been done.
Discovery/military channel and their list shows:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.meikathon.net%2Froflmao%2Ffacepalm4.jpg&hash=b32f48e68dea1bca79e98dd38ec7374636da6f00)
I have grown to loathe them.
Quote from: Berkut on June 17, 2009, 02:32:47 PM
It wasn't even innovative. Low profile SP gun? Already been done.
But this was a tank, not a SP gun.
No, I don't get it either. But there it is.
at least they don't list the Tiger. that's a good thing.
Quote from: saskganesh on June 17, 2009, 02:59:00 PM
at least they don't list the Tiger. that's a good thing.
It made the top 3 in the military paperweight category.
BTW don't tell Neil but HMS Dreadnought made the top 10.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 17, 2009, 03:02:22 PM
Quote from: saskganesh on June 17, 2009, 02:59:00 PM
at least they don't list the Tiger. that's a good thing.
It made the top 3 in the military paperweight category.
BTW don't tell Neil but HMS Dreadnought made the top 10.
HMS Dreadnought is a top 10 revolutionary fighting machine, not a paperweight.
Why the hate for Tiger? It was unreliable, true, and took a lot of resources to make. However, didn't it shoot T-34s like they were practice targets?
My theory is that a guy who feels the need to belittle Nazi Germany has a very small penis.
Quote from: DGuller on June 17, 2009, 03:06:20 PM
Why the hate for Tiger? It was unreliable, true, and took a lot of resources to make. However, didn't it shoot T-34s like they were practice targets?
Indeed it did. I am not really convinced that the German focus on quality over quantity was such a terrible idea. It wasn't going to win them the war, but then, nothing would. Its not like they could have outproduced the allies if only they didn't build a couple hundred Tigers.
The bigger problem was the lack of a centralized decision making body in weapons procurement in general. The Tiger wasn't such a bad idea, but the Tiger+Nashorn+King Tiger+Elefant+Tiger II+JagdTiger+... was.
I wish I had a tank. :(
Quote from: lustindarkness on June 17, 2009, 03:14:57 PM
I wish I had a tank. :(
How many more times would you have to be promoted to get an aircraft carrier, or at least a submarine? Those would seem much more fun.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 17, 2009, 03:20:12 PM
Quote from: lustindarkness on June 17, 2009, 03:14:57 PM
I wish I had a tank. :(
How many more times would you have to be promoted to get an aircraft carrier, or at least a submarine? Those would seem much more fun.
More fun than a tank? :yeahright:
Quote from: DGuller on June 17, 2009, 03:06:20 PM
Why the hate for Tiger? It was unreliable, true, and took a lot of resources to make. However, didn't it shoot T-34s like they were practice targets?
The Tiger (and King Tiger) should get bonus points for psychological impact.
Quote from: The Brain on June 17, 2009, 03:23:04 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 17, 2009, 03:20:12 PM
Quote from: lustindarkness on June 17, 2009, 03:14:57 PM
I wish I had a tank. :(
How many more times would you have to be promoted to get an aircraft carrier, or at least a submarine? Those would seem much more fun.
More fun than a tank? :yeahright:
Probably not.
Quote from: derspiess on June 17, 2009, 03:24:43 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 17, 2009, 03:06:20 PM
Why the hate for Tiger? It was unreliable, true, and took a lot of resources to make. However, didn't it shoot T-34s like they were practice targets?
The Tiger (and King Tiger) should get bonus points for psychological impact.
They should get bonus points for destroying rather dizzying numbers of enemy tanks. well, the Tiger anyway. The King Tiger mostly just broke down.
Quote from: DGuller on June 17, 2009, 03:06:20 PM
Why the hate for Tiger? It was unreliable, true, and took a lot of resources to make. However, didn't it shoot T-34s like they were practice targets?
yeah. but planes were good at taking out T 34's (and Tigers) as well.
as a battle tank, it would be frustrating to command because of poor mechanical reliability and appetite for gas that was in short supply. it was great for defensive roles... just don't ask it to move.
the Allies did not need to develop a heavy tank. they had lots of Shermans to act as Tiger targets and they had air support for Tiger tank busting.
The Tiger was not meant as a battle tank though - it was a specialist vehicle, and used accordingly. Hell, they only made a couple hundred of them, IIRC.
The S-tank is superior to anything the americans ever made.
Quote from: Berkut on June 17, 2009, 03:34:15 PM
The Tiger was not meant as a battle tank though - it was a specialist vehicle, and used accordingly. Hell, they only made a couple hundred of them, IIRC.
IIRC, ~ 1500.
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 17, 2009, 03:36:53 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 17, 2009, 03:34:15 PM
The Tiger was not meant as a battle tank though - it was a specialist vehicle, and used accordingly. Hell, they only made a couple hundred of them, IIRC.
IIRC, ~ 1500.
Maybe it is the King Tiger they only made a couple hudred of?
Anyway, even 1500 is nothing, considering it was in operation in late '42. It was not meant to be a general issue tank, that is what the Panther was for.
Quote from: DGuller on June 17, 2009, 03:06:20 PM
Why the hate for Tiger? It was unreliable, true, and took a lot of resources to make.
B/c if your biggest strategic problems inlcude: shortages of oil, shortages of transport, shortages of steel, and shortages of spare parts - basing your operational strategy on a machine that guzzles gas, is relatively mechanically unreliable, and requires a lot of servicing and maintenance is perhaps not the best idea.
Quote from: Berkut on June 17, 2009, 03:38:08 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 17, 2009, 03:36:53 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 17, 2009, 03:34:15 PM
The Tiger was not meant as a battle tank though - it was a specialist vehicle, and used accordingly. Hell, they only made a couple hundred of them, IIRC.
IIRC, ~ 1500.
Maybe it is the King Tiger they only made a couple hudred of?
Anyway, even 1500 is nothing, considering it was in operation in late '42. It was not meant to be a general issue tank, that is what the Panther was for.
According to Wiki, 487 King Tigers.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 17, 2009, 03:39:03 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 17, 2009, 03:06:20 PM
Why the hate for Tiger? It was unreliable, true, and took a lot of resources to make.
B/c if your biggest strategic problems inlcude: shortages of oil, shortages of transport, shortages of steel, and shortages of spare parts - basing your operational strategy on a machine that guzzles gas, is relatively mechanically unreliable, and requires a lot of servicing and maintenance is perhaps not the best idea.
You just described the tank in general though!
Mk 1?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2209%2F2053318440_5f9df378ec.jpg%3Fv%3D0&hash=6684800b1a31e4869aadbc3e06fa2b17705d8cb6)
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2009, 03:45:14 PM
Mk 1?
:wub: The only redeeming quality of the
League of Extraordinary Gentlemen movie.
I want to play Combat Mission. :(
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 17, 2009, 03:52:43 PM
I want to play Combat Mission. :(
Use your stock market earnings to buy a dinky, used computer and we can get some PBEM going. :)
Quote from: Berkut on June 17, 2009, 03:30:27 PM
They should get bonus points for destroying rather dizzying numbers of enemy tanks.
No, those are normal points.
Lots of normal points.
I thought it was funky that the Centurion only had an operational range of 57 miles.
Also check out the rack on the Merkava instructor.
Quote from: Habbaku on June 17, 2009, 03:56:10 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 17, 2009, 03:52:43 PM
I want to play Combat Mission. :(
Use your stock market earnings to buy a dinky, used computer and we can get some PBEM going. :)
I donated my old computers to a church.
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 17, 2009, 04:13:58 PM
I donated my old computers to a church.
I suggested buying a new one, not robbing your church.
Quote from: Habbaku on June 17, 2009, 04:16:41 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 17, 2009, 04:13:58 PM
I donated my old computers to a church.
I suggested buying a new one, not robbing your church.
I'm actually thinking of buying a mini-Mac.
Quote from: Slargos on June 17, 2009, 03:35:34 PM
The S-tank is superior to anything the americans ever made.
Come now. Sweden has produced some decent guns, but we all know that by and large their armaments industry is mainly a subsidy for local workers, and they haven't produced a first-line weapons system in over a century.
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 17, 2009, 04:18:37 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on June 17, 2009, 04:16:41 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 17, 2009, 04:13:58 PM
I donated my old computers to a church.
I suggested buying a new one, not robbing your church.
I'm actually thinking of buying a mini-Mac.
Great. You, BB and Martinus can team up to fag the forum up.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 17, 2009, 03:20:12 PM
Quote from: lustindarkness on June 17, 2009, 03:14:57 PM
I wish I had a tank. :(
How many more times would you have to be promoted to get an aircraft carrier, or at least a submarine? Those would seem much more fun.
Ha!
BTW, a destroyer as my personal weekend part/fishing boat would be nice.
Quote from: Neil on June 17, 2009, 04:27:40 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 17, 2009, 04:18:37 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on June 17, 2009, 04:16:41 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 17, 2009, 04:13:58 PM
I donated my old computers to a church.
I suggested buying a new one, not robbing your church.
I'm actually thinking of buying a mini-Mac.
Great. You, BB and Martinus can team up to fag the forum up.
:D
I'll start wearing white trousers.
Wasn't the Sherman called the Flaming Coffin by its crews?
At least it kept them warm.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on June 17, 2009, 04:50:23 PM
Wasn't the Sherman called the Flaming Coffin by its crews?
Ronson.
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 17, 2009, 04:13:58 PM
I'm actually thinking of buying a mini-Mac.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.icanhasmotivation.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F04%2F633761899407989620-facepalm.jpg&hash=59ea9868aa2c4d1ddafd6aa596bc3a9596997557)
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on June 17, 2009, 04:50:23 PM
Wasn't the Sherman called the Flaming Coffin by its crews?
The Germans called it "Tommy Cooker" and in British parlance it got called "Ronson", because it lights up first time, every time.
Sorry, any list without the FT-17 is nonsense. I hereby declare war on the military channel.
When they say "ultimate tank" do they mean the last one made? If they mean the best in their time I'd suggest the FT-17, Vickers 6-ton, and the T-55. Each was pretty good at the time and was used long after it's prime.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2009, 08:07:57 PM
When they say "ultimate tank" do they mean the last one made? If they mean the best in their time I'd suggest the FT-17, Vickers 6-ton, and the T-55. Each was pretty good at the time and was used long after it's prime.
Criteria are longevity, "fear factor", innovation, and....fuck, what't the last one?
Quote from: PDH on June 17, 2009, 07:12:35 PM
Sorry, any list without the FT-17 is nonsense. I hereby declare war on the military channel.
Secound that... :thumbsup:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 17, 2009, 03:39:03 PMB/c if your biggest strategic problems inlcude: shortages of oil, shortages of transport, shortages of steel, and shortages of spare parts - basing your operational strategy on a machine that guzzles gas, is relatively mechanically unreliable, and requires a lot of servicing and maintenance is perhaps not the best idea.
It's not like there was a viable alternative to combined arms warfare. They needed tanks, no matter how expensive or unreliable they were.
Quote from: Zanza2 on June 18, 2009, 12:20:31 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 17, 2009, 03:39:03 PMB/c if your biggest strategic problems inlcude: shortages of oil, shortages of transport, shortages of steel, and shortages of spare parts - basing your operational strategy on a machine that guzzles gas, is relatively mechanically unreliable, and requires a lot of servicing and maintenance is perhaps not the best idea.
It's not like there was a viable alternative to combined arms warfare. They needed tanks, no matter how expensive or unreliable they were.
An argument could be made for mass produce simple, easily maintained tanks (T-34, Sherman) vs. marvels of engineering that were expensive and difficult to keep running without highly specialized personnel (though engineering more intricate parts saved weight/raw material). Still I doubt that Germany could have outproduced the Allies unless they had gone that route already in 1935.
I'm amazed that no one sneaked a mmo reference into this topic yet.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on June 18, 2009, 01:11:11 AM
I'm amazed that no one sneaked a mmo reference into this topic yet.
:rolleyes: Thanks for ruining the thread.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 17, 2009, 08:10:32 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2009, 08:07:57 PM
When they say "ultimate tank" do they mean the last one made? If they mean the best in their time I'd suggest the FT-17, Vickers 6-ton, and the T-55. Each was pretty good at the time and was used long after it's prime.
Criteria are longevity, "fear factor", innovation, and....fuck, what't the last one?
Fear factor? That's idiotic. What a about thinngs like usefulness, or fitting well with doctrine? The french built some very inovative and scary tanks during the interwar period but weren't to useful.
I do like how their #1 choice hasn't really seen combat.
Quote from: Warspite on June 18, 2009, 06:04:29 AM
I do like how their #1 choice hasn't really seen combat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard_2#Combat_history
QuoteKFOR
The German contingent of the Kosovo Force operated a number of Leopard 2A4s and 2A5s in Kosovo. A German Leopard 2 also took part in a fire fight that was caught on video
[edit] ISAF/OEF
In October 2003, Canada was planning to replace its Leopard C2s with wheeled Stryker Mobile Gun Systems. However, operational experience in Afghanistan, and in particular during Operation Medusa, convinced the Canadian military of the usefulness of maintaining a tank fleet.[4] Leopard C2s were deployed to Kandahar in December 2006[5], but they were by then almost 30 years old, and were nearing the end of their operational life. The Canadian government decided to borrow 20 Leopard 2A6s and three armoured recovery vehicles from Germany for rapid deployment to Afghanistan. In late August 2007, the first Leopard 2s were airlifted into Afghanistan to equip the Lord Strathcona's Horse (Royal Canadians).[6]
In an assault on November 2, 2007, a Leo 2A6M hit an IED and survived without casualties: "My crew stumbled upon an IED (improvised explosive device) and made history as the first (crew) to test the (Leopard 2A6) M-packet. It worked as it should." wrote a Canadian officer in an email to German defence officials.[citation needed] Canadian Chief of the Defence Staff General Rick Hillier denied reports that a Leopard II tank that was struck by an IED was a write-off, insisting that the tank has been repaired and is once again in use. "The Taliban have been engaged with some of the new Leopard II tanks in several ambushes" and that as a result the Taliban "learned some very harsh lessons" and lost the battle in question "very quickly and very violently."[7]
In October 2007, Denmark also deployed its Leopard 2A5 DKs in support of operations in southern Afghanistan. The Danish tank unit, drawn from the first battalion of the Jydske Dragonregiment (Jutland Dragoons Regiment)[8], was equipped with three tanks and one M113 armoured personnel carrier, with an armoured recovery vehicle and another tank kept in reserve.[9] The Danish version of the Leopard 2A5 is fitted with Swedish-made Barracuda camouflage mats, that serve to limit the absorption of solar heat, thus reducing infrared signature and interior temperature.[8] It also has a conventional drivers seat bolted on the floor of the tank, wherereas in the Canadian 2A6M (as part of the mine-protection package) the driver's seat has been replaced by a "Dynamic Safety Seat" [10], which is a parachute-harness like arrangement that the driver wears around his hip. 6 large belts hold him in the right position. In this way, the driver does not have any contact with the hull except on the pedals and is out of the shockwave area of exploding land mines or IEDs. [11]
In January 2008, Danish tanks halted a flanking maneuver by Taliban forces near the Helmand River by providing gunfire in support of Danish and British infantry from elevated positions.[12] On 26 February 2008, a Danish Leopard 2 was hit by an explosive device, damaging one track. No one was injured and the tank returned to camp on its own for repairs.[13] The first fatality suffered by a crew operating a Leopard 2 happened on 25 July 2008. A Danish Leopard 2A5 hit an IED in Helmand Province. The vehicle was able to continue 200 metres (656 ft) before it halted. Three members of the four-man crew were able to escape even though wounded, but the driver was stuck inside. Despite being treated on site by Danish army medics, he died. The vehicle was towed to FOB Attal and then later to FOB Armadillo for investigation and possible redeployment. During the same contact with Taliban forces, a second tank was caught in an explosion but none of the crew were wounded.[14] Beginning on December 7, 2008, Leopard 2 tanks took part in Operation Red Dagger, firing 31 rounds in support of Coalition troops as they recaptured Nad Ali District. A press release from the British ministry of defence claimed the tanks were a decisive factor in the Coalitions success, and praised the accuracy of their fire and their mobility.[15]
Picking on third world folk doesnt really seem like combat to me. Most tanks would look good fighting irregulars without them.
Gotta agree with our Southern idiot, which pains me.
The Leopard was not designed to kick ass against IED and insurgents wielding rust AK-47s, it was designed to take on and destroy enemy armor in the Fulda Gap. Until that happens, it remains untested.
Quote from: Berkut on June 18, 2009, 08:18:43 AM
Gotta agree with our Southern idiot, which pains me.
The Leopard was not designed to kick ass against IED and insurgents wielding rust AK-47s, it was designed to take on and destroy enemy armor in the Fulda Gap. Until that happens, it remains untested.
What was the M1 Abrams designed for?. Shooting up 20-30 year old rusting Tanks in the desert, not much differents from what the leo2 is doing in Afghanistan...
Quote from: Syt on June 18, 2009, 12:56:22 AM
Quote from: Zanza2 on June 18, 2009, 12:20:31 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 17, 2009, 03:39:03 PMB/c if your biggest strategic problems inlcude: shortages of oil, shortages of transport, shortages of steel, and shortages of spare parts - basing your operational strategy on a machine that guzzles gas, is relatively mechanically unreliable, and requires a lot of servicing and maintenance is perhaps not the best idea.
It's not like there was a viable alternative to combined arms warfare. They needed tanks, no matter how expensive or unreliable they were.
An argument could be made for mass produce simple, easily maintained tanks (T-34, Sherman) vs. marvels of engineering that were expensive and difficult to keep running without highly specialized personnel (though engineering more intricate parts saved weight/raw material). Still I doubt that Germany could have outproduced the Allies unless they had gone that route already in 1935.
I suppose the counter-argument would be that the Germans did not have to out-produce the Allies, merely make war so prohibitively difficult and dangerous so as to deter or intimidate the Western allies into possibly making a seperate peace - the addition of the US to the list of their enemies pretty well doomed Germany no matter what tank it had, if the US remained wedded to its defeat. US productivity in the '40s dwarfed anything the German empire could reasonably be expected to achieve, and of course the US was totally secure from bombing and the like.
The German solution to this problem seems to have been to pin their hopes on ever more sophisticated weapon design - which did produce some good tanks, but also some clunkers; the multiplication of designs did them no good at all, and the search for ever-better designs left them at even more of a numerical disadvantage than would otherwise have been the case.
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on June 18, 2009, 08:27:45 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 18, 2009, 08:18:43 AM
Gotta agree with our Southern idiot, which pains me.
The Leopard was not designed to kick ass against IED and insurgents wielding rust AK-47s, it was designed to take on and destroy enemy armor in the Fulda Gap. Until that happens, it remains untested.
What was the M1 Abrams designed for?. Shooting up 20-30 year old rusting Tanks in the desert, not much differents from what the leo2 is doing in Afghanistan...
Some of those Abrams shooting up those tanks are 20 years old themselves you know.
But you do have a point - its not like the Abrams has *much* combat experience in taking on the type of armor it was designed to handle - although it has some.
Quote from: Syt on June 18, 2009, 12:56:22 AM
Quote from: Zanza2 on June 18, 2009, 12:20:31 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 17, 2009, 03:39:03 PMB/c if your biggest strategic problems inlcude: shortages of oil, shortages of transport, shortages of steel, and shortages of spare parts - basing your operational strategy on a machine that guzzles gas, is relatively mechanically unreliable, and requires a lot of servicing and maintenance is perhaps not the best idea.
It's not like there was a viable alternative to combined arms warfare. They needed tanks, no matter how expensive or unreliable they were.
An argument could be made for mass produce simple, easily maintained tanks (T-34, Sherman) vs. marvels of engineering that were expensive and difficult to keep running without highly specialized personnel (though engineering more intricate parts saved weight/raw material). Still I doubt that Germany could have outproduced the Allies unless they had gone that route already in 1935.
I tend to go with this idea, the ability to mass produce effective tanks. Though the original Shermans after about 1942 were a liability; the US and UK had better armored and up-gunned versions of it, which I think were very effective. Equal at least to German MK IVs and maybe the MK V Panthers to some extent. And the allies were able to produce huge numbers of them. But to lose so many tank crews is a morale buster and tragedy of losses, so the early Shermans needed the upgrades.
I go with the German Panther as the best WW2 tank, after its early mechanical problems were fixed. With the Russian T34/85, or the 76 gun version, also strong contenders. Especially since the T34s were more plentiful and probably played a larger role early in the war.
Current times, I'll go with the US Abrams. Partly because it's so effective and partly because it's been upgraded through use and experience on the battlefield. Though the German and UK tanks are pretty much equal to it, so are on a par with it. Israel's Merkava is a unique design, and I think very effective and survivable, maybe more so than other tanks in urban settings?
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on June 18, 2009, 01:11:11 AM
I'm amazed that no one sneaked a mmo reference into this topic yet.
Well, during the American Civil War, the first experimental tank used was by the.... ;)
Quote from: Malthus on June 18, 2009, 08:28:38 AM
The German solution to this problem seems to have been to pin their hopes on ever more sophisticated weapon design - which did produce some good tanks, but also some clunkers; the multiplication of designs did them no good at all, and the search for ever-better designs left them at even more of a numerical disadvantage than would otherwise have been the case.
Indeed. The German tank production in WW2 was a little microcosm of their failings in the war in general.
Excellent technical competence coupled with a disaster of a strategic system. They could produce these incredible tanks, but could not recognize what was good enough and focus on it. They could create the Panther, for example, which was technically outstanding, relatively easy to produce (actually easier than the PZIV in many ways) but could not NOT go and waste resources on a myriad of other crap, or even organize their system well enough to STOP building old stuff and focus on the good stuff! They were still building PzIVs at the end of the war! That says at least as much as their mess of a procurement system as all the resources wasted on crap like King Tigers and Porsche maus type bullshit.
Interesting that the Soviets had almost exactly the opposite problem - an incredibly competent strategic organization coupled with horrendously bad operational management. STAVKA could basically rebuild the entire Red Army from scratch, twice in one summer, get it into position, build a shitload of tanks/planes/supplies, and yet they fail at the middle management level to use it all very well at all.
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on June 18, 2009, 08:27:45 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 18, 2009, 08:18:43 AM
Gotta agree with our Southern idiot, which pains me.
The Leopard was not designed to kick ass against IED and insurgents wielding rust AK-47s, it was designed to take on and destroy enemy armor in the Fulda Gap. Until that happens, it remains untested.
What was the M1 Abrams designed for?. Shooting up 20-30 year old rusting Tanks in the desert, not much differents from what the leo2 is doing in Afghanistan...
The M1 did destroy quite a few T-72's, T-62's and T-55/54 which made up almost the whole of the Soviet arsenal when the M1 was produced. Granted the Iraqi tanks were export models and inferior and were not being used according to the doctrine they were designed for but still it's a worthy test.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 17, 2009, 04:11:09 PM
Also check out the rack on the Merkava instructor.
Pic or link ? :perv:
Quote from: Razgovory on June 18, 2009, 08:51:08 AM
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on June 18, 2009, 08:27:45 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 18, 2009, 08:18:43 AM
Gotta agree with our Southern idiot, which pains me.
The Leopard was not designed to kick ass against IED and insurgents wielding rust AK-47s, it was designed to take on and destroy enemy armor in the Fulda Gap. Until that happens, it remains untested.
What was the M1 Abrams designed for?. Shooting up 20-30 year old rusting Tanks in the desert, not much differents from what the leo2 is doing in Afghanistan...
The M1 did destroy quite a few T-72's, T-62's and T-55/54 which made up almost the whole of the Soviet arsenal when the M1 was produced. Granted the Iraqi tanks were export models and inferior and were not being used according to the doctrine they were designed for but still it's a worthy test.
Yes, when the basic M1 was produced, but the M1A1's used by the US doing Desert Storm was atleast 20 years ahead of any Tank the Iraqies could field. The iraqies didnt even posses a tank round that had any chance of defeat the front armor of the M1A1, The Iraqi T-72's had to be with in a range of 1200m even to stand chance of hitting a M1A1, while the M1A1's could take out any Iraqi tank at as much as 4000m with out any problem. So a insurgent with a rusty AK-47 is infact just as likely to take out a M1A1 or a Leo2 for that matter, as any Iraqi Tank was doing Desert Storm. The iraqi armor was far from any worthy test of the M1A1 Abrams strengh...
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 17, 2009, 03:40:10 PM
According to Wiki, 487 King Tigers.
And according to tactical WWII sims, they were present at every low-level engagement from their introduction till the end of the war.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on June 18, 2009, 09:28:18 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 17, 2009, 03:40:10 PM
According to Wiki, 487 King Tigers.
And according to tactical WWII sims, they were present at every low-level engagement from their introduction till the end of the war.
Really?
I've played a huge number of tactical sims, from SL to ASL to PanzerGrenadier to hundreds of CM scnearios and hundreds of Steel Panthers games from 1 to N. I almost never see King Tigers in them.
Who designed the different tanks btw?
You always hear about Kalashnikov, the M16 guy etc, but tank designers are almost completely unknown to the wider public. Fuck that.
Quote from: The Brain on June 18, 2009, 09:44:46 AM
Who designed the different tanks btw?
You always hear about Kalashnikov, the M16 guy etc, but tank designers are almost completely unknown to the wider public. Fuck that.
I would imagine that, like dreadnought battleships, tanks are complex systems that are designed by committee. PzKw III was designed by Daimler Benz, PzKw IV was designed by Krupp, Panther by MAN SE and Tiger by Henschel and Son. The M1 Abrams was designed by Chrysler, and is probably the only non-shitty vehicle they've ever produced.
Quote from: Neil on June 18, 2009, 09:52:42 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 18, 2009, 09:44:46 AM
Who designed the different tanks btw?
You always hear about Kalashnikov, the M16 guy etc, but tank designers are almost completely unknown to the wider public. Fuck that.
I would imagine that, like dreadnought battleships, tanks are complex systems that are designed by committee. PzKw III was designed by Daimler Benz, PzKw IV was designed by Krupp, Panther by MAN SE and Tiger by Henschel and Son. The M1 Abrams was designed by Chrysler, and is probably the only non-shitty vehicle they've ever produced.
There's still a lead designer, and various revolutionary details were most often thought up by one guy.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 17, 2009, 04:11:09 PM
Also check out the rack on the Merkava instructor.
Yes. She could tank me anytime. The Swedish conscript racing the Leo2 reminded me of Carolus Rex.
Quote from: The Brain on June 18, 2009, 09:59:39 AM
and various revolutionary details were most often thought up by one guy.
Come now. That's a lie and you know it.
There are lead designers, but the tank is a large complex object designed by many men. Thus, no one man goes down in history as being the revolutionary father of a particular tank.
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on June 18, 2009, 09:15:02 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 18, 2009, 08:51:08 AM
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on June 18, 2009, 08:27:45 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 18, 2009, 08:18:43 AM
Gotta agree with our Southern idiot, which pains me.
The Leopard was not designed to kick ass against IED and insurgents wielding rust AK-47s, it was designed to take on and destroy enemy armor in the Fulda Gap. Until that happens, it remains untested.
What was the M1 Abrams designed for?. Shooting up 20-30 year old rusting Tanks in the desert, not much differents from what the leo2 is doing in Afghanistan...
The M1 did destroy quite a few T-72's, T-62's and T-55/54 which made up almost the whole of the Soviet arsenal when the M1 was produced. Granted the Iraqi tanks were export models and inferior and were not being used according to the doctrine they were designed for but still it's a worthy test.
Yes, when the basic M1 was produced, but the M1A1's used by the US doing Desert Storm was atleast 20 years ahead of any Tank the Iraqies could field. The iraqies didnt even posses a tank round that had any chance of defeat the front armor of the M1A1, The Iraqi T-72's had to be with in a range of 1200m even to stand chance of hitting a M1A1, while the M1A1's could take out any Iraqi tank at as much as 4000m with out any problem. So a insurgent with a rusty AK-47 is infact just as likely to take out a M1A1 or a Leo2 for that matter, as any Iraqi Tank was doing Desert Storm. The iraqi armor was far from any worthy test of the M1A1 Abrams strengh...
The M1A1 came in to service in in 1985. The T-72 that were used were knocks off of the T-72A which was produced in 1979. So it's not exactly 20 years of difference.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 18, 2009, 10:37:00 AM
The M1A1 came in to service in in 1985. The T-72 that were used were knocks off of the T-72A which was produced in 1979. So it's not exactly 20 years of difference.
Unlike the T-72 the M1A1 has been constantly upgraded and modernized, though.
Quote from: Syt on June 18, 2009, 10:42:02 AM
Unlike the T-72 the M1A1 has been constantly upgraded and modernized, though.
Constantly? I thought that's why there was the M1, the M1A1, and the M1A2?
Quote from: Razgovory on June 18, 2009, 10:37:00 AM
The M1A1 came in to service in in 1985. The T-72 that were used were knocks off of the T-72A which was produced in 1979. So it's not exactly 20 years of difference.
The T-72 was an attempt to make a cheaper version of the T-64 from 1967, they succeded in not only making a cheaper version, but also a more crappy version. The only thing on the Iraqi T-72's that wasnt 60's erea tech was the laser range finder some of them had installed...
Quote from: ulmont on June 18, 2009, 10:45:56 AM
Quote from: Syt on June 18, 2009, 10:42:02 AM
Unlike the T-72 the M1A1 has been constantly upgraded and modernized, though.
Constantly? I thought that's why there was the M1, the M1A1, and the M1A2?
:huh: They did update the design over time, did they not? The same can't be said about the T-72.
Quote from: Neil on June 18, 2009, 09:52:42 AM
The M1 Abrams was designed by Chrysler, and is probably the only non-shitty vehicle they've ever produced.
Being based in Detroit finally counts for something.
This thread needs Sir Hockey.
Quote from: ulmont on June 18, 2009, 10:45:56 AM
Quote from: Syt on June 18, 2009, 10:42:02 AM
Unlike the T-72 the M1A1 has been constantly upgraded and modernized, though.
Constantly? I thought that's why there was the M1, the M1A1, and the M1A2?
More like M1, IPM1, M1A1, M1A1HA* and M1A2, not only armor was upgraded, but also sight, fire controls and battle manage systems...
*) first version with DU armor saw action in Desert Storm
Quote from: Warspite on June 18, 2009, 11:16:33 AM
This thread needs Sir Hockey.
Need to grease the treads with *something*, right? ;)
Quote from: Syt on June 18, 2009, 11:06:15 AM
:huh: They did update the design over time, did they not? The same can't be said about the T-72.
Yeah, but as Raz pointed out, the baseline T-72 used was around 1979 and the upgraded M1A1 was a 1985 variant.
Is the argument here that the Abrams is not that great because it never had to fight tanks that were as good as it is???
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on June 18, 2009, 11:17:33 AM
More like M1, IPM1, M1A1, M1A1HA* and M1A2, not only armor was upgraded, but also sight, fire controls and battle manage systems...
Agreed, but the IPM1 and the M1A1HA weren't ever fully rolled out, unlike the 3 main variants.
Doesn't the T-72 date from the early 70s? I mean, the Iraqis probably had ones that were built later, but generally speaking Soviet T-numbers track to around the year the model entered production with the later models.
Quote from: Neil on June 18, 2009, 11:50:22 AM
Doesn't the T-72 date from the early 70s? I mean, the Iraqis probably had ones that were built later, but generally speaking Soviet T-numbers track to around the year the model entered production with the later models.
The original was 1973. There were upgraded versions in 1979 and 1985. The export model appears to be a downgraded version of the 1973 original.
Disclaimer: wiki for T-72 stuff, official army sites for M1A1 comments.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 17, 2009, 04:11:09 PM
I thought it was funky that the Centurion only had an operational range of 57 miles.
Also check out the rack on the Merkava instructor.
:pointlesswithoutpictures:
Quote from: Berkut on June 18, 2009, 11:45:35 AM
Is the argument here that the Abrams is not that great because it never had to fight tanks that were as good as it is???
No the argument is more that we cant judge the true potential of the M1 abrams due to the fact it has never faced a first rate opponent, the same goes for the Leo2...
Quote from: Neil on June 18, 2009, 10:20:54 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 18, 2009, 09:59:39 AM
and various revolutionary details were most often thought up by one guy.
Come now. That's a lie and you know it.
There are lead designers, but the tank is a large complex object designed by many men. Thus, no one man goes down in history as being the revolutionary father of a particular tank.
Since when is a detail a whole tank? L2R
Quote from: The Brain on June 18, 2009, 12:08:26 PM
Quote from: Neil on June 18, 2009, 10:20:54 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 18, 2009, 09:59:39 AM
and various revolutionary details were most often thought up by one guy.
Come now. That's a lie and you know it.
There are lead designers, but the tank is a large complex object designed by many men. Thus, no one man goes down in history as being the revolutionary father of a particular tank.
Since when is a detail a whole tank? L2R
Given that many details can go into a single tank, what does it matter. L2T
Quote from: Neil on June 18, 2009, 12:25:31 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 18, 2009, 12:08:26 PM
Quote from: Neil on June 18, 2009, 10:20:54 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 18, 2009, 09:59:39 AM
and various revolutionary details were most often thought up by one guy.
Come now. That's a lie and you know it.
There are lead designers, but the tank is a large complex object designed by many men. Thus, no one man goes down in history as being the revolutionary father of a particular tank.
Since when is a detail a whole tank? L2R
Given that many details can go into a single tank, what does it matter. L2T
Just because you don't care about the various details of tankmakery (for shame!) doesn't mean no one does.
Quote from: The Brain on June 18, 2009, 12:28:35 PM
Just because you don't care about the various details of tankmakery (for shame!) doesn't mean no one does.
This is true, but that's not the question you're asking. You're asking why guns, which are rather small, simple machines, end up with well-known designers, while tanks, which are large, complex machines, do not. Because no one detail of tank design is as sexy as a complete system, it is hardly surprising that no single tank-designer is as well known as Kalashnikov. No tank designer ever had as much impact on a weapon as Kalashnikov did. Moreover, some occasionally revolutionary aspects of tanks are designed by someone different from the people who designed the tank itself, especially weapons, electronics and engines.
You can weep about how you feel that individual designers of armour are unrecognized, but surely you can't be surprised that it is the case.
Quote from: Neil on June 18, 2009, 12:49:04 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 18, 2009, 12:28:35 PM
Just because you don't care about the various details of tankmakery (for shame!) doesn't mean no one does.
This is true, but that's not the question you're asking. You're asking why guns, which are rather small, simple machines, end up with well-known designers, while tanks, which are large, complex machines, do not. Because no one detail of tank design is as sexy as a complete system, it is hardly surprising that no single tank-designer is as well known as Kalashnikov. No tank designer ever had as much impact on a weapon as Kalashnikov did. Moreover, some occasionally revolutionary aspects of tanks are designed by someone different from the people who designed the tank itself, especially weapons, electronics and engines.
You can weep about how you feel that individual designers of armour are unrecognized, but surely you can't be surprised that it is the case.
I asked who designed the tanks and I lamented the fact that tank designers are unknown. I didn't ask why that was the case. L2R
Btw, tonight's episode is about fighter planes. :P
Quote from: Syt on June 18, 2009, 01:04:25 PM
Btw, tonight's episode is about fighter planes. :P
I already slammed that ridiculous episode.
Quote from: The Brain on June 18, 2009, 12:57:35 PM
Quote from: Neil on June 18, 2009, 12:49:04 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 18, 2009, 12:28:35 PM
Just because you don't care about the various details of tankmakery (for shame!) doesn't mean no one does.
This is true, but that's not the question you're asking. You're asking why guns, which are rather small, simple machines, end up with well-known designers, while tanks, which are large, complex machines, do not. Because no one detail of tank design is as sexy as a complete system, it is hardly surprising that no single tank-designer is as well known as Kalashnikov. No tank designer ever had as much impact on a weapon as Kalashnikov did. Moreover, some occasionally revolutionary aspects of tanks are designed by someone different from the people who designed the tank itself, especially weapons, electronics and engines.
You can weep about how you feel that individual designers of armour are unrecognized, but surely you can't be surprised that it is the case.
I asked who designed the tanks and I lamented the fact that tank designers are unknown. I didn't ask why that was the case. L2R
And I corrected your ignorance. When you asked 'Who designed tanks?', you were asking something stupid. L2T
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on June 18, 2009, 12:05:32 PM
No the argument is more that we cant judge the true potential of the M1 abrams due to the fact it has never faced a first rate opponent, the same goes for the Leo2...
But the fact of the matter is that the M1 Abrams HAS seen action against the enemies it was built to fight, and won overwhelmingly. The Leopard 2 has not, and yet gets voted #1 in some BS "ultimate tank" poll.
I would argue strongly in favor of the Centurian being the ultimate tank. It was in frontline sevice for over 45 years, and more than 60 years later is still seing some service in its non-tank vaients. It has seen more than enough action against contemporary tanks to qualify as "battle tested."
BTW, the "range only 57 miles" bit must apply only to the prototypes deployed during WW2. It has a very typical range (around 200 miles) for a tank of its generation.
If we are just listing modern tanks, the surely the Challenger 2 deserves a mention.
For those concerned about me buying a mac, I've come across some interesting sites on installing OS X on a netbook.
That way, Apple only gets a hundred bucks or so. I do thank everybody for their concern.
Quote from: Neil on June 18, 2009, 01:11:42 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 18, 2009, 12:57:35 PM
Quote from: Neil on June 18, 2009, 12:49:04 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 18, 2009, 12:28:35 PM
Just because you don't care about the various details of tankmakery (for shame!) doesn't mean no one does.
This is true, but that's not the question you're asking. You're asking why guns, which are rather small, simple machines, end up with well-known designers, while tanks, which are large, complex machines, do not. Because no one detail of tank design is as sexy as a complete system, it is hardly surprising that no single tank-designer is as well known as Kalashnikov. No tank designer ever had as much impact on a weapon as Kalashnikov did. Moreover, some occasionally revolutionary aspects of tanks are designed by someone different from the people who designed the tank itself, especially weapons, electronics and engines.
You can weep about how you feel that individual designers of armour are unrecognized, but surely you can't be surprised that it is the case.
I asked who designed the tanks and I lamented the fact that tank designers are unknown. I didn't ask why that was the case. L2R
And I corrected your ignorance. When you asked 'Who designed tanks?', you were asking something stupid. L2T
Ah yes, the virgin birth of tanks. Gotcha. I feel much better now.
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on June 18, 2009, 11:00:30 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 18, 2009, 10:37:00 AM
The M1A1 came in to service in in 1985. The T-72 that were used were knocks off of the T-72A which was produced in 1979. So it's not exactly 20 years of difference.
The T-72 was an attempt to make a cheaper version of the T-64 from 1967, they succeded in not only making a cheaper version, but also a more crappy version. The only thing on the Iraqi T-72's that wasnt 60's erea tech was the laser range finder some of them had installed...
This is incorrect.
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on June 18, 2009, 11:00:30 AM
The T-72 was an attempt to make a cheaper version of the T-64 from 1967, they succeded in not only making a cheaper version, but also a more crappy version. The only thing on the Iraqi T-72's that wasnt 60's erea tech was the laser range finder some of them had installed...
The T-72 was mostly a cheaper version of the very sophisticated (and expensive) T-64. It was accepted in 1973 and entered in service in 1975, but it was seen as a very good tank for the export market. It was not intended to be the main tank of the Soviet formations - the true enemy of 1970s NATO would have been the T-64, which was kept secret and never exported.
Note that Soviet tank design was split into two main branches - the cheap, lesser and export-oriented series, represented mainly by the T-72 and later by the T-90 (which improved the T-72 design in the area of fire control, night vision and a more advanced armor package), and the sophisticated, not-for-export tanks, the T-64 and the T-80 (the T-80A is basically the T-64B without problems).
That said, note that by doctrine a Soviet tank is not meant to engage a Western tank on a one-to-one basis. To do that would be a tactical failure by the Soviet commander. They were meant to outnumber their Western counterparts by (at least ) 5 to 1, preferrably more.
Which means that to recreate actual battle conditions, both the M1A2 and the L2A6 need to engage solo at least five T-80U.
As for the ultimate tank, it varies with the times, the FT-17 being top spot in WWI and the Panther the best pick in WW2, but the Soviet T-54/55 model has had an amazing run so far.
It was quite modern when it came out, it was an huge sucess in the export market, was built in numbers like no other [indeed it was the core of the chinese tank force as the locally-produced version of the Type 59] and is still in use today (not only in Africa, but note that the iranian T-72Z is actually a T-54/55 or a Type 59 with its 100mm gun replaced by a 105mm one).
In fact, several countries have tried to upgrade it to become more modern- anyone remembers the Jaguar, made by China State Factories and Textron Marine & Land Systems of the US? It was a Type 59 built to modern standards. Even Israel used the T-54/55 for a while.
Quote from: The Brain on June 18, 2009, 05:09:07 PM
Ah yes, the virgin birth of tanks. Gotcha. I feel much better now.
Actually I think they spontaneously appear. Virgin birth assumes a mother.
Quote from: Martim Silva on June 18, 2009, 05:40:42 PM
That said, note that by doctrine a Soviet tank is not meant to engage a Western tank on a one-to-one basis. To do that would be a tactical failure by the Soviet commander. They were meant to outnumber their Western counterparts by (at least ) 5 to 1, preferrably more.
Which means that to recreate actual battle conditions, both the M1A2 and the L2A6 need to engage solo at least five T-80U.
No, because doctrinally the M1A2 and L2A6 were not intended fo solo operations.
In what postwar battle did the Soviets actually get 5-1 tanks odds against any of the Western Powers? Claiming that something is doctrine doesn't make it reality. There were many WW2 battles (Kursk, for instance), in which the Soviets failed to achieve 5-1 numbers in tanks (nor, indeed, even 2-1). In fact, a quick look through my books shows them achieving this only in the initial stages of Operation Bagartion (which was, however, decisive).
Quote from: Martim Silva on June 18, 2009, 05:40:42 PM
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on June 18, 2009, 11:00:30 AM
The T-72 was an attempt to make a cheaper version of the T-64 from 1967, they succeded in not only making a cheaper version, but also a more crappy version. The only thing on the Iraqi T-72's that wasnt 60's erea tech was the laser range finder some of them had installed...
The T-72 was mostly a cheaper version of the very sophisticated (and expensive) T-64. It was accepted in 1973 and entered in service in 1975, but it was seen as a very good tank for the export market. It was not intended to be the main tank of the Soviet formations - the true enemy of 1970s NATO would have been the T-64, which was kept secret and never exported.
Note that Soviet tank design was split into two main branches - the cheap, lesser and export-oriented series, represented mainly by the T-72 and later by the T-90 (which improved the T-72 design in the area of fire control, night vision and a more advanced armor package), and the sophisticated, not-for-export tanks, the T-64 and the T-80 (the T-80A is basically the T-64B without problems).
That said, note that by doctrine a Soviet tank is not meant to engage a Western tank on a one-to-one basis. To do that would be a tactical failure by the Soviet commander. They were meant to outnumber their Western counterparts by (at least ) 5 to 1, preferrably more.
Which means that to recreate actual battle conditions, both the M1A2 and the L2A6 need to engage solo at least five T-80U.
As for the ultimate tank, it varies with the times, the FT-17 being top spot in WWI and the Panther the best pick in WW2, but the Soviet T-54/55 model has had an amazing run so far.
It was quite modern when it came out, it was an huge sucess in the export market, was built in numbers like no other [indeed it was the core of the chinese tank force as the locally-produced version of the Type 59] and is still in use today (not only in Africa, but note that the iranian T-72Z is actually a T-54/55 or a Type 59 with its 100mm gun replaced by a 105mm one).
In fact, several countries have tried to upgrade it to become more modern- anyone remembers the Jaguar, made by China State Factories and Textron Marine & Land Systems of the US? It was a Type 59 built to modern standards. Even Israel used the T-54/55 for a while.
The T-72 was an upgrade of the T-62 not the T-64. The T-62 was a upgraded version of the T-55/54 hurried in to production to be able to counter the new M60A1. The T-64 was a different tank entirely and is the ancestor of the T-80(T-80U is a post cold war configuration). Why exactly the Soviets had multiple MBTs in production at the same time is not entirely known. It's claimed that some are "quality" and some are "quantity" models. Personally I think the real reasons lie with the bureaucratic politics of the Soviet Union. In practice the combat differences between tanks like the T-72 and T-80 were fairly small though the Soviets had hoped otherwise. I should be noted that when the Soviet Union broke up 80% of the tank inventory was T-54/55s/62s.
Quote from: grumbler on June 18, 2009, 07:30:59 PM
Quote from: Martim Silva on June 18, 2009, 05:40:42 PM
That said, note that by doctrine a Soviet tank is not meant to engage a Western tank on a one-to-one basis. To do that would be a tactical failure by the Soviet commander. They were meant to outnumber their Western counterparts by (at least ) 5 to 1, preferrably more.
Which means that to recreate actual battle conditions, both the M1A2 and the L2A6 need to engage solo at least five T-80U.
No, because doctrinally the M1A2 and L2A6 were not intended fo solo operations.
In what postwar battle did the Soviets actually get 5-1 tanks odds against any of the Western Powers? Claiming that something is doctrine doesn't make it reality. There were many WW2 battles (Kursk, for instance), in which the Soviets failed to achieve 5-1 numbers in tanks (nor, indeed, even 2-1). In fact, a quick look through my books shows them achieving this only in the initial stages of Operation Bagartion (which was, however, decisive).
I don't know any postwar battles where the Soviets got any odds on an Western power. :P
Quote from: Martim Silva on June 18, 2009, 05:40:42 PM
The T-72 was mostly a cheaper version of the very sophisticated (and expensive) T-64. It was accepted in 1973 and entered in service in 1975, but it was seen as a very good tank for the export market. It was not intended to be the main tank of the Soviet formations - the true enemy of 1970s NATO would have been the T-64, which was kept secret and never exported.
The T-64 was a failure, and was not exported because the USSR could not even produce enough of them for its own use. It was "a tank to far" as far as the ability of the Soviets to build and maintain it were concerned. Technically excellent, it was a nightmare to keep going.
As you note, the T-80 was intended to solve many of the T-64's problems, and mostly did so. It even achieved some export sucess. However, the Russians have decided it was not a very satisfatory tank and have opted for the T-90, built on the success of the "inferior" T-72.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 18, 2009, 07:42:32 PM
I don't know any postwar battles where the Soviets got any odds on an Western power. :P
So I guess the doctrine hasn't proved itself, and is therefore a poor method by which to evaluate the fighting capabilities of any given tank. :P
My favorite tank was the Ontos. It gets no love though. I don't think it's properly classified as a tank.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 18, 2009, 07:58:04 PM
My favorite tank was the Ontos. It gets no love though. I don't think it's properly classified as a tank.
Agree. I have seen one at Quantico, and it is no tank, though quite a cool fire support vehicle.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 18, 2009, 07:58:04 PM
My favorite tank was the Ontos. It gets no love though. I don't think it's properly classified as a tank.
I always prefered the Schreck. The Ontos was just too underarmoured, although the firepower was nice. The missile versions were alright for support, I suppose.
Not the best place, but a question for the hardware buffs out there:
I know of some of the tank designs after the M4, was there ever any really serious work on a medium tank replacement during the war (or was it, as I suspect, more a case of the Sherman's problems becoming evident late enough - 1943 - along with the problem of the tank/tank destroyer doctrine that led to the M4 not being upgraded or replaced)?
Quote from: PDH on June 19, 2009, 09:56:34 AM
Not the best place, but a question for the hardware buffs out there:
I know of some of the tank designs after the M4, was there ever any really serious work on a medium tank replacement during the war (or was it, as I suspect, more a case of the Sherman's problems becoming evident late enough - 1943 - along with the problem of the tank/tank destroyer doctrine that led to the M4 not being upgraded or replaced)?
There was a joint US-UK medium tank project in 1943-44, which was designed to create the "ultimate Sherman," but was cancelled in 1944 because the Pershing was already in production.
It was difficult for the Allies to contemplate stopping the massive Sherman production line in favor of a follow-on project, because the Sherman was so good at everything but tank-to-tank combat (and, even then, the Easy 8 was as good as anything the Germans had bar their few Panthers and Tigers).
The fact that the Sherman was undergunned for its entire career can be laid to the fact that the best gun designs were restricted to the Tank Destroyer force, which was independent of the Tank force. Gun production could only be available to the tank force once the tank destroyer force requirements had been met.
Grumbler touches on a good point.
Yes, the Sherman was woeful when meeting Tigers and Panthers. But how often did they meet? As an infantry support vehicle, it was more than decent. And unlike the Germans, Allied strategy was not about winning the war as quickly as possible to compensate for structural economic deficiencies (which was the strategic essence of blitzkrieg).
Well, running into a Panther was not unusual after Normandy, but it wasn't common either - the 76mm Sherman was certainly adequate against the majority of armor it ran into.
I think the better argument can be made that even as an infantry support vehicle it was pretty mediocre though, as its armor could be easily defeated by a wide variety of common German AT weapons - even the measly 50mm gun that armed many lighter German AFVs and was a very common AT gun could take out a Sherman from the side, and the 75mm fun could take it out from any angle, at least until the field expedient armor packages became common later in the year.
I would include the Panzerschreck and Panzerfaust as well, but to be honest, they could pretty much take out anything anyway, including a Pershing.
The mistake made by the US, IMO, wasn't so much the Sherman, which did its job in an adequate manner, but the M-10/M-18 and the entire TD concept. The resources spent on those could have been spent creating a real tank destroyer - a "heavy" medium tank similar in capability to the Panther as a much better supplement to the Sherman force. But that would require the right choices being made in 1942 or early 43, and those choices simply were not made.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 18, 2009, 07:39:35 PM
Quote from: Martim Silva on June 18, 2009, 05:40:42 PM
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on June 18, 2009, 11:00:30 AM
The T-72 was an attempt to make a cheaper version of the T-64 from 1967, they succeded in not only making a cheaper version, but also a more crappy version. The only thing on the Iraqi T-72's that wasnt 60's erea tech was the laser range finder some of them had installed...
The T-72 was mostly a cheaper version of the very sophisticated (and expensive) T-64. It was accepted in 1973 and entered in service in 1975, but it was seen as a very good tank for the export market. It was not intended to be the main tank of the Soviet formations - the true enemy of 1970s NATO would have been the T-64, which was kept secret and never exported.
Note that Soviet tank design was split into two main branches - the cheap, lesser and export-oriented series, represented mainly by the T-72 and later by the T-90 (which improved the T-72 design in the area of fire control, night vision and a more advanced armor package), and the sophisticated, not-for-export tanks, the T-64 and the T-80 (the T-80A is basically the T-64B without problems).
That said, note that by doctrine a Soviet tank is not meant to engage a Western tank on a one-to-one basis. To do that would be a tactical failure by the Soviet commander. They were meant to outnumber their Western counterparts by (at least ) 5 to 1, preferrably more.
Which means that to recreate actual battle conditions, both the M1A2 and the L2A6 need to engage solo at least five T-80U.
As for the ultimate tank, it varies with the times, the FT-17 being top spot in WWI and the Panther the best pick in WW2, but the Soviet T-54/55 model has had an amazing run so far.
It was quite modern when it came out, it was an huge sucess in the export market, was built in numbers like no other [indeed it was the core of the chinese tank force as the locally-produced version of the Type 59] and is still in use today (not only in Africa, but note that the iranian T-72Z is actually a T-54/55 or a Type 59 with its 100mm gun replaced by a 105mm one).
In fact, several countries have tried to upgrade it to become more modern- anyone remembers the Jaguar, made by China State Factories and Textron Marine & Land Systems of the US? It was a Type 59 built to modern standards. Even Israel used the T-54/55 for a while.
The T-72 was an upgrade of the T-62 not the T-64. The T-62 was a upgraded version of the T-55/54 hurried in to production to be able to counter the new M60A1. The T-64 was a different tank entirely and is the ancestor of the T-80(T-80U is a post cold war configuration). Why exactly the Soviets had multiple MBTs in production at the same time is not entirely known. It's claimed that some are "quality" and some are "quantity" models. Personally I think the real reasons lie with the bureaucratic politics of the Soviet Union. In practice the combat differences between tanks like the T-72 and T-80 were fairly small though the Soviets had hoped otherwise. I should be noted that when the Soviet Union broke up 80% of the tank inventory was T-54/55s/62s.
The first T-64 was Kharkov design bureau's improved version of the T-62 (a URAL design). First with a 115mm gun like the T-62 later upgraded with a 125mm gun, both versions came with an autoloader and a 3 man crew, the 125mm version was accepted into first line service. However the army didnt like this new disign as they fund it to expensive, unreliable and all to "conscript unfriendly" with its advanced fire controls, compact engine and hydraulic-mechanical suspension. So the Army asked the compiting URAL design burearu to design a cheaper and more practical alternative to the T-64, the result the T-72.
Quote from: Berkut on June 19, 2009, 10:58:35 AM
The mistake made by the US, IMO, wasn't so much the Sherman, which did its job in an adequate manner, but the M-10/M-18 and the entire TD concept. The resources spent on those could have been spent creating a real tank destroyer - a "heavy" medium tank similar in capability to the Panther as a much better supplement to the Sherman force. But that would require the right choices being made in 1942 or early 43, and those choices simply were not made.
Exactly. The US Army stuck with an outmoded doctrine because they had created a bureaucracy designed around that doctrine, which made it difficult to do any "tradeoff" studies on the effectiveness of the doctrine. It was kinda like the battleship versus carrier debate: both sides had an entrenched bureaucracy that was fighting for its life, and so decisions were made for bureaucratic, not military, reasons.
Quote from: Zanza2 on June 18, 2009, 12:20:31 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 17, 2009, 03:39:03 PMB/c if your biggest strategic problems inlcude: shortages of oil, shortages of transport, shortages of steel, and shortages of spare parts - basing your operational strategy on a machine that guzzles gas, is relatively mechanically unreliable, and requires a lot of servicing and maintenance is perhaps not the best idea.
It's not like there was a viable alternative to combined arms warfare. They needed tanks, no matter how expensive or unreliable they were.
Except that the Germans didn't really begin WW2 with that concept in mind. The original campaign against France was designed as a kind of souped-up version of a WWI offensive where the strategic objective was seizing industrial areas in NE France and the channel ports. The Germans actually ramped down on aircraft and tank production in early 1940 to focus on artillery shell production because the assumption is that the war in the west would be a long slog, and that shell shortages would arise. The idea of using concentrated armormed spearheads only arose late in the planning process after the war was already under way, and was not incorprated into the plan until just before the invasion.
One could say that the Germans discovered the operational possibilities of the "blitzkrieg" in connection with the 1940 strike in the West, and in a way were just as surprised as everyone else. The question was what then to do after the fall of France. The danger in concocting a grand strategic plan driven by the operational advantages of combined arms warfare was that even after the conquest in the West, Germany lacked the resources (paricularly oil and transport infrastructure) to sustain very large-scale combined operations for a significant period of time. An obvious response to that reality would have been to scale back Germany's strategic ambitions to place them more in line with their capabilities. The choice that Hitler made was to attempt to seize by force the resources needed to drive German operational superiority, even though that plan directly put into question Germany's material capability for carrying our such a seizure. I.e. Germany approached the problem ass-backward - they allowed operational considerations to drive their overall strategic thinking instead of vice-a-versa. The same logic reinforced itself with decisions to ensure operational and tactical superiority in ways that basically involved doubling down on a very long odds bet - i.e. emphasizing the development and deployment of extremely resource intensive and mechancially complex machines like heavy tanks and jet aircraft, at the expense, of simpler, cheaper, less energy intensive and more reliable designs. And disaster ensued.
BTW, are there any good tactical WW2 games out there? Something like Panzer General, only made in this millenium?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 19, 2009, 01:50:05 PM
Except that the Germans didn't really begin WW2 with that concept in mind. The original campaign against France was designed as a kind of souped-up version of a WWI offensive where the strategic objective was seizing industrial areas in NE France and the channel ports. The Germans actually ramped down on aircraft and tank production in early 1940 to focus on artillery shell production because the assumption is that the war in the west would be a long slog, and that shell shortages would arise. The idea of using concentrated armormed spearheads only arose late in the planning process after the war was already under way, and was not incorprated into the plan until just before the invasion.
I think I am going to disagree with you on this. The Germans used concentrated armored spearheads in Czechoslovakia and Poland. What the Germans discovered in these campaigns was that they had too many tanks per division, and too many light tanks, period. They didn't "ramp down" production of the Mk III or Mk IV in early 1940, they simply stopped producing Mk IIs until they could complete the recon version. I know the Germans stopped production of the Do 17 during this period as well, but have never read that they slowed production of the Me-109 nor the Ju-88.
What was incorporated late in the campaign planning was the thrust through the Ardennes. Prior to the decision to strike through the Ardennes, the idea was a Poland-style tactical encirclement battle using Panzer spearheads as the hammer and the infantry as the anvil. That is still "Blitzkrieg," though.
QuoteOne could say that the Germans discovered the operational possibilities of the "blitzkrieg" in connection with the 1940 strike in the West, and in a way were just as surprised as everyone else.
Blitzkrieg was an operational concept, not a strategic one. I would agree that the Germans were surprised at the speed with which the strategic use of Blitzkrieg (the Ardennes thrust) forced the collapse of France, but I am not aware of any German commander writing that the tactic was a surprising success on an operational basis.
QuoteThe question was what then to do after the fall of France. The danger in concocting a grand strategic plan driven by the operational advantages of combined arms warfare was that even after the conquest in the West, Germany lacked the resources (paricularly oil and transport infrastructure) to sustain very large-scale combined operations for a significant period of time. An obvious response to that reality would have been to scale back Germany's strategic ambitions to place them more in line with their capabilities.
The Germans had counted on the defeat of France to force the collapse of British morale and a negotiated end to this "warm up round" before the big fight with the USSR. Germany's strategic ambitions had always been to defeat the USSR. To say that they should have waited for the Soviet invasion of Germany is not supportable given that the Germans would be throwing away their single advantage - operational superiority, and not invading the USSR was pretty much the only way they
could "scale back" their "strategic ambitions to place them more in line with their capabilities."
QuoteThe choice that Hitler made was to attempt to seize by force the resources needed to drive German operational superiority, even though that plan directly put into question Germany's material capability for carrying our such a seizure. I.e. Germany approached the problem ass-backward - they allowed operational considerations to drive their overall strategic thinking instead of vice-a-versa.
I actually have no idea what argument you are making here. Can you be a teeny bit less vague and general?
QuoteThe same logic reinforced itself with decisions to ensure operational and tactical superiority in ways that basically involved doubling down on a very long odds bet - i.e. emphasizing the development and deployment of extremely resource intensive and mechancially complex machines like heavy tanks and jet aircraft, at the expense, of simpler, cheaper, less energy intensive and more reliable designs. And disaster ensued.
Certainly the Germans wasted vast amounts of resources developing tanks that were simply not operationally justifiable: the Maus, Ratte, Elephant, King Tiger, Jagdtiger, Elephant, etc. The Tiger itself does not fall into that category. It was built for a specific mission: to allow the Germans to attain tank superiority in a given locale, even though their main battle tanks were inferior to the opposition's. This is exactly why these were deployed in independent battalions, not attached to any division. That particular tank worked very well in its role.
Jet aircraft were, of course, were simpler and used less refined fuel than piston-engined aircraft. They just couldn't be manufactured very well using the materials available at the time (though, if you had enough spare engines, thsis wasn't a big deal, as an engine change-out was pretty simple). Where Hitler blundered, in absolutely typical Nazi fashion, was deciding that "good enough" should be sacrificed for "better" in this and all other things.
The Weird Reich was notable for the baronies that made decision-making so bureaucratic, and for an extreme element of wishful thinking that translated directly into operational planning. The mistake was not inverting strategic and operational thinking, the mistake was thinking that operational miracles would always occur to fulfill unrealistic strategic thinking. Germany had no realistic chances of defeating the USSR in a strictly military campaign, and the political campaign that might have brought them a glimmer of hope was anathema to Germany's leadership.
Also, let's not forget the antiquated dreadnought design that the Germans used.