Jump to content

On the way

Members
  • Posts

    520
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by On the way

  1. You got a nice museum in Rome in the form of Museo Storico della Fanteria, without going out of they way https://www.turismoroma.it/en/node/156 Wow, I just googled them. Thanks for the tip, will certainly check it out.
  2. Going to be in Europe, Oct/Nov 2022. Booked on a cruise starting in Southampton and ending in Rome. Planning to do the UK museums. If anyone wants to make an I & I out of it, I will be game. P.S. Wife is tagging along.
  3. Yeah, I remember Axel driving the mini van and getting a speeding ticket on the Germany I & I. The picture was hilarious. Wish I was on that one. Hey, what happened to Axel anyway? I haven't seen him on this forum in a while.
  4. UK I & I? We can do a month long one there. LOL. Can't pass up RAF Duxford while u are there. If tank driving is involved at Bovington, I will be very interested. RAF Cosford is also very good and worth a visit. Ok, noted.
  5. UK I & I? We can do a month long one there. LOL. Can't pass up RAF Duxford while u are there. If tank driving is involved at Bovington, I will be very interested.
  6. I thoroughly enjoyed the one that I attended and will forever regret missing the Germany ones. Did the New Orleans one happen? Any plans for future I&Is say next year when this Covid crap is hopefully over?
  7. Somewhere I have reaction times of T-72 and M-84 FSS (M-84 used licensed German heat sensors* in FSS, possibly the same as on Leos), there is a difference but it is not that big and I don't think it is that relevant. That's what I suspected. I just tried to roll with the premise of the whole thread, that there actually was a much better fire suppression system available. But there isn't. And even if you had one that would vent double the amount of halon into the crew compartment and did so within microseconds of detecting a fire, it still wouldn't help with an uncontained propellant fire. To that extent I'd say the original question is thoroughly answered. The only way to significantly reduce the risks of ammunition deflagration in combat vehicles is complete separation of crew and ammunition, with the possible exception of the few seconds when loading a round. We all acknowledge, of course, that no capable armored combat vehicle will ever offer perfect safety for the crew. Worse situational awareness will eventually cost more lives, slow loading times tue to "excessive shielding" of a loading process could get you killed, etc. You can only hope for a balanced design that allows the crew to fight effectively and to react fast to emerging threats wile offering adequate protection for the majority of threats, and repressing the remaining threats, hopefully, with good combined arms tactics. Thanks, I think that is the answer I was seeking. There is no FSS so much better then the original ones in the T-72 that could have completely suppressed the fire from propellant. In which case, its a design issue, with the stowage of the rounds.
  8. I think we are all in agreement that in many cases, theT-72 and its variants combust after a penetrator hit. whether its from propellant igniting or fuel or whatever, the result is a turret separation caused by an internal explosion. To get back to the thread title, why didn't the fire suppression system deal with this fire in the first place? @stefan kotsch mentions the sensor in the T-72 AFES. Which brings up the point, if a better or more modern AFES had been installed, would it prevent this? Stuart mentioned Iraqis fitting French AFES to their tanks. So are we saying that due to the way the ammo is stored in a T-72, a penetrator sets off the propellant in the rounds, the fire suppression system can't deal with it when activated or did not activate in time, and the resulting fire and explosion takes the turret of the tank? Regardless of how good the fire suppression system is? Its a tank design issue?
  9. Thanks for the reply Ken. So, if I wanted to go and visit Aberdeen Proving Grounds after the Covid restrictions are lifted, will I 1) Be allowed in as a non US Citizen, 2) be able to see any of the collection?3) Is there a lot of the collection left?
  10. Just curious about all those images we have seen of blown up T-72 and their variants, where a massive explosion blew the turret off the tank. Was this an issue with their Automatic Fire Extinguishing Systems, or was it an integral weakness of the design? Would a more sophisticated western made fire suppression system have prevented this? Modern AFES activate in milliseconds. They should have been able to put out any catastrophic fire within the T-72s. Would the T-72 and its variants be a safer tank if a better AFES were retrofitted to it?
  11. I read that it was supposed to have been moved to Fort Lee (Virginia) as part of Brac. But the artifact list is pitifully short at Army Ordnance museum in Fort Lee. I visited Aberdeen Proving Grounds years ago in 1995. There was so much stuff there. I can't imagine they would have spend millions $ to move all that to Fort Lee. And if they did not do so, then is Aberdeen still open to visitors? Could someone shed some light on this?
  12. The problem is, look at it from the British point of view. They had to bring the Germans to war somehow. We had the Soviets getting beaten up on the Eastern Front in the latter part of 1941, we would have had to have done something to assist them in that time period at the very least. Rommel might have stalled the British for some time, but inevitably he would have been facing a Tunisia at some point as the amount of forces built up far too large for him to defeat. At that point, Hitler has a choice of withdrawal, or anteing up. And his mindset would be to inevitably ante up. I have to ask question whether a Rommel that was just on the defensive would have been tolerable to Hitler. He sent the hard charging commander of 7th Panzer Division to Africa for a reason, and I doubt it was to defend. I understand what you are saying. But I don't think the Brits were in any position to bring the Germans or Italians or anyone else into war. They were still recovering from losing all the men and materiel in France from the year before. They were also facing the possibility of fighting the Japanese, which did happen in Dec 1941. Churchill was bucking for some action, but I don't think anyone in the British Army was under any illusions that they could. Yes, Rommel could have stalled the Brits for a while, and even longer if the Americans have not come in at North Africa. But you are talking years down the road. If the British were not provoked and pushed back by Rommel, they would have had no incentive to pour reinforcements, men and materiel into NA. As to your point about whether a defensive Rommel would be tolerable to Hitler, well Hitler did put him in charge of the mother of all defences, the Atlantic Wall. I would say that he was ok with it.
  13. Rommel was probably the best mobile warfare General the Germans had. U are saying if you give Rommel a corp or even an army and cutting him lose in Russia would not have made a difference?
  14. I don't think Rommel should have done anything at all. He was a brilliant tactician, but I don't think he was too clear on overall strategy. The Afrika Korp was send to North Africa as a holding force to bolster the Italians and help them avoid being over run by the Brits. As a holding force, they could have stalemated the whole North Africa campaign and confine it to a 3rd rate theatre for the rest of the war, which it should have been. Instead, Rommel was too aggressive and too ambitious. Went beyond his mandate and attacked the Brits almost all the way to Egypt. This forced the Brits to pour resources and manpower into that theatre. By that time, the Nazi press had build up Rommel into superman and they couldn't leave him hanging in NA. SO, they poured men, equipment and supplies to support the Afrika Korp, for a theatre of operations that they had no intention to be in. Of course, they lost all of it when the AK surrendered in NA, and also a lot of it went down in the Mediterranean Sea. All of these could have been used on the Eastern Front or to bolster their defences in France.
  15. Was any consideration given by the Germans to asking help from their Italian allies for airborne Channel Shipping attacks? The Italians had the Savoia-Marchetti SM.79, which probably at that time was the best torpedo bomber in the world. In addition, the Italians had developed tactics for torpedo attacks with this plane as well as a reliable and effective torpedo. And they had some success at it in the Mediterranean. A wing of SM.79 based in French airbases near the Channel could do interdiction strikes against any RN interference in a SEELOWE operation. I bring this up because some posters had earlier mentioned that the LW anti shipping capability was poor to non-existent. That includes JU 87 dive bombing. The SM.79 and their crews trained in torpedo attacks would have been better then any LW units, I imagine.
  16. There was a “Germany First” school in Washington that considered the Pacific small beer, and the loss of Hawaii could have caused these to advocate for shutting the Pacific down until 1944, (except for SLOC to Australia) and concentrating on Germany. (Paradoxically, because Japan had no hope of winning WW2 in the Axis coalition, the faster Germany was defeated and occupied, the better it was for Japan). No chance of the Japanese capturing anything repairable on Oahu. US engineers would destroy everything. Scrap metal only. OTOH, scrap metal was a much better cargo for ships returning to Japan than nothing at all. If Japan holds Saipan at the point Germany surrenders in Europe, the Pacific situation moves to Japan’s favor because (a) the US bombing campaign has not happened and ( b ) the Soviet intervention, even if aimed at Japan, was not something that the US would welcome. Especially if the US was still distant enough from Asia that it was a spectator to events there. (Japan could not win the war. It was only a question of how it was going to lose it). In June 1944 the USN went to the Marianas and defeated the IJN on its home turf in the decisive carrier battle of the war, (insofar as a tactically preordained outcome is decisive). So that’s the approximate date for the recapture of Oahu. Starting in June 1944. It would be not so much preparing the ground assault element as the availability of Essex Class fleet carriers. The USN needs the carriers to overcome Hawaii’s air forces and the IJN fleet, and to do that the Essex timetable sets the script. It didn’t matter to the outcome if the Japanese consolidated the NEI or not. The timetable of the USN offensive was mostly driven by US industrial schedules because US strength once mobilized so overpowered Japanese resources that Japanese wartime production could not exert much effect. There was nothing in the NEI that could tip the scales for Japanese industry. It was simply too weak. Thanks for those viewpoints. The 1944 timing with the introduction of the Essex class carriers you mentioned makes total sense. So basically, Japan would have to occupy Oahu for 1.5 years. And supply its garrison during this time.
  17. Ok, that makes sense. I think the US would have still taken at least one year to retake Oahu if the Japanese occupied it. The Japanese will turn it into an early version of Iwo Jima for the Battle of Oahu.
  18. Thanks Stuart, starting to feel a little sheepish with the overwhelming opinion, backed by many facts and stats, that the Oahu invasion was a no go. And only a fool would bring that up. LOL. On the other hand the Sealion thread is still going strong. LOL.
  19. I think for the first few years of the pacific war, the Royal Navy was a non factor, having bigger fish to fry in the Battle of the Atlantic and other European actions. I am sure the Japanese know this and counted on their inactivity. I am thinking Repulse and Prince of Wales was the high point of RN involvement in Asia for the first couple of years.
  20. Yeah, except that this "troll" started the thread. If you are not happy about it, maybe you can get off my thread? How about that?
  21. Never had the pleasure of visiting the Littlefield ranch when the collection was altogether. Would have made my bucket list. At least now, I know most of the primo stuff is in MA. I am surprised the kids did not open up a local museum in the Bay Area and have a revolving exhibit of Dad's vehicles in it. They could have run school groups and vet groups through it, and They could have made some money that way. Or did they not explore renting the vehicles out for movies and what not? Even Bovington tries to make some money from tank rides and car crushing demos for the public. Given the Portola location is not feasible for that, but some other location with a large grounds might have worked.
  22. Do you mean the Norway scenario? The German occupation of Norway secured continued import of iron ore. The question is then whether the iron ore was worth the cost of occupying Norway. A second question would be if Hitler put more resources into Norway than what was strictly necessary to defend it. Well, Norway at least had resources that were theoretically valuable to the war effort and the strategic position was close to Germany and in addition it later put the supply of Murmansk under some pressure. Hawaii on the other had, has nothing the Japanese could not get easier in Asia, is far away from the mainland and does not really limit the flow of supply to the USA either. But capturing Oahu denies the US Navy a staging base and also denies the US Navy the use of its ship repair facilities. Everyone of the ships put back into action after Dec 7, except for 3. Which was possible because the ship repairs were carried out unmolested. The non capture of Oahu for whatever reasons by the Japs, allowed the US Navy to put back the USS Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Maryland. The USS Nevada, California, and West Virginia were floated and towed to mainland naval facilities for repairs and joined the fleet. All of these would not be possible if the Japs had taken Oahu. It might even be possible for the lesser damaged ships to be requisitioned for the IJN. For future US Naval operations and island hopping campaigns, they would have had to stage these out of the west coast of the US, rather then out of Oahu. Logistically, I would imagine this would be a harder proposition. Holding Oahu would in my opinion have delayed the US war against Japan by a year or more. Political pressure would have forced the US to retake Oahu first. After all, you cannot allow the enemy to remain on your territory. The planning for the invasion of Oahu, plus the assembling and training of the invasion force would have push back the US time table at least one or 2 years. And would it have made it a lot harder too, because the US Navy and Marines would have to validate all their amphibious tactics theory on this Oahu invasion, their first operation. Versus a much more polished product in say the Okinawa campaign. Would the Japanese be able to consolidate more of their SE Asian gains if given an extra one or 2 years? Would the US deliberately focus on retaking Oahu over sending resources to Britain for the European campaign, hence indirectly having an affect on the European campaign?
×
×
  • Create New...