Tank and Artillery Combat

[Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto]

Originally posted by Eternal
... Actually I think your brother served in a unit within the Cavalry division, but the Cavalry division itself was probably a armoured division...

Do you even know what an armoured division is?

Most people believe an armored division just means tanks, but that is NOT true at all. Though at times armored divisions can consist mostly of tanks, they generally contain several different units, including cavalry, tank, infantry, and air support. "Armor" just means protection, so if you have an armored helicopter, it means that that chopper has reinforced plating, to PROTECT it, same way with tanks, infantry, and most other stuff.

THere can be lots of different "armored" divisions, there can be armored infantry, armored tanks, or whatever, please be specific.

[Eddin]

I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that infantry has a good chance of fighting against Tanks (saving private ryan style), mainly because you should see riflemen as huge units of infantry (it's not just one man), and armours as a small mobile armoured attack force, with the purpose of penetrating fast and cutting off supplies and communications BEHIND the enemy (infantry) front. Their keyword is their speed, not their huge guns. That only applies when fighting other tanks, in which case a tank can be horribly outclassed (Tiger-Churchill style). In fact (if I'm correct) a tank totally sux against larger amounts of infantry when trying to engage in direct combat. It is their ability to move fast and far that gets them somewhere. When fighting in a city, your tanks are as good as dead. You use infantry for those purposes.

Artillery is a different story entirely, and I won't discuss that

[Eternal]

Originally posted by Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto
Do you even know what an armoured division is?

Most people believe an armored division just means tanks, but that is NOT true at all. Though at times armored divisions can consist mostly of tanks, they generally contain several different units, including cavalry, tank, infantry, and air support. "Armor" just means protection, so if you have an armored helicopter, it means that that chopper has reinforced plating, to PROTECT it, same way with tanks, infantry, and most other stuff.

THere can be lots of different "armored" divisions, there can be armored infantry, armored tanks, or whatever, please be specific.

And like I freakin' said, your brother's battery is no doubt in an armored, or maybe mechanized, "Cavalry" division. Any stupid army that just calls artillery "Cavalry" ("Move that 155mm Cavalry over to that ridge!") is an army I will see destroyed by my legions of the undead!

[Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto]

My brother served in the 3rd cav unit, 58th armored cav division.

Let me lay this out plain and clear:

(these being the statistics of armored cavalry division)

Main Body - 50-80% of the division being artillery, and support artillery, most of which are long range bombardment howitzers, which usually have 155 - 203mm guns, the rest of the artillery is either self propelled 120mm or 155mm, or short range, and smaller.

First Support - then, part of the support group, there would be several infantry regiments.

Second Support - After the infantry, then one or two battalions of armored tanks.

Third Support - the division would only have a third support group if it was specialized, and if it was, then it would usually have air cover/support by mostly helicopters (since it was american, the helicopters would be Longbows and Blackhawks most likely).

I think that is pretty plain and simple to understand.

All I was trying to say was that if a group of say...100 tanks, WITHOUT any support, attacked a group of 100 155mm long range howitzers, which had no support, the tanks would win, for the following reasons:

1. Tanks are fast, and can fire while moving, while artillery must stop and fire.
2. THe modern U.S. tanks have heavy armor, and can usually deflect any shrapnel, IF moving fast enough. (but not a direct hit)
3. Tanks can load and fire within a few seconds, while artillery takes longer.
4. tanks are MUCH more accurate then the big 155's.
5. the tanks would not be bunched up, and would be moving in all directions to give the enemy a hard time aiming, while 80% of the big artillery pieces are stationary.

[Eternal]

Originally posted by Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto
My All I was trying to say was that if a group of say...100 tanks, WITHOUT any support, attacked a group of 100 155mm long range howitzers, which had no support, the tanks would win, for the following reasons:

1. Tanks are fast, and can fire while moving, while artillery must stop and fire.
2. THe modern U.S. tanks have heavy armor, and can usually deflect any shrapnel, IF moving fast enough. (but not a direct hit)
3. Tanks can load and fire within a few seconds, while artillery takes longer.
4. tanks are MUCH more accurate then the big 155's.
5. the tanks would not be bunched up, and would be moving in all directions to give the enemy a hard time aiming, while 80% of the big artillery pieces are stationary.

No one can argue with this, of course. Of course, it depends on the range at which the engagement begins. If the tanks come out below the Arty's minimum range, it's already a rout. However, if they have the space the Artillery shot some Cluster Munistions in the way of the tanks they could cause some serious damage.

[1]

Ahhh yes, but the US has just unveiled a new type of artillery. Its called "The Crusader" and it can fire I *think* every ten seconds WHILE speeding along at 60 mph!!! That's insane! Not only that, but it will fire multiple rounds at one target, at different angles, to have them all come down *at once* in the same place!

[joseph1944]

Originally posted by 1
Ahhh yes, but the US has just unveiled a new type of artillery. Its called "The Crusader" and it can fire I *think* every ten seconds WHILE speeding along at 60 mph!!! That's insane! Not only that, but it will fire multiple rounds at one target, at different angles, to have them all come down *at once* in the same place!

I will look that one up. I have two new book on Tanks and Artillery. No picture , just lots of facts.

[MORON]

Forgive me, but....are you stupid?

Damn, MTG, GP, Lancer anyone.... HELP

My Dad has seen an M1 Abrams get blown to bits by those crappy Iraqi tanks, which are about equivelant to a WWII Sherman with his own eyes, but of course that was 10 years ago, now the Iraqi's have finally updated their equipment in the last 5 or so years. I have seen a picture of the golf war, my dad was standing on one of our M1's...its turret had been blown away by an Iraqi M3, which is almost as crappy as our old M4's. I know what I am talking about.

YOU MORON (though I'm one too, but your are stupidier.)
1. No M1 have been knocked out by Iraqi Tanks. Only 2 M1 crews was KIA in the gulf and its because of their own stupidlity.
(M2,M3 have been knocked out, but they are not M1)

2. Iraqi had T-64 and T-72 russian tanks, no M3.

3. Iraqi T-64 and T-72 had 105mm guns, which is far more powerful than that of M4's standard 75mm. (with the exception of 105mm supersherman's used by the isrealis in 67)

You also have to remember, there were 3 types of shermans, 1. M5 (the oldest and weakest), 2. M4, and then during the fifties they had some M3's, which were a bit stronger then the ones we used in WWII.

..... WTF are you talking about?????

[MORON]

double post

[whosurdaddy]

You are absolutely correct, MORON. The only reason i bothered to actually register at apolyton and post my first message (I have been reading the boards for a LONG time) is after seeing the asenine comments of that Diablo fellow. He has not a single clue as to what he is talking about. When he started saying that the M4 came in varieties known as the M3 and M5 (M3 is actually an entirely different type of tank known as the Grant, with it's main turret located in its hull, not in the turret ... the M5 is also something entirely different), i couldn't help but laugh. On top of it is the fact that no Iraqi tank ever destroyed an M1 Abrams in the gulf war (as u pointed out), and that he had no clue what kind of tanks the Iraqis even used (as u also pointed out). Diablo is so wrong about his information, it is absurd, yet he has the nerve to over and over state how he thinks his information is 100% true. Give me a break. Let me just say Diablo, you would make an excellent used car salesman.

[TechWins]

the asenine comments of that Diablo fellow

Maybe Krazyhorse was right when he was talking bad about Diablo awhile back.

[joseph1944]

Originally posted by MORON
2. Iraqi had T-64 and T-72 Russian tanks, no M3.

And they also had a few T-80. The Marine ran into the Republican Guard at the Kuwaiti Air Port with their T-80 and with our old M-60A3 had a feel day with the Iraqi. American no looses, Iraqi, all tanks destroyed or put out of action.

3. Iraqi T-64 and T-72 had 105mm guns, which is far more powerful than that of M4's standard 75mm. (With the exception of 105mm super Sherman’s used by the Israelis in 67)

The M-3 was two tanks. One called the "Lee" and the other called the "Grant".
The Lee had a machine gun turret on top of the 37 mm turret. And of course the 75 mm gun located on the right side of the Hull. The Grant just had the 37 mm gun turret w/o the machine gun turret. It still had the 75 mm on the right side of the hull.

The M-4 had several versions.
M-4 July 1942 (Late production with cast upper front hull). 6,748 built. Welded hull. Early vehicles had three-piece bolted nose and narrow M34 gun mount: very late vehicles had combination cast/rolled hull front.
M-4A1 Feb. 1942 As for M4, but with a cast hull. First model into full production. M2 75 mm gun and counterweights, twin fixed machineguns in hull front (later eliminated and M3 75 mm introduced). Nose altered from three-piece bolted to one-piece cast. M34A1 gun mount and sand shields added later. 6,281 built.
M-4A2 April 1942 As for M4 but never had cast/rolle hull. General Motors 6046 diesels due to shortage of petrol engines. 8,053 built.
M-4A3 May 1942 Welded hull and one-piece cast nose: 500 hp Ford GAA V-8 petrol engine. Most advanced of series with 75 mm gun. 1,609 built.
M-4A4 July 1942 Welded hull and three-piece bolted nose. Chrysler A 57 Multibank 370 hp petrol engine, requiring hull to be lengthened to 19ft 10 1/2in, but increasing speeds to 25 mph. 7,499 built.
M-4A6 Oct. 1943 Final basic model with M4A4 hull and chassis and 450 hp RD-1820 Caterpillar radial diesel engine Cast/rolled front. 75 built.
M-4(105) Feb. 1944 Mounted the close-support 105 mm Howitzer M4 in an M52 mount in the turret. 1,641 built.
M-4A1(76)W Jan. 1944 3,426 built. The "W" stands for Wet Stowage.
M-4A2(76)W May 1944 2,915 built.
M-4A3(75)W Feb 1944 3,071 built.
M-4A3(76)W March 1944 4,542 built.
M-4A3(105) May 1944 3,039 built. CS Howitzer for m4(105 MM)
M-4A3E2 June 1944 254 built. Assault Tank. Heavily armored version (thicker Armour put weight up to 84,000 lb), including a more heavily armounred turret, seven inches on gun shield. Tracks has permanent grousers fitted to improve the ride. Nicknamed "Jumbo"
M-4A1E8(76) where given to French forces
M-4 Firefly British version with 17 pdr gun.
M-4A43E8 (105 mm Howitzer) USMC This tank saw action in Korea.
M-51 (Israel), which was a modified version of the M4A3E8, designed to take the new French 105 mm gun.

M-5/M-5A1 there was a light tank call the M-5 which carry a 37 mm gun.

Russian Tanks
T-90 Under development now
T-80 1983 125 mm gun
T-72 1971 125 mm gun
T-64 1966 125 mm gun
T-62 1961 115 mm gun
T-54/55 1947 100 mm gun T-55 was export model

[TechWins]

"Maybe Krazyhorse was right when he was talking bad about Diablo awhile back." by me

I'm not saying Krazyhorse is right though but by the way everybody seems to disagree with Diablo Krazyhorse just might be right. I had to clarify that.

[Fidel]

ohmygod

what were all those posts for?
my head spins.....

and my knees tremble while reading stats of mighty american armored divisions.

by the way, iraqis and other arab soldiers have a nasty habbit of opening their hatches and running away from their tanks when they spot enemy vehicle on the horizon. that is how israelis got so many mint russian tanks and refitted them after 67 and 73.

one more thing, battle of the bulge was won not because american infantry proved it superiority agains german armor, but because the

1) weather got better so usaf could fly again
2) germans ran out of gas
3) chruchill pressed russians to begin their offensive earlier and eastern front collapsed

whosyourdaddy - i know the feeling - i read these posts for a long time and decided to register when i could not take some of the bull anymore

[joseph1944]

Originally posted by LaRusso
ohmygod
by the way, Iraqi and other Arab soldiers have a nasty habit of opening their hatches and running away from their tanks when they spot enemy vehicle on the horizon

And remember that bunch of Iraqis that was capture by the NBC camera crew. The camera operator was told to guard the Iraqis with his camera.

one more thing, battle of the bulge was won not because American infantry proved it superiority against German armor, but because the

1) weather got better so USAF could fly again
2) Germans ran out of gas
3) Churchill pressed Russians to begin their offensive earlier and eastern front collapsed

You forgot one. George S. Patton and his 3rd Army show up and started to attack the moment they saw Germans.