Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Vintage Topic Archive (Sept - 2009)' started by elguapo, Dec 4, 2007.
What you think of this:
I want one! Id love to take something like that for a spin in the sand pits around here.
The local fishermans club bought some sort of tracked vehicle (looks like a tank missing the turret) and put a huge plow on the front. They use it to maintain their ramps and fix up the boat launch area. I love to park and watch when they are using that big bruiser.
I remember hearing about them back when I was in tanks, although that video gave me more info on them that I ever knew. Always thought it was an interesting concept.
The Germans had a similar design in WWII called a jadpanzer with no turret and the cannon in the hull, but I am sure it didn't have all of the bells and whistles that this vehicle does.
Personally, I think I would be more comfortable in a tank with a turret.
Kind of clever, but looks as if it was more to save money than make an effective weapon system. A modern talk with laser fire control would make short work of it while on the move.
That honestly depends on which type of doctrine...seems like these were made for the massed armor formations of the Soviet era. The low sillouhette had massed advantages...but main disadvantage: no real shoot on the move.
Still, seemed to be a breath of fresh air, armor wise.
That was the idea. Sit on the ridges and hills of the Swedish country side (not known for it's flatness anywhere you'd want to do tank combat) and take potshots at the Soviets as they advanced.
Replaced as gyrostabilizers and mobility of tanks increased to the point that these became a one shot tank basically. If they didn't kill the Soviets before they had to move the Soviets would have been on them to quickly for them to hope to respond.
In defensive positions, it was usual doctrine for a "regular" tank with a turret to go into a hull down defensive position where just the turret showed and await the enemy.
The advantage of the tank with the turret in this position is that it could traverse to shoot while the hull stayed stationary.
If the enemy was in strong enough strength that they were going to over run the primary positions, the tank companies would then retreat to secondary positions and try again to stop the advance of the enemy.
When I was in Germany, we at first had the M60A1 tanks, and at our deployment area at the Fulda gap, we basically were just there to slow the Soviets down, because we were outnumbered so bad.
With the arrival of the M1 Abrams tank, we were able to hope that we could actually stop their advance.
They outnumbered us in tanks 10 or 20 to 1 or somewhere close to that.
Yep, the basic doctrine for NATO in event of a ground war, was basically prolong the defeat. West Germany was to be a basicbuffer, especially when france has nukes, and only stayed in NATO for the defense against the Warsaw Pact forces.
The advent of the M1 and other variants, the A 10 Warthog, and other platforms like the Apache really showed we had the technological edge, whereas the numbers edge, clearly was in the Pact side.
Clearly, there never has been a showing, where equals on both sides (Soviet and Nato) ever played out. Gulf War one, showed the accuracy and numbers quelling the M1 could do. Then again, the Iraqis never employed the type of warfare that the M1/NATO was training against in Europe.....
I will end rant here.
I am a firm believer in the M1 Abrams. Turning in our M60A1's and training for and getting our new M1 Abrams was like swapping in your Volkswagen for a Porsche
They told us that it was harder to retrain us than it was to train new recruits for the new tank because they are so different and we had the limitations of the old tanks already set into our minds.
I have a picture of me in an Abrams tank balanced on top of a concrete pyramid and the rest of both ends of the tank hanging in the air.
In the M60 when you came to a bump you slowed down to keep from beating yourself to death inside the tank, in the Abrams you accelerated to bounce over the bump
And there is no comparision as far as gunnery. I was a gunner on both and the Abrams was a thousand times more accurate.
I hear that. As my father was stationed in Germany, part of the Third SupCom next to the Fulda Gap, he told me stories of how they held NATO shoots with tanks. When the M1 got there, it cleaned up. Right after them, was the German Leopard, and the French AMX.
He also reminded me to say Graf, as it was known, sucked.
Oh yeah, Graf, and Wildflicken both sucked, but it was fun to get to shoot.
I was a lousy shot in the M60's but the abrams I was in the top 3 in a 52 tank battalion. I take no credit, it was the tank. That thing is incredibily accutate, even on the move.
We had a drag race with a German Leopard tank, we had a 1500 hp gas turbine engine, and they had a 1500 hp V12 diesel for an engine.
The turbine, when you gave it throttle, kind of bogged down while the computer communicated with the engine, and then it would spool up.
We had agreed with the German crew as to a certain tree was the finish, it was a half mile or so.
Well, they shot off the line while we were waiting for the turbine to do its thing, and they were all laughing and pointing.
Then that turbine started screaming, and we caught up with them, passed them and was stopped and waiting for them at the finish line,
Them suckers welshed on the bet, never stopped and would not look at us as they drove by us LOL
Ahhhhhh, the good times