![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In message , The
Enlightenment writes 3 A C17 and certainly a C5 Galaxy could carry two maybe three 42 ton tanks. How much fuel, ammunition, spare parts et cetera come with them? Tanks are logistic-hungry beasts and need more support than most imagine. Flying in a tank or three isn't that much help if you end up with an immobile pillbox two days later. The same fire control system seen on a Leo or Abrams can fit into a Russian style tank Sure, but that doesn't fix the catastrophic ammunition explosion problem, or the hideously cramped interiors. Either way the superior depression on NATO tanks was a defensive positioning tactic. And a bloody useful one. Given the same standard of composit armour, the same quality of fire control and the same quality of barrel they would probably do better. So, you're talking about "Soviet tanks blessed with all the advantages of Western technology"? Except that the crews would mutiny if you tried to use Western professionals... (always the problem when you try to base your solution around technology rather than people) I said 'russian style' tanks by that i mean with westenised barrels, Fire Control and Multilayer armour. Why? Still not designed for survivability or crew endurance, which are key factors for how the West fights. -- When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite. W S Churchill Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|