British Challenger 2

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Why didn't the British follow the Germans and fit their best cannon (25 pounder) to their tanks?

Because they did not have a vehicle which could mount the 25 pounder while the Soviets and Germans did. The Soviets mounted the biggest and most powerful guns as assault vehicles because of the impractically ammunition and such. The recoil was also to much for a MBT to handle and only could be used on a heavier vehicle such as the ISU-155. If the British could put their best gun in they could have

Why the assumption that only Centurion has this armour on the gun mantle? What proof that IS3 carries 200mm on the glacis? Plus, maybe you haven't looked at pics lately, but the slope is about the same.

Onwar.com is the only online source with comprehensive figures. As you can see yourself, it clearly states 200mm on the mantle. I believe that the Centurion had its maximum amour on the gun mantle because its the most likely place getting hit and also being the most important.

The IS-3 is a more sophisticated design, Not only does it have a nighly angled glacis plate, it has incorporates a wedge which increases the amount of the armour. Now the IS-3 is surely more angled on the turret than the Centurion which is the first area which is seen by most gunners

As I said, the Centurion had FAR greater range.

How exactly does that make it a better tank?. How much distance are you going to cover each day?. Maybe in modern insurgency warfare it might be a good comparison tool but advances of more than 50km each day was not likey. The IS-3 was design anyhow to hold its fuel on the outside in drums, which is like a aircraft having fuel tanks on the outside.

And speed..You use it to move closer to engagement and 3km is a big difference epically if your going cross country

Hull-down is only for ambushes.

Have you tried to spot a tank far away?. The curve of the horizon plays a large part in Europe and the fact that the IS-3 is half a meter shorter means that their is about 500m to 1000m difference in who sees each other first. This is inclusive of ability to fire on them. Its almost impossible to hit the IS-3 turret at anything less than 1km because it offers such a small target.

The Centurion is big and it is also slow which would have made it a sitting duck if it was on the eastern front bar defensive positions. It was only useful in Vietnam and Korea because neither armies they faced had any worthwhile AT weapons and was mainly used as to bombard rows of infantry as defensive positions

Look at the MBT70 project. So many innovations. How many of those innovations made it into the M1 or the Leo 2?

Everything except the American 152 missile/cannon.

Its fire control system was used by both Germany and the USA, its German developed 120mm, suspension was later adopted by japan and a host of other items you can find for yourself. IT basically turned into one of the most expensive technology demonstrators ever made

As seen in combat, the Soviet tanks fared particularly poorly against Centurions in the desert.

And the Centurion never faced anything but third world armies with tanks which offered less than half the performance as their Soviet counterparts. No fire-control was ever present in Iraqi T-72 let alone Egypt or Syrian armies.


The Soviets led innovation and had the worlds BEST tanks, the British on the other hand just made things bigger instead of inventing new ground-breaking technology like the Soviets , Israel, French etc. If you are trying to prove that it is better than provide statistics or other facts

Originally posted by chinawhite
Was busy and didn't have time to answer your post, hopefully will have enough time later

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
It *may* have been. I specifically used the example of the calibrated co-axial ranging machine-gun.

A machine gun range finder?

How does that equate to have increased capability in a tank engagement. I have no on-line source on this material but I believe that Germans first used on of those devices on a small caliber cannon. But it stands that the British did not first introduce range finders for their cannons and possibly not the first country to introduce range finder.

Increased capability? Like this: Stereoscopic range-finders are not exact, as shown by the lack of firts round hits. Even after you have targeted your enemy tank you need to "correct fall of shot". The machine gun works by showing you exactly where your main gun shots will go. So you don't waste your main shots.

* The Ausf. F Panther had a stereoscopic rangefinder installed sometime in 1943-44 which I believe was the first stereoscopic rangefinder installed in a major vehicle

As I said, I wasn't referring to stereoscopic or prismatic range finders.

The British introduced ceramics?, Dont be to eager to make those claims.

"Combination K", the Soviet Chobham was a mixture of ceramics, metal and metal alloys. Ceramic plates were fitted in what is believed to have been fiberglass frames and offered tremendous improvements in amour. The T-64 offered almost twice the amour protection as the T-62 tank which preceded it, which itself had more amour than equivalent western tanks.

Yes, I know abou combination K. The source I read did not state it was ceramics. It did state fibreglass. It also stated typical Soviet production shortages that led to non-K fillings going into tanks. (may be connected with your "monkey tanks?)

NItpicking:

Globalsecurity.com

The T-64 has better armor protection than the T-62.

Why post this? Who introduces a new MBT with less armour?

The hull and turret are of cast and welded steel armor

So was everybody else's.

incorporating both conventional steel armor and ceramic inserts, called Combination K, which provide superior protection against HEAT attack.

Which is the whole point of ceramics. Okay. Maybe. I need to find some more.

Chieftan

KE rounds
Turret: 340-360
Glacis: 350

CE rounds
Turret: 380-400
Glacis: 360

T-64

KE rounds
Turret: 280-400
Glacis: 335.

CE rounds
Turret: 330-500
Glacis: 420.

As you can gather from the above information, The 38 ton T-64 had better amour protection than the 52 ton Chieftain.

Not entirely.

The only hope the British had of keeping up with later day tank development is to make them the heaviest and also the slowest tanks on the battlefield.

Um, no. They weren't keeping up. Their design philosphy was protection and firepower. Not speed.

By the time the British had finally introduced ceramics into their tank amour, the Soviets were working on "active" and "passive" defense devices

ERA, yes, so. ERA is not exactly "tank" design as it is wonderfully useful for all AFVs. "Passive" defence also includes spaced or applique armour and mesh screens. All WW2 inventions.

since their were preparing for the eventuality of not being able to stop future armaments like missiles and such, again "leading" tank development. You should see the capabilities of the Arena system which is quite capable. Israel also has a similar system in development.

Many people have systems in development. Point is, MY point is, that the Brits have built a tank that is currently basically proof against everything but itself. Soviet/Russian tanks have not prven that. Although there are no combat sats for Black Eagle.

But higher velocity gives greater anti-tank performance and greater range.

Does it now?. Just as a example would a 20mm cannon give as much range as the D-30 even through it had more velocity.

Now you're just being silly. Why not mention Rarden, which can penetrate the side armour of any "enemy" tank prior 1990? Why, when I mention 84mm vs 122mm do you deliberately go to 20mm?

The D-25T for the record is an artillery tube. Might I add a very good one. It was the Russian "88". In its normal role was capable of 20km+ while only limited by the size of the turret in its range. And what makes you believe that the 20 pounder offers better capability in the Anti-tank role.

The 25 pounder was an artillery tube. If artillery tubes are so wonderful, why didn't the Brits fit it? It comes to ammo designed for killing tanks. Therefore "higher velocity gives better AT peroformance". Why did the Germans and the Brits go from short-calibre tubes with no muzzle brakes to long-calibre tubes with baffles?

The 20pounder CANT even penetrate the IS-3 at 500 meters let alone further away. Its superior velocity was only good for amour like the Tiger Tank and not the IS-3 with its carefully round turret.

I may well have been wrong. Or my knowledge needed updating. My knowledge of 17pdr comes from combat ie against Germans. Sidenote: ALL turrets on new tanks were carefully rounded by then, if you knew what you were doing.

Yes, I know what a JS3 looks like. You were the one who claimed it had greater slop of armour, not me.

Why are you claiming it exceeded the 85mm?. According to penetration rates late model 85mm with new ammunition exceeded the 20 pounder. The problem with Soviet guns was not its performance but the ammunition they used. Soft rounded tips instead of the tungsten or other hardened metal at the top. If was shaped like a modern day 9mm instead of a SABOT. Once the Soviets developed new AP rounds it was much more effective against German amour.

Maybe that's why. Because when looked at in terms of combat (for 85mm) and tests on introduction and combat in Kor/VN (for 20pdr) the Brit gun comes off so much better.

The 20pounder with the APDS Mk I penetrates 80mm of armour at 60 degrees at 500m and 75mm at 1000m.

The 85mm with BR-365P rounds penetrate 138mm of amour at 90 degrees at 500m and 100mm at 1000m.

This figures obviously show that the 85mm is a Superior AT weapon than the 20 pounder was.

Perhaps. But show us the dates of the ammunition and I will be more convinced. As I also stated, 20pdr was replaced by 105mm.

If you want to conclude "improvised" armor designs than look no further than the soviets.

Why not look at the Western desert? Where it all began.

The principle of spaced amour were well known and re-invented with the advert of HEAT warheads.

Yes, specifically bazooka, panzerschrek, PIAT and panzerfaust. Okay, the latter was a joke, but that jet of molten copper isn't...

I was making the point that the Soviets always led tank design, not including the time frame of the centurions introduction.

Oh, they must have invented them, then. With "Willie" and "Mother". Be careful how you say that. And your point is moot. I was very specific in my statement. Because in the 20s and 30s the Brits clearly did not lead tank design. And neither did the Soviets. You do know what the tanks Stalin sent into Finland looked like, don't you?

But as I said, the Soviets were the first to cast turrets which increased survivability substantially because of the increased strength.

Except that they weren't.

The Brits have never gone the smoothe-bore or auto-loading route, because both "innovations" give lesser performance.

How are you going to prove that the L7,L11 and L30 are better guns than what the French, Germans, Americans, Russians and what a whole host of other countries have?.

Because the Germans and Americans both USED the L7. So how can their guns be superior to themselves?

So the British "lead" the way even through no other country in the ENTIRE world are adopting rifled and manually load ammunition en mass?.

Except for those Pershings, Leos and Abrams sporting exactly that gun...???...

*I am off home now. Will have to continue this later.*

[edit on 14-1-2008 by HowlrunnerIV]

[edit on 14-1-2008 by HowlrunnerIV]

reply to post by chinawhite


Dang, chinawhite, haven’t seen you in a while, and have to say it’s a pure pleasure reading your finely crafted posts!

Keep it coming!

reply to post by iskander


The point I was trying to make if the evidence is just photos, it could be argued that the US had just photographed weapons which was found say in Lebanon.

Do you believe the photos of 29s in Lebanon are genuine as I've seen elsewhere comments of people saying there wasn't any in Lebanon as well.

reply to post by deckard83

The point I was trying to make if the evidence is just photos, it could be argued that the US had just photographed weapons which was found say in Lebanon.

Do you believe the photos of 29s in Lebanon are genuine as I've seen elsewhere comments of people saying there wasn't any in Lebanon as well.

There is a complicated process involved, which includes the entire time-line of events preceding the discovery of a weapon/cache.

Showing just pictures is propaganda, but presenting photographs as part of a investigation file which includes all kinds of supporting data, is how it’s supposed to be done.

Even radio chatter recordings are kept in such investigations, especially if an attack took place and casualties were suffered.

reply to post by iskander


I Agree that is what is needed for prove. Since I reckon the US govenments main interest is propaganda with there own general public to support there operations in iraq etc, I don't think they bother going to those lengths.

reply to post by HowlrunnerIV


HowlrunnerIV, are you backing out? I checked my U2U and I still don’t have your list.

Tell it how it is, I know we all have things to do in our own time, so please don’t waste mine, because I already got stuff together, and if you’re no game I don’t want to be putting up YouTube clips for nothing.

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Increased capability? Like this: Stereoscopic range-finders are not exact, as shown by the lack of firts round hits.

Which range finder are you referring to?.

I'm been racking my brain and books on the type of range finder your trying to explain to me. Was it ever mounted on a tank or are you just mentioning a range finder mounted on a machine gun or rifle?. This is my knowledge of development. reticle> Stereoscopic> Laser range finders. If it was mounted only on a machine gun then what is the purpose of mentioning it if it had no impact on its main armament?

Why post this?

It was just part of the paragraph which I quoted to show my source on the ceramic content. The other lines were just part of the "amour" section and didn't to it to highlight some point you thought I was making

Not entirely.

We always take the Maximum amour in a discussion which is the most likely sections which would be hit. That is why I did not compare the side or rear or top amour. As shown by the figures posted before, the 38 ton T-64 was more than a match for the 52ton chieften. And if the Soviet designers won't held back by size constraints would have made a much better tank with more amour.

Their design philosphy was protection and firepower.

They could only keep up with the development of amour by putting more on which shows the inferiority of their technology applied to their tanks as opposed to other tanks. Quantity vs Quality

And as for firepower, do you have any source which states that they had more firepower than the Soviets?. The 115mm and 125mm have one of the highest muzzle velocities in the world and were more than a match for any gun of its day. Unlucky for those cannons was the fact that they were downgraded models armed with low quality ammunition.

ERA is not exactly "tank" design as it is wonderfully useful for all AFVs.

Not exactly tank design?. Some tanks were designed to be fitted with ERA. Its like saying that main cannons are not exactely "tank" designs because they are useful for all AFV.

ERA is a future and present component of "tank" design

MY point is, that the Brits have built a tank that is currently basically proof against everything but itself.

How proven has it been?

Let me see, Gulf war I and Gulf war II.

One third rate military using obsolete and downgraded material from the Soviets hyped up by the western media to be the battle of all battles.? Bombarded for 40+ days which make the troops demoralized and lacking supplies and communication even before the ground offensive.

Not to mention the fact that most of the crews left their tanks before the coalition armies even arrived. They were also fighting blind because the west was using the latest equipment like thermal imaging while the Iraqis had Stereoscopic range finders trying to find tanks through a dust storm

Their wasn't even a fight in the Second Gulf war. And the much vaunted insurgency is using RPG-7s which are way pass their use by date

Why, when I mention 84mm vs 122mm do you deliberately go to 20mm?

Because you made this statement "But higher velocity gives greater anti-tank performance and greater range.". And I was putting into practise to show you that it is not the case

The 25 pounder was an artillery tube. If artillery tubes are so wonderful, why didn't the Brits fit it?

Find me a WW2 turret that can fit a 25 pounder and then I will get back to you

ALL turrets on new tanks were carefully rounded by then, if you knew what you were doing. You were the one who claimed it had greater slop of armour, not me.

No, Turrets were "sloped" with the technology they had then. I believe that sloped were cast and welded on compared to the "frying pan" turret on the IS-3 were revolutionary because it was the first all cast completely rounded turret which offered better protection than ANYTHING before it.

I was referring to the turret of each tank. The Centurion lacking any meaningful slop compared to the IS-3. I wasn't directing it at the glacis plate

Because when looked at in terms of combat

The British never faced any serious amour in the Korean or Vietnam war and was mainly used as fire support. Was there even tank vs tank engagements in Korea?,

But show us the dates of the ammunition and I will be more convinced. As I also stated, 20pdr was replaced by 105mm.

The 85mm was mid-44' and the 122mm was about the some time frame. What you are referring to was before the introduction of the ZiS-S-53 when the T-34 was still armed with its 76mm. They changed it after the battle of Kursk with the introduction of Tiger and Pather tanks and the 85mm and 122mm were the only guns able to penetrate the new German amour.

The 105mm was designed to defeat the new Soviet T-54/55 tank which its appearance in hungry at the British embassy's front door

Why not look at the Western desert? Where it all began.

It began with the Manchurian conflict with japan and the Finish war. The BT-7 and T-26 already had amour sheets attached before the British were even in conflict

You do know what the tanks Stalin sent into Finland looked like, don't you?

They were quite good. T-26 and BT-7 were good tanks, Just bad tactics and crews. Also they were following the tread of large multi turret "land fortresses" like every other nation.Most were lost due to mechanical malfunction

Because the Germans and Americans both USED the L7. So how can their guns be superior to themselves?

I was in that case referring to the guns of the Soviets with the L7 and the Rheinmetall L55 compared to the L30. It just happened to be in the same sentence to make my point. Also the L7 is a fantastic gun which is adopted worldwide, but it didn't have to do with performance alone but also NATO conformity and the fact that the Leopard sold so well.

Except for those Pershings, Leos and Abrams sporting exactly that gun...???.

It was meant to mean

reply to post by iskander


That's for a different thread. Don't bring it in here. I already told you, get it set up. Then let's debate.

I apologise to other posters (apologies to CW as well), but this is going to be a bit piecemeal.

Originally posted by chinawhite

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
The 25 pounder was an artillery tube. If artillery tubes are so wonderful, why didn't the Brits fit it?

Find me a WW2 turret that can fit a 25 pounder and then I will get back to you

This was not a combat tank. But it was produced in WW2 when we thought we wouldn't be able to get Churchills or Shermans. All being told, we probably would have better off with this instead of M4s.

The original vehicle was designed to mount a 2 pounder this was later changed to a 6 pounder (57 mm, 2.25 in), however none of these were available and the first 65 tanks were built with the 2 pounder....

...The next step up in firepower available in Australia was the 25 pounder (87.6 mm, 3.45 in) gun-howitzer, this was quickly redesigned as a tank gun using experience gained from the work on the short 25 pounder...

...One pilot model AC3 had been completed and work had started on producing 25 tanks for trials when the programme was terminated...

...a turret was developed and mounted on one of the earlier development vehicles to assess the vehicle's ability to mount the foremost Allied anti-tank gun of the day - the British 17 pounder (76 mm, 3 in). This was achieved by mounting two 25 pounder gun-howitzers which when fired together would significantly exceed the recoil of a 17 pounder...

...All but 3 tanks were dismantled or disposed of in 1945[7].

Surviving Sentinels can be seen at the RAAC tank museum at Puckapunyal Victoria (serial number 8030), and at the Bovington Tank Museum (serial number 8049). The only completed AC3 (serial number 8066) is located at the Treloar Technology Centre at the Australian War Memorial in Canberra.

en.wikipedia.org...

I admit Wiki is not my favuorite source. But this matches exactly with what I have read in three different books from Oz, the UK and the US.

17pdr prototype: en.wikipedia.org...:AC_E1%28AWM_P03498.010%29.jpg

Originally posted by chinawhite

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
You do know what the tanks Stalin sent into Finland looked like, don't you?

They were quite good. T-26 and BT-7 were good tanks, Just bad tactics and crews. Also they were following the tread of large multi turret "land fortresses" like every other nation.Most were lost due to mechanical malfunction

Oh, come on. Can we at least, both of us, remain consistent. First you say the Sovs have always led tank development, now you say they were following the same trend...

Fact: In 1940 the BEF fielded no multi-turret tanks (neither did the Reich), the US still had half of one: M3 Lee-Grant. Fact, Stalin still had them and he sent them to Finland. Where they got thumped by the Finns because multi-turreting was a cul-de-sac.

Multi-turret tanks were like turret-fighters. The idea appeared good on paper but was, in fact, a fallacy. The tanks had to be massive to fit those turrets, the crews were massive to work the guns and the lack of command co-ordination, not to mention guns that couldn't depress or elevate far enough, meant the tanks were particularly innefective in combat.

On the idea of the Soviets leading tank design and not the Brits...(again, Wiki):

The Vickers 6-Ton Tank or Vickers Mark E was a British light tank designed as a private project at Vickers. It was not purchased by the British Army, but was picked up by a large number of foreign armed forces and was copied almost exactly by the Soviets as the T-26...

...The Soviets were also happy with the design and licensed it for production. However in their case local production started as the T-26, and eventually over 12,000 were built in various versions.

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by chinawhite

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Why didn't the British follow the Germans and fit their best cannon (25 pounder) to their tanks?

Because they did not have a vehicle which could mount the 25 pounder while the Soviets and Germans did.

The Germans did not. They had to build a brand new tank to fit the 88. They even followed the same route of diminishng returns to its ultimate futility: Maus.

The Soviets mounted the biggest and most powerful guns as assault vehicles because of the impractically ammunition and such.

Assault vehicles, or SPGs, are NOT tanks.

The recoil was also to much for a MBT to handle and only could be used on a heavier vehicle such as the ISU-155.

In WW2 there was no such thing as an MBT (Main Battle Tank). There were Light tanks (now classified by the Brits as CVRTs), Medium tanks (Churchill, M3/4, T-34) and Heavy Tanks (Tiger, KV1/2. JS3). The concept of Main Battle Tank (MBT) didn't occur until after the war when nations got tired of building Meduim and Heavy tanks. The T10 was the last Soviet one, the Conqueror was the last British one.

If the British could put their best gun in they could have

I think you mean if could...would. But that is not necessarily true. Why did not the Yanks put their "best" gun in a tank? Even their SPGs were medium to small calibre guns. The Brits were developing tank-specific guns.

Why the assumption that only Centurion has this armour on the gun mantle? What proof that IS3 carries 200mm on the glacis? Plus, maybe you haven't looked at pics lately, but the slope is about the same.

Onwar.com is the only online source with comprehensive figures. As you can see yourself, it clearly states 200mm on the mantle. I believe that the Centurion had its maximum amour on the gun mantle because its the most likely place getting hit and also being the most important.

Perhaps you should have been clearer about the slope. Or perhaps I should have been. But your statement "The IS-3 had A LOT more amour than the centurion. It had 200mm as a maximum while the centurion had 152mm as a maximum which I assume was on the gun mantle. It also was MUCH MORE sloped which equates to more amour." made me look at the glacis. Maybe it's a personal quirk, but for slope I always look at the glacis, not the mantle. For mantle I look at shot traps.

The IS-3 is a more sophisticated design, Not only does it have a nighly angled glacis plate, it has incorporates a wedge which increases the amount of the armour. Now the IS-3 is surely more angled on the turret than the Centurion which is the first area which is seen by most gunners

Okay, glacis/mantle dealth with. Sophisticated design? Didn't we already look at gun stabilisation? Wedge: what/where? Turret angle? IS 3 incorporates quite a shot trap for such an "advanced" design.

As I said, the Centurion had FAR greater range.

How exactly does that make it a better tank?. How much distance are you going to cover each day?. Maybe in modern insurgency warfare it might be a good comparison tool but advances of more than 50km each day was not likey.

Such advances were acheived several times during WW2, when both tanks were designed and brought into service.

The IS-3 was design anyhow to hold its fuel on the outside in drums, which is like a aircraft having fuel tanks on the outside.

No, it's like deliberately turning your tank into a "Ronson". Exteror fuel, while handy as proven in North Africa/Western Desert (whichever you prefer) is also a serious drawback in combat. As proven in NA/WD. Before they go into combat aircraft drop their wing/belly tanks. Tanks were not always so successful in dumping their Jerry Can/44 gals.

And speed..You use it to move closer to engagement and 3km is a big difference epically if your going cross country

A) Said that. B) No, it isn't. That 3kph was TOP speed, not X-country speed. You don't use that speed when entering hostile territory with enemy armour "somewhere up there".

What advantage does range give? Well, with NATO assuming they would be fighting defensive retreat/manouvre warfare, which do you want, a 3kph advantage or a 100 to 200 kilometre advantage? Plus the world had just seen what happens to armour that runs out of fuel (either outrunning supply or supply being destroyed).

Hull-down is only for ambushes.

Have you tried to spot a tank far away?. The curve of the horizon plays a large part in Europe and the fact that the IS-3 is half a meter shorter means that their is about 500m to 1000m difference in who sees each other first. This is inclusive of ability to fire on them. Its almost impossible to hit the IS-3 turret at anything less than 1km because it offers such a small target.

In 1945 very little tank-tank combat was occurring at ranges of 1000m plus. Mostly because targeting simply wasn't that good. Even Tigers often killed Shermans closer than that.

The Centurion is big and it is also slow which would have made it a sitting duck if it was on the eastern front bar defensive positions.

In WW3 there would have been no "Eastern Front." The "front" would have been the BRD/DDR border. The British Army of the Rhine tanks would have begun combat in and around the Teutoberg Forest region. All those rivers Zhukov had to cross in pursuit of the Germans don't give ample supply of "defensive positions"?

It was only useful in Vietnam and Korea because neither armies they faced had any worthwhile AT weapons and was mainly used as to bombard rows of infantry as defensive positions

Korea, maybe. Not in VN. It was not used to bombard rows of enemy in VN because the only times the Aussies faced them were at Long Tan and Coral/Balmoral. It was used in heavily forested anti-bunker operations, Anti-riverine-insertion operations and infantry support.

Look at the MBT70 project. So many innovations. How many of those innovations made it into the M1 or the Leo 2?

Everything except the American 152 missile/cannon.

Really. The drivers of Leos and Abramses sit in the turret, do they?

And the Centurion never faced anything but third world armies with tanks which offered less than half the performance as their Soviet counterparts. No fire-control was ever present in Iraqi T-72 let alone Egypt or Syrian armies.

Right. Iraqi T-72. So the T-72 sold to Iraq couldn't even compete with the JS3? But, then, the Centurion wasn't being driven by the Brits, but by a "local" force.

The Soviets led innovation and had the worlds BEST tanks, the British on the other hand just made things bigger instead of inventing new ground-breaking technology like the Soviets , Israel, French etc.

Israel? What, like buying Centurions? French? Already spoke about AMX 13's gun. I've even (a very long time ago in a different thread) brought up ARL 44, in response to something you posted. You dismissed it then.

If you are trying to prove that it is better than provide statistics or other facts

Already have. It's not my fault if the Soviets let the B-team on the field.

PS, how can you never have heard of ranging machine guns?

Here's how it works: Your machine gun is fixed in line with your main gun. Your machine gun ammo has exactly the same flight characteristics as your main gun ammo (requires correct powder load). Your machine gun loads tracer and fires in three-round bursts.

Thus, you fire a burst and watch where the tracers go. If you fired your main gun it would hit the same place. So, you raise, or lower your main gun and fire another burst. When your tracers hit the target you let go with a main gun round.

Much more efficient than firing a main gun round and then having to correct. Also faster.

First you say M47 mounted first range-finder, then you say it was actually German. Which was it?

[edit on 14-1-2008 by HowlrunnerIV]

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
The Germans did not. They had to build a brand new tank to fit the 88.

I was stating the reason why the British could not have used the 25 pounder because they had no wartime turret capable of fitting a 25 pounder. The Germans did have a turret which was the Tiger tank, and of course they had to build one to fit the 88 into. What exactly do you mean that they didn't when the Tiger tank clearly mounted a 88?

Assault vehicles, or SPGs, are NOT tanks.

??????

Your point was??

The concept of Main Battle Tank (MBT) didn't occur until after the war when nations got tired of building Meduim and Heavy tanks. The T10 was the last Soviet one, the Conqueror was the last British one.

I know what a MBT was. And the concept of the MBT was post-dated to the T-34, Pather and Sherman. You know that the T-34 is considered the father of the MBT concept and that is why I refer to it as the MBT because it was the backbone. Here is a definition from wikipedia which sums up my point. Not in the sense of British tank classification such as cruiser tanks etc

Perhaps the most defining feature of the Main Battle Tank type is neither its weight, mobility, nor firepower, but instead the idea that only one type of heavily armoured vehicle is required to carry out the roles of breakthrough, exploitation and infantry support.

The T-34 fits this description exactly which is why it was considered to be such a good tank

IS 3 incorporates quite a shot trap for such an "advanced" design.

Statistics haven't proven it to be anymore of a "death trap" than any other place of the tanks frontal amour. The "shot trap" is not a big a problem it is made out to be. It is not as large as other modern tanks of all nations

Look not further than a combination of western tanks







It was an advanced design which Iskander provided a quote from church hill which states the surprise of its appearance at Berlin

Such advances were acheived several times during WW2, when both tanks were designed and brought into service.

Thats why I said that 50km advances where not likely each day. Obviously during 1944 there was long advances but generally advances did not need the tank to travel more than is range each day. I used 50km as gauge knowing thats its range is much further than the 50km I said. It was even made longer by adding fuel tanks attached to the rear which nearly all Soviets have been designed to have

Exteror fuel, while handy as proven in North Africa/Western Desert (whichever you prefer) is also a serious drawback in combat.

Not when your in the Soviet tank with Diesel fuel. The Soviets had Diesel fuel in their tanks which did not make that such a large problem compared to the British use of what I presume is petrol. Which means they did not have a large a problem as what the British were experiencing which is why most Soviet tanks carried extra drums of fuel wherever they went

Well, with NATO assuming they would be fighting defensive retreat/manouvre warfare, which do you want, a 3kph advantage or a 100 to 200 kilometre advantage?

I would want to be getting out their faster and relying on the logistic train to supply me with petrol every 200km. I wouldn't want to be left behind so that the Soviets could encircle me. With that extra 3km a hour I could be a extra 15 or so kilometers ahead of where I would have been or I could be left behind knowing that I had a full tank of petrol?. What is the use of extra range when you go slower than your opposing force

In 1945 very little tank-tank combat was occurring at ranges of 1000m plus. Mostly because targeting simply wasn't that good.

Depending on which front you are talking about. The Tiger tank would sniper Soviet tanks as well as western tanks with their good optics.

Now you mentioned sherman tanks. They had this tactic of using 5 Shermans to kill one Tiger tank. 4 of them would distract the Tiger, while 1 would try to go behind to hit its thinner rear armour. The German advantage was armour and a long range gun, why would they go in close to lose that advantage and get swamped by numbers of shermans and T-34s.

Lots of individuals battles you can use but generally with the introduction on the 88, combat became longer range which was one of the reasons the soviets introduced their new cannons after the germans started picking them off a longer range

The British Army of the Rhine tanks would have begun combat in and around the Teutoberg Forest region.

Its debatable whether the Soviets would have followed the British into the forest. Most likely they would have advanced to Frankfurt through the Fulda Gap and would have left the British army stranded in the forest and moved around it. And I don't see any way the British could have held on for more than a few days before the Soviets completely destroyed them or they retreated.

The Teutoburg Forest would not have offered much help to the defenders unless they establish good arcs of fire, because if they didn't it would be as bad for them as the Soviets

Really. The drivers of Leos and Abramses sit in the turret, do they?

That wasn't a innovation, it was a design characteristic isolated to that tank

So the T-72 sold to Iraq couldn't even compete with the JS3?

How was my sentence interpreted into that?

Israel? What, like buying Centurions? French?

Israel with ERA
France with BMS

Both these inventions have revolutionized future tank design same as composite armour, laser range finders, the radio and a whole host of other inventions

It's not my fault if the Soviets let the B-team on the field.

Your like comparing a Ford's Fairlane* to a economy BMW without the high end luxuries and saying Ford make better cars. So it proves itself against obsolete tanks and should be awarded with a badge of honor?

* Sorry I have no idea about cars

PS, how can you never have heard of ranging machine guns?

LOL.

I thought you were talking about a range finder not a technique to find range

First you say M47 mounted first range-finder, then you say it was actually German. Which was it?

I first said the M47 was the first tank to have a range finder for its main cannon.

Then you said something about range finders on machine guns. So I said that the Pather tank first used a stereoscopic rangefinder with its MG-42.

Which ever definition you want it to be. a range finder for its secondary armament or its main armament

Originally posted by chinawhite

The Brits have never gone the smoothe-bore or auto-loading route, because both "innovations" give lesser performance.

So the British "lead" the way even through no other country in the ENTIRE world are adopting rifled and manually load ammunition en mass?.

How can they be "adopting" something that they have had since the tank's invention (by the Brits)? ALL Western tanks, prior to the Rheinmetal gun, have ALWAYS had rifled guns. The pont here is that while other counties took up smoothebore tubes and autoloaders, the Brits did not.

You are totally misunderstanding my point. The Brits developed fully-combustible ammo for their gun: Innovation. Others have not: non-innovative.

The Brits chose not to have a smoothebore: non-innovative. Others have chosen shotguns: innovation.

The Brits have chosen not to auto-load: non-innovative. Others have chosen auto-loaders: Innovation.

Autoloaders: Remove one man from tank crew = one less to help repair. Speed of autoloaders not comparable with human loader. So, the "innovation" does not give the tank an advantage. It does, in fact, give it a disadvantage.

Smoothebore: gives kinetic energy weapons more accuracy and range. They don't like to spin. Gives non-kinetic energy weapons less accuracy and range. They do like to spin.

So APFSDS-T likes a smoothebore, but HE, HEAT and HESH do not. Sabots are currently, indisputably, the best AT round available. But they are not a particularly good multi-purpose round. HEAT is acceptable, HESH is better.

The Brits took a look at the performance of the smoothebore in non-AT performance and decided it didn't stack up against the spinning HESH round.

Therefore, they have chosen not to follow the smoothebore/autoloaded route because they do not give performance advantages. Therefore, neither innovation is "leading tank design".

Smooth bores offer better range of weapons, higher muzzle velocity etc.

No, they don't. Smoothebores are superior only in the kinetic energy category. In all other areas, except barrel life, the rifled gun is superior, just as in artillery/naval/infantry applications. The longest recorded (although occasionally disputed) tank on tank kill was Desert Storm by a C1 with a rifled gun.

The only reason the L30 are staying in-touch is because of DU rounds and other technology no one else is adopting instead of the eco-friendly Americans and British.

Correct in limited terms. The L30's HESH round is still better against non-ferrous hardpoints.

To be fair to the Arab states, Israel is one of the most battle hardened and "war-like" states in the world.

Of the three Arab/Israeli wars, the Arabs were the agressors in two. Iran and Iraq, both "Arab" went to war for eight years. Iraq then invaded Kuwait. Your analysis is using the wrong words. The Arabs (and other Middle Eastern Muslims) are, throughout history, more "warlike" than the Jews/Israelis. "Battle-hardened"? In which battles did the Israelis not fight Arab states? How can the Israelis be more "battle-hardened" than the Arabs if they have each fought the same number of wars because those are the only wars they have fought? Which doesn't include the fact that Egypt went adventuring in the Yemen.

(Israel is not "battle-hardened" and "warlike", it is professional.)

One of the highest per capita militaries, a massive active military and conscription of nearly everyone able to hold arms.

Per capita? yes. Direct numbers? No. Why is the IDF so large when compared to population base? Because those "less warlike" Arabs attacked the nation at the moment of its birth.

Compared to the Arabs which had soviet training which even at peace time is insignificant since their total war mentality.

Oh. So even although they led tank design, the Sov's doctrine and training were lacking in comparison to the minnow that is Israel? Total war mentality?

They were also fighting Soviet tactics without Soviet resources

In 1967 The Israelis had less than 1,000 tanks. The Arabs massed more than 2 1/2 times that. Egypt alone nearly numbered as many troops as Israel could mass calling on its reserves. That's not including its co-belligerents.

not to mention that fact that they had inferior resources. The Soviet export ala "monkey tanks" are well known because of their inferiority to real Soviet "in-service tanks"

I guess you learn something new everyday. These well-known inferiorities are new to me.

The Arabs lost for a number of reason but cant be blamed on one certain problem that they faced.

I didn't say tank inferiority was the reason they lost. I said Arab losses pointed to the tank's inferiority. You said A does not lead to B, I said B might be indicitive of A.

The D-25T was obviously more useful, quite clearly it is just a artillery gun mounted in a tank.

Okay, is this your English, or mine, causing confusion here? How can "just an artillery gun" mounted on a tank be more useful to a tank than a specifically designed AT gun?

It was a Anti-tank gun, ability to be used for fire support etc.

So was 20pdr.

Just look at the ISU-122 which is more versatile than the 20pounder ever proved to be.

Really? How? and you say I need to show proof.

But I am interested to know what you based the better versatility on?

You've alredy partially touched on it. Some of it is the ammo. Some of it is the record. Australian Cents were used to shoot supply boats infiltrating SVN by river at night. They were used in infantry support ops in jungle terrain. (I haven't found it, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen, did the Sovs develop a "canister" round for the JS3?). Not to mention that you are changing my words. I said "useful", you are saying "versatile". They can mean the same thing. They do not always mean the same thing.

Who led the world in developing tank variants during WW2?..

Which stayed dead with the advent of proper development in support vehicles.

Er. No. It has been standard practice during peacetime that money is not spent on "special" or "funny" weapon systems. But Centurion was produced in both BARV and AVRE forms. The Centurion BARV served until this decade. The Cheiftain AVRE replaced its predecessor.

Which brings me back to the point that you claimed it was "the tank of ww2" and having many variants being one of them.

No. I never said that. I never said many variants made a tank. What I said was "Centurion was THE tank of WW2." Like saying "Williams Renault FW15 was THE F1 car of 1993". You said variants make the tank, not me. That is not an argument I find sustainable. Churchill had many more variants than any other tank in WW2, but T-34 was clearly a better product. All it proves is the British proved more "adaptable" to circumstances. Or that they could better envision the problems of future combat situations and design vehicles to meet those particular problems. Such as the DD swimming tanks, or the "Bobbin" beach-crossing tanks, or the Ark bridge-laying tanks. Or the Tetrarch airborne tank (Yanks had Locust).

Simply put it, the IS-3 could have been turned in

You didn't get to finish this statement. But I'll have a go at it any way. Who cares what COULD have been done to the tank. What is important is what WAS done.

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Oh, come on. Can we at least, both of us, remain consistent. First you say the Sovs have always led tank development, now you say they were following the same trend.

I said that in the context of the conversation we were having. Obviously they did not invent the tank or led design in the interwar years, please don't nitpick at that statement because I thought you would understand it in the context of the conversation, and I will keep that in mind next time and be much more specific

Stalin still had them and he sent them to Finland.

What about tactics, training, mechanical problems and the Finnish army?. They had few things to combat armoured vehicles and if it was a 35ton tank in snow it would have worked better.

You obviously know of the Soviet purges and the war in Finland was hardly evidence of their capability especially when they showed what they could do against the Japanese in machuria

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Autoloaders: Remove one man from tank crew = one less to help repair. Speed of autoloaders not comparable with human loader.

Help repair?

I know many articles make that argument of one less crew member to do the work, but that is a straw man defense. You train a crew to fight and let the logistic guys handle the maintenance. Not a Big deal

Maybe the old style auto loaders were slower, but new generation autoloaders are as fast or faster and can keep it up for more than 10 rounds. Imagine moving in and out of combat lugging 20 rounds of 120mm ammo around.

In the near future auto loaders will be fastly superior to to manual loaders. You dont have to teach him how to load ammunition, you dont have to pay him, you dont have to worry about his death and it leaves you create smaller tanks. The benefits out weigh the negatives

HEAT is acceptable, HESH is better.

That is why all major demolition rockets are HEAT?.

Hellfire, RPG etc. HESH might be good for a few purposes but its mostly outdated and abandoned by most militaries except for the British. Even countries still with L7s have HEAT warheads instead of HESH simply because it offers better performance

The longest recorded (although occasionally disputed) tank on tank kill was Desert Storm by a C1 with a rifled gun.

If a M1 was in the same situation could it have made the kill?. YES

Of the three Arab/Israeli wars, the Arabs were the agressors in two.

So they should have accepted the artificial creation of a state they did not recognise? I would more or less call it re-occupying area that they owned. I wouldn't call it aggression, it was western countries medaling with their business.

(Israel is not "battle-hardened" and "warlike", it is professional.)

Each world is interchangeable for this definition

So even although they led tank design, the Sov's doctrine and training were lacking in comparison to the minnow that is Israel? Total war mentality?

Soviet B units were conscript armies serving for a small duration normally 2 years and then back to the farms. This training was passed on the arab forces which were even more lacking in discipline and training than the original soviet forces. But then again the Elite Soviet Guard diversions were professional and highly organised.

Its a matter of perspective your taking and to explain what I want to actually explain needs more than a paragraph that I am willing to type.

The Arabs massed more than 2 1/2 times that.

And?. To have a break through you need reserves and the number might seen impressive but ill co-ordinated.

And their surprise attack had nothing to do with it?. How about no air cover while the israeli air force bombards tanks in the open desert?

How can "just an artillery gun" mounted on a tank be more useful to a tank than a specifically designed AT gun?

You said the 20 pounder was more versatile gun while I pointed to that fact that the D-25T had more ammunition available to use as compared to simply a AT weapon

Really? How? and you say I need to show proof.

You mean the ISU-122. Just read battle reports to see the role they played in the eastern front.

Did the 20 pounder play the role as a troop carrier...guess not

All it proves is the British proved more "adaptable" to circumstances.

If the Soviets were put in the same situation, they wouldn't have had similar solutions?. Maybe the Soviets didn't adapt because they didn't need to

Originally posted by chinawhite

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
IS 3 incorporates quite a shot trap for such an "advanced" design.

Statistics haven't proven it to be anymore of a "death trap" than any other place of the tanks frontal amour. The "shot trap" is not a big a problem it is made out to be. It is not as large as other modern tanks of all nations

Look not further than a combination of western tanks...

I have said before that Leo 2 has the greatest shot trap in the world at the moment. On this board. As I said, maybe it's a personal quirk. But shot traps are a thing I look for.

Plus, again, stop extrapolating meaning from my words. Nowhere did I claim a tank was a "death trap".

It was an advanced design which Iskander provided a quote from church hill which states the surprise of its appearance at Berlin

No, he didn't. You need to read his post again. 1) He didn't quote Churchill and 2) I proved him wrong when he said Churchill turned to Roosevelt at the Berlin Victory Parade. Roosevelt was dead.

Such advances were acheived several times during WW2, when both tanks were designed and brought into service.

Thats why I said that 50km advances where not likely each day. Obviously during 1944 there was long advances but generally advances did not need the tank to travel more than is range each day. I used 50km as gauge knowing thats its range is much further than the 50km I said.

Er, yes. And no. An advance in kilometres does not necessarily show the amount of driving a machine has done that day. Combat burns huge amounts of fuel, often for very little "advance".

It was even made longer by adding fuel tanks attached to the rear which nearly all Soviets have been designed to have

Yes, which is why the next bit:

Exteror fuel, while handy as proven in North Africa/Western Desert (whichever you prefer) is also a serious drawback in combat.

Not when your in the Soviet tank with Diesel fuel. The Soviets had Diesel fuel in their tanks which did not make that such a large problem compared to the British use of what I presume is petrol. Which means they did not have a large a problem as what the British were experiencing which is why most Soviet tanks carried extra drums of fuel wherever they went

Deisel may not explode the way petrol does, but it does burn. Not very pleasant for the infantry accompanying you. It also creates much more smoke when burning. Smoke which prevents you from seeing your target. The British petrol was inside the tank's armuor. Not out on the deck.

Well, with NATO assuming they would be fighting defensive retreat/manouvre warfare, which do you want, a 3kph advantage or a 100 to 200 kilometre advantage?

I would want to be getting out their faster and relying on the logistic train to supply me with petrol every 200km. I wouldn't want to be left behind so that the Soviets could encircle me.

Clearly we have a different understanding of the idea of retreat and manouvre. If you are coming at my defensive position then I wait until I've done large amounts of damage to your exposed forces. Then I pull back and either jump into a prepared defensive position or create one and wait for you to advance again. Because I can go further beween pit stops I win this race because I can fight more battles than you can.

With that extra 3km a hour I could be a extra 15 or so kilometers ahead of where I would have been or I could be left behind knowing that I had a full tank of petrol?

Again: TOP speed vs X-country. Those 3km per hour don't exist once you get off the autobahn and into the forest. So, 15 kilometres behind the front Soviet armour? Sounds like a good place to be, creating havoc amongst the supply lines and still with fuel to go places.

What is the use of extra range when you go slower than your opposing force

As I said, combat burns fuel. Lots and lots of fuel.

In 1945 very little tank-tank combat was occurring at ranges of 1000m plus. Mostly because targeting simply wasn't that good.

Depending on which front you are talking about. The Tiger tank would sniper Soviet tanks as well as western tanks with their good optics.

They weren't that good. The real long range damage was done by Elephants and they're optics weren't particularly good, either. Once the T-34 went to 85mm (long) guns the duel became more equal, but tanks didn't stand around like a couple of English gentlemen with pistols at dawn. The best German commanders got up real close and personal.

Michael Wittman, in particular (and probably the most famous Panzer "ace"), is best remembered for a single action in which he did not stand outside allied range and "snipe" and his Tiger was subsequently immobilised by a 6pdr (57mm).

Now you mentioned sherman tanks. They had this tactic of using 5 Shermans to kill one Tiger tank.

Yes, I know all about Sherman vs Tiger. I have never claimed Sherman to be great (or even a particularly good) tank. It certainly led tank development nowhere.

Lots of individuals battles you can use but generally with the introduction on the 88, combat became longer range which was one of the reasons the soviets introduced their new cannons after the germans started picking them off a longer range

Everybody likes to say this. Yes, ranges became longer. That is true. But German tank success was based on movement and the Tiger was not effective on the move. The Marder and StuG were highly limited and the Nashorn useless on the move. The Germans needed to change tactics to use their new, bigger, longer guns. Now they had to wait for the Allies to arrive on the scene and then drive into range. Much like Henry at Agincourt vs the French knights. It helped that the Germans were on the defensive, it helped that the allies were driving (in the west) Shermans. In the east manouvre was the name of the game, Zhukov had always known that.

Everybody points to the greater ranges of the guns and says things like "1000m+", but the biggest successes came at much shorter ranges than this. Because guns were not (or not very) stabilised, meaning accuracy on the move was severely disrupted. It was certainly POSSIBLE to kill tanks at greater range, but the Tigers didn't have to lob shots at Shermans from thousands of metres away. Even at less than 1,000m a moving Sherman would have difficulty hitting a stationary, prepared Tiger. In order to maximise his accuracy M4 commander would have to halt, making him a much easier target to hit. Tigers (and Pzkpw IVs and Vs, Marder IIIs, StuG III/IV, Nashorn etc) had the choice of defensive positions.

*speculation/analysis* Had they been in Churchills, Cromwells and Comets (all had greater gun and armour than Sherman) or had the Yanks actually followed the British lead of having the next tank in development, then it's possible the 5 on 1 tactic would have been far less necessary.

Really. The drivers of Leos and Abramses sit in the turret, do they?

That wasn't a innovation, it was a design characteristic isolated to that tank.

Which no-one followed. But it WAS an innovation, just not a very good one in practice. Which is how the British designers view smoothebore and autoloaders.

So the T-72 sold to Iraq couldn't even compete with the JS3?

How was my sentence interpreted into that?

Well if you say JS3 was so superior to Centurion, then say Iraqi T-72 couldn't compete because it was a poor man's version, then it must not have been better than JS3, which you say could pound Centurion. Now, what you may have meant was Challenger 1 destroying the Iraqi T-72 doesn't mean Challenger 1 could destroy Soviet T-72 (because they weren't the same thing), but you didn't mention Challenger 1 while we've been concentrating on Centurion.

PS, how can you never have heard of ranging machine guns?

LOL.

I thought you were talking about a range finder not a technique to find range

It is not a technique for finding range, it is purpose-built equipment. Therefore it is a range finder.

I first said the M47 was the first tank to have a range finder for its main cannon.

Then you said something about range finders on machine guns. So I said that the Pather tank first used a stereoscopic rangefinder with its MG-42.

No. I said ranging machine guns. Not a range finder ON a machine gun. The machine gun WAS the range finder. It was not an anti-personnel machine gun.

I always referred to the main gun.

Which ever definition you want it to be. a range finder for its secondary armament or its main armament

The range finder is for the main gun. It gave greater first shot accuracy than prismatic range-finders did, NOT by being faster per se, but by saving the first shot until you KNEW you were on target. Prismatic range finders did not guarantee that kind of accuracy.

In a sense it was a kind of fire control system that held the shot until the barrel was pointed directly at the target. Combined with gun stabilisation it made the tank more accurate. But it takes a computer for true fire-control

Originally posted by MAVERICK05
im not sure what to believe. is the british challenger 2 better than m1 a2 abrams that the us has? DO YOU REALLY THINK THE US WOULD LET ANOTHER COUNTRY HAVE THE MORE SUPERIOR VEHICLES? my answer is hell no.

Whyever not?
We bought a lot of your Apache Helicopters, junked a lot of the electronics and made it a far better creature. Dont forget, We invented the tank, and though we might not jump around and shout so much about things, ithe Challenger probably is a better tank.

Originally posted by chinawhite

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
The British Army of the Rhine tanks would have begun combat in and around the Teutoberg Forest region.

Its debatable whether the Soviets would have followed the British into the forest. Most likely they would have advanced to Frankfurt through the Fulda Gap and would have left the British army stranded in the forest and moved around it.

Ah, ah, ah, you haven't studied your history. You never, EVER leave an enemy formation behind and simply go around it. You always detail forces to contain it. It's the same as bypassing a walled city and moving on. No commander in history has ever allowed the enemy to remain in his rear areas where they can perform a flank attack.

And I don't see any way the British could have held on for more than a few days before the Soviets completely destroyed them or they retreated.

As I said, retreat/manouvre warfare. Plus, what where the Soviets going to completely destroy them with. We're still arguing as to whether Centurion was better than JS3 and whether Cheiftain was better than T-55/64/72/80.

The Teutoburg Forest would not have offered much help to the defenders unless they establish good arcs of fire, because if they didn't it would be as bad for them as the Soviets

As far as I know, the British specifically trained for forest combat in their tanks. Because the Ardennes was Germany's route into France in 1940. Plus, the Soviet's greatest tank successes (apart from Warsaw) came on open plains (if not outright steppe), not in woodlands. Any way you can maximise your advantages, do so.

Yes, yes, we've all read of the Fulda Gap theory. Mostly because it was true. However, what I have visions of is masses of Soviet armour effectively bottle-necking and giving the combined airforces of NATO wonderful target practice. (Bottle-neck is a relative term here, I'm not suggesting the South Eastern Arterial at 6pm)

Now, the Typhoon's success against tanks has been much hyped by some, but the fact is its greatest success was in forcing Panzer columns off the road and forcing them to burn precious fuel manouvering instead of proceeding to the fight.

I'm not for a moment suggesting that NATO (plus the French) would have had a clear run of the skies, but they certainly had enough aircraft of what the Brits term "GR"-type to give the advancing Soviet tanks a bad day.

*Going further off-topic* In the immediate aftermath of WW2, the Western Allied airforces (soon to be NATO) were certainly in better shape to fight this particular war than the Soviets were.

(Say, there's a nice thread, want to start it?)

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Plus, again, stop extrapolating meaning from my words. Nowhere did I claim a tank was a "death trap".

You said it like you hinted at it being and negative thing. My mistake

He didn't quote Churchill

I read that part, but what I am referring to is something Churchill said. I also heard a similar quote with the introduction of the IS-3 which did cause quite a stir at the Victory Parade

Combat burns huge amounts of fuel, often for very little "advance".

Yes, I do know that. Thats why I kept my advance figures to a minimum even though the IS-3 with a full tank can travel many more kilometers than the 50km limit I mentioned. Same with fighter aircraft which is what I had in mind at that time of writing

Not very pleasant for the infantry accompanying you.

The Soviets even made a purpose built smoke maker which kinda tells you what they thought about any silly infantry following you

Clearly we have a different understanding of the idea of retreat and manouvre.

You would most likely be encircled by the fast moving Soviet armoured units and be destroyed by the artillery which was their real weapon. Battle of Kursk serves one reminder about the power of Soviet artillery. Stalins organs and such

Those 3km per hour don't exist once you get off the autobahn and into the forest.

Depends how wooded the forest is, we are not traveling 100km how a slow jog

They weren't that good. The real long range damage was done by Elephants and they're optics weren't particularly good, either.

We are talking about different fronts here. The Germans in Russia were fighting in flat plains on the defensive. A slow organized retreat, and everything I read talks about long engagement ranges of the Tiger vs Russian models. Kursk and Kharkov are the two major ones I can think about but the general opinion before the introduction of the 85mm and new generations of tanks was the fact that the Germans were sniping them off.

There are other factors like artillery and aircraft that are at play which actually killed most tanks combined. I also have a feeling your talking about the western front and I the eastern

Well if you say JS3 was so superior to Centurion, then say Iraqi T-72 couldn't compete because it was a poor man's version

It was two sentences.

You made two points in the paragraph and I answered both points in mine

It is not a technique for finding range, it is purpose-built equipment.

I wouldn't call it a range finder but I would define it as a technique. I