There is a lot of panic to be judged by the likes of cult icon.
The end of tanks as we know it?
-
- Member
- Posts: 8251
- Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
- Location: Teesside
Re: The end of tanks as we know it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGJ9ZCd ... TimesRadio
London sold out to the Russians a long time back.. ......they even put a KGB agent into The House Lords.
London sold out to the Russians a long time back.. ......they even put a KGB agent into The House Lords.
Last edited by Michael Kenny on 25 Jan 2023, 18:20, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Member
- Posts: 8251
- Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
- Location: Teesside
Re: The end of tanks as we know it?
Yes it was all Hitler's fault. If only the war had lasted a few more months...Haunebu, Stealth jets undetectable U Boats, Moon Bases, Atom bombs tested in Poland.....sob......sob.... if only, sob............
Re: The end of tanks as we know it?
This is your biased way of misrepresenting what was effectively said. Russia followers seem to be really being in a bad mood which is fun to see as their chosen country is not doing too well for itself.Michael Kenny wrote: ↑25 Jan 2023, 18:19Yes it was all Hitler's fault. If only the war had lasted a few more months...Haunebu, Stealth jets undetectable U Boats, Moon Bases, Atom bombs tested in Poland.....sob......sob.... if only, sob............
Re: The end of tanks as we know it?
A tank that is not total loss is mostly not repaired as reparation takes not weeks but months .Aida1 wrote: ↑25 Jan 2023, 18:00Another example of your ignorance. A tank that is not totall loss can be repaired so there is a massive difference between breakdown and destruction. Many tanks can be repaired.ljadw wrote: ↑25 Jan 2023, 14:44The result of a breakdown or of a tank destroyed in combat, is the same .Aida1 wrote: ↑25 Jan 2023, 13:11He does not understand the latter.gebhk wrote: ↑25 Jan 2023, 13:00And a non-sequitur to what I wrote, which was that a tank has been the most effective way of mounting a tank killing weapon in the last 100 years or so.Most tank losses were non combat losses and most tank combat losses are not caused by enemy tanks, but by artillery, infantry ..
Here's a thought experiment - you are going to fight an enemy tank with, let's say, a 75mm A/T gun. What do you think would give you the best chances destroying the enemy tank and, crucially, survibing youurself? The gun mounted opn two heels and pulled by two horses, on the back of a truck, on a self propelled turretless chassis or in a tank with a rotating turret? Answers on the back of a postcard as they say.
Note the critical words which you are ignoring - effective and tank killing. We are not talking of breakdowns we are talking of destroying tanks in combat.
Besides : it is not needed to destroy a tank in combat to eliminate him : you can do it by eliminating the truck with fuel.
And, how many tanks damaged in combat could be repaired at time so that they could be used again ?
Immobilising a tank is not the same as destruction if it is not captured or blown up to avoid the former.
An immobilized tank means a lost tank as a tank needs mobility and firepower to survive .
Even after 80 years , a lot of people parrot the story of the superior Soviet T 34 and KV tanks who could not be destroyed by the German tanks ,but as usual evade to answer the question why 82 % of the T 34 tanks were lost in Ww2 ,2300 of them and 900 KV tanks in 1941 only .
In less than 6 weeks the Soviets lost some 10000 tanks , not by German tanks .
The Soviets lost in June-July some 8000 tanks, most of them by non combat causes and these tanks were not repaired by the Soviets .
Source : Schustereit, Vabanque
Re: The end of tanks as we know it?
Your personal opinion which is complete nonsense as usual. You clearly have no knowledge of the extent to which tanks can be repaired.ljadw wrote: ↑25 Jan 2023, 19:05A tank that is not total loss is mostly not repaired as reparation takes not weeks but months .Aida1 wrote: ↑25 Jan 2023, 18:00Another example of your ignorance. A tank that is not totall loss can be repaired so there is a massive difference between breakdown and destruction. Many tanks can be repaired.ljadw wrote: ↑25 Jan 2023, 14:44The result of a breakdown or of a tank destroyed in combat, is the same .Aida1 wrote: ↑25 Jan 2023, 13:11He does not understand the latter.gebhk wrote: ↑25 Jan 2023, 13:00
And a non-sequitur to what I wrote, which was that a tank has been the most effective way of mounting a tank killing weapon in the last 100 years or so.
Here's a thought experiment - you are going to fight an enemy tank with, let's say, a 75mm A/T gun. What do you think would give you the best chances destroying the enemy tank and, crucially, survibing youurself? The gun mounted opn two heels and pulled by two horses, on the back of a truck, on a self propelled turretless chassis or in a tank with a rotating turret? Answers on the back of a postcard as they say.
Note the critical words which you are ignoring - effective and tank killing. We are not talking of breakdowns we are talking of destroying tanks in combat.
Besides : it is not needed to destroy a tank in combat to eliminate him : you can do it by eliminating the truck with fuel.
And, how many tanks damaged in combat could be repaired at time so that they could be used again ?
Immobilising a tank is not the same as destruction if it is not captured or blown up to avoid the former.
An immobilized tank means a lost tank as a tank needs mobility and firepower to survive .
Even after 80 years , a lot of people parrot the story of the superior Soviet T 34 and KV tanks who could not be destroyed by the German tanks ,but as usual evade to answer the question why 82 % of the T 34 tanks were lost in Ww2 ,2300 of them and 900 KV tanks in 1941 only .
In less than 6 weeks the Soviets lost some 10000 tanks , not by German tanks .
The Soviets lost in June-July some 8000 tanks, most of them by non combat causes and these tanks were not repaired by the Soviets .
Source : Schustereit, Vabanque
-
- Member
- Posts: 1545
- Joined: 04 Sep 2004, 22:18
- Location: GA
Re: The end of tanks as we know it?
Good luck getting a better one. I cant imagine many crews making detailed surveys on the size of the AP hole when bailing out. Nevertheless, indirect HE fire is going to be a much smaller % than direct fire. Thats changing these days, but I imagine you arent going to find surveys that reflect top of the line artillery rounds.Michael Kenny wrote: ↑25 Jan 2023, 07:40Probably the weakest parts of the survey. It is a good 'overview' and a primer for more detailed research. For example the 88mm % figure is way too high. When I contacted Naisawald about this way back in 2008 he told me they sourced it mainly from US AAR's rather than detailed casualty surveys. Use with caution.Tom Peters wrote: ↑25 Jan 2023, 03:55
how about this one:
Alvin Coox, "Survey of Allied Tank Casualties in WW2"
Figure 5: Calibre of Enemy Gunfire (% of total):
light: 6%
misc med: 5%
75mm: 36%
88mm: 50%
heavy: 3%
The Point Being, ljadw doesnt have any data to stand on. At least I quoted something relevant.
Mad Dog
-
- Member
- Posts: 1545
- Joined: 04 Sep 2004, 22:18
- Location: GA
Re: The end of tanks as we know it?
I dont care what you think Guderian said in 1941. Thats heresay, not a collection of data like in the Coox report.
Find a source of collected data to support your assertion.
Mad Dog
-
- Member
- Posts: 1545
- Joined: 04 Sep 2004, 22:18
- Location: GA
Re: The end of tanks as we know it?
Thats not a zero-sum game. The Germans could be better at AT doctrine and still lose.Michael Kenny wrote: ↑25 Jan 2023, 13:27Really? How did that work out for them?
https://www.worldwarphotos.info/wp-cont ... zow_44.jpg
Mad Dog
-
- Member
- Posts: 1545
- Joined: 04 Sep 2004, 22:18
- Location: GA
-
- Member
- Posts: 1545
- Joined: 04 Sep 2004, 22:18
- Location: GA
-
- Member
- Posts: 1545
- Joined: 04 Sep 2004, 22:18
- Location: GA
-
- Member
- Posts: 1545
- Joined: 04 Sep 2004, 22:18
- Location: GA
Re: The end of tanks as we know it?
Sure, sure, that would explain the lower loss rates for UKR armor so far.
That might also be scary, if the RU air units werent so scared to fly past the FEBA.
...seemingly hitting mostly civilian targets.
[golf clap]
Mad Dog
-
- Member
- Posts: 1545
- Joined: 04 Sep 2004, 22:18
- Location: GA
Re: The end of tanks as we know it?
There is no victory in UKR. Only losses. At best, UKR will continue as an independent political entity, while incurring massive economic losses. At best, RU will own more of UKR, but watch its economy slide under the waves while it ignites a new cold war it cannot possibly win.
But go ahead, keep playing the little Russian cheerleader.
Mad Dog
-
- Member
- Posts: 1545
- Joined: 04 Sep 2004, 22:18
- Location: GA
Re: The end of tanks as we know it?
"The most important rule is never get involved in a land war in Aisa".Michael Kenny wrote: ↑25 Jan 2023, 18:19Yes it was all Hitler's fault. If only the war had lasted a few more months...Haunebu, Stealth jets undetectable U Boats, Moon Bases, Atom bombs tested in Poland.....sob......sob.... if only, sob............
-V
Mad Dog