No, we just expect you to either write your own textbook or to refer people to the original page. No shame in doing that, I refer people to Wikipedia when they're unsure of my equipment specs.
Advertisement
by Lolzieristan » Wed Mar 06, 2013 11:22 am
by The Akasha Colony » Wed Mar 06, 2013 11:22 am
Samozaryadnyastan wrote:~five thousand people in five days?
Charter a few Tristars, you'll have it done in three.
Lolzieristan wrote:The more I think about it, it seems like the Stryker is an American redo/ripoff of early model BTRs, like the BTR-70. With a fancy interchangeable turret system, and a whole lot of other bells and whistles.
We Americans do like our dings and toots, you know.
by Samozaryadnyastan » Wed Mar 06, 2013 11:24 am
Lolzieristan wrote:The more I think about it, it seems like the Stryker is an American redo/ripoff of early model BTRs, like the BTR-70. With a fancy interchangeable turret system, and a whole lot of other bells and whistles.
We Americans do like our dings and toots, you know.
The Akasha Colony wrote:Samozaryadnyastan wrote:~five thousand people in five days?
Charter a few Tristars, you'll have it done in three.
Closer to 15,000 in five days. A Stryker brigade is 3,900, and there are three to a division. Then supporting elements such as artillery and what logistics the division is equipped with, plus command elements.Lolzieristan wrote:The more I think about it, it seems like the Stryker is an American redo/ripoff of early model BTRs, like the BTR-70. With a fancy interchangeable turret system, and a whole lot of other bells and whistles.
We Americans do like our dings and toots, you know.
Not that far off, since the MOWAG Piranha III it's pseudo-based off of isn't too different. Of course, it's a generation removed from the original Piranha since it's based on the Canadian LAV III, itself a variant of the Piranha. In comparison, the USMC turned their LAV-25s into mini-Bradleys complete with 25 mm autocannon rather than a piddly .50 cal RWS.
Malgrave wrote:You are secretly Vladimir Putin using this forum to promote Russian weapons and tracking down and killing those who oppose you.
by The Akasha Colony » Wed Mar 06, 2013 11:27 am
Samozaryadnyastan wrote:Lolzieristan wrote:The more I think about it, it seems like the Stryker is an American redo/ripoff of early model BTRs, like the BTR-70. With a fancy interchangeable turret system, and a whole lot of other bells and whistles.
We Americans do like our dings and toots, you know.
It's based off the LAV III, which I'd always thought was a Canadian mod of the LAV-25. Was it always the other way around?CTALNH wrote:So what are you expecting me to make my own tactics?
No, we're expecting you to write about Soviet Deep Battle in a way that isn't plagiarism.The Akasha Colony wrote:
Closer to 15,000 in five days. A Stryker brigade is 3,900, and there are three to a division. Then supporting elements such as artillery and what logistics the division is equipped with, plus command elements.
Not that far off, since the MOWAG Piranha III it's pseudo-based off of isn't too different. Of course, it's a generation removed from the original Piranha since it's based on the Canadian LAV III, itself a variant of the Piranha. In comparison, the USMC turned their LAV-25s into mini-Bradleys complete with 25 mm autocannon rather than a piddly .50 cal RWS.
Fifteen thousand sounds like a large Division.
by Graznovia » Wed Mar 06, 2013 11:27 am
by Samozaryadnyastan » Wed Mar 06, 2013 11:32 am
The Akasha Colony wrote:Samozaryadnyastan wrote:Fifteen thousand sounds like a large Division.
Modern US divisions are pretty large in terms of manpower since they have lots of support. At the same time, they're not really even meant to be deployed as a division anymore, since the Army has basically transitioned to BCTs. It might be slightly smaller than 15,000 but it can't be any smaller than 12,000, since the three maneuver brigades alone make up 3,900 personnel.
Malgrave wrote:You are secretly Vladimir Putin using this forum to promote Russian weapons and tracking down and killing those who oppose you.
by The Akasha Colony » Wed Mar 06, 2013 11:40 am
Samozaryadnyastan wrote:The Akasha Colony wrote:
Modern US divisions are pretty large in terms of manpower since they have lots of support. At the same time, they're not really even meant to be deployed as a division anymore, since the Army has basically transitioned to BCTs. It might be slightly smaller than 15,000 but it can't be any smaller than 12,000, since the three maneuver brigades alone make up 3,900 personnel.
And here I was thinking that the Soviet formations were huge...
The Soviet formations have a much greater emphasis on offensive force though. Units that were to some degree non-combat or limited-combat added up to a total ~2500 from fourteen or twelve thousand total for an MRD and TD respectively.
by Graznovia » Wed Mar 06, 2013 11:43 am
by Samozaryadnyastan » Wed Mar 06, 2013 11:45 am
Malgrave wrote:You are secretly Vladimir Putin using this forum to promote Russian weapons and tracking down and killing those who oppose you.
by The Akasha Colony » Wed Mar 06, 2013 11:49 am
Graznovia wrote:Meanwhile I'd like to ask if there is any point to a light tankette a la the Wiesel that can be easily airlifted or airdropped in quantity, and is petite enough to follow the infantry wherever they go (down alleys in built-up areas, for one)?
by Lolzieristan » Wed Mar 06, 2013 11:55 am
The Akasha Colony wrote:Graznovia wrote:Meanwhile I'd like to ask if there is any point to a light tankette a la the Wiesel that can be easily airlifted or airdropped in quantity, and is petite enough to follow the infantry wherever they go (down alleys in built-up areas, for one)?
I would find some utility in it, but that assumes the infantry don't already have some kind of transport themselves, since anything a Wiesel can carry, a Humvee could carry as well, but a Humvee can also provide mobility for the troops. It might be worth it for small airborne units, but light vehicles could be airdropped as well.
by Graznovia » Wed Mar 06, 2013 11:56 am
The Akasha Colony wrote:Graznovia wrote:Meanwhile I'd like to ask if there is any point to a light tankette a la the Wiesel that can be easily airlifted or airdropped in quantity, and is petite enough to follow the infantry wherever they go (down alleys in built-up areas, for one)?
I would find some utility in it, but that assumes the infantry don't already have some kind of transport themselves, since anything a Wiesel can carry, a Humvee could carry as well, but a Humvee can also provide mobility for the troops. It might be worth it for small airborne units, but light vehicles could be airdropped as well.
by Lolzieristan » Wed Mar 06, 2013 11:58 am
Graznovia wrote:The Akasha Colony wrote:
I would find some utility in it, but that assumes the infantry don't already have some kind of transport themselves, since anything a Wiesel can carry, a Humvee could carry as well, but a Humvee can also provide mobility for the troops. It might be worth it for small airborne units, but light vehicles could be airdropped as well.
I'd imagine there might be times where due to terrain or limited airlift capability airborne units operate 'light' that is without the support of airdropped APC/IFV, yes. Could such a 'tankette' potentially be viable in urban combat unlike lumbering counterparts like MBTs and APC/IFV?
by CTALNH » Wed Mar 06, 2013 12:00 pm
by The Akasha Colony » Wed Mar 06, 2013 12:01 pm
Graznovia wrote:The Akasha Colony wrote:
I would find some utility in it, but that assumes the infantry don't already have some kind of transport themselves, since anything a Wiesel can carry, a Humvee could carry as well, but a Humvee can also provide mobility for the troops. It might be worth it for small airborne units, but light vehicles could be airdropped as well.
I'd imagine there might be times where due to terrain or limited airlift capability airborne units operate 'light' that is without the support of airdropped APC/IFV, yes. Could such a 'tankette' potentially be viable in urban combat unlike lumbering counterparts like MBTs and APC/IFV?
by Ainin » Wed Mar 06, 2013 12:03 pm
All contributions to NSwiki are released under the GNU Free Documentation License (see NSwiki:Copyrights for details). If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it. By submitting your work you promise you wrote it yourself, or copied it from public domain resources — this does not include most web pages.
by Samozaryadnyastan » Wed Mar 06, 2013 12:09 pm
The Akasha Colony wrote:Graznovia wrote:
I'd imagine there might be times where due to terrain or limited airlift capability airborne units operate 'light' that is without the support of airdropped APC/IFV, yes. Could such a 'tankette' potentially be viable in urban combat unlike lumbering counterparts like MBTs and APC/IFV?
Unlikely. The drawback to such a small vehicle kept to sufficient airdrop weight is that it will get chewed up by almost any threat. RPGs, any kind of heavy machine gun, and potentially even a medium machine gun with armor-piercing rounds. An MBT can shrug off an RPG strike that doesn't manage to hit a weak point, but any hit on a tankette would be fatal. While it can be used as a supplement, I don't see it fully replacing an MBT in urban combat (nor would it replace an IFV anyway, since it can't replace its troop-carrying capacity). And MBT can brute-force its way through fortifications and strongpoints, which is a capability a tankette would lack.
Malgrave wrote:You are secretly Vladimir Putin using this forum to promote Russian weapons and tracking down and killing those who oppose you.
by The Akasha Colony » Wed Mar 06, 2013 12:13 pm
Samozaryadnyastan wrote:The Akasha Colony wrote:
Unlikely. The drawback to such a small vehicle kept to sufficient airdrop weight is that it will get chewed up by almost any threat. RPGs, any kind of heavy machine gun, and potentially even a medium machine gun with armor-piercing rounds. An MBT can shrug off an RPG strike that doesn't manage to hit a weak point, but any hit on a tankette would be fatal. While it can be used as a supplement, I don't see it fully replacing an MBT in urban combat (nor would it replace an IFV anyway, since it can't replace its troop-carrying capacity). And MBT can brute-force its way through fortifications and strongpoints, which is a capability a tankette would lack.
Until recently, RPG strike in urban environments stood a high chance of crippling most battle tanks.
Since only the Merkava and Leopard took really serious efforts in addressing roof armour, it's still fairly true that an RPG from a high rise is going to bugger whatever's in the turret basket of an MBT.
by Graznovia » Wed Mar 06, 2013 12:16 pm
The Akasha Colony wrote:Graznovia wrote:
I'd imagine there might be times where due to terrain or limited airlift capability airborne units operate 'light' that is without the support of airdropped APC/IFV, yes. Could such a 'tankette' potentially be viable in urban combat unlike lumbering counterparts like MBTs and APC/IFV?
Unlikely. The drawback to such a small vehicle kept to sufficient airdrop weight is that it will get chewed up by almost any threat. RPGs, any kind of heavy machine gun, and potentially even a medium machine gun with armor-piercing rounds. An MBT can shrug off an RPG strike that doesn't manage to hit a weak point, but any hit on a tankette would be fatal. While it can be used as a supplement, I don't see it fully replacing an MBT in urban combat (nor would it replace an IFV anyway, since it can't replace its troop-carrying capacity). And MBT can brute-force its way through fortifications and strongpoints, which is a capability a tankette would lack.
by CTALNH » Wed Mar 06, 2013 12:18 pm
Ainin wrote:CTALNH wrote:So?Its better than most people out there.
It goes against several rules:
- You can't take Wikipedia content without attribution.
- Do not plagiarize on NS.
All contributions to NSwiki are released under the GNU Free Documentation License (see NSwiki:Copyrights for details). If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it. By submitting your work you promise you wrote it yourself, or copied it from public domain resources — this does not include most web pages.
by Samozaryadnyastan » Wed Mar 06, 2013 12:18 pm
Malgrave wrote:You are secretly Vladimir Putin using this forum to promote Russian weapons and tracking down and killing those who oppose you.
by Discordant Schism » Wed Mar 06, 2013 12:32 pm
by The Republic of Lanos » Wed Mar 06, 2013 12:33 pm
by Lolzieristan » Wed Mar 06, 2013 12:37 pm
Discordant Schism wrote:I use the PaK 44 a good deal(what can I say... it's a good gun), and I'm fairly sure it would bust up light armored vehicles, maybe even damage a modern MBT(Jagdtiger anyone?) but is it really a god idea to use a 70-year-old gun?
Then again, I also use the Flak 38.
by The Akasha Colony » Wed Mar 06, 2013 12:38 pm
Samozaryadnyastan wrote:Scaling the roof of the average bungalow (which wikianswers tells me is 11.4ft exactly) would put you a metre above the roof of a battle tank below.
Not especially safe to try and engage from with an RPG, but you might be able to jump atop and put a rather large command-detonated anti-tank mine on the roof to be a dick.
Engaging from the first floor window of a two-story house can only put you higher up, and the same goes for scaling the roof of that. The ridgeline of a terraced two story house is supposedly 8.5m off the floor, putting you six metres above the tank. I live in a box plonked on that very ridgeline of a terraced two story house. If a tank was ever to somehow get itself into the alleyway behind my house, I imagine that (confined space-appropriate weapon allowing, ofc) I'd have no difficulty engaging it.
In this area of Liverpool, these kinds of houses (almost all without the loft conversion box room, sadly) go on for miles east to west. Go to the CBD, you've suddenly got storey after storey of office building to scale.
Advertisement
Return to Factbooks and National Information
Advertisement