It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by chinawhite
Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
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but its mostly outdated and abandoned by most militaries except for the British.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
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
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?
You said the 20 pounder was more versatile gun
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 HowlrunnerIV
You never, EVER leave an enemy formation behind and simply go around it.
Plus, what where the Soviets going to completely destroy them with.
However, what I have visions of is masses of Soviet armour effectively bottle-necking and giving the combined airforces of NATO wonderful target practice.
(Say, there's a nice thread, want to start it?)
Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Exactly. These are not demolition rockets. They are AT weapons. Which is why they are HEAT
Suggest you read the history of the creation of Israel much more carefully. It was not "Western countries".
If, if, if. But they weren't.
Originally posted by chinawhite
Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Exactly. These are not demolition rockets. They are AT weapons. Which is why they are HEAT
They might have begun development as AT weapons but the purpose they share in the military is basically a demolition rocket which is what I call them. How much more times has the RPG-7 been used on buildings and people instead of tanks. How much tanks does the hell-fire have to its name compared to people and buildings like what israel does.
Though they started off as AT weapons they are more useful elsewhere
Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Originally posted by chinawhite
Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
HEAT is acceptable, HESH is better.
That is why all major demolition rockets are HEAT?.
Demolition rockets? Don't you mean AT rockets used in demolition? As in RPG7-type weapons (and Milans etc)...
Hellfire, RPG etc.
Exactly. These are not demolition rockets. They are AT weapons. Which is why they are HEAT (shaped charges with a copper sheet etc)
Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Originally posted by chinawhiteHESH might be good for a few purposes
Such as anti-tank/AFV, anti-blockhouse/bunker/building etc.
but its mostly outdated and abandoned by most militaries except for the British.
Define outdated. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. These new ammo types you're referencing do not necessarily give superior performance in these situations.
Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
The quote strings are starting to get pretty long and we're definitely off the topic of the Challenger 2 v Abrams...
Originally posted by Anonymous ATS I am a Challenger 2 crewman gunner/driver in the british army. I've got 2 tours of iraq under my belt and a stint at the Armoured Trials and Development Unit (ATDU) in Bovington, where the tank was first invented. Quite obviously ive got experience of equipment that I cant disclose on the net.