Soviet tanks as far as the eye can see

[August]

Cool stuff. When I think of how much planning, training and effort went into preparing a defense against these things pouring through the Fulda Gap it always amazes me. Field exercise after exercise, battle plan after plan, active defense, defense in depth, fluid defense, point defense and always with the understanding that if they attacked we could not stop them short of the English Channel unless we used nuclear weapons. Yet they were stopped, not with bombs and bullets, but with economics. :o

http://defensetech.org/2012/06/05/tanks-as-far-as-the-eye-can-see/

http://defensetech.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/tanks2.jpeg

[Betonov]

A Croat once responded, when asked if the Soviets would win WW3: ''dolari pobjedu ratove'' (dollars win wars). That was said in the early 60's.

I remember a mockumentary about WW3 when the Soviet assault was turned back after their suply lines were ovestreched and their equipment started to break down. Nukes were not neccesary.

Here it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Cl7dwEywWk

And I'm having problems with the link :hmmm:

[Herr-Berbunch]

And I'm having problems with the link :hmmm:

Me too, can't open it. :hmph:

[BossMark]

Thats three of us then

[August]

The link works for me. Maybe it's a Euro/US thing? Can you see the picture I posted?

Try getting into their home page: http://defensetech.org/

[Betonov]

The link works for me. Maybe it's a Euro/US thing? Can you see the picture I posted?

Now I can open it :salute: Proabibly a temporary bug, I couldn't see the picture when I couldn't open the link, now I can do both



:huh: Bloody hellllllll :dead:
Is there enough Russians to man thesee things, women and children included :huh:

[August]

I remember a mockumentary about WW3 when the Soviet assault was turned back after their suply lines were ovestreched and their equipment started to break down. Nukes were not neccesary.

That's some seriously wishful thinking there!

[Herr-Berbunch]

Still can't access it, or the homepage, or the link in my history to the BAe railgun video on that site. :wah:

I'll try later.

[Oberon]

I can't open the link either which is a shame, hopefully it'll clear up later.

Just finished reading 'Chieftains' and 'Red Army' which present two differing outcomes of the conflict.


SPOILER

In Chieftains their war ends via nuclear Scud, but in Red Army the Soviets are able to pressure West Germany into surrender after NATO makes moves towards nuclear release. It's a close run thing though as the US forces in the Southern theatre are able to wheel northward and severely threaten the main route of advance. Fortunately for the Soviets, the FDR folds first.
I've got 'Team Yankee' on the desk which is based on the scenario put forward by General Sir John Hackett in 'Third World War: The Untold Story" which has the Soviet advance stall in the Ruhr, resulting in the nuclear destruction of Birmingham and Minsk, which causes the collapse of the Soviet Union through internal strife.

Personally I consider the likelihood of a situation between the three, as I think there are some facts that we can agree upon, particularly now in hindsight.

1) The war would have gone nuclear quite rapidly
2) Soviet equipment was better than western media portrayed it as (in particular things like the MiG-29s BVR and Kontakt-5)
3) Instability in Soviet satellites was deeper than realised at the time

So, the war would have been the death of the Soviet Union, which is most likely why they were as terrified of a West first strike as we were of a Soviet one. However, it would not have been the NATO cake-walk that some books portray it as, West Germany would most likely have been lost and it is probably at that point that it would have gone nuclear, IMHO anyway.

Going to try that link again once I've finished posting this. The Fulda Gap is one of the places I'd love to visit in Germany one day. Here's a pic I found ages ago which I think sums the border up:

http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/6454/helo1021.jpg

Also, and I plug this video every time I come across a Cold War gone hot thread, but I can't stop rewatching it! :wah:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSpBCx4Eowc


EDIT: Just seen the pic as posted...Whoa...that is...rather a lot of tanks. 64s or 72s?

[TLAM Strike]

Tanks for the link August.

[Oberon]

Bigger pics here:

http://paul-itk.livejournal.com/9681.html

A lot of these tanks still have their ERA installed! :doh:

[August]

Bigger pics here:

http://paul-itk.livejournal.com/9681.html

A lot of these tanks still have their ERA installed! :doh:

Yeah it's like the crews just parked them, got out and left.

[Oberon]

Yeah it's like the crews just parked them, got out and left.

Given the state of the Russian military directly after the USSR fell, it's entirely possible that's exactly what they did! :hmmm:

[Stealhead]

EDIT: Just seen the pic as posted...Whoa...that is...rather a lot of tanks. 64s or 72s?


They all appear to be T-72s in the shot August posted with a few T-62s in the mix the turrets are all pointed 180 aft as well making Id a slight bit harder and no good side views of the tracks if you could see the wheels you could ID one from the other easy the skirts say T-72 to me so does the main gun barrel.

You could ask an old T-72 crewman but you can not because one would be unable to properly greet a former T-72 crewman because his arms will have been sliced off by the auto loader.

I wonder this place is like the Anniston Army Depot where they rebuild M1A1a and A2s and all assorted parts actually all AFVs of the DOD get refurbished there.I have a friend that works there it looks sort of this Russian place only more organized and they take the ERA off but those in the Russian pictures likely had the plastic explosive removed you can do that with the ERA for the Abrams as well I have seen M1A1/2s inside C-5s and 17s and they had the ERA on them and the load master told me that they remove the explosives but leave the container on the hull.

They ship the AFV to Anniston Army Depot via train or flat bed truck and in all they get a layer of reddish rust on them while they sit outside waiting for refurbishment.

Russian depot yards are just very sloppy for some reason.

[Jimbuna]

Great links (both pictures and movie).

[August]

I want one for up at the cabin. :D

[em2nought]

The only way to win the cold war wa$ to not play. We didn't win, we're broke too. :arrgh!:

[Stealhead]

I want one for up at the cabin. :D

For the right amount of coin you could have one I saw a show on The Military Channel about guys that own/rebuild old tanks and there are some T-62s in private ownership in the US and a few older BMPs as well.Some guy in California owns an M-60 Patton if that is legal in CA I assume a demilitarized T-72 would also be legal seeing as the Pattons where in use by the USMC and ANG in the early 90's and guys own those.

[Oberon]

They all appear to be T-72s in the shot August posted with a few T-62s in the mix the turrets are all pointed 180 aft as well making Id a slight bit harder and no good side views of the tracks if you could see the wheels you could ID one from the other easy the skirts say T-72 to me so does the main gun barrel.

You could ask an old T-72 crewman but you can not because one would be unable to properly greet a former T-72 crewman because his arms will have been sliced off by the auto loader.

I wonder this place is like the Anniston Army Depot where they rebuild M1A1a and A2s and all assorted parts actually all AFVs of the DOD get refurbished there.I have a friend that works there it looks sort of this Russian place only more organized and they take the ERA off but those in the Russian pictures likely had the plastic explosive removed you can do that with the ERA for the Abrams as well I have seen M1A1/2s inside C-5s and 17s and they had the ERA on them and the load master told me that they remove the explosives but leave the container on the hull.

They ship the AFV to Anniston Army Depot via train or flat bed truck and in all they get a layer of reddish rust on them while they sit outside waiting for refurbishment.

Russian depot yards are just very sloppy for some reason.

Yeah, the auto-loaders seemed like a good idea in theory. Still, we've lost a few loaders to getting in the way of the cannon over the years I'd wager.
Interesting to see T-72s in there too, presumably they can be reactivated in an emergency, like the US boneyards? Kind of lacking the whole protective environment though... :hmmm: Makes you wonder just how many are sitting in warehouses out in the Urals... :hmmm::hmmm::hmmm: You know how the Russians hate throwing anything away when it can still be used...

I didn't know M1A1s and A2s had ERA though, I thought they relied on the Chobham armour being one tough cookie to crack. I had heard rumours though, on the turret or around that area IIRC, to protect against RPGs.

Did Israel also have a ERA system which exploded before the grenade hit the hull in order to prematurely detonate it? I think there was also talk in the future of using hull point-defence lasers to hit grenades before they had a chance to hit the tank, I don't know how far ahead that is though. Probably around the same time as our chameleon tanks. :hmmm:

[August]

I'm told that it could be that the ERA has been removed and it's casing left on the vehicle.

[Kongo Otto]

text from the first picture:
http://paul-itk.livejournal.com/9681.html

Which roughly means:
"Kharkov Armoured Repair Plant "specialized in the overhaul and modernization of the T-64, T 80, T-72 tank engines 5TDF and GTD-1250. Plant also overhauled tank sights, laser range finders and a range of guided weapons. At the time of the collapse this Soviet factory produced approximately 60 tanks,and repairs 55 engines per month.



So i assume this repair plant was given up when the Ukraine gained independence from the Soviet Union in 1991.

[Stealhead]

Yeah, the auto-loaders seemed like a good idea in theory. Still, we've lost a few loaders to getting in the way of the cannon over the years I'd wager.
Interesting to see T-72s in there too, presumably they can be reactivated in an emergency, like the US boneyards? Kind of lacking the whole protective environment though... :hmmm: Makes you wonder just how many are sitting in warehouses out in the Urals... :hmmm::hmmm::hmmm: You know how the Russians hate throwing anything away when it can still be used...

I didn't know M1A1s and A2s had ERA though, I thought they relied on the Chobham armour being one tough cookie to crack. I had heard rumours though, on the turret or around that area IIRC, to protect against RPGs.

Did Israel also have a ERA system which exploded before the grenade hit the hull in order to prematurely detonate it? I think there was also talk in the future of using hull point-defence lasers to hit grenades before they had a chance to hit the tank, I don't know how far ahead that is though. Probably around the same time as our chameleon tanks. :hmmm:

Here is a shot of an M1A2 with the latest ERA: http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg853/scaled.php?server=853&filename=m1a2tusk21.jpg&res=landing

My guess is that weapons being weapons and armor being armor one is always trumping the other Chobham has been around since the late 1970's that is plenty of time for someone to think of a counter.The ERA has changed since the kind that I saw in 2003~2007 in fact back then the containers where much more box shaped.My guess with my extensive training with explosives(not) is that the the containers are curved out for a reason perhaps to increase the chance that the threat warhead is destroyed by the ERA.As I understand no M1A1/2 Abrams was destroyed out right some got disabled and then the Americans did not want to leave a tank behind so if they could not remove it quickly they took what they could of value out and destroyed it.

Look at any destroyed Abrams and you will that Uncle Sam finished it off :http://www.militaryimages.net/photopost/data/501/abrams_lessons_learned5.jpg
http://www.militaryimages.net/photopost/data/501/abrams_lessons_learned5a.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/12/B-23-1991.jpg

Now this is what a destroyed by the enemy tank looks like:
http://www.dubbs.info/images/graphical/image059.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_zUe7sq7m3h0/SKROlwSb4MI/AAAAAAAAAWA/pN1d8MG-oL8/s1600/Destroyed%2BT-72BV%2Bin%2BGeorgia.jpg
http://s51.radikal.ru/i132/0903/d3/dcf3f2b9fde3.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-WZQplcqRYds/TeoAn6s1sfI/AAAAAAAABXI/9LUcJXUojQc/s1600/Libyan+Rebels+Fighting+the+Forces+of+Moammar+Gadha fi+Libyan+Conflict+T-72+tack+destroyed.jpg

Which one of these is not like other?



@August got 50K? then here you go..http://www.mortarinvestments.eu/products/tanks-2/t-72-42#currency=USD

Oh man could you have some fun with this thing..http://www.mortarinvestments.eu/products/armoured-vehicles-4/gm-587-kub-22#currency=EUR

[Oberon]

Here is a shot of an M1A2 with the latest ERA: http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg853/scaled.php?server=853&filename=m1a2tusk21.jpg&res=landing

My guess is that weapons being weapons and armor being armor one is always trumping the other Chobham has been around since the late 1970's that is plenty of time for someone to think of a counter.The ERA has changed since the kind that I saw in 2003~2007 in fact back then the containers where much more box shaped.


@August got 50K? then here you go..http://www.mortarinvestments.eu/products/tanks-2/t-72-42#currency=USD

Nice, thanks for the pic. I guess in the era (pardon the expression) of the IED then improving armour is going to be a priority, although most conventional armour is decent enough to repel most IEDs. Also, like you say, no doubt there are better armour piercing weapons coming into play. :yep:

[Stealhead]

Perhaps not so much anymore we are not in Iraq anymore and as I understand NATO has no or very few MBTs in Afghanistan IEDs are a weapon of insurgency so the the West will probably start focusing more on traditional threats again and forget the past in Vietnam they did not have ERA but they did have lots of chain link fence which it turns out is pretty good at defeating an RPG before it hits armor.

I think all Abrams lost where just overwhelmed by RPG spamming and the crew and systems to contain damage got overwhelmed it is also hard to judge because the insurgents more than likely sat and watched the the tank get prepped for destruction by the crew and engineers then let it burn for an hour or so and then posed for the photo not showing the many dead that it took to disable the M1 to the point that due to enemy activities the tank had to be destroyed because it could not be salvaged.If 200 6 years old attack you you will go down but not in same manner as you would if Mike Tyson punched you in the face..

Also much of this data would be classified as well in fact I think many an Abrams crewman is more than happy to allow you to think that you can hurt him when you really cant or not as badly one might think.The ERA is supposed to defeat any anti armor warhead more than an IED though I think it would not do much to an explosive under the hull but most IED are not made of a tank killing warhead unless it is simply a massive amount of explosives but I am betting that any one planting an IED would rather make 200 smaller IED that will kill or seriously wound troops in something softer skinned than to try and take out a tank but not the crew inside with any degree of certainty.

I think you will start seeing active threat warhead killing systems on AFVs soon like the laser system that you mentioned then you will have the hull armor the ERA and the ACM(active counter measure) meaning that an attacking warhead would have to defeat 3 different systems. Requiring the attacker to try and get multiple warheads onto the same spot it will become a smaller scale MIRV counter MIRV.

[TLAM Strike]

...although most conventional armour is decent enough to repel most IEDs. Also, like you say, no doubt there are better armour piercing weapons coming into play. :yep: At one point the other side was forgetting about penetration and just using sheer kinetic force to take out armored vehicles.

This Abrams was hit with the force of several 155mm shells buried in the road.
http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/2691/iraq20021.jpg
http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/1751/mars1225gb2.jpg

The Commander, Gunner, and Loader were all killed while the Driver survived. The force of the denotation tore the turret off the hull. Fortunately it is difficult to hull around that much explosives. Although a single 155mm shell can be quite devastating on its own:

http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/6294/getimagedu.jpg
I don't believe anyone was killed in that attack but it immobilized that Abrams.

[Stealhead]

The good thing about the Abrams and the Challenger tanks is that they are without a doubt the most survivable tanks for crewmen out there.No armor is perfect there is always a weakness somewhere.

How many 155mm did that take TLAM?Do you have any idea? I have seen a video of a Striker that had it was estimated 3 155s go off under it.No one was killed and the most serious injury was a broken back that makes me think that it would take at least double to have popped that Abrams turret.Of course the Strikers lower hull was designed with such things in mind the Abrams was not.

155s are nasty in deed my dad very nearly got killed by an NVA 155 shell that hit the the fire base he was resting in it completely blew away the structure he was in at the time which was made of sand bags and the cases that arty shells are stored in it also killed several men and broke another guys back and severed his spine the guy was supposed to head out on an R&R trip to Hawaii to visit his wife instead he got confined to a wheel chair for the rest of his life.

[TLAM Strike]

How many 155mm did that take TLAM?Do you have any idea?
It was either 3 or 5, more likely it was the incident involving 5 of them.

[Oberon]

IEDs are nasty, I'm not sure of the type that got one of our Challies, I imagine that it's hush-hush. Probably not a 155mm though, because scuttlebutt has it that the same area on the Challie was penetrated by an RPG-29 a few months before the IED incident. Either way, we've painted over that hole now.
Looks like we also might use ERA as well, judging by the make-up of this Challenger II.

http://www.armyrecognition.com/customer/thierry/uk/challenger2_05.jpg

And then of course there's the grills at the back against RPGs (great idea by the way chaps, thanks for that, I think it was the US that came up with that one first?).

[TLAM Strike]

Looks like we also might use ERA as well, judging by the make-up of this Challenger II. affirmative the Challenger II has ERA skirts for the tracks.

And then of course there's the grills at the back against RPGs (great idea by the way chaps, thanks for that, I think it was the US that came up with that one first?).
Nope it was those darn Nazis who thought of it first:
http://img838.imageshack.us/img838/2741/panzerschurzenstugiiiku.jpg
"Drahtgeflecht Schürzen" basically metal plates of armor to protect the sides of the hull and turret (if applicable)

Although the Russia's version was closer to the Slat Armor we use today:
http://img710.imageshack.us/img710/5553/t3485berlindl1.jpg
http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/5828/t34berlinphotos2.jpg

[Oberon]

Of course, the side skirts, I'd forgotten about them. Hard to put them to the grills we have today, like you say the Soviet version is much more like our modern defences...good pics by the way, I honestly didn't know the Soviets had such things. Must have come in useful during the push into Berlin! :yep:

So, I wonder how things like 'Trophy' are going to affect the battlefield in the future years, has the US done anything more with it since testing it on a Stryker? The Russians reckon that they've developed a countermeasure already, but that remains to be seen.

[Stealhead]

That Challenger II also appears to have a thermal "blanket" on the turret I have also seen pictures of T-72s and later Russian model tanks with the blankets as well.They are supposed to reduce the thermal signature of the tank.

Another interesting bit of armor are those chain chain balls that are on the bottom of turrets.the IDF has them and I am pretty sure I have other MBTs so equipped in photos but I cant find any right now.
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/Mekava.htm

Here is a shot of the chain link fence RPG armor from Vietnam:http://www.vhpamuseum.org/11thcav/images/RoyComp3.jpg
Not sure how or if they used it while in motion but it is explained here sort of: http://www.vhpamuseum.org/11thcav/11thcav.shtml
when they stopped for a rest they took the fence off the tank and placed it a few away feet all around the tank to stop RPG/B40 rockets.I have also seen pictures in a book on Vietnam War armor a set much like as on the Red Army T-34s on US Army AFVs in Vietnam.

The modern version on a Stryker :http://home.comcast.net/~pgmurray/bedframe1.jpg

There is a book called "Armored Thunderbolt" by Steven Zaloga all about the M4 Sherman during WWII troops came up with all manner of armor mods during the war and it varied by theater.
In the Pacific Japanese troops tossing explosives at the tanks and also trying to hop onto the hull and open the hatches made many Pacific based tanks crew men have penny nails welded to the top of the hatches to keep someone from opening the hatch with ease from outside.Here is a Iwo Jima based M4 if you look closely you can see the nails.
http://www.ww2incolor.com/d/661775-2/8765431

[Oberon]

If it works! :up:

I recall some bright spark came up with the idea of the 'Bocage buster' in WWII, didn't always enable the tank to go through first time:

http://www.criticalpast.com/video/65675075108_United-States-howitzer_World-War-II_M-4-Sherman-tank (ignore the wording of the URL, whoever wrote it obviously didn't know what he was writing about...)

But it worked!

I also like the wooden boards on the side for avoiding magnetic devices. :yep:

[Stealhead]

If it works! :up:

I recall some bright spark came up with the idea of the 'Bocage buster' in WWII, didn't always enable the tank to go through first time:

http://www.criticalpast.com/video/65675075108_United-States-howitzer_World-War-II_M-4-Sherman-tank (ignore the wording of the URL, whoever wrote it obviously didn't know what he was writing about...)

But it worked!

I also like the wooden boards on the side for avoiding magnetic devices. :yep:

Yes there where several versions of hedge row busters some worked others did not.

The Germans had Zimmerit anti-magnetic paste which is what the pattern that you see on later war German tanks was the paste.Of course as the war progressed German armor become more brittle because they did not have a source of the minerals that make steel strong but bot brittle.

Wood was actually smarter as an anti-magnetic because it would have been easier to repair.I also understand that the Zimmerit was often of poor quality and tended to flake off.

[Jimbuna]

'Bocage busters'

http://www.militarymodelling.com/sites/1/images/article_images/Zaloga1May07_006.jpg

http://www.wizards.com/AvalonHill/images/ah20060726a_hedgecutter.jpg

http://www.thetigersden.biz/catalog/HG3105.jpg

http://www.robertsarmory.com/bw12.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_S2HvC_Eg3yg/TTUN6i15LdI/AAAAAAAAACU/qkgarezbTB8/s1600/42a.JPG

[Stealhead]

From what I have read the need to deal with the bocage/headgerows was a unique problem to the Normandy break out and was a concern primarily to US tank units as most Commonwealth tank units where in more open country. Basically every units motor pool had to come up with some rigging quickly most of the time they made use of the German steel beach defenses and just welded them to the hull.

As I understand there is a bit of a myth that some un named American solider came up with the most effect design if the person remains unnamed that usually means that he does not really nor ever existed.The bocage busters where really an example of the quick thinking of many people to solve the same problem.

What happened was the ones that worked got copied by neighboring units that either had not yet come up with a design or had come up with a poor one and therefore copied the better example.

One unsuccessful design was supposed to punch holes into the earth under the hedge and then a sapper was supposed to come in and place explosives into the holes created by the implement apparently it failed because it took too much explosives to blow the hedge away not to mention that the poor sapper was exposed to every defending small arm just 10 or 15 feet away from him.

[Penguin]

I have no idea how thick and dense the bocage is, so I wonder if there were any attempts to use the Sherman Crab to clear it. :hmmm:

http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/1331/03863.jpg

[August]

I've heard the Normandy hedgerows described as a tangled mass of tree roots, dirt and rocks which were on average 10 feet wide and 10 feet high in places. I don't think a flail would make much headway through something like that. I'm even kind of surprised that the hedgehog managed to be effective. I'll bet they couldn't just break through anywhere but had to pick a weak spot and hope there wasn't an 88mm lined up on it.

http://www.lonesentry.com/normandy_lessons/combat_lessons_normandy_image1x.gif

http://www.lonesentry.com/normandy_lessons/index.html

[Stealhead]

This page gives a good view of how effective the defense could be inside a hedgerow.Not a place that you would want to be forced to attack to say the least.Even in a tank you are placing yourself in point blank Panzerfoust range sounds exciting and the German troops could easily have a very fluid defense and retreat from a row about to be overrun into another one further back and you would not even see them.Interlocked fire as well.

http://wwii-letters-to-wilma.blogspot.com/2011/06/15-june-1944.html

[nikimcbee]

@August
If you got one of those T-72s, you'ld have a problem attracting these:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bMfrixJyWc

I think you'll need a bigger fly-swatter.:dead:

[August]

@August
If you got one of those T-72s, you'ld have a problem attracting these:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bMfrixJyWc

I think you'll need a bigger fly-swatter.:dead:


In Vietnam the NVA would sometimes set up a bunch of soldiers in a grid pattern about 5 feet apart in some natural choke point. When an aircraft passed overhead on command they'd all shoot their rifles on full auto straight up. The bullet streams were impossible to avoid and it would at least cause damage if not bring the aircraft down. :)

[Karle94]

In Vietnam the NVA would sometimes set up a bunch of soldiers in a grid pattern about 5 feet apart in some natural choke point. When an aircraft passed overhead on command they'd all shoot their rifles on full auto straight up. The bullet streams were impossible to avoid and it would at least cause damage if not bring the aircraft down. :)

That won`t work on an A-10. It is completely immune to anything smaller than 20mm. Even the cockpit glass. Also, the A-10 is made to take enormous damage and still return to base.

[Oberon]

If they have that many T-72s and the like there I'm sure that somewhere in there is one of these:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQaVx-wu3wA&feature=related

Or quite possibly one of these:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUUeqSseERo&feature=related

Either which would be somewhat more effective than the shoot-straight-up-with-rifle approach.

Heck, you buy the tank and the AAA together you might get a discount! :rock:

[Stealhead]

A ZSU-23-4 is a serious threat to any low flying aircraft even an A-10.Let us not forget that the A-10 has never had to operate in type of air defense environment that it would have faced against the Warsaw Pact.


The closest it has come was Iraq in 1991 and some where taken down with the loss of the pilot.The A-10 is a tough bird but one should never ever underestimate the threat of air defenses.

[August]

That won`t work on an A-10. It is completely immune to anything smaller than 20mm. Even the cockpit glass. Also, the A-10 is made to take enormous damage and still return to base.

The A10 is indeed a tough aircraft but it is not invulnerable. Even some damage might be enough to make it RTB without dropping it's load.

Besides, protected though the aircraft might be its ordinance is not. A few AP rounds into a missile slung under the wing probably won't cause it to explode but it also probably won't work as intended either.

The key to pulling off that tactic though is to di di mau out of the area right afterwards so the pilot can't call in an artillery or airstrike on the source of the ground fire.

[August]

If they have that many T-72s and the like there I'm sure that somewhere in there is one of these:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQaVx-wu3wA&feature=related

Or quite possibly one of these:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUUeqSseERo&feature=related

Either which would be somewhat more effective than the shoot-straight-up-with-rifle approach.

Heck, you buy the tank and the AAA together you might get a discount! :rock:

Truth be told though an MBT wouldn't be my first choice of campsite AFV's. I'd much rather have a M113 or even a BMP which has some cabin room inside.

My favorite AFV turned camping vehicle would be the M577 Carrier Command Post.

http://usarmygermany.com/Gallery/Page%20Seven/M577%20Field%201.jpg

Amphibious, on board 5kw generator, roomy interior, TOC extension. The ultimate camping vehicle! :D

[TLAM Strike]

Either which would be somewhat more effective than the shoot-straight-up-with-rifle approach.
I don't know Charlie was pretty good with those rifles...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPofeRImxv8

[Oberon]

I don't know Charlie was pretty good with those rifles...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPofeRImxv8

Really must watch that film... :yep:

[Oberon]

Truth be told though an MBT wouldn't be my first choice of campsite AFV's. I'd much rather have a M113 or even a BMP which has some cabin room inside.

My favorite AFV turned camping vehicle would be the M577 Carrier Command Post.



Amphibious, on board 5kw generator, roomy interior, TOC extension. The ultimate camping vehicle! :D

You can't go wrong with the shoebox, it's a proven design. :rock:

[August]

You can't go wrong with the shoebox, it's a proven design. :rock:

It's retro!

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2008/06/000_jdmnissancube_opta.jpg

[nikimcbee]

It's retro!

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2008/06/000_jdmnissancube_opta.jpg


my eyes!:dead:
I see your ugly car and raise you one.

http://codinghorror.typepad.com/.a/6a0120a85dcdae970b0128776fb5d7970c-pi

[Stealhead]

The only good use for those two vehicles would be for them to carried aloft in a cargo plane and then get pushed out the ramp at 12,000ft over the desert with no chutes.

An older AMTRACC like the kind they used in the 60's would make a very good camping vehicle all terrain and very roomy.

An uncle of mine up in Kentucky had a full size DUKW that he drove around on his property all the time after so many years it developed so many holes in it that it would have sunk if you tried to drive it in water.We had some fun with that thing though once we ran over a dog laying in the mud sleeping by accident he had blended in with the mud it came out unharmed though it just got mashed down into the mud.

[Halgarre]

Our 577 looked like a Gypsy wagon with all the gear, packs, camo netting, coolers, and spare road wheel. I do miss the smell and that blue/green interior lighting. Might be because I've been out 11 years...hmm :hmmm:

[August]

Our 577 looked like a Gypsy wagon with all the gear, packs, camo netting, coolers, and spare road wheel. I do miss the smell and that blue/green interior lighting. Might be because I've been out 11 years...hmm :hmmm:

Yep ours was always loaded too. I had a huge bag of canvas tie down straps and could (and did) attach nearly anything to the top.

This one was mine:

http://www.rattrig.com/photo_gallery/Gallery%20Pictures/1-6%20Inf%201AD%201%2025pct.jpg

[Kongo Otto]

Yep ours was always loaded too. I had a huge bag of canvas tie down straps and could (and did) attach nearly anything to the top.

This one was mine:

http://www.rattrig.com/photo_gallery/Gallery%20Pictures/1-6%20Inf%201AD%201%2025pct.jpg

:up:
Let me guess: Grafenwöhr?

[August]

:up:
Let me guess: Grafenwöhr?

That's the right country but i'm pretty sure it's not Graf. Not nearly enough mud. :)

I took the picture over 30 years ago so the memory is a bit fuzzy but I think it was just a regular field exercise.

[Penguin]

I checked out a little more about the bushwhacking in Nomandy:

I found only one page that mentioned the Sherman Crab clearing out the Bocage
The hedges had such a strong roots they had to be removed by explosives (you can see the drawings of "bocage warfare" here: [link] ). Massive flails were just enough to destroy them.http://wormwoodthestar.deviantart.com/art/Sherman-Crab-165575242
However this is a model builder site, so not the best source.

Another page I found is this one (http://www.combatreform.org/sappertanks.htm) - a great resource for anyone interested in sapper tanks, terrible design, but informative as hell.
They write extensively about the Crab and about warfare in the bocage, but nothing is said to suggest it was used to clear the hedges.
Another problem mentioned is that there seem to have been just not enough pioneer vehicles coming along with the inward forces, so they didn't even had enough bulldozers.

Modern flails seem to use no chains but edged plates to cut through hedges - so it would also be questionable if the chain attachment would be stong enough to cope with the resistance hedges give or even the massive stone/earth foundation.

So lucky for the US that I haven't been a commander in WW2: "Captain Penguin, after we have wasted 20 Crabs trying to cut through the bushes, may I suggest we use the 'fork ram' idea from the neighbor company?" :D

[August]

So lucky for the US that I haven't been a commander in WW2: "Captain Penguin, after we have wasted 20 Crabs trying to cut through the bushes, may I suggest we use the 'fork ram' idea from the neighbor company?" :D

:D
A good American Sergeant would have said:

"Captain Penguin the crab thing didn't work but we tried another idea called a "fork ram" that got the job done. Shall I equip the rest of our tanks with it? And a really good sergeant would anticipate his CO's approval and already have assembled the all materials, tools and work details to install them.

He might even have the tank he'd already equipped crewed and standing by in front of a piece of hedgerow so he could quickly demonstrate it's effectiveness if the boss should ask for it. :)

[Penguin]

:D
A good American Sergeant would have said:

"Captain Penguin the crab thing didn't work but we tried another idea called a "fork ram" that got the job done. Shall I equip the rest of our tanks with it? And a really good sergeant would anticipate his CO's approval and already have assembled the all materials, tools and work details to install them.

He might even have the tank he'd already equipped crewed and standing by in front of a piece of hedgerow so he could quickly demonstrate it's effectiveness if the boss should ask for it. :)

hehe, though I am a draft-dodger I am familiar with this concept from the private sector: A terrible idea comes from the bosses, so prepare for an alternative solution. After the failure of the first concept, and success of the new idea the boss will claim that the latter has always been the original plan... :know: