Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Tanks 101

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Leo Anderson, Sergeant, US Army.

    Some things that I have seen in combat that were disgusting and disturbing to any Tanker.

    Many times I've seen our tanks engage German tanks in duels. Their tanks have the ups on us. their guns and armour are far better than ours. On this particular occasion, just north of Wurselen, Germany, our column was advancing toward its objective when suddenly we began to draw direct fire from German tanks. At once we located two MK V Tanks at about 2800 to 3000 yards away. At once our tank destroyers and tanks opened fire on them. The gunner had the eye to hit but our guns didn't have the power to knock them out. I saw our Tank destroyers and self propelled guns get several direct hits on the Kraut Tanks but the projectiles just bounced off the Jerries. The Jerries guns didn't fail. They knocked out three of our tank destryers and a Sherman tank at 2800 to 3000 yards range. If our tanks had been as good as the German tanks, they would never have scored a hit.

    Give us the tanks that compare with the Jerries tanks and we have the rest.No soldier could have ever fought with better spirit than our boys have, full knowing that we were facing better equipment than that which we were using ourselves.

    I am a Tank Commander and veteran of Africa, Sicily, France, Belgium, Holland and Germany.
    Who have you got next, Leo anderson makes it 1-1?

    Regards,
    ID

    Edited to add: Few things to note here. First, this Guy has served in every major theatre and campaign from 1942 through to 1945. He knows tanks at the sharp end inside out. Second, he wants better equipment. He thinks he is a better soldier and is being held back because his kit is inferior. This is not your standard complaint, this man wants to fight on equal terms, nothing more. Thirdly, a practical example, an actual engagement recollected, nothing theoretical here. Fourthly, he's seen many duels. His Sherman may have been designed for other things, but he went head to head with German armour frequently, and when he did so, he doesn't seem to have found a more reliable engine all that much of a help when 75 and 88 mm shot is flying about.

    Now, you can ignore people like this, but that just invalidates your own evidence, it doesn;t invalidate Sergeant Anderson's experiences.

    Maybe someone British tomorrow, just to show this was not an American phenomena.
    Regards,
    ID
    Last edited by IronDuke; 02 Dec 12, 19:12.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by IronDuke View Post
      I don't see why something needs to be designed to do something to actually do it.
      Here's a neat movie about chasing an all-terrain vehicle:


      Attached are images of a delivery van and a door handle. A tank may be the "main" tank in a country's arsenal (i.e., most numerous, like the 6-ton M1917 for the US in the late teens/early '20s), but "main battle tank" is a specific construct.

      Originally posted by IronDuke View Post
      How would you describe a Tank that leads armoured assaults, supports infantry attacks, leads the pursuit when the enemy turns to run and duels with enemy vehicles wherever it finds them?
      In World War II, probably a medium tank, since those were missions commonly (doctrinally, as far as the US and Germans were concerned) assigned to medium tanks. Just because medium tanks were that versatile doesn't make morph them into a postwar vehicle type any more than being cheap morphs a fork into a car door handle.

      For what it's worth, I agree in hindsight that the US could have used a more potent armor-piercing gun on its medium tank. Veterans, though, were quite content with their 75s up until Normandy, partly because the US Army Ordnance Department had everyone convinced that the 3"/76 mm guns would be up to the task of taking on heavier German tanks. Their predictions were off the mark, however.
      Attached Files
      Last edited by DogDodger; 02 Dec 12, 22:20.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by IronDuke View Post
        Here we go....

        Do I have to type out White?

        If I can get 50 veterans to your one, is that enough of a ratio to be declared the winner? What are the rules of engagement?

        Probably not, since the post seems analysis light, so we have no idea what you're actually saying anyway, do we...?

        Righty ho...well late now. Extensive postings from White demonstrating how bad elements of 2nd Armoured thought their vehicles were tomorrow to counteract this. You can then post a picture of a Panther from an unusual angle and claim it proves the existence of UFOs and we can resume hostilities.

        You seem to regard every contradiction of your case as a personal slight and you find it impossible to respond rationaly (or without gratuitous insult) whenever contradicted.
        I believe you are slightly unhinged and the combative tone tells me you are failed to learn from your past mistakes.
        If you are looking for a fight then you are out of luck.
        You can believe/post whatever you want, it makes no difference to me.
        I posted it for the open minded who will gain much insight from Lt. Col. Irzyk's analysis.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by IronDuke View Post
          Leo Anderson, Sergeant, US Army.

          Some things that I have seen in combat that were disgusting and disturbing to any Tanker.

          Many times I've seen our tanks engage German tanks in duels. Their tanks have the ups on us. their guns and armour are far better than ours. On this particular occasion, just north of Wurselen, Germany, our column was advancing toward its objective when suddenly we began to draw direct fire from German tanks. At once we located two MK V Tanks at about 2800 to 3000 yards away. At once our tank destroyers and tanks opened fire on them. The gunner had the eye to hit but our guns didn't have the power to knock them out. I saw our Tank destroyers and self propelled guns get several direct hits on the Kraut Tanks but the projectiles just bounced off the Jerries. The Jerries guns didn't fail. They knocked out three of our tank destryers and a Sherman tank at 2800 to 3000 yards range. If our tanks had been as good as the German tanks, they would never have scored a hit.

          Give us the tanks that compare with the Jerries tanks and we have the rest.No soldier could have ever fought with better spirit than our boys have, full knowing that we were facing better equipment than that which we were using ourselves.

          I am a Tank Commander and veteran of Africa, Sicily, France, Belgium, Holland and Germany.

          Who have you got next, Leo anderson makes it 1-1?

          Regards,
          ID

          Edited to add: Few things to note here. First, this Guy has served in every major theatre and campaign from 1942 through to 1945. He knows tanks at the sharp end inside out. Second, he wants better equipment. He thinks he is a better soldier and is being held back because his kit is inferior. This is not your standard complaint, this man wants to fight on equal terms, nothing more. Thirdly, a practical example, an actual engagement recollected, nothing theoretical here. Fourthly, he's seen many duels. His Sherman may have been designed for other things, but he went head to head with German armour frequently, and when he did so, he doesn't seem to have found a more reliable engine all that much of a help when 75 and 88 mm shot is flying about.

          Now, you can ignore people like this, but that just invalidates your own evidence, it doesn;t invalidate Sergeant Anderson's experiences.

          Maybe someone British tomorrow, just to show this was not an American phenomena.
          Regards,
          ID
          "I am a Tank Commander and veteran of Africa, Sicily, France, Belgium, Holland and Germany."

          NOTE: I have included the sargeant's quote and am showing for a second time a particular portion of it above.

          Note that this brave man served everywhere the Allies used armor excluding the Pacific. Everywhere. He has survived. I find that important because if Allied armor was as bad in the way you and he say then he would not have survived the war. If our armor was so horrendous no tankers would have made it from start to finish? Would they?

          Look at what else he has to say:
          "Their tanks have the ups on us. their guns and armour are far better than ours...."At once our tank destroyers and tanks opened fire on them. The gunner had the eye to hit but our guns didn't have the power to knock them out...."

          In describing his engagement his assessment of our armor is based solely on the shortcomings of our guns. We can all easily recognize that the guns of an M4 had less penetrating power than the German 88 of the Tiger and 75 of the Panther. This does not make for a better tank and thicker armor does not either. Yes, of course it makes for a better tank for a duel of MkV vs. M4 or MkVI vs. M4. This is pretty clear though one can easily point out the number of times the M4 killed the MkV and VI...I'm sure you would not accept this as evidence that the M4 was the superior tank.

          Let's look at your conclusions of Sergeant Anderson's remarks.
          1.)He knows tanks...yes, but he only discusses armor and gun. Hardly an in depth discussion of tanks or tank warfare.
          2.) He wants better kit so he can do a better job and be on equal terms with enemy tanks....understandable but he has talked precious little of his experience. He doesn't tell us what else he did during his long career nor what type of fighting he did or what tanks he faced. Did he face few tanks? Did he face mostly MkIV's? What did he think of the tank when taking out MG's, pillboxes, etc?
          3.) An actual engagement but one of many I would think. What else did this brave soldier do? Can we hear of those experiences?
          4.) I'll let your words do the talking:
          "Fourthly, he's seen many duels. His Sherman may have been designed for other things, but he went head to head with German armour frequently, and when he did so, he doesn't seem to have found a more reliable engine all that much of a help when 75 and 88 mm shot is flying about."
          I don't see mention of many duels. Has he ever faced MkIII's and IV's? Stugs? Has he ever been in a fight where V's and VI's were killed by M4's?

          Somehow we fought well with the M4. We knocked out tanks with thicker armor and longer range guns. When it comes down to it fielding your weapon in numbers on a regular basis is what gets the job done and the M4 did that better than the German armor. I understand your idea of what is "better" but I don't think it is what wins wars. I don't think it is what won WWII.

          Here's what I go by:
          "In the fierce three day action at Rocherath, tankers of the 741st Tank Battalion proved themselves adept at the art of way laying and killing Tigers. From well camouflaged positions, by expert maneuvering and stalking, tank after tank of the enemy forces were destroyed by flank and tail shots of the battalion's gunners. Recapitulation at the end of the encounter showed the battalion as having knocked out twenty-seven enemy tanks (mostly Mk VI's), one SP gun, two armored cars, two half tracks, and two trucks.
          In contrast to the number of enemy vehicles destroyed, our tank losses were comparatively small. A total of eight tanks were lost to enemy action."
          The Infantry's Armor, p222-3.
          Yeide goes on to say that the 38th Infantry Regiment's S-3 assessed enemy losses as 78 tanks and SP guns to US infantry, armor, and artillery.
          John

          Play La Marseillaise. Play it!

          Comment


          • Originally posted by m kenny View Post
            ... I posted it for the open minded who will gain much insight from Lt. Col. Irzyk's analysis.
            This seems to be a most relevant paragraph:

            In discussing tanks,many forget that the tank is not a vehicle built primarily to fight other tanks. Rather, its mission above all others is to get into the enemy’s rear areas, to disorganize him, to destroy supply and communications, and generally to wreck havoc there. This is done mainly with its 30 caliber machine guns, especially the one mounted co-axially, and with high-explosive fire from the tank cannon. The tank cannon’s chief function, however, is to protect the tank while it is disrupting, exploiting, and destroying the enemy. Of course, very, very often a few well placed shots from the tank cannon will be much more effective than the 30 caliber machine guns, and therefore the cannon is used very frequently in offensive action.
            Regards
            Scott Fraser
            Ignorance is not the lack of knowledge. It is the refusal to learn.

            A contentedly cantankerous old fart

            Comment


            • Originally posted by DogDodger View Post
              In World War II, probably a medium tank, since those were missions commonly (doctrinally, as far as the US and Germans were concerned) assigned to medium tanks. Just because medium tanks were that versatile doesn't make morph them into a postwar vehicle type any more than being cheap morphs a fork into a car door handle.
              Exactly correct, Chris. And nothing less than I would expect from you.

              +1 when the system lets me.
              "Chatfield, there seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
              Vice Admiral Beatty to Flag Captain Chatfield; Battle of Jutland, 31 May - 1 June, 1916.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Scott Fraser View Post
                This seems to be a most relevant paragraph:
                Indeed it is, Scott; and it's an axiom of the tank that is often overlooked or ignored.

                +1.
                "Chatfield, there seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
                Vice Admiral Beatty to Flag Captain Chatfield; Battle of Jutland, 31 May - 1 June, 1916.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by m kenny View Post
                  I posted it for the open minded who will gain much insight from Lt. Col. Irzyk's analysis.
                  ... and well appreciated by many of us, I am sure.

                  +1.
                  "Chatfield, there seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
                  Vice Admiral Beatty to Flag Captain Chatfield; Battle of Jutland, 31 May - 1 June, 1916.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by JBark View Post
                    "I am a Tank Commander and veteran of Africa, Sicily, France, Belgium, Holland and Germany."

                    NOTE: I have included the sargeant's quote and am showing for a second time a particular portion of it above.

                    Note that this brave man served everywhere the Allies used armor excluding the Pacific. Everywhere. He has survived. I find that important because if Allied armor was as bad in the way you and he say then he would not have survived the war. If our armor was so horrendous no tankers would have made it from start to finish? Would they?

                    Look at what else he has to say:
                    "Their tanks have the ups on us. their guns and armour are far better than ours...."At once our tank destroyers and tanks opened fire on them. The gunner had the eye to hit but our guns didn't have the power to knock them out...."

                    In describing his engagement his assessment of our armor is based solely on the shortcomings of our guns. We can all easily recognize that the guns of an M4 had less penetrating power than the German 88 of the Tiger and 75 of the Panther. This does not make for a better tank and thicker armor does not either. Yes, of course it makes for a better tank for a duel of MkV vs. M4 or MkVI vs. M4. This is pretty clear though one can easily point out the number of times the M4 killed the MkV and VI...I'm sure you would not accept this as evidence that the M4 was the superior tank.

                    Let's look at your conclusions of Sergeant Anderson's remarks.
                    1.)He knows tanks...yes, but he only discusses armor and gun. Hardly an in depth discussion of tanks or tank warfare.
                    2.) He wants better kit so he can do a better job and be on equal terms with enemy tanks....understandable but he has talked precious little of his experience. He doesn't tell us what else he did during his long career nor what type of fighting he did or what tanks he faced. Did he face few tanks? Did he face mostly MkIV's? What did he think of the tank when taking out MG's, pillboxes, etc?
                    3.) An actual engagement but one of many I would think. What else did this brave soldier do? Can we hear of those experiences?
                    4.) I'll let your words do the talking:
                    "Fourthly, he's seen many duels. His Sherman may have been designed for other things, but he went head to head with German armour frequently, and when he did so, he doesn't seem to have found a more reliable engine all that much of a help when 75 and 88 mm shot is flying about."
                    I don't see mention of many duels. Has he ever faced MkIII's and IV's? Stugs? Has he ever been in a fight where V's and VI's were killed by M4's?

                    Somehow we fought well with the M4. We knocked out tanks with thicker armor and longer range guns. When it comes down to it fielding your weapon in numbers on a regular basis is what gets the job done and the M4 did that better than the German armor. I understand your idea of what is "better" but I don't think it is what wins wars. I don't think it is what won WWII.

                    Here's what I go by:
                    "In the fierce three day action at Rocherath, tankers of the 741st Tank Battalion proved themselves adept at the art of way laying and killing Tigers. From well camouflaged positions, by expert maneuvering and stalking, tank after tank of the enemy forces were destroyed by flank and tail shots of the battalion's gunners. Recapitulation at the end of the encounter showed the battalion as having knocked out twenty-seven enemy tanks (mostly Mk VI's), one SP gun, two armored cars, two half tracks, and two trucks.
                    In contrast to the number of enemy vehicles destroyed, our tank losses were comparatively small. A total of eight tanks were lost to enemy action."
                    The Infantry's Armor, p222-3.
                    Yeide goes on to say that the 38th Infantry Regiment's S-3 assessed enemy losses as 78 tanks and SP guns to US infantry, armor, and artillery.
                    John, I may not agree with every single detail of everything you post, but it's apparent to me that you have a better handle on the subject matter than most.

                    +1.
                    "Chatfield, there seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
                    Vice Admiral Beatty to Flag Captain Chatfield; Battle of Jutland, 31 May - 1 June, 1916.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                      In your opinion concerning WW2:

                      What is a tank?

                      What is/are the main role(s) of a tank?

                      What is a heavy tank and what are its roles?
                      What is an infantry tank and what are its roles?
                      What is a medium tank and what are its roles?
                      What is a cruiser tank and what are its roles?
                      What is a light tank and what are its roles?
                      What is a MBT (or Universal tank) and what are its roles?

                      What are the atrributes most important to each classification of tank?
                      Was a MBT or 'Universal' tank a possibility in WW2?
                      Could the MBT role be carried out by another class of tank to an acceptable level in all its roles?

                      What are the requirements of different nations concerning tanks?
                      How does a nations strategy determine TO&E that includes tanks?
                      How effective was a nations units TO&E that included tanks in practise?

                      The scope of this thread is to understand the role of tanks, rather than the focus on a particular tank. It is also a top down approach to look at what was desired, what was feasible, and what was actually deployed and why .
                      Well done with throwing up a good topic, Nick.
                      +1.
                      "Chatfield, there seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
                      Vice Admiral Beatty to Flag Captain Chatfield; Battle of Jutland, 31 May - 1 June, 1916.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by JBark View Post
                        "I am a Tank Commander and veteran of Africa, Sicily, France, Belgium, Holland and Germany."

                        NOTE: I have included the sargeant's quote and am showing for a second time a particular portion of it above.

                        Note that this brave man served everywhere the Allies used armor excluding the Pacific. Everywhere. He has survived. I find that important because if Allied armor was as bad in the way you and he say then he would not have survived the war. If our armor was so horrendous no tankers would have made it from start to finish? Would they?

                        Look at what else he has to say:
                        "Their tanks have the ups on us. their guns and armour are far better than ours...."At once our tank destroyers and tanks opened fire on them. The gunner had the eye to hit but our guns didn't have the power to knock them out...."

                        In describing his engagement his assessment of our armor is based solely on the shortcomings of our guns. We can all easily recognize that the guns of an M4 had less penetrating power than the German 88 of the Tiger and 75 of the Panther. This does not make for a better tank and thicker armor does not either. Yes, of course it makes for a better tank for a duel of MkV vs. M4 or MkVI vs. M4. This is pretty clear though one can easily point out the number of times the M4 killed the MkV and VI...I'm sure you would not accept this as evidence that the M4 was the superior tank.

                        Let's look at your conclusions of Sergeant Anderson's remarks.
                        1.)He knows tanks...yes, but he only discusses armor and gun. Hardly an in depth discussion of tanks or tank warfare.
                        2.) He wants better kit so he can do a better job and be on equal terms with enemy tanks....understandable but he has talked precious little of his experience. He doesn't tell us what else he did during his long career nor what type of fighting he did or what tanks he faced. Did he face few tanks? Did he face mostly MkIV's? What did he think of the tank when taking out MG's, pillboxes, etc?
                        3.) An actual engagement but one of many I would think. What else did this brave soldier do? Can we hear of those experiences?
                        4.) I'll let your words do the talking:
                        "Fourthly, he's seen many duels. His Sherman may have been designed for other things, but he went head to head with German armour frequently, and when he did so, he doesn't seem to have found a more reliable engine all that much of a help when 75 and 88 mm shot is flying about."
                        I don't see mention of many duels. Has he ever faced MkIII's and IV's? Stugs? Has he ever been in a fight where V's and VI's were killed by M4's?

                        Somehow we fought well with the M4. We knocked out tanks with thicker armor and longer range guns. When it comes down to it fielding your weapon in numbers on a regular basis is what gets the job done and the M4 did that better than the German armor. I understand your idea of what is "better" but I don't think it is what wins wars. I don't think it is what won WWII.

                        Here's what I go by:
                        "In the fierce three day action at Rocherath, tankers of the 741st Tank Battalion proved themselves adept at the art of way laying and killing Tigers. From well camouflaged positions, by expert maneuvering and stalking, tank after tank of the enemy forces were destroyed by flank and tail shots of the battalion's gunners. Recapitulation at the end of the encounter showed the battalion as having knocked out twenty-seven enemy tanks (mostly Mk VI's), one SP gun, two armored cars, two half tracks, and two trucks.
                        In contrast to the number of enemy vehicles destroyed, our tank losses were comparatively small. A total of eight tanks were lost to enemy action."
                        The Infantry's Armor, p222-3.
                        Yeide goes on to say that the 38th Infantry Regiment's S-3 assessed enemy losses as 78 tanks and SP guns to US infantry, armor, and artillery.
                        You know, this is much the same situation that Allied (US) pilots found themselves in in the Pacific in the early days of WW 2. They were equipped with "inferior" aircraft yet, if you look at fighter on fighter losses they managed to break even with the Japanese Zero and best the Oscar.
                        Yes, they all wanted a better plane, and eventually got one. When they did the Japanese started losing substancial numbers to almost no losses inflicted by them on the Allies.
                        What matters first and foremost isn't gun, armor, or mobility but training, tactics, orgainzation, and communications.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                          You know, this is much the same situation that Allied (US) pilots found themselves in in the Pacific in the early days of WW 2. They were equipped with "inferior" aircraft yet, if you look at fighter on fighter losses they managed to break even with the Japanese Zero and best the Oscar.
                          Yes, they all wanted a better plane, and eventually got one. When they did the Japanese started losing substancial numbers to almost no losses inflicted by them on the Allies.
                          What matters first and foremost isn't gun, armor, or mobility but training, tactics, orgainzation, and communications.
                          Yep. +1.

                          Indeed, I would extend this even one step further:

                          During the later stages of the war, when the standard of training of Allied pilots and tank crews was relatively higher (on average) than the Axis in all major theatres, the fact that some items of Axis kit had higher specs in certain aspects, mattered even less. It was the 'law of diminishing returns' for the Axis. Good quality Allied kit that's relatively easy to maintain, with high levels of reliability and stamina, plus reasonable all-round performance, combined with good quality highly trained crews was much better overall than Axis kit of 'higher' performance that was more maintenance intensive and (in many cases) dubious reliability, combined with crews of rapidly diminishing quality.

                          This is the recipe for winning a long war, vs the recipe for losing it.
                          "Chatfield, there seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
                          Vice Admiral Beatty to Flag Captain Chatfield; Battle of Jutland, 31 May - 1 June, 1916.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by panther3485 View Post
                            "Complete failure" is overdoing it IMO. I would say "disappointment" would be a more appropriate word.

                            As for combat in WW2, although it never saw action in the ETO IIRC there is some evidence that it may have been ready in time for service in the far east. Moot point though, because it would not have met Western Allied tanks during WW2 so your statement regarding its irrelvance still holds good.

                            As for "how not to design a tank" I would say there could be some question about that because the essential design concept was, IMO, sound enough. It's quite a while since I've read the Baryatinskiy volume but from it, I seem to have got the notion that it was the execution/fabrication (i.e. quality control) that was, more than anything else, the source of the IS-3s troubles. And by the time they got a proper handle on these issues, the Soviets had moved on to the successors of IS-3; leading most notably to the T-10.
                            This is not directed to you P34/85, since I know you know this .

                            I might sound harsh, but the IS-III was designed too quickly, and two major costly overhaul attempts to fix the problems failed to do so.

                            The greatest fault of the IS-III imo is that it appeared to offer much more than it could give, scaring western countries into producing superior designs of their own. The British did go from making awful tanks such as the Covenator and Crusader, to building the excellent A34 Comet. However, the Centurion III, a direct result of the British Army being exposed to the IS-III, was in a league of its own.

                            This is a most often overlooked element of any tank, its transmission. If a tank is not mobile, it is close to pointless. This is why Crusaders, Panthers and KV-1's, to name 3, offered more in theory than on the actual field.

                            While many feel that some tanks are better than others due to their superior ability to kill other tanks, the Germans in 39-41 proved that the best tank is not always the most powerful one. For example, Rommel liked his 38t's. They were inferior to PzIII's in many ways, and could certainly have problems with heavier French tanks. However, they were reliable and relatively well armed. Comparing the medium/cruiser W Ally tank with a Cat in 44, is much like comparing 38t's and III's against Char B1bis and Matilda 2's in 1940. The French and British did have some local successes, due to their heavier designs of tanks, but their armies still lost in the earlier campiagn.

                            When judging tanks, one can only look at what was actually required of them, and how successful they were in carrying out was was actually required of them. Everything else is just superfluous/gravy.
                            How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                            Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by clackers View Post
                              Quite possibly, MM, but the manufacturers are trying to head off such a move by producing Urban Survival kits for their vehicles etc ..
                              And that need is part of the problem. What is needed for successful 4th Gen warfare is something small enough to maneuver in cramped city streets, strong enough to shrug off RPG's and lethal enough to clear out everybody within one city block. The MBT is simply too big and too vulnerable in that setting.
                              Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                              Comment


                              • When judging tanks, one can only look at what was actually required of them, and how successful they were in carrying out was was actually required of them. Everything else is just superfluous/gravy.
                                I agree completely Nick, and not just with tanks. Equipment of all sorts should be compared against the mission which it is required to complete, not the gear of other nations, if we want to truely understand how effective it was or is. The only real questions that matter are does this thing do what we want it to do, and can we alter it so it will do it better. Stacking it up agains other kit might be useful for getting development ideas and such, but how it performs in the mission is what matters in the end.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X