Tanks!!

[palo5]

Originally Posted by haroldeye

The Americans have a perfectly good system of vehicle recognition. They teach their pilots to recognise American vehicles and they shoot at everything else.

They use a lot of ammo, that's for sure. The ground troops anyway

There was a report - from a reliable source, iirc - that the Americans in Iraq were running out of small arms ammo, and had to buy/borrow 6.000.000.000 rounds from the Israelis

Anyway, someone crunched the numbers and calculated that they used on average 250.000 rounds per 'confirmed dead terrorist'. If that's true, I must be dumb as a rock for thinking they have good marksmen

So they must have a different philosophy. Their tanks are real gas-guzzlers, and must need resupply almost every day - and what does it look like with ammo? Well, their tanks have about as much main armament ammo as everyone else (40-45) but they have about three times as much MG ammo as the rest of us - aha! - what could be the reason for that, I wonder

Philosophy = 'spray it like Peter N'

[screwthief]

[QUOTE=palo5;2063033]They use a lot of ammo, that's for sure. The ground troops anyway

There was a report - from a reliable source, iirc - that the Americans in Iraq were running out of small arms ammo, and had to buy/borrow 6.000.000.000 rounds from the Israelis

It's volume of fire not accuracy that counts in combat,if you can force the enemy to keep their heads down,you can manoeuvre, and they can't.
The Americans might be more prodigal than some ,but the German infantry section in WW2 was based around two and sometimes three machine guns.
Furthermore British troops in Helmand have expended record levels of ammunition

[palo5]

Originally Posted by screwthief

It's volume of fire not accuracy that counts in combat

I understand what you mean, but it's not true everywhere. Snipers, who can hold up battalions, would certainly disagree, so would the people they shoot at

...German infantry section in WW2 was based around two and sometimes three machine guns

True, but they were limited to what ammo the section could carry, and weren't trained to waste it

Furthermore British troops in Helmand have expended record levels of ammunition

Does this mean they are winning?

[Nobody1]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

Anyone who allows A10 Warthogs to overfly their tanks is taking a chance, as British forces found out in both Gulf wars. This is an extremely capable weapons system but has limitations; the biggest one being the one which plagues every weapons systen from the craft knife upwards, the human element. I don't actually blame the pilots in those regrettable incidents; friendly fire is one of the worst faces of war but it is useless to blame people who would have avoided the tragedies had they known who was in their sights. It makes more sense to improve IFF procedures and learn from mistakes made.

Scoundrel, it's a fact that during the war the generous use of so called go-pills was (is?) standard requirement in american combat units. The so-called friendly fire from above was mainly the result of completely overstressed pilots which completed their tasks high on psychostimulants. Normally, pilots immediately lose their license when get caught high on drugs. In U.S. armed forces, however, it was vice versa. Those pilots were grounded which hadn't thrown in some go-pills before take off.

[deefer]

Originally Posted by palo5

The Americans are building a 'green' tank?

Only by their standards....
When companies use 20 mpg as an advert flash and won't build diesels for normal road cars economy is relative....

For a really green tank you need a hybrid like prius and as ever we asked first and got this...



Its a hybrid tech demonstrator for the on again off again on again fres programme or the apc from aliens not sure which

[Nobody1]

Originally Posted by deefer

For a really green tank you need a hybrid like prius

Or some sketches of Leonardo da Vinci.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science...i#War_machines

[mjm1963]

Originally Posted by deefer

Only by their standards....
When companies use 20 mpg as an advert flash and won't build diesels for normal road cars economy is relative....

For a really green tank you need a hybrid like prius and as ever we asked first and got this...



Its a hybrid tech demonstrator for the on again off again on again fres programme or the apc from aliens not sure which

Another debate going on in the tank world


Following the recent announcement of US defense spending cuts. It's probable that the USMC will loose their Abrams they are now considering a "Marine" version/alternative Stryker with 105mm. Photo to follow

[mjm1963]

BTW; thank you to all contributors. I didn't think it would get this much following

[mjm1963]

Sounds nerdy now. But my number two favorite is the long barreled Panzer IV without schirzen (right spelling?)

BTW; whilst only a model. It shows a genuine proposed German Panzer IV with sloping armour

[Rendell]

Originally Posted by mjm1963

Sounds nerdy now. But my number two favorite is the long barreled Panzer IV without schirzen (right spelling?)

BTW; whilst only a model. It shows a genuine proposed German Panzer IV with sloping armour

I've heard of that that project too. Apparently, with sloped armour being all the rage from 1942 onwards, the Germans were torn between replacing the MKIV with a brand new tank or finding ways to update the design. The MKIV chassis was solid and reliable, not to mention the basis for a whole slew of other AFVs, so the Germans were loathe to drop it. The retooling time alone would have made the whole idea impractical.

In the end, it was easier just to continue the MKIV with only minor upgrades along the way...