More Chieftain's Hatchiness

[Walter_Sobchak]

I wonder if this thing has the same size turret ring as an Abrams.

[Stuart Galbraith]

I suppose we should be glad they arent trying to mount a 152mm on it.

 

[Markus Becker]

2 hours ago, bojan said:

BMP-3 like weapon suite, either 105mm howitzer or 120mm gun-mortar as main armament, 

Does the US lack such guns or did they maybe actually want the 105 for it's AP performance? 

[RichTO90]

20 hours ago, bojan said:

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

Demonstrates that the U.S. Army's attempts to build a tank that is simultaneously a bad light tank and a bad MBT is never ending? Medium Weight Armor, whatever the current name for it, is apparently the Holy Grail for the U.S. Army. Once it is accepted and built all will fall on their knees before it and worship it as a Golden Calf while Hosannas will be sung in Heaven.

[Markus Becker]

He is live! 

 

[shep854]

10 hours ago, Markus Becker said:

He is live! 

 

I caught it later, it's still mind-boggling how the US Army went from a 'territorial constabulary' to 86 divisions (not to mention the world's biggest air force) in just a few years

Edited January 29, 2023 by shep854

[Colin]

50 minutes ago, shep854 said:

I caught it later, it's still mind-boggling how the US Army went from a 'territorial constabulary' to 86 divisions (not to mention the world's biggest air force) in just a few years

McNamara seems to be a somewhat more successful version of Hobart.

[futon]

On the seventh minute was the remark about not taking logistics seriously. Could be easy to say for a country that has abundant oil. In some ways, the advancenment of technology and industry change the nature of things. I think its fair to say that the SU demonstrated attention to motorized logistics in the Nomonhan battle through the summer of 1939 along with concept of mobile armored warfare on the tracks of BT-5/7s. Simply not having oil, that alone, changes the balance or power factor between countries. Could the US side first visualize and then carry out the same logistics chain development had it had the equivelent amount of oil that Japan had? "Glorious battle" was part of ethos in the IJA surely. Although I think it gets stigmatized, discredited with "fanatic" rather than "heroic". It's part of motivation and motivated soldiers is a factor, more so 50 years earlier. It was seen as a part of the reason for Japanese success against the Russians in the land battle aspect during the Japanese-Russo war. Japanese war fighting spirit wasn't entirely generated from within Japan for glory of emperor and w/e. The lesson of motivated soldiers in what was then modern warfare what learned from the Prussians, at least one name can be mentioned if near the book ATM. It's not like motivated soldiers were not part of US scheme though, surely there's enough space on the wall for a slap that Jap poster. 

[Manic Moran]

1 hour ago, futon said:

On the seventh minute was the remark about not taking logistics seriously. Could be easy to say for a country that has abundant oil. In some ways, the advancenment of technology and industry change the nature of things. I think its fair to say that the SU demonstrated attention to motorized logistics in the Nomonhan battle through the summer of 1939 along with concept of mobile armored warfare on the tracks of BT-5/7s. Simply not having oil, that alone, changes the balance or power factor between countries. Could the US side first visualize and then carry out the same logistics chain development had it had the equivelent amount of oil that Japan had? "Glorious battle" was part of ethos in the IJA surely. Although I think it gets stigmatized, discredited with "fanatic" rather than "heroic". It's part of motivation and motivated soldiers is a factor, more so 50 years earlier. It was seen as a part of the reason for Japanese success against the Russians in the land battle aspect during the Japanese-Russo war. Japanese war fighting spirit wasn't entirely generated from within Japan for glory of emperor and w/e. The lesson of motivated soldiers in what was then modern warfare what learned from the Prussians, at least one name can be mentioned if near the book ATM. It's not like motivated soldiers were not part of US scheme though, surely there's enough space on the wall for a slap that Jap poster. 

It's not a matter of 'how much oil' have you. It's a matter of 'how much do you listen to the logisticians and how much division of effort do you put towards it?'

To take a more extreme example, Japan was absolutely reliant on its shipping to get oil from A to B. The US sub fleet devastated the Japanese merchant fleet, but the Japanese Navy never put very much emphasis on ASW to save the fleet and the industrial side of things never put much emphasis on replacing lost merchant shipping. (Granted, the latter is more of a tough choice as without escorts, the shipping would be sunk anyway). As Japanese Army logisticians didn't normally go to the War Academy (and were more often than not reservists), they were a different 'class' of officers to the combat officers, looked down upon, and were limited in their promotion prospects.

Something similar with the Germans. If they don't have much oil, they know it already. It's down to listening to them.. 1941: "I've a great idea. Let's go march on Moscow". Logisticians: "Bad idea. We'll get you about 800km, then likely run out". "Ah, we'll make it don't worry". 800km later.... "Um... we're out of steam..."

[futon]

Subs and german analogy make a big chunk.. To, "could the US side first visualize and then carry out the same logistics chain development had it had the equivelent amount of oil that Japan had?", clearly the answer is going to be no. Oil not a factor...

[Colin]

2 hours ago, Manic Moran said:

It's not a matter of 'how much oil' have you. It's a matter of 'how much do you listen to the logisticians and how much division of effort do you put towards it?'

To take a more extreme example, Japan was absolutely reliant on its shipping to get oil from A to B. The US sub fleet devastated the Japanese merchant fleet, but the Japanese Navy never put very much emphasis on ASW to save the fleet and the industrial side of things never put much emphasis on replacing lost merchant shipping. (Granted, the latter is more of a tough choice as without escorts, the shipping would be sunk anyway). As Japanese Army logisticians didn't normally go to the War Academy (and were more often than not reservists), they were a different 'class' of officers to the combat officers, looked down upon, and were limited in their promotion prospects.

Something similar with the Germans. If they don't have much oil, they know it already. It's down to listening to them.. 1941: "I've a great idea. Let's go march on Moscow". Logisticians: "Bad idea. We'll get you about 800km, then likely run out". "Ah, we'll make it don't worry". 800km later.... "Um... we're out of steam..."

Imagine how much sooner the Japanese would have been in trouble, had the USN sorted out it's torpedo's early on.

[shep854]

Manic being interviewed about Chally 2's to Ukraine:

 

Edited January 30, 2023 by shep854

[Manic Moran]

3 hours ago, futon said:

Subs and german analogy make a big chunk.. To, "could the US side first visualize and then carry out the same logistics chain development had it had the equivelent amount of oil that Japan had?", clearly the answer is going to be no. Oil not a factor...

In such a situation, though, the question is not "could the US have done better than Japan at the same thing", but "would the US have attempted the same thing in the first place?" Or would they have listened to the folks saying "you really need to consider this matter..." a little more?

For the sake of it, I decided to tally up the branches chosen by the top US graduate from West Point 1900 to 1945 to give an idea as to where the non-combat arms branches were considered in prestige. 

Engineers: 33

Ordnance: 1

Field Artillery: 2

Cavalry: 1

Air Forces: 1

Signal: 1

Adjutant General: 2

Infantry: 1

Ordnance: 1

Uknown: 6

 

Would you care to guess how many graduates of Samagihara did not choose infantry?

[futon]

2 hours ago, Manic Moran said:

In such a situation, though, the question is not "could the US have done better than Japan at the same thing", but "would the US have attempted the same thing in the first place?" Or would they have listened to the folks saying "you really need to consider this matter..." a little more?

For the sake of it, I decided to tally up the branches chosen by the top US graduate from West Point 1900 to 1945 to give an idea as to where the non-combat arms branches were considered in prestige. 

Engineers: 33

Ordnance: 1

Field Artillery: 2

Cavalry: 1

Air Forces: 1

Signal: 1

Adjutant General: 2

Infantry: 1

Ordnance: 1

Uknown: 6

 

Would you care to guess how many graduates of Samagihara did not choose infantry?

I'm not sure how that's relevent. Japanese tank regiments were stood up with officers from infantry regiments and else where for example. An officer commanding tanks in the role as infantry support or as combined arms with infantry still benefitted from having experience in infantry because then he can better visulize how the tank can fit into use with infantry. 

Oil is not only commodity that logistics carries around. Food and amnunition are other commodites. Japanese ammunition stocks were smaller. The US had billions of 30 cal. rounds. Japanese production was just simply not as high. Even if production efficiency was to be improved, there's still going to be a limit due to simply less material available. Food as part of logistic commodity was most critical and certainly an area that needed improvement. But the strategic nature, say, the Malaysia peninsula, success really depended on speed of conquest. The Japanese already concluded that had the push gotten bogged down, then it would suffer under British artillary and attrition losses would start and everything comes to an end and loss. So if the Japanese had spent more emphasis on logistics, then the tempo of the offensive may be too slow to avoid the trap of British layers of defense and thus fail at against superior numbers. Who cares what fancy logistics might in place if the push is halted. That risk was well understood. The Japanese tank regiments involved had probably just enough combined tank-infantry combat experience to pull off the campaign which involved as including the engineers in the combined effort. The Japanese were probably hoping that the same result could be carried over to Guadalcanal and the ground push towards Ports Moresby, but things were much different, and logistics wasn't the critical point. It wasn't up to logistics opinion anyway whether or not to gamble, regardless how prestigious or not logistics was.

Edited January 30, 2023 by futon

[Markus Becker]

Afaik, the problem with Germany and Operation Barbarossa wasn't the distance but that the size of the Red Army was badly underestimated. Had it been the expected size, the halt around 800km wouldn't have mattered because there would have been next to nobody offering much resistance left. 

And about Germany in general. Different countries, different situations. Germany happens to be in western central Europe. People have been building infrastructure there for up to 2.000 years. Furthermore Germans used to fight their wars near or even inside Germany. Because until 1871 there was no such thing as a unified Germany but many different states that more often than not fought each other. 

Logistics? No an issue here because it's well understood and for generations. 

The USA is the size of a small continent and for most of its history it had vast areas with poor or no infrastructure. And by the 1930s it was quite obvious that any future war would be fought across the ocean. Though not which one. 
 

[bojan]

10 hours ago, shep854 said:

Manic being interviewed about Chally 2's to Ukraine...

"Very good FCS" with no independent stabilization for a thermal channel? That is dated for late '80s already... C2 FCS is below level of upgraded T-72B3 and T-80BVM with Sosna-U.

Edited January 30, 2023 by bojan

[Wobbly Head]

21 hours ago, bojan said:

"Very good FCS" with no independent stabilization for a thermal channel? That is dated for late '80s already... C2 FCS is below level of upgraded T-72B3 and T-80BVM with Sosna-U.

I don't think it really matters. Like he says with only ten tanks and no logistic train to support them it amounts to political theatre on the part of the UK.

[bojan]

Absolutely, anything less than a Bn is basically a waste of resources and just a "feel good" message.

I was more talking about his assessment of the tank's technical capabilities.

OTOH, he is right that it is still better than most of the things Ukrainians have (Oplot is better, but there is something like 5 of them, so even less impact on overall capabilities).But compared to T-72B3/T-80BVM/T-90A/M etc tanks from  a FCS aspect it is not something extraordinary and is in fact pretty dated today (well, it was even when introduced due the infamous  British penny pinching ).

 

[Wiedzmin]

On 1/30/2023 at 4:33 PM, bojan said:

Very good FCS" with no independent stabilization for a thermal channel?

 did it ever scored good vs any western tank?

 

https://sun9-74.userapi.com/impg/9H5jZheNyBYv_F0TqEtk-TztoDyKxnwO-LZi4A/FcQitIDoHig.jpg?size=1672x2160&quality=96&sign=604c6e455ffd8455b1b0c2d04c96099e&type=album

https://sun9-68.userapi.com/impg/2E4510mxlLkd0O1Qetz99FtufdlY_cHfHd7OeA/vdt6fkoDnzQ.jpg?size=1672x2160&quality=96&sign=103f23dd93788b065eaf2b3f9147dd0d&type=album

 

 

 

[bojan]

What is it with Brits shooting horribly* every time they try to sell a tank to someone?

*I think I have posted report of Scorpion demonstration to a Yugoslav delegation in the '70s...

[Wobbly Head]

3 minutes ago, bojan said:

What is it with Brits shooting horribly* every time they try to sell a tank to someone?

*I think I have posted report of Scorpion demonstration to a Yugoslav delegation in the '70s...

I think it was the infamous turret malfunction that caused the turret to turn round and sweep the viewing stands full of VIPs with a live 120mm tank cannon.

There was the CAT tank trophy that was run in the eighties and early nineties that NATO crews competed in that was a good comparison of tanks. It also serves as an example of British tanks shooting horribly.

[DKTanker]

On 2/1/2023 at 4:31 AM, Wobbly Head said:

I think it was the infamous turret malfunction that caused the turret to turn round and sweep the viewing stands full of VIPs with a live 120mm tank cannon.

In 1977 a similar event happened at Ft. Hood Texas when then President Jimmy Carter visited.  While passing in parade, one of the M60A1s traversed the turret directly at the presidential viewing stand.  It caused quite the dust up.

[Pavel Novak]

17 hours ago, DKTanker said:

In 1977 a similar event happened at Ft. Hood Texas when then President Jimmy Carter visited.  While passing in parade, one of the M60A1s traversed the turret directly at the presidential viewing stand.  It caused quite the dust up.

Something like this?:

 

Edited February 3, 2023 by Pavel Novak

[Stuart Galbraith]

On 2/1/2023 at 10:20 AM, bojan said:

What is it with Brits shooting horribly* every time they try to sell a tank to someone?

*I think I have posted report of Scorpion demonstration to a Yugoslav delegation in the '70s...

It was the MOD who screwed up the Greek trial. VDS wanted to use either L26 or L27, MOD refused and they ended up using L23, which was little more than training ammunition at that point. So as far as Greece, there is a justifiable grievance.

[RETAC21]

On 2/1/2023 at 11:20 AM, bojan said:

What is it with Brits shooting horribly* every time they try to sell a tank to someone?

*I think I have posted report of Scorpion demonstration to a Yugoslav delegation in the '70s...

Create a problem, sell the solution... poorly implemented.