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)
HESH 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but its mostly outdated and abandoned by most militaries except for the British.
Define outdated.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.
Even countries still with L7s have HEAT warheads instead of HESH simply because it offers better performance
Not exaclty, no. Where are they buying their ammo?
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.
Suggest you read the history of the creation of Israel much more carefully. It was not "Western countries".
(Israel is not "battle-hardened" and "warlike", it is professional.)
Each world is interchangeable for this definition
No, it isn't. The Soviet Union (and the Red Army) was "battle hardened", didn't do the Sovs much good in Afghanistan, or the Russians in Chechnya. Professionalism is a very different thing. Many Egyptian troops in Sinai were veterans of Yemen. The meanings are very different.
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?
Ah, now then, certain "specifics". On this point I have to go off-topic and ask how stupid Nasser was for first picking the fight and then turning around and bending over with his pants down. I again return your eyes to the fact that I was talking about "suggestions". As in "the evidence suggests".
You said the 20 pounder was more versatile gun
No. I did not.
"Smaller, more useful, higher velocity gun"
"Smaller is in reference to the gun. Smaller gun. More useful gun. Higher velocity gun."
I did not use the word "versatile". "versatile" and "useful" CAN mean the same thing. They do not always mean the same thing. "useful" can also refer to "usability", among other things.
Did the 20 pounder play the role as a troop carrier...guess not
No, the Brits (and Yanks) had APCs for that. So, now you want the troops to ride around on all that "safe" deisel you were talking about? I specifically didn't mention this before, instead placing the troops in proximity to the tank. (or did that post get lost? I'm sure I've typed this and versatile/useful twice today) If it did, what I typed was this: deisel may not explode, but it does burn. Nasty to the accompanying infantry (which we both know often rode into battle on the tank). Plus: deisel produces more, darker smoke than petrol. Meaning that if it's burning on the back of your tank you have less visibility of your opponent. He, on the other hand, can see just fine where you are.
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
If, if, if. But they weren't. The Brits were. They rose to the occasion (the Yanks did not, but they did give the Marines a heck of an amphibious APC, which they didn't use in D-Day ). But that doesn't change the fact that "variants" were your argument, not mine. Variants do not make the tank.