Jump to content


How Suitable was T29, Pt 2.


  • Please log in to reply
154 replies to this topic

stalkervision #141 Posted Nov 08 2015 - 05:57

    Major

  • Players
  • 68442 battles
  • 9,661
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013

View PostStrv74, on Nov 07 2015 - 21:28, said:

 

*****

 

Either way, it is indeed true that the number in service usually means next to nothing about quality. Otherwise, there were not be heavily upgraded Centurion Olifants in South Africa, as another example. 

 

actually it has a lot to do about quality but the exceptions prove the rule for you don't they? ******

 

The Japanese zero fighter.  look up the american attitude to Japanese aviation at the time and the whole Japanese industral complex.  At the end of the war if the a-bomb hadn't stopped it the Japanese had a HUGE reserve of Jet planes and all kinds of advanced military equipment to throw at the US navy.

 

Look at the arrogance of the US till Sputnik 

 

Vietnam...

 

 The list goes on and on

 

[content moderated - insults]
- Yshoneist



WulfeHound #142 Posted Nov 08 2015 - 06:17

    Major

  • Players
  • 12919 battles
  • 26,179
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    04-03-2011

"Huge reserve of jets." My sides are in orbit with that statement.

Germany, which had a much more modern and developed aircraft industry compared to Japan, struggled to build enough jets to field more than a few squadrons. What makes you think Japan (which, by the way was still failing to make up losses incurred from Midway and the Marianas) would be able to field more than a couple jets, if they could field any at all?


Edited by WulfeHound, Nov 08 2015 - 06:26.


zloykrolik #143 Posted Nov 08 2015 - 06:23

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 36891 battles
  • 410
  • [RDTT2] RDTT2
  • Member since:
    05-05-2012

*****

 

[content moderated - non constructive/insults]
- Yshoneist



zloykrolik #144 Posted Nov 08 2015 - 07:16

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 36891 battles
  • 410
  • [RDTT2] RDTT2
  • Member since:
    05-05-2012

View Poststalkervision, on Nov 07 2015 - 20:57, said:

 

actually it has a lot to do about quality but the exceptions prove the rule for you don't they? ******

 

The Japanese zero fighter.  look up the american attitude to Japanese aviation at the time and the whole Japanese industral complex.  At the end of the war if the a-bomb hadn't stopped it the Japanese had a HUGE reserve of Jet planes and all kinds of advanced military equipment to throw at the US navy.

 

Look at the arrogance of the US till Sputnik 

 

Vietnam...

 

 The list goes on and on

 

[content moderated - insults]
- Yshoneist

Stalker, please try to keep your comments on topic. 

 

View PostWulfeHound, on Nov 07 2015 - 21:17, said:

"Huge reserve of jets." My sides are in orbit with that statement.

Germany, which had a much more modern and developed aircraft industry compared to Japan, struggled to build enough jets to field more than a few squadrons. What makes you think Japan (which, by the way was still failing to make up losses incurred from Midway and the Marianas) would be able to field more than a couple jets, if they could field any at all?

 

Wulfe please try to keep your comments on topic, even if Stalker doesn't.



Anlushac11 #145 Posted Nov 08 2015 - 11:36

    Major

  • Players
  • 36140 battles
  • 2,343
  • Member since:
    05-25-2013

View PostWulfeHound, on Nov 08 2015 - 00:17, said:

"Huge reserve of jets." My sides are in orbit with that statement.

Germany, which had a much more modern and developed aircraft industry compared to Japan, struggled to build enough jets to field more than a few squadrons. What makes you think Japan (which, by the way was still failing to make up losses incurred from Midway and the Marianas) would be able to field more than a couple jets, if they could field any at all?

 

I think what he was trying to refer to was not jets but the almost 10,000 ready fueled planes Japan had hidden away to use in massed Kamikaze attacks on Allied Invasion fleets for intended Operation Olympic.

 

One question...if US couldnt move 45 ton T26E3 efficiently due to lack of heavy lift dock cranes how were they going to move 60 ton T29's?

 


 

 

 

 

 


Edited by Anlushac11, Nov 08 2015 - 11:37.


FangTheCat #146 Posted Nov 09 2015 - 17:17

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 4524 battles
  • 456
  • Member since:
    09-10-2012

Amphibious Vehicles

 

We Brits have a joke about our impecunious military procurement process, a lot of the platforms (naval, land and air)  are “fitted for – but not equipped with” the really juicey stuff, in other words they could have the capability if the MOD ever put their hands into their pockets – if – a lot of meaning for a small word. So while the fully equipped specs might be somebody’s wet dream the reality is something different.

 

In the same vein, just because an armoured vehicle has been given the description of ‘amphibious’ doesn’t mean it “can operate all over europe because of their amphibian capability while the Bradly need a bridge”.

 

I’m not sure about your part of the world but I’ve mooched about Europe quite a lot and I know that just because a vehicle can float is no guarantee of getting across a river. Floating is not the problem – actually getting into the water is the big ask.   I could blah on about glacial rebound, tidal rivers and and canalisation due to human activities, but the end result is that to cross a river the best way is to use a bridge – either one already there or bring your own. I’m not saying that an amphibious vehicle couldn’t get across a river, but it would need a lot of work done to prepare the river banks to allow the vehicle to get into the water and get out again.  As I said, easier to bring your own bridge.

 



Walter_Sobchak #147 Posted Nov 09 2015 - 17:32

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 236 battles
  • 5,140
  • Member since:
    11-22-2010

View PostFangTheCat, on Nov 09 2015 - 11:17, said:

Amphibious Vehicles

 

We Brits have a joke about our impecunious military procurement process, a lot of the platforms (naval, land and air)  are “fitted for – but not equipped with” the really juicey stuff, in other words they could have the capability if the MOD ever put their hands into their pockets – if – a lot of meaning for a small word. So while the fully equipped specs might be somebody’s wet dream the reality is something different.

 

In the same vein, just because an armoured vehicle has been given the description of ‘amphibious’ doesn’t mean it “can operate all over europe because of their amphibian capability while the Bradly need a bridge”.

 

I’m not sure about your part of the world but I’ve mooched about Europe quite a lot and I know that just because a vehicle can float is no guarantee of getting across a river. Floating is not the problem – actually getting into the water is the big ask.   I could blah on about glacial rebound, tidal rivers and and canalisation due to human activities, but the end result is that to cross a river the best way is to use a bridge – either one already there or bring your own. I’m not saying that an amphibious vehicle couldn’t get across a river, but it would need a lot of work done to prepare the river banks to allow the vehicle to get into the water and get out again.  As I said, easier to bring your own bridge.

 

 

Exactly.  Also, you need a bridge for your MBTs, so you are going to have to wait for the bridge anyway unless you want your infantry and IFVs operating separately from the tanks.  

Anlushac11 #148 Posted Nov 11 2015 - 00:42

    Major

  • Players
  • 36140 battles
  • 2,343
  • Member since:
    05-25-2013

View PostWalter_Sobchak, on Nov 09 2015 - 11:32, said:

 

Exactly.  Also, you need a bridge for your MBTs, so you are going to have to wait for the bridge anyway unless you want your infantry and IFVs operating separately from the tanks.  

 

Thats fine and dandy for IFV that are attached to armored units..what about the scouts? IIRC M3 Bradley is a Cavalry Fighting Vehicle and is used on scout role.

 

Originally Bradley was supposed to deploy flotation screens and swim (After spending 20min erecting said screens) After a couple of deaths from sunken Bradleys that didnt swim quite properly the swim requirement was supposedly dropped.

 

Moot point anymore because I seem to remember that with the add on armor panels and ERA the flotation screens cant be deployed anymore anyways. 

 

US Army and Marines should have a scout vehicle that can be driven into water with no prep and swim to shore or other bank. USMC LAV-25 was amphibious, not sure if they still are.

 

IMHO serious flaw in scout units that you cant cross water obstacles quickly.



FangTheCat #149 Posted Nov 11 2015 - 14:26

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 4524 battles
  • 456
  • Member since:
    09-10-2012

Quote

US Army and Marines should have a scout vehicle that can be driven into water with no prep and swim to shore or other bank. USMC LAV-25 was amphibious, not sure if they still are

 

 

From my point of view it's not the vehicle that requires prepping it's the river banks.


 

I'm not sure about the US but I know that people have been roaming about Europe for thousands of years and most rivers that required crossing will have multiple fording points. Since the advent of wheeled traffic the recognised fording points have now become bridges If there is no bridge it's usually because historically the river was either not fordable or in such a location that it wasn't easy to get access to the banks. Humans being lazy, you can bet you bottom dollar that if there is no ford there's a good reason.


 

Tracked vehicles, whilst more mobile than wheeled vehicles still have their limitations and after having driven an MLRS for a couple of years I know you just cannot go where you want, you still have to consider the terrain and whether it will bog you, throw your track, leave you bellied while your tracks spin uselessly or have you vehicle stuck nose down with the vehicles [edited]in the air doing sky-watch.


 

Prior to strapping on the MLRS I spent many years in a Forward Observation party and one of the first things you did in an overwatch position was look at the natural and man made obstacles that would slow down or channel the bad guys (at that time it was the Warsaw Pact). And in Northern Germany it's amazing how many small streams - not even rivers - can pose a serious barrier to tracks/wheeled vehicles. It's not the speed of the flow or the depth, it's the banks. Not only do they have a drop into the water they also have banks/edges that are not consolidated material and are quite fragile. So yeah, full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes, you launch your amphibious vehicle at speed into the water, the following events might occur.

 

 

1 The river is too shallow, the water offers no cushion and you crash onto the river bed.

If it's rocky - ouch - lets hope nothings broken and your tracks stay on, so you press on.

If it's muddy - not much 'ouch' but once bogged in bottom ooze, you get an opportunity to consider life's little foibles and practice your recovery drills - let's hope you or you mates have a winch

.

2 The water is deep enough to take your vehicle, the flow is not too fast and the river is wide enough to allow you to recover from the leap of faith. You get across to the other bank but remember that 2 foot drop on the bank at your side that you negated by going in at speed? - well it's on this side as well. Can your vehicle fight it's way up the vertical slope - a slope that will consist of crumbling soil that will rapidly turn into mud? Lot's or revs, bellowing engines and plumes of exhaust fumes. Was this a covert crossing? It's a good chance that you can't get up, bad luck if you get bogged, if you don't then you'll be embarking on a tour of the German waterways looking for a point that will allow you to get out.


 

You might be lucky and find the perfect spot, cross with impunity and the minimum of fuss - but unless the opposition are of seriously poor calibre then all possible crossing points will be watched - the enemy will know your capabilities. If it's a primary area that can be used for follow on exploitation then it will be either defended, mined, obstacled as well as overwatched.


 

Back in the day the Warsaw pact would show films of the their tank hordes surging into the water, driving across the bottom and emerging on the other side. Looked pretty neat until you remembered that these were carefully staged exercises and that the river bed and banks had been prepped in advance. Same with their amphibious tanks, carefully managed water features and no hostile fire.


 

To allow a vehicle to be amphibious you have to give up something else - armour, firepower, HP or something similar. To my mind that's a waste for a feature that's unlikely to be used.


 


 



Anlushac11 #150 Posted Nov 12 2015 - 01:57

    Major

  • Players
  • 36140 battles
  • 2,343
  • Member since:
    05-25-2013

View PostFangTheCat, on Nov 11 2015 - 08:26, said:

Quote

US Army and Marines should have a scout vehicle that can be driven into water with no prep and swim to shore or other bank. USMC LAV-25 was amphibious, not sure if they still are

 

 

From my point of view it's not the vehicle that requires prepping it's the river banks.


 

I'm not sure about the US but I know that people have been roaming about Europe for thousands of years and most rivers that required crossing will have multiple fording points. Since the advent of wheeled traffic the recognised fording points have now become bridges If there is no bridge it's usually because historically the river was either not fordable or in such a location that it wasn't easy to get access to the banks. Humans being lazy, you can bet you bottom dollar that if there is no ford there's a good reason.


 

Tracked vehicles, whilst more mobile than wheeled vehicles still have their limitations and after having driven an MLRS for a couple of years I know you just cannot go where you want, you still have to consider the terrain and whether it will bog you, throw your track, leave you bellied while your tracks spin uselessly or have you vehicle stuck nose down with the vehicles [edited]in the air doing sky-watch.


 

Prior to strapping on the MLRS I spent many years in a Forward Observation party and one of the first things you did in an overwatch position was look at the natural and man made obstacles that would slow down or channel the bad guys (at that time it was the Warsaw Pact). And in Northern Germany it's amazing how many small streams - not even rivers - can pose a serious barrier to tracks/wheeled vehicles. It's not the speed of the flow or the depth, it's the banks. Not only do they have a drop into the water they also have banks/edges that are not consolidated material and are quite fragile. So yeah, full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes, you launch your amphibious vehicle at speed into the water, the following events might occur.

 

 

1 The river is too shallow, the water offers no cushion and you crash onto the river bed.

If it's rocky - ouch - lets hope nothings broken and your tracks stay on, so you press on.

If it's muddy - not much 'ouch' but once bogged in bottom ooze, you get an opportunity to consider life's little foibles and practice your recovery drills - let's hope you or you mates have a winch

.

2 The water is deep enough to take your vehicle, the flow is not too fast and the river is wide enough to allow you to recover from the leap of faith. You get across to the other bank but remember that 2 foot drop on the bank at your side that you negated by going in at speed? - well it's on this side as well. Can your vehicle fight it's way up the vertical slope - a slope that will consist of crumbling soil that will rapidly turn into mud? Lot's or revs, bellowing engines and plumes of exhaust fumes. Was this a covert crossing? It's a good chance that you can't get up, bad luck if you get bogged, if you don't then you'll be embarking on a tour of the German waterways looking for a point that will allow you to get out.


 

You might be lucky and find the perfect spot, cross with impunity and the minimum of fuss - but unless the opposition are of seriously poor calibre then all possible crossing points will be watched - the enemy will know your capabilities. If it's a primary area that can be used for follow on exploitation then it will be either defended, mined, obstacled as well as overwatched.


 

Back in the day the Warsaw pact would show films of the their tank hordes surging into the water, driving across the bottom and emerging on the other side. Looked pretty neat until you remembered that these were carefully staged exercises and that the river bed and banks had been prepped in advance. Same with their amphibious tanks, carefully managed water features and no hostile fire.


 

To allow a vehicle to be amphibious you have to give up something else - armour, firepower, HP or something similar. To my mind that's a waste for a feature that's unlikely to be used.


 


 

 

Good points and some info I had not thought of...pesky river banks

 



zloykrolik #151 Posted Nov 13 2015 - 04:11

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 36891 battles
  • 410
  • [RDTT2] RDTT2
  • Member since:
    05-05-2012

Why do you think most armies with mechanized forces develop some kind of AVLB?

 

Meh, this thread is already derailed.


Edited by zloykrolik, Nov 13 2015 - 04:14.


stalkervision #152 Posted Nov 13 2015 - 14:36

    Major

  • Players
  • 68442 battles
  • 9,661
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013

View PostFangTheCat, on Nov 11 2015 - 08:26, said:

Quote

US Army and Marines should have a scout vehicle that can be driven into water with no prep and swim to shore or other bank. USMC LAV-25 was amphibious, not sure if they still are

 

 

From my point of view it's not the vehicle that requires prepping it's the river banks.


 

I'm not sure about the US but I know that people have been roaming about Europe for thousands of years and most rivers that required crossing will have multiple fording points. Since the advent of wheeled traffic the recognised fording points have now become bridges If there is no bridge it's usually because historically the river was either not fordable or in such a location that it wasn't easy to get access to the banks. Humans being lazy, you can bet you bottom dollar that if there is no ford there's a good reason.


 

Tracked vehicles, whilst more mobile than wheeled vehicles still have their limitations and after having driven an MLRS for a couple of years I know you just cannot go where you want, you still have to consider the terrain and whether it will bog you, throw your track, leave you bellied while your tracks spin uselessly or have you vehicle stuck nose down with the vehicles [edited]in the air doing sky-watch.


 

Prior to strapping on the MLRS I spent many years in a Forward Observation party and one of the first things you did in an overwatch position was look at the natural and man made obstacles that would slow down or channel the bad guys (at that time it was the Warsaw Pact). And in Northern Germany it's amazing how many small streams - not even rivers - can pose a serious barrier to tracks/wheeled vehicles. It's not the speed of the flow or the depth, it's the banks. Not only do they have a drop into the water they also have banks/edges that are not consolidated material and are quite fragile. So yeah, full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes, you launch your amphibious vehicle at speed into the water, the following events might occur.

 

 

1 The river is too shallow, the water offers no cushion and you crash onto the river bed.

If it's rocky - ouch - lets hope nothings broken and your tracks stay on, so you press on.

If it's muddy - not much 'ouch' but once bogged in bottom ooze, you get an opportunity to consider life's little foibles and practice your recovery drills - let's hope you or you mates have a winch

.

2 The water is deep enough to take your vehicle, the flow is not too fast and the river is wide enough to allow you to recover from the leap of faith. You get across to the other bank but remember that 2 foot drop on the bank at your side that you negated by going in at speed? - well it's on this side as well. Can your vehicle fight it's way up the vertical slope - a slope that will consist of crumbling soil that will rapidly turn into mud? Lot's or revs, bellowing engines and plumes of exhaust fumes. Was this a covert crossing? It's a good chance that you can't get up, bad luck if you get bogged, if you don't then you'll be embarking on a tour of the German waterways looking for a point that will allow you to get out.


 

You might be lucky and find the perfect spot, cross with impunity and the minimum of fuss - but unless the opposition are of seriously poor calibre then all possible crossing points will be watched - the enemy will know your capabilities. If it's a primary area that can be used for follow on exploitation then it will be either defended, mined, obstacled as well as overwatched.


 

Back in the day the Warsaw pact would show films of the their tank hordes surging into the water, driving across the bottom and emerging on the other side. Looked pretty neat until you remembered that these were carefully staged exercises and that the river bed and banks had been prepped in advance. Same with their amphibious tanks, carefully managed water features and no hostile fire.


 

To allow a vehicle to be amphibious you have to give up something else - armour, firepower, HP or something similar. To my mind that's a waste for a feature that's unlikely to be used.


 


 

 

guess I was wrong. Guess those amphibious feature built into these vehicles were just for show and staged events.

 

 Good post



stalkervision #153 Posted Nov 13 2015 - 14:40

    Major

  • Players
  • 68442 battles
  • 9,661
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013

View Postzloykrolik, on Nov 12 2015 - 22:11, said:

Why do you think most armies with mechanized forces develop some kind of AVLB?

 

Meh, this thread is already derailed.

 

I'm guessing for supply trucks and heavy armor. Some of these are pretty big right? A few can easily span the Rhine and other large rivers in europe can't they?

stalkervision #154 Posted Nov 13 2015 - 14:47

    Major

  • Players
  • 68442 battles
  • 9,661
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013

I have noticed that the marines and other us forces have vehicles with similar amphibious capabilities,tracked and four wheel drive. Are they for show too ?  I see similar filmed maneuvers of these vehicles in action by our forces. Never realized that was what this was all about. 

 

 Fun videos to watch.. https://www.youtube....h?v=jH1MXyGBD8k

 

 https://www.youtube....h?v=tackmgZpkAI


Edited by stalkervision, Nov 13 2015 - 15:15.


Anlushac11 #155 Posted Nov 13 2015 - 23:40

    Major

  • Players
  • 36140 battles
  • 2,343
  • Member since:
    05-25-2013

View Postzloykrolik, on Nov 12 2015 - 22:11, said:

Why do you think most armies with mechanized forces develop some kind of AVLB?

 

Meh, this thread is already derailed.

 

AVLB's are limited to about 60ft length. Bailey bridges have to be erected. Pontoon bridges have to be built and assembled.

 

In the meantime Amhibious vehicles could in theory be across a water obstacle and scouting other side. That was my point.

 

The other point I was thinking of was say you have a patrol across a river and they run into a superior force and are forced to  withdraw. Your vehicle swill have to go to a crossing point or will have to stop for 20 min to erect flotation screens assuming they even still have ability to erect flotation screens.

 

As was pointed out above its kind of a moot point.

 

 






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users