| Author |
Topic:
The Weekly Discussion of Military Technology
|
Mr44
Registered:
May '02
|
Date Posted:
11/27/03 10:16am
Subject:
The Weekly Discussion of Military Technology
- Date Edited:
1/26 2:04pm (2 edits total)
Edited By:
Mr44
|
The purpose of this thread is to engage in rotating discussions of specific examples of military technology..
Anything from specifications, capabilities, and comparisons can be discussed, in the context of the current discussion, which will rotate about once a week.
I have a list of topics developed already, with some others ready to share their particular "expertise" and experiences when those come up..
This topic isn't offically "hosted," but I hope to keep some form of order (if the current topic is missles, please don't discuss submarines, etc..)
If anyone has anything particular in mind, or has an area of expertise, just drop a PM, and we'll have it scheduled.. 
Hopefully, we can all learn something new, and of course, have fun...
-----signature-----
Don’t confuse enthusiasm with capability.
..............................................................
Peter Shoomaker
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Mr44
Registered:
May '02
|
Date Posted:
11/27/03 10:27am
Subject:
RE: The Weekly Discussion of Military Technology
|
Originally the first topic was going to be something else, but this would make an excellent segway with another current thread:
So, this weeks topic is ARMOR
The first example of a battlefield "tank" was the British Mark I, which started production in 16 January, 1916..
Originally called a "landship," the British hid the vehicle's true origin by calling them "water distribution tanks."
The name "tank" stuck, and a new form of warfare was born..
What examples does everyone think represents the pinicle of armored warfare for the time..
The British Cruiser series, which held off Rommel in North Africa?
The Nazi PzKpfw "Panzer" series, which defined the term "Lightning War?"
The Soviet T-34, which many consider the ultimate in WWII armored warfare?
Modern tanks, such as the M1 Abrams, which is pretty much as invulnerable as tanks are going to get?
Who has specific example of a tank model that is their favorite?
-----signature-----
Don’t confuse enthusiasm with capability.
..............................................................
Peter Shoomaker
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Ender_Sai
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered:
Feb '01
|
Date Posted:
11/27/03 2:00pm
Subject:
RE: The Weekly Discussion of Military Technology
|
What, no honourable mention of the T-72? There's so much to be said about it! 
Interestingly enough, Australa's thinking about upgrading our tanks to M1A2's, which IMO would be a good idea. Now, all we need to do is move on from F-111's and F-18's, and perhaps the Steyr AUG... 
E_S
-----signature-----
In this truth he knew himself to be.
From sinking sands he stepped into light's embrace.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Mr44
Registered:
May '02
|
Date Posted:
11/27/03 2:38pm
Subject:
RE: The Weekly Discussion of Military Technology
|
well, the T-72 certainly deserves its place in history, representing the Soviet-style of production, and equal to the AK series of rifles..
However, the T-72 never stood out in its class, becoming inferior almost instantly after it was produced..
A much better example of Soviet armor during its time is the T-34...
The Nazis of course, thought they had tank technology locked in, and when the T-34 appeared in summer 1941, it completely surprised the German forces..
The original design used a Soviet high velocity 76mm gun, which was competent in its own right, but when the Soviets upgraded to the 85mm gun in 1943, the T-34 was a monster..
The ADF would do well to upgrade to the M1 series, its a tank built to dominate..
-----signature-----
Don’t confuse enthusiasm with capability.
..............................................................
Peter Shoomaker
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Ender_Sai
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered:
Feb '01
|
Date Posted:
11/27/03 3:10pm
Subject:
RE: The Weekly Discussion of Military Technology
|
We would; the Leopard just isn't the M1A2.
I love the T-72 just for the whole "tank must stop to fire" thing; wasn't it made obsolete by the introduction of the T-80?
E_S
-----signature-----
In this truth he knew himself to be.
From sinking sands he stepped into light's embrace.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Mr44
Registered:
May '02
|
Date Posted:
11/27/03 3:40pm
Subject:
RE: The Weekly Discussion of Military Technology
|
yeah, that's kind of what I mean..
The T-72 could probably be called the "ultimate edition" of the T-54, because for the most part, they used the same technology.
For instance, at a time when Western tanks were being built with true NBC systems, the T-72 was still making due with an internal layer of lead to counter nuclear blasts..
Most of the tanks weren't even built with night vision or a laser rangefinder for the gun, until they were upgraded later..
I suppose the T-72 really represented the Soviet policy of mass attacks and victory through numerical superiority..
-----signature-----
Don’t confuse enthusiasm with capability.
..............................................................
Peter Shoomaker
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Saint_of_Killers
Registered:
Feb '01
|
Date Posted:
11/27/03 5:17pm
Subject:
RE: The Weekly Discussion of Military Technology
|
|
Like The Empire.
-----signature-----
We enter into life naked and howling, covered with blood.
The fun doesn't have to end there.
Who to himself is law, no law does need, offends no law and is a king indeed
Abraham failed the test.
TAKE A BOW MISTER BUNNY!!!
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Blue_10
Registered:
Oct '01
|
Date Posted:
11/27/03 7:50pm
Subject:
RE: The Weekly Discussion of Military Technology
|
No offense, Ender_Sai, but Switserland will be invaded before Australia has anything to worry about.
My personal favorite would be the German Tiger Tank from WW2.
-----signature-----
#1 on Jace_Halycron's Premature Death List at his hands
It's like pacifism, only with a knife.
Are you eating healthy? 9 out of 10 Experts agree that you need the
4 German Food Groups: Sodium, Cholesteral, Fat, & Grease! 
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Ender_Sai
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered:
Feb '01
|
Date Posted:
11/27/03 8:55pm
Subject:
RE: The Weekly Discussion of Military Technology
|
Yeah, 'cause China isn't on our backdoor and looking to go to kick the hell out of Taiwan, nor is North Korea nearby... 
E_S
-----signature-----
In this truth he knew himself to be.
From sinking sands he stepped into light's embrace.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
TripleB
Registered:
Oct '00
|
Date Posted:
11/27/03 9:07pm
Subject:
RE: The Weekly Discussion of Military Technology
|
The T-64 was actually more notable then the T-62. While the T-64 was an adequete tank for it's time, it revolutionized things with it's autoloader, reducing the need of Soviet Tank forces to go from 4 crew members to just 3. Sure there was a down time as the tank needed more time to load, but there were certain advantages to it.
ANd the M1 series main battle tanks are the best tanks ever built on this planet, but I am sure there are way to get better.
-----signature-----
11/07/2006 is going to be a bad day for the Dem's, a great one for the gop
because my political realities always pan out & because I will have seen
Mel Gibson's THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST 100 times by then!!!
VIVA OBI-WAN McCARTNEY!!!!
Ep1&2<most EU
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Blue_10
Registered:
Oct '01
|
Date Posted:
11/27/03 9:27pm
Subject:
RE: The Weekly Discussion of Military Technology
|
China doesn't need to invade, they've already beat you, E_S.
Plasma Cannons would be a nice improvement on the M 1.
-----signature-----
#1 on Jace_Halycron's Premature Death List at his hands
It's like pacifism, only with a knife.
Are you eating healthy? 9 out of 10 Experts agree that you need the
4 German Food Groups: Sodium, Cholesteral, Fat, & Grease!
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Brett_Bass
Registered:
Apr '03
|
Date Posted:
11/27/03 11:08pm
Subject:
RE: The Weekly Discussion of Military Technology
|
While it's very, very tempting to state that the T34 is one of the best tanks ever (it really was, as I'm sure you know) I'm going to go ahead and give props to the old Panzer Mk. IV and the Panzer Mk. V "Panther" tanks. The Panther was arguably the best tank from World War II in terms of balancing cost, speed, effeciency, and firepower. Perhaps a superior balance even than the infamous T34.
But the Panzer IV holds a special place in the history books, as it was so heavily mass-produced and so successful. As I recall, they saw service from darned near the beginning of the war until the very end, and were still capable of matching the Sherman on more than even footing. I seem to recall the last Panzer IV tanks being used in one of the various wars launched against Israel in the 1960's.
And on that note, the M1A1 Abrams revolutionized tank warfare--some would say, saved American tank warfare.
Oh, and before I forget, the Steyer AUG might likely be on its way out, Ender. Bushmaster Firearms Inc. has confirmed that it has just worked out a contract with the Australian government. The contract is for an undisclosed number of 'units'--i.e. rifles.
-----signature-----
Ex-Official Senator, Gilad Pellaeon Fan Thread.
Semi-Traditionalist Fleet Junkie and Canon Heretic.
Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori. Semper Fidelis.
Silver Lannik™/Golden Ewok No-Prize/Statuette™ recipient.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Ender_Sai
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered:
Feb '01
|
Date Posted:
11/28/03 12:18am
Subject:
RE: The Weekly Discussion of Military Technology
|
Unless Bushmaster has a license to reproduce the M4 (there's a company here that locally reproduces the FN Minimi) or similar rifle, I'm still a bit "meh"... Not one soldier I've met (granted, I don't know any SASR because they don't advertise, but then again, they don't use the AUG) likes the AUG that much.
E_S
-----signature-----
In this truth he knew himself to be.
From sinking sands he stepped into light's embrace.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Mr44
Registered:
May '02
|
Date Posted:
11/28/03 7:02am
Subject:
RE: The Weekly Discussion of Military Technology
|
Ah, Nazi tanks..
I would have to agree, that the Panzer IV was probably the influencial tank of WWII.. Yep, it was produced throughout WWII..
It began to truly shine when its short barreled gun was upgraded to the long high velocity type, in response to the T34..
The later Nazi "supertanks" consisting of the Panzer VI "Tiger" and later "King Tiger" were mechanical marvels for the time, but were developed following Hitler's whim, like all the other Nazi X-weapons.. As a result, I don't think they were effectively used at all..
E_S, if Bushmaster was awarded the contract, then it would be an M4 type of weapon.. I know that Bushmaster makes the 9mm M4 carbine for the DEA, as well as the SOCOM 5.56mm version..
-----signature-----
Don’t confuse enthusiasm with capability.
..............................................................
Peter Shoomaker
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Mr44
Registered:
May '02
|
Date Posted:
11/28/03 11:50pm
Subject:
RE: The Weekly Discussion of Military Technology
|
For B3,
while certainly not technologically forward, I would say that the American M60 was on par with the T-72, for the time..
The T-72 had a superior gun, but the M60 had a more accurate targeting system..Each could still penetrate the other..
Both used standard cast armor, with country specific additions..
The T-72 was faster on open ground, but the M60 had better "off road" capability
The fatal weakness of the M60 was its height..The M60 was nearly 11 feet tall, compared to the 7 ft height of the T-72..
The Soviet auto-loader was a mixed success.. The system freed up a crew member, but it was also slower, and less reliable..
Trip, what stands out about the T-72 for you?
-----signature-----
Don’t confuse enthusiasm with capability.
..............................................................
Peter Shoomaker
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Brett_Bass
Registered:
Apr '03
|
Date Posted:
11/29/03 1:09am
Subject:
RE: The Weekly Discussion of Military Technology
|
While the Tigers were impressive in terms of firepower and armor, their fuel-inefficiency and extreme weight severely limited their mobility. Granted, their armor was often good enough to compensate, but neiter tank was, shall we say...quick-deployment-friendly. The Panther was available in greater numbers and posessed admirable cannon and defense, making it more useful in more situations.
As I recall, they initially had a plethora of mechanical problems that resulted in their almost total absence in the opening parts of the Battle of Kursk (I wonder if their prsesnce would have changed much at said battle), but once those shortcomings were dealt with, they were truly a good platform.
On a similar note, the Panzer IV was capable of mounting a nearly identical main gun as the Panther, and was already in great abundance. With upgraded armor a la the Panzer IV Ausf. H, the little vehicle was capable of surviving most M4 Sherman shells (once).
As for the M60/T72 comparison, I feel compelled to point out the USMCR's 4th Tank Battalion. A Marine Corps Reserve unit equipped with M60s, the 4th Tanks went on to become the most heavily decorated unit from Gulf War I, defeating numerous T72 tanks with their 'obsolete' Pattons.
In addition, the Israelis were able to use the M60's taller profile to their advantage in at least one engagement, where the lower turret of the Soviet-designed tanks they were engaging proved incapabable of elevating high enough to engage the Israelis, who were occupying the high ground.
Oh, and Ender, were you saying that your guys aren't big fans of the AUG? Huh, most outfits that use 'em like 'em. Oh well, I'm not a terribly big fan of bullpup-designed rifles either, so I guess I'm one to talk.
Anywho, Bushmaster Firearms Inc. does indeed produce their own variant of the M4 carbine. In point of fact, I own one.
The good folks at Bushmaster are being rather tight-lipped about the contract, so I don't have any specifics, but again, it's big, and it's with the Aussie government. Keep yer ear to the ground in case you catch wind of what's up.
-----signature-----
Ex-Official Senator, Gilad Pellaeon Fan Thread.
Semi-Traditionalist Fleet Junkie and Canon Heretic.
Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori. Semper Fidelis.
Silver Lannik™/Golden Ewok No-Prize/Statuette™ recipient.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
