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
|
|||
|
|||
"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." wrote in message
... (snip) LOL.... nobody is saying that the Leo's are bad tanks. I haven't heard one person say that at all. They are fine tanks. German's are great (if somewhat overzealous) engineers. What we are saying, however, is that the Leo's are totally unproven in combat, and that all final judgements regarding any weapons system is contingent upon actual combat experience. The M1 series has plenty of combat time under it's belt, and has performed, by all measures, splendidly. It is a combat proven system and is a better tank than the Leopard. It has better armor, excellent targeting systems, and it fires a better round. Period. You need to get over it. As for it being 'Europe's premere MBT', what do you expect? It is probably better than the LeClerc (another parade ground princess), and pigs will fly before the protectionist European governments buy big-ticket items from the USA (and they don't need to; their domestic defense industries are adequate), but you have to understand that the military just isn't a priority there in Europe. The military is in fact on the bottom of their list. So you cannot expect a nation which takes a 'military-last' attitude to produce equipment superior to the USA, which actually may need to use the stuff at some point. Challenger II? And anyone who says Russian tanks are garbage outta have his ass shipped out in an M-1A2 and land on the outskirts of Moscow in 50 degree below zero weather with Mils, Migs, and Sukhois flying about and Russian troops armed with ATGWs. One tank against the entire russian armed forces? Sure, what the hell.... But seriously, you are just being an idiot now (moreso). The scenario you just described is pretty much EXACTLY what the M1 tank was designed for. And you are also assuming that we would not have achieved air superiority before sending our armor in; which we would havem being that it is the US tactical doctorine to only send in ground forces after the air is secured. And the only bigger joke than the Russian army is the Russian air force (well maybe it's tied with their navy). We don't fight wars with just tanks. No takers?... didn't think so since the M-1A2 is confined to attacking puny nations with poor import stripped armor of the FSU crewed by sand-dwelling conscripts. LOL... 'confined'... whatever you say. And I'm not so sure that the modern Russian tank crews are any better trained than the Iraqi's were. Our armed forces are a total and complete overmatch for any other armed force on the globe. Period. It's not even close. Yeah, you are certainly doing a good job in Iraq just now. Tanks and all. John |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"DavidG35" wrote in message
news:f7Wmc.85177$Jy3.21686@fed1read03... hahahaha That was a good one! That would shake stuff up - Knit one, pearl two, FIRE IN THE HOLE! FOOM! "Krztalizer" wrote in message ... Robert, you win the award for starting the "Most OT post" today. What's next? Planning on posting something on Rec.Arts.Needlepoint about nebelwerfers? |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"robert arndt" wrote in message
m... http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz5.htm SNIP Rob Um, what does this have to do with military aviation? Other than the military aviation of the Allies hurting German tank production? |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"Chad Irby" wrote in message
m... In article , (B2431) wrote: From: Chad Irby Date: 5/7/2004 6:36 PM Central Daylight Time Message-id: In article , (robert arndt) wrote: http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz5.htm Better than any mass-produced piece-of-**** Sherman (except the Firefly British conversion). ...as long as you didn't mind that it had to pretty much sit there and not go very far, due to high ground pressure and very high fuel consumption (a King Tiger in mud became a landmark). Add in the very high maintenance problems, and you had a really tough, sorta-mobile fortress. The Allies did the obvious and ran around the KTs, destroying their support structure, then captured and destroyed a lot of them after they ran out of gas. Definitely follows on the German habit in WWII of coming up with a really cool design that turned out to be a problem to build and support. Did you happen to notice the article teuton offered as proof of what a wonder weapon King Tiger was actually describes what a flop it really was? Yeah, but I've known about the weaknesses of the King Tiger since some time in the early 1970s, when I started getting interested in WWII. You might note that the problems with the King Tiger were mirrored quite often with most of the things the Germans tried to build in the 1940-45 time period. Too expensive, hard to maintain, and used up too much time and resources that they needed in other places. A lot of the Ballantine War Books covered the problems the Germans had with overengineering their machines. The Maus was one of my favorites (the coaxial 128mm and 75mm guns were a bit much, not to mention the 188 tons of weight in the damned thing. Then there was the seldom-mentioned Krupp P1000 Rat. One THOUSAND tons. Two 280mm main guns. Or the P1500 variant with an 800mm mortar(!) and a couple of 150mm cannons... (I still have trouble believing that they were really thinking of building something like this, even early in the war). http://www.achtungpanzer.com/p1000.htm I wonder what the rough field performance was? Max speed for mobile warfare? -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Russian tank crews are any better trained than the Iraqi's were. Our armed
forces are a total and complete overmatch for any other armed force on the globe. Period. It's not even close. In the eve of the most important paradigm shift in the warfare since the invention of gun powder its more a liability than an asset. You might want to use your current military assets agressively before paradigm shift (while they are still useful) to streghten your positions,but if your peer competitor is very good on setting up a "Global Trap" for you and might force you to waste your very limited resources for nothing. (Any similarities with Brzezinskis' "Afghanistan Trap" are of course purely coincidental) As far as I can see, as paradigm shift nears,US administrations are getting more nervous and aggressive and making even more mistakes Thats so simple.. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"Krztalizer" wrote in message ... Robert, you win the award for starting the "Most OT post" today. What's next? Planning on posting something on Rec.Arts.Needlepoint about nebelwerfers? Arndt mode on - THE NATIONAL SOCIALIST NEEDLEPOINT WAS CULTURALLY SUPERIOR TO ALL OTHER FORMS!!!!!! Arndt mode off. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"John Mullen" wrote in message t... "Thomas J. Paladino Jr." wrote in message ... (snip) LOL.... nobody is saying that the Leo's are bad tanks. I haven't heard one person say that at all. They are fine tanks. German's are great (if somewhat overzealous) engineers. What we are saying, however, is that the Leo's are totally unproven in combat, and that all final judgements regarding any weapons system is contingent upon actual combat experience. The M1 series has plenty of combat time under it's belt, and has performed, by all measures, splendidly. It is a combat proven system and is a better tank than the Leopard. It has better armor, excellent targeting systems, and it fires a better round. Period. You need to get over it. As for it being 'Europe's premere MBT', what do you expect? It is probably better than the LeClerc (another parade ground princess), and pigs will fly before the protectionist European governments buy big-ticket items from the USA (and they don't need to; their domestic defense industries are adequate), but you have to understand that the military just isn't a priority there in Europe. The military is in fact on the bottom of their list. So you cannot expect a nation which takes a 'military-last' attitude to produce equipment superior to the USA, which actually may need to use the stuff at some point. Challenger II? To most of the EU, buying big-ticket items from the Brits is pretty much the same as buying from the USA. Great Britian is not a full EU participant, and (smartly) doesn't plan to be anytime soon. But the Challenger II is another fine, battle-proven piece of hardware. And anyone who says Russian tanks are garbage outta have his ass shipped out in an M-1A2 and land on the outskirts of Moscow in 50 degree below zero weather with Mils, Migs, and Sukhois flying about and Russian troops armed with ATGWs. One tank against the entire russian armed forces? Sure, what the hell.... But seriously, you are just being an idiot now (moreso). The scenario you just described is pretty much EXACTLY what the M1 tank was designed for. And you are also assuming that we would not have achieved air superiority before sending our armor in; which we would havem being that it is the US tactical doctorine to only send in ground forces after the air is secured. And the only bigger joke than the Russian army is the Russian air force (well maybe it's tied with their navy). We don't fight wars with just tanks. No takers?... didn't think so since the M-1A2 is confined to attacking puny nations with poor import stripped armor of the FSU crewed by sand-dwelling conscripts. LOL... 'confined'... whatever you say. And I'm not so sure that the modern Russian tank crews are any better trained than the Iraqi's were. Our armed forces are a total and complete overmatch for any other armed force on the globe. Period. It's not even close. Yeah, you are certainly doing a good job in Iraq just now. Yeah, we're losing tank battles left and right over there. I said 'armed forces' vs. other 'armed forces', which is what the Ghost of Hitler (aka Robert Arndt) posted as a hypothetical in the first place. USA vs. Russia. Or anyone else for that matter; there isn't a country in the world that can match the US military. The situation in Iraq is an insurgent force, and quite honestly, if we weren't so damn concerned about politics and 'collateral damage' we could have the insurgency put down in 12 hours. If you don't belive that, then you are a fool. And quite frankly, it's really only been a very short time anyway. But, as I said, as a military, the US armed forces are second to none by a wide margin. You can make all the snide remarks you like, but it won't change anything. The envy, however, is palpable. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
In article m, David
E. Powell writes "robert arndt" wrote in message om... http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz5.htm SNIP Rob Um, what does this have to do with military aviation? Other than the military aviation of the Allies hurting German tank production? Or Allied military aviation hurting German tanks. The answer to the King Tiger was the rocket-firing Typhoon... Regards, -- Moramarth |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"robert arndt" wrote in message m... http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz5.htm You criticize the King Tiger when historically the Allies that actually met it in combat gave it the name "Royal Tiger" out of fear AND respect. It WAS a formidible machine. Sure but the Wehrmacht had less than 500 of them. The Western allies alone had more than 40,000 tanks. Most Allied soldiers never saw a King Tiger. Keith |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Some new photos of the 2003 Tiger Meet (Cambrai) | Franck | Military Aviation | 0 | January 2nd 04 10:55 PM |
Airman tells of grandfather's Flying Tiger days | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | October 11th 03 04:55 AM |
1979 Tiger for Sale | Flynn | Aviation Marketplace | 65 | September 11th 03 08:06 PM |
P-47/51 deflection shots into the belly of the German tanks,reality | ArtKramr | Military Aviation | 131 | September 7th 03 09:02 PM |