posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 01:05 AM
I'm wonding if the lighter russian "T" tanks will perform better than the heavy western tanks in certain geographic conditions.
Sure. Shorten the LOS to typical European conditions of the central front through southern areas (Fulda through Hopf) and you end up with >
I was reading an article talking about why china one equip its type99 tanks in northern china, and equip the less complicated type96 tanks in southern
It saids that type99 weighs 55 tons, the moist/softer soil in southern china cannot support its weight, so instead, PLA had to equip the lighter
type96 in southern china, which weighs only 43 tons.
Tanks all tend to have relatively low weight-per-meter footprints relative to wheeled vehicles. These can absorb some pretty big changes in overall
weight without losing ability to maintain navigability overall. One exception being really fine sand like you find in parts of the Gobi. Ooops.
Guess where that is.
The reason the Chinese have 'good tanks' in the North is because that's where the Koreans, their own Capital and the bloody Russians are.
This makes me think about the performance of western tanks against russian tanks in the middle east.
Manned by arab tankers without clue one as to how to logisticate a maneuver campaign in the great wide nothin' of your typical 'xeriscape'. Thus
stuck out in the open and devasted FROM THE AIR because you can't hide a snake's bleep out there.
Of course we all know the Russians send crap to their 'monkey force' client states so it's all good anyway.
Most western designed tanks weigh around 65 tons, which adds a lot of armour pertections, as a results, the T-72s were unable to destroy the M1s form
Shock and Maneuver. You hit a threat on the move with only scratch forces to put up against your own overwhelming breakout numbers and you double the
likelihood that you will hit them, not once, but many times. From all quarters. Particularly in close conditions, Fires only counts on the gunnery
range, don't let nobody tell you different. Sustainability of operational initiative means /everything/.
Of course, with all the hard and moisture-lacking soil in the middle east, the more armour you add to your tank, the better.
Air and RT rules the desert bucky. Though the numbers needed to penetrate area and terminal defenses may go up, that's never gonna change.
But at the same time, more armour also adds more weight onto the tank.
Don't obsess over Armor. A single stick of dynamite, properly placed, can get a mobility or functional kill on any tank ever freakin' made.
That's why EFPs work. That's why RPGs work.
Dump every ounce of armor you have, concentrate on speed, numbers and delayed initial contact/servicing by BOTH direct and indirect fires in an
intelligent-optics based system built around a 35-45mm Bushmaster on the back of a Wiesel type minitank or a 200lb charge on a Super Goliath. And you
will completely overwhelm any manned armor system on the planet.
No questions. No doubt.
Then what happen when geographic condition cannot support such weight?
Do you /really/ think that a force which spends MONTHS 'gaining permission' is not going to use that prep time to create the most optimum route
plans and combined arms solutions to any given tactical problem?
Then perhaps the lighter russian T tanks will perform better???
The problem with Russian tanks is that they are crewed by patriotic cowards. Patriots in peace see their asses handed to them in war and quickly
decide they don't want to be tankers anymore. You cannot and SHOULD NOT attempt to overcome an extant training and total-systems ('infowar' +
spectrum dominance + air) superiority. When you can say "Screw you pal! I ain't gonna pay you a salary so your wife can get knocked up and you can
still be a continuing currency bleed on my national budget!" Because as soon as you pull 'the hero' from the battlefield, ANY man can replace him
as a trained tactical coordinator by virtue of not having to worry about his performance under fire. Indeed, your tactical options may INCREASE
because you can slaughter your own and still 'make more' on a cost:cost exchange ratio basis.
Sooner or later an armed force run by intelligent men will do exactly this and they will so humiliate their 'tradtions and honor' opponent that
everyone will be forced to view their vaunted muzzle mutts as exactly the kind of federal dole handout to instinctive killers that they are. No
longer morally or physically superior to you or me because their 'best of the best' is no longer 'good enough' when compared to a median
Since by the time the western heavy weights will be trapped in mud, and its mobility.
Armies train for mud all the time. It is no joke that you start in the loaders chair, move to the drivers seat and then go gunner/commander. ALL of
our basic armor courses in Kentucky and Texas deal with terrain conditions. Because those are what a smart commander 'reads' in dealing with the
disposition of his unit. And unlike the 'licensed operator' elitist officer-union of the Air Farce, a TC may very well have been a driver once
Tanks with low mobility can become easy targets for artilary fires and missiles.
This is the first thing you have said which makes sense but the reality remains that, compared to shells and missiles, ALL tanks are 'low mobility'.
Why wait for a rainstorm?
T-72s weigh only 41 tons, compare to the western heavy weights, the T-72 have much less armour protection (25 tons less metal for protection), but I
wonder if that will give those tanks a much better mobility on softer soils.
PS. other russian "T" series such as T-80 and T-90 share similar designs to the T-72s (more like T-72's upgrade versions).
Blah blah blah. Heroes in peacetime, cowards in war. Humans have long since, either directly or by envy of a better life, lost the ability to go
'over the top' simply so that they may soak a bullet intended for the man behind them. Fail to acknowledge this and you fail to make the TRUE
cost:benefit fractional exchange by which an initial force investment lets you defeat a conventional warfighter.
Of course this then leads to the next obvious question: Armies are intended to pay for themselves by taking what their opponent loses. If the cost
of supporting your own quality of living is increasingly 'socialized wellfare' intensive AND the morals you listen to, internally or externally to
your national needs prevent you from _owning_ what you take in combat. Then what is the point of having an armed force which never rewards you and
cannot /protect you/ from the dangers of globe trotting terrorists with more access to 'naughty chemistry' on the cleaning supply aisle of a grocery
store than he can -beg or buy- in his own slimeball part of the world?
That's where the Chinese are beating the tar out of us. Because we live in the paranoia of a world-cop scenario like a bull moose that missed the
final climactic encounter of the Cold War rutting season with the Russians.
And again, everyone with an ounce of brains able to see beyond PC images of broadcast media KNOWS IT.
Because we should _own_ Iraq as a literal illustration of what happens when you screw with U.S., even a little. And thanks to our 'mercy' to a
defeated enemy civillian populace, we never will.
Empires cannot live on kindness or mercy. So they'd better not try to support militaries which have no use in taking what they can't hold.