istvan47

Perhaps even cheaper than rebuilt this! There was a video on YT years ago in which hundreds of US AFVs were 'awaiting' repairs after being wracked by this or that weapon in Irak. I suspect that many of them were regarded as 'damaged' just to mask the real total losses that usually would negate the possibility of rebuilding such wrecks. But politically it's better to say to have lost 2 M1 and damaged 14 than lost let's say 6 and damaged 8. Just politics. Definitively T-72/80 have bad reputations, definitively M1s is a great survivable tank, but still you cannot seriosly say that any of them 'hit' was actually lost. Show me some statistics apart Belling-CIA-cats, and we could agree. T-72s were not always burned to hashes when it even in GW1, some survived more or less damaged. Cleary the RPGs were less dangerous than the M1A1 gun, but this is another story. Also T-72 gun was a more dangerous foe than RPGs and it fired usually steel shots instead of DUs.

Thank you for the clarification. I agree the M1A1 wasn't much use to Iraq in 2014 but no tank would have been. It was not until retrained, much more capable Iraqi forces took the field that the M1A1s received the support they needed. Though it wasn't just that Iraq was forced to send their M1A1s into Mosul, they wanted to use the M1A1's thermal sights to locate hidden Daesh positions and its Tank-Infantry Phone proved useful for cooperating with accompanying infantry. The M1A1 SA was wanted in Mosul and it did not disappoint, but by that point both the tank crews and the infantry with them were of far better quality than in 2014. Also the Panzer and StuG used in Warsaw and even Stalingrad by German forces, or the JS/T-34 used by soviets in Berlin did not disappoint. Always is related to how use your equipment, no matter is an M-1 Abrams or a M-4 Sherman.

This is a joke thread, but still there must be place also for this: 1,400 mm of rain in Queesland, about 500,000 cows drowned or dying. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/feb/10/floods-fire-and-drought-australia-a-country-in-the-grip-of-extreme-weather-bingo Queesland was hironically the one that tried to stop the forest cleaing that is paragonable only to the Borneo/Amazon/Congo deforastation. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/30/australias-east-coast-named-as-deforestation-front-in-wwf-living-planet-report About Tasmania, sadly they have more to do than worring about nuke tests: they have lightning strikes and the destruction of their best preservated places by fire (why politics do not care at all): https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/05/tasmania-is-burning-the-climate-disaster-future-has-arrived-while-those-in-power-laugh-at-us And lakes contaminated not by radiations, but by heavy metals from one century of devasting mining activities: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/08/tasmanias-lakes-among-most-contaminated-in-the-world

It would be better to see the actual effects on the Earth instead of fancy Youtube 'skeptic' videos, as example are you aware of what is happening in Tasmania? And the politicians, what they are doing? Oooh, simple, the thing that both liberals and right wing love the more: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/05/tasmania-is-burning-the-climate-disaster-future-has-arrived-while-those-in-power-laugh-at-us SO, Australia is drowning in Queesland, is cutting forest in the East cost, the Great Barrier is dying and the Tasmanian best and less affected places are burning to hashes. But hey, we cannot be concerned by that. Republicans and liberals assured that it's all OK even if nobody recorded in precedent centuries disasters like those happening now.

It seems that several still insist that climate change is a leftist thing. Maybe it's so. But it would be better to see what's happening to Australia now. And HOW the politicians (those 'wise', AKA right, conservationist kind)?THERE IS NO CLIMATE CHANGE, as 'alwasy have been from year dot.' So even Australia, that is the most scarcely populated country in the developed world, is destroying his enviroment for the sake of 1) mineral industry. 2) Australia is the only country that is listed in the most deforestation place. Why? Because they need more space for their cows. And they of course, doesn't care about climate 'change'. Less trees, more CO2 (and methane), but it's businness as usual. Even Koala forests are no longer protected areas. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/30/australias-east-coast-named-as-deforestation-front-in-wwf-living-planet-report The catastrophe is here, but still there are negationists at work, always believing to the 'free market holy laws', of course. Just said in the first page of this discussion.

-About the SM.79. Bear in mind, that even if apparently fast, the SM.79 was a tri-motor, not a twin. Even with the weaker engines, it had over 2,200 cv for a 23,000 lb machine. This is why it was fast. The last model, with 475 km/h, was motorized by 3x 920 cv, equalling a two with 1,400 hp each! And it was still quite light. SM.84 and Z.1007 had 3x1,000 cv each, this is around such a DB-7 or B-25/26 or a Ki-21/49. So they were fast, but surely not underpowered. The Z.1007ter had around 490-500 km/h, but with 3x1,150 cv (3/4 of a 30 t B-17!). -The fighters were, in comparasation, more performing, just look the MC.202 with the same Emil engine. But, anyway, it was not faster than the Bf 109F, and less armed as well. -About the machine-guns: many in Italì talk well about the Breda Mod 37. Now, it's necessary to add, this weapon was 'excellent'... 19,4 kg (43 lb), plus around 20 for the tripod (= 110 lbs!) 450 rpm 20 rd magazines (yess, it was too easy to mount a 250 rd belt!) Basically it was 2/3 heavy such the M2HB, but it had a 1/3 firepower than the MG42, absolutely the worst power(firepower)-to-weight ratio of any WWII machine guns. Germans though their MG were better than italian ones (go figure!). And they were right. -Germans rated better italian mortas than theirs. I read that the 81 mm had 3 km range with normal round, but some other sources talks even 4 km. This is a value too much optimistic, i'd say. Basically, the 81 mm Breda was just another copy of the french Brandt, so the performances should have been around 3 km, that was already very good (8 cm german had 2,5 km range). -Breda 30 was crap, but there were a lot of them. It was horrible as shape as well. Let's say 'better than nothing'. -Brixa 45 mm mortar. Ah ah ah, you call it a weapon? -Eric Brown tested the MC.205, not the other '5' series, even if a G.55 was in UK. Atleast i never heard about it. Definitively not the Re.2005, arguably the best of the breed. -MC.205 was a very capable low-medium fighter. Basically sound, but still too conservative and labor-intensive to build. Even so... it was sometimes kicked by USAAF P-40s (the 'mediocrity' TM). It happened atleast on 30th April 1943 (when allieds kicked hard, sinking 3 enemy DD as well) and 22nd July (3 Macchi vs 2 P-40 lost). Not bad for the 'old' P-40.

Wasn't the SM.79 the most successful land based torpedo bomber of the war? BAH! In propaganda, perhaps. Aircraft carriers sunk: 0 damaged: 1 (in 1943!) Battleship sunk: 0 damaged: 0 (Nelson was torpedoed by the dumb brother, the SM.84, that was, in return, butchered badly, with almost the whole 36st Wing annihiled in just one mission). Cruisers damaged: atleast 6 sunk: 0. Some destroyers and merchant ships were effectively torpedoed, but few sunk. In 1941, the best SM.79 year, just 9 ships sunk, with 14 aircraft shot down. When the allied started to deploy better a.a. and fighters, then the SM.79 days were gone (just relegated as night bomber/torpedo). The He 111 was perhaps not better; still, in Mediterranean sea, in 1941-44, sunk or damaged roughly the same amount of tonnage that did the SM.79 in 1940-43. Not bad, since the 1942 the torpedo bombers were definitively too vulnerable (Devastator and G4M included). Not forget, the SM.79/84 were employed literally in hundreds, the He 111 were just few squadrons. We can talk about the Swordfish, the british WW-1 era torpedo-bomber. It had the same engine of the Sparviero (SM-79), but only one; and it was around 1-third as fast. Still, the bunch of Swordfish did much more damage than all the Axis TB in Mediterranean sea put togheter. Just check how the few Swordfish formerly based on HMS Eagle, literally exterminated all the DD italian fleet based in North Africa, in just two months.

All by all, Mussolini and fascists had what they deserved. Not forget: while UK and France believed in a very long and warless time, or refuge themselves behind the Maginot, the fascists did grow the belligerent spirit in the italian population. And did fought many local wars to 'enstablish the empire', cheering about the martial valour of the fascism and the war. Ever eard about Balilla, Giovani Fascisti, etc? They even played with carbine toys. Find me in democracy, something similar. US, UK, France and so on. Italians did believe really about all this crap. They believed in violence and war, weapons and 'italian superiority bla bla'. Italy really followed the 'excellence' in almost anything. Football, cyclism, aeronautic records everywhere (but... what PITA about the Schneider trophy!). Mussolini dreamed about a sort of new roman empire. And this at last failed miserably for a series of already mentioned causes. But above all, because the arrogance they had. Rightfully ended, i'd say. At the beginning of the war, fascists believed to be invincible, their SM.79 Sparviero, biplanes, fast cruisers, 'tanks' (sigh), eight millions bayonets. Well, at the fall of 1940, they were kicked in the ass. Badly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Compass My only disappointment is, that fascists weren't never eradicated by my country. We retained policemen, politicians and magistrates of the fascist regime, and even fascists laws (Rocco's code). Atleast, Mussolini did some good thing (such social previdence, EUR, etc). But the over inflating made up by fascist government was too much and finally exploded as it deserves to be.

Just for curiosity: but the 18W777 photos, where are from? The destroyed AFVs what nationality did have? Ukraine, Russian, rebels? I can't identify them.

They were surprisingly useful for most of the operations the Japanese carried out. A tankette in some remote island is better than the 30 ton tank that can't be brought to that island or supported. Except when your adversary has the ability to transport, land, and support 35 ton medium tanks on the same island. True enough but the Imperial Japanese Army didn't intend to fight on any remote islands except for the Japanese Kurils. They were fighting the Chinese -who had no tanks AFAIK- and preparing to fight the USSR -who had light tanks and lightly armoured large tanks. Compared to a T-26 and BT, the Ha-Go and Chi-Ha look all right. Not properly. In 1939 clashes the russian tanks outclassed straight the japan tanks, not contest! The 45 mm gun was a lot better than any weapon japs had! Basically, they were forced to use artillery and 'humans' to blow the soviet tanks. So definitively the japs were not at the verge of the technology even in '30s. But... but.. they fough against Soviet army. Let's get a look to the fascist army, then. What they got? a phalanx of... L3/35 tanks, plus some M11, with not even with a turret. The only with one, were the Fiat 3000 tanks (copies of FT-17!). Germans? What did have them? Panzer I and Panzer II, plus a punch of heavier tanks. British? Vickers tankette with machine gun, and some Matilda I and early thin-skinned cruisers. US Army? In 1939? 300 tanks, mainly light and without an idea of what to do with them. Apart France, Soviet army had therefore the only (and by far, the greatest) tank fleet. Nobody else was comparable to them. The 45 mm gun was already a tank killer, with HE as well. Germans matched it just with the 50/42 mm gun (in late 1940, IIRC). So, did Japan junk tanks? No, they did not. The jap tanks, for once, have diesel engines, and they were perhaps the FIRST in mass production- Their tanks had almost always both a turret, a real gun (without coax!), and a radio set (IIRC). This put them ahead of 99% armies even in 1940. But this did not lasted much. The US light tanks, already in 1941-42, were better. The Sherman and Grant a no-match. But yet, in the early part of war the few armoured units in japan army had a lot of success, included Philippines and Singapore. What Japan lacked was, as already said, the capability to go with heavier tank production. It's just if the US had not the industries to make something heavier than the M3 Stuart. For a 13-15 ton tank, the latest Type 97 with 50 mm armour and a powerful 47 mm gun were not exactly rubbish. At last, they were wrapped with asbestum inside, protecting by heat and 'crashes' the crew inside.

I think both answers are possible. They were a semi-failure (Conqueror and M103), or of limited value (JS/T-10), but still, they stimuled the enemy and scare him forcing to do better and costlier machines. Stalin/Lenin tanks were produced by thousands and employed in action with success, so they can't be really failures. For what it worths, i think that, in order to fight the latest 50-60 paramounth NATO tanks, the soviets should have NOT did the T-80s, but upgrade the T-10 instead. Just like, basically, the british did from the Chieftain to the Challenger 1. A 40 t tank cannot fight effectively with a 60 ton tank, it's just to put Monzon vs Tyson. But a 'T-10' with composite armour and 125 mm gun, and a turbodiesel... well, it would have been interesting. Even if the T-10 itself was surclassed by the much lighter T-62 almost by every point (and this pratically ended the 'heavy tank' in soviet production, the T-72 was, BTW, a 'super T-62'for many points).

Ah, not talk about the Ariete, Leclerc, even Challenger and Leopard 2. All those can 'blow' if hit in the ammo depots. The old gen (M60, AMX-30, Leopard 1, M-48 etc) not even bothered at all about ammo storage security. Just the british did some work with this (fatal) issue. So the soviets were in relatively good company, in this aspect. A burnt out Patton or Leopard would look not that different than a T-64/72, after all. And many times, the T-72 blown out explodes some time after being hit, so the crew could escape. The real problems are the last gen RPG/ammos (DU), and the mines (another real danger), all of them capable to blow the T-72 (just like any other 40 t tank). I agree, that the semi-combustible charges were a mad idea for the security aspect (much better if they did like in the T-62). Also madness can be called the fuel inside (!) the crew compartment, another soviet tradition (that is present in the early T tanks as well! Atleast the T-72 has improved its armour). Basically, except M1, Leo 2 and C.2, the tanks still have the capacity of incenerating themselves, not a fair point about them.

Sure, it's fine for a WW3 situation, where the front armor and gun are both good, and a tank getting knocked out on the attack is as good as dead anyway (the crew probably has a small chance of making it back too), plus decent automotive capabilities (apart from pretty much being unable to reverse). However, that never came to be. Now, you have those decent attributes in a tank that blows up a good portion of the time, taking the most expensive part of the deal with it (the crew; trained crews are far more important than a tank when you have a lot of tanks). Hence, one massive failure, which is compounded by how many they built. Maybe and maybe not. -Let's take, as example, other 40 t tanks, such the Leopards, that i knew quite well. Ammos scattered everywere. Thin-skin armour. Did they have fare better thant the T-72, even vs RPGs? Or. -Let's take the T-55/62s. They did a lot of action. They weren't much successful either. -The T-72 was soundly defeated only by the best Abrams, in Irak. Of course, this cannot be previewed in Europe in 1975-85, when the Abrams was relatively rare and with a 105 mm gun. -And i do not think that, if the US producers were forced to make a 40 t tank, they would do an 'Abrams'. Maybe an AMX-40, if they were successful. To compare a T-72 with an Abrams/Leo 2 or C.2 is just like to compare a T-34/Sherman to a Tiger. Too much difference (20 tons), already saw even with M-24 vs T-34 in Korea. The M1 fans should remember this simple fact. The last 40 t US tank (atlest put in production) was the M48. Having said this, despite the 'spectacular' fires and explosions, the T-72 seems to fare quite well. Especially with ERAs. It is currently employed in Syria, Lybia, Ukraine, and many other places 'hot'. I don't say that T-72 was perfect, i agree that that ammo under the ass was a nightmare and i would never accept it! Sure, the crew would have Abrams/Leo 2 instead (but if they are incompetent like Iraki Army...). But neverthless, i don't think that any other 40 t tank would have been much better than the T-72. Add additional protection to the ammos, hold some of them outside the turret (in the rear sponson box?), add thermals. Not much else. And you cannot call a 'failure' of a tank that was made in 30,000 examples and sold to dozen countries. The armies that hold it are not scrapping it. And maybe there will be some T-72(90) in service even when the last M1 /C2/Leo 2 will be phased out. It was already happened with the T-34 vs Shermans, apparently.

Yes, i know that you know. But still, in this very interesting discussion, this particular aspect has not been yet discussed. I mean, just look to the Churchill ARK: ''A turretless Churchill with ramps at either end and along the body to form a mobile bridge. The Mark 1 had trackways over the tracks for vehicles to drive along. The Mark 2 was an improvised version and crossing vehicles drove directly on the Churchill's tracks. the Link Ark (or "Twin Ark") was two ARKs used side-by-side to give a wide crossing. The ramps on these were folding types giving a longer - 65 ft (20 m) - crossing.[25] This was used for the post war Conqueror heavy tank.'' Just see this picture, i wonder if any other tank could do this!

I like the Crusader, fast and 'african tank' like nobody else. It was elegant. You know, italians did not cared much about Matilda (that defeat them soundly in 1940-41!), but they liked a lot the Crusader. They even tried to clone it with the 'Sahariano' 13 t fast tank. Ironically, as Ariete defeated Crusaders in their operational debut (Op Crusader). Evidently the aggressive, fast and elegant tank was neverthless, quite respected, after all. Too bad the 57 mm version came too late, when Shermans were already there. *** About the Cromwell, it was a tank really SMALL (even if not elegant like the Crusader was), i saw a picture with a Sherman nearby (it looked like a house!), small and fast in any sense. I've even read that it was capable to hit 2 times more than the P.IV, when faced one each other (and both capable to defeat each other, too). *** About the Churchill. It was a real 'battle tank', even if slow. At EL ALAMEIN the Churchill was a real war machine, and the King Force was here. http://www.northirishhorse.net/articles/7.html I do not buy the weakness of Churchill armour either. Some of those tanks received up to 50 shells and did not were destroyed. Try with another tank (except KV and Tiger) in 1942! Too bad that Churchill debut was at Dieppe. Had British sent 40 Churchill at El Alamein, instead of 6-7, it would have been much better! Other positive points: -Churchill had a very good cross-country capability: it could pass around 1 meter vertical and 3 m trenches, even go inside the trench and exit (like a WWI machine, but more swift). -It was also a 'mountain goat'. It was slow, but just see what it did in Tunisia, and Italy. Really impressing as climbers, despite being so slow and underpowered. Nothing of that could have been done with a Tiger, or even much lighter AFVs. -was quite upgradable and excellent for 'special versions'. -had a very good survival rate for its crews, even when hit (side exit included!) - entered in action quite early (mid 1942) so it was not a 'late war tank' as many others (KT, Pershing, Stalin). -Churchill entered in production and was made, despite the weight, by thousands (around 7,000, second just to Valentine in british tanks). Basically, slowness, mechanical defects and too small gun apart, it was a sound machine, even if cleary obsolescent even for its days.

One of the things that you apparently understimate is the ability of the british to make 'funnies'. Just like the Skorpions, the bridgelayers, crocodiles, sappers (290 mm mortars 'petard') and ARVs. Not forget the AA SPG, too (even with 40 mm Bofors). Think about it. The british tanks were mediocres, but the 'special versions' were really 'originals' and effectives. Look to the CHURCHILL ARV, as example. It lasted until the '60s! Those 'special veichles' were of paramount importance for an armoured force. And i think nobody else developed so many 'funnies' like the British in WWII. Actually they traced the way for future developements in the post WWII/modern time. *** Apart this, it is worth noting how british had BOTH the technology and the ideas to make 'advanced things'. Just think about the radar or the Mustang. The US industry was, for many aspect, behind all this. When british ideas and tech met the US industry, they did the better products (see Mustang-Merlin). For what we care, the British coupled their 17 Pdr with the US AFVs, such Achilles and Firefly. And they worked: wiki says that one Firefly killed 5 Panther with around 5 shots. An M1 Abrams could not have not do it better

Probably so (to shield the ammos in the center of the tank, with no ammos in the turret was not exactly a BAD idea, atlest in principle), but we are talking about 'whole tanks' and definitively, with over 50,000 produced, the T-64/72/80 were NOT a failure. Though i rate the autoloader of the T-72s better (as protection) than the one in the T-64/80.

Not properly a stonewall, but that's interesting: M2HB vs 5,000 paper sheets: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfOhKDJZsCk

and BTW, why the turret shape was changed so much in the latest versions? Was it just the 'add ons' or the turret walls itself were different (like the Leopard 1 -> Leopard 1A3)?

Are available estimate about the LOS, armour of the Merkava vs AP or HEAT ammos? Is it possible that the tank had a better protection on side hull than the other MBTs, as it was claimed once? The front of the tank (over the engine) seems to be thick, but is it just still or something else (tanks, composites ecc)?

BTW the MG-42 emerged as the most important LMG since 1942, maybe US soldiers were not that ready to this new kind of weapon. What about the MG-34? What was wrong with the MP-40? It seems to me a sound design, with good performances and easy to manifacture (surely better than Sten and M-3).

Really? The Churchill had flawed armour, then? KV-1 was almost impervious to the field gun fire, reading the clashes vs German army (one german 15 cm fired without success until the KV squashed the gun itself).

OMG. Stuart, one of my best tanknetters.... 1-tell me, how many years took the allied retire from Irak, and when they will leave A-Stan? What were the reason behind those military aggressions? And what kind of 'free election' were taken after that? Maliki? The other one puppet in A-Stan? At very least, the invasion of Crimea and eastern ucraine was much more reasonable than the WMD of mr. Bush in Irak. The iraki oil is secured under western hands, so it is not really important to own the country itself. 2- let's tell about annex, you British are a very long tradition, with the 'Empire'. You still own some of the lands you conquered. You even conquered once Crimea. But this was an 'epic' history, not a colonialist war, isn't it? How many years it took to free Hong Kong, as example? Singapore? Gibiltair? Malta? Not talk about India and many more countries. But suddently, the problem is all about Putin. 3- Israel is owning still the Cisgiordanian lands with the settlers inside. When this will end? Are you against Israel as well or the 'landgrabbing' is just about Russia? 4-The difference is that while Russia do some things NEAR ITS BORDERS, then it is automatically called 'aggression'. While the West make wars 10,000 km away from its borders, but they are called 'peace operation/freedom/clash of civilizations/Iraki Freedom/Enduring Freedom' etc. Ah, the MOST important thing. The West did a 'coup' against Ukraina last february and while this is obviously denied, how the hell the west did not condemn anything the 'new' government did since then? Bombing the eastern ucraine, as example. Killing civilians by hundreds or thousands. Not talk about the Odessa massacre. Ah, but they are our SOBs, so this would be not that important. Putin is eeevil. TVs and politicians say so. And Europe will be RUINED by sanction, so we will freeze all togheter this winter. Atleast in Italì is not that cold.

You've heard some first rate bullshit. What drives our actions is not hate, just experience coupled with proper assessment of current Russian politics. Yeah, and also Reptilian-Zionist Elder of NWO. I don't say that you are or not right vs Russians. I say another thing: since the ex WP countries became part of NATO/UE ecc they bring with them their hate for Russia, whetever they were right or not. This would just worsen the relationship with Russia. Do you understand this? About Bilderberg, Urbanoid, let me tell you something that you ignore apparently. Last may, in Denmark, there was one of their bloody meetings. From our country came there, mrs MONICA MAGGIONI, the director of Rainews24. A journalist who came to those meetings but she said NOTHING why she was there... and said nothing about the things she heard. And she is a director of a news television. Very BAD thing, as the only explanaition to come there, is to receive orders how to make 'information'. And i could tell you a LOT of examples about this issue. And so yes, Kissinger WAS THERE, as immortalated by reporters. I don't expect that you fully understand this, anyway. Maybe my fault. Maybe not.

What a marvellous topic is that one. So 'balanced'. It would seem that, for the TNF average forumer: -1 Israel is always right, or if it is wrong, it's just because they don't flat the entire Gaza (eh, Sikkyn?) -2 the only good Arab is that one dead. I am frankly surprised, as i remember the discussion about, let's say, the 2006 war, and there were a vast difference in opinions about the israeli-palestian question. And dear fellow, nobody of you gave a shit about almost 2,000 civilians butchered by israel attacks (see my point n.2). I think that cynism and opinable sense of humour would have been coupled by much more deep analisys of this never- ending conflict, but still, this seems to be not exactly the goal of who have posted here (atleast not the majority of them).