tank questions

Yes it is really good to hear a professional speak, sir. But I'll admit I am a bit biased because my boss like you is an ex tanker, and he is all for an auto loader.

Originally posted by Sparten Yes it is really good to hear a professional speak, sir. But I'll admit I am a bit biased because my boss like you is an ex tanker, and he is all for an auto loader.

Yes there are different schools, some pro and con. No need to get angered because people aren't on the same side.

Originally posted by DukeC The British Challenger tanks performed excellently in the Gulf War. The longest range kill of an Iraqi tank was made by a British Colonel. He destroyed a T-72 from a distance of more than 3 miles.

Thanks.

Crystal ball, personnal attacks. You're better at this than argumentating.

Any source, beyond the British popular culture, that the AMX30 was a crap tank? Once again, it was a succes from a commercial and technical point of view. The AMX30 was succesfully used in Iraq when they met Iraqi tanks (and it did face tank divisions). So maybe it was created out of paper propaganda and that it never happened so the French tank experience ended at 1940, I don't know. France seen some action since WWII, not as much as Britain or the USA (which was litteraly in a war every year since the cold war). I have never heard of that umbrella story, do you have a reliable link to back that statement?
The French forces protected the left flank, it's true they were used on the side... but if I may, the British forces protected the right flank was protected by the British. The French AMX-30 are lightly armoured, it's true, it was even the doctrine to make a far moving tank with a big autonomy. And it was a good idea, armours of its time all ended completly outperformed by guided missiles and attack helicopters... the light AMX-30 faced the 45th infantry division, totaly annihilated them. So maybe it's propaganda too.

In 1940, the French had good tanks but a bad tactic, it's true. The British had bad tanks and a bad tactic... you can go in the "bulldog spirit" stereotype, in the Battle of France the British forces didn't do any better than the French one.

Was the M3 Lee so worthless than the British forces prefered it to their own tanks in North Africa? The central canon was designed for artillery fire, the main canon for battle is on a turret, like the B1. The concept of a main tank canon set in front of a tank was the main British design during WWI (I'm suprised you don't know it) just look for pictures of British landships Mark I,II and so on. The French adopted a turret (check the FT-17). So I agree the man who decided to put the canon in front of the tank was an idiot (especially with the engine in front of the tank too, you'll understand why hundred of them were lost each days) but he was a British idiot since you ask for the nationality. Of course, it was easier for the British forces to adapt the tactic during the war, it's an island unlike France that couldn't fight anymore. During the Battle of France proper, Britain didn't do any better than France.

An Ogre Shell, for your information, is an artillery ammunition that can be fired as far as 35kms, dispenses 63 bomblets, each of them capable to break 90mm of armour. Imagine then what a barrage strike of those can do to tanks. It needs a 155mm canon, 52 calibre, to fire though.

Chobham is not a miracle solution, a Challenger II was lost in Iraq, destroyed in a friendly fire by another Challenger II. If it can be destroyed by a tank, it can be destroyed by artillery or by missiles. There is no armour than can remain invicible. That is a rule, you always find a way to break it.

About China, do you consider it's a third world country? I don't think so, maybe you do, but that doesn't make it a third world country. It's standard of living is much in late but it's not Somalia or Sierra Leone. If you think Britain can take over it why didn't you fight over Hong Kong? As far as I remember, you didn't have to give it all back to China, there was a contestation.

And what are you talking of WWII and third world countries? We're in 2006, WWII was more than 60 years ago. And it's better to have a crystal ball that living in the past... but you're wrong, I read future in chicken guts.


Enjoy the movie. And please calm down, judging by your comments (I answered your points without going personnal) I see you are the upset one. Just because I prove you wrong when you claim the French have no experience in tank warfare doesn't mean you have to take it personnal.


Edited by Exarchus - 06-Aug-2006 at 09:04

France never had a chance in the early part of WW II to show what it could do with armor. Later in the war French armored divisions did quite well with American equipment. Charles de Gaulle was one of the first officiers to see the possiblities of the tank and his writings influenced armor leaders on all sides in WW II.

Light and fast is good for scouting and screening purposes, but in tank on tank combat it's deadly. The Iraelis have experienced some of the most intense armor battles in recent history and their MBTs reflect the lessons learned. Merkavas have very heavy frontal armor with speed being a secondary consideration.

It's possible the French emphasis on lighter mobile tanks will be more appropriate in the future however. Deploying tanks like the M1A2 and other monsters takes alot of resources, so does keeping them supplied in the field. The M1A2 gets something like 2 gallons to the mile in fuel efficiency.

From what I've read the frontal armor on the Merkava is heavy and the engine placement adds to it. Unless an AP round hit the fuel tank it wouldn't result in an explosion and the crew would have time to exit in the event of a fire.

Originally posted by Scorpius Does Leaopard2A4 have auto loaders?

Not that I know.

About the autoloader thing, I believe Marsh Gelbart, author of the Merkava book commented about having less crew member to deal with the vehicle maintenance is viewed as unfavorable. Too much work for a smaller crew.