Register here

Author Topic: M-1 Replacement  (Read 63165 times)

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7365
"I love those who can smile in trouble, who can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but they whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves their conduct, will pursue their principles unto death." - Leonardo da Vinci

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7365
"I love those who can smile in trouble, who can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but they whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves their conduct, will pursue their principles unto death." - Leonardo da Vinci

Offline Abraham Gubler

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3555
Re: M-1 Replacement
« Reply #137 on: March 25, 2017, 08:26:36 pm »
It is difficult for those who have not experienced it, to comprehend the effects of muzzle blast from a high velocity tank gun.  Perhaps it could be possible to ask for permission to stand next to a tank when it fires, even a lower velocity practice round.

You know what's worse than muzzle blast effects? Being shot. Also the blast effects of a tank gun should not conflict with the position of friendly, dismounted infantry in close proximity. Who will tend to be behind and beside in line with the rear of the tank. Also in urban close combat most infantry will be inside the structures while the tanks are in the streets.

The tank in an urban environment is a wasted and overly expensive asset for the role.

The tank is ideally suited for urban combat if used correctly. As it remains the only combat system with protection against threat weapons, mobility to cross obstacles and highly lethal weaponry. As to its cost if and when it gets written off it still remains much cheaper than the cost of the lives of the soldiers that would have to die to achieve the mission and of course the cost of mission failure.

Combat experience and battle simulation has proven this time and time again.
"There is a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable." Thomas Schelling

Offline Abraham Gubler

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3555
Re: M-1 Replacement
« Reply #138 on: March 25, 2017, 08:40:02 pm »
Until abt 1980, Russia had better tanks than the US. We are, in a sense, returning to the traditional order.

LOL. Cue:

"There is a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable." Thomas Schelling

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7365
Re: M-1 Replacement
« Reply #139 on: March 26, 2017, 02:18:15 pm »
It is difficult for those who have not experienced it, to comprehend the effects of muzzle blast from a high velocity tank gun.  Perhaps it could be possible to ask for permission to stand next to a tank when it fires, even a lower velocity practice round.

You know what's worse than muzzle blast effects? Being shot. Also the blast effects of a tank gun should not conflict with the position of friendly, dismounted infantry in close proximity. Who will tend to be behind and beside in line with the rear of the tank. Also in urban close combat most infantry will be inside the structures while the tanks are in the streets.

The tank in an urban environment is a wasted and overly expensive asset for the role.

The tank is ideally suited for urban combat if used correctly. As it remains the only combat system with protection against threat weapons, mobility to cross obstacles and highly lethal weaponry. As to its cost if and when it gets written off it still remains much cheaper than the cost of the lives of the soldiers that would have to die to achieve the mission and of course the cost of mission failure.

Combat experience and battle simulation has proven this time and time again.
https://www.facebook.com/RealClearDefense/videos/1304037839687169/

Look at the -3:25 mark two soldiers standing awfully close to a firing tank.
"I love those who can smile in trouble, who can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but they whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves their conduct, will pursue their principles unto death." - Leonardo da Vinci

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9470
Re: M-1 Replacement
« Reply #140 on: March 26, 2017, 02:38:23 pm »
And how many times do you see guys sticking their heads out of the turret while firing?  (Tried to find one of a driver sticking his head out while firing, with no luck.  I'm sure they're out there though.  :o )



« Last Edit: March 26, 2017, 02:41:17 pm by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Foo Fighter

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 226
  • I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Re: M-1 Replacement
« Reply #141 on: March 26, 2017, 03:07:23 pm »
It is difficult for those who have not experienced it, to comprehend the effects of muzzle blast from a high velocity tank gun.  Perhaps it could be possible to ask for permission to stand next to a tank when it fires, even a lower velocity practice round.

You know what's worse than muzzle blast effects? Being shot. Also the blast effects of a tank gun should not conflict with the position of friendly, dismounted infantry in close proximity. Who will tend to be behind and beside in line with the rear of the tank. Also in urban close combat most infantry will be inside the structures while the tanks are in the streets.

The tank in an urban environment is a wasted and overly expensive asset for the role.

The tank is ideally suited for urban combat if used correctly. As it remains the only combat system with protection against threat weapons, mobility to cross obstacles and highly lethal weaponry. As to its cost if and when it gets written off it still remains much cheaper than the cost of the lives of the soldiers that would have to die to achieve the mission and of course the cost of mission failure.

Combat experience and battle simulation has proven this time and time again.

What is your background for understanding this scenario?  Do you have the required experience or are you just working from what you read?

Take a look at the tanks that have been lost in urban combat, there are enough youtube etc videos.

Tanks cannot be considered mobile when the streets are full of rubble, they just cannot work effectively and are useless unless you throw dismounted infantry ahead of them, this will lead to the situation in an urban environment.

Offline Void

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 125
Re: M-1 Replacement
« Reply #142 on: March 26, 2017, 05:35:00 pm »
Take a look at the tanks that have been lost in urban combat, there are enough youtube etc videos.

That we see tanks destroyed in cities is further evidence that they are still seen as valuable enough in urban combat to send them there in the first place.

Offline Kadija_Man

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1642
Re: M-1 Replacement
« Reply #143 on: March 26, 2017, 08:05:03 pm »
Tanks provide more than sufficient firepower, with armoured protection to allow them to destroy most strong points with direct fire.  However, they are effectively "blind" when closed down, when in urban environments, which allows the enemy to approach closely and attack them, unless they have sufficient infantry supporting them.  Indeed, the idea of attacking urban sites with armoured forces alone is considered crazy by most tacticians.  People seem to forget that today, most armies utilise "combined arms teams" - armour, infantry and other supporting arms to provide them with sufficient firepower and the means to overcome obstacles/strong points when they encounter them.   

This was confirmed by the Israelis in 1982 when the invaded Lebanon.  They tried to send M113s with infantry inside to support tanks in the cities they were attacking.  The infantry were reluctant to leave their APCs and as a result everybody suffered casualties from RPGs and ATGWs.   Nowadays, the Israelis kick their mounts out and make them walk when they reach the outer limits of the cities.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1595
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: M-1 Replacement
« Reply #144 on: March 26, 2017, 09:44:43 pm »
And how many times do you see guys sticking their heads out of the turret while firing?  (Tried to find one of a driver sticking his head out while firing, with no luck.  I'm sure they're out there though.  :o )


It's a bad scene, man. Cue Kenny Loggins.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9470
Re: M-1 Replacement
« Reply #145 on: March 27, 2017, 05:16:21 am »
Take a look at the tanks that have been lost in urban combat, there are enough youtube etc videos.

Planes still get shot down.  Does that mean they're useless too?
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline DrRansom

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 394
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: M-1 Replacement
« Reply #146 on: March 27, 2017, 06:13:49 am »
Until abt 1980, Russia had better tanks than the US. We are, in a sense, returning to the traditional order.

LOL.

Patton versus T-72 or T-64? The latter models had better FCS, but were still out armored and out gunned by their Soviet contemporaries.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9470
Re: M-1 Replacement
« Reply #147 on: March 27, 2017, 06:20:00 am »
Until abt 1980, Russia had better tanks than the US. We are, in a sense, returning to the traditional order.

LOL.

Patton versus T-72 or T-64? The latter models had better FCS, but were still out armored and out gunned by their Soviet contemporaries.

And how did the T-72 do against USMC M60s in Desert Storm?
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Kadija_Man

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1642
Re: M-1 Replacement
« Reply #148 on: March 27, 2017, 06:31:25 am »
Until abt 1980, Russia had better tanks than the US. We are, in a sense, returning to the traditional order.

LOL.

Patton versus T-72 or T-64? The latter models had better FCS, but were still out armored and out gunned by their Soviet contemporaries.

And how did the T-72 do against USMC M60s in Desert Storm?

Iraqi T-72s were "monkey models" with plain steel armour and and plain steel penetrators for their guns.  They had simplified FCS and crews who were barely trained.   Now, how did the T-72M1 tested by the West Germans do against all that AT weaponry at the same time?  Even the US Army was forced to admit that the German results of testing were correct in ascertaining that that version of the T-72 was immune to all NATO AT weapons (including US Army 120mm penetrators  BTW) from the frontal quarter.

Offline DrRansom

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 394
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: M-1 Replacement
« Reply #149 on: March 27, 2017, 08:53:52 am »
And how did the T-72 do against USMC M60s in Desert Storm?

About as badly as you'd expect an undertrained force operating after a month of constant air attack facing an army which had months to prepare.