Languish.org

General Category => Off the Record => Topic started by: CountDeMoney on August 30, 2011, 11:33:02 PM

Title: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: CountDeMoney on August 30, 2011, 11:33:02 PM
QuoteTeacher who faked military service sentenced to 21 months
Suspect exploited wars, terrorism for money, prosecutors say


By Peter Hermann, The Baltimore Sun


He duped FBI agents and small-town cops, students and child advocates, volunteer firefighters and war veterans into thinking he was a retired colonel in Army special operations who had fought terrorists and insurgents from Kabul to Bogota.

William G. Hillar packed rooms and pocketed speaking fees in big cities and tiny towns from Maryland to California, spending a dozen years spinning tall tales about the mujahedin, drug lords and his own daughter being kidnapped, sold into sex slavery and killed.

The 66-year-old teacher who grew up in Oregon and now lives in Millersville pleaded guilty in March to a single count of mail fraud. On Tuesday, he confessed to living a lie and apologized before a federal judge sentenced him to 21 months in prison.

It was not as much as prosecutors requested, but more than his attorney said he deserved.

Assistant Maryland U.S. Attorney Leo J. Wise called Hillar's lies "sociopathic" and said he exploited the suffering of others for profit. He said the lies were made even more egregious during wartime because he was teaching tactics to police and firefighters who relied on his advice to protect their citizens in post-9/11 America.

"They thought they were getting 'Black Hawk Down,' " Wise said during the hearing in U.S. District Court in Baltimore. "Instead, they got 'Rambo.' They got fiction."

Hillar got caught when a real member of the Army Special Forces saw one of his presentations and posted a question about the speaker's credentials on an Internet bulletin board run by a Green Beret support group called Professional Soldiers.

That group investigated and exposed him. Part of Hillar's undoing was that he stretched his credentials, claiming to be a member of too small a club. During the time of his deception, there were only three or four commanders with the rank of colonel in Army Special Forces.

Nobody in that part of the service had ever heard of Hillar.

"We find his conduct to be reprehensible," said Jeffrey D. Hinton, a retired Army special operations sergeant with 20 years' experience, who testified Tuesday. "We have had men killed in training attempting to obtain the rank that Mr. Hillar assigned to himself. He dishonored and disrespected those who have died."

Of the training Hillar offered, Hinton said: "It's worthless."

Speaking publicly for the first time since he was arrested in January, Hillar's purportedly eloquent speaking style and ability to mesmerize audiences for hours evaporated, replaced with a brief, contrite and halting apology.

"I take full responsibility for what I did," Hillar told U.S. Judge William D. Quarles Jr. "I apologize to those I have hurt and demeaned. I never intended to hurt anybody. I am sorry."

Hillar attributed his exuberance to his passion and said his deception started innocently when students assumed from his lectures that he had been in the military. "I never denied it," he told the court. "After a while, I adopted it."

His attorney, federal public defender Gary W. Christopher, admitted that what his client did was wrong. "He is a person who lied about who he was," the lawyer told Quarles.

But Christopher insisted Hillar did not do it for money. The $171,000 he collected in speaking fees and a small university salary was a total spread over 12 years, and he said Hillar emptied a trust fund to repay two dozen institutions, police and fire departments.

Hillar does have a real resume. He graduated from the University of Oregon in the 1960s with a bachelor's degree in psychology. He earned a master's degree in special education, but did not complete his doctorate, as he had claimed.

Instead of being a colonel in the army, he spent eight years in the Coast Guard, rising no higher than petty officer, third class. He retired not as a counter-terrorism commando, but as a radar man.

He has a daughter, alive and well in Oregon, but not a daughter who he said was kidnapped by sex traffickers from a train between Bangkok and Singapore in 1988. He claimed his experience to be the basis for the 2008 movie "Taken" starring Liam Neeson.

Christopher described his client as more a huckster who got caught up in visions of self-grandeur, a victim of his own "flawed ego" who "couldn't resist being a hero. ... He was not a hero. So he faked it."

The attorney said the FBI and other groups had to have seen value in Hillar's presentations because they kept inviting him back.

"They didn't hire him because of his made-up celebrity," the lawyer said. "They hired him because he packed the house. ... At the end of the day, his stories had value."

That prompted Quarles to ask whether defense counsel was asking the court to consider Hillar's lies "parables."

Christopher also said that his client did not profit from the false stories about his daughter's kidnapping.

The prosecutor said he did think Hillar profited from his tall tales and that the institutions he duped, many of them tiny police and fire departments, can't afford to lose money on meaningless training. He also displaced qualified instructors.

Federal sentencing guidelines call for 21 to 27 months in prison, and the prosecutor asked Quarles to lean toward the higher end of the range.

Quarles sentenced Hillar to the low end of the guidelines, and added 500 hours of community service and three years' supervised probation. Prosecutors said Hillar will perform his service at veterans cemeteries.

At the conclusion of his speech, Hillar told the court that every week he goes to BWI Thurgood Marshall Airport to welcome home returning troops.

"Believe it or not," he said. "I'm a patriot."
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Neil on August 30, 2011, 11:37:17 PM
He was probably just trying to get a job in civil service.  Veteran's preference really bites you in the ass when it keeps imaginative and talented people like this out, instead filling the place with mindless kill-droids or no-good Chair Force flunkies.
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Ideologue on August 30, 2011, 11:51:19 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 30, 2011, 11:37:17 PM
He was probably just trying to get a job in civil service.  Veteran's preference really bites you in the ass when it keeps imaginative and talented people like this out, instead filling the place with mindless kill-droids or no-good Chair Force flunkies.

I'm conflicted about this statement. :lol:
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Neil on August 30, 2011, 11:58:40 PM
I figured you'd enjoy my take on this thread.
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Tonitrus on August 31, 2011, 12:15:56 AM
Quote from: Neil on August 30, 2011, 11:37:17 PM
He was probably just trying to get a job in civil service.  Veteran's preference really bites you in the ass when it keeps imaginative and talented people like this out, instead filling the place with mindless kill-droids or no-good Chair Force flunkies.

Stop talking down my future job prospects.  :mad:
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Syt on August 31, 2011, 12:17:02 AM
Reminds me of a nutjob during the Victoria beta - purportedly an Afghanistan commando/gourmet chef/library of congress veteran etc.
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: The Brain on August 31, 2011, 12:38:05 AM
FWIW I haven't lied about my military background. It's all real. :)
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: 11B4V on August 31, 2011, 01:26:44 AM
Where does the POS T-62 come into play? Oh, he got what he deserved.
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Razgovory on August 31, 2011, 02:01:47 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on August 31, 2011, 01:26:44 AM
Where does the POS T-62 come into play? Oh, he got what he deserved.

Something from EUOT I think.  Brownbeard or Sir. Hockey (or maybe they were the same guy), went on about how Soviet tanks were better then American ones.  I'd say that the T-62 was an acceptable tank in the early 1960's, but didn't give nearly as much bang for it's buck as the T-55.  The major advantage of the T-55 was that it was cheap and easy to build (which would have come in handy in a long and protracted war).  The T-62 was more difficult to make and more expensive and was not appreciably better then the T-55.

Still, I'm of the opinion that the tank crew is more important then the tank itself.  And anyone who used such a tank (soviets included), tended to have poorly or under-trained crews
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: 11B4V on August 31, 2011, 02:20:28 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 31, 2011, 02:01:47 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on August 31, 2011, 01:26:44 AM
Where does the POS T-62 come into play? Oh, he got what he deserved.

Something from EUOT I think. 

Ah.

QuoteBrownbeard or Sir. Hockey (or maybe they were the same guy), went on about how Soviet tanks were better then American ones.  I'd say that the T-62 was an acceptable tank in the early 1960's, but didn't give nearly as much bang for it's buck as the T-55.  The major advantage of the T-55 was that it was cheap and easy to build (which would have come in handy in a long and protracted war).  The T-62 was more difficult to make and more expensive and was not appreciably better then the T-55.

Still, I'm of the opinion that the tank crew is more important then the tank itself.  And anyone who used such a tank (soviets included), tended to have poorly or under-trained crews

It's a POS due to the main gun ejection system. The Israelis proved how good a tank it was not. Hell they even replaced the gun.  :Joos :Joos
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: CountDeMoney on August 31, 2011, 05:05:48 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on August 31, 2011, 01:26:44 AM
Where does the POS T-62 come into play?

Raz is right, Old Sir Hockey reference from EUOT.  Goddamn, that was a funny ass thread when he was busted six ways out of his ass, and never came back.

The only thing funnier than his statements that Soviet reactive armor was better than Chobham armor was the fact that he said he left the Rangers to transfer to armor.  I mean, you don't even do that in Battlefield 2.
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: CountDeMoney on August 31, 2011, 05:14:13 AM
Quote from: Neil on August 30, 2011, 11:37:17 PM
Veteran's preference really bites you in the ass when it keeps imaginative and talented people like this out, instead filling the place with mindless kill-droids or no-good Chair Force flunkies.

I've had to let go of two Army guys and a Marine within the last year and a half.
All my zoomies have stayed, because they comprehend advanced programming concepts like Outlook.
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: 11B4V on August 31, 2011, 05:17:55 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 31, 2011, 05:14:13 AM
Quote from: Neil on August 30, 2011, 11:37:17 PM
Veteran's preference really bites you in the ass when it keeps imaginative and talented people like this out, instead filling the place with mindless kill-droids or no-good Chair Force flunkies.

I've had to let go of two Army guys and a Marine within the last year and a half.
All my zoomies have stayed, because they comprehend advanced programming concepts like Outlook.

Bet the zoomies couldn't clear a building unless they broke wind...lol
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: CountDeMoney on August 31, 2011, 05:29:50 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on August 31, 2011, 05:17:55 AM
Bet the zoomies couldn't clear a building unless they broke wind...lol

Their job is not to fuck up, something my Army guys couldn't grasp with both hands and an FM-1.  The zoomies can actually do things, like forward email and dial telephones.

I'd love to have Navy people, but they're all in the other department, doing cyberwarrior stuff against the Chinese and fucking with Ukranians.
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: 11B4V on August 31, 2011, 05:57:36 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 31, 2011, 05:29:50 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on August 31, 2011, 05:17:55 AM
Bet the zoomies couldn't clear a building unless they broke wind...lol

Their job is not to fuck up, something my Army guys couldn't grasp with both hands and an FM-1.  The zoomies can actually do things, like forward email and dial telephones.

I'd love to have Navy people, but they're all in the other department, doing cyberwarrior stuff against the Chinese and fucking with Ukranians.
:lmfao:
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Caliga on August 31, 2011, 06:04:42 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 31, 2011, 05:05:48 AM
Raz is right, Old Sir Hockey reference from EUOT.  Goddamn, that was a funny ass thread when he was busted six ways out of his ass, and never came back.
No, he came back... as his 'brother'. :lol:
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Ideologue on August 31, 2011, 06:31:12 AM
Quote from: Neil on August 30, 2011, 11:58:40 PM
I figured you'd enjoy my take on this thread.

I did.

Quote from: Money
I've had to let go of two Army guys and a Marine within the last year and a half.
All my zoomies have stayed, because they comprehend advanced programming concepts like Outlook.

:lol:
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Mr.Penguin on August 31, 2011, 06:54:30 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on August 31, 2011, 02:20:28 AM
It's a POS due to the main gun ejection system. The Israelis proved how good a tank it was not. Hell they even replaced the gun.  :Joos :Joos

Well, as far as I remember wasn't it the gun that was the problem, it was quite ok for its time and the Israelis did use the T-62 with its original 115mm main gun, it wasn't until later that they replaced the main gun the standard 105mm L7 gun. The Israelis simply considered the T-62 to a much less reliable Tank that the T-55, it was poorly build, a result of to much cost cutting in order to supply it as cheaply as possible to client stats...
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: 11B4V on August 31, 2011, 07:01:04 AM
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on August 31, 2011, 06:54:30 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on August 31, 2011, 02:20:28 AM
It's a POS due to the main gun ejection system. The Israelis proved how good a tank it was not. Hell they even replaced the gun.  :Joos :Joos

Well, as far as I remember wasn't it the gun that was the problem, it was quite ok for its time and the Israelis did use the T-62 with its original 115mm main gun, it wasn't until later that they replaced the main gun the standard 105mm L7 gun. The Israelis simply considered the T-62 to a much less reliable Tank that the T-55, it was poorly build, a result of to much cost cutting in order to supply it as cheaply as possible to client stats...

Read up on the ejection system.
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Mr.Penguin on August 31, 2011, 07:09:03 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on August 31, 2011, 07:01:04 AM
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on August 31, 2011, 06:54:30 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on August 31, 2011, 02:20:28 AM
It's a POS due to the main gun ejection system. The Israelis proved how good a tank it was not. Hell they even replaced the gun.  :Joos :Joos

Well, as far as I remember wasn't it the gun that was the problem, it was quite ok for its time and the Israelis did use the T-62 with its original 115mm main gun, it wasn't until later that they replaced the main gun the standard 105mm L7 gun. The Israelis simply considered the T-62 to a much less reliable Tank that the T-55, it was poorly build, a result of to much cost cutting in order to supply it as cheaply as possible to client stats...

Read up on the ejection system.

Yes, I know about the ejection system. Like the rest of the Tank poorly build, with the result that it couldn't always be trusted to eject the empty shell casing, but instead have it bounce around in the crew compartment...   
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: 11B4V on August 31, 2011, 07:09:38 AM
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on August 31, 2011, 07:09:03 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on August 31, 2011, 07:01:04 AM
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on August 31, 2011, 06:54:30 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on August 31, 2011, 02:20:28 AM
It's a POS due to the main gun ejection system. The Israelis proved how good a tank it was not. Hell they even replaced the gun.  :Joos :Joos

Well, as far as I remember wasn't it the gun that was the problem, it was quite ok for its time and the Israelis did use the T-62 with its original 115mm main gun, it wasn't until later that they replaced the main gun the standard 105mm L7 gun. The Israelis simply considered the T-62 to a much less reliable Tank that the T-55, it was poorly build, a result of to much cost cutting in order to supply it as cheaply as possible to client stats...

Read up on the ejection system.

Yes, I know about the ejection system. Like the rest of the Tank poorly build, with the result that it couldn't always be trusted to eject the empty shell casing, but instead have it bounce around in the crew compartment...
Yip :lmfao:
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Mr.Penguin on August 31, 2011, 07:15:36 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on August 31, 2011, 07:09:38 AM
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on August 31, 2011, 07:09:03 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on August 31, 2011, 07:01:04 AM
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on August 31, 2011, 06:54:30 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on August 31, 2011, 02:20:28 AM
It's a POS due to the main gun ejection system. The Israelis proved how good a tank it was not. Hell they even replaced the gun.  :Joos :Joos

Well, as far as I remember wasn't it the gun that was the problem, it was quite ok for its time and the Israelis did use the T-62 with its original 115mm main gun, it wasn't until later that they replaced the main gun the standard 105mm L7 gun. The Israelis simply considered the T-62 to a much less reliable Tank that the T-55, it was poorly build, a result of to much cost cutting in order to supply it as cheaply as possible to client stats...

Read up on the ejection system.

Yes, I know about the ejection system. Like the rest of the Tank poorly build, with the result that it couldn't always be trusted to eject the empty shell casing, but instead have it bounce around in the crew compartment...
Yip :lmfao:

And properly one of the reasons that the Israelis said "nice gun, but we prefer our 105mm L7 gun with it's manual ejection"... 
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Martim Silva on August 31, 2011, 08:38:31 AM
We here in Portugal had a similar issue some years back. One of our retired generals was eventually proven by the media never to have served in the military at all.

Worse of all was that "he" also turned out to be, in fact, a "she".

Humiliating.

Quote from: Mr.Penguin
Well, as far as I remember wasn't it the gun that was the problem, it was quite ok for its time and the Israelis did use the T-62 with its original 115mm main gun, it wasn't until later that they replaced the main gun the standard 105mm L7 gun. The Israelis simply considered the T-62 to a much less reliable Tank that the T-55, it was poorly build, a result of to much cost cutting in order to supply it as cheaply as possible to client stats...

The T-62 ended up being destined mostly for the export market. The real tank of the Union for the 60's was the T-64, which introduced the autoloader.
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: DGuller on August 31, 2011, 08:42:20 AM
You can't call a tank crap just because of one flaw.  By that standard, M4 Sherman is crap just because it had the flaw of always exploding on contact with enemy ordnance.
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: 11B4V on August 31, 2011, 08:49:46 AM
Quote from: DGuller on August 31, 2011, 08:42:20 AM
You can't call a tank crap just because of one flaw.  By that standard, M4 Sherman is crap just because it had the flaw of always exploding on contact with enemy ordnance.

Crap, Crap, Crap. I can and will. :blurgh:
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: grumbler on August 31, 2011, 09:07:12 AM
Quote from: DGuller on August 31, 2011, 08:42:20 AM
You can't call a tank crap just because of one flaw.  By that standard, M4 Sherman is crap just because it had the flaw of always exploding on contact with enemy ordnance.
The Sherman was hit often, which is why it burned so often.  The myth is that it burned often because of its uniquely gasoline-driven engine.  The fact is that pretty much everyone bar the Soviets (and even the Soviets prior to the T-34) used gasoline-powered engines until late war (and even then continued to produce gas-powered light tanks like the T-70).  Everyone who had gasoline-powered AFVs saw them burn.  The Sherman was no worse than the others, just more famous.
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Razgovory on August 31, 2011, 09:07:26 AM
Quote from: Martim Silva on August 31, 2011, 08:38:31 AM

The T-62 ended up being destined mostly for the export market. The real tank of the Union for the 60's was the T-64, which introduced the autoloader.

The Russians couldn't even reliably build the T-64 and as such they were never very numerous.  The real tank of the Warsaw pact remained the T-54/T-55/T-62 tanks which remained the most common tank in the Soviet inventory until it's collapse.
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Ideologue on August 31, 2011, 09:25:35 AM
Did they ever manage to make an autoloader that worked?
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Razgovory on August 31, 2011, 09:43:19 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 31, 2011, 09:25:35 AM
Did they ever manage to make an autoloader that worked?

The Russians operated a different way then we do.  If the US government purchased some tanks that would periodically tear off the arms of crew members we would consider it a failure.  The Russians would be fine with this, and consider it merely the price of doing business.  I don't consider the Russians incompetent, just differently competent.

An illustrative example:  An American and a Russian are both given one of those little toy sets were you hammer a specially shaped peg through a specially shaped hole.  The American looks around and finds a specific peg to fit a specific hole then hammers it in.  The Russian just grabs the nearest peg and hammers it into the nearest hole.  After enough hammering the peg does go through the hole.  Or at least most of it.  The Russian considers this an acceptable outcome.  The end result is the same, the peg goes through the hole.  The American simply uses finesse while the Russian relies on brute force.
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: DGuller on August 31, 2011, 10:07:35 AM
Quote from: grumbler on August 31, 2011, 09:07:12 AM
Quote from: DGuller on August 31, 2011, 08:42:20 AM
You can't call a tank crap just because of one flaw.  By that standard, M4 Sherman is crap just because it had the flaw of always exploding on contact with enemy ordnance.
The Sherman was hit often, which is why it burned so often.  The myth is that it burned often because of its uniquely gasoline-driven engine.  The fact is that pretty much everyone bar the Soviets (and even the Soviets prior to the T-34) used gasoline-powered engines until late war (and even then continued to produce gas-powered light tanks like the T-70).  Everyone who had gasoline-powered AFVs saw them burn.  The Sherman was no worse than the others, just more famous.
It wasn't the gasoline that burned often, it was the ammo that burned often.
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Ideologue on August 31, 2011, 10:50:00 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 31, 2011, 09:43:19 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 31, 2011, 09:25:35 AM
Did they ever manage to make an autoloader that worked?

The Russians operated a different way then we do.  If the US government purchased some tanks that would periodically tear off the arms of crew members we would consider it a failure.  The Russians would be fine with this, and consider it merely the price of doing business.  I don't consider the Russians incompetent, just differently competent.

An illustrative example:  An American and a Russian are both given one of those little toy sets were you hammer a specially shaped peg through a specially shaped hole.  The American looks around and finds a specific peg to fit a specific hole then hammers it in.  The Russian just grabs the nearest peg and hammers it into the nearest hole.  After enough hammering the peg does go through the hole.  Or at least most of it.  The Russian considers this an acceptable outcome.  The end result is the same, the peg goes through the hole.  The American simply uses finesse while the Russian relies on brute force.

But it raises the question, why do we have so much more brute force?
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Razgovory on August 31, 2011, 10:51:03 AM
Their country fell apart back in 1991.
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Darth Wagtaros on August 31, 2011, 11:38:28 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 31, 2011, 10:51:03 AM
Their country fell apart back in 1991.
Just what they wanted you to think Comrade.
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: MadImmortalMan on August 31, 2011, 01:12:26 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 31, 2011, 10:51:03 AM
Their country fell apart back in 1905.

FYP
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Admiral Yi on August 31, 2011, 03:23:15 PM
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on August 31, 2011, 06:54:30 AM
Well, as far as I remember wasn't it the gun that was the problem, it was quite ok for its time and the Israelis did use the T-62 with its original 115mm main gun, it wasn't until later that they replaced the main gun the standard 105mm L7 gun. The Israelis simply considered the T-62 to a much less reliable Tank that the T-55, it was poorly build, a result of to much cost cutting in order to supply it as cheaply as possible to client stats...

The T-62 gun was outranged by quite a bit in the Yom Kippur war.  That's a problem.
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: grumbler on August 31, 2011, 08:01:30 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 31, 2011, 10:07:35 AM
It wasn't the gasoline that burned often, it was the ammo that burned often.
True of all tanks with dry ammo storage.  The Sherman had a high profile, which made it easier to hit, especially in the sponsons above the tracks (which was used, against regs, to store amo).  This profile is what made the Sherman so vulnerable, not an increased tendency to burn.
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Razgovory on August 31, 2011, 09:48:17 PM
Quote from: grumbler on August 31, 2011, 08:01:30 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 31, 2011, 10:07:35 AM
It wasn't the gasoline that burned often, it was the ammo that burned often.
True of all tanks with dry ammo storage.  The Sherman had a high profile, which made it easier to hit, especially in the sponsons above the tracks (which was used, against regs, to store amo).  This profile is what made the Sherman so vulnerable, not an increased tendency to burn.

The Panther was only a few inches shorter then the Sherman.  Were all tanks of WWII dry stowage?
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Berkut on August 31, 2011, 10:18:36 PM
I think I read somewhere that the Panther might have had slightly more armor than a Sherman.
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: 11B4V on August 31, 2011, 10:28:39 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 31, 2011, 10:18:36 PM
I think I read somewhere that the Panther might have had slightly more armor than a Sherman.

I think your correct and a better main gun.... :lmfao:
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Neil on August 31, 2011, 10:54:38 PM
Are both better than an M1, because a mysterious super warrior posting from his stealth tank tells us so?
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Mr.Penguin on September 01, 2011, 04:39:45 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 31, 2011, 03:23:15 PM
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on August 31, 2011, 06:54:30 AM
Well, as far as I remember wasn't it the gun that was the problem, it was quite ok for its time and the Israelis did use the T-62 with its original 115mm main gun, it wasn't until later that they replaced the main gun the standard 105mm L7 gun. The Israelis simply considered the T-62 to a much less reliable Tank that the T-55, it was poorly build, a result of to much cost cutting in order to supply it as cheaply as possible to client stats...

The T-62 gun was outranged by quite a bit in the Yom Kippur war.  That's a problem.

Yes, it's light BM-6 APFSDS round did limit it's effective range to around 1500m, on the other hand did it have better penetration than the standard 105mm APDS used at the time. It also had a very flat and fast trajectory, making it easy to hit with, within it's effective combat range...

Also it's APFSDS round was much less likely to ricochet of sloped front armor, than the standard Israeli 105mm APDS rounds at the time. Something that proved to be quite a problem for the Israeli's doing the Yom Kippur war, resulting in a redesign of their 105mm APDS round after the war... 

On the negative side, did the large crude fins on BM-6 APFSDS round make it very susceptible to side winds, also the use of the BM-6's large shell casings in the cramp interior of a T-62 turret did almost half the rate of fire, compared to the 105mm L7 gun...   
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: grumbler on September 01, 2011, 09:12:51 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 31, 2011, 09:48:17 PM
The Panther was only a few inches shorter then the Sherman.  Were all tanks of WWII dry stowage?
More of the Panther's height was made up of relatively well-armored turret and not slab-sided hull.

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).
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Razgovory on September 01, 2011, 09:36:51 AM
That is interesting but not surprising.  The Shermans couldn't get better guns until someone dropped a bomb on Lesley McNair.  That guy was a disaster for the Army.  I never understood the TD doctrine.  I could for the Germans and Soviets, building a self-propelled gun without a turret was easier and cheaper. American ones did have a turret, so they couldn't be that much cheaper or easier to build.
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: DGuller on September 01, 2011, 10:29:45 AM
Quote from: grumbler on September 01, 2011, 09:12:51 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 31, 2011, 09:48:17 PM
The Panther was only a few inches shorter then the Sherman.  Were all tanks of WWII dry stowage?
More of the Panther's height was made up of relatively well-armored turret and not slab-sided hull.

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).
It could be that US didn't have enough experience saved up to upgrade the guns on their Shermans.
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: grumbler on September 01, 2011, 10:43:27 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 01, 2011, 09:36:51 AM
That is interesting but not surprising.  The Shermans couldn't get better guns until someone dropped a bomb on Lesley McNair. 
I think those who argue that US bombers never really contributed to the war against Germany are forgetting the importance of their role in killing McNair.  General McNair was responsible for more US combat deaths than any German general.
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Mr.Penguin on September 01, 2011, 10:54:31 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 01, 2011, 09:36:51 AM
That is interesting but not surprising.  The Shermans couldn't get better guns until someone dropped a bomb on Lesley McNair.  That guy was a disaster for the Army.  I never understood the TD doctrine.  I could for the Germans and Soviets, building a self-propelled gun without a turret was easier and cheaper. American ones did have a turret, so they couldn't be that much cheaper or easier to build.

Well, to be fair was the US Army TD doctrine base on a half assed French doctrine from 1940. where the French started to use truck mounted AT guns, TCC's (Tracteur Chasseur de Char). The doctrine had some success with shoot and scoot tactics, against German Tank units racing south along the main roads, after the fall of Paris. The US Army lagging an AT doctrine of their own adopted the french doctrine, first with truck or halftrack mounted AT gun, later with fully tracked vehicle like the M10 GMC TD. All open topped to insure maximum field of view, also not to restrict the rate of fire...

This doctrine however really never worked at the front line for at number of reasons. First the unit commander needed somehow to know in advance where the enemy armor breakthrough world come, so he could be at the right place and time to setup an ambush. Secondly these open topped TD's was to vulnerable to stay at the front line for to long, if the enemy was sneaky enough to use thing like artillery or close infantry support. Thirdly, the shoot and scoot tactic only really work as you are prepared to give ground. And last but not least, the TD units operated Independent of the infantry and armor unit they was suppose to support...   
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: grumbler on September 01, 2011, 12:22:55 PM
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on September 01, 2011, 10:54:31 AM
Well, to be fair was the US Army TD doctrine base on a half assed French doctrine from 1940. where the French started to use truck mounted AT guns, TCC's (Tracteur Chasseur de Char). The doctrine had some success with shoot and scoot tactics, against German Tank units racing south along the main roads, after the fall of Paris. The US Army lagging an AT doctrine of their own adopted the french doctrine, first with truck or halftrack mounted AT gun, later with fully tracked vehicle like the M10 GMC TD. All open topped to insure maximum field of view, also not to restrict the rate of fire...

This doctrine however really never worked at the front line for at number of reasons. First the unit commander needed somehow to know in advance where the enemy armor breakthrough world come, so he could be at the right place and time to setup an ambush. Secondly these open topped TD's was to vulnerable to stay at the front line for to long, if the enemy was sneaky enough to use thing like artillery or close infantry support. Thirdly, the shoot and scoot tactic only really work as you are prepared to give ground. And last but not least, the TD units operated Independent of the infantry and armor unit they was suppose to support...
McNair's TD doctrine rejected, by and large, self-propelled tank destroyers for as long as possible.  McNair believed that towed At guns (which he called "tank destroyers)" was the way to go, which is why the US still had towed AT units long after they could easily have mechanized them.   McNair only accepted the concept of SP AT when the towed units had suffered enormous losses and were employing field expedients to avoid dying. 

When McNair did accept the concept of SP tank destroyers, his concept was that they would be used offensively, not defensively.  They had light armor and traversing turrets because they were supposed to be always in motion ("speed is armor") looking for enemy tanks and destroying them with the first shot (thus the impetus for gyrostabilization).  Artillery wasn't a threat to moving TDs, so open tops were employed as the means to spot the enemy first and get in the first (and last) shot.

It didn't work, of course, but McNair had no way (barring employing even the slightest amount of common sense) of knowing that it wouldn't work.
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Mr.Penguin on September 01, 2011, 12:43:53 PM
Quote from: grumbler on September 01, 2011, 12:22:55 PMMcNair's TD doctrine rejected, by and large, self-propelled tank destroyers for as long as possible.  McNair believed that towed At guns (which he called "tank destroyers)" was the way to go, which is why the US still had towed AT units long after they could easily have mechanized them.   McNair only accepted the concept of SP AT when the towed units had suffered enormous losses and were employing field expedients to avoid dying. 

When McNair did accept the concept of SP tank destroyers, his concept was that they would be used offensively, not defensively.  They had light armor and traversing turrets because they were supposed to be always in motion ("speed is armor") looking for enemy tanks and destroying them with the first shot (thus the impetus for gyrostabilization).  Artillery wasn't a threat to moving TDs, so open tops were employed as the means to spot the enemy first and get in the first (and last) shot.

It didn't work, of course, but McNair had no way (barring employing even the slightest amount of common sense) of knowing that it wouldn't work.

Can't say much about McNair's doctrine or if he had any influence on the on the TD doctrine I described above, but it was the doctrine they used for their GMC's (Gun Motor Carriage) by the time the US Army landed North Africa and they more or less spent the rest of the war trying to find a way to make it work...
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Razgovory on September 01, 2011, 01:01:04 PM
The Germans had good success with towed anti-tank guns.  The PaKfronts proved quite useful against an armored attack.  Why didn't the US see the same success?
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: frunk on September 01, 2011, 01:15:53 PM
I think the big mistake with towed AT was trying to use them in an offensive role.  Defensively they could be quite effective.
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Mr.Penguin on September 01, 2011, 01:26:56 PM
Quote from: frunk on September 01, 2011, 01:15:53 PM
I think the big mistake with towed AT was trying to use them in an offensive role.  Defensively they could be quite effective.

Yeah, the aggressively moving towed guns around sounds more like something you would do with light horse artillery doing Napoleon's time...   
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: grumbler on September 01, 2011, 01:53:06 PM
The Germans used towed AT guns very aggressively and very effectively up until airpower became ubiquitous.  The US Army didn't understand for quite some time that such AT guns were very vulnerable to air and artillery and that their time had passed.  Once you had air and artillery all over the place, towed AT had to be entrenched to survive, which meant they couldn't be used aggressively.  The US had little use for defensive systems.
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Mr.Penguin on September 01, 2011, 02:02:57 PM
Quote from: grumbler on September 01, 2011, 01:53:06 PM
The Germans used towed AT guns very aggressively and very effectively up until airpower became ubiquitous.  The US Army didn't understand for quite some time that such AT guns were very vulnerable to air and artillery and that their time had passed.  Once you had air and artillery all over the place, towed AT had to be entrenched to survive, which meant they couldn't be used aggressively.  The US had little use for defensive systems.

The German use of towed AT gun was always in close cooperation with other arms, not like the US counter who move around on the battlefield, only supported it's own recon team...
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: grumbler on September 01, 2011, 03:27:54 PM
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on September 01, 2011, 02:02:57 PM
The German use of towed AT gun was always in close cooperation with other arms, not like the US counter who move around on the battlefield, only supported it's own recon team...
Disagree about the Germans.  Earlier in the war, they often used large AT gun screens independent of the main battle line and the rest of the division, especially to ambush allied armored counter-attacks.   German heavy AT guns were assigned to battalions attached to the divisions expressly so that they could be used like this.  You are correct that, later in the war, they were almost never used independently, largely because airpower meant that they couldn't independently achieve the surprise they enjoyed early in the war, and they could be countered with smoke, airpower, and artillery.
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Darth Wagtaros on September 01, 2011, 04:06:09 PM
Quote from: grumbler on September 01, 2011, 12:22:55 PM
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on September 01, 2011, 10:54:31 AM
Well, to be fair was the US Army TD doctrine base on a half assed French doctrine from 1940. where the French started to use truck mounted AT guns, TCC's (Tracteur Chasseur de Char). The doctrine had some success with shoot and scoot tactics, against German Tank units racing south along the main roads, after the fall of Paris. The US Army lagging an AT doctrine of their own adopted the french doctrine, first with truck or halftrack mounted AT gun, later with fully tracked vehicle like the M10 GMC TD. All open topped to insure maximum field of view, also not to restrict the rate of fire...

This doctrine however really never worked at the front line for at number of reasons. First the unit commander needed somehow to know in advance where the enemy armor breakthrough world come, so he could be at the right place and time to setup an ambush. Secondly these open topped TD's was to vulnerable to stay at the front line for to long, if the enemy was sneaky enough to use thing like artillery or close infantry support. Thirdly, the shoot and scoot tactic only really work as you are prepared to give ground. And last but not least, the TD units operated Independent of the infantry and armor unit they was suppose to support...
McNair's TD doctrine rejected, by and large, self-propelled tank destroyers for as long as possible.  McNair believed that towed At guns (which he called "tank destroyers)" was the way to go, which is why the US still had towed AT units long after they could easily have mechanized them.   McNair only accepted the concept of SP AT when the towed units had suffered enormous losses and were employing field expedients to avoid dying. 

When McNair did accept the concept of SP tank destroyers, his concept was that they would be used offensively, not defensively.  They had light armor and traversing turrets because they were supposed to be always in motion ("speed is armor") looking for enemy tanks and destroying them with the first shot (thus the impetus for gyrostabilization).  Artillery wasn't a threat to moving TDs, so open tops were employed as the means to spot the enemy first and get in the first (and last) shot.

It didn't work, of course, but McNair had no way (barring employing even the slightest amount of common sense) of knowing that it wouldn't work.
grumbler's numerous rants aside, historical trivia like this is why I patronize Languish.
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: grumbler on September 01, 2011, 04:32:33 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on September 01, 2011, 04:06:09 PM
grumbler's numerous rants aside, historical trivia like this is why I patronize Languish.
:lmfao:  Well, the personal attack won't work; they never have.  I'll keep posting anyway. 

All you do with cracks like that is poison the atmosphere of Languish and drive off those who are sensitive to random unpleasantness.
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: DGuller on September 01, 2011, 05:02:40 PM
Man, you sure don't know how to take a compliment.
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Ed Anger on September 01, 2011, 05:05:09 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 01, 2011, 05:02:40 PM
Man, you sure don't know how to take a compliment.

Let me try.

Grumbler, you are a very sexy man.
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Slargos on September 01, 2011, 05:16:39 PM
Grumbler knows on an intuitive level that he is a fucking cunt, and so expects even compliments to be veiled insults.


Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: HisMajestyBOB on September 01, 2011, 05:31:41 PM
Quote from: grumbler on September 01, 2011, 04:32:33 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on September 01, 2011, 04:06:09 PM
grumbler's numerous rants aside, historical trivia like this is why I patronize Languish.
:lmfao:  Well, the personal attack won't work; they never have.  I'll keep posting anyway. 

All you do with cracks like that is poison the atmosphere of Languish and drive off those who are sensitive to random unpleasantness.

But we still haven't driven off Martinus, despite all our best efforts.  :huh:
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: DGuller on September 01, 2011, 05:33:53 PM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on September 01, 2011, 05:31:41 PM
Quote from: grumbler on September 01, 2011, 04:32:33 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on September 01, 2011, 04:06:09 PM
grumbler's numerous rants aside, historical trivia like this is why I patronize Languish.
:lmfao:  Well, the personal attack won't work; they never have.  I'll keep posting anyway. 

All you do with cracks like that is poison the atmosphere of Languish and drive off those who are sensitive to random unpleasantness.

But we still haven't driven off Martinus, despite all our best efforts.  :huh:
Ugh, don't remind us.
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Siege on September 01, 2011, 06:41:03 PM
What's the whole story with this Sir Hockey?
I remember he claimed to be a ranger.
I didn't know he also claimed to be armor, nor about this thing with the T-62.

Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: The Minsky Moment on September 01, 2011, 06:41:05 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 01, 2011, 05:02:40 PM
Man, you sure don't know how to take a compliment.

To call someone a habitual ranter who recounts entertaining trivia is not exactly the highest of complements.
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: DGuller on September 01, 2011, 06:57:05 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 01, 2011, 06:41:05 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 01, 2011, 05:02:40 PM
Man, you sure don't know how to take a compliment.

To call someone a habitual ranter who recounts entertaining trivia is not exactly the highest of complements.
Well, it's not like grumbler is showered with compliments around here.  He should take what he can get.
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Caliga on September 01, 2011, 07:26:25 PM
Quote from: Siege on September 01, 2011, 06:41:03 PM
What's the whole story with this Sir Hockey?
I remember he claimed to be a ranger.
I didn't know he also claimed to be armor, nor about this thing with the T-62.
Yeah, he claimed to be both, which was the first red flag.  IIRC one of Berkut, grumbler, or Money called him on that.  Then someone else asked him what his MOS was and he said he forgot and "it wasn't important".  Then because people started calling him out he posted a pic he claimed was of him and his company, and someone else pointed out that was the first pic that came up on Google Image when you type "Airborne Rangers" in. :lol:
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Admiral Yi on September 01, 2011, 07:30:17 PM
von Biscuit outed him.  He asked him his Ranger class number (which turns out to be just the year you attended plus a 1 through 4), then Hockey went into a protracted shpiel about needing to look it up on his forms, which were not handy.
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Caliga on September 01, 2011, 07:34:16 PM
Oh yeah, that's right.
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Siege on September 01, 2011, 07:37:24 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 31, 2011, 05:05:48 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on August 31, 2011, 01:26:44 AM
Where does the POS T-62 come into play?

Raz is right, Old Sir Hockey reference from EUOT.  Goddamn, that was a funny ass thread when he was busted six ways out of his ass, and never came back.

The only thing funnier than his statements that Soviet reactive armor was better than Chobham armor was the fact that he said he left the Rangers to transfer to armor.  I mean, you don't even do that in Battlefield 2.


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

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg145.imageshack.us%2Fimg145%2F4677%2Fdscn0418bc.jpg&hash=2c91e954d3dc6cabe3804d9cdbd2a7eb553059f2)
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Caliga on September 01, 2011, 07:44:38 PM
lol, I found the thread:

Quote from: Sir Hockey
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.
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Siege on September 01, 2011, 07:46:07 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 01, 2011, 07:30:17 PM
von Biscuit outed him.  He asked him his Ranger class number (which turns out to be just the year you attended plus a 1 through 4), then Hockey went into a protracted shpiel about needing to look it up on his forms, which were not handy.

I'm pretty sure there are more than 4 classes per year. I would guess 10 per year, but I'll have to ask an RI (ranger instructor).
There are 10 sniper classes a year, but it is a completely diferent school, so I might be far off in my guess.
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Siege on September 01, 2011, 07:50:48 PM
Quote from: Caliga on September 01, 2011, 07:44:38 PM
lol, I found the thread:

Quote from: Sir Hockey
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.

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.

Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: MadImmortalMan on September 01, 2011, 07:51:56 PM
Aww. I want my name on a tank in a third-world shithole too.  :Embarrass:
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Siege on September 01, 2011, 07:55:59 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 01, 2011, 07:51:56 PM
Aww. I want my name on a tank in a third-world shithole too.  :Embarrass:

You have to offend me, make me angry, make me quitrage, and then maybe, maybe, I shall grant you your wish.
You'll have to wait to late 2012 though.
And, you'll have to remind me.
I got PTSD. I forget everything.

Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Neil on September 01, 2011, 07:56:54 PM
I get my name all over all sorts of things.  I am:  Famous.
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Caliga on September 01, 2011, 08:02:58 PM
Weird... I thought I had posted in that thread, but there are no Caliga posts in there. :hmm:

Yeah, Otto is the one who owned him, but Berk was the first one to call him a liar.
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Admiral Yi on September 01, 2011, 08:08:37 PM
Quote from: Siege on September 01, 2011, 07:37:24 PM
By the way, can you identify this tank?
I'll give you a clue: It ain't a T-55.

T-54?
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Siege on September 01, 2011, 08:12:04 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 01, 2011, 08:08:37 PM
Quote from: Siege on September 01, 2011, 07:37:24 PM
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.

Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Admiral Yi on September 01, 2011, 08:15:19 PM
Quote from: Siege on September 01, 2011, 07:50:48 PM
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.
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Siege on September 01, 2011, 08:16:17 PM
T-55

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Ff%2Ffd%2FT-55_schematic.png%2F800px-T-55_schematic.png&hash=148dbd6edc4d9206bae2e34cf7bf2d9ffbdb79bd)


And T-62
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Ff%2Ffe%2F272b-T-62.jpg&hash=4a0a10062762ba2e6f04b9f3d34dbdc2f4bab26a)


Notice the diferences in the carriage and turret.
The one in my picture is a T-62.
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: CountDeMoney on September 01, 2011, 08:56:02 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 01, 2011, 07:56:54 PM
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.
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Razgovory on September 01, 2011, 09:06:53 PM
Quote from: Siege on September 01, 2011, 07:50:48 PM

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.
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: CountDeMoney on September 01, 2011, 09:09:04 PM
Quote from: Caliga on September 01, 2011, 07:44:38 PM
lol, I found the thread:

Quote from: Sir Hockey
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.
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Monoriu on September 01, 2011, 09:17:18 PM
Can someone enlighten me about what's wrong with leaving the rangers for armour?  :unsure:
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Neil on September 01, 2011, 09:27:51 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 01, 2011, 08:56:02 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 01, 2011, 07:56:54 PM
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.
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: CountDeMoney on September 01, 2011, 09:31:05 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 01, 2011, 09:27:51 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 01, 2011, 08:56:02 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 01, 2011, 07:56:54 PM
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.
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Siege on September 01, 2011, 09:32:25 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 01, 2011, 09:06:53 PM
Quote from: Siege on September 01, 2011, 07:50:48 PM

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.

Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Neil on September 01, 2011, 09:37:43 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 01, 2011, 09:31:05 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 01, 2011, 09:27:51 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 01, 2011, 08:56:02 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 01, 2011, 07:56:54 PM
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.
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Siege on September 01, 2011, 09:58:54 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on September 01, 2011, 09:17:18 PM
Can someone enlighten me about what's wrong with leaving the rangers for armour?  :unsure:

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.

Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: LaCroix on September 01, 2011, 10:02:39 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on September 01, 2011, 09:17:18 PM
Can someone enlighten me about what's wrong with leaving the rangers for armour?  :unsure:

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
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: jimmy olsen on September 01, 2011, 11:07:04 PM
Quote from: grumbler on September 01, 2011, 09:12:51 AM
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 :bleeding:
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Razgovory on September 01, 2011, 11:17:32 PM
Quote from: Siege on September 01, 2011, 09:32:25 PM

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.

More importantly, it's expensive.  I imagine tank training is more expensive (especially before simulators), then infantry training.  Tanks break down a lot, and go through a lot of spare parts.  They also require fuel and expensive ammo.  Infantry can practice maneuvers on foot with out using a lot of resources.  Tanks, not so much.
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Siege on September 01, 2011, 11:18:03 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on September 01, 2011, 10:02:39 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on September 01, 2011, 09:17:18 PM
Can someone enlighten me about what's wrong with leaving the rangers for armour?  :unsure:

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

The Great Hive.
No better analogy for China I have ever heard.

Great name for the Enemy.
Make no mistake, China is the Enemy.

Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Siege on September 01, 2011, 11:20:01 PM
Fighting the Bees just got a new name.

Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Siege on September 01, 2011, 11:20:41 PM
I meant, a new meaning.

too many Miller Lites
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Mr.Penguin on September 02, 2011, 01:27:19 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 01, 2011, 11:07:04 PM
Quote from: grumbler on September 01, 2011, 09:12:51 AM
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 :bleeding:

The project with fielding a vehicle based 90mm atcually started in late 42, a project that lead to the M36 GMC. However it was an uphill struggle to get it in the field, as the bean counters and the top brass was against the idea of having to deal with yet another tank round in the logistic chain. Basically the same reasons as why the M4 Sherman wasn't equipped with the 76mm before the spring 1944, the M36 GMC with it's 90mm gun wasn't approved for field use until right after the D-day landings...

All a result of a doctrine where Tanks deal with the infantry support and TD's deal with enemy armor, no reason mix thing up...   
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Razgovory on September 02, 2011, 01:45:12 AM
I can sympathize with not wanting more logistic headaches, but the TD doctrine was a stupid result of Army turf wars.  Similar to the Tank-combat car fight that happened earlier.  More damning for McNair was his training regimen that left soldiers (especially infantry) insufficiently trained.  The result was that American Infantry had poor morale through out most of the ETO.  The replacement system was also a major problem, but that wasn't really his fault.  That was more of a political decision based on the perceived need to keep men working in factories.
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Siege on September 02, 2011, 02:22:03 AM
Fuck man, you have no idea how much an officer's training influence on his decisions when he makes it up the ranks.
My current battalion commander was never a Recon Platoon Leader, so he doesn't know what to do with a Recon platoon, the most flexible force avalible to a Battalion Commander.
He was a Line Infantry Platoon Leader, an Infantry Company XO, an Infantry Company Commander, an Infantry Battalion XO, an now an Infantry Battalion Commander, without a clue of what to do with a Recon Platoon.

What can I say?
Big Army should never promote somebody to Battalion Commander without being a Recon Platoon Leader.

Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: grumbler on September 02, 2011, 07:06:50 AM
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on September 02, 2011, 01:27:19 AM
The project with fielding a vehicle based 90mm atcually started in late 42, a project that lead to the M36 GMC. However it was an uphill struggle to get it in the field, as the bean counters and the top brass was against the idea of having to deal with yet another tank round in the logistic chain. Basically the same reasons as why the M4 Sherman wasn't equipped with the 76mm before the spring 1944, the M36 GMC with it's 90mm gun wasn't approved for field use until right after the D-day landings...
The ironic thing is that the main reason the 76mm gun took so long to field in the Sherman was the inadequacy of the 76mm HE round; an excellent 90mm HE round was already in hand, though.  There was no reason to field the 76mm Sherman.  You could have taken those same tanks, plunked in the 90mm gun, and added nothing to the logistics train, because there would have been no 76mm version.  The 90mm M3 gun was actually available long before the M36 was available to carry it, and could have been produced instead of the very mediocre 76mm M6.
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Mr.Penguin on September 02, 2011, 08:07:36 AM
Quote from: grumbler on September 02, 2011, 07:06:50 AM
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on September 02, 2011, 01:27:19 AM
The project with fielding a vehicle based 90mm atcually started in late 42, a project that lead to the M36 GMC. However it was an uphill struggle to get it in the field, as the bean counters and the top brass was against the idea of having to deal with yet another tank round in the logistic chain. Basically the same reasons as why the M4 Sherman wasn't equipped with the 76mm before the spring 1944, the M36 GMC with it's 90mm gun wasn't approved for field use until right after the D-day landings...
The ironic thing is that the main reason the 76mm gun took so long to field in the Sherman was the inadequacy of the 76mm HE round; an excellent 90mm HE round was already in hand, though.  There was no reason to field the 76mm Sherman.  You could have taken those same tanks, plunked in the 90mm gun, and added nothing to the logistics train, because there would have been no 76mm version.  The 90mm M3 gun was actually available long before the M36 was available to carry it, and could have been produced instead of the very mediocre 76mm M6.

You couldn't take a standard M4 Sherman and fit the 90mm gun in it. They already had problems fitting the 76mm gun, due to the balance of the turret and ended up using a cut down version of the 76mm gun...

They did however make a prototype turret with the 90mm gun, that could be fitted to a standard M4 Sherman hull as it used the same turret ring...

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg32.imageshack.us%2Fimg32%2F4428%2Ft26turretonm4chassis.jpg&hash=8189ba1fee6683d226ef227cdb84cc362deef493)

It was ready for testing in April 1944, but it was canceled by the ordnance department as they feared it's testing and production would interfere with the fielding of the M26 Pershing Tank... 
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: grumbler on September 02, 2011, 10:57:19 AM
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on September 02, 2011, 08:07:36 AM
You couldn't take a standard M4 Sherman and fit the 90mm gun in it. They already had problems fitting the 76mm gun, due to the balance of the turret and ended up using a cut down version of the 76mm gun...
There is no such thing as a standard M4 Sherman.  There were many M4 Shermans.  The M4 with the T23 turret could take (and did take) the 90mm M3 gun as a direct and field-replaceable replacement for the 76mm M6.  It was fielded as the M36B1 (though the turret was completed as an open-topped turret to conform with TD doctrine).  I would imagine they would have had to add a bustle on the back of the turret to balance the increased weight of the gun, as they had had to do for the 105mm.

QuoteThey did however make a prototype turret with the 90mm gun, that could be fitted to a standard M4 Sherman hull as it used the same turret ring...

It was ready for testing in April 1944, but it was canceled by the ordnance department as they feared it's testing and production would interfere with the fielding of the M26 Pershing Tank... 
They tested the T26 turret on the M4 hull, as shown in the pictures.  This was a completely different concept and never saw action.
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Mr.Penguin on September 02, 2011, 11:52:42 AM
Quote from: grumbler on September 02, 2011, 10:57:19 AM
There is no such thing as a standard M4 Sherman.  There were many M4 Shermans.  The M4 with the T23 turret could take (and did take) the 90mm M3 gun as a direct and field-replaceable replacement for the 76mm M6.  It was fielded as the M36B1 (though the turret was completed as an open-topped turret to conform with TD doctrine).  I would imagine they would have had to add a bustle on the back of the turret to balance the increased weight of the gun, as they had had to do for the 105mm.

When I say standard M4 turret do I mean the early turrets used for the Shermans with the 75mm gun, generally known as the one cupolas turrets. The T-23 turret came from the T-23 medium Tank project and was designed with a 76mm gun from the start, so it was used to solve the problem with early one cupola turrets and the 76mm. The production of Sherman's with the T23 turret didn't start before May 1944 and didn't arrive at the front before late 1944...
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Habbaku on September 02, 2011, 11:53:06 AM
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on September 02, 2011, 11:52:42 AM
Quote from: grumbler on September 02, 2011, 10:57:19 AM
There is no such thing as a standard M4 Sherman.  There were many M4 Shermans.  The M4 with the T23 turret could take (and did take) the 90mm M3 gun as a direct and field-replaceable replacement for the 76mm M6.  It was fielded as the M36B1 (though the turret was completed as an open-topped turret to conform with TD doctrine).  I would imagine they would have had to add a bustle on the back of the turret to balance the increased weight of the gun, as they had had to do for the 105mm.

When I say standard M4 turret do I mean the early turrets used for the Shermans with the 75mm gun, generally known as the one cupolas turrets. The T-23 turret came from the T-23 medium Tank project and was designed with a 76mm gun from the start, so it was used to solve the problem with early one cupola turrets and the 76mm. The production of Sherman's with the T23 turret didn't start before May 1944 and didn't arrive at the front before late 1944...
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Siege on September 02, 2011, 11:56:07 AM
Quote from: Habbaku on September 02, 2011, 11:53:06 AM
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on September 02, 2011, 11:52:42 AM
Quote from: grumbler on September 02, 2011, 10:57:19 AM
There is no such thing as a standard M4 Sherman.  There were many M4 Shermans.  The M4 with the T23 turret could take (and did take) the 90mm M3 gun as a direct and field-replaceable replacement for the 76mm M6.  It was fielded as the M36B1 (though the turret was completed as an open-topped turret to conform with TD doctrine).  I would imagine they would have had to add a bustle on the back of the turret to balance the increased weight of the gun, as they had had to do for the 105mm.

When I say standard M4 turret do I mean the early turrets used for the Shermans with the 75mm gun, generally known as the one cupolas turrets. The T-23 turret came from the T-23 medium Tank project and was designed with a 76mm gun from the start, so it was used to solve the problem with early one cupola turrets and the 76mm. The production of Sherman's with the T23 turret didn't start before May 1944 and didn't arrive at the front before late 1944...
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: grumbler on September 02, 2011, 11:57:51 AM
Quote from: Siege on September 02, 2011, 11:56:07 AM
Quote from: Habbaku on September 02, 2011, 11:53:06 AM
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on September 02, 2011, 11:52:42 AM
Quote from: grumbler on September 02, 2011, 10:57:19 AM
There is no such thing as a standard M4 Sherman.  There were many M4 Shermans.  The M4 with the T23 turret could take (and did take) the 90mm M3 gun as a direct and field-replaceable replacement for the 76mm M6.  It was fielded as the M36B1 (though the turret was completed as an open-topped turret to conform with TD doctrine).  I would imagine they would have had to add a bustle on the back of the turret to balance the increased weight of the gun, as they had had to do for the 105mm.

When I say standard M4 turret do I mean the early turrets used for the Shermans with the 75mm gun, generally known as the one cupolas turrets. The T-23 turret came from the T-23 medium Tank project and was designed with a 76mm gun from the start, so it was used to solve the problem with early one cupola turrets and the 76mm. The production of Sherman's with the T23 turret didn't start before May 1944 and didn't arrive at the front before late 1944...
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Mr.Penguin on September 02, 2011, 12:01:30 PM
Yeah, I have seen it, a failed attempt at reducing the number of quotes, my bad...

But once again here is reply: When I say standard M4 turret do I mean the early turrets used for the Shermans with the 75mm gun, generally known as the one cupolas turrets. The T-23 turret came from the T-23 medium Tank project and was designed with a 76mm gun from the start, so it was used to solve the problem with early one cupola turrets and the 76mm. The production of Sherman's with the T23 turret didn't start before May 1944 and didn't arrive at the front before late 1944...

Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Habbaku on September 02, 2011, 12:07:32 PM
The end of a sentence only needs one period. :smarty:
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Barrister on September 02, 2011, 12:33:28 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on September 02, 2011, 12:07:32 PM
The end of a sentence only needs one period. :smarty:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipsis

:hmm:
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Habbaku on September 02, 2011, 12:35:04 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 02, 2011, 12:33:28 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on September 02, 2011, 12:07:32 PM
The end of a sentence only needs one period. :smarty:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipsis

:hmm:

So, basically, you think he just has an attention-span issue?  I can see that, I suppose.
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: grumbler on September 02, 2011, 12:40:52 PM
The 76mm version of the M4 started production in February 1944.  Some of them were available to units in Normandy.

My point is that it appears that the 90mm gun used in the M36 could be fitted instead of the 76mm gun (and was, in fact, so fitted in the version of the M4 know as the M36B1) but this was not pursued due to inefficiencies in the US Army's bureaucracy.

Tanks with the 75mm gun could not be so retrofitted (though some were retrofitted to 76mm guns, but not very satisfactorily due to turret size issues).
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: The Brain on September 02, 2011, 12:46:04 PM
yi has a 76mm gun
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: 11B4V on September 02, 2011, 02:05:53 PM
Quote from: Siege on September 01, 2011, 09:58:54 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on September 01, 2011, 09:17:18 PM
Can someone enlighten me about what's wrong with leaving the rangers for armour?  :unsure:
I would say that going from Ranger to Armor is one big step back. Something no true infantryman would do.

Well put Siege.
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: grumbler on September 02, 2011, 05:58:48 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on September 02, 2011, 02:05:53 PM
Quote from: Siege on September 01, 2011, 09:58:54 PM
I would say that going from Ranger to Armor is one big step back. Something no true infantryman would do.

Well put Siege.
Indeed.  I haven't seen the "No true Scotsman" fallacy so nakedly espoused in ages.  Most people know better.
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Razgovory on September 02, 2011, 06:05:41 PM
I'd rather be in the tank.  You get to sit down while you fight.  Also, bullets aren't as likely to hurt you.
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Ed Anger on September 02, 2011, 06:08:21 PM
I'd rather be in a trailer in the States flying a drone. Get fancy ribbon for 'flying' missions. Get medal at Chucky Cheese after mission.
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: CountDeMoney on September 02, 2011, 06:15:48 PM
Quote from: grumbler on September 02, 2011, 10:57:19 AM
There is no such thing as a standard M4 Sherman.

The M4 Sherman RS.
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Siege on September 02, 2011, 06:51:18 PM
Quote from: The Brain on September 02, 2011, 12:46:04 PM
yi has a 76mm gun

Faggot, use your right hand to grasp the small of the stock and hold it against the right side of your waist. The butt of the stock will extend to the rear of your buttox. Use your left arm. Slightly bent at the elbow. Grasp the weapon just below the swing swivel using your left hand. Turn the weapon so the magazine well is facing down. Raise the bayonet to throat level. Place your feet together as done for the position of attention at a halt.
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Siege on September 02, 2011, 07:02:04 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 02, 2011, 06:05:41 PM
I'd rather be in the tank.  You get to sit down while you fight.  Also, bullets aren't as likely to hurt you.

That's the whole point. With the kind of wars we are fighting these days tank crewmen don't do much.
Why would I submit my life to live under military discipline, working endless hours, no overtime, etc, if I am not going to get the oportunity to make a diference and wack the enemy?

Said that, 19 Kilos when they deploy have to go out and patrol in Hummvees. Yeah, they don't get the real bad AOs, but still.
You know, 19 Kilos have a saying: "I don't carry my weapon, my weapon carries me". To that I say "Fuck no, I carry my fucking weapon!"

Gotta go. Shabbat coming up.
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Razgovory on September 02, 2011, 08:34:55 PM
Quote from: Siege on September 02, 2011, 07:02:04 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 02, 2011, 06:05:41 PM
I'd rather be in the tank.  You get to sit down while you fight.  Also, bullets aren't as likely to hurt you.

That's the whole point. With the kind of wars we are fighting these days tank crewmen don't do much.
Why would I submit my life to live under military discipline, working endless hours, no overtime, etc, if I am not going to get the oportunity to make a diference and wack the enemy?

Said that, 19 Kilos when they deploy have to go out and patrol in Hummvees. Yeah, they don't get the real bad AOs, but still.
You know, 19 Kilos have a saying: "I don't carry my weapon, my weapon carries me". To that I say "Fuck no, I carry my fucking weapon!"

Gotta go. Shabbat coming up.

Do they get air conditioning?
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Mr.Penguin on September 03, 2011, 02:20:55 AM
Quote from: grumbler on September 02, 2011, 12:40:52 PM
The 76mm version of the M4 started production in February 1944.  Some of them were available to units in Normandy.

The M4 shermans with the 76mm gun avaliable in Normandy was of the early type, with one copula turrets and the cut down version of the 76mm gun, the barrel length was reduced with 15 inches (38cm), neutered version of the 76mm gun...   

Quote from: grumbler on September 02, 2011, 12:40:52 PMMy point is that it appears that the 90mm gun used in the M36 could be fitted instead of the 76mm gun (and was, in fact, so fitted in the version of the M4 know as the M36B1) but this was not pursued due to inefficiencies in the US Army's bureaucracy.

The M36B1 GMC was a M4A3 hull with the open top turret of the M36 GMC, build as a stop gab measure from October 1944 due to the urgent need for 90mm armed TD's. So the M36B1 is still an open top TD, little different from the standard M36 GMC, apart the better protected hull...

The key to having M4 Shermans armed with the 90mm gun early on, is the T-23 turret and whether or not the 90mm gun could be fitted in it. The T-23 turret was as mentioned earlier from the T-23 medium Tank project, a project that was cleared for limited production in May 1943. So quite early on do we have a turret, for the m4 Sherman, that might be able fit the 90mm or at least a cut down version of it...

In short is it about politics and Lesley McNair's constant resistance against the need for a better Tank gun than the 75mm...
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: The Brain on September 03, 2011, 03:04:50 AM
Quote from: Siege on September 02, 2011, 06:51:18 PM
Quote from: The Brain on September 02, 2011, 12:46:04 PM
yi has a 76mm gun

Faggot, use your right hand to grasp the small of the stock and hold it against the right side of your waist. The butt of the stock will extend to the rear of your buttox. Use your left arm. Slightly bent at the elbow. Grasp the weapon just below the swing swivel using your left hand. Turn the weapon so the magazine well is facing down. Raise the bayonet to throat level. Place your feet together as done for the position of attention at a halt.

OK. Now what?
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Darth Wagtaros on September 03, 2011, 05:21:45 AM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on September 01, 2011, 05:31:41 PM
Quote from: grumbler on September 01, 2011, 04:32:33 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on September 01, 2011, 04:06:09 PM
grumbler's numerous rants aside, historical trivia like this is why I patronize Languish.
:lmfao:  Well, the personal attack won't work; they never have.  I'll keep posting anyway. 

All you do with cracks like that is poison the atmosphere of Languish and drive off those who are sensitive to random unpleasantness.

But we still haven't driven off Martinus, despite all our best efforts.  :huh:
I was trying to say that grumbler is a font of pleasant to learn facts too. :(
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: DGuller on September 03, 2011, 06:13:45 PM
Speaking of Shermans, I came across the interview of a Soviet tank commander who was fighting in Shermans.  Surprisingly, he has a lot of good things to say about the tank.  http://www.battlefield.ru/en/memoirs/369-loza.html  He also has a book about it.
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Razgovory on September 03, 2011, 06:19:00 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 03, 2011, 06:13:45 PM
Speaking of Shermans, I came across the interview of a Soviet tank commander who was fighting in Shermans.  Surprisingly, he has a lot of good things to say about the tank.  http://www.battlefield.ru/en/memoirs/369-loza.html  He also has a book about it.

Did he write the book before or after the Soviet Union fell?  I think I've read his interview before.
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: DGuller on September 03, 2011, 06:21:36 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 03, 2011, 06:19:00 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 03, 2011, 06:13:45 PM
Speaking of Shermans, I came across the interview of a Soviet tank commander who was fighting in Shermans.  Surprisingly, he has a lot of good things to say about the tank.  http://www.battlefield.ru/en/memoirs/369-loza.html  He also has a book about it.

Did he write the book before or after the Soviet Union fell?  I think I've read his interview before.
After.
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Admiral Yi on September 03, 2011, 06:43:52 PM
Interesting article.
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Razgovory on September 03, 2011, 07:04:28 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 03, 2011, 06:43:52 PM
Interesting article.

Yeah, one of things I found interesting was that the battalion mechanic was just some guy who once drove a tractor.  I've heard the skilled personnel were hard to come by in the early Soviet Union.  I wonder what that guys American or German or British counterpart would be.  The US had lots of pre-war cars and tractors so finding people who knew how to repair and maintain an engine would probably not be as difficult.  I wonder if the that guys American counterpart would be a mechanical engineer or something similar.
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Admiral Yi on September 03, 2011, 07:07:47 PM
I found it interesting that the dude focused so much on the drive train vs. the gun and armor.
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Razgovory on September 03, 2011, 07:44:08 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 03, 2011, 07:07:47 PM
I found it interesting that the dude focused so much on the drive train vs. the gun and armor.

Gun and armor are more important to the war gaming crowd.  Not breaking down ever five miles is probably more important to the actual soldiers.
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: CountDeMoney on September 04, 2011, 12:06:30 AM
You guys ever want to read a fascinating war memoir on armor, read Death Traps: The Survival of an American Armored Division in World War II (http://www.amazon.com/Death-Traps-Survival-American-Division/dp/0891418148/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1315112360&sr=8-3).

Not only appropriately critical of the Sherman's performance, but a fantastic look into the logistics of keeping those things running on the front.  Tank recovery was a motherfucker.  Anybody that's a critic of Patton would enjoy this book.  Very detailed but a fast read, and written by a sharp, no-nosense, rather humble lieutenant.

Probably one of the best wartime memoirs I've read.
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Razgovory on September 04, 2011, 01:01:44 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 04, 2011, 12:06:30 AM
You guys ever want to read a fascinating war memoir on armor, read Death Traps: The Survival of an American Armored Division in World War II (http://www.amazon.com/Death-Traps-Survival-American-Division/dp/0891418148/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1315112360&sr=8-3).

Not only appropriately critical of the Sherman's performance, but a fantastic look into the logistics of keeping those things running on the front.  Tank recovery was a motherfucker.  Anybody that's a critic of Patton would enjoy this book.  Very detailed but a fast read, and written by a sharp, no-nosense, rather humble lieutenant.

Probably one of the best wartime memoirs I've read.

I've actually been meaning to read that one.  Is that the one where the guy calculates how much gas it would take for the whole division to advance 100 yards?  I'm actually reading a memoir from WWII.  "Enemy, North, South, East, West", about a forward observer at Mortain.  A lot of about artillery doctrines and such.
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Berkut on September 04, 2011, 01:16:12 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 04, 2011, 12:06:30 AM
You guys ever want to read a fascinating war memoir on armor, read Death Traps: The Survival of an American Armored Division in World War II (http://www.amazon.com/Death-Traps-Survival-American-Division/dp/0891418148/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1315112360&sr=8-3).

Not only appropriately critical of the Sherman's performance, but a fantastic look into the logistics of keeping those things running on the front.  Tank recovery was a motherfucker.  Anybody that's a critic of Patton would enjoy this book.  Very detailed but a fast read, and written by a sharp, no-nosense, rather humble lieutenant.

Probably one of the best wartime memoirs I've read.

Patton was a pretty kick ass general, but he was pretty stupid when it came to armor and the realities of its use in late WW2. He really, really, REALLY wanted armor to be the cavalry of the day, and hence wanted his armor fast and lightly armored, so it could go run around in the rear areas destroying C3.

Most had figured out by late WW2 that that was a great idea in theory, but in reality armor had to win the breakthrough battle first. Patton never wanted to accept that.
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Razgovory on September 04, 2011, 02:33:29 AM
I may be a minority on this, but I think the Sherman was a pretty good tank.  It was easy to build, reasonably effective and reliable.  It displayed it's weakness in Normandy and Italy, but was quite impressive in the race across France and the invasion of Germany.  I'm not fully sold on the importance of Heavy Tanks.  They were good in tank duels and close combat, but less useful for the rapid advance.  It would seem the rapid advance into the enemy rear is the most important thing.  It did fit the doctrine wonderfully.  Unfortunately the doctrine was flawed.
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Mr.Penguin on September 04, 2011, 03:26:54 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 04, 2011, 02:33:29 AM
I may be a minority on this, but I think the Sherman was a pretty good tank.  It was easy to build, reasonably effective and reliable.  It displayed it's weakness in Normandy and Italy, but was quite impressive in the race across France and the invasion of Germany.  I'm not fully sold on the importance of Heavy Tanks.  They were good in tank duels and close combat, but less useful for the rapid advance.  It would seem the rapid advance into the enemy rear is the most important thing.  It did fit the doctrine wonderfully.  Unfortunately the doctrine was flawed.

An easy to use reliable medium Tank is key to winning the war, not slow, expensive heavies...   
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: The Brain on September 04, 2011, 03:50:24 AM
Why is even a discussion of American tanks mostly about what the Shermans did and didn't do?
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Admiral Yi on September 04, 2011, 04:07:12 AM
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on September 04, 2011, 03:26:54 AM
An easy to use reliable medium Tank is key to winning the war, not slow, expensive heavies...

I would be inclined to say that air superiority was the key.  I think I read somewhere that all King Tigers destroyed on the western front were destroyed by air attack.  Zero by tanks, antitank guns, and infantry.
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: jimmy olsen on September 04, 2011, 04:38:55 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 04, 2011, 02:33:29 AM
I may be a minority on this, but I think the Sherman was a pretty good tank.  It was easy to build, reasonably effective and reliable.  It displayed it's weakness in Normandy and Italy, but was quite impressive in the race across France and the invasion of Germany.  I'm not fully sold on the importance of Heavy Tanks.  They were good in tank duels and close combat, but less useful for the rapid advance.  It would seem the rapid advance into the enemy rear is the most important thing.  It did fit the doctrine wonderfully.  Unfortunately the doctrine was flawed.
It was good enough, but as Grumbler said it wouldn't have been difficult to give it a much stronger punch. If they'd gone in Normandy with 90mm guns the campaign would have been less bloody for sure.
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Neil on September 04, 2011, 05:50:36 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 04, 2011, 04:38:55 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 04, 2011, 02:33:29 AM
I may be a minority on this, but I think the Sherman was a pretty good tank.  It was easy to build, reasonably effective and reliable.  It displayed it's weakness in Normandy and Italy, but was quite impressive in the race across France and the invasion of Germany.  I'm not fully sold on the importance of Heavy Tanks.  They were good in tank duels and close combat, but less useful for the rapid advance.  It would seem the rapid advance into the enemy rear is the most important thing.  It did fit the doctrine wonderfully.  Unfortunately the doctrine was flawed.
It was good enough, but as Grumbler said it wouldn't have been difficult to give it a much stronger punch. If they'd gone in Normandy with 90mm guns the campaign would have been less bloody for sure.
Maybe.  They would still have taken a shitkicking in the hedgerows though.
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: grumbler on September 04, 2011, 06:15:16 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 04, 2011, 04:07:12 AM
I would be inclined to say that air superiority was the key.  I think I read somewhere that all King Tigers destroyed on the western front were destroyed by air attack.  Zero by tanks, antitank guns, and infantry.
Air superiority was the key to Blitzkrieg, for sure.  I think that the major problem that plagued tank doctrine was the unwillingness of the tankers to accept that the Blitzkrieg had worked because of factors that no longer applied.  Infantry anti-tank weapons and air power had made tank operations in other than infantry support simply too expensive.

Heavy tanks have their place in some doctrinal schemes, but I would agree that, in general, they were a waste of money.  Not because they are so slow per se, but because they are so limited in terms of the roads and bridges they can use.
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Darth Wagtaros on September 04, 2011, 06:52:00 AM
So what would you say was the impact of the Arab-Israeli Wars on tank doctrine?
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Iormlund on September 04, 2011, 07:10:39 AM
Don't ever wander beyond AA cover.
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Mr.Penguin on September 04, 2011, 07:34:41 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 04, 2011, 04:07:12 AM
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on September 04, 2011, 03:26:54 AM
An easy to use reliable medium Tank is key to winning the war, not slow, expensive heavies...

I would be inclined to say that air superiority was the key.  I think I read somewhere that all King Tigers destroyed on the western front were destroyed by air attack.  Zero by tanks, antitank guns, and infantry.

Lets just say that the flyboys claims usually was a bit inflated, already in Normandy did they claim to have knocked out more Tigers that there was build doing the whole war. I say it for sure, but I believe more King Tigers was lost to break downs than to enemy fire...   
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Mr.Penguin on September 04, 2011, 07:39:42 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on September 04, 2011, 06:52:00 AM
So what would you say was the impact of the Arab-Israeli Wars on tank doctrine?

Focus on long range gunnery and better protection against infantry tank hunter teams... 
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: CountDeMoney on September 04, 2011, 07:55:41 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on September 04, 2011, 06:52:00 AM
So what would you say was the impact of the Arab-Israeli Wars on tank doctrine?

Don't buy Russian, and let the Israelis pimp out your tank.
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Berkut on September 04, 2011, 08:39:52 AM
I don't think much of anyone really bought into the "heavy" tank doctrine by late in the war. What we mostly consider heavy tanks (Tiger, IS, etc.) were really more designed as heavy armor more than heavy tanks in the manner that the pre-war doctrines imagined various tanks in various roles. The role of big tanks was really to destroy enemy tanks, as opposed to the pre-war doctrinal role of heavy tanks which was typically to take on fortifications and be able to ignore enemy AT and artillery.

The Sherman was a decent tank for what it was designed to do. But the Americans let themselves get behind the doctrinal curve, and refused to learn the lessons that were being taught throughout the war about how armor was used, and how it actually worked. There was not reason for this other than doctrine - the Americans could certainly have deployed a much more capable Sherman much earlier.
Title: Re: T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor
Post by: Razgovory on September 04, 2011, 09:08:29 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 04, 2011, 02:33:29 AM
I may be a minority on this, but I think the Sherman was a pretty good tank.  It was easy to build, reasonably effective and reliable.  It displayed it's weakness in Normandy and Italy, but was quite impressive in the race across France and the invasion of Germany.  I'm not fully sold on the importance of Heavy Tanks.  They were good in tank duels and close combat, but less useful for the rapid advance.  It would seem the rapid advance into the enemy rear is the most important thing.  It did fit the doctrine wonderfully.  Unfortunately the doctrine was flawed.

Please disregard the last two sentences of this post.  I rewrote the post but must have left the last two sentences in.  They referred to the Sherman tank and not the Heavies.