Jump to content

bigfngun

Members
  • Posts

    505
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by bigfngun

  1. I always thought the non-AAF part of the USArmy reached about 5.9 million. In the initial post I said to not count their respective Air Forces. http://www.history.army.mil/books/agf/AGF004/Table1.htm http://www.history.army.mil/books/agf/AGF003/ch05.htm http://www.history.army.mil/books/agf/AGF003/ch04.htm
  2. Ok let's not get too worked up over exactly how many USArmy divs there were. Let's say 89 and not counting USMC. The strength return of the USARMy ground and service was about 6 million and 2.3 million in the AAF in 1945 for the sake of argument. But we'll leave the AAF out of it.
  3. Not necessarily a war between the two, but which would you prefer given the time frame.
  4. Let's keep it to the conditions as they were in May 1945/Dec 1990. No Air Force, or Navy inclusions and yes you are Stalin/Gorby or truman?Bush. The Soviet Army in both cases was arguably the most powerful ground force in the world. Not the best in effeciency or even in individual pieces of equipment. Authors like Weigley and Zaloga in Eisenhower's Lieutenants and Companion to the Red Army say this in not so many words. i am an unrepentant USA flag waver but the Russkies just gave more resources to their ground troops.
  5. The abilities of the USN/USMC?USAAF or USAF no doubt tip the scales when added to US industrial might in 1945. The US industrial edge in 1990 might be less. But, I want to keep it to just the armies.
  6. if you could "choose" an army to command in a war(not discussing fixed wing combat AFs or combat Navies) would you prefer the USArmy of May 1945 or the Soviet Army of May 1945. Second question is as the first except the time period is Dec 1990. The USArmy of Dec 1990 had a lot going for it but the Soviet Army was big and had a lot of firepower, which IMO gives it a good punchers chance.
  7. The ASM Future Infantry FIghting Vehicle(FIFV) would have also been a heavy IFV in the 65 ton range however with at least a 45mm autocannon an ATGM.
  8. Almost did 120 mm Polynege round (France), Tank and anti-tank guns Development Nexter (formerly Giat Industries) was awarded a contract in 2002 by the French Délégation Générale pour l'Armement (DGA) for the development and demonstration of a guided round for the Leclerc's 120 mm gun. Subsystem tests and wind tunnel trials were carried out in 2005. The firing of a complete demonstrator round took place in November 2007, and a second demonstration firing in March 2008 to demonstrate the projectile's ability to carry out the pre-programmed flight phase over 5 km. An in-service date of 2015 has been mentioned by Nexter, but this was an unofficial goal. The Polynege programme ended in 2008 and In April 2009 it was subsumed into the new, larger Nexter/TDA joint Munition à Précision Métrique (MPM) programme to develop a modular semi-active laser seeker that can be incorporated into a variety of munitions. Although an MPM demonstration is scheduled for 2012, initial efforts will use a 120 mm mortar round as the platform, so a guided tank round, with its much higher launch acceleration forces, is most likely long-term. They key metric for the MPM appears to be low cost. Description The Polynege is being developed in response to a requirement for an upgrade to the Leclerc, permitting indirect fire beyond the line of sight. As currently envisaged, the round will not include auxiliary propulsion (rocket motor) but will feature six large folding tailfins for stability and gliding, plus four canard fins for manoeuvring. The trajectory at a range of 8 km would probably involve climbing to an altitude of about 600 m at a range of 3 km, then gliding in a gradual descent to about 500 m at 7.5 km, then a dive down on to the top of the target.The trajectory control of the round will use a Global Positioning System (GPS) or inertial guidance unit. Final target homing would be via an Infra-Red (IR) seeker or a semi-active laser seeker, both of which will be included. As of mid-2004, no firm decision had been reached on the warhead type, although an Explosively Formed Penetrator (EFP) is the most likely, with a shaped charge warhead as an alternative.Since the round is still in the development/demonstration phase, the data below represents goals rather than achieved performance.
  9. XM1111 MRM-CE was not cancelled, nowhere is even single information about it's cancellation. XM1111 MRM-KE was cancelled, see the difference? See the difference.
  10. I wonder if someone or someones over the last 20 years in the USArmy civilian or uniformed may have been personally offended by tank launched guided rounds. Is it a bad concept that only stupid other armies (Russia, France) have fallen for. XM943 STAFF, DARPA funded X-ROD which became TERM then MRM, none are useful?
  11. I'm an ASM program junkie Ken. As you know, you were the man in getting that NPS paper declassed. Love researching it.
  12. Hi Ken, good to hear from you! Sorry, I had not read Hunnicutt's Firepower yet. What I meant by posting this info was to show various plans that existed for the XM291 and the ASM in general. Wasn't trying to say anything more.
  13. Nice gun but it won't fit into a tank except maybe the 65 cal version.
  14. I used Proquest to look at some transcripts from Congressional Hearings in 1991 on the USArmy's ASM program. Found this on the Advanced Tank Cannon: April 16, 1991 before the Senate Subcommittee on Defense Appropriations: "The Advanced Tank Cannon System (ATACS)...It will be able to fire the 120mm munitions, as well as the new, much more lethal 140mm munitions...In addition, it can even adjust to a 155mm munition...added benefit of being capable of accomodating redesign to Electrothermal-Chemical(ETC)..." I miss the Cold War.
  15. Condolences to his family. Can anyone take his place as unofficial US Armor historian?
  16. Found this on Military Medicine Sep 2009:
  17. For those with experience in multiple tanks, was there any difference between types in terms of "comfort", habitability? Example: was the M1 more comfy than an M-60? Leo 1 vs. Leo 2?
  18. Let's turn these experiences into a book!! Another question. How often did you take the tanks out for practice/exercise? How often say in a month were the tanks driven?
  19. So let's say you are in an Abrams, doing say 20mph. Could you communicate inside without the CVC headset? If you were out of the hatch at that speed could you talk to the loader if he stood in his hatch? Same questions for diesesl tanks. What kind of hearing protection, the helmet or something more? Did anyone wear knee pads or any type of sports padding. Sounds like it would help. Also, has anyone served in multiple types of AFVs and can you compare waht you like best like JamesG123 described?
  20. For the guys with Abrams experience, was the engine noise as bad as a diesel? Also for all tankers, how loud was it internally when the main gun fired? When going X country, when buttoned up was there any warning of a dip coming up? Do the newer tanks and their suspension systems make a difference? Hey, non-americans are allowed to post their experiences here too. Great stuff guys keep it coming. Although as person with no internal tank experience, it as of now does not sound physically like a lot of fun.
  21. What is it like inside a tank? I have never been inside a tank(just seen them from the outside at museums) so out of curiousity what is it like crewing one for an extended period? I'm 5' 11". Noise level? Jarring/bumpiness? Temperature? Available space for the crew? Does anyone cramp up? Any lasting phyical problems?
×
×
  • Create New...