More Chieftain's Hatchiness

[TrustMe]

I belive that the hydraulics had a low flash point and ignited very easy when exposed to flame.

[Colin]

Not quite Hatchniness but still the Chieftain 

 

 

[shep854]

Those little conversations are really good!  I can't help but wonder, though, if the US is really as overwhelmingly good as Nick assumes.

Edited December 28, 2022 by shep854

[shep854]

Also, the long-form discussion:

 

[Ssnake]

3 hours ago, shep854 said:

I can't help but wonder, though, if the US is really as overwhelmingly good as Nick assumes.

In some ways, yes. In others, "maybe".

The US Army has a lot of practice, whether you like that or not. And it likes to do fancy, complicated stuff, especially with air-ground coordination. Something that requires a lot of practice to get right. It has a technological edge in most areas (except conventional artillery, ground-based air defense - because, in both cases, it has the US Air Force). Finally, it has ample funding, which allows equally ample, high-quality training and luxurious global logistics that are largely independent of railway networks.

These reasons make it a particular challenge for anyone who wants to tangle with US forces.

There are, of course, areas of weakness - vacillating political and popular support as the #1 risk to any kind of long-term engagement. (The same applies for any other democratic nation that is not in "national survival mode", of course.)

 

I though that the juxtaposition of the Ukrainian Army and the British Army was where he briefly entered shaky grounds because the conditions of a conflict were not defined. Disregarding the huge issue of plausibility ... if the UK had sent their whole army to, say, Poland, and started an assault on Feb 23rd instead of the Russians (and assuming that there was no Donbass conflict tying up the UKR army), I think the Brits would eventually lose their entire army, and a good portion of their Typhoon fleet. They might win up to the point where they would run out of ammo, and then the house of cards would collapse. Sustainment is the main problem - aside from the fact that even if the Urkainian army was completely defeated there'd still simply not be enough British Army to conquer all of Ukraine, and keep it occupied. And that is the most favorable outcome for the British Army under these conditions.

Of course, Ukraine couldn't conquer Britain if we'd invert the signs; lack of amphibious and air lift capabilities to start with, not enough and not good enough airforce to defeat the RAF (even if there was no NATO involved, we're already deep in the equivalent of Ninjas-vs-Pirates Fight nerd territory), no meaningful out-of-area logistics.

Still, my point is that you can't separate the questions of technical proficiency and material advantage from the question of force sustainment.

 

And let's be honest, without material support from the West - and we're struggling to keep it up - Ukraine would, no doubt, eventually succumb to the attrition from the Russian armed forces, even in their current corrupt and inefficient ways (let's hope they never learn). At the same time, I just don't see how Russia could keep Ukraine occupied even if the UAF eventually collapsed. It's like a giant Boa that decided to swallow a whole hog. Yes, the hog is dead, but there's a good chance that the Boa will die too because it can't digest the hog before it rots away inside.

[R011]

10 hours ago, Colin said:

Not quite Hatchniness but still the Chieftain 

 

 

I used to think the Israeli Defence Forces were absolutely the top of the top.  Then I saw their opponents and read a bit deeper.  I'm pretty sure that most Western armies could have shown up the IDF if they it came down to it.

[Domobran7]

21 hours ago, R011 said:

I used to think the Israeli Defence Forces were absolutely the top of the top.  Then I saw their opponents and read a bit deeper.  I'm pretty sure that most Western armies could have shown up the IDF if they it came down to it.

Yeah, fighting Arab conventional forces goey beyond the "easy mode" and into the "cheat mode" or even "God mode".

[shep854]

 

[Walter_Sobchak]

On 12/29/2022 at 10:49 AM, Domobran7 said:

Yeah, fighting Arab conventional forces goey beyond the "easy mode" and into the "cheat mode" or even "God mode".

Are the Arab armies of 1973 really all that worse than the current Russian Army?  Nothing the Russians have done in the past year showed the level of good planning and competence as the Egyptian 1973 crossing of the Bar Lev line.  

[Dark_Falcon]

49 minutes ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

Are the Arab armies of 1973 really all that worse than the current Russian Army?  Nothing the Russians have done in the past year showed the level of good planning and competence as the Egyptian 1973 crossing of the Bar Lev line.  

Agreed. In 1073 the Egyptian Army took the IDF to the limit. If they hadn't been order to make that stupid assault on the Sinai passes to try to take the pressure off of Syria they might have won.  But their big ally did still suck and Anwar Sadat was too loyal to them.

[bojan]

Controversial opinion - Syrians actually did better than Egyptians. After all, they were far closer to a real breakthrough than Egyptians ever were. Whole "Egypt actually did good and failed because Syrians sucked" narrative has only appears after Camp David.

[Domobran7]

1 hour ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

Are the Arab armies of 1973 really all that worse than the current Russian Army?  Nothing the Russians have done in the past year showed the level of good planning and competence as the Egyptian 1973 crossing of the Bar Lev line.  

Thing about the 1973 crossing of the Bar Lev line is that it was an operation that was basically perfectly designed for compensating for Arab flaws: it was a static defense line that had been mapped in advance, and thus Egyptians could plan a detailed, centralized set-piece battle. But once it came to the mobile warfare, Egyptians had as bad showing as everybody else.

https://pdf4pro.com/download/why-arabs-lose-wars-nav-log-234b58.html

https://memoriesandreflections.blog/2018/11/19/why-arabs-lose-wars-twenty-years-later-2/

[Colin]

1 hour ago, bojan said:

Controversial opinion - Syrians actually did better than Egyptians. After all, they were far closer to a real breakthrough than Egyptians ever were. Whole "Egypt actually did good and failed because Syrians sucked" narrative has only appears after Camp David.

I don't know if I will agree with that. The Syrians faced a smaller formation for a longer period of time and while having to attack higher ground, did so bravely but I don't see anything that they did that was really better or unique. I be very willing to hear the argument though. For the Egyptians, I will argue that the crossing of the Canal is likely the greatest feat of arms for an Arabic Army in the 20th Century (I know the Egyptians don't really see themselves as Arabs but as Egyptian) They manged to keep some operational secrecy, they completed a daunting engineering task and assaulting a defended large water obstacle is a significant task for any army. Post crossing, their infantry did very well in the defense, their armour not so much and their Staff Officers showed a typical lack of initiative when things went pear shaped. Had the Egyptians planned a little better for the counter attacks, they might have been able to hold the East bank. All in all I give them credit for what they did accomplish. 

[RETAC21]

2 hours ago, bojan said:

Controversial opinion - Syrians actually did better than Egyptians. After all, they were far closer to a real breakthrough than Egyptians ever were. Whole "Egypt actually did good and failed because Syrians sucked" narrative has only appears after Camp David.

I don't think you can really compare what are 2 different operations, an assault against a prepared position for the Syrians vs a river crossing and defence of a bridgehead for the Egyptians.

The Egyptian "advance" on Oct 14th was a "faint" more than anything else and their poor C2 marred their efforts against the Israeli penetration.

OTOH the Syrians managed to break through but then didn't know how to exploit the breach or did so poorly, but then threw everything in the defense and managed to stop the Israelis.

There's another major "Arab" operation that gets forgotten becuase "Iran", the Iraqui offensives that ended the 1st Persian Gulf War, which saw multi-corps advances and ended up with an Iranian Army/IRGC that couldn't do much to stop them.

You can compare the Israeli counterattack on both fronts, with the initial response being a disaster in the Sinai, and didn't achieve a breakthrough like in the Sinai vs the Syrians.

[R011]

4 hours ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

Are the Arab armies of 1973 really all that worse than the current Russian Army?  Nothing the Russians have done in the past year showed the level of good planning and competence as the Egyptian 1973 crossing of the Bar Lev line.  

They practiced to do one thing really well, helped by Israeli complacency then had little idea of what to do next.  Cue failure.

[DogDodger]

On 12/30/2022 at 5:44 PM, shep854 said:

 

Did the Israelis use an infrared periscope setup for their drivers similar to the Abrams, where the central periscope was replaced? Infrared drivers' periscopes in American M48s were designed to be installed into the hatch, leaving all three periscope M27s alone.

[Dark_Falcon]

 

[bojan]

So what does it do that T-62 with thermals can not do?

[Dark_Falcon]

5 minutes ago, bojan said:

So what does it do that T-62 with thermals can not do?

Provide employment to Americans. 😃  It's also newer and probably better ergonomically.

[DB]

"No, it's definitely not an Ajax with a big turret. Shut Up, it's completely re-engineered and definitely not anything like it at all. Quiet, you."

Presumably they didn't have the hulls built in Spain and have to satisfy a set of job-for-life contractors at Abbey Wood, then...

[Stuart Galbraith]

I like it. It looks like one of those M41 based Vismods built for a Golan Globus production circa 1984. Much win.

[shep854]

I like the side exits, especially for the driver.  I still think a 105 howitzer would be better; lighter, more ammo capacity, better payload per shot, and a visual reminder to everyone (even infantry) that it's NOT a tank.

[bojan]

BMP-3 like weapon suite, either 105mm howitzer or 120mm gun-mortar as main armament, coax autocannon and MG, with reasonable elevation (something this thing does not do) but with external ATGM launcher with F&F ATGMs instead of gun-tube launched silliness. Hell, you can make it crew in hull and whole turret be unmanned, with crew fully separated at all times from ammo.

Edited January 9, 2023 by bojan

[Walter_Sobchak]

42 tons...

I have to admit, I think General Dynamics and the US Army came up with a real turkey this time.  I could be wrong.  I hope I am wrong.  But every time I look at this thing I get a bad feeling.

[bojan]

38 "normal" metric tons. Still, for a vehicle that has weight of T-55, does not have half of it's armor and has +/- similar gun this is really underhelming.