Could the US mount an industrial effort equal the effort of WW2?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Serb

a) It's still MBT of Russia.
b) When was the last time when US tried to win a war vs. partisans? Let me guess....Vietnam, right?
c) Good for you.

a) So how many do you have, and are the crews actually more competent than your average grunt in Chechnya?

b) We've evolved our doctrine, you haven't.

c) So how much crap do you have in your Category B and C units, or whatever you call them now?

Sure but those civilians are deligation of American designers, the guys who created Abrams tank. I guess they saw tanks in action no less then any veteran tankers.

A lot less, actually - the occasional range demonstration, if that. Besides, it's only polite to look impressed.

Arrogance...great disadvantage.

We're ****ing up in Afghanistan in a lot less time and with a lot fewer losses than you ****ed up in Afghanistan.

Let me guess- no Abrams were lost during last Iraq war, right?
What the hell I saw in news then?

A handful were destroyed when abandoned by American crews. It doesn't take much to get a track kill on any tank.

I have no idea what this site says now, but I guess war still goes on there. At least 40 American soldiers died since moment when Bush declared that war is over.

Ambushes on small supply convoys and individuals at checkpoints are pretty unavoidable. Doesn't reflect much on the real combat capability of the forces involved.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Serb
We were talking about Bradley vs. T-72, remember? Could you answer those questions:

The Bradley uses the older TOW-2. The Hellfire is the laser-designated ATGM used by the Apache and Predator.

Do you believe that Bradley's main gun could penatrate armor of T-72? Or do you believe that bradley could destroy T-72 with its ATGM?

The new M919 DU sabot round for the Bradley should be able to defeat all but frontal armor on the T-72, and non-fully-penetrating frontal armor hits should likely be able to cause at least some heat and/or low-leval spalling damage.

The TOW-2 ATGM can defeat frontal armor of the T-72 without a doubt. A number of confirmed ATGM kills were achieved by Bradleys in GW 1.

And another question- is it possible do destroy Abrams by ATGM?

Rear or top armor hits, yes. Frontal or side, no vehicle kills, but a skilled operator should be able to achieve a mobility kill or main gun kill (by targeting the area immediately below the gunner's optics suite). The same vulnerability will always exist on all MBTs.

And one more thing
What's the point to shout everywhere that American IFV can destroy Iraqis T-72 with ATGM, if the same missiles can destroy American tanks as well?

IFV's aren't supposed to live long enough in an IFV on MBT engagement.

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by Serb


We were talking about Bradley vs. T-72, remember? Could you answer those questions:
Do you believe that Bradley's main gun could penatrate armor of T-72?

Not front or side armour, no. However, disabling the tank via strikes on optics/traverse is still feasible... Also serves as a marker for the ATGM. ("Aim where it's smoking, godammit!")

Originally posted by Serb
Or do you believe that bradley could destroy T-72 with its ATGM?

If era already degraded with 25mm strikes, yes. It certainly wouldn't do the crew any good to be in a vehicle with the sudden rise in temperature, even if it didn't penetrate...

Originally posted by Serb
And another question- is it possible do destroy Abrams by ATGM?

Yes, with above proviso on critical hits/away from front or side armour. What makes the Abrahms special is the amount of fixability and damage limitation - a "destroyed" tank can be brought back into service fairly quickly and it has much better crew protection after it has been hit.

Originally posted by Serb
What's the point to shout everywhere that American IFV can destroy Iraqis T-72 with ATGM, if the same missiles can destroy American tanks as well?

Typical attitude to counter ATGM is to fire at suspected launch site and fire smoke to block operators view.

Difference between US and Iraqi ATGM is that the former all have thermal sights to counter effects of smoke.

Virtually impossible to hit with ATGM if you can't see the target.

[DanS]

Re the headline question, it would be tough nowadays. The vast majority of our economy is service-based. Changing from manufacturing consumer goods to manufacturing military goods is one thing. Changing from a service economy to a manufacturing economy is quite another.

Of course, the real question is "why would we want to mount that kind of effort?"

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


What have you been smoking? A terrorist organization kills American civilians with a nuke, so the US response is to kill civilians who mostly have nothing to do with the terrorists (whether a dictatorial regime hosts them or looks the other way has little to do with the targets) and the rest of the world "would understand"

Don't laugh so quickly. That's what the doctrine of massive retaliation is all about. The latest thing I heard it's still the doctrine our administration follows in case of a nuclear attack.

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by Lord Merciless


Don't laugh so quickly. That's what the doctrine of massive retaliation is all about. The latest thing I heard it's still the doctrine our administration follows in case of a nuclear attack.

I. for one, am not laughing. What if the US isn't the first to be hit with a nuke - what happens if the Chechens take out downtown Moscow?

Panicked survivors might think it was first strike from US and react accordingly.

NOT a thought to make you laugh at all.

[TCO]

I think the point of the Darling dillema is a belief that MAD is the only operative detterent/outcome. So that wasting money on having better forces or theater forces is not worth it. However, it would be very wrong to extend this and say that it makes sense to have no weapons. Since MAD would not be operative then. Also, one can say that there is a difference between a "Reasonable assurance that escalation won't occur" and "resonable assurance that escalation WILL occur". So that creates an argument for having theater forces and the like. Nonetheless, we no longer have many theater forces. So apperently GW in 1992 boaught the DArling argument.

[Serb]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
a) So how many do you have, and are the crews actually more competent than your average grunt in Chechnya?

It's classified information. I guess enough to call T-90 a main battle tank of Russia.

b) We've evolved our doctrine, you haven't.

I don't think that Soviet doctrines created during Afghan war are bad doctrines, considering that Soviet casualties in Aghanistan were 4 times lower than American casualties in Vietnam.

c) So how much crap do you have in your Category B and C units, or whatever you call them now?

Sh!tloads. We even have steam locomotives in reserve.

A lot less, actually - the occasional range demonstration, if that. Besides, it's only polite to look impressed.

Perhaps it's only polite to look impressed and to say that you're impressed, but I know for sure that American tank manufacturers are begging to sell them Russian 'Arena'. Because it's absolutely uniqe system which greatly enchance tank's survivability and protection from incomming missiles.(It destroys aproaching missiles few meters before they hit tank.)

We're ****ing up in Afghanistan in a lot less time and with a lot fewer losses than you ****ed up in Afghanistan.

You perfectly realize that it was absolutely different wars. In first case it Afghanistan was playground of two superpowers. In second case it was 1 superpower which had support and sympathy of entire world, plus used Northern Alliance as cannon fodder, against bunch of fanatics who had no external support (weapons, ammo, money, training, etc).

[Serb]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


The Bradley uses the older TOW-2. The Hellfire is the laser-designated ATGM used by the Apache and Predator.

I though US Arny have some Bradley based anti-tank/anti-aircraf platforms equiped with Hellfires and Stingers, iirc. I'm not really sure about this, perhaps I'm wrong.

The new M919 DU sabot round for the Bradley should be able to defeat all but frontal armor on the T-72, and non-fully-penetrating frontal armor hits should likely be able to cause at least some heat and/or low-leval spalling damage.

What's the penatrating capability of this ammo?

The TOW-2 ATGM can defeat frontal armor of the T-72 without a doubt. A number of confirmed ATGM kills were achieved by Bradleys in GW 1.

Good, now how do you think what is more likely- that this Iraqis T-72 was knoked-out by Bradley's missile or that it was destroyed by Bradley's main gun?

Rear or top armor hits, yes. Frontal or side, no vehicle kills, but a skilled operator should be able to achieve a mobility kill or main gun kill (by targeting the area immediately below the gunner's optics suite). The same vulnerability will always exist on all MBTs.

No vehicle kills? Not sure about this, but anyhow, it's only because you have no balls to attack anyone else except 3rd world countries that have no modern weapons. The tandem HEAT warhead of Russian ATGM "Kornet" has penatration capability of 1200 mm and this anti-tank infantry weapon could be used on distances up to 5500 meters. If Iraqis had some of those toys, I guess your tankists would eperienced much more problems.

IFV's aren't supposed to live long enough in an IFV on MBT engagement.

True, but sh!t happens some time. Besides, what's the reason to eqip IFV with ATGMs if IFV aren't suppose to survive in fight vs. MBT?

[Serb]

Originally posted by Cruddy
If era already degraded with 25mm strikes, yes. It certainly wouldn't do the crew any good to be in a vehicle with the sudden rise in temperature, even if it didn't penetrate...

Iraqis T-72 never had ERA as well as many, many, many other things that Russian T-72 have. In comparison with upgraded Russian T-72, Iraqis T-72 is very old crap. For example addition of ERA could provide protection from all HEAT shells up to 120mm, LAW, ITOW, TOW-2. Not to mention that Iraqis tanks were unable to use guided munitions, had no modern ammo, had worse gun, had much worse sights, etc.

Typical attitude to counter ATGM is to fire at suspected launch site and fire smoke to block operators view.

It's your aproach.
Besides smoke granades, Russian tanks have optical jamming system "Shtora-1" which release special substance to "blind" an incoming missile. If somehow missile is still aproaching, active defence system 'Arena' start to work and fires it's ammo to destroy a missile when it's only a few meters away from tank. If somehow missile still was able to hit, then explosive reactive armor start to work.

Difference between US and Iraqi ATGM is that the former all have thermal sights to counter effects of smoke.
Virtually impossible to hit with ATGM if you can't see the target.

It only proves that Iraqis had no modern weapons. Russian ATGMs equipped with thermal sights and can be used in day/night and any weather conditions. Also they have high level of jamming immunity which achieved through the use of the TV orientation of a missile within a laser beam by means of its onboard laser receiver directed to the firing system.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Saras
Anyway, which do you think was the better MBT, overall, T-34/85, the latest mod of Pzkfw V or the Sherman?

Let's see:
T-34/85's mass- 32 tonns.
Panther's mass- 45.5 tonns.
T-34/85 was 6,1 meters long.
Panther was 8.8 meters long.
T-34/85's width 3 meters.
Panther's width 3.4 meters.
T-34/85 was 2.4 meters high.
Panther was 3.1 meters high.
T-34/85 had 85mm main gun and two machine guns.
Panther had 75mm main gun and three machine guns.
T-34/85 had 56 rounds for main gun and 2898 bullets for machine guns.
Panther had 79 rounds for main gun and 4500 bullets for machine guns.
T-34/85's frontal armor- 90mm, turret armor- 90mm.
Panther's frontal armor- 80mm, turret armor- 100mm.
T-34/85's engine had 500 hp. Power to weight ratio 15.625 hp per tonn of weight.
Panther's engine had 650 hp. Power to weight ratio 14.285 hp per tonn of weight.
T-34/85' range 400 km.
Panther's range 200 km.
T-34/85's max speed 55 km per hour.
Panther's max speed (on road) 46 km per hour.
Both have advantages and disadvantages.
BUT...
T-34 was closer to concept of MBT then any other tank of WW2. (You asked about MBT, right?) It could have been used for wide variety of missions- anti-tank, infantry support, reconnaissance, etc. Panther was German respond to T-34 because their previos models were ineffective against it. German designers were forced to gave their new tank an anti-tank capability.
IIRC, Panther was a medium tank only in accordance with German aproach. ( They determinated class of tank- light, medium, heavy in accordance with calibre of main gun. The bigger the gun, the bigger the class of tank) Allies determinated classes of their tanks in accordance with mass. The heavier, the bigger the class. Panther was almost twice heavier than T-34/76 (45.5 tonns vs. 26 tonns) and 13.5 tonns heavier than T-34/85. So, I guess it's a bit unfair to compare Panthers and especially Tigers with T-34. Those tanks should be compared with their counterpart- Soviet IS-2 ( It doesn't really matter with which version of 1943 or of 1944 year, a comparison will not be in faivor of German tanks anyway) whose weight was 46 tonns- the same as Panther's weight and much less than Tigers and esp. Royal Tigers.

Last thing, Sherman, even in its best modification, still was a player of different league.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Lord Merciless


Don't laugh so quickly. That's what the doctrine of massive retaliation is all about. The latest thing I heard it's still the doctrine our administration follows in case of a nuclear attack.

The MAD doctrine was to deter attacks by a rational power, not actually respond to one from an irrational and amorphous one. The presumption behind MAD is that nuclear wars are not winnable, by the standards a rational power would consider "winnable," therefore there's no reason to bother initiating such an exchange.

Despite it being doctrine, there's nothing to indicate either side would have the balls to actually carry through. "Better dead than red" is a nice rhetorical device, but reality isn't so cut and dried.

We've also been trying to move away from MAD for years, but the rest of the world is leery of anything that appears to be maneuvering for an advantage in a nuclear exchange. Failure to update that doctrine doesn't mean it's more valid, or more likely to be acted on. It means it's not a priority, with the effective loss of the USSR as an enemy.

[Serb]

Originally posted by GP


ARticle in USNI Proceedings by a Russian Naval officer says that the Kursk simulated attack on a carrier was the first in 4 years. We OWNED you guys. No kidding.

Perhaps it was the only attempt during those four years. You know our navy experienced some slight problems during those years.
Do you like riddles?
Guess which sub hold the world record for speed under water (42 knots, iirc)?

Guess which sub can dive deeper then any other sub?

[Saras]

Serb, it's silence that matters. You'd wake up everyone in comsublant by driving 42 knots past the sosus line

[Serb]

http://www.submarina.ru/sub.php?885

Poslednie dva abzaca.

Tolko americosam ne govri, a to budut blyadi izevatsya nad nashei nishetoi.